Welcome to the Mccarthy report card, guess where I rich larry, discuss with Annie Mccarthy, the latest legal and now security issues this week, who is suing whom and why, for some reason, are not following us on a streaming service by the way you can find us everywhere from spotify to itunes and please this podcasting, Annie, Mccarthy, the glowing indeed gushing five, our views they deserve on itunes and now what further ado. I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle riverside, none other You read. Shall you doing you good. Now I thought you'd go in a wreath of franklin on media who see right right here, namely the eighty degree mark here today in the least gorgeous

Now we I'm here in the mid west, and it's a beautiful day here too, That's one and have a day off this, nothing better than your team winds and then there's a day off. So that's the same situation, So he got all these lawsuits from most most which resulting from the trunk indictment. So we have, let's start with the the the big kahuna, of course trump. If he is going to sue you, it's going to be a big top line. Number! It's not gonna, be that gonna be us of tiny loss. It- I assure you- and so we have this. Sir five hundred million dollar suit against Michael Cohen, who turns out to be the worst most corrupt and competent fixer. Anyone ever could have had full area. So it's of quartz,

five hundred million dollars. I wonder why he stopped at five hundred million. Frankly, firms aubert disappointed there, but the whole thing is: you know trump the basis for the lawsuit is that the com has out. Previously violated, attorney, client, privilege and trump's lead witness on this is Bob costello and who's, giving him testimony in violation of cohen's attorney client privilege. So the the whole thing is just the I mean it's a it's

classic it's it's a classic trump thing, and apparently the lawyers trump has been spoiling to do this according to the reporting- and you can just imagine- this is totally true. That trump has wanted to do this for years now and he's been pushed back and his lawyers have been concerned about a few things. One is, if you see someone you subject yourself to civil discovery, which they are not. They ve never been crazy bad, but I think trumps, push back on that at this point is he's under criminal. thus bye, bye, prosecutors and civil suits by like Latisha James and in new york. So he's already got so many people. You know supporting him in and calling out all this every. How much more is he gonna get hurt by discovery in a civil suit with cone? So I think he's figures that ship sailed that that's nice thing to be worried about any

the another thing the lawyers worry about is the claim of witness tampering, but even in the new york times reporting where they you know, they have the usual suspects that they who they always go to like the guy. You know elena chefs de and bruce green and stephen killers. You know these guys prominent new york area law professors who they always go to whenever there is a question about legal ethics that comes up and while they point out that there is always the possibility of danger that someone files a frivolous lawsuit in order to brush back somebody who's going to be a witness against him a trial and that that's a that's an intimidation tactic. It's almost like you know, rich remember. You were looking Last week into the like the fuzzy line between extortion, men and just using your lover,

This is kind of the same thing. It's it's do who have an actual legal claim against a person. Or are you trying to intimidate the person from not being able from that testify against you in a trial? But I think everybody who looks at this at least four says that at least on the surface trump has he may not prevail on them, but he's got a legitimate claim that cohen owed him. The confidentiality privilege under the attorney client privilege he owed. He owed him protection of his of his kind. In reality and that they are actually was a non. Disclosure agreement. That was pretty standard in the trump organization, and that cohen is arguably in violation of

is rich in its own way here, since a lot of this arises out of a non disclosure arrangement that that colored made with the porn star in the end the playboy model. So there's a lot of there's a lot of irony here, but at least on the surface, this doesn't look like. Is it something that trump needs to be worried about at least for now in terms of weather, even though, obviously his critics are all going to say that he's obstructing a bragg's investigation and trying to intimidate cohen- and it doesn't, it looks like when you read the claim that he has colorable

legal clients and finally richly other thing, they are worried about his trump just lost a suit and a judge sanctioned him. I think, find him in his lawyer, like a million dollars for a racketeering action, he tried to bring against civil racketeering against Hillary Clinton in connection with the steel dossier and and the twenty sixteen thing in the judge who, by the way, is a Clinton applaud appointee. I believe, but the judge down in florida looked at this and said trump. Doesn't he?

It's state a claim here: he was just using this lawsuit as a vehicle to get his narrative out there of what happened in connection with the the steele dossier and that whole debacle. So here it does it. There is it. This is a thirty two page lawsuit and it's got a lot of cones greatest hits centered about what a great guy trump was and how honest he was, and he was a fine businessman, and or as the driven snow and would never do anything crooked. So there's a lot if you say anything to the contrary, I'll F, you yeah, it's got a little touch of of you know it's a little look abroad, see what what's judges with it? It's hilarious they'll because we're always a world. We always talk about. There's always when people ask about obstruction, I always say like you know it.

One calls you and says you better tell if you're in the grand jury tomorrow, you better tell the truth. If that your lawyer, that means one thing right: if its look around they have been out here. These are all very fact, specific case. I would just point out, What what is the usual just stormy Daniels violated the non disclosure agreement right in and she you are not to be asked covered this, but there's so much else going on had to pay the legal fees for for trump suing over this right that corrected well be gathered what would be the filament yeah. This is it's very it's very confusing, but proper originally complain that stormy violated the non disclosure agreement right and many apparently counted to ten and wanted and realise that he needs to take the position that the non disclosure agreement doesn't have anything to do with him and he's not

party to it, you know that the non disclosure agreement that we have it- I dont think talked enough about this, but it's that its clarity is in its way, because it's a document that cohen prepared stormy is identified in it, as is it pat, pete, peggy, petersen and trump is ideal, it is Dennis Denison, cohen signs so stormy, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford is identified, is Peggy petersen but sir It has Stephanie clifford and then trot is identified, is Dennis denison, but doesn't sign it and is a party to it. The only one who sides it does: a scribble which indecipherable. That's over a line with the law, the signature lines as essential consultants, that's the company that Cohen formed in order to pay this thing. But

trumps defences. He never signed it. His name is and on it he didn't pay a dime add of it. This was all common, so trump right, lies that, even though he wanted to go where the stormy for violating the agreement and threatened to do Daddy realized. I dont have any that. It's not my agreement. So what ended up happening was stormy. Tried to sue trump for defamation four trump calling stormy a liar, and that was a it was a frivolous loss of. I think that that puts the lawyer now in jail. What is now not ever naughty, I think he's the one who push that, the lawsuit, ended up getting thrown out and it was self frivolous that even in caliph, when you're, where they like trump about as much as I like him in new york, Dave ruled that you know stormy owes him legal fees friendly after trying to sell it.

We ve got enough, so so what would be if, of course, guilty of re of this stuff. What would be what would be the sanction why turkey needs to pay? Every penny five hundred million. Don't you think? Could I be that he's dead? There's, not much! It could do to sanction them right, he's already been convicted of multiple fraud crimes he's already been disbarred, so there's not much. They can tell in the way of sanction. So this is like you know, hardball money judgment and I you know, will this actually is trump going to be able to show that there's any damages Your and Cohen's defence here, obviously, is going to be. You know you can make in in the civil law context you can make all of the hush money arrangements you want to make an civilly enforceable non disclosure agreement you want to make. None of that is effective against a criminal investigation

grand jury. So if you and I reached like we rob a bank and then we sit down and we write an agreement that that incidents that occurred on December fifteenth whenever we're never ever gonna talk about it ever again. I think I might be able to enforce that against you and you might be able to enforce it against me, but neither of us could enforce it against the government if we got a grand jury subpoena and had to go testify. We'd have to testify. So what cohn's gonna say is that you don't look? He was caught up in a criminal investigation and he couldn't tell the prosecutors and the grand jury. I can't discuss that with you because of these non disclosure arrangements I have and that the cat was out of the bag anyway. So all this stuff was going to come out and by the way trump can't show any damages cause. I really you know doing.

two damaging, so he's gotta get it he's got a strong defence here, but this will be fun. It'll be what it'll be fun to to watch this play. I am if your current eu due care- or are you just brush this- offers a harassing lawsuit or is it does any five hundred million dollar lawsuit catch your attention yet ike, I think that, especially when you have law professes out, really don't like trump and would love to be able to say this looks like surely nothing more than witness intimidation they're all looking at this saying. Well, you know he did have a attorney client, the relationship with this guy, and he did have this this non disclosure agreement- and you know the other problem that code has and trumpet, was lay this out it. It's kind of ironic that it's coming from trump trump lays this out in painful detail, and you know Conan.

it's lied so many times about so many things that I I think he must live a nervous life in the sense that, like you know, it would be possible for a person to to keep track of everything he's lied about, and I I think the most hilarious sadly hilarious thing about the The whole thing is collins pitch. If you remember when he was testifying in front of congress and when he plug guilty in the southern district and then plug guilty to two perjury for mahler his pitch was that he had turned over a new leaf. You know he was, can try. He was exhibiting remorse he plucked guilty because he was guilty any wanted to make amends

live a life of probity and rectitude that he could be proud of you and all the whole things that you say, and then it turns out that you know the southern district of new york thought he was such a terrible witness that they wouldn't sign him to a cooperation agreement, so he had to go to prison and he was sentenced to prison for three years after the southern district wrote this scathing present. Memorandum for the court. So now that, after turning over I think new leaf cohen says that he pled guilty only because the southern district threatened them and threatened that they would put that they would go after his wife. and that he actually wasn't guilty of tax evasion and all that stuff. He said, I'm pleading guilty because I am guilty which he said on the road. He says now on second thought: he's that he's actually not guilty of anything. Other than campaign finance violations which are in a crime. In this context, so you know

it's now all the you know the big bad that the two terrible people with life are rum are donald in the southern district of new york, which which is rich given help which that they don't have any use for each other either to lend us pause briefly. Do a quick plug for anna. digital subscription service at national view, dot com. Your way around are metered paywall your way, if you, sign up and log in to see ninety percent fewer at especially those of noxious and annoying at when you trying to read Andy's columns your weight, you died deeper into our community comment on articles and bought us that floods about be invited to this cause with writers, editors and other. Server? Two figures show a great deal all round, plus a really crucial. Eight sport are valuable journalism. So if you're, not a member, please get off couch or wherever you're, sitting or

after your drive when you're listening to his podcast or your jog or walk or whatever it is. Please go to the signup page at national review. Two dot com, or we have all sorts of great first time, deals and sign up for an r plus and join tens of thousands of your fellow the readers as a member and we also have as a sideline here this Jim. jordan, verses, Alan brag, smack down. You have the council a french him not not to go down this go down this route, but he's going down this route, and now we have some fine lawsuits were or brag is suing for all sorts of violations of the various various powers what's going on here. Well, I think our friend, Jim, like our friend and former president trump, is,

is always reliably taking my advice. Whenever I had heard and figures it's worth, what he's pay me for it, I guess well, I think this was a really stupid idea on Jordan's part and he's not alone he's got the Huth. He got jamie comer, who is the head of the jamie comer as the head of the oversight committee any and there's a third guy owes at spiel is his name from wisconsin he's the headley administration,

a committee. I may have this name wrong, but in any event, they as soon as brag it even before the indictment came out as soon as it was like publicly announced that there was was going to be an indictment before we saw it. These guys decided to throw the power of their very considerable power of being chairman of house congressional committees with subpoena power and the lead on this one. I think comber is taken The lead on the Biden, family stuffs of jordan is taking the lead on the trump prosecution by brag. So they started to demand that brag.

supply information to the house, judiciary committee and also come to testify, but importantly, they dont subpoena him. At the moment. This is just demands for information and I thought this was a terrible idea, both legally and politically. It's a terrible idea legally, because we usually we conservatives, send republicans to washington in order to fight against this whole idea that were were based. We a centrally governed power where washington can lord it over all of the states and this whole progressive formula where you know we give them some federal money for all of their state agencies and then, by virtue of that, we force them to do things our way and make the states into that basically vassals of the of the federal government.

we send conservatives to washington. We hope to fight against that. This is What these guys are doing, what they are saying is that they have because federal money goes to new york. And including federal money that goes to the district attorney's office. They have a general, supervisory authority over how the district attorney's office is run and they sound just, they might as well be a o c. They say the and the fort, Amendment gives us oversight of how the states treat their citizens so united. Why we sent? Why do we send these guys to washington? I don't know

but in any event, that's the legal theory and then the politics of it is just I mean it's, it's it couldn't be more asinine. They are putting themselves in the position of being trumps defence lawyers and going after trumps prosecutors under circumstances where it's not like trump won't have the ability to do that in the four corners of the litigation up in new york. But in the meantime you know these guys may be. Throwing read me too to trump space. But the fact is there kellan the republican party with the rest of the country, who sees this and says you know what on the yes, yes is, is brags case against trump, an abuse of power, a mean we couldn't have been more clear, discuss

I think that it's it's an abuse of power, eight ways to sunday. It's also a situation that factually arises out of trump paying hush money to a porn star on the eve of the election and then on in his books, making it look like he was paying legal fees when he, when he's reimbursing the guy who put out the money for the hush money now even if brag is abusing its authority, which he is wider, republicans wanna get behind that. So he's got. You know, there's a million reasons legally and politically. They shouldn't be doing this, but they're doing so naturally brag. I should, I should add one further detail eyes. As I said at the beginning, all of this at the beginning was just the usual provocative letters that they write, asking for voluntary turnover of information and then

gordon, I think wretchedness was right after the indictment came out. Jordan up the ante by issuing a subpoena to mark palmer ants. Now palmer ran, so everyone remembers is the special assistant district attorney. it was brought in by brags predecessors, sigh vance to run the trump investigation and became disgruntled and left the office when brag about a year ago decided to decline to prosecute trump and then wrote this book about how much he hates tromp called people verses, donald trump, where he basically argues that trump is like a mafia dawn and should be. You know, prosecuted. That way, although that's mainly he's talking about trumps historic financial practices going back decades, not this

army Daniels thing which either even palmer ants acknowledges in the book was a very difficult case. So anyway, Jordan sees this and wants to make the case, which is easy enough to make that this was a completely politically motivated prosecution, again struck, which he hardly need palmer ants to show, because bread ran for office saying that if he got elected he was good. It uses power, get struck, so anyway, even though palmer answers now out of the district attorney's office, what what jordan ones question him about is the is the practices and information from the investigation of his time in the district attorney's office so in that sense, it's no more proper for Jordan to be subpoena, laying palmer ants than it would be if he subpoenaed brag himself, which he has so far resisted

so taking all this alderson brag, then decides he's gonna file a lawsuit against Jordan. So he has sued jordan and more palmer ants. in a lawsuit that he brought in the southern district of new york, now just to be clear He's not suing palmer ants because he's hostile to palm IRAN's and because parliament has been critical of him to the contrary Palmer answers said he will not cooperate with Jordan's investigation. So rag is actually trying to help palmer ants on that legal front

a suing him for the purpose of banning him from cooperating with Jordan. So that's the reason pomeranz is named as a as a defendant, but with respect to Jordan and bragg is making what you would figure would be the federalist arguments that you would make under these circumstances that there is no general federal supervisory authority. Where the state governments and state law enforcement, and that even if that were true, there are all kinds of legal protection. Tens of grand jury, information and law enforcement, sensitive information and the like on the federal law and new york law that Jordan is trying to derive in his investigation, so

I think the one of the interesting things here is that brag decided to bring this suit in the southern district of new york. Most of what is objecting to riches in Washington I mean that's where that's where george He is conducting his investigation and I must say if I were bragg and the court if the federal district court in Washington dc has been very hostile to trump and trump is under criminal investigation by two grand juries that are being overseen by the court there. So if I'm brag, I I would

I would have brought the suit in washington. Brag is the district attorney of manhattan, and importantly, I think, for these purposes before he was the district attorney, he was an assistant. U s attorney in the southern district of new york under preparation, so he knows that court well and that's where he decided it's not that he didn't they dont have venue there. They do. I just It would have been more appropriate washington and it it since this is a politically charged case. I think he would have run a higher chance getting a young, a politically sympathetic judge in washington. Instead, he files the suit in new, work and he ends up, and this is the luck of the draw in the southern district of new york when, when where I worked for many years and when a case gets filed this about forty judges in southern district and what happens is there's a big old wheel,

in the in the courthouse and they spin the wheel and then they pull out an envelope and that's the judge you get, and in this instance the judge that he drew is a woman named Mary kay this castle. Every cave. This castle is a trump appointee who would trump put on the district court in you think twenty nineteen after she had been a bankruptcy judge she's at all time, like commercial litigator in new york. She was a bankruptcy judge for about three years and then trump put her on the southern district bench now. Does that mean she's a trompe, and this is gonna- be bad for brag. I doubt it

the only way that judge this castle could have gotten through the confirmation process which she not only got through, but she, I think only three democrats and she got substantial support from Democrats. She could not have been approved, but she wouldn't even have been considered unless chuck humor and cursed in genoa, bran agreed to let her go through the process, so I think the chance that they would have. Let you know it s a very ardently pro trump jurists get through in new york. is unlikely and judge. I don't wanna, I'm not trying to cast aspersions one way or the other judge this castle, as I understand it is per experiences. She's, a straight out commercial litigator. She doesn't have

any history that I am aware of, any political allegiance is one way or the other. The only prominent case. I think that has come up with that that we know of in connection with her is Karen Macdougall. The playboy model that we just talked about a few minutes ago in connection with trump. I think she wanted to see

Tucker karlsson, for claiming that she had extorted trump into the hush money, payment and judge viscosity through that case out on the grounds that Tucker karlsson runs in opinion programme, and nobody takes it seriously. As statements of fact an item, I think, that's a pretty, I think that's a pretty faithful reading of a federal defamation law, so I don't think we can deduce anything one way or the other about that. So anyway, she caught the case and hears the so here's. The interesting scheduling jordan made the subpoena to pomerania,

What returnable next wednesday, which means wednesday he supposed to show up and testify in in congress, although they may try to do this as a field trip to new york, rather than have em, come down to washington. So what judge this castle is done? Brag asked the court to stay all that untold she can decide on his loss She has refused to do that, but she ordered Jordan to respond to the lawsuit by monday, and then she has scheduled a hearing for wednesday, which is the same day palmer s supposed to testify, so we'll see how that works out next week, so it just as a precedent for a judge, staying or saying congress can investigate something yet so this is the thing rich, I think brags

legal position on this, even though I think that his his prosecutions disgrace, his legal position on this question is what miley our position on this question would be, which is that its congress has no business, do an oversight over the new york county district attorney, how other brag is in no position to make that claim, because one trump was president: the Democrats their power over house committees in order to subpoena trumps, personal financial information and, as we all know, they didn't actually want trumps. financial information and other things they issued these vexatious subpoenas for it's not like they were trying to make legislation too

prove this or that area of figure federal law regulation. They were punitive like using their subpoena authority as a political weapon against trump, and that case, if we get, if you remember that case went up to the supreme court in twenty twenty and the supreme court, I think made the foolish mistake of waiting into this as chief justice roberts. At the time this case is called trump verses, maize hours, which is his accountants or as former counts in new york. But chief justice roberts noted that the two hundred and three three years, the courts had state the hell out of this stuff, because these are the kinds of political disputes that go on all the time between political branches of of government and they are armed in the constitution with their own arsenal to do battle with each other. So

There's no reason for the courts to get involved in this, and when the courts do get involved in at all, it does is slow down what has to happen for these things to get settled in the end, which is that each side and a compromise in which happens again and again and again so That was those cases involved. What we think those horizontal separation of powers, which is the different branches of the federal government. This is vertical separation of powers, which is the dual sovereignty between the federal government and in the state government, but it presents the same issue so brag Even though he's got a lot of constitutional federalism principles on his side, the fact of the matter is there is it can seriously be doubted as a matter of law that, when the federal government its money to the states congress has oversight authority over how that money is spent, and they have the right to investigate that

and Jordan is using that as his pretext for doing these investigations, should he be doing that? No, should the Democrats have done that with trump no, but they did and when the case came up before this Of course, the supreme court in a seven two decision and may tsars gave lower courts completely unhelpful advice as to how to wrestle with these clients, which is they said you don't look. The president's got a very important job, so congress. If you go to issue a subpoena, would you please like keep it narrow to what you really really need for legislative purposes and then and then the courts at the top, but by the way you have immunity for being investigated by congress and you have a near limitless constitutional.

The authority to ask for whatever the hell they want to ask for, so that what the supreme court told the lower courts is when these cases come up, try to tell each side that the other side has legitimate claims and concerns which means: the court you just stay out of it and let the work out their legitimate claims and concerns by compromise which they have been doing for two hundred and thirty three years before you know it, the supreme court try to get involved in this, so I think what's going to happen here, is before brag filed his suit. Even though they were objecting to palmer ants being called brags office. Was negotiating with the house, because brag is, the progressive till he doesn't want to take the position that the federal government doesn't have authority to do this, so it wouldn't negotiating something, and then it blew up another in lawsuits. But what we all know is going to have to happen here eventually is brags gonna have to give the house some information

and the houses gonna have to stand down on some of the things they were asking for four brag, and this is just gotta, be a dog in poland. that goes on for you don't months or the brag may be able now because of these cases bread. They may be able to tie it up in court for a couple of years by, each time who knows of jordan will still be the chairman of the judiciary committee, but it's it's theatre. It's far so any. I know you have some thoughts about my pants, where you been vindicated in terms of that he's gonna have to test fibre. Let's skips outbreak at that. For next week and go to this big

to receive over the dueling district court rulings over the FDA approval of the abortion pill twenty years ago? What's your take on this? Well, you know. Look I think that dumb as far as a jerk, I think, judge cuss Marek decision in texas, which is the one that banned the abortion pill. I think, eventually, that's probably going to be undone. I also think

judge KAZ mark wrote a workmanlike opinion. I mean he didn't persuade me on the standing issue and I think he's got a problem on one of the statute of limitations issues and I don't think that the supreme court is going to be anxious to to jump into all of this. So I think he'll probably lose that, but I I just want to say it to judge cause more x credit. He issued his opinion and then he immediately stated in order to give the government the opportunity to go to the fifth circuit and ask them to stay at until it can be reviewed. So it wasn't like he was trying to make it decree and immediately and institute a ban because he is ideologically feel strongly

about the ban, which is what some other the criticism was he rolled away. He thought the case should come out. I think he's yo. He obviously has has views on the on the policy here and I think it may be. Our argument that he allowed those views to influence the way he wrestled with the statute of limitations and and now and in the standing issue, but at the same time You know this procedure irregularity here in that he stayed what he did and he's giving the other side and opportunity and they're gonna go the circuit and get it stayed and eventually it it'll. Probably nothing will come of this opinion. Maybe I think it may take a long time to to resolve it, and I doubt that you can have an effective.

Bear and as far as the other opinion is concerned by the judge out in washington, you know, I think that in its way is it is a not very convincing evisceration of some of the restrictions that that should be upheld in the law. That also is going to be reviewed in the higher courts and it'll be worked out. What I found most interesting, including listening to you guys talk about this on the on the editors, is the shrieking that has gone on over yeah, I'm not exactly a nato see fan we all oh, but I mean this idea that, like a yossi came out and said, the federal, women should not should just ignore judge cause Marek, and we even had was- was senator mace. There was a report,

can senator who, as much as came out and said that you know judge his mark had no right to tell the empty Nancy mace rep. I think, I've. If, if it wasn't she, I I apologise, but I think I think gub was a republican senator who came out and said this is not the not the court's business to second guess the f d: a on what the what is the f d a's, bread and butter, as if a court should never a second, ass, an administrative agency and, of course this is because the republicans haven't figured out how to talk about or think about abortion. So they just want the whole thing to go away right. But I guess what I'm, what I'm taken aback by is the you know. When a o c comes out and says, the government should just ignore the district judge's ruling and every one yeah, could anyone say such a thing? Is it true

should, in this country, going back to thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln for the proposition that the branch of government and every official government has the obligation to interpret federal law and constitutional law for himself or herself, and that call, are there to resolve the case before them, and their ruling should be limited to the parties before them, and it's not the court's function, to make national policy now. I am all for the rule of law and if we're in a case where you know a court, Obviously, has jurisdiction over the matter that were discussing

then productively. Yes, you know the courts. The court's ruling should be the court's ruling should be respected, but I can't think of a lot of situations in which I think the government should ignore rulings by courts. I can think of a lot of situations where where the government does ignore rulings by courts, but there it usually like the obama administration, so the press doesn't cover it and ro. I remember writing rich during the euro the early days the war on terror. Who did the supreme court? Think they were, and the federal courts think they were to tell the executive branch government in the middle of a war who win enemy combatant was if, if a court in the middle of a war directed the president, To release all the enemy combatants, because the court had decided they weren't captured under sufficient battlefield

conditions to satisfy the court that they qualified his enemy combatants. Does anybody think a president would be bound by that or should be bound by that? You know that lord suddenly decided, I think, we're have a wealth tax. in violation of the of the sixteenth amendment. Does anybody think that, like the the whatever administrations in power. The irs should start collecting the wealth tax while the while the court well, that issue goes up to the courts. I just I just don't get help people, or are suddenly yeah. You know how why it's so controversial that somebody came out and said that you know then administration, should ignore a court ruling administrations. Do ignore court rulings, and sometimes they showed ok. That's a time we have this podcasting produced by the incomparable Sarah seriously, thanks have one for listening and thank you and thanks rich