TF 15: The Day Bob Mueller Spoke
Harry Litman [00:00:07] Welcome to a special episode of Talking Feds Now -- recorded on the afternoon of the day that history will record when Robert Mueller spoke. I'm Harry Litman a former United States Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General and a current columnist for The Washington Post.
Harry Litman [00:00:27] We are very fortunate to be joined by three Feds, well-known to listeners of this podcast and to anyone who watches cable TV. First Mimi Rocah, Mimi is Pace Law's Distinguished Fellow in Criminal Justice. She's a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. She was for many years an Assistant U.S. Attorney and then a supervisor in various leadership positions in the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Thanks for joining, Mimi.
Mimi Rocah [00:01:00] Thanks for having me, Harry.
Harry Litman [00:01:02] Next. Elie Honig an analyst for CNN and a special counsel at Lowenstein Sandler, also for many years a supervisor in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York specializing in organized crime prosecutions. Thanks for joining, Elie.
Elie Honig [00:01:20] Thanks for having me, Harry. Big day. Lots to talk about.
Harry Litman [00:01:24] And finally Barbara McQuade who supervised everybody as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. And before that served as an AUSA for some 20 years in that office and currently a Professor from Fractice at the University of Michigan Law School Hello Barb.
Barbara McQuade [00:01:44] Hi Harry. Thanks very much for having me.
Harry Litman [00:01:46] I want to approach this Talking Feds Now broadcast a little differently. All three of you, all three of the Feds on this line, basically spent all day on CNN and MSNBC, parsing the two-thousand or so words that Mueller delivered from the seventh floor of the Department of Justice, and listening to others do the same. Those few words of course were chosen with great care, as were the many things Mueller chose not to say. I want to focus this discussion on details and nuances that today's wall-to-wall reporting didn't quite nail down, points that didn't come through cleanly or maybe not at all on the coverage. And that even viewers who channel hopped all day might find new or insightful. So, I propose we'll go around the room, or really around the country since Barb is in Michigan, and Mimi and Elie in New York, and each of us offer up some underreported aspect of Mueller's brief appearance. Something important, but still in some ways new, after a day of frenetic reporting. And if the feds detail prompts debate or disagreement all the better we'll have at it. Otherwise we'll keep going and hopefully get into a couple rounds of interesting and relatively novel details. OK. Sound good?
Elie Honig [00:03:11] Ready.
Barbara McQuade [00:03:12] Yes.
Harry Litman [00:03:13] Uh. All right, I'll start.
Harry Litman [00:03:14] I want to focus on the half sentence that I think was not mentioned on the news today, which is Mueller's taking the, making the point that of having briefed the acting Attorney General, that is Rod Rosenstein, during the investigation. And if we assume that Mueller decided either early on or certainly before the report was drafted not to make any final prosecutorial decision on obstruction, that strikes me as very significant. It means that Rosenstein knew it and Rosenstein later throws in with Barr and gives his imprimatur on Barr is essentially taking Rosenstein to task. And yet Rosenstein, when he would have had the chance, didn't say, "No, no, no, Bob. Go back in there and make a decision and that's what we do as prosecutors." Instead he stayed mum let it happen and now that, that he makes it seem it was a problem by throwing in with Bill Barr that strikes me as a little screwy or maybe even craven.
Elie Honig [00:04:25] I'll react and say what a shocker that Rod Rosenstein just figured out which way the wind was blowing at any given moment and then did that. I mean that seems to be his M.O., and even if it's inconsistent over time. For it for me the big thing that jumped out was there was not much new today in terms of facts or substance. The vast majority of what Robert Mueller said was just right out of the report. But it drove home for me this growing trend that once people actually look at the report, read it, understand what's in it -- they're sort of forever changed. Like, there's a horror movie, I think where if you watch a video you're forever changed, you can never get it out of your head. Right? And I think it just underscores the importance of Mueller testifying and I'm sure we'll talk about the fact that he announced he doesn't want to, but it underscores just how powerful Mueller will be. He talked for what ten minutes today? Imagine eight hours of him discussing his findings it would, it would have a real game changing impact.
Harry Litman [00:05:20] Yeah, no, I think that's a great point. He's, he thinks and says he'll be boring but he was very much sort of a dragnet figure today and yet it was riveting. So he in particular, but almost any witness who will be there under the lights and give a television moment is a potential game changer, and I think that's the reason for the big tussle. Not, not that the information will be new but it will actually cause the American people to focus on it. OK, Barb got a new one for us?
Barbara McQuade [00:05:50] Yeah. Let me just I'll just react to what Elie said though. I don't know that Robert Mueller is going to testify before Congress. I mean I think today's announcement was clearly a move on his part to try to preempt that to say, "Here's all I have to say. If you call me all I'm going to do is repeat what's in my report, my report is my testimony. And I don't want to be your pawn in your public spectacle of partisan politics." And so you know obviously if he is compelled, he'll have to testify. But it sounds like he is going to work pretty hard not to testify.
Harry Litman [00:06:24] And how will he work, because you agree if Congress compels him you know he'll show up. He won't, he won't disregard a subpoena. So you think he'll just try to persuade, what right now seems, a Congress pretty bent on having him testify?
Barbara McQuade [00:06:38] Yeah, you know, I think one of the things that could get murky about all of that is if Congress tries to get behind, you know beyond what's in the four corners of the report and you know there's 448 pages so there's plenty there. But you know tell me about your conversations with William Barr. Tell me about what's redacted all of those kinds of things I think he said today, you know will be handled by other people at the Justice Department. But there are some legitimate privileges and grand jury rules and the like that could prevent that. So I think he wants to avoid the tussle and so, today, I think, was his closing argument about why it would be prudent not to call him you know move on with the fact witnesses and stop worrying about whether I disagreed with William Barr, is what I heard him to be saying today.
Mimi Rocah [00:07:22] Harry can I say something about that?
Harry Litman [00:07:24] Please.
Mimi Rocah [00:07:25] I mean, I agree with everything everybody has said about this, about my Mueller not the importance of Mueller testifying and Mueller not wanting to testify. But I really think that the Democrats should subpoena him and they should do it quickly, because he is someone who will not defy a subpoena whereas, you know I agree, it would be ideal to move on to the fact witnesses. But we all know that's going to be a timely process to really be able to compel them. I mean, I suppose there are some and we could we can brainstorm and people have done that and which ones they might be able to get but, but, not McGahn, you know, not really the blockbuster ones. And I just think, you know as Elie said, today almost more than anything, my take away from it was, what many of us have been saying for weeks now is: if people would just focus on the facts in the report, you know, they would be shocked. And I think today everyone's kind of, you know, "Wow! What?!" And it was, it was exactly what's in the report, but having Mueller walk through it. And so maybe the Democrats even agree to Mueller: "You know what, come testify and we won't ask you anything outside the four corners of the report." And maybe that would put him at ease because they really don't need to for purposes, you know, Barr is a separate issue, and Barr's corruption and Barr's misleading. So, that would be my vote, is the Democrats should do it and they should do it quickly.
Harry Litman [00:08:47] And my best guess is that's where they're going. OK, Barb got a, got a nugget for us?
Barbara McQuade [00:08:53] Yeah. You know, I said this earlier today, that you know Robert Mueller is so calm and dignified in his speaking what he really needs is an "anger translator" to say what he's really saying because he speaks in such nuance, and with some eloquence. But, I think the thing he started with and that he ended with, and I think what he would want people to be talking about, is that this was an attack from Russia. And he specifically mentioned Russian military and Russian intelligence. He started with it. He ended with it. And I think he would want to say, "It's about Russia, stupid! This is not a hoax. This investigation was not a coup. This was not, you should not be investigating the investigators. This is very real, people, and it's something every American should pay attention to. We've got another election coming up, this is not over. Get your eye on the ball. This is about Russia." And so, I think that is something that the media has not focused on as much as he would have liked. By starting and ending with it, I think he wants to make clear, you know, Trump and his misdeeds are something we need to think about. But let's not forget about Russia. You know, President Trump would like us to forget about it because he is concerned that's in some ways talking about Russia interfering with our elections somehow diminishes the legitimacy of his electoral victory, but in fact it's a very real threat and we need to guard against it. And that's what this investigation is all about. So all these people who want to discount it, and call them "13 Angry Democrats," or whatever you are, you know, those are the people who are quote unquote treasonous to use President Trump's word.
Harry Litman [00:10:21] [crosstalk] Hey, I heard you say that, Elie, and let me just say, I heard Barb say that and you know you listen to TV go on for half an hour and then every once in a while something just sings to you. And that's what I thought you, I one-hundred-percent agree with the point. And also the, that you delivered it beautifully with the "anger translator" idea and I will give up what was going to be my number three, just to second it, because the one detail, I want to add to that, what he closed is by saying, "The Russian interferences deserves the attention of every American." Present tense. So it really was a sort of call to action as we stand here now. That means Congress. That means the American people he used the he wasn't talking about his own investigation. He was talking about going forward. Elie, sorry.
Elie Honig [00:11:12] Yes. So just to build on Barb's point, one of the phrases that I was listening very closely for today and sort of wondering, is he going to say it because it's in the report, is not only was there a massive effort by Russia, the Russian government to hack our election, but in the report Mueller says, but I do not think he said it today, that the Trump campaign expected to benefit electorally from that hacking campaign. Now he held back on that today. But that's an important point that also should not be lost here. Is there a provable or chargeable criminal federal conspiracy? Mueller concluded "No." I accept that. But let's not forget, not only did Russia launch a massive attack on our system, but Mueller concluded that the Trump campaign expected to benefit electorally. And that's an example of why he needs to testify because I would want to ask him about that: "Who specifically in the Trump campaign expected to benefit electorally? What do you mean by that?" That means they knew about it, right? "Benefit electorally, why? Why did they expect to benefit?" I mean some of this is in the report but this is the kind of thing that again I don't think... I think the vast majority of Americans have no idea is in that report and to hear Mueller say it out loud, would really drive it home.
Harry Litman [00:12:23] So again I agree and I'll just add one little gloss on that. He, he said, "Why do you have to investigate the president what you're authorized to do under the regs if you can't indict him?" And the number one thing he said, "preserve evidence." He did say, well maybe you have a coconspirator to indict but that's not happening here. Preserve evidence, that, in making that point I think what was lated, but, but deafening in a way, was that means as soon as Trump is out of office that evidence, there's, there's a prosecutor who can open a file and have it nearly complete, and make a charging decision.
Harry Litman [00:13:01] Are you up Mimi?
Mimi Rocah [00:13:01] I think so.
Harry Litman [00:13:03] All right.
Mimi Rocah [00:13:04] So I think my Nugget is about the obstruction piece, but I think it's similar to the point that Barb made about the Russian interference, which is you know, Mueller in his understated eloquent way, said, you know, he, he basically again justifed why they were obstruct-- investigating obstruction. You know, enough with the "Out to get Trump witch hunt" calls. He says it was critical, you know, for us to examine every, get accurate information. He talks about, you know, the the sort of obstruction being at the heart of the attacks on our justice system and sort of why obstruction is such an important crime, and why I think all of us as prosecutors you know, in our sort of past lives probably did learn to take obstruction cases extremely seriously. I won't say more than other crimes, but it was something that you know, you would look at with a really serious eye to charging if you could, because they go so much to the heart of how our justice system works. And I thought, it was interesting that Mueller made that extra point, which I think comes through if you read the report. But again, in this short statement he, he made, he went to that point to make here that, "Here's why I think this is important." And he specifically said, and people did focus on this today a bit, when the subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth. And you know, the subject of the investigation that he's talking about here is clearly Trump. He didn't say "if," he said "when." So, I think if you take all those things together you've really got Mueller saying not only once again, as we know if you read the report that he thinks in certain ways Trump obstructed but also it's really important, and it shouldn't be minimized by the public or by Congress. And so it's part of his sort of call to action.
Harry Litman [00:15:16] Boy I agree. And it's one of this four or five ways where he really did subtly put distance between him and Bill Barr, who has most recently said that the President... he understands why he feels it was all a witch hunt, including the obstruction, since he hadn't, wasn't found to have actually committed a conspiracy. That, that trivialized something and Mueller... I was reminded of a Pat Fitzgerald similar statement in the in the Libby Case coming down, explaining just why it's so grave and important. And as you say Mimi, he is, he chooses what words to say. And obviously that's a reaction to something, and I think that's a reaction to the President and Team Trump. Any other thoughts on that, on that point from Mimi?
Elie Honig [00:16:02] That was just a "Hallelujah moment," to hear him say it, his exact quote was, "Obstruction strikes at the core of their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable." End quote. I mean, so much for this garbage that we are hearing from Giuliani and others process crimes, who cares, they're inventing crimes I thought that was a really strong rebuke to that.
Harry Litman [00:16:25] I agree and this we, was covered today but we all have all talked about it but I think I would just add to that, that it came through again that there's really no other way to read the report than as a finding of conduct that amounts to obstruction on Trump's part. Mueller and his team know very well how to get over the line and when they're close to the line, as they were in conspiracy, they say so but the the emphasis on the non-exoneration of Trump and saying, we would have exonerated him if we could, I think can't be read any other way. That's something people are focused on. But I think it just is taken as a given.
Harry Litman [00:17:08] OK, my turn I guess. I'll just say I was struck that he, and Trump wants to say that you know make this all, at most he resisted it for a long time but even the Russian efforts he wants to put in sort of general terms, Mueller came right out and said, "They were going after a candidate." So, he made it clear that it was all directed at Clinton and designed to benefit Trump. Something, yes, that I think we could have concluded but that I think is an underreported detail from today. He weighed in to say this was done for the benefit of the President, and implicitly, I think along with those who say you know, it's an imponderable but it might actually have been pivotal in the election.
Barbara McQuade [00:17:58] Yeah I agree with you Harry. I thought it was, you know, useful to point out you know of course he didn't refer to Hillary Clinton by name. He talked about "a presidential candidate." But reading the report it amplifies that point. One of the things they specifically say in the report is that the Russians endeavor to help candidate Trump, and to harm candidate Clinton, because they perceive that to be in their best interest. And so it wasn't simply to interfere and mess around with the election it was specifically to help President Trump get elected.
Mimi Rocah [00:18:28] Yeah I think you did mention Clinton campaign. So he, he talked, in his statement he actually sort of you know when I think as far as Mueller was going to go when he's speaking, so he didn't say that it was to help Trump, which as I think Elie pointed out earlier. But he did say that it was to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign and then he refers to, you know, trying to damage "a presidential candidate." So he sort of does it in a roundabout way.
Harry Litman [00:18:57] Mr. Honig, what you got?
Elie Honig [00:19:00] So this was a quick line at the end and it's kind of pro forma in any, in any DOJ announcement, but I thought it was worth noting at the end when Mueller stood up for his people and went out of his way to to cite the hardworking and good and honest people prosecutors and law enforcement agents who work on this investigation. Maybe I'm being a little, a little bit conspiracy theorist here, but I think there was a little message there directed at this whole "investigate the investigators" nonsense, that I uh, don't... I think Mueller... If I had to guess I think Mueller has a problem with that effort. And I think he may have been sending a little bit of a message of, you don't want to go down that road. Right? I mean Mueller, Mueller seems to be pretty good at striking these implicit agreements with a lot of different people of, "I'm not going to, I'm not going to publicly light you up, like maybe I could. We're going to all play, play along here and sort of get along and be a company man." But I thought that was a little bit of a message there of, "Lay off my people."
Harry Litman [00:19:54] Yeah. And lay off the Bureau in general. So, I agree with that. And it's part of what I thought of from Barb's point, he starts and ends with how serious this is. And when you view it through that prism, then the, the F... The very people that Trump is looking to crucify are the ones who got this possible information and were duty bound given its gravity to pursue it to the end. And again, about Russia, not, not about Donald Trump. OK Barb, you gotta, you gotta second?
Barbara McQuade [00:20:30] Yeah. I guess the other point I would make, is this idea about you know you can't charge a sitting President, the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, and you know what Robert Mueller said today, and I think this is a new perspective at least for me on this, reading the report, I sort of drew the conclusion that maybe this was because I was spun a little bit by William Barr in advance, that Mueller sort of reached this conclusion that, "Well we're not going to charge Trump, because you know we aren't going to decide one way or the other because of this OLC opinion." What I heard him to say today, was, "We knew from the outset that charging was not an option. We never thought about charging the President. That was never something we thought was possible." And, Robert Mueller seem to agree, it would be unconstitutional to charge a sitting President. So what we did instead was to preserve evidence while memories were fresh and documents we're available for three purposes. One, to charge co-conspirators. Which we did. Two, to preserve evidence for future prosecutors, when the President is no longer sitting. And three, there is a mechanism for dealing with presidents and holding them accountable. And he kind of stops there. Of course that mechanism is called impeachment. Which I think he is too diplomatic to utter out loud but I think that that was a clarifying moment for me, when he knew from the start. You know for the two years I've been thinking perhaps the President would be charged with a crime or that was an option or that he would at least pronounce that, "I found crimes. But I, I know that I can't charge the President." And then he said, "Fairness..." Which was also in his report... "Fairness dictates that we can't even accuse him of a crime. Not only can we not charge him we can't say he committed a crime because that would be unfair since he can't go into court to clear his name." And so, I think what William Barr gave the impression when he said, the evidence does not establish obstruction of justice, that it was a factual problem. That there were not sufficient facts to charge obstruction of justice here, and there were difficult questions of fact and law. But instead what Robert Mueller has emphasized is we knew from the get go we could not charge one way or the other, we could not make a decision on this. He knows how to exonerate and we saw that with regard to conspiracy. But by choosing not to exonerate, with regard to obstruction is that part of the report, and part of what he said today which is, "If we could have cleared him we would have. But we didn't.".
Elie Honig [00:23:07] And, let me, let me second guess Robert Muller for a moment if I can. I know everyone has a lot of respect for him, rightly so, I do as well. But I think it's fair to criticize him or question his decision to not even declare whether he found enough evidence to charge a crime. We get that he could not have actually filed an indictment. But why couldn't Mueller said in his report, "Here here my factual findings and in conclusion this would be sufficient to charge obstruction of justice." And the explanation he offers is what Barb said, "Well it would be unfair," to which I say, Yes. I don't have a response to that, other than to say: But, so what? I mean I think the unfairness of the President not having a formal venue to contest the charges and clear his name... All right. That's a that's a downside. But it's limited versus the upside of letting everyone in America and Congress know where Mueller ultimately came out. I think there's much more of a benefit to that certainty as opposed to the somewhat mild unfairness of letting of the fact that the President can't have a trial. I mean he's certainly not defenseless. So, I think there's a fair second guessing of Mueller to be done there.
Barbara McQuade [00:24:11] Yeah because you know it's not fair? When, when President Trump tweets "no obstruction."
Elie Honig [00:24:16] Yeah! And when, and when everybody who has just has no idea where Mueller ultimately came out well.
Mimi Rocah [00:24:21] And Trump essentially did employ a defense tactic through Giuliani. I mean does it himself. But also, I mean, that's what Giuliani was doing out there every day was, you know, battling this, you know, any, any possible sort of allegations or real or imagined at the time.
Elie Honig [00:24:40] Right.
Mimi Rocah [00:24:41] And you know which was a problem that a lot of us have with Giuliani. Like, what context was he acting as an attorney? And was he acting in an ethical way? And the pushback on that was that well it wasn't really a case in front of a court. And so that's some of the ethical rules don't apply. But, in reality I mean there were, there was, and they were going to have this whole rebuttal report which of course they didn't do, because I guess they felt they didn't need to but, I think, uh, Mueller def... I mean I agree with Elie. I guess that, Mueller, while, you know, fair.... And all, is im... Fairness is important. I think he maybe took it a step further than he needed to, not recognizing how aggressively Trump and company were going to fight this just in the public realm.
Harry Litman [00:25:25] And look even on the fairness, I mean I think Elie, the question is would it have been unfair for the Congress to have inherited this report with a knowledge that, here's where a prosecutor concludes he is on the criminal law? Congress knowing, the country knowing, it's not the same thing as an impeachable offense. We, we know that. So even that, would it be unfair? He would start with having to make the argument that whatever he found on the criminal side doesn't mean I should be impeached but in some ways that would be accurate. And I think we are left with a certain difficulty, which is we believe this to be so and we even believe I think something that Mueller did today, some were kind of portraying him as absolutely perfectly passive. But he did in several ways, and this did come through on TV, express some kind of preference or expectation that this does now go to Congress. And if that is the, is the case, that, that it's going to go there. What, that, that... eventuality, combined with his sort of perfect Delphic silence, is just a little bit confusing and head scratching. So, I think it is fair to say, "What would have been the big deal of saying the fact of where he found things knowing that if there was going to be a venue for him to defend himself, yhat being the United States Congress? Ms. Rocah for the United States, do you have a... Well we're at the end of the second round. I think. You got another nugget here?
Mimi Rocah [00:27:00] Yeah I mean so. I think that, you know, this is kind of more big picture but it's worth thinking about again now that we have heard Mueller speak and clarify a little bit what those of us who've read the report knew, but but he certainly added some clarity to it, particularly that point that you just made about him, his intention being that this goes to Congress. Because if you recall, you know, just thinking back for a minute to how this all unfolded when Barr's letter came out and it was, "Well because he didn't make a decision that leaves it to me to make a decision," and we all you know sort of scratched our heads, "What? Wait Mueller, you know, punted..." And we were throwing around all these verbs. "Mueller didn't, didn't have the, he wasn't decisive enough to decide." And that just seemed strange. Then the report comes out and we see, No! It seems like he wanted this to go to Congress. That seems pretty clear. And now today again, not quite as explicitly as you know with Barbs unfiltered version we would have wanted him to say it, but he really made it clearer today, that that was the intent. I mean he says Congress several times, he talks about that as one of the purposes. So I think we need to think back for how this all would be so different if Barr had not intervened with that letter. Again, even if Mueller had not sort of stated, "I want this to go to Congress" or "I think there is enough for obstruction," if he had had it in this sort of slightly vague, but I think we know where this is going way, that he does things. But Barr had not intervened and just the report had come out. And then when when Mueller was stepping down or probably should have done it sooner he made a statement like this... I think we'd just be in such a different place. We basically have lost two months of the public and the press just being largely deceived by, by Barr and you know on the one hand I don't want to keep focusing on Barr because I think what's more important is focusing on Russia and Trump. But on the other hand we have to focus on Barr because that's how we got to this point that we're at I think.
Harry Litman [00:29:10] And not only for that reason. I mean there's a confusion, I think, and, but I think the White House has to basically see this as Mueller's day and a bad day for them. But they know now that Mueller has said he'll be silent. And to that extent he is a person of his word. Maybe he shows up in Congress because he has to, but there's not going to be no more press conferences like this. Barr has already scheduled a prime time media interview, and from here Mueller really does leave the stage. So the points that he's making, it's going to be you know congress's job, maybe in part our job to remind people of them, because they're at risk now of being drowned out going forward.
Harry Litman [00:29:57] That's all we have time for on this edition of Talking Feds Now, covering in real time an important development and Mueller's discussion and conversation today surely was one. Thank you very much to Barbara McQuade, Mimi Rocah and Elie Honig, for jumping on this fast moving train on a day when they were also hopscotching to various TV appearances. And thank you as always listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds.
Harry Litman [00:30:32] If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review this podcast. You can follow us on Twitter at @TalkingFedsPod, to find out about future episodes and other Feds related content. And while we're discussing future episodes, let me tell you briefly about an extremely exciting one that will be coming very soon: It's a conversation about "high crimes and misdemeanors," with Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky, probably the two most eminent constitutional law scholars in the country, and Jamie Raskin, himself a constitutional law professor, but more importantly a member of the House Judiciary Committee. It's a fabulous discussion of the likes I haven't heard before and I think you'll really won't want to miss it. You can also check us out on the web at TalkingFeds.com where we have full episode transcripts. Submit your questions to questions@Talking Feds.com, whether it's for "Five Words or Fewer," or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our Sidebar segment.
Harry Litman [00:31:52] Thanks for tuning in and don't worry as long as you need answers the Feds will keep talking.
Harry Litman [00:32:04] Talking Feds is produced by Jennie Josephson, Dave Moldovan, Anthony Lemos and Rebecca Lopatin. David Lieberman is our contributing writer, production assistance by Sarah Phillipoom. Thanks as always to the incredible Philip Glass who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito LLC. I'm Harry Litman. See you next time.