 Jefferson is not necessarily doing sort of like the full drain to swamp, right? He only removes, I think, you know, I think a fourth of a lot of the federalist appointees and things like that. You know, one of the first big battles is over the federalist refusing to leave, right? It's over the judiciary. It's over last second midnight appointments and things like that. And you mentioned this is the degree to which the federalist cling to power. It even insults Jefferson. It's almost a counterproductive measure there, just how over the top they try to do to maintain their power. But one of the early problems, though, and I think this is just something that hits, you know, throughout your chapters here on Jefferson, is that it's not going far enough. The Republicans are able to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, which is kind of a saving grade. It gets rid of some of the most vulgar judicial appointments, but they do not get it rid of the 1789 Judicial Act. And so again, what you have effectively created is that while Hamiltonians have been removed from office in the legislature and in the White House, we now have the Thurne reign of government, which is the judicial system that is flexing its muscles. It is imposing itself on this new old Republican-ish regime. And here you have the Federalist power maintaining to have relevancy through the Supreme Court of John Marshall, who has the famous quote that compared to Hamilton, he has a mere candle beside the sun at noon day. He is very much driven by restoring the sort of Hamiltonian view of government. And here you have a Jeffersonian administration that seems for almost the get-go on top of their own direct appointees in the administration itself is weak to start off with. It does not make the necessary victories needed on the judicial front that ends up playing a major role in not only issues for Jefferson down the road, but really kind of cements a political system that we're still dealing with the ramifications now with the degree to which courts have so much more power than any other office out there in many, many ways. Yeah, absolutely. You made fantastic points. And this is something that really goes, I don't think it's a properly appreciated, but a lot of cronyism in United States history was basically protected or even caused by the judiciary. The judiciary is not a minor partner in cronyism, right? It in many ways reinforces, it strengthens cronyism of various laws and empowers the executive in Congress to do certain things, etc. And this is why so many anti-federalists, both when the Actors passed and even subsequently, they were against the Judiciary Act of 1789, which really created the Supreme Court and the system of inferior courts. A lot of people might not necessarily know this, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says, you know, that describes the Supreme Court really in any sort of detail per se. It just says Congress has the ability to create a court, much like there's nothing in the Constitution that says the President, you know, the President has, you can have these executive cabinets of X, Y, and Z, just as the President has the power to appoint the heads of executive cabinets that Congress creates. It's sort of vague and it's wrapped up, you know, it's wrapped up in there. It takes time to unwind, sort of like, I guess, an accordion might be a good way of describing this. So the federalists, after the election of 1800, they lose the executive, they lose the legislator, but they still have the judiciary. Adams had appointed John Marshall to be Chief Justice. Who is John Marshall? A lot of people don't really know this, but this is one of these interesting facts that I think is extremely important is that John Marshall's younger brother James Marshall had married the daughter of Robert Morris, one of the wealthiest men at the time, huge land speculator. John Marshall had worked with Robert Morris on various land deals, so on and so forth. And like a lot of biographies, they just sort of like casually mention this as if it's not important. When I read this, I'm like, wait a second, that's, this is huge. This is like spent a lot more time talking about this and less about, you know, other sorts of early, you know, random facts from his early life, etc. And so John Marshall starts to engage in what's known as judicial review, which is that the Supreme Court will start to review the constitutionality or the uncut constitutionality of various legislation. And he's doing this to basically protect prior federalist cronies. A lot of federalists were afraid that now that the Republicans control, they were going to repeal the Bank of the United States, they were going to maybe default or even repudiate part of the national debt, you know, downsize the military, repeal various laws like the judiciary act of 1801, so on and so forth. And that John Marshall now wants to use the Supreme Court as kind of like a sniping tower. So he could strike down, could stop all of these reform movements dead in its track by basically saying, oh, you can't do that. That's unconstitutional. And it's really, you mentioned this, I think it's important. It's a great way, it's a great example of how the swamp, so to speak, kind of like defense, it's sort of like a turtle, you know, the turtle goes in the shell and it's like this rock, you know, it's this impenetrable edifice, right? Because then the judiciary, they sort of act and they try to prevent the Republicans from weakening the government. But they extended their reach too much and they were, the Republicans were able to repeal the judiciary act of 1801. Unfortunately, they didn't go farther, as you mentioned, by repealing the judiciary act of 1789 or really, Jefferson, even really appointing hardcore strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. And that really just kind of sets the stage for later examples of moderation and failure. Because you're only getting rid of some of the government. So then the next time the government's going to increase further and cronyism will follow through and then, you know, now you're five steps back as opposed to two steps back. So the judiciary, not taking the judiciary head on, and this is something that happened during Jefferson's years, as well as later years, this is a really big problem that impacted the future of special interest legislation in the United States.