 issues take one. I'm Tim Appachell, your host, and today's title is Hawaii Bill introduced to disqualify Trump. This week, the Supreme Court gave the ruling whether or not Colorado could remove Donald Trump from the general election using the 14th Amendment, Section 3, as a basis to put him in the election and that ruling was did not uphold Colorado's request and bill. Additionally, Hawaii, through Senator Carl Rhodes, introduced Senate Bill 2392 to prevent any persons from the definition of Amendment 14, Section 3, and that's primarily insurrection. As I looked at Senate Bill 2392, I noticed the introduction was very interesting. In fact, it was heartwarming. And it said, people have the right to expect public servants to be people of integrity. Ladies and gentlemen, when is the last time we've heard that? And with that, I'd like to go to my guests. With me today is my ever-famous and faithful co-host Jay Fidel and our special esteemed guest, Senator Carl Rhodes and our other special esteemed guests, Governor John Wahey. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for attending. Good morning. Good morning, Tim. I promise we'll have a fast-paced and interesting discussion and any things on the table, so don't hold back. Hey, Jake, straight to you. The Supreme Court decided to opine and offer a ruling on whether or not Donald Trump should be on the ballot. Let's talk about what they didn't touch. The Supreme Court didn't touch any mention of Trump's involvement with an insurrection. They didn't touch whether or not he qualified as an officer and was that a provision to prevent him from being prohibited from the ballot? They didn't touch whether or not his oath of office was broken or not, and they certainly didn't touch whether or not Donald Trump had received proper due process. So let's talk about what they did touch. That's the question for you. They just went back to Section 5 and said, well, Congress must act, even though it's optional in Section 5. And I think what's said about that is that it affects the whole 14th Amendment, which by its terms is generally self-executing and so Section 3 was self-executing. But now, as one fellow suggested to me, we can save ink and we can save trees because in the future, when we reprint the amendments to the Constitution, we don't have to include this one. It's gone. Well, let me ask you this. I mean, that was the overreach from the Supreme Court. It was to mention that it's both Houses of Congress will have to remedy Amendment 14, Section 3, but wasn't the primary rationale was that no one state can interfere with the general election as far as the construction of candidates on their ballots? Yeah, I think we're concerned and a lot of academics are concerned that if every state has a right to make that determination for a federal office, president, no less, then you could have a patchwork of decisions and chaos. But the problem is the way they left it, Section 3 is gone and it's kind of permanent until some other court reverses it. I think this affects the 14th Amendment generally and maybe other parts of the Constitution. And certainly, it's a really interesting question as to would they have made this decision if they were not conservative? Would they have made this decision if Trump were not running? Would they have made this decision were they not threats of violence if they ruled against Trump? This is a special situation and I judge these things by the man in the street. If you caught somebody at the intersection of Bishop and King and you handed him the language in Section 3 and you said, does this apply? He would say, of course it applies. There was an insurrection. We all saw it with our own eyes and Trump was involved, engaged and giving comfort. You know, that has been also revealed to our own eyes. And if he is not an officer of the United States, what is he? You know, all of this, it seems very clear to the man on the street. So what you get here is something that flies in the face of the ordinary reading of the English language. And the court could not find a way to affirm the Colorado decision, really, with just a sidestep. And it does tremendous damage, not only the Constitution, but to public confidence in the court. Governor Wahey, do you agree with Jay Fidel that you think they overstepped their boundaries? You know, I found that really interesting and I think they were being political. So to that extent, I agree with Jay. In the sense that it's all law that the state can't affect the federal elections. I mean, that's the reason why in Hawaii, for example, and by the way, it was first tested. One of the first states that principle was tested was Hawaii. The way that it affected Hawaii was that we have a resigned to run provision in the Hawaii state constitution. And the one office that the offices that is that's not applied on to other federal offices because there was a ruling very early on that we couldn't do it. I'm not so sure that I would go as far. I think that the Supreme Court, being very political, I think, but I don't know if I'll go as far as Jay. Because what they, I think what they really what they said was, by the way, I don't agree with that. Because what they said was that the only person, the only institution that could define an insurrectionist would be Congress. And what that meant essentially was, in my opinion, that the courts couldn't do it. That you wouldn't, you couldn't take somebody to court to prove that they were an insurrectionist. You have to take the case to Congress. So what they did was they politicized the 14th Amendment. And that is where I think that is an extremely dangerous person. You know, it was a nine to zero decision based on the that states shall not fragment, you know, the federal election process. And then, as far as comedy, excuse me, the Congress providing a remedy, that was more of a five to four split. Were you surprised on the nine to zero? I wasn't. I wasn't surprised because as I said, that's pretty well established law. Okay. I was a little. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, to you, Senator Rhodes, I noticed that the bill that you introduced did not mention Trump's name at all. Number one, and number two is, does, is your bills impacted by the Supreme Court decision? Oh, yeah, it's impacted no question about it because we would have, it would have applied to both federal and state offices. But the Supreme Court decision was applies only to federal offices. So the bill is still relevant. And there are people out there who could conceivably get caught up in it even now. The guy, the guy I think his name was last name was Oaks OCHS. He ran against Adrian Tam and Waikiki. He's a proud boy. He was at the Capitol on January 6th. I believe he was sentenced. I don't remember whether he's still in prison now or not. But there's the possibility that, you know, if he came back and tried to run for office that. That's a, that's a much more cut and dried case because he was actually convicted of activities on that day. Whether it was, you know, insurrection specifically. I don't, you know, I don't know how that would play out. But that's one reason for having a process is so that you would have judges deciding how it would play out. But it's still a relevant bill. Were you surprised on the nine to zero decision? Yeah, a little bit. I mean, if you look at the section, article two, section one of the Constitution. It, it's just a, it says each, each state shall choose in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors. So the founding fathers were certainly not concerned about having like a hodgepodge of stuff. We don't even under the terms of the Constitution, the legislature, we don't even have to let people vote. In fact, the original, the original plan was that we wouldn't let them vote. That we would just pick electors and then those electors, presumably wise men because women weren't allowed to vote at the time. And, and white wise men and they would choose the president. So this whole idea of voting for president, we still don't vote for president. We vote for the electors. So the fact that each state would go its own way. I don't know that seems fairly clear to me that the original, the original intent was that that's exactly what the, the, the various legislatures of the states would do is go their own way. What's interesting on my handy little book of the Constitution. You know, if you look at section three, the last sentence says, but Congress may buy a vote of two thirds of each house removes such a disability. The word is may, yet if you go to section five, it says the following, the Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, and the word shall is there. So it looks like the Supreme Court basically inserted the language or the verbiage of of section five to supplant for section three. Your thoughts. Well, I think that typically the way you interpret things like that is the more specific language wins. So the one that's specific to section three, I believe should apply for section three. And if you think about what what they're saying is, okay, so Congress has to put in some law to enforce this disqualification. But then to, to, to take the disability off in a specific case, they have to pass another law to undo the law that they've already passed. And I just, I don't know, I don't think that's a common sense reading of that provision. I think it's pretty clear that the disqualification is, is, is automatic. And then you have to, and then you have to buy two thirds vote undo it if you're going to undo it. Was it really? I agree with Carl. I agree with Carl. The language in section five says shall have the power. That doesn't require it. Right. Either under that section or any other part of the 14th amendment to do. And most of the 14th amendment, if not all of it is self executing. And that's the history of, of that, of that amendment. So I don't think there's really a requirement in that language you read. It only offers Congress the power. On the other hand, you know, what they've done is created a real interesting logical, logical problem here because the relief to the disqualification, which I believe is self executing is that you go back to Congress, or you go to Congress for the first time and you say two thirds vote in each house and you can be excused from your disqualification. And that's the as Carl says, that's the specific provision specific to this section three that should apply. So if you add in a requirement of Congress act in the first place, and then you, you have to abide by the language in the last sentence of section three, you get a real logical, you know, Well, they turned everything backwards. Yes, they flipped it around. Right. They flipped it around. I mean, that's what it did. And that's how they politicized the system. So it flipped it around. Now you need two thirds vote to be excluded as opposed to be placed back on. Well, not only that, but didn't. So you need a majority vote to be excluded, their interpretation. And then you need a two thirds vote to be excused from the exclusion. So, you know, it's really a strange situation. And of course, you have the problem of the we were talking about this yesterday, Tim, the problem of the filibuster, which changes the way that vote work. Well, for for in the Senate, if the bills to get onto the floor, you just need you just need 40 senators to to introduce the concept of a filibuster. So you've created a super majority by by that Senate rule. And then you need I believe it's 60 senators to override the filibuster if I'm not mistaken. So they've added some complexity on how the Senate, at least, would be able to remedy this this issue by adding because we have a standing filibuster rule in place. I was just thinking, though, that, you know, the complexity at the congressional level will be playing itself out. But I think the court was with a sizing process. Nevertheless, I think the bill that the senator introduced here in the legislature still has some validity for Hawaii, you know, on several levels. And, you know, it would be interesting to see how we would apply it. But, you know, the world's getting more and more crazy. So we have, as you pointed out, we have our own patriot boy that was convicted. And if he tries to run again, this is a statute that you would do it. I mean, we don't need to follow it. We don't need the opposite of what they the nine, the nine to zip rule was is that the state can do what it wants with it. It's election short of violating, I guess, equal protection of the process. So we can, you know, we, and we have a very recent history of interpreting a very similar position very differently. There was a, I forgot the name of the case, but there was a gun case that came down from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Hawaii versus Christopher Wilson. Christopher Wilson. Yeah, that's right. And they in the Hawaii Supreme Court said, hey, you know, our, our, the language in our Constitution about guns is almost exactly the same as the Second Amendment. And there's some punctuation and capitalization differences that don't really have any effect on the meaning. And the, our, our Supreme Court interpreted it quite differently and actually took into account the fact that the word militia is in there and said it, you know, the guns have to be connected to militia. So it wouldn't, it would, it would not be a surprise if we interpreted the whole thing quite differently. I would love to see that for one. I would love to see the same kind of analysis where the state Supreme Court effectively rejected the United States Supreme Court decision and was it ruined. And that would be a wonderful thing and we'd be very stiff neck would be reversed. But we would be making a statement for the world that the fellow on Bishop and King, his reading of this language should apply. And I think that the way that we get back into the federal issue, though, is the fact that the senators bill really didn't, for example, didn't talk about the Kennedy, the senators bill of focuses on the behavior of the electors, which, you know, I think is very close call whether those whether electors ultimately, as you pointed out, Senator, creatures of the federal system, or of the of the state. So while you may not be able to exclude Trump from the ballot, for example, I wonder how the, I think the issue is still alive as to the behavior of the electors, if your bill passed. That's a very good question. And because we don't directly vote for the president, we vote for electors. Having said that, though, of course, it has the federal courts of rule that we can enforce the faithful selector rules. So we passed a bill by year or two ago that says, if you said you're going to vote for Donald Trump, you have to vote for Donald Trump if you were to win the state. I don't I just don't know how about that all. Or you'll be able to mend that section by saying, unless, unless they are, you know, insurrectionists, whatever. Exactly. So it's still, it's, there's still some interesting questions there for sure. Senator Rhodes, to what degree did your Senate bill have support? Has that crossed over to the house as yet? It did cross to the house a couple weeks ago. There were some no votes in the Senate. I've forgotten how many it wasn't, it wasn't particularly close vote. But in the Senate, of course, if there's any no votes, that's somewhat noteworthy. So there's some resistance to it. How was public testimony on your bill? My recollection, it was almost entirely opposed because the Republicans hate it. And they're, and they're very well organized. So they come in and flood you with with opposing testimony. Did they cite specific grounds why they're opposed to it? I mean, I really loved how you the the introduction of your bill. Again, I'll read it again. The people have the right to expect public servants to be people of integrity. I, I love that. I think that should be on every bill. So what specifically do they oppose your bill? The most common claim was you're taking away the right for me to vote for who I want to. And my response to that as well, there are several, there are several things. There are several qualifications to warrant for president. You have to be 35, you have to be natural born citizen, whatever that means. And you have to live in the United States for 14 years. And you have to not have until a couple of days ago, you had to have not been involved in an insurrection. So, you know, it's just, it's not, it wouldn't be me taking away your right to vote. If you don't meet the qualifications to run, you don't meet the qualifications to run. Are you disappointed that the Supreme Court didn't take up whether or not Donald Trump was as the finding of facts of Colorado that Donald Trump had participated in insurrection? Are you disappointed that they didn't take that particular issue up? I'm not disappointed is the right word. I, it's a real gnarly, a factual issue. And normally, you know, with a fact pattern that difficult, you would, it would have come up through a trial court, basically, and you'd have a record on appeal, and then you could decide from there. It is kind of an, kind of an unusual situation for the Supreme Court to just, I mean, they had a record from Colorado, but it's, it's not. They had a hearing, they had a hearing. They had a hearing, but an evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Wallace there in the court. Section three doesn't say anything about conviction, it just says you can't have participated. Yeah, but I think they did, in fact, take it up. They just did it by sleight of hand. And what they did was that you couldn't, what they decided was that you, that a court couldn't decide that issue. So it didn't matter what the record was. It didn't matter what happened or what's in the thing. And that I think, or at least they, they suggested. Now, I don't know if the court's going to hold that line or that strict a line, but in this, in their decision, they're basically, as I said, politicized. Because they remove the decision from a court, from any kind of hearing, from any kind of process, and just placed it with Congress. Let me ask you this, because Jay, you and I talked about this yesterday, and that was, what would prevent potentially 50 states from coming up with different findings of fact about the definition of insurrection? Would that be chaotic at least, Governor White? Well, you can, yeah, well, I, yeah, that'll be chaotic. And but it never, that potentiality never really, really happened. You see, there's some, there's a little flawed logic in the Supreme Court decision. I mean, first of all, the basic unanimous holding was, in my opinion, all precedent. And they could have just said that they could have just stopped there and say, well, you know what, you guys shouldn't have anything to do with federal elections. You want to do this for yourself, you do it. So, like, if you're going to run a primary election and use state money, maybe you might have something to say about, but, or whatever. But they reached, and they went beyond the fact that this is the federal election and the state ought not to be interfering in it. And then they suggested which among the federal players should have anything to do with it. And, and that to me was where you get where things start to get shaky, because they're not they're no longer really deciding the issue. They are in fact giving Trump a remedy, which is like, you know, if this is ever to happen to him, you got to make sure that Congress voted on it. Well, you had mentioned that they got into the politics of the issue. And let me just kind of remind everybody what John Robert said. This is a message to Americans that they should take home. Barrett said Barrett Jackson said, not it is this is not a type to ramp things up but to kind of cool things down. So they were concerned about the outcome of their decision. And they did dip their toes in the politics of it versus what I would think is the strict law of it. It was very subtle. I mean, they didn't do it straightforward. It was it was very clever. And they kind of turn it what would have been a tradition and another traditional interpretation on its head. Because as the Sotomayor pointed out in her descent, basically, they removed the court, they seem to have removed the courts from the process. But there's no way for me to challenge Donald Trump and his insurrectionist heritage, except to take it to Congress. The whole idea that somehow they're going to they want to tamp down the divisiveness in the country is just a joke. You just baldly overturned Roe v. Wade, but a year and a half ago, and the Supreme Court and the recent past has gotten directly involved in politics with Bush Gore. You know, absolutely crocodile tears. We have a hearing coming up on the immunity case. You know, the argument for the Supreme Court is set on, I think it's April 25th on the immunity case. And we're going to see what kind of questions they ask and take their temperature on that one. If they wanted to tamp down the to take care of that question, they should have taken it up when Jack Smith asked them to in December. So I mean, it's pretty clear. I mean, it's a very plausible explanation that they are going along with Trump's plan to stall everything by just dragging it out and dragging it out. So but they didn't drag this one out. So I don't know. I think they're they're hopeful. I think I agree with Governor Wahey that they're being very political. But I think the results is actually worse than that this this moment, you know, dealing with the Colorado case and Illinois and New Hampshire and what might have been Hawaii. I think I think you have to consider that this election coming up, which is now clearly going to be a re a rematch between Trump and Biden is probably going to be pretty close. And it's possible, as it was last time, that people will see the truth, see the light, and they will vote against Trump and the result will be a close election where Trump loses. And what do you think? Is he going to do exactly the same thing? Is he going to deny the results of that election? Is he going to try to manipulate the process? Is he going to try to do some insurrection? Well, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not available to stop him or to hold him accountable if he does that. I was going to say, I think the answer is yes, he is going to he's going to do exactly the same thing only he's had he's had a trial run to last time. I don't. The reason I mean he's very personally motivated. He's been indicted 91 times and he thinks his best chance of getting out of all those criminal indictments is to be in power. And he thinks he'll be able to stop those investigations. Well, he might be able to. I'm not sure. I don't know if that's a foregone conclusion, but that's that's why he's so interested in winning this race. He doesn't want to go to prison. Yeah, I agree with that. I think that this race with Trump is like a survival race. Which, you know, I don't know whether the sometimes courts tend to do something like this and especially political court and that is they keep giving a little bit and a little bit. They're doing everything they can. But at the end, I think the courts going to hold that he is going to be liable for criminal conduct. But they're going to make it pop. They might throw in at best some sentence, but not while he's in office. You know, something like that. And, and just give him every break they can to see whether he's going to win the election. If he did win the election, we're going to be having a discussion when the when this when there's going to be a decision about whether or not we should amend the Constitution and allow for a third term. Well, what about the question that was asked to his attorney whether or not a political assassination of his opponents would be justified and would he be in a position to be prosecuted. And according to the attorney, the answer was pretty much no. Yeah, at least not while he's in office. He's claiming absolute immunity. He says that no president can function without absolute immunity, even though every single president up to this point has function without absolute immunity. Well, you know, I think it's entirely possible with this court having revealed themselves in so many cases already. We'll find some immunity for how much don't know. But the way they frame the question is, does he have immunity and to what extent and so forth. It's going to be a grayscale on this one. But let me let me go back to your bill Carl. You know, gut reaction. As soon as you see the case, the Supreme Court's action a couple of days ago, you say, well, Carl Rhodes bill is done. It's no longer important. It's no longer, you know, going to happen. And as you said, the Republicans oppose this because they don't want your bill. They like insurrection. I don't know. They anywhere close to insurrection. They like they like that. But so but as a matter of fact, real politic, what are the chances now in view of this, this Supreme Court decision that your bill will pass? And if it doesn't, what does that mean for Hawaii? If it does, what does that mean for Hawaii? Well, I mean, as we discussed before, it's still clearly relevant because the court case, the US Supreme Court case that was just decided says it only applies to federal electors. So our election. So on the state level, it would be a good, it would be a good idea, whether we anticipate any insurrections in the near future or not. It's always good to have a process in place before before the event happens. Having said that, you know, I mean, I think it does make it a lower priority bill in the House. It's it's viewed as controversial. I kind of I've always kind of chuckled at that because all it's trying to do is follow the terms of the Constitution. And when following the terms of the Constitution become controversial, we have a problem. But, you know, I don't know real politic. I just don't know. The bill is not dead yet. But is it a priority compared to line of fires to, you know, a whole host of other issues that we're dealing with? I don't know. We'll see. But there is a there is a kind of hidden issue in there for Hawaii, though. And and and that is what is the definition of an insurrection? I mean, what do you do? How does the law apply to somebody, let's say like Bumpy Connelly, who is openly and declared that he has his own nation, for example, or any of the Hawaiian nationalists and so on with this? Would this mean it can be, you know, was there a kind of Hawaiian exception? No, there's no there's no Hawaiian exception in the bill as currently drafted. But yeah, I mean, it's a fair question. And I don't know. I mean, it all depends on what the definition of insurrection is. And I, I was of the opinion that I probably wouldn't be able to figure that out on my own. And that's why we punted it to the Hawaii Supreme Court. But I. But I do think this whole the whole it's actually more relevant than people think right at the moment I think because if Trump is reelected and that's not beyond the realm of possibility. I think that there is a it is possible that the United States will start flying apart. Yeah, me too. I think so. If that happens, then I would think that there was going to be a real strong movement in Hawaii in particular, which of course wasn't independent nation not that long ago to fly with it. And then, you know, does the does the insurrectionist clause apply to the United States? Or does it apply to Hawaii as a new nation? I don't know. I don't know. Probably again, probably. Or Texas. Texas is going to fly maybe faster than Hawaii. I mean, they want to. They got more scientists there probably than they have more guns too. Yeah. Oh, I don't know about that. We got more. We got more guns than people. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, that's that's not good to know. One of the Republican initiatives we haven't talked about is article five of the United States Constitution allows for just as the Hawaii Constitution allows for a constitutional convention. Okay, have a certain vote of a certain number of states and all that and then presto there's a convention to change the Constitution, the United States Constitution. Republicans want that. I think they have a lot of reasons to want that. But the fact is a lot of people in this country are really, they do not understand that they don't particularly, you know, accept various provisions of the Constitution, including Donald Trump. And you mentioned before Carl that he may want another term after, you know, he may want to be an FDR and have lots of lots of terms. And this is one way to get there. He's pretty old too. I think he's only three years younger than Biden. I'm not too worried about that, although he doesn't drink or smoke, which that does. Well, I'm saying is that you talk about the country flying apart, going fragmented. A, I think the country is already coming apart and the rule of law and on respect for the Constitution and the courts and so forth and Congress is locked up. We all have to admit that so that, you know, article five would be would step into the breach. Article five would be a real chaotic experience, as it would be for a constitutional convention in the state of Hawaii, which is coming in what two or three years, right? Well, if we if we if we want one. No, I've always actually, this is a I'm pretty liberal and but I actually part company with my liberal friends on article five convention. I mean, the way it's set up, you have to have, I forget it was three quarters or a whole bunch of states have to agree to do it. But I say, let's go in there. Change the second amendment to be some reasonable thing, fix up, get rid of the electoral college, which is just ridiculous at this point. All the stuff about slavery. Get rid of all that stuff. There's a whole bunch of stuff that needs fixing. And I don't, you know, I'm not I'm not as afraid of an article five convention is a lot of my liberal allies are my I used to fight with my father about this all the time. So what are we losing dad? I mean, it's like, we can control the outcome because you have to have a super majority to approve it, whatever the outcome is. And let's go in and fix some stuff. But yeah, that's probably that's probably ready. I've been talking on that same discussion with people on the local having another convention. Yeah, very true. Hey, we've written out of time so I'm gonna go around the table and ask for your last thoughts. I'm very sad because this reveals more about the Supreme Court. I think it telegraphs what they're going to do on the immunity case. And I think it undermines public confidence in them just as it did in the tops case. So what you have here is a sorry, a plain language statement in section three of article of the 14th amendment. And the average person can say, gee, what happened they they they shunted that to the side. This is that good law when when it says it in English, I believe in the language of English. And here we are, you know, arguing as as has been argued over the past few months, these arcane decision points. I agree, John Roy, hey, that it's a clever thing what the Supreme Court did. But it is not a thing that protects us from dictatorship. It is not a thing that protects us from an autocrat who would undermine the whole Constitution and civil rights. So they call that political, if you want, but I think it's it's real. And I would I would want to, you know, affirm the Colorado decision simply to keep a president out who has been directly and demonstrably involved, if not a planner of the insurrection. So what happened here is we bypass all of that, and we may suffer it again. Okay, thank you, Jay. Governor, Governor Wahey, your your final thoughts, please. Well, as we used to say when I was in the legislature, I don't I don't know if they still do it but I'd like to add those passionate remarks on to as my remarks on the record, you know, except I would change the word clever to diabolical. Other than that. Okay, that's where I am very much. Thank you so much. Senator Rhodes, you get the final word on this topic. Well, thanks. Thanks for having me on. I, you know, I, I don't think the population in general and in Hawaii either is is taking the whole insurrection thing seriously enough. Donald Trump has been indicted on criminal charges 91 times. Prosecutors don't take on former presidents if they don't think they've got the goods on you. If I were on a jury, I would have to look at the record before me and decide accordingly, but I'm not on a jury. I get to look at the whole record about everything that we know about this, this instance. And we can't. I don't know how long the democracy survives if we ignore the kinds of things that happen on January 6. Alrighty, thank you very much. I would like to thank my co-host Jay Fidel. I would like to thank our special esteemed guest, Governor why hey, and I would like to thank Senator Rhodes for your participation this afternoon and thank you for your very sage and wise comments. I like to, I like to thank Senator Rose for putting that bill in. Thank you. That was a mark of courage. He's got a few good bills dealing with elections that I hope people pay attention. Yes, indeed. All right, here, here. I like to conclude and echo Senator Rhodes. Again, I fell madly in love with the introduction to Senate bill 2392, and I'll repeat it again because it's worth repeating. And that is as we head towards the general presidential election in 2024, people have the right to expect their public servants to be people of integrity. So let's all remember that as we move forward. And until then, this is Tim Appichella with American Issues Take One. Won't you join us next week? Aloha.