 Welcome to American Issues. Take one. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is the many roads lead to Trump's indictment. We've had a recent development that occurred yesterday and fairly significant in my opinion. And that was the conviction of the Oath Keepers founder, Stuart Rhodes, and one of his top leaders in Florida, Kelly Miggs. They were convicted on seditious conspiracy, which is not an easy charge to convict someone on. You almost have to get it into the state of mind of the defendant and prove that the state of mind was relevant enough that it led to a conspiracy of sedition. And they were convicted on that, and which leads to a, I believe a maximum 20 years if the judge so chooses on that term. So who also was convicted was Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Codwell for obstruction of an official proceeding, which also results in a maximum sentence of 20 years. So I would like to talk about this and specifically how it interacts with the many things that Ari Melber, who put together a special on the many things that led to Trump's trying to get back into office, which led to the January 6th Capitol attack, they weren't random. They were coordinated. They were interconnected. And so that's the topic of the show. And I'd like to introduce my guests. Today we have my co-host, Jay Fidel, our esteemed special guest, Jeffrey Portnoy, and our other esteemed special guest, Chuck Crumpton. Good morning. Morning, Jim. Jeff, Jay. Jay, with this recent conviction of the two, well, basically the founder of the Oath Keepers, does this encourage the DOJ to pursue an indictment on Trump along the same path? Or are they still going to be somewhat timid, or in your opinion? Well, timid, gee, that the word was invented for them. But I used it. Thank you. I think it really helps them because, you know, to have a conspiracy, you have to have a number of people. And to say that the only conspirators, you know, identify this trial where the ones in the trial is ridiculous because they all said they were taking instructions from Trump. So, you know, even a slow-witted observer would say, gee, whiz, Trump has got to be involved as a conspirator, too. I really don't know why we don't have an indictment for Trump yet. Well, I think there should be one. And I think there's enough evidence out there. And we'll talk later in the show about the analysis of Ari Melber, because Melber has clearly shown that all of this is connected and it all points to Trump and it all proves up his intention to bring down the government. So, yes, I think this is an important development. And even if we don't get it, then surely the Department of Justice should get it. They must already know that all the signs are pointing to Trump and this conviction is pointing to Trump. We already mentioned me because you're talking about slow-witted. So, I think I'll respond. I don't agree at all. I don't think there's a chance in heck that Trump gets indicted. I think all of this media speculation is nothing more than that. There's no direct evidence to date, even with the January 6th Committee, that Trump in any way specifically worked behind the scenes to have these people not go to the Capitol, but break into the Capitol. The results yesterday are fascinating. I don't think there's been a sedition trial since World War I. That's the first thing that I think is extraordinary. But on the other hand, the Justice Department didn't bat 1,000 yesterday. There were multiple acquittals of multiple defendants on multiple counts. Now, they did get the two primary oathkeepers people on the properly the most important charge, which is sedition. But it's a mixed bag. That jury did not completely follow the Justice Department. There are frankly more acquittals than there are convictions if you count up the number of acquittals. So, I guess I'm part of the dim-witted or a slow-witted or whatever it is. Slow-witted, Jeff. So, I am in the camp that says, I think the Justice Department would be doing Trump a favor if they indict him. Because I think that is gonna galvanize his 30% supporters. And if he ever gets acquitted, forget what people are gonna say in his group about the government. I think the Justice Department is not gonna indict him unless they are convinced, and I mean convinced, that they can sustain the burden of proof and get him convicted. And I think it's not happening. But, Jeff, I have a question for Jeff. I wanna ask Jeff. Go ahead, Jay. Okay. Cause I do too. Isn't it true? Isn't it true? Yes. I'm starting a question like that. Yes. Isn't it true that in these prosecution situations, the prosecutor always charges more, lesser included offenses, other offenses. It would be wrong not to. And so you expect some acquittals on a number of charges. That's, this is what happened here. The other thing you... Well, you don't expect, yeah, I hear you. And they do do that in the anticipation that the more serious charge, the defendant's gonna be acquitted. So you go to the lesser included charges and you hope that the jury convicts on those. It was actually the opposite. Yeah, no, but you never know what the jury is gonna do. You know you've been in front of a hundred thousand juries. You never know what the jury's gonna do. But I'm dim-witted. I'm dim-witted and therefore I cannot follow what jurors do in anticipating. Okay, the other thing about this, Jim, is that this is reminiscent of what happened with the Department of Justice in the Rachel Maddow Ultra podcast series. In the Midwest, there was a trial where they charged 17 defendants with trying to overthrow the government, trying to assassinate members of the Congress and otherwise bring the government down. And the Department of Justice was roundly lost on that case. This is back in 1940 or so. And it does remind you that the Department of Justice is not really bulletproof. They can find a jury in an area which is sympathetic to the defendants and wind up taking the wrong verdict. And in a sense, my reaction to what happened about the lesser included offenses here is that maybe the jury was wrong. Maybe this jury was somewhat sympathetic to these guys. Hey, I just wanna point out, Tim, on a companion kind of issue, the Minnesota case in which they tried those five guys for attempting to kidnap the governor. There's a fascinating article in the New Yorker which no one would claim is a conservative reg, which essentially concludes that if it wasn't trumped up, and I don't mean Donald Trump, these charges, there was conspiracy by the FBI and others to get these guys convicted. And they went into the evidence and the communications that went on. These were five guys that couldn't find their way out of a paper bag that were charged with trying to kidnap and kill the governor. So there's been a lot of overreaching. It doesn't mean you have to be smart to do something stupid. Oh, I know Jay's gonna respond to that. Wait a minute, I'm not done yet. Now I got you on the horn here, Jeff. Number one, I wanna clarify something you said. So what about the documents at Mar-a-Lago, the confidential documents, the classified documents? Are you saying there's no possibility of indictment there? No, no, no, no, I actually have a different view. Oh, okay. I think there is a real possibility of an indictment there. I was talking about indicting him for the insurrection quote unquote on January 6th. Right, well, okay, so there's a vast difference between convicting someone on a seditious conspiracy charge, which again, I think gets into the mindset of the defendant versus the obstruction of an official proceeding. I think that's a little more black and white than trying to get a conviction to. What about that charge? Well, you know, I'll be honest, I don't really know what the definition is of obstruction of an official proceeding. So I really can't respond to that. Oh, was everything Donald Trump did? Well, he didn't show up and stop them from taking a vote. I mean, look, I am not suggesting that he didn't encourage these crazy who didn't really need much encouragement anyway to do what they did. But it's a lot more to convict someone of actually instructing people and managing the attack on the Capitol. And I just don't think I've seen enough, but I think there are other things he's certainly done that are far more problematic for him and taking secret documents from the White House seems to me pretty open and shut. Yeah, I agree. All right, let's go to Chuck here. Chuck, to you on the same topic, I mean, seditious conspiracies are very difficult to breach and to cross. Do you think they go for a lesser charge as far as an indictment as it pertains to January 6th against Donald Trump? Well, I think Jeff and Jay both have had core elements of the truth here. And that is, this is still an ongoing investigation for the DOJ. The January 6th committee gave them a lot of stuff, which was mostly from Trump administration people. And that's helpful. In addition to that, now you have five people convicted who no longer have immunity. So whatever they may know about communications, if not with Trump, then with meadows and people who were in direct communication with Trump about the January 6th insurrection, we don't know what they may get on that. Well, yeah, they could follow the breadcrumb trails to Roger Stone, perhaps, or one of the people that were just under Donald Trump. It's never a direct line. It always takes time to get the middle parties. And I won't say that Rhodes was in the middle. He was slightly below the middle range there, but it's a matter of time just working the way up the ladder. Is it not? It is, but I think that's where Jeff's point comes into play is the more time and effort they spend on that, the more delay there is, the less likely it is that as Trump's 2024 campaign ramps up, that they'll proceed with indictment on that set of events, particularly when they've got the stronger one, any good lawyer knows who'd go with your strongest claim. I'm not sure. But don't forget, we're talking about this, we're talking about this as if it's a clear cut criminal matter. It's not, it's a political matter. That's the overriding concern here at the Justice Department. There might be enough evidence to indict on the criminal side, but you have to look at the political side. And that is what's driving, I'm sure, any decision by the Justice Department as to what to do with Trump or any of his cronies. Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me go with that. Let me go with that. This was a coup, this was a coup. What coup? What coup? Let me explain. It's a French word. I know what it is. Thank you very much. I took five years of Spanish. That explains everything. I'm very good at coup d'etat, coup d'etat. What I'm saying is this is the worst thing that could ever happen to the country, that we have a coup. I'm sure taking documents out of the White House, it happens, there are violations of classified information every day in the military, every day, but not- We didn't have a coup. We don't have coups every day. This is the most invasive, most destructive, most incredibly destructive thing that has happened in the history of the country. We can't afford to leave any stone unturned. We must make every effort to prosecute and show you can say, let's get him on a parking ticket. But the fact is he was trying to bring the country down, bring it down. So I would put all my marbles on that one. I would really work that one. We've got to stop the guy. If we don't stop him, he's going to get elected again, arguably, and if he gets elected again, whoa is us. It's going to be awful. I could give you details. So this is really critical. This is an inflection point. And we can't let it go. And I don't understand why the Department of Justice can't get its act together. They got roughly 100,000 people working for the Department of Justice, and they can't seem to get their act together. They got this committee working for what? How many months? Nine months already? They got all this evidence coming in, all these 1,000 interviews and depositions, what have you, and we feel okay. I mean, Jeff knows about circumstantial evidence and Jeff knows about, you know, juries. And Jeff knows that in many, many cases, evidence or not, it's a matter of lawyering, lawyering. And I'm sure that if they really had the right people, they could take the evidence they have right now and they could indict, prosecute, convict, and punish Trump. And it's critical. Hey, Jeff, real quick. I understand you, your feelings about it is not a coup. What about your feelings about an attempted coup? I don't think it's any of that. I mean, what, so let's play it out. And I'm not justifying it, it's a horrible thing. People got killed and maimed. It was, what, play it out. Let's assume is exactly what happened. They delayed the vote. If it hadn't happened that night, it would have happened the next day. What kind of coup? There's no coup. When you assassinate the president, that's probably pretty close to a coup. This wasn't a coup. This was nothing more than a bunch of idiots thinking that somehow they could delay the vote to ratify Biden's election. And if they had managed to take over the Capitol for 24 hours until they were all killed by troops, the vote would have taken place two days later. So there's no coup. Let's not overstate it. It was a horrible attack on a government building where people got killed and injured, including police officers, and it delayed the vote. But these are idiots. These aren't people smart enough to figure out a coup. Yeah. Those idiots had a roadmap by Trump's attorneys saying that if you could delay it, you could get the state legislatures to basically step in and negate the electoral college electors. Yeah, I know that that's what they were told. And that's what I mean, they're idiots. But that coup would not have been Trump's coup. You're blaming it on- Why is it right now a pending bill that they're hoping to enact between now and January to clarify and get down correctly how the electoral selection process actually works out? No, I agree that there is some confusion. There really isn't, but they want to clarify it so there's no question. But that coup, if it had happened, would have happened in various state legislatures. So who's responsible for that, Jay? You want to indict the legislature of Texas in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? I want to know what Chuck has to say about this. Lee, I want to hear it too. I want to hear it from Chuck too. Yeah, good point, Jay. Go ahead, Chuck, you've got the microphone. Okay, well, stepping back, the first thing we got to realize, we are a long way from a truly democratic republic or one in which the rule of law functions effectively. So any expectation that overwhelming evidence of Trump's encouragement and even involvement through his aides and associates in inciting the January 6th insurrection has to be played out against that backdrop. If the system is broken, and I think that's what Jeff's talking about and Jay's talking about fixing, that's where the attention needs to be devoted, not just correcting the electoral count provisions, but empowering the Department of Justice and the judiciary to proceed to enforce what the evidence appears to clearly demonstrate. Well, let me go to that, Chuck. I mean, the evidence clearly demonstrates there was at least minimally an attempt to delay official proceedings, which carries a 20-year sentence. Why so timid? Que pasas, Jay likes to say. I mean, I know they have Jack Smith and he's kind of the new DOJ Pitbull, and so far he's kind of living up to his name, but here's the deal. Why so timid? You're talking, you guys are ignoring the political ramifications of this whole scene. The rule of law is the rule of law. Yes, there's politics involved, and I suspect that's why Merrick Garland appointed special counsel, Jack Smith, but in the end, you have the law. By God, you're an attorney. So let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, because you worry about a political result, doesn't mean you don't try to enforce the law. I take Tim's point on that. You guys, let's assume he gets indicted and then he gets acquitted. Do you think the country is divided now? I mean- Jeff, Jeff, the DOJ, they don't go up to bat unless they know they're going to hit this out of the park. They didn't hit it out of the park yesterday. And they didn't hit it out of the park in 1940 either. They sometimes- Well, I think that's why it's taking so long, but I, I want to hear from you guys. Remember Jeffrey Berman, okay? He was the US attorney for the Eastern District. And he resigned. He resigned under pressure by Trump. And, and he, when he wrote it, he wrote a book, you guys. And the book said, I'm not the only one who is, Trump was trying to manipulate in the Department of Justice. There are others who he tried to manipulate in the same way. With me, he failed. With others, he did not fail. And they are still in the Department of Justice. Yeah. Hey, Chuck, do you agree with Jeff that this is more political than the, the merits of the rule of law? And politics will win the day or, or will the rule of law win the day? What do you think? I think if we try to look back to see when the last time the rule of law really won the day, find me a time after Brown versus Board of Education. And even the implementation of that, the rule of law did not win the day. It took many decades to implement that even- What about Stuart, what about Stuart Rhodes and Kelly Migs? Did the rule of law win the day on the conviction of conspiracy of sedition? But that's the point, Tim. Hey, you can win a few battles individually, but if you're not making systemic change, the politics is gonna wind up in the end winning out because that's the forum in which it makes its own rules. It provides its own funding. Hey, it dictates its own outcome for political reasons independent of the rule of law. Look at gerrymandering. If we had the rule of law, there would be no room for gerrymandering. It's a purely political. If you wanna see where politics wins flat out against the rule of law, there you are. I mean, let's get Trump on the other things like in New York. Let him get indicted for tax fraud and those other things that he's probably gonna get indicted on. Which, yes, one could argue was political, but are certainly more easy to convict than convicting him of attempting to overthrow the election. I mean, look, I am not a Trump apologist as you guys know. I think he's an evil human being, but I think we get distracted by having conversations about how to try to destroy him because it's not easy. They haven't found the kryptonite. I know this sounds strange, Jeff, but I agree with you. They haven't found the kryptonite yet. It's hard to do that, but I do. And the reason is that all these things considered and all the manipulations and machinations of Trump and all the things that he can call for out of his base and the possibility of violence over this, which you alluded to, they're all standing in the way of the Department of Justice, of the administration, of the judges, the courts, the jurors, the prosecutors. He has done tremendous damage to our system to the extent we have had a rule of law, to the extent that the rule of law would call for his indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment. It's been attacked and it's been undermined and he's done it. And so the likelihood, if you wanna make a pizza bet with me, I would not bet against Trump. I think he will escape all this, Teflon Don and I think he will campaign effectively with his base and I think he's already working. The members of the GOP who have attacked him, he's gonna try to change their minds and he will, I think. And at the end of the day, he stands a good chance of being our next president, awful. Pronounce silence. All right. Jay, let me go back to you on this. You saw Ari Melbourne's special report and all the pathways to reinstall Trump as the second term president. I think Ari Melbourne did a great job to show that those paths were not random but they were interconnected. Will the DOJ see it in that way? Will they also pick up on the House Select Committee report which is gonna be published here probably within weeks. Does that help them connect the dots and help them out as far as any kind of charges or indictments against Donald Trump? Well, it should. I watched that and I was entranced by it because Melbur is a lawyer. Melbur is a very clear thinking fellow. Melbur had a kind of Microsoft chart, a Gantt chart showing you all these things that have happened and the machinations that Trump has tried. Some of them, he said, and I agree, clearly legal, legal. And as we get closer to the current time, others clearly illegal. And the problem is can you take them together and establish the necessary intent? And the answer according to him is yes, you can because even if you can't find the necessary attempt in the last most recent machinations, if you look at them and you look at the ramp up of all the other machinations, it shows where Trump was going, what he was trying to do. And it's clear evidence of his increasing attempts to bring the government down, that's a coup. And so I think Melbur is brilliant. And if you haven't seen it, you can find it on YouTube. It's all there, it's about an hour long. It was his show last week. Well, I think he was talking to the Department of Justice. He was giving them a roadmap on how to analyze this. I thought he was talking to Jamie Raskin. Those guys are stuck in millions of pieces of evidence and maybe they lose their way. This is a roadmap that they could use in their report which is coming hopefully soon and before the end of the year. He was talking to both of those people and if they adopt his approach, which is it's beyond circumstantial evidence. It's here, take a look at all these dots, connect all these dots in which you get as a very clear statement of intention. If they connect those dots the way he suggests, I think they can find enough to make a path toward indictment. Jeff says it's political. I didn't see it, I didn't see it, but if it had been on Fox, it might have had more of an impact. Well, I agree there, Jeff. I mean, look guys, we may not want to face it. This guy was this close to being president for a second term, 20,000 votes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That's because of the electoral college, which is a whole other issue. You want to talk about making changes rather than indicting Trump. But having said that, look, he's going to run in the primaries, he's probably going to win the primaries and we're going to have a Trump versus somebody in 2024. And it's up to the voters. You guys keep talking about a democracy, Jay, you're a big democracy guy, it's a vote. And if they keep manipulating in state legislatures by gerrymandering or changing the voting laws, we might have Trump, but that's because more people in states that have more electoral college votes are going to vote for Trump. That's the scary thing. We get distracted by whether we should be indicted. We should be concerned about the fact that he could win this election pretty easily if things continue to go the way they are with one, the electoral college, which isn't changing, and two, voting laws and gerrymandering. And if you think gerrymandering's been bad, the Republicans control more state legislatures now than they did before November. Well, Jeff, I mean, come on, if Trump gets indicted and even convicted on a lesser charge. Well, if he gets indicted. He's not eligible for president in the United States. Yeah, that's a big F. Well, I'll go tomorrow on the document case and that's not a big F. Nobody knows what that section means. He's never, ever going to agree that it applies to him. All right, so I'll tell you what. You threw out the gauntlet about a pizza bet. We'll see which of the three of you, other than Jay, want to take the pizza bet. I will bet there's no way he ever gets indicted for anything on January 6th. Pizza bet? I'm not voting against that. I mean, I'm not. Yeah, I'll think about it, Jeff. Yeah, yeah. Let me get back to you. We'll get back to you. But I'm doing this show anyway, you know? Come on, Chuck, I gotta break to you on this one. You know, I saw recently a documentary on Phil Spector in the murder trial cases against the murder of Lana Clarkson. And Spector was quoted to say, hey, once you're indicted in this country, there is a presumption of guilt. And basically he was implying that I can't get a fair trial in this murder case because I've been indicted. Is there any truth to that statement that in this country, if you're indicted, there's a presumption of guilt? And is that one of the reasons why Donald Trump has thrown his hat in the ring for the 2024 presidential election early? Well, first of all, the more you politicize a particular case, the less you can defer to that presumption. Hey, if you've got a case of drug trafficking or murder, that presumption may be true in most cases. But in highly politicized cases, as we've seen, that's not the case and the results are hard to predict. So I think Jeff's right on the mark that go ahead and hit him on tax fraud and evasion. Those are cases that the government wins all the time or almost all the time. Hey, go from that to the Mar-a-Lago documents. There's not much precedent there, but the law appears to be clear enough that there should be sufficient grounds for conviction, at least at some level of criminal offense. Hey, Tim, if you're gonna quote somebody on this, you might as well quote Hannibal Lecter. You're quoting Phil Specter, another crazed individual. I didn't say it was a good quote. I just said it was a quote. That's not exactly somebody, you might as well have quoted Al Capone then on that principle. Well, so what you get indicted, there's still a presumption of innocence. I talked to him. Remember, he has his ways, he's Teflon of dealing with a trial. So even if he gets indicted on his stuff, there's gotta be a trial. And one of his great ambits is to delay it, to run the clock on everything. So query, will there be time the way we're going? It doesn't look like it. Well, Jack Smith made a pretty clear statement that delay is not the strategy he's gonna play with. Okay, sure, that's nice. But the reality is that Trump is an expert, more than he is, on how to deal with delay, how to make delay happen. Up to the Supreme Court every time we get a chance on all this and all the discovery gambits he has. So one is, can we get a conviction? Final of appeal, right? Final of appeal, between now and the time this 24 election is decided, I doubt it. And wait till January, wait till January when the Republicans start their investigations in the house of Mary and Garland and everyone else, there's no chance of an attack. Exactly, exactly. It's not gonna happen. It's gonna disrupt the whole system. Chuck, do you agree with Jeff and potentially Jay about no indictment against Trump regarding January 6th? Well, no indictment, no conviction, final of appeal. No, I was just talking about indictment. How do you use section three of the 14th Amendment or section two of the 14th Amendment? I'm not talking about 14th in the third paragraph. I'm talking about an indictment against Donald Trump as it relates to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. You think that would stop his election? A lot of people in this country would say, so what? It's just a big witch hunt. Chuck, to you. Yeah, two things. One, it's so highly politicized. Why would it change the voting electorate's perception that this is a political fight, not a rule of law fight? And second, and this is a factor we haven't talked about, but it's worth thinking about, Trump has shown really, really poor choice of litigation lawyers. He's used the process for delays exactly as Jay said, but ultimately, his results are negative in almost every case, the 60-something cases he brought to try and throw out the election, the delay attempts that he's made, the attempt to use the special master process. All of those are failing, and Giuliani, Powell, and the others are not coming out as successful or respected lawyers. Does he have anybody that will stick up for him that is that good? I haven't seen it. I know we've had a sedate conversation about this topic, but let's get energized and tell us how you really feel. Jay, we'll start with you. I'm afraid the markers are already on the table. We're not gonna have a timely indictment, Jack Smith or not. We're not gonna have a timely prosecution, conviction, final of appeal. So all of this, and I agree with Jeff on this, all of this is really secondary. What really is primary is whether his base, the people who support him, are affected in any way, whether their votes are affected in any way by all of this talk about indictment. I'm pessimistic. Okay. Jeff, let's go to you on your final thoughts. I want sausage and extra cheese on my pizza. Okay. God, that's a great answer, Ben. Any other sage advice for us before we depart? I am no apologist for Trump. I think he's created a horrible division in this country. Unfortunately, there's a third of the country that would follow him into the Hudson River if he decided to go there. And, you know, Jonestown, they would drink all the Kool-Aid they could possibly get. I don't think he's going to get indicted for January 6th. I think there's hopefully a reasonable chance he gets indicted both in New York for tax crimes and maybe even in Washington for taking secret documents. And I think that politically- Don't forget Georgia. Don't forget Georgia. Yeah, I'm not sure what's going to happen in Georgia, but that phone call is certainly distressing, but I'm not sure it's criminal. Find me another 10,000 votes. I don't think you get a conviction out of that, but having said all of that, unfortunately, it's going to be up to the voters and up to the Democrats to see if they can put up a credible candidate in 2024 and whether that's Biden, if he lives that long, hopefully he does, but that doesn't mean he should be running at 82 years old. We'll see what happens because we know that a third of the country will vote for Trump regardless, even if he's indicted. All right. Thank you very much, Jeffrey. Chuck, you get the last word today. Look, what worked for the Democrats in 2020 and in 2022 to the extent it did was to come out with things that attracted those swing voters, not swing states, but swing voters, the young voters, the independents. And the Trump picture is part of that, but it's not the key part. Abortion and other things, labor laws and other things were much more influential with those voters. So that's where the difference is going to come out, not in indictments of Trump or politicized criminal prosecutions between now and 2024. See what happens. And I add one other point too. There was a piece of news this morning and we knew this before that the GOP in Congress has got an initiative going to terminate or modify social security. This is a wild card because a lot of people, a lot of people, including the base would be grossly affected by that. And so we don't know what the changes will be. We don't know what, we only know there'll be changes, remarkable things happen. And of course, DeSantis is an element in this. So who knows, as Jeff says, who knows? That's why there's no way I'm gonna ban my double cheese or otherwise. Okay, well, thank you, Jay. And I'd like to just add that to my esteemed co-host and esteemed special guest, I prefer vegetarian pizza, please. So we'll see how that pays out. Hey, Tim, how come in the left box? Oh, there it is again. We have your house in the picture. Well, that's because, you know, I'm humble and I don't like to show off too much. It's a very nice house, very nice house you have. I'm not sure what neighborhood that is. Yeah, it's called Washington, DC, if you're talking about the Capitol. Yeah, I'm talking about the house in the upper left. Oh, I don't see it. Oh, it doesn't show on us, okay. No, I just have no idea. Once again, Jeff, I have no clue to what you're speaking about. Yeah, boy, I've been attacked. I'm not coming on anymore. Forget about special guests. Oh, come on, don't be like that. I'm done, I'm done. I can't take it anymore. Sure you can. We got a lot more planned for you in the future. I'd like to thank all my special guests, Jeffrey Portnoy, Chuck Crumpton, and I'd like to thank my special co-host, Jay Fidel, for once again, a boring sedate conversation as it pertains to Donald Trump. I'd like to thank everyone for joining us for American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apichel, your host. Won't you please join us next week? Thank you and aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.