 My second question is, where in the Constitution does the President derive the authority to send federal law enforcement officers to the streets of American cities against the will of the elected officials in those cities? Yes. Well, what you're referring to is Portland and 40 U.S. Code 1315 gives DHS the ability to deputize officers in any department or agency, like ICE, Custom and Border Patrol and Secret Service, quote, as officers and agents. They can be deputized for the duty of in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the federal government and persons on that property. And when a federal courthouse is being lit on fire, commercial fireworks, being shot at it, being shot at the officers, I think that that falls pretty well within the limits of 40 U.S. Code 1315. On Portland, I'm sending agents to Portland as well as plans for Chicago. Why are these direct people to send? My understanding, these agents often work on human smuggling, drug trafficking, things like that. Do they have the right skillset, whether it's gun violence in Chicago or squelling unrest in Portland? Well, first, let me add, they haven't been sent to Chicago. These DHS officials are currently in Portland, protecting a courthouse. We do believe they're the right individuals for that, as does 40 U.S. C. 1315, the United States Code. It's egregious what's happening. The frequency jammers, the pellet and air rifles in Portland, it's being depicted as this peaceful scene. I can assure you, it's anything but that, where you've had barricades trying to keep officers in the heart field, hat field, excuse me, courthouse, injury to a Border Patrol team member's leg, injuries to the head, shoulder and back of a deputy U.S. Marshall impaled his right hand on a board filled with nails set out by the protesters. This is not a peaceful scene. I'm very thankful to our U.S. Marshals and ATF and others who are acting in accordance with a statute and protecting a federal building and doing so at great cost to themselves. A protestor into custody. So I've been told by DHS that there is insignia indicating that they're law enforcement. They, in the case you're referencing, did identify themselves to the individual being obtained, but that they don't identify themselves to crowds because it would put them at great risk. And I think you can see that as I noted when they're sticking their hands into boards left out by some of the rioters. Yes? Yeah, the President says he wants to send these forces to other cities like Chicago, cities where the federal property isn't necessarily under attack. What are they going to do when they get to Chicago and these other cities with higher crime rates, higher shooting rates, higher murder rates? If the President's worried about that, what are they going to do? What are they going to arrest people? I think you're getting ahead of the President here. He's made no announcement as to who's going where. He's very discouraged by the violence that he's seen in Chicago. It's why he sent a very strong letter to Mayor Lightfoot offering help because she's clearly unable to control her streets and the governor as well unable to control that area. And you see the fact that there were 49 officers who were injured in this egregious video of them being lambasted with rioters with umbrellas shielding from view that they were throwing projectiles and 49 officers injured. Not only that, the poor citizenry of Chicago where 12 were murdered this weekend, 70 shot alone. It's incredible what we're seeing in Chicago. He's offered his help and we encourage the mayor to take it and to be forthright about the situation in her state much like the governor of Missouri was and working with us on Operation Legend to protect the people of Missouri. But the leaders of these cities don't necessarily want unmarked police officers patrolling their streets the way we've seen in Portland with the premise that they're protecting federal property there. The leaders in these cities don't want this sort of paramilitary police force. They're offered the assistance of DOJ as was done where you've had FBI surge in the case of Operation Legend. So when you have each weekend more than a dozen people getting shot in your city, perhaps it's time, more than a dozen killed I should say and children, perhaps it's time to say I need the help of the federal government because what I'm doing is simply not working when more people are dying on the streets of Chicago than Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a tragedy. What if they don't say that? Yes. Well, he thinks the mayor and the governor should work together to take control of the streets of New York City where in some places we've seen 600% surge in violence over last year. So we think they should work together. It's ultimately the power of the mayor to enforce and the governor to enforce the police power of their states. That power rests with them, but they can partner with the federal government in the event they're unable to control the violence in their cities. And that's certainly what we've seen from Mayor de Blasio who seems to have not a hard time criticizing police officers, but an awfully hard time controlling the streets of New York City. Yes. Can we have a couple of questions? The first one is the President in last year has tweeted about the concerns about mail in voting. So he's obviously concerned about the integrity of the U.S. election and certainly internal sabotage. But why are we not hearing from the President about the fears about external sabotage? For example, coming out of the U.K. today, there is a parliamentary committee report that says that Russia influenced the Scottish referendum. There are questions about Brexit. But we've really not heard the President put the Kremlin on notice with respect to the U.S. election. Will we hear from him today on that? The President has put the world on notice that our election systems must be secure. This is under this President in 2018. He articulated the first full cyber strategy for the United States since 2003. In 2019, he extended the National Emergency Declaration on Foreign Election Interference. He routinely engages with Congress on election security, participating at least 26 elections security-specific hearings. He signed legislation, $71 million, and so on and so forth. And that's quite a contrast to the Obama-Biden administration, who, in told of meddling in 2016, did nothing, and in fact, Susan Rice told the White House cyber team to stand down and, quote, knock it off when they floated, when they floated options to combat Russian cyber attacks, and even Obama's cyber chief, Michael Daniel, has confirmed the stand-down order. I can't spend an office now more than three years. I'm asking what's been done now, and given these fresh concerns, what are we going to hear from the President on that? So what's been done now? I just listed off three or four things for you, and I'm happy to go through more. We can talk about the $71 million in legislation on election security. We can talk about the $15 million for election reform activities. We can talk about legislation making more than $805 million available to states. And when it comes to mail and voting, I would point you to the fact that there's a Wall Street Journal article just out today, and it talks about the dark omen for November and the absolute catastrophe in New York City, that we are a month into the election after the voting. And we still don't know who the winners are of some of those races. And Governor Cuomo decided that he would pre-pay postage for the ballots, and what that meant was that the post office didn't put a postage stamp noting the date of the ballot. So as they're collecting these ballots for a month, as you asked me about this, so I'm going to answer. So for a month, they've been collecting ballots with no postmark date, and in fact what they found is 19 percent of ballots have been rejected in Queens, 28 percent rejected in Brooklyn. Questions about male, mass mail out voting. I know you don't want to hear them, which is why you talk over me. But I encourage you to read the op-ed. Yes. On the China vaccine research, congratulations. You've got two questions, which is more in front of your colleagues. Okay. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it. I can't go watching it.