Conversation 419-020

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Now, is there anybody else who would like to sit in?

All right.

What time do you have to go out tonight?

11.

Yes, sir.

Do you want to raise a question?

Because we should say that the question will be responded to as Mark has it.

I wouldn't get that out of the way.

I wouldn't hit the issue on all fours for this reason.

If we can preserve after the

Availability of throwing non-spawn versus spawn, I think it's better off down the line as a precedent to make sure that other members of the staff get the situation out and continue to be preparing to spawn at that point.

That's right.

the constitutional principle.

So if they go across the boundary, even in an derogatory, they're doing, in effect, indirectly what we're not going to do directly, despite the show, the appearance, and all that.

Right.

But that's a word that is subject to the present statement.

I don't want all of that.

I don't want to.

Excuse me.

That would not be good, right?

Do you agree or not?

Yes, we could.

You agree with the president?

Yes, I think their judgment is always good, but I just think they're going to see what it is.

I don't want to say, or I don't want to say, or I do, or why don't you do this, or maybe this on this, or that on the other.

That's why it's a judgment.

Well, there are plenty of people that...

You can't have a personal chronicle here that would take that typical line right up there in the world.

This part of the letter came up frequently in the TV.

There was a discussion about it in the field.

The point is, I guess, now what would be the next step?

Procedurally, I mean, all right, here we go.

See what these channels are like.

FPA, you brought the United States.

I don't think they will decide that we can only agree that the view of this grade will not be confirmed.

We will ask the Watergate how they do on it.

I'd have also really a better ability to go to subpoenas on things they could.

I think it would be a foolish move on their part.

They did what, in our home, asked to be divided in the courts.

Why did we move right to the court?

And that ties up the executive privilege issue probably for the better part of a year and a half, long after what I gave everybody.

Can't do a thing but the litigation themselves.

You could ideally have them go to court.

What do you think?

They could really build more courts if they do.

I don't know if they do.

I suppose what happens after the heart attack when you tie it up, you're probably going to go down there.

You're probably going to go down there.

You're probably going to disappear.

You're going to be separated.

But I know it's always going to cover up on the back, but that's what, as a matter of fact, is why you wonder whether or not I do it.

So, I just, you know, I don't know.

I don't know.

The only way to think of it is to open up too many vulnerabilities among us.

Well, that's been all of our professional efforts.

That's where we see that it has to be quite a challenge for the people involved.

If there's a hurricane, you're going to have a chance to overcome it.

Coastal probably has a related issue to our coast.

We've all been affected with this issue.

And I say involved.

I don't mean out of acceptance.

I'm not going to be able to go out and say that I don't think he was involved.

But we know that because of the patients they know that they're responsible.

They're responsible for what the people are doing.

Right?

That's right.

That is a lie.

Well, there's a big difference.

and the right group of knowledge or how to go straight to the top.

I mean, real life.

And I don't know.

It seems to me that they might have known it.

So just up to a point, they might have had an idea that we might have what we could about the other side.

But I do think that the

But whether they get into it specifically, I don't know.

Yeah, I know.

And the reason I raised that question up, I ask either one of them, but both of them, I don't want them to deny it.

You see, my point is, however, that if you let the thing hang out, it's going to appear to be sure as hell that they did not love us.

The exercise that we went through yesterday and the last night, even when you get to the, you know, some really cheap type of examination,

The federal source of information, going back down to the 12 years ago, has become so much a part of the mythology and the fact that by the time you open it up and go back in, you can never go back to that.

And at this day, every coup d'etat makes sense.

They have looked at a lot of relatives.

We have had so-called, what are they?

I think the more you hate it, the less you can get rid of it.

It can be kept for so long.

You do IDS and protect it.

At least seven times the benefits of packing.

You see, I think most people think, I don't know, they're so foolish to pay for it with so much money.

It's stupid and unnecessary.

I'm hoping that they're eventually going to have any real knowledge of what the power is.

Now, that's the sad part.

I was going to put up kind of a set of grounds that we risked the bomb on that weapon, but I don't think they were going to get it.

And they were going to get it.

There's the other client.

And then, of course, the money.

But what the hell?

And they were screwing along with their money.

Well, anyway, there's nothing more we can do.

I think we can only do now.

Thank you.

I don't know if they believe I have relevant information, but I agree.

And secondly, I have to be consistent with the right to statement.

You don't want the word written?

No, I just want to bring it up.

Are we going to have a list of questions?

I don't think so.

I'll respond to that, but I don't have to respond to each and every question.

I just want to add something to Ron's argument.

He asked the same thing.

You can take a set of written interrogatories and give a narrative response, and I think it's pretty much what I thought.

In your question series, the questions raise these things, which I think I would really, anybody who's written, we could never, in any way that you can answer a very general question, I wouldn't answer it.

So, I agree.

I think it's hard to say we wouldn't need this question.

Your interrogatory relates to certain questions that I shall answer as well.

We were not involved, and I question this.

I served as a counsel for this, and now I am not in there.

I have no information.

The FBI is not already in partnership with us.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

I think this is a case of conception.

The President of the State of Pacific has to be a legitimate legislator, have a legitimate legislator's presence, and they sure as hell know you're going to be working for them.

And remember, John, the President also needs to be a legitimate legislator.

That's the secret, that's the secret.

There's a couple, there's a fair amount of people, you know, working on that.

You just give them a load of gobbledygook and that's all, and then let them squeal.

They're never going to be satisfied with any answer you give them.

They're only going to be satisfied if you put your finger on one or two people, or both, if they want all of them, if they want to mention them.

Not many of our boys are going to miss the whole point of this thing.

They're going to have to cheat.

Close to the ass.

I agree.

Then you have to call them to mention them.

Close to the ass.

He is in this panel, but in the public mind across this country, that's what we're talking about.

All of the officials are considered to be the big fish.

That's it.

All right.

They can't consider me much closer.

I assume that's exactly why he didn't make it convert.

He was very close to the president.

Right hand man.

Yeah.

But he's not the natural thing.

The knocky dog.

The knocky man.

I always assumed that's, when I read that piece, I thought it was the nine and him.

Yeah.

As of course, there was that, you know, he had the question, the children were the creature of Hollywood, and he had the herders, too, at that time.

See, they were both, you know, the thing about herders is he came, he was in all the fun, he was all the bad guys, so the children were the bad guys.

Yeah, so we, I thought about that.

I mean, he can't be responsible for everybody's interest, but that's the way it is.

We're going to have to acknowledge that Holman was aware that our people were making that kind of advice, that they could talk to the right people, that they were supposed to vote against us.

But he was welcome.

Well, he was.

I mean, I certainly was, even I, I stayed for a while there, but I certainly wanted to know what the hell was going on.

For example, I want to know whether we're going to have, we always had to check before I went out, see if the service checked, whether we're going to have demonstrations, right?

We had to check with the reporters on what was going to happen.

We had to check our own people to be sure that they didn't demonstrate.

I mean, I've been very disappointed by counterattacks.

Again, I guess it's because we just have to cut people, we just have to cut people.

It's a massive demonstration.

And they were massive.

And they came directly from the other side.

Now, this was not kidding.

This was not tape cutting.

It wasn't pumpkin at all.

It was vicious.

And it was pretty god damn cruel.

And it was organized.

Also, besides the fact that we, except for one, well, it aren't active.

We didn't have any rovers or something to do with it.

And on my specific orders, the governor was never happy with us.

Never was.

Never, I never shut it down.

Never, never, never.

I didn't make a speech without having someone have to shut down.

But to answer your question, we have responded.

What I'm saying is, oh, he's apparently living in an attic.

Maybe he doesn't.

When this comes out, people are going to say, well, that's rude of him to take them.

Like, all three could have been operating without a subject.

Now, let's see what's going on.

Right.

And are we going to say, oh, he's a president?

Let's say, no, he was totally unaware of it.

Or are we going to buy the formula for him?

You see, that's a common guess.

What he's doing is that he's doing now that he wants to.

They want to bring up one picture that looks great.

And the bogeyman, you know, that's not even what it is.

It's a duck operation.

These white people came back yesterday and said, why don't you get that bogeyman?

They'll just dive in on them with all four claws.

What are they going to say?

Okay, but they're not saying they're going to put in a bogeyman.

No, but you see, the FBI is really a great police.

What does it do?

They'll get in a combat.

They're going to get in a combat.

What do they say on their own?

Okay.

We were asked here.

We said, we said, we've got to say, you know, you know, which was way.

If I want to read more, we have the whole thing.

Those questions.

You may hear the question from the end.

You've heard that before, like the FBI.

What about the FBI report from Schifferman, and Schiller, and Convoy?

They've been ready for a day or five operation.

Mr. Henson, why don't you- They will make it, they will make it.

I know, I know, but I've got calls every now and then.

That's the, that's the- Why don't you say it now, today?

You know, but, in fact, we've been saying it before, you know, we've been talking about the points there.

What do you think?

Well, I don't think we can get any specific questions about the case, but it's really tough.

Well, why don't you say it?

Because I'm not going to comment on that.

This is a matter...

I can tell you all of it, except you're in charge of what I have in mind when I, uh, when I, uh, when I, uh, realize it.

The point is, there's always, there's never, we always have situations where people say, well, you know, the only time that I consider it to be a war or a campaign, I don't have a question for them.

I don't have a question for them.

You cannot, you cannot, because in the middle of the month, they may be taken and say, I'm not going to see him.

I'm not going to go up to him.

Because next week, they're going to be negative.

And I'm not going to go up to him.

Next week, they're going to be negative.

And I'm not going to go up to him.

I'm not going to go up to him.

What we're going to do next is just to see if we can get worse next week.

Well, if you think we should let him on, I suppose it does seem to be difficult.

I had to get it out of the way.

I want to strike him.

Override.

You and I are very close to where I started standing from.

Don't be afraid.

That's right, of course.

It's not about not being afraid, because the Lord anticipates an action.

So if you're in fear of an action, then I do what I can on a presidential level.

Well, here's if I did it, because the way I would handle it, I would say, take a gym, get ready, and I'll let you go.

This is about a week, seven, five, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

Now that's the reason, that's the line that I would like to take.

One thing that does remove it, it of course removes the possibility of sometimes having

You should reserve the right, however.

In other words, what I'm suggesting, Mr. Ervin has to... As long as the hearings are responsible...

I am so that they can make us leave crime at center, but there are others who will rather exploit you here for partisan political purposes.

And I reserve the right to set the record of strength that we've got.

But my point is, yes, when it's a negative thing, I should say, I should, in other words, get behind the shield.

I don't comment on it here.

When it's something that we want to get across positively, then I will comment on it here and say, well, the hearing is wrong.

You are irresponsible.

But you should make that foundation.

If there isn't any, I'm not going to comment on it.

Let me just ask this question.

Yeah.

I will.

Well, I think the response to your question is not as strong.

Do you condone it?

Were you aware that this was taking place?

No.

I must say, I was totally unaware of it.

Well, then, are you unheard of that this took place?

I don't think I can confirm or deny the cause in the end of the hearing.

No, I would say that's a matter for the, that's a matter for the committee to decide.

What can you say about that?

I think you can, you can, you can deny knowledge in the last several years.

You must deny knowledge.

You didn't have the knowledge.

That's not evidence.

I didn't know anything about it.

But beyond that, I would take the answer of the hearing.

Now what about the other question?

What about the question?

What about this kind of practice?

What do you think of this kind of practice?

Now we've already indicated the disapproval.

Why are we?

Well, if any practice was illegal, I certainly disapprove.

Or did I go on and say that I certainly disapprove?

You make things very clear.

You don't have to do anything else.

You're asking for espionage or sabotage.

No, no, no.

Espionage and sabotage is not only good.

Gotcha.

Excellent.

Why can't I thank you?

Everybody has to use the word espionage and sabotage.

Espionage and sabotage is a legal argument against the government.

Hell, if you can espionage and sabotage all you want, you can get much to do with illegal means.

There are some statutory violations to be involved, for example, if a mailer is put out.

Yeah, I know, but don't write a thing on it.

That's right, that's a violation, and that's a, that's a spiritual campaign, if, uh, if you, uh, if you cause such a demonstration that the candidate itself can not, uh, speak for the life of the violation of that candidate's civil rights after the incident.

So, in cases like that, I think I can reverse the fact that we, that I,

We've got a case there that our little boy is just about to be able to get across.

This massive, this massive demonstration, including violence, that nobody is about to cross.

I can't get anybody to pick up the gun.

I don't know where they were.

But we have just...

I don't think so.

uh do you consult that kind of activity

I don't like it, but it does happen.

I don't know if you can say that about me.

We have to set a line somewhere, you know, to take contact activity, which we haven't justified.

Well, why don't we say that we are included?

Why don't we say that we have politics, or tackling, or so it happens?

Ladies and gentlemen, I read a massive amount of it at the convention and at every event.

I said, I'm going to hire a campaign.

That was the voice.

I was fired back because of this sort of concern.

They go on a political campaign.

The line must be drawn on illegal activities.

I'm going to say that.

But the unethical is okay.

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

That's what he's saying to the contrary.

The viewers are technically on the line.

The line doesn't even know what that means.

That's what I think.

Well, like you said, Mr. President, I think a lot of them said anything still matters.

It has to be technically against the unethical.

This is the question.

That's right.

That's the next step.

And my point is, as global factors start to lead into the market, I have to say, of course I don't approve of such actions.

Maybe you'd like to see that we can work out whether there is an echoing, spooking, interfering, thanks.

All these things, the big talk is unless you've got it, which is our defense.

The project really wanted to get a big talk on our side because we don't always get it.

Well, this is the point of view that

By the look of them, it wasn't as bad as they thought it was going to be.

But still, you're not just going to ask?

No.

No, you're not.

You're not going to tell them.

That means you're going to do what you're going to tell them.

But it's fine.

It's just that you need to report, cover the other aspects of things.

Yeah, because we said that.

See, we have a number of files to respond to.

As a matter of fact, I've been to eight or eight hours now that you're being reported actually.

Well, you looked into it.

I didn't look into it.

But we were looking into it.

You may have said this, that these reports are true.

What do you mean?

What have we done to us?

We must be, what have we accepted?

That's right.

Investigate reports.

No matter what it is, it matters.

This kind of thing.

All right.

That else isn't about that.

Or to find out whether or not they were happening in a stop.

Now, this, I think, is getting us to the point, initially,

Because I think the state, the president of the state, is open to that.

And even the president.

Well, that's my point.

I mean, for him to say that the press secretary or the spokesman over there will address the subject quite easily.

I don't think I need for me to get into the idea of what the ethics of the campaign are or what it's all about.

I just think that I can say that I'm not going to say that this isn't the matter of the campaign.

I'm going to respond to that.

But our recommendation is that you stick to all these questions about the general hearings.

Uh, if you want to comment, you're very under the right to comment if they get a rough or unfair or that kind of thing.

Uh, and that, uh, this goes, this is a significant, this is the document, the way I see it, he, uh, said it to her.

That's what he did.

All right.

Yeah.

And what do these people say?

They'll, uh, that's, it's tempting to get into these, but I, as I said, as I've said it, I'm not, I will not.

You've got to follow me, follow me.

Here, that's the way I say it.

Let me see, let me see.

And also, they'll say, well, I was capable of leaving that way.

And I'll say, well, what would you say to that?

Well, then they said, where did you come from?

I'd always be there.

What's that?

That's what he'd do.

He would get over her.

He'd say, you know what?

Confirm it with whatever you want to know.

And he'd say, well, that's crazy.

And the children would go.

Somebody was out there to do tick-tock.

Yeah, that's right.

I'm sure he did that.

But when you go over that hurdle, knowing that the motivation had no balance in the other group, did the wrong thing.

Once you go over that hurdle, you can never have this impression.

But of course, I asked you, what's the impression?

One of the things I suggest we're on account with the paper is the reason we can't start purging or denying what Chapin did do or what Combox did do or not do.

because the allegations against Segretti are totally unsubstantiated.

He went out and talked to a lot of people and asked if they could do this and that.

We don't know what Segretti did.

The FBI has never investigated Segretti per se for what he did.

No, sir.

They merely asked him what his connection was with Howard Hunt, the board committee, because they came across our telephone calls, Segretti's phone number.

And he didn't know anything about the Watergate.

They said, what were you doing?

He said, well, I was out here pulling cranks.

And they went on.

And they never handed him the cranks.

You know, but you see, what you have, as you review the material in the United States, you have some great establishments.

We've never had them do not investigations for any of these cranks.

So when we offer you information, we have no amount of motivation.

Here's the material that was obtained from the

If you have that information, that information is not in the files.

I received 160 investigative files.

I didn't see all the files.

Well, that is, in fact, a survey that I did.

It was not until after the fact, in a sense, it was upon me.

First of all, I really looked fully into Segretti.

It was on the 10th of November.

When I sat down with Segretti, he briefed me as to what this meant for Chase, then for Stone, for Ivers, so we could make an assessment.

All right, fine.

So you did it.

Well, they did fine.

It's important to keep an eye on it.

I see that.

I was provided no information that indicated any illegal action.

I just said that.

Yes, sir.

Now, I'm seeing that that's another thing.

Basically, what we did was we conducted another illegal action.

As far as Chafin, as far as Chafin and Kambach, we started to count.

Now, I'm not sure that's a great thing.

I have some problems with that.

This demeanor type offense is used

You may have to be open to the door a little bit, but...

Actually, that's the way he testified.

The reason he didn't investigate the subject was that after a period of time, it says that it was a political activity.

That was the FBI.

John saw the same thing.

The Department of Justice, the federal division, they are still reviewing the transcript.

They have reviewed the FBI.

The FBI has been outfired from the division recently.

There's a lot of gaps in his interview as to what his relationship was with the Ukrainians, because there are gaps there, because I was in a bomb shelter studying about China, later planning an advance to Russia, and I didn't have to deal with it at all.

It's true.

I'm not concerned about Dwight at all.

He did not have the degree to fall into the one that I could assume from the outside that he did.

But they are checking the transcript of their investigation of the criminal division to see if they find any violations by the Ukrainians.

But the way I see it, one of the points I would like to make is that none of these would be confirmed if the chamber was spreading the motion.

And that's all.

We may not get into any preciseness.

They must go back, and they will, to the four points which is the only offer of information available now as to what's already there.

following people who filed a dossier, sending out mail, stealing from files, and all of which is apparently not true.

But that is what the initial Socrates story charged.

And there's been no base of information since that October 12th story to review or to clarify.

Well, let's come back.

We've got to go.

You've got to go.

You've got to go around the place.

What are you going to say to him?

What are you going to say to him about the changes?

I don't know what he asked.

You know, I was asking.

I said, you know what, I've never been able to say anything about what he said.

You were asked after the change.

The way the change got launched.

That's...

No, that was four days ago.

That was four days ago.

Our exposure comes up to maybe about .

I think that it's going to be good.

But it's also going to be restrictive.

We have dental .

Now, there are certain things that are bad.

Did you know about it?

No, no.

Now, did you approve of the idea of your commercial attorney at your age hiring a saboteur?

Now, that's a loaded question.

But they're condemning a man.

Well, they're going to find out.

Well, we'll be there soon.

No.

Oh, then I condemn my verdict.

I asked them on the baseline.

I heard that it was an attack with representative questions.

They have everything to stop me and your wife from talking about cybercrime.

That's exactly what we're going to have to find out.

I have a good sense.

I would just not judge that question.

Obviously, he wasn't committing a crime.

That's all right.

Or one way.

Or if they say yes, but then he was a senator, then I'll say I'm comfortable with that.

Or one way.

You know, it's just a smile on the face of the gentleman who's raising all those questions.

They agree to come up here.

American Committees are coming up.

I've been around all of these.

I've been around them.

I feel that.

I was interested.

I don't even think of that.

I mean, that's good.

I'm sure that he's going to be fair, non-partisan, and objective in it.

He's always keeping open the option of attacking people who are non-partisan, fair, non-partisan.

That's not a double standard.

It looks like a violation on both sides.

Absolutely.

The president cannot go out in a press conference, and he can't.

The president has to answer the questions which others have failed to answer.

Up to this point.

And I think he can just get out of it that way and not put himself into it.

The main point is that I know that everybody here is mad at him for saying it all.

We don't have all the answers.

I don't know.

And I would prefer not to tell them because I don't want to get my friends involved.

But I know very well it had to be a hot dog.

That is our real problem.

Everybody knows.

They wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for Grutter Toast or Hugh Smalls Toast.

And we just got wrecked.

So there is our real problem with water foods.

That is my problem.

But I take it to the words of the fact that your investigation showed that that wasn't going to happen.

Right?

Right.

All right, well, you don't worry.

You don't worry.

I believe that we're allowing the rhetoric of sabotage, espionage, etc.

to be built up.

Basically, this is a very dirty campaign, a low-level campaign.

What is the answer to that?

Nobody has yet been able to do it on its own.

You've got to say campaign.

So there are lots of things that go on.

And we're not going to say that you're going to buy the last one.

It's a hell of a lot worse to run a ride that does $15,000 worth of damage in San Francisco than it is for somebody to put out some crazy mail-in because you've got a few blacks who have picked that.

That's my point.

I'm waiting on our guys to do something.

Believe in us, sir.

We have never found hard evidence to link back to the government people.

We have never, what happened is they had the advantage, but both centers had helped us.

Both centers just came all the way out of their headquarters.

That's right.

But not at the highest level.

That's right.

Only happened to us at the highest level.

Yes, they have.

And they had the advantage of two sympathizers who would, by their own momentum, start to listen to what a hell of a lot of the stuff out of the headquarters was and what they wouldn't do.

claims that the court charges the court that they're misoperational and they're not trying to argue with the organization and they're trying to bruise in order to encourage them to do that.

Then that is a force to the issue.

That's a charge to the question.

That's vital.

But there's also the original subreddit.

The original subreddit points out that that is one of the

Right, that's 50, you're calling it 50, you know.

Basically that's, it's being digitalized.

I don't, you know, I don't think it's, I think it's full motion, but I, I don't know, it's great to get half of the things that are attributed to one another, uh, by, uh, the progressive feeling of some of the things that are not attributed to them, and that's why there's no time to do the campaign.

Well, it's probably not, it's probably really good.

Oh, yeah.

I forgot about that.

Well, I think this person, we've got to get Ron ready for him.

I think we should figure out how we're going to go about having a line in the back.

I guess I'll have to wait before I go.

Right.

And that's what I wanted to bring.

I think if I'm asked to be a commissioner today, I would be very good at that.

Do you want to look for a different floor, especially if I want to find out what to do?

I didn't want to say, well, maybe it's kind of easy, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to talk to the governor.

Maybe then I have it.

That's correct.

Then I have it.

So I should release our position on it because we might respond to it.

In fact, we will respond to it in a way that's critical.

I mean, it's our effort to do the authoring and .

Then the next question, should I put this Irving posture up with the Senate committee as submitted by Senator Irving to make this investigation?

And, you know, you're not going to say

As long as we don't have another person looking at the explosions here.

Speaking of, I thought that today, President DeMarcus doesn't even have the country.

The U.S. doesn't even have the U.S.A. That's been covered here in the White House.

And when he comes, he'll come out and call us back and say, you know, I know that he's schooled away, so he can put these questions where they are.

Sure, I'm not going to.

Oh, you haven't experienced the males in the water, have you?

No, I haven't experienced the males in the water, have you?

No, I haven't experienced the males in the water, have you

That's the way it's done.

Well, for example, I would probably suggest the government, you know, say that I want you to do this, but it's outside their campaign recommendation.

So our little lawyers get over here, and they sit around, and they look at this idea, and they haven't got any right to tell us, so are they allowed to do this?

But all right, what should we do with this?

Sure.

I mean, so may I, but you know, I'm fine with what you worry about.

No, no, I don't know this.

I mean, if that's what you have to pay, then I would have to go harder.

But, but, thank you, I don't have any questions.

If you're concerned about this whole kind of, of the Watergate mess that you're going to sabotage, we want to lock it.

So that's just the best we can do.

The Watergate was in front of me, front of me, a specific accident.

The Mercury has to go somewhere out of the picture.

Now, that's, the Watergate is in front of me.

All this talk about sabotage testing is evidently separate entirely from the investigation as of right now.

I don't think there's a commitment to do that.

Can you do that?

A date has been announced for sentencing now.

A week from Friday.

Does the president of the economy, honest to the public, have any case before the judge has issued a sentence?

The Watergate.

Right.

And you can't really rely on that answer either.

One of the things you can say, gentlemen, is that, as I heard, Spend that dollar.

Yes, that's right.

And I cannot comment on it.

No.

Of course, I'm not going to comment on it.

There's a lot of people going on for two or three years.

Yeah, right.

I think we should go ahead and start the show.

questions.

What else is on the agenda?

I don't know.

There's a little bit of energy in those things, but the grave here in Nevada this morning, on the property, I don't know what I'm going to do with it.

I don't know what I'm going to do with it.

And this area of whatever, I think it's corruption.

So what happens secrecy and hiding?

The section of privilege, where it's expensive.

I don't know.

There's probably going to have to be a couple of people paying a look today on the parking thing that came up last night, broke last night.

I don't think there's anything in there.

And my gosh, I don't know why I would say that.

I don't have a conclusion on that.

In fact, that's what a lot of girls are trying to do.

That's right.

You bet.

What about the, uh, for our investment at a case?

Where do you want me to go?

Oh, yeah, I thought you were going to have a business at that point.

This is something that you can't win.

A lot of people around here, I mean, uh, I want to say they're, you know, like you, they're always worried about this and that and everything.

.

I think it's good to meet them.

John, I want to talk to you about that FBI thing.

I want you to talk to me about it.

Where is it?

Talk about that.

All right.