Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 15, 2025 - Lionel Nation

32:26

Trump Triumphs Against Merchan Bragg and Biden DOJ Lawfare Corruption: Lionel Nation on REDACTED

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The storm is coming.
	Markets are crashing.
	Banks are closing.
	When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
	You need a plan.
	Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
	Don't wait for disaster to strike.
	Get your Dirty Man safe today.
	Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
	Disaster can strike when least expected.
	Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
	They can instantly turn your world upside down.
	Dirty Man underground safes is a safeguard against chaos.
	Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
	Prepare for the unexpected.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
	Dirty Man safe.
	When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
	When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
	Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
	Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
	Be ready for anything.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
	Dirty Man Safe.
	Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
	Well, Democrats secured themselves that convicted felon title for President-elect Donald Trump.
	He was sentenced on Friday in the payment case to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
	Now, he didn't get any jail time.
	He didn't get any fine.
	But his conviction stands and was put into place by Judge Juan Marchand, who we know is a compromised person.
	So is this it, then?
	Will he now...
	Just let it lie now that he can take office.
	He doesn't need to fight this any longer.
	You have to have the appetite to continue for litigation.
	There are things he won't be able to do, like own a gun.
	Well, Lionel joins us from the Lionel Nation YouTube channel.
	He's a prosecutor and a constitutionalist.
	Lionel, you've been screaming all along, there's no crime, where's the crime?
	What you mean by this is he was charged with a payment to hide a crime, but he was never told what that crime was.
	The judge actually...
	He denied his legal team the Bill of Particulars when he tried to prepare his defense.
	He didn't even get to know the crime until the day before the trial.
	The jury didn't have to agree on those crimes.
	So can you explain why the Sixth Amendment should have been honored here and never was?
	What does that mean for the rest of us?
	We can be charged with things we don't know.
	Can you explain that?
	And then we'll talk about what could happen next.
	No, I can't explain it.
	First, a couple of things.
	You splendidly, absolutely, perfectly described this.
	You know, there's a couple of things.
	Every now and then, we will have, in the criminal justice system, kind of weird dispositions, diversion programs, first-time offenders.
	Let's kind of suspend it.
	Go to some drug and alcohol counseling and we'll dismiss.
	So it's kind of like, we'll dismiss.
	It's like a diversion.
	When I was a prosecutor, we had a thing called absentee without a hold.
	I still don't know what that means.
	We had a thing called double secret probation.
	Honestly, one time a judge said, I don't want you two to stop it and I don't know what happened to the case.
	I still don't know.
	Very rare.
	But the idea is that we wanted justice.
	But in the case of this note, We don't even know what it was and how this jury found immediately.
	They found them guilty.
	34 counts!
	Not even a split!
	Not even a, well, a count 12, we're not sure.
	That one boggles my mind.
	Here's the interesting thing that happened.
	When Judge Mershon decided to signal to the world, you know, I'm kind of leaning towards not having any kind of a sentence.
	I'm kind of maybe going to go, no, whatever.
	That almost told the Supreme Court, oh, okay.
	Well, then we're going to deny any kind of an appeal now because you're signaling to us that this really isn't a big deal.
	If you face prison or something, maybe we would take this case up.
	But since you kind of gave us the high sign, like, don't worry about it, the Supreme Court said, listen, we're not going to intervene.
	You can handle this best in an appeal.
	That locked Mershon in.
	That basically said, now I've got to do this, because had he double-crossed the Supremes and said, aha, booga booga, jail, prison, they would have gone nuts.
	So that's the weirdest thing, too.
	First things, judges don't signal what they're going to do.
	Sometimes there are, hence, pre-trial, pre-sentence investigations and things that the probation office files that they might suggest.
	But that's a different case.
	So, number one, the most interesting thing was Mershon said, the judge, I ain't going to be doing anything.
	Okay!
	Supreme Court said, why intervene now?
	Okay, that's number one.
	Number two, what he's going to do is, this is the funny part, he cannot be vindicated unless he is convicted.
	Now let's ask you this, or ask this question.
	Was he convicted?
	Here is the worst word you ever want to hear any lawyer say.
	Technically, stop.
	Life is not technically.
	You're not technically pregnant.
	You're not technically dead.
	There is no such thing as this.
	But in law, it depends.
	Conviction is a formal finding of guilt by the court.
	A formal adjudication of guilt.
	Best example is, if you get a speeding ticket, you get the points.
	That's a conviction.
	If you go to a traffic court and say, listen, if I go to a traffic court, can you withhold adjudication, keep the points off my record, then you're not convicted.
	You know, that's like the best.
	It's a weird concept.
	Right, most of us drivers understand that bit.
	Oh, yes, yes.
	You want to keep the points off, withhold, no low, I'll go to school, keep the points off.
	Okay, fine.
	That's not a conviction.
	Right.
	By the way, that's why, remember.
	But I want to circle back around to how this, because we can take this two different ways.
	We can take this whether or not we support Donald Trump and we believe that he was politically prosecuted, which I think, if you look into the case, that's a slam dunk.
	What I'm worried about is that now a court can deny somebody's Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature.
	Of your criminal accusation, and he wasn't.
	So the rest of us can be slapped with these prosecutions, and we don't get to know what it is that we're being tried with.
	So the presidential immunity bit, I'm less interested in the appeal bit.
	It's the fact that...
	Like, I want him to fight this for the rest of us, and maybe that's a bit selfish because he's been through hell.
	Well, he will.
	Is this now?
	Okay, yeah.
	Why don't you go down that road if you don't mind?
	Okay, what you're doing is, you're talking about pleading.
	One of the things, aside from the Sixth Amendment, you have the right to a fair and a speedy trial.
	Fifth Amendment, you have due process.
	A person has to be fully informed of what it was that they did.
	Let me go back to the speeding ticket again.
	You were driving on this date, on this road, during this fast.
	I'm the officer.
	You were going this fast.
	This is my badge number.
	This was the gun that I used.
	You know everything.
	Because here is the thing, and this is the standard.
	The way to test whether a case is well-pled is if I pled guilty to this thing now, could you...
	Charge me with the very same offense tomorrow because it's so vague.
	In the case of a speeding ticket, no.
	Because it was this date, this place.
	But if I said, I pled guilty, let's say you pled guilty.
	Tomorrow they file the same cases.
	This is another case of checks with another...
	And you say, wait a minute, that's the same one.
	The argument would be...
	I'm not sure.
	This case that you were found guilty of or pled guilty to was so vague and so filled with holes, I could charge you again with it and the double jeopardy provision wouldn't be provided.
	So I don't even know what he did.
	So what happens is he is going to go and they're going to appeal this for a variety of reasons.
	Let me give you an example.
	Number one.
	Can you be charged in state court for violating a federal law?
	Can you be charged in the state of Georgia for violating a California law?
	What?
	This is a jurisdictional thing.
	In the state of New York, in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg's office does not handle anything other than New York state offenses that occur in Manhattan.
	He was alleged to have conspired to or actually violated federal laws.
	That's number one.
	When you tell a jury, now listen, I want you to find guilty, and you don't even have to determine what it was.
	Let me back up a little bit with what you said.
	And I like the fact that you're homing in on the notion of not knowing what it is.
	Yes, that's the scariest thing for the rest of us.
	The rest of us are not going to run for president and be politically persecuted, but...
	I don't want to have to shadowbox against the government that's saying there's a crime here, but you don't know what it is.
	You bring up a very good point.
	Let's take the crime of burglary.
	Burglary, but what people normally, they say, they rob the house.
	No, you rob a person, but you burglarize.
	You enter or remain in the building structure or conveyance with the intention of committing an offense therein.
	What offense?
	What was it?
	That's okay.
	That's enough.
	We're going to presume you were going in there to commit an offense.
	Well, what?
	So sometimes there's a little vagueness involved.
	I don't know.
	There's a lot of things that really aren't clear.
	The problem with this is they also took, and let me just, again, I keep saying I'm backing up.
	For the first time, we're hearing people use the word lawfare over and over.
	They took this guy, Colangelo, from the DOJ.
	Demoted him to a position to be an assistant ADA in Manhattan to come up with this crazy cockamamie thing to apply federal law to state law.
	But also what they did was they had this case which was a misdemeanor bootstrapped up.
	To a felony, because he had to be a convicted felon.
	So in order for him to be a convicted felon, they took this ridiculous case that the only time it's ever been done is as a misdemeanor.
	They bootstrapped it, converted it into a felony, and then they're stuck with this.
	And they were forced to.
	And Alvin Bragg, the real prosecutor, had no clue as to what was going on, because this was a DOJ...
	And Judge Mershon, who basically was doing everything in his power to keep that, because the bottom line is this, Natalie.
	Both Mershon and Bragg have that scalp on the wall.
	I'm the first person to get a conviction and to adjudicate a president.
	That's all they wanted.
	Period.
	You can reverse it later, and the left is going to say, from now until the end of time, That he was a convicted felon.
	But most probably, the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court.
	Interesting.
	Trial court is called the Supreme Court, and the highest court is called the Court of Appeals.
	They're most probably going to reverse this.
	But what the President is doing now...
	Okay, but on which grounds, do you think?
	I mean, I can come up with the compromising of the judge.
	The Sixth Amendment violation, which you can tell I'm hung up on.
	Or one thing we haven't discussed yet is selective prosecution because Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for filing the Steele dossier cost in the same way.
	So you can't...
	Good luck.
	Selective prosecution is not an appeals...
	Every time somebody...
	Every time a prosecutor prosecutes, anybody is selective prosecution.
	They don't prosecute everybody.
	They have to ask themselves, this is a word that...
	That's not it.
	But what you're talking about is the best way.
	Number one, you had this...
	We couldn't read from the indictment what it was that he was actually charged with.
	That's number one.
	Number two, during the instructions themselves, jurors were told, it doesn't matter whether you agree with anything, but most importantly, here is the bottom line.
	The theory of the case, remember, was that, and follow me on this, see if I can get through this, President Trump and his, I guess, accountant took a check.
	That was paid in a non-disclosure agreement, which is completely legal, converted it, or actually listed it as a business expense, when in fact it was really, I guess, a political expense, but his goal, Natalie, was to subvert the U.S. electoral system.
	He was doing it to throw the election.
	Now, if that's true, How in the name of God does the trial court say no sentence?
	You did something that nobody in Manhattan history ever, and by the way, the New York legal system, from learned in hand on down, was the premier, the black guy.
	People are going crazy.
	They're laughing at New York.
	Laughing?
	This is the days of Morgenthau, the 2nd District.
	This is the biggest cases of all time.
	So what they're doing is they're saying, let me get this straight, Mershon.
	You had somebody here who was in effect by virtue of buying off a hooker or whatever she was, who, by the way, specifically has to pay him.
	He goes to this woman, she ends up paying him, which is another story.
	But you're not giving him at least a day of probation?
	People that I know were going to do this.
	They were going to say, we're going to give you.
	You're going to have to come to court or do something in Mar-a-Lago, go to your room, unsupervised, write a letter, but you were going to do something.
	If not for this, for the contempt.
	Because he was cited for contempt a million places.
	They got him on nothing.
	So this man subverted.
	Absolutely corrupted, changed the course of American political history.
	And he doesn't even get, he doesn't pick up garbage on the side of the road.
	I think Naomi Campbell picked up garbage.
	I mean, shoplifters get something.
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	So you mean, so if this doesn't look like lawfare, all they wanted to do was just say, you're a convicted felon.
	That's it.
	It is the worst.
	And also, you mentioned something called selective prosecution.
	There's something worse called target prosecution.
	See, selective is a different thing.
	A lot of times people will say, prosecutors a lot of times will use discretion.
	I did.
	If there was a case, a man comes back, he's a troubled veteran, he's an alcoholic, he stole something.
	Or a person steals.
	One time I refuse to prosecute a man who stole diapers and baby food from a store.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	This is before eBay.
	So that was discretion.
	But target prosecution.
	Laurenti Beria, this was Stalin's person, says, show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
	I want you to get Natalie.
	Get her!
	Or what?
	Find something!
	Normally the prosecutor sits, somebody comes to him and says, we've got something we want to bring to your attention.
	We, the police, the FBI, state police, we've been told about this, we've investigated this, what do you think?
	This is different!
	They started off with the target of get Trump, and they worked their way down into this ridiculous, and Natalie, when I tell you this, And I know this sounds like an exaggeration.
	Nobody can explain what this is.
	Nobody.
	I don't know what he did.
	I don't know.
	34 comments.
	If you read the indictment, I've read it so many times, I don't understand it.
	I don't know how, what he did by writing a check, how this, the goal was, he wrote this check to hide another crime, the other crime being The theft of the election, I don't even understand.
	They don't know.
	They hid the football with the most marquee defendant in the world.
	Obviously, that is politically motivated.
	So, I guess, one of the things that...
	So, you say he will appeal, and you think he will win.
	They're going to overturn.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Now...
	Think about old Jack Smith.
	We haven't mentioned him.
	This guy.
	Yes, and I want to.
	So, Jackson, the news is that he has resigned, even though a court has ruled that he was inappropriately appointed, even though he's trying to get his report published, even though a court has said, you can't do that because you will impugn the existing defendants.
	He now has resigned.
	Does that protect him from anything?
	So, two questions.
	Does that protect him from anything?
	Shouldn't we want to look into this?
	And two, can they pull this again in a Trump situation?
	Maybe.
	Going back to the first one, he has to resign.
	It is absolutely pro forma.
	After every U.S. attorney always gives him a letter of resignation.
	Everybody does this.
	It was expected.
	But would you bring up very incorrectly, it's like almost being declared you're divorced and the judge grants you a divorce and you walk aside and you know what?
	I've had it.
	I'm leaving.
	It's like, we're already divorced.
	Okay, fine.
	It's a big moot at this point.
	The reason for this was because the Supreme Court in this immunity case, which nobody wants to talk about, that's the one that got him.
	Had it not been for that, been a different story.
	Completely.
	Even though this guy, remember, That Mar-a-Lago case was so bad.
	Let me also remind, for those who don't know, this is where they went through Melania's underwear drawer.
	You tell people that things stick in your mind.
	It's like, that's enough.
	But anyway, they had pictures of all these boxes.
	They weren't classified.
	Somebody actually calculated that the actual number of files or papers that were deemed by The records clerk or the archivist or whatever to be subject to this criminal complaint would be like a file folder full.
	So they had boxes and boxes written classified.
	It was all staged.
	How they didn't sanction him on that, I have no idea.
	So he's walking.
	It's done.
	It's finished.
	And now the thing is they're going to do, here's the next question.
	Do you release the report?
	Case is done.
	Does the DOJ say, well, okay, fine, but let me take what we find out.
	Is that another dig?
	It's like, wait a minute, is there some finality to everything?
	Remember years ago, this is, I think, before your time, but there was this thing called the Independent Council.
	And now we have this special prosecutor, and we have all of these, and Scalia, by the way, hated these.
	And there's something we're going to have to look at about these outboard hired guns who work on behalf of this sniveling Merrick Garland.
	This guy who just sat back, he's a sock puppet who allowed all of this to occur.
	Under his watch, it was, put it this way, if you're going to get somebody, Make it at least...
	Nobody thought Nixon was railroaded.
	Even with Clinton and his problems, nobody thought they were railroaded.
	There was actually something there.
	Something you could at least describe.
	If you can't put the charges on a bumper sticker, you're wasting your time.
	Nobody knows exactly what Trump did.
	And by the way, to Trump's...
	I hope so.
	Look...
	I don't know about you, but January 6th was a failure to get the proper parade permit.
	That was trespass.
	That was not anything.
	It was a stupid nothing.
	But that has been hyped up, inflated into this attack against democracy.
	Trump, even though we know a million times he said, don't do this!
	Even though we have Nancy Pelosi on tape saying, he said, call the National Guard.
	This is some insurrectionist, don't you think, some seditionist?
	He tells Nancy Pelosi, hey, call the National Guard.
	And by the way, one more thing I've got to tell you.
	But I want to go back to this documents case in Jack Smith because you can tell I'm hung up on the protocol.
	You have to know what you're defending yourself against.
	Yes, and there are two other defendants who, if this report is released, will not have their due process.
	So even if you hate Trump and you want to see this, there are two other people who have been dragnet who will be impugned with the release of this and will not have their day in court.
	And we are supposed to have equal justice under the law.
	So I'm upset on behalf of these two people.
	I don't even know.
	Is this legitimate?
	I don't even know, supposedly, the facts of the case.
	Why they're...
	I'm sorry.
	Most people don't even know their names.
	One was a...
	I think he told somebody, would you move this over here?
	He didn't know.
	Look at these two people.
	Just look at them and ask, do you think they were involved in some malicious case to hide national secrets?
	I don't know.
	Right, but they're being prosecuted just for, right?
	So, again, I go back to, if they can do this to them, they can do it to us.
	Any one of us.
	Trump will pardon them.
	He's the president.
	He can pardon them.
	So, anyway, that's another story.
	Let me also, speaking of which, I'm going to go nuts now.
	You ready for this?
	Ready for this?
	Okay.
	Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, is going to pardon Trump.
	In the interest of justice and all this, they're going to tell her, you're going to do this because he is going to destroy.
	If you have any hope, whatever.
	Because remember, we've got a lot of stuff going on that he's going to be involved in.
	He also has this fellow named Andrew Cuomo who's going to be running for mayor.
	So anyway, New York's going to be in the office.
	So don't be surprised if she, honest to God, does not...
	Pardon, because the reason why is simply this.
	This was not an Alvin Bragg production.
	This was a DOJ production.
	And Biden and the Democrats are going to tell her, do the right thing.
	Kill this.
	Just get rid of it.
	Because eventually it'll...
	Who knows?
	Don't be surprised.
	Because it's that bad.
	You can see how...
	I don't want it to happen because he's president.
	I want it to happen because the Constitution works.
	And that's why I'm so upset about it.
	I texted Lionel.
	I know I'm being a purist here, but I texted Lionel.
	On Friday, when the sentencing was happening, and I said, I'm effing furious.
	And you said, as well, you should be.
	But it's because of the due process on behalf of the rest of us.
	I'm sorry, but I have to feel this way, that it's equal justice under the law and that it protects us.
	Let me stop you.
	I hate to...
	Listen, I don't want to tell you something.
	Welcome to the club.
	I have this stupid thing right here next to my...
	This thing called the Constitution.
	And what drove me crazy my whole life is, in addition to this, how come we went after Native Americans for smoking peyote or drinking peyote when during Prohibition, Catholics and Jews could drink wine?
	I don't understand.
	I don't understand.
	There's so much, why this or why not that?
	How come this country, all people are created equal?
	Except for the fact that we had a Fugitive Slave Clause in our Constitution, which mandated that you had to return runaway slaves.
	Our whole system is a series of contradictions.
	I don't understand any of this.
	I don't understand how we came up with privacy.
	I don't understand how...
	I don't get any...
	So, this is one of these things that it goes to show you.
	You're right about that.
	The bottom line is simply this.
	Tell me what I did.
	So that when I plead guilty to it, or when the jury hears my fate, they know exactly what it is I did or didn't do.
	Is that too much to ask?
	That's it.
	I've had judges say, or a civil case, motion to dismiss granted failure to state a cause of action.
	Motion to dismiss.
	This isn't a crime.
	But what does this mean?
	Who does it?
	What does that mean?
	No, I'm not going to let you plead to that.
	That's not a crime.
	No, it's done all the time.
	What they did to President Trump is just unheard of.
	I mean, there are serial killers who've had an easier time than this.
	I'm serious.
	What they did to him, and maybe in a way it's good for him because of this overkill, but it just absolutely infuriates me.
	And he's going to fight back.
	And by the way, can he pardon himself?
	Not because of a stay case, because he can't do that, but in other matters too?
	And don't be surprised, believe it or not, if afterwards, on the very last day, Biden doesn't pardon Trump.
	Because, remember, the political aspects of this behind the scenes is so incredible.
	This is like nothing else.
	This is like nothing else.
	This is what we are going through right now, especially this last, quote, election.
	The Republicans are so fractured.
	We don't know who's who.
	People are double-crossing and stabbing.
	So that's another story.
	But what we're seeing right now is something that is so incredible.
	And the question you're going to ask is, what's going to be the legacy of Judge Mershon?
	Are people going to say, bravo, some partisan New York?
	Some Democrats in New York will, but a lot of people in the legal profession will say, this is not good.
	You allowed this?
	Because it was almost like, because remember, New York in particular is almost like a patronage.
	It is a politicized, the bench, 99% are terrific.
	But this is why we get to the other issue.
	Should judges be appointed?
	Or should they run for office?
	Should they have lifetime appointments?
	How do you politicize?
	How do you put people?
	How do you say, are you a Democratic judge or a Republican judge?
	And who puts you in?
	That's another issue.
	That's another issue.
	But even in the worst case scenario, Judge Marchand could be sanctioned and removed from his post, possibly.
	Worst case for him.
	But he would still make six figures on the speaking tour because Democrats will love him and worship him so much.
	He's not going to be sanctioned.
	No, he didn't do anything that was illegal.
	Illegal.
	He didn't recuse himself based on a compromise.
	Doesn't have to.
	Yeah.
	Well, he doesn't have to.
	Now, in some jurisdictions, in some jurisdictions, the moment you get one bite of the apple, so they say, anytime you say, I want to...
	I want you to recuse yourself.
	As long as the motion is okay on the four corners, you've got to recuse yourself.
	Now, the second person you get, you're on your own.
	Most of the time, most judges say, I don't want to be a part of a case where you think recusal motions are rare.
	Most of the time people say, I got a caseload up to here.
	Fine!
	Take it!
	But this one?
	No, no, no, no.
	This looks so bad.
	Put it this way, Alvin Bragg, what does he say?
	He wasn't even in the courtroom.
	He wasn't even there.
	Alvin Bragg could have left and gone to the country.
	He didn't know.
	It's just like with Letitia James in the documents case, or the loan case, in the case where there's no victim.
	Let me say this again.
	There's no victim.
	Nobody.
	She was never even in the courtroom.
	That case has a strong probability of being overturned as well, and he will get that money back that he's already paid.
	Well, you know how that's a good one.
	By the way, that's a different story, but you know how you've got a very good chance when you're on appeal and the appellate judges say, what?
	That's a good sign.
	What?
	Or no.
	Just basically, what happened?
	What?
	These are judges who know everything and they're saying, I don't understand this.
	Well, the judges in that appeal said, has this ever been done before where there's no victim?
	And the lawyers said, well, no.
	And the lawyers then basically had to beg to not be punished for having brought the case in the first place.
	Well, remember...
	Last thing, last quick, they're doing it to Rudy Giuliani.
	Rudy Giuliani, they ruined, they disbarred him, whatever, because he supposedly brought cases.
	He and Sidney Powell and others brought cases that were so ridiculous and so ill-thought.
	Well, what about this?
	What about this one?
	This is the most incredible case.
	And by the way, last one, and I'll let you go.
	Listen to me, you're going to let me go.
	You and your husband try to get a loan in your house and claim that you live in a $3 billion home and try to get a line of equity based on your appraisal.
	Of your home for $3 billion.
	And you know what, Chase, or whatever he's going to say, you're going to say, no, no, we do the appraisal, not you.
	You can say $3 billion.
	Well, that's what supposedly Trump did.
	It's the bank that says this.
	The bank says, no, it doesn't work like that.
	The bank said he's not defrauding us.
	Anyway, that's for another issue.
	It's bizarre.
	For another issue.
	All right.
	Well, that's where it stands now.
	We do have convicted felon President-elect Donald Trump.
	Democrats got it.
	Temporarily.
	They wanted it.
	Right.
	But we think that this is going to eventually go to appeals.
	So thank you for your expertise.
	You can follow Lionel on the Lionel Nation YouTube channel.
	He's also on X, very vocal there, Lionel Media.
	So thank you for joining us, and we'll talk to you again another time, I'm sure.
	Thank you.

▲