Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
A
Group chat getting quiet.
- [00:01]
B
Drop a TikTok clip.
- [00:03]
A
Trends, memes, hot topics, instant reactions, endless replies. Keep the vibe alive.
- [00:10]
B
Download TikTok now.
- [00:17]
A
Are you stuck staring at your W2? Are tax refund worries holding you back? You probably have FOMO the fear of messing up the fix. Using TurboTax on Intuit credit Karma, they find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. It's time to overcome your fear of messing up and get your taxes done right. Start filing today in the Credit Karma app. Welcome to Talking Feds. One on one deep dive discussions with national figures about the most fascinating and consequential issues defining our culture and shaping our lives. I'm your host, Harry Littman. Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any more turbulent at the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi is out. The dominant conjecture for her ouster is failing to give Trump the scalps of his enemies as he wanted. Though God knows what more she was supposed to do. To talk about her firing, her legacy and where the DOJ goes from here. We have the perfect person and a great friend of talking feds from way back, Mimi Rocca, a former federal prosecution, former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York for over 16 years. From 2021 to 2025, she served as the elected district attorney of Westchester County. She's now an adjunct professor at Fordham University's law school, a top legal commentator. And drumroll, please. She has just finished, and I mean like a half hour ago, the draft of her forthcoming book about the dismantling of the DOJ in Trump's second term. It's called Justice Under Siege. It's out this fall. And Mimi Roka will understand if you nod off during this interview. But hopefully we'll move to talk about the book later on in our discussion. Welcome.
- [02:33]
B
Thank you, Harry. Great to be with you. And the adrenaline is still pumping, so I should be good. In fact, I might talk too much. Just cut me off.
- [02:42]
A
There's still fumes in the tank. Okay, Exactly. Look, I definitely want to cover Bondi's removal and her legacy, which I think is going to be the end portion of the book. But let's start with where things stand now. So Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reintroduced himself this week. You really are in a privileged position, having worked with him in the Southern District of New York. What was he like then? And have you been, based on that prior relationship, surprised by his tenure as Deputy Attorney General?
- [03:21]
B
Absolutely. Pretty shocked, to be honest. And it's not just me. I mean, I've talked to so many alums, including very recent alums, including people who had to work with him in this capacity while they were still at the Southern District of New York. Todd was like any other prosecutor that I knew. He was a very likable person. He loved the. He had that sort of fire in the belly that we talk about of wanting to do justice and make cases, but also do the right thing. I mean, he was my co chief for several years, overseeing a division of the Southern District. And it's not like this was someone that I saw things very differently from. We saw eye to eye on. I'm not going to say every single thing, but our basic guiding principles were the same. And I know what I learned at doj, so I know what he learned, and. And I know what he stood for, and he is just transformed into a completely different person. I will say that I obviously, like everybody, was skeptical when he was coming in, having been Trump's defense attorney. However, I did at least harbor some hope, if not optimism, that he could put that aside, because being in the role of a defense attorney is obviously different than being in the role of the attorney general. And I thought that he was capable of switching roles, switching mindsets. And I think the single most defining factor of Blanche's tenure so far, and it's only getting worse, as we've seen this week, is that he truly acts still like he is Trump's defense attorney. And I don't mean that in a good way, because that is absolutely not the role. He should be guarding the Department of Justice. It should be guarding the rule of law. In fact, he is doing exactly the opposite. And we can talk about so many examples of that, both in action and in rhetoric, that I have found, really jaw dropping along with you and others.
- [05:43]
A
Yeah. And you've got a lot of company here. And, you know, with Pam Bondi, you can say maybe she comes in from the state. What does she know? Except she accepts the job description of completely being a sycophant to Trump and not worrying about niceties like the rule of law and the constitution. But it's 100% clear then, from what you're saying, Mimi, he knows what the department and he personally are sort of trammeling. Yes. There's no way of saying that he's just somehow acting ignorantly.
- [06:22]
B
Right. And, I mean, Bondi, like other people in the administration, came in with, yes, she was a former state prosecutor, but she came in with this pedigree of being an election denier. Of having defended Trump in those kinds of situations, that is very different than having been his criminal defense attorney. In other words, that is why I thought he could still separate that role. What he has shown, and I can't get over sort of how much he brings this up, is that his guiding principle in this role is not just like Bondi, this loyalty to Trump as a person. He certainly has that. I think the other day he said, you know, that he loves Trump and he would tell him that. I mean, it's kind of nauseating.
- [07:09]
A
And if President Trump chooses to keep me as acting, that's an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say, thank you very much. I love you, sir.
- [07:21]
B
But it is this principle about Trump being entitled to get revenge. Right. He talks more about the fact he taught that he was with Trump next to Trump every time, that Trump was wrongly, in their view, prosecuted, investigated, indicted. And he has varying numbers. He says Trump was indicted four times, six times, depending on which superseders he counts and whether it's the stages of it and it gets more and more exaggerated. But he really seems to deeply believe, or at least articulate in a pretty convincing way and frequently this idea that Trump as president now is entitled to use the Department of Justice to get. To get revenge on people who he feels wronged him. And for a while, I thought Todd was just sort of tolerating that and sidestepping it. I think he's gotten more and more kind of outwardly vocal about it, maybe because he's auditioning for this role as a permanent role. You know, we can talk about some of the particular speeches, but again, just the most recent this week when he did the press conference, he outright said Trump has, I think he used the word the right to. He. I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but the essence and the way everybody took it, and I think the way he meant it was, yeah, he gets to do this. He gets to decide who we should go after and tell us. And that is such a perversion of how, as you know, the Department of Justice and the rule of law are supposed to work.
- [08:57]
A
Look, it's so true, and I know you're not really paraphrasing much meme. Those were pretty much his words. So he has guzzled the Kool Aid of this proposition that anything the President says goes. And, you know, in the old doj, it's not simply that there wouldn't have been that kind of ability to just trammel the principles of federal Prosecution there wouldn't have been able even be the first step. So he, I think by dint of his role as defense attorney, and I was at that trial, has been more than anyone responsible for the complete breach of the what in my day and yours as well, I think was an ironclad norm. You can't talk to the White House about specific cases and of course they can't dictate things. Let me follow up with your suggestion. That is he may be auditioning for the top job. I do think Trump has confidence in him. He's been the sort of already in the last days of Bondi, the sort of spokesperson. She was more, you know, going on Fox News or doing social media. But, you know, a Blanche nomination means everything is fair game. Back to his mischief. It's a understatement with Emil Beauvais and all the really heavy handed stuff at the start. I think I'm sure that that's part of the book. My sense would be he's not confirmable. On the other hand, they'd like to keep him in there as long as they could get away with it. Do you feel differently? Do you think he's, you know, in the sort of short list of people who will get one of whom will get the nomination?
- [10:55]
B
I mean, I think in an ordinary administration, in ordinary times we would say no. Right. What president would want Bland to sit under oath and have to answer questions about, if nothing else, Epstein, which he has been more intimately involved with than anybody else. But this is not a normal administration. And Todd seems to relish the fight in the same way that Trump does. I have noticed that he has been talking. I mean, I've watched a lot of his speech at. It was kind of a speech, his interview at cpac. I mean, the fact that he even went to that very political. It's not just a political conference. It's like the most political that you can get on that side of the spectrum. And he didn't just go, he sat on stage and did an interview where again, he talked about things in such starkly partisan terms. And the right for Trump to do whatever he wants with DOJ and all sorts of things that you can't believe are coming out of his mouth, but he seemed there and even in this press conference to kind of be relishing the. Let me. I'm gonna take that and I'm gonna fight back. Right. And that's part of his Persona. And that's clearly what Trump likes. He's been doing it on social media, being very kind of bulldogish and aggressive. Even with judges. Right. And lawyers and the bar associations, he's taking the sort of aggressive fighter role. And so, you know, it may be that he thinks he can take that on. And if he thinks he can, Trump may let him try.
- [12:45]
A
Yeah. I just want to do one excerpt of what he had to say at cpac, because you're right, his comments from a couple days ago could be construed as something like he's the President, if that's what he wants, election have consequences, blah, blah, blah. But you know, when there are arguments of that sort, at least there's some kind of constitutional claim whatever whatever. At CPAC, he boasted, boasted that no one from who worked on the January six cases is any longer in the FBI. No one has a gun who worked on the January six cases. Director Patel has cleaned house there too. There isn't a single man or woman with a gun federal agent still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump. Now, that kind of boast means that he is not just justifying because the President wants it, but really championing the point that FBI agents who did their job and worked, I'm sorry, righteous prosecution as it certainly was at the time, but just did what they were supposed to. I mean, anyone who knows DOJ culture know it's absolutely, you know, not just unconstitutional, but it's so friggin savage to just completely take away the jobs and the people in the FBI. There's just been a lawsuit filed against them. But that kind of boast to me really spoke of something more than just,
- [14:29]
B
well, he's saluting and it gives ammunition to the people who have filed lawsuits. Right. So he either isn't thinking about that or doesn't care. And yeah, it's this sort of, I mean, also, what does that say? I mean, he is now the head of doj, which includes the FBI. What does that say to the people who work for him? That he's basically, yes, boasting. I am not only justifying that Trump had the right to do this, but I am bragging about it, which means any of you are expendable to me. And that's how they had been treating, obviously every prosecutor agent since they took office. And Bovet was sort of more the face of it. But from what I've heard, Todd was right there behind the scenes. They wouldn't have done it, Bovet wouldn't have done it if Blanche hadn't gotten along, gone along at a minimum.
- [15:27]
A
Yeah, I mean, typically the deputy is the sort of enforcer, sort of chief operating officer of the department. And what? Someone who has to have prosecutor experience. Of course he did. Now, this may be hard for you to please. Go ahead, Mimi.
- [15:43]
B
I just want to raise one other point about cpac, because I forgot about it, but it's an important one, which brings up another point. One of the things that he said that was kind of jaw dropping, and here I definitely am paraphrasing, but I watched it enough times and I remember summarizing it as I was writing my book, that he went along with this idea that there are massive amounts of immigrants, illegal immigrants, who vote in elections. First of all, that is just factually wrong.
- [16:20]
A
It's a lie, right?
- [16:21]
B
It is. It is based on a lie. There have been state, individual states. There have been conservative, liberal, all sorts of groups that have done studies. The number is minuscule. The number of people who are not citizens, who vote in elections. It cannot swing elections. This is all based on a lie. That isn't surprising from Trump and Stephen Miller. We. I mean, it's not good, but it's not surprising. But. But again, for a leader of the Department of Justice to be not only saying it, but giving it that air of credibility. This is a theme with Blanche and Bondi and others where they perpetuate these lies that Trump has told for many decades, frankly, and give them the sort of aura of legitimacy by coming out of the mouth of someone from the head of the Department of Justice. They make their way into official press releases, sometimes even court filings. And it is part of this rewriting of history that Trump and Miller and others on the political side have done. But the DOJ should obviously not be anywhere part of it. It is propaganda, and they are helping to spread it. And that, again, I know people are so used to Trump lying and his political apparatus, but. And we shouldn't be okay with it, but we cannot get used to the idea of people at the head of the Department of Justice, they shouldn't even be talking about things as political, let alone endorsing them. He does not have facts to show about the number of illegal people. I think he called them illegals voting. If he did, he would have said it, and he doesn't.
- [18:06]
A
It's such an important point. I mean, this is a broad but really repugnant and dangerous project. And again, it's one thing to say, you know, maybe your head was turned by ambition and. But you, you know, you just keep your head down and do your job. But it's so much more if you're willing to lie, if you're willing to do reprisal prosecutions, if you're willing to boast that you've got rid of everybody in the FBI, that now you've really gone taken sides in history about the Constitution. It's, it's really, I think, despicable. Okay. I don't know, Mimi, if you're able to sort of speak to this, but as you say, he was your co chief. Do you have any sense of his leadership style, how you think it might differ from that of Bondi as he, you know, is his door open? We always talk to people who want to just, you know, leaving aside he, his willingness to toe the Trump line, what's it going to be like as an attorney general, do you think?
- [19:16]
B
Well, I mean, I think in terms of the leadership of the people in the department, I've read a few quotes here and there from people who say he's approachable and he is willing to hear things. And I deeply believe that. I mean, probably if you asked me to give one adjective to describe Todd back when he was the old Todd. The old Todd, whenever I'm talking about the old Todd, I use, I say Todd. I just fall into. It is likable and approachable. I mean, it was, people wanted to do cases with him. He, he had this very, you know, likable and approachable. Let's leave it at that. And just from what I've seen, I think he still has that, you know, I think he has other priorities now. And it sounds like there are bursts of anger and frustration when he can't carry out the wishes of the person that he seems to want to please the most. But I do believe that his style is going to be very, you know, and he's also very kind of. I mean, you hear it in some of the, even at the Federalist Society when he's. It's a war, man. You know, he's saying something so hateful and dangerous about courts, but he says it in this very colloquial, casual bro kind of verbiage. That is him. I mean, he still talks very much like the same person, but just with very different intent and purposes. So I think the management style probably is drastically different from other people around Trump, including Bondi. I think both of them, you could say Blanche is as loyal as Bondi or Bondi is as loyal. They both want to do, as does Jeanine Pirro, as do all of these loyalists. I mean, that's what they are. They are there to serve him and to use their institutions in ways to try and accomplish what he wants, which is it's fine for him to love Trump. I mean, nobody really cares or shouldn't care. I mean, not in his role necessarily, but fine, you have a personal affection. You went through the trenches with him. The problem is that you then translate that into this idea that this institution that is, yes, controlled by the executive, but should not be, its power should not be used for the personal and political benefit of that executive. That's the bottom line. And they. They relish trying to use that power in that way.
- [21:55]
A
That's beautifully put. Relish, I think, is the word. Okay, one. Just one more person sort of floating around now in the scorecard lineup that seems to be coming to the fore, along with Lee Zeldin from the epa, someone who's mentioned for the job, Harmeet Dhillon. And I was kind of stunned to learn just today that she, the head of the Civil Rights Division, has been given the responsibility of investigating Cassidy Hutchinson, based on Hutchinson's testimony in the January 6th committee. Not that they were trying to go after it, though. You saw it. I saw it. It seemed completely. Not just credible, but. But valorous and brave. They're going after it. But what's the deal with Harmeet Dhillon, and do you have any sense from your book or otherwise of who she is in the department?
- [22:51]
B
Yeah. I mean, in a way, there's almost this competition of who can not only be the most loyal, because they all are, but who can demonstrate not only the loyalty, but that they can be successful in achieving what he wants them to achieve, which, frankly, I think they want to achieve. And Jeanine Pirro has been flailing around trying to do that and has kind of failed spectacularly at it, thanks to prosecutors who have done the right thing, grand juries, courts, et cetera. Jerome Powell, who spoke out. And so this time, this case, this investigation, this frivolous, meritless investigation of Hutchinson, which seems to be based on her statement that she heard something from somebody and the things she heard may not have actually happened. That doesn't mean she didn't hear it. But, you know, let them try and charge that as perjury, I think that will fail. But that should have gone to Jeanine Pirro's office because of the place where it. And that's absolutely where it would normally go, maybe to the Public Integrity, but never to the Civil Rights Division. But from the accounts I read, it sounds like they just went around all of that, brought it to her. Meet Dhillon. Why? Because, Dylan, from the beginning, you know, Todd has evolved a little bit over time. Bond is gone now, but Dylan from day one has been very aggressive and shameless in saying, I will do whatever he wants. We are right. This is wrong. They are wrong. They being anyone who has not pledged their loyalty to Trump. And she has the most hollowed out division, 70% of the civil rights division either resigned or was fired for good reason. They were resigned. I mean, they just could not work on her. She was perverting everything. And they replaced so many of them with these very political young people who don't know anything about the civil rights laws. And so I'm sure they probably have more of a bench there to do things like this, which is not a good thing. But this, my guess is this is like here, go prove yourself that you can do more than just talk about reverse discrimination and woke left. Show us that you can get this case brought. So I think that's why it's there. Everything about it is a red flag. The fact that the prosecutors, I don't know which prosecutors, sometimes we actually read like the prosecutors in such and such office were against, you know, bringing charges. That is a common theme, which is good here. The reporting is more vague as to who has been saying this doesn't seem like a legitimate case, but it does sound like there is at least some people saying that. So you bring it to Dylan who says, I don't care is my guess. I am willing to bring it. And the one thing I will say about Blanche, there have been a couple of articles here and there saying that yes, he's done all these things, but he has the guard, at the end of the day, he will stop the most extreme things. And there's a couple of examples that have been cited to me, I don't think though that those are based on principle. I don't think that there is a principled line here for him. I think that it's based on he does know enough about being a federal prosecutor to know when something is going to fail spectacularly. And unlike Jeanine Pirro. And he knows that that will anger and Trump will not like that. He doesn't like failure. Right. That's how he saw Bondi. And so my guess is if, and I don't know that Blanche is against this, I have no reason to say that. But if he is in this case or in some other case, if the reason it went to Dylan is that even Blanche said, I don't think this is a worthy case, it's not because he's standing up for the Right thing. I just don't believe that anymore. It's because he sees like this is not a perjury case and a huge
- [27:05]
A
debacle when, you know, when you can't even get a person on the grand jury. I just want to say of Dylan, she's been, she's got a long track record, just as you say. I used to occasionally go on Fox News. I finally gave that up. But I've been, I've had dealings with her and man, oh man, as bare teeth and nasty and true believer as they come. I think that's right. On the other hand, it's dubious that, that, you know, you can make any. It's not simply that it's a rank violation of when you're supposed to bring cases. But who is really going to convict Cassie Hudson? Doesn't mean, of course, she won't be dragged through the ring or have to spend a lot of money, etc. I'm Michael Waldman, host of the Briefing Podcast. I'm a former White House speechwriter, a lawyer and a constitutional scholar. And I'm president of the Brennan center for Justice. We work to repair and strengthen American democracy, from gerrymandering to abuse of presidential power, from Supreme Court reform to congressional corruption and more. What fun. You're going to hear new ideas in this podcast and you're going to hear about the strategies and legal and political fights that will shape the next phase of American politics. If you care about our democracy, the Briefing is a podcast for you. All right, we got a few minutes left and I do want to return to Bondi Small point, but, you know, she reportedly begged to stay on until the summer. Trump said no. Why in the world, when she doesn't have his confidence, would she even still want the job, though? You know, the whole world has been. The whole rug's been pulled out from under her.
- [28:51]
B
I mean, it sounded to me like she was, which does not. This doesn't speak well of her, like self awareness and perception, but that she was a little bit caught by surprise. She thought she had sort of gotten back the trust after her, you know, the dao is it, whatever testimony. But she hadn't. And my guess is she wanted to have more of a gentle exit so that it didn't look so embarrassing. More that she could say, I'm leaving for this job. Right. It's like someone leaving any other job and they want to go find the
- [29:23]
A
job, spend more time with my dogs. Right?
- [29:26]
B
Yeah. Yeah. But he, you know, this just goes to show, once again, there is no Loyalty that is enough for Trump. He will humiliate and throw her under the bus. He did. You know, a Blanche or others should take this as a warning sign, but they don't. He will see himself as more savvy and different and maybe he is. But at the end of the day, it seems everybody ends up there under that bus.
- [29:51]
A
What I mean, what a long line of roadkill, including people who are now. Anthony Scaramucci, a former ally source, saying it's like 25th amendment time with this Dr. Strangelove stuff in Iran. Any thoughts about her subpoena is supposedly for next Tuesday. She says now doj. Well, I'm not AG anymore. She's obviously going to do everything she can to wriggle out of testifying under oath. How do you think that plays out now?
- [30:21]
B
I mean, I think probably the Republicans will protect her. Right. And they don't have much to the extent there was enough political forces pushing them in the Epstein area maybe more than others to break with Trump. I think now because she's gone, they don't have that. The question is now will they? I mean, frankly, I still think that Blanche knows more about everything going on with Epstein than Bondi does. I actually think she probably is quite clueless, which was part of her problem. Whereas I think he knows enough to make more savvy arguments about why this, this we call the saga in this very derogatory way, the Epstein saga should be closed. And so whether it will come to. I mean, there are a lot of questions to ask him about that Maxwell proffer, which I've heard him this week try to defend and justify and why it was so great of him to go and do that. I mean, I would love to cross examine that. So, you know, I think frankly, they probably should. I mean, I don't want to let her off the hook, but she doesn't know anything. I really think it comes down in that matter in particular to Blanche. He's the one who moved Maxwell.
- [31:45]
A
You know, I really agree. And that was, that was the first really concrete indication, man, he'll do anything for. He was just not acting as a deputy attorney general then. All right, so look, this is going to continue to, to play out. It's our job at talking feds to really be on top and hope to talk to you more. I do want to just ask as a kind of final question for today, you know, you have literally just finished and a series of, you know, really burning the Midnight Oil, a new book that's going to end with appropriately sort of Circumstances served you well as an author, even if they haven't served the country. With the Bondi era at doj, you're very, very, very, very close to it. Nevertheless, do you have, what are your big picture thoughts about Bondi's legacy at the department?
- [32:38]
B
I mean, shortest term of a Senate confirmed attorney general. You know, that the length just is sort of a symbol of what a disaster she was. She did no service to this storied institution and the people in it, I do think. And when I first saw that she was fired, I thought, oh, gosh, I have so many things to change in my book now that I have to go back and I have to write former and I have to add this, but it really is an appropriate bookend. And I know there's still so much more to go and I don't want to sound too rose colored glasses, but that night I was up a lot thinking about it. And one of my themes has really been in about these heroes in the Department of Justice and elsewhere. Prosecutors who refuse to work on cases who resign, the Danielle Sassoons, the Eric Sieberts, the entire EDVA office that won't work on the Comey and James cases, the Minneapolis prosecutors have resigned, the civil rights prosecutors. I mean, so many prosecutors who gave up jobs that they love and even ones who are still there who are somehow holding onto their jobs but saying, you know, I'm not going to work on that case. The ones who wouldn't investigate, Renee Goode and her partner. Right. I mean, some of them resigned, but some of them are there. They just said no. And lots of times Bondi and other people got around that by bringing in other political sort of people to do the cases. But I think at the end of the day, in addition to the courts who've been upholding the rule of law to the lawyers, we've been bringing all of these people cases, the agents and prosecutors who said no really made Bondi's job tough and helped make her fail. Right. And that's right now, in this terrible, twisted world that we're in, that's a tiny victory for the rule of law. I think it doesn't mean it's going to hold because they've done a whole bunch of stuff, you know, to DOJ since then. But I realized that actually her firing, she failed because she couldn't do it. And I hope that the next AG will have the same problem because of people like this. They're making it harder because they're firing so many of them or pushing them out or making it intolerable. But it does give me a little bit of hope that you can look at these people and say you helped make this happen. Actually, you upheld the rule of law enough that she couldn't accomplish everything that he wanted to. And the Epstein survivors who wouldn't give up and made, you know, would not let this go away. And that was a big part of it as well.
- [35:24]
A
And that struggle, I think continues. Great as always. Mimi to speak with you. Justice under Siege I know the publisher is going to want a spirit to the market. It ought to be coming out in the fall. We'll talk to you then, but hopefully before but everyone you'll be able to to get it in a few months. It'll be an absolute essential read. Thank you so much as always for your time and talk to you soon.
- [35:50]
B
Thanks, Harry.
- [35:54]
A
Thank you for tuning in to One on One, a weekly conversation series from Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and daily updates on top legal stories. Check us out on harrylittman.substack.com where we're posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in, and don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansam Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Delito llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.