does, his m.o., which is intimidation and fear which he is doing for obvious reasons. >> you know, harry litman, the the comparisons to a mobster could be overraut. but in terms of this friction in a target, in this case indicted again, a charge target, and the system, i don't know if there is any more apt comparison and i wonder what you're watching? >> there is no more apt comparison. but andrew's point is one of welter of different issues where you read the letters of the law and the letter of the law points strongly against him, burdens of proof, it sounds legally archaic, but think of being john laurel having to stand up and make the case there is no rick of witness intimidation, it is virtually impossible. now, it will be a very important