i m a bser, that s what i do. i can understand him mournting that for the defense for the things he was saying publicly. what it begs for me as a lawyer is the question of why go under oath when called before a congressional committee or the grand jury for mueller, why say something that s clearly at odds with the paper trail? what insight do you have on that? that s what s so surprising to me about this whole thing is that roger was so uncareful about his threats and his alleged lies. even in the nixon days, everybody knew you had to meet in a dark alley and weren t recorded. if these allegations were true, roger wrote some things that would obviously backfire on him and hit send. for someone so savvy, this is the part that s so shocking to me. are you going as far as to say i insinuated in my commentary that maybe roger has been angling for exactly this