these other senior officials who are also defying subpoenas the way that don mcgahn did, there s been a question as to whether or not this ruling would be narrowly targeted to just apply to don mcgahn or whether it might also apply to people like john bolton or the deputy national security adviser under bolton, charles kupperman, or any of the other people who are fighting subpoenas including those who have asked other judges to weigh in on that. can you tell us how broad or narrow you think this is construed? i think the judge here used language deliberately to try to suggest that it s not narrow, that it implies, for example, she says even to witnesses who work in the national security space. nonetheless, this opinion applies to this witness, if other witnesses received subpoenas they, too, could file a legal challenge in court.
consumption? oh, sure. i think sometimes they use soaring rhetoric, you know, imagining that it will be etched into the stone above a doorway someday, but i also think that there is a lot of substance in this opinion. it does go on for 120 pages but today is the great day for the rule of law and that is what is the ultimate conclusion that she writes here that presidents are not kings, that we have this tripart form of government and it s very important that we maintain the checks and balances and so i think at its heart, it s a very patriotic opinion. the heading into this, we ve been, obviously, watching the mcgahn case on substance because the question of whether mcgahn is going to testify is, itself, a meaty, substantive, interesting matter. but now that the impeachment is under way and there s all of these other senior officials who are also defying subpoenas the way that don mcgahn did, there s been a question as to whether or not this ruling would be narrowly targeted to j