Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Aughie and Nia catch up on the results of the SCOTUS investigation of the leak of the Dobbs opinion draft in 2022
This podcast uses government documents to illuminate the workings of the American government, and offer context around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life.
N. Rodgers: Hey Aughie.
J. Aughenbaugh: Good morning, Nia. How are you?
N. Rodgers: I'm good. How are you?
J. Aughenbaugh: I'm good, in part. Listeners we are doing another In the News episode.
N. Rodgers: We're not going to get to regular episodes because people keep being interesting in the news, aren't they? This is okay, but we'd like to record on some stuff, we actually thought about recording, but apparently not you all keep doing interesting things. Because this week when we're recording, SCOTUS came out, and said basically, yeah, we had a leak but we don't know how, we don t know why, we don't know where, we don't know from whom, we don't know what's really happening at all. I'm like, okay, what investigation is that? Then I realized it's more nuance to that, isn't it? It's not just which would have been a really short report.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. Listeners, what Nia is referencing is on Thursday, January 19th. The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court, a woman by the name of Gail Curley. By the way, the Marshal at the Supreme Court is the person who says, oyez.
N. Rodgers: Oyez?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Oyez.
N. Rodgers: Oye?
J. Aughenbaugh: Oye. Oyez. I've heard it pronounced two different ways.
N. Rodgers: Really? I've never heard the Z pronounced or the Z as they say in England.
J. Aughenbaugh: Is a Z.
N. Rodgers: That's the person who starts to go oyez, stand up because the judges are about to come in.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Then ones they sit down, they're the ones who say, all right, you all can sit down now.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: They say please be seated but whatever.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. Gail Curley submitted.
N. Rodgers: Is that person a lawyer, are they cop?
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, typically, they are an attorney.
N. Rodgers: Okay.
J. Aughenbaugh: In a previous life, Gail Curley was a former army attorney. She works with Jack core.
N. Rodgers: All right, so military experience, and legal experience?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. She checked a lot of the boxes. She was very well-qualified.
N. Rodgers: Okay.
J. Aughenbaugh: However, she on January 19th, issued a 20-page report reporting on the leak of the draft Dobbs Case majority opinion.
N. Rodgers: Right. This, for anybody who was living under a rock a couple of years ago when this came out, so Dobbs was the Dobbs v. Jackson, which was when the SCOTUS basically overturned Roe v. Wade. It basically overturns the constitutional right to an abortion.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right.
N. Rodgers: That is, boy, the roughest summary of that that there could be, because it's more nuanced than that, it's more involved, and you should go read the case. But the leak is that the draft opinion came out way before, it actually was released because somebody leaked it to the press.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. What happened was on and again, if you're living under a rock, you were overseas, you were in some island nation finding yourself, last May. May 2nd, 2022. POLITICO published a copy of the draft majority opinion, which was written by Justice Sam Alito. As needed, pointed out, this was the case where a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the 15th week of a woman's pregnancy. The Supreme Court ultimately went ahead, and said the Mississippi law did not violate a woman's right to choose, because according to the Supreme Court, the federal constitution doesn't protect a woman's right to choose. Now, the next day after POLITICO published the draft majority opinion.
N. Rodgers: All heck broke loose.
J. Aughenbaugh: Broke loose.
N. Rodgers: Because we don't know the Justices' opinions until they are published.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: They don't normally release a draft, there's not normally a public comment, they don't care about any of that. They released it as a done deal. When it's done, and signed, and then when all of the concurrences in dissents are done, and signed. All of that comes out as one package, and when they say, and we're done with this case and then they move on.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: They don't dribble drabble this out. They don't have to say, I was thinking about saying this in my draft, what do you guys think? They don't do that.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. The Justices don't hold press conferences saying, hey, we're almost done with Dobbs. No, they just know, they just bring it on the public.
N. Rodgers: One day they just release it, and ta-da, it's done.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: The next day, well, I'm sure that night Chief Justice J. Rob called POLITICO, and was like, are you insane? Why would you publish something like that? Why would you put that out there? It's a draft, we don't even know if that's going to be the final version blah, blah.
J. Aughenbaugh: The votes could change, but Roberts, the next day first acknowledged that the draft opinion published in POLITICO was actually authentic.
N. Rodgers: Was real. Because that's what the first question was. Somebody could have just written it, and said, I'm Sam Alito, and this is what I'm going to say because we live in a world of deep fakes at this point.
J. Aughenbaugh: Alito's been on the court since the Bush 43 administration. Truth be told, and I even joked with my students about this, I could probably write a draft opinion that reads a lot like Sam Alito's opinions.
N. Rodgers: There are people who have such distinctive writing styles that you could mimic it, you could fake one. Let's not tell AI that but yeah. That's all separate issue. We'll do it in the news at some point, I'm sure.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, that's a different podcast episode.
N. Rodgers: Yep.
J. Aughenbaugh: But Roberts that day also announced that instead of outsourcing an investigation into who leaked the report, the Marshal of the Supreme Court would lead the investigation.
N. Rodgers: Which in some instances makes sense because that's a person who knows all the players.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: They have access to personnel, they have access to records, and all stuff than an outside investigator would have to ask for, and try to arraign. Now, the bad side of that, is that that's you investigating your own.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Which looks a little sketchy from the outside. It's a mixed bag.
J. Aughenbaugh: It's a mixed bag. Because, I've seen plenty of commentary on that issue. Why did the Supreme Court not outsource the investigation? You mentioned one of the pros, and one of the cons, there were others. As some commentators have pointed out, the likely if you will executive branch agency who would have led an investigation would have been the FBI, but the FBI's reputation in the last roughly 5, 6, 7 years.
J. Aughenbaugh: It has taken a hit, let's be fair. Also, you're talking about separation of powers. If there is one Chief Justice in my lifetime who has been concerned about the Supreme Court institutionally, it's John Roberts. John Roberts would rather have root canal without the local. Then to have outsiders come into his message cherish court.
N. Rodgers: Delve into.
J. Aughenbaugh: All the dirty laundry that could be found.
N. Rodgers: Because let's not make any mistake here, listeners. The Supreme Court is Peyton Place. There's drama left and right. There are people who don't like each other. There are people who don't want to work with each other. That's because there are nine people with very strong personalities who have a very inflated sense of self for whatever reason. They have to work together. I can see where he would not want to bring even another person into that mix, where he's trying to. But I also see from the critics point of view, how can you investigate yourself? You're never going to find yourself guilty of something. Unless you have a huge guilt complex, you're not going to be saying, well, I'm the worst person on Earth, like it's just never going to.
J. Aughenbaugh: This was landmark. This was highly unusual. We discussed this.
N. Rodgers: The leak?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. The leak was unusual as we discussed in a previous podcast episode. There have been only a couple of other times and both of those times, the headline basically got obliterated because of other political events that were occurring that day.
N. Rodgers: Yeah. This just happened to hit at the right moment where it was the giant splash.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. Go ahead.
N. Rodgers: How long is this report? Is this report a thing that people are going to spend days and months and years reading, likely to commit like the 911 commission report, that requires some serious time devotion? It's better than 1,000 pages.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. You need a lot of energy and commitment to read.
N. Rodgers: And chocolate?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Or in my case, a whole bunch of coffee.
N. Rodgers: In some of our colleagues' case, some scotch to get through the 911 report and some other reports that are quite large. Is it like that or is it-
J. Aughenbaugh: No. It's only 20 pages.
N. Rodgers: Relatively quick read?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. In the main reason why is currently concluded that they didn't know who leaked to the giraffe. They spent eight-and-a-half months, only to conclude they didn't know who leaked it.
N. Rodgers: Really? They can't close this case.
J. Aughenbaugh: No. In fact, there is language in the report that said that the investigation you want to talk about this getting buried. There is language in the report that said the investigation is still ongoing.
N. Rodgers: But I think if they haven't figured it out by now, well, rather either they haven't figured it out or they're not going to tell.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: That's the other possibility is that they have a strong suspicion, but they can't prove it yet. So they're not going to tell who that person is because you don't want to destroy somebody's reputation. If you can't prove and if you're a jag officer, you're going to want proof, like absolute proof yet the person did it.
J. Aughenbaugh: You talking about standard of evidence. Curley made it very clear that the preponderance of the evidence suggested a number of problems with the court's handling of sensitive material. Some of the behavior of the clerks that we will get into in just a few moments was problematic. But the money "in the report is no one confess to publicly disclosing the document, and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document". Now, in that sense does not. Yeah, go ahead Nia.
N. Rodgers: Now I have two questions. One, how many people did they talk to?
J. Aughenbaugh: Almost 100 employees of the court.
N. Rodgers: So they talked to everybody, basically?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: They asked everybody, did you leak it? No. Do you know who leaked it? No. Also, could it have been an outside job?
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, according to the report, the Marshal's Office has concluded that there is no forensic evidence to suggest that there was an outside hacker.
N. Rodgers: They talked to everybody. Everybody said I didn't do it. Somebody is lying to somebody inside did it. Because it's not an outside job. Whoever's lying is stone-cold chill in their ability to lie. They sat across from her and went, nope, I didn't do it even though they are totally guilty.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Moreover, Curley then got approval from Chief Justice Roberts to have Michael Chertoff. For listeners who may not be familiar with that name. Michael Chertoff was a former judge who served as the second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush 43 administration. Chertoff reviewed the entire investigation and said he was unable to identify anything that Curley and her team should have done differently or additionally as part of their investigation.
N. Rodgers: Okay. Michael Chertoff was he like a judge or something?
J. Aughenbaugh: He was a former appeal court judge. Give up his appeals court position to be the Bush 43s, second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
N. Rodgers: He would have known if there is a problem with the investigation. It looks like you forgot to talk to blah, person. He would have caught that. I feel pretty good about Chertoff's organizational ability. His ability to look at an investigation and say no, you crossed over.
J. Aughenbaugh: Before he was a judge Nia, he was a prosecutor.
N. Rodgers: Okay. He would being used to sifting through evidence.
J. Aughenbaugh: Evidence, yeah. But there were some other findings you ready for the other findings?
N. Rodgers: I'm, I just think it's funny that somebody out there is like nope, when they absolutely did it.
J. Aughenbaugh: As I mentioned, Curley and her team interviewed nearly 100 people. Over 80 of them had direct access to the draft opinion.
N. Rodgers: What happened that 80 people have direct access to draft in there.
J. Aughenbaugh: That is one of the points that Curley went ahead and said.
N. Rodgers: That's way too loose.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's one of her findings. Curley went ahead and said, the court's going to have to go ahead and tighten up, who has access to draft opinions.
N. Rodgers: Yeah, you shouldn't be handing into the janitor and saying, what do you think about reading this? I'm not saying the janitor couldn't read at the Supreme Court, the janitor can read a case better than I can, I'm sure. But really okay. Eighty people is ridiculous amount.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Now, of the 100 people interviewed, nine of them were the justices. Now, everybody else got a just, I would loved to be in the room. I would have loved to have been on the other side of a two-way glass or a mirror.
N. Rodgers: Yes. Watching that discussion happen. Anyway. Again, are both excited by the idea of anybody getting to ask the justice's questions that might make them uncomfortable.
J. Aughenbaugh: Did you talk about the initial votes to your spouse, justice so and so? What are you talking to you about what I said to my spouse?
N. Rodgers: I'm not telling you anything. I'm a Supreme Court Justice. I'm filled with snoot, I'm very snooty.
J. Aughenbaugh: Now and this becomes apparently according to a number of media accounts, this became a significant issue because every other person who was interviewed had to swear an affidavit that they were telling the truth and that they did not disclose the draft opinion in the Dobbs case. The justices did not have to sign such an affidavit. In other words, Curley just had conversations with the justices whereas all the other court personnel basically were interrogated as though.
N. Rodgers: They were criminals?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, they were suspects.
N. Rodgers: Can I say that makes it sound like one of the justices is the one that did it?
J. Aughenbaugh: Why do you say that?
N. Rodgers: Because if everybody else had to sign something saying they didn't do it, and every single person who works at the Supreme Court is a lawyer, they would know that if they sign that and they're ever caught and if they're ever found out to have been the one, that's it for your bar, that's it for your license, that's it for your bar. You're done.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. You're just done.
N. Rodgers: You will never be an attorney again. You will never be a judge. You will never be anything. You're finished. Signing that piece of paper is the same as saying, I'm not committing perjury. I don't know that to me.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's one explanation. Maybe I give too much credit to a computer hackers. But some of the stories that I have read about how hackers have been able to go ahead and hack into some of the most secure computer systems. Because in the reasonable what I'm saying here is by all accounts, the Supreme Court's computer system, according to Curley in her report is like two clicks.
J. Aughenbaugh: Beyond current. It may have been State of the art, maybe in the early part of this millennium, but it isn't anymore. I'm still a little skeptical that Curley was correct in saying there wasn't an outside hacker.
N. Rodgers: Though, really. Listeners get a treat this week because you get two more in the news because we're also going to follow up with a little bit of further news about classified documents. Apparently, documents are just laying around all over Washington and you can just hop in across it, and who knows that Alito was not sitting with a paper draft in a Starbucks somewhere working through it in print because you know he's that kind of guy. Print it out. Let me edit it with a red pen.
J. Aughenbaugh: For sure. Yes.
N. Rodgers: Then got up and left or got up and went to the bathroom and somebody sat down and took pictures of it or, you know what I mean? I'm not suggesting that Sam Alito is any worse than anybody else. I'm just saying at this point, I'm not sure that you'd have to really hack all that hard. You know what I mean?
J. Aughenbaugh: Curley's report points to that.
N. Rodgers: If 80 people have access to something.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: That's a really hard.
J. Aughenbaugh: Even if their motive was not nefarious, it's just out there and they understood the importance of the case. It was a landmark ruling. But think about it, all nine chambers had access.
N. Rodgers: There's a whole bunch of clerks in each chamber.
J. Aughenbaugh: There are four clerks in each chamber, so that's 36, plus nine justices is 45.
N. Rodgers: That alone.
J. Aughenbaugh: Then you've got support staff for each of the justices.
N. Rodgers: Then you actually do have stuff like the cleaning staff and the maintenance staff and the IT staff who all keep a business or a concern going. It could have been in the garbage can for all we know. Who knows?
J. Aughenbaugh: As Curley went ahead and pointed out during the pandemic, you had the justices working from home like many of us, and not all of their computers that they used at home were on the courts secure network.
N. Rodgers: Secretary of State Clinton and her email server.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right. Then she went ahead and pointed out that not all of the printers being used in the Supreme Court Chambers are actually connected to the court's computer system. They couldn't even track who printed what on some of the printers.
N. Rodgers: It's a little scary to me that VCU Libraries has better security than Supreme Court does.
J. Aughenbaugh: On the other hand, Nia, apparently VCU Libraries is better than the political science department because I can print documents through the political science departments computer system. But I also have a printer in my office that I can directly print to that nobody at VCU can go ahead and monitor.
N. Rodgers: We don't have that at the library. At the library you have to use your ID card to swipe out the printer so that they know who printed something. I'm sure that in part it's because of things like this. It's not this particularly, but it's things like this, this personnel records or stuff that you'd want to. But anyway, so wow. Basically, we have no answers.
J. Aughenbaugh: We have no answers. But one of the other things I wanted to go ahead and point out, this is a direct quote, "Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft OBS opinion and the vote count in violations of the court's confidentiality rules. But the interviews provided few leads concerning who may have publicly disclosed the document." In other words, you had clerks and other court personnel, all of whom will have to sign a confidentiality agreement. This goes back to the Burger Court, early 1970s. Right?
N. Rodgers: Right.
J. Aughenbaugh: But apparently, some of these budding lawyers, attorneys are signing confidentiality agreements without reading them, and they are disclosing stuff to their partners, their spouses. They were like I didn't know that that was wrong. I'm just like, really guys?
N. Rodgers: How could you not know?
J. Aughenbaugh: You're working at the Supreme Courts. After you finish your clerkship, you're going to go work in some big Wall Street law firm. Or you're going to be working in the justice department, or you're going to be a law professor. You're one of the young superstars in the legal community. You acknowledge that you go home after the court's taken initial vote in these landmark decisions and you just spill on the beans.
N. Rodgers: I hear you, but there's a part of me that's because that's natural. You want to talk about it, you want to process it with somebody, if you have feelings about it one way or another, you want to you want to talk about those feelings about it. I'm not saying it's right but I can see where it comes from. I can see where that desire to say, can you believe [inaudible] . For all we know, you tell a spouse who tells a friend, who tells a friend, who tells Politico, and that's how something gets out. Although they didn't do that because they had the full draft.
J. Aughenbaugh: Oh, yes.
N. Rodgers: It's different than hearsay. I'm not sure Politico would have published hearsay. They published an actual document.
J. Aughenbaugh: With that important of a case.
N. Rodgers: But it's interesting that they're like, Oh, was that a problem? Yes, that was a problem. What are they going to do going forward? Are they going to keep investigating, do you think, or they're going to go, oh, well?
J. Aughenbaugh: I think they will continue to investigate, but I think they pretty much have already, for lack of a better phrase spent all the goods. It would be shocking to me, Nia, if in two years we suddenly know who it was.
N. Rodgers: Unless somebody decides to write a tell-all book of some kind.
J. Aughenbaugh: In that case, that will be 20 years down the road. Finding out.
N. Rodgers: When they have no career left or they have no one left.
J. Aughenbaugh: When we found out who actually was deep throat, who gave the information to Woodward and Bernstein.
N. Rodgers: Was that 40 years after it happened?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. It was.
N. Rodgers: We finally got the name. Did Ms. Curley have recommendations for things like, you-all need to fix the security at the Supreme Court. You need to fix the computers. I'm assuming all of those recommendations came out of attached to this report.
J. Aughenbaugh: She was pretty critical. She basically went ahead and said that the court's technology was an obstacle to identify the leaker.
N. Rodgers: Because they couldn't tell who had printed what?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. She also went ahead and said that the court needed to come up with new procedures in regards to sensitive documents, including limiting the number of hard copies in circulation. Because as, Nia, as you pointed out, we still have justices. Remember, listeners, many of the justices are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. For you younger listeners, those justices are of a generation to where you print out a hard copy, you edit the hard-copy, and then you have a subordinate make the changes.
N. Rodgers: Then you print it out again to make sure all the changes got made.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right. Curley was very critical of this. Very critical. She said, "The court should adopt a universal policy on the mechanics of handling and safeguarding draft opinions in court sensitive documents." Nia, if I had to venture a guess, the Supreme Court's going to become more bureaucratic and more, shall we say, security conscious going forward. Because John Roberts is a rule follower and he's going to use Curley's report and basically tell his colleagues, I don't care your preferred method of writing and reading draft opinions. We can't have this happened on my watch ever again.
N. Rodgers: Because it's not like they're going to just never hear another controversial case again.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Maybe so maybe some good things will come out of it. Maybe new computers, new system. Maybe they can help the justice system who are less comfortable with that, get comfortable with that. Sorry, you were going to say?
J. Aughenbaugh: Before we conclude this episode, I put this in my research notes, Nia, As you well know and for longtime listeners, you guys are probably aware of this, I'm a Supreme Court watcher. I've been studying the court for well over a quarter of a century. Two things came to my mind as I read the Curley report. One, the Curley report said that their standard of evidence was preponderance of the evidence. Nia and I are familiar with the standard of evidence because Nia and I both serve on honor council hearings, student code of conduct hearings. But for those of you who don't know, the preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest standard used in courts or hearings. It basically means that the trier of fact 50 percent plus 1. Fifty percent and a little more of the evidence would suggest this particular outcome or conclusion.
N. Rodgers: As opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, which is much higher.
J. Aughenbaugh: Which is the highest.
N. Rodgers: Standard where you have to show there couldn't have been anyone else who did the thing.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Preponderance is just it's pretty likely this person.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. This suggests to me that more than likely Marshall Curley and her team probably had some ideas who might've leaked the Dobbs draft opinion, but it wasn't enough to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt.
N. Rodgers: That's what I was saying earlier and I agree with you. I think they probably know. I think they can't prove it and like I said, they don't want to destroy someone's reputation if they happen to be wrong.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Because sometimes 50 plus 1 looks pretty good, but you may not have all the evidence and you may not know that you've reached a preponderance.
J. Aughenbaugh: In this particular case Nia, if they went ahead and identified somebody as the leaker and that person is a clerk, as you pointed out, their chances of ever being able to practice law completely eviscerated. They basically become a pariah.
N. Rodgers: Right. No, judge is going to have you as a clerk for them again because you're a person who doesn't understand privacy.
J. Aughenbaugh: The second observation I have is because the Marshall's report was quite critical about the Supreme Court security procedures and because a number of the clerks acknowledged that they didn't know they couldn't share, I think this court's secure documents procedures will become some of the tightest within federal government and I would really hate to go through the next cadre of court clerks orientation.
N. Rodgers: It's going to be pretty hardcore. J. Rob is going to swing them all the way from we're loosey goosey too. We're going to need your fingerprint and your eye. They'll have you hold up those things that do your eye.
J. Aughenbaugh: Eye scan.
N. Rodgers: Bio-metric eyes scan in order to be able to get in the door to the bathroom. It's going to be so hardcore.
J. Aughenbaugh: There's going to be weekly or monthly checks of their phones, emails.
N. Rodgers: Oh man. What's even worse for these poor folks is they're going to have to go through compliance training over and over and over. For that, we have enormous sympathy for them.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Because they are going to have to go through the ethics compliance training approximately 622 times in the first week that they're there.
J. Aughenbaugh: Listeners, if it sounds like Nia and I are suffering from post-traumatic stress in regards to compliance training, it's because we work.
N. Rodgers: VCU has a new one every couple of months that you have to do.
J. Aughenbaugh: They hound us.
N. Rodgers: Yeah.
J. Aughenbaugh: We get emails. Department chairs, unit chairs, are hounding you.
N. Rodgers: Your boss knows whether you've done it or not and they will say to you you haven't done your compliance for this year on ethics or you haven't done your compliance on whatever. and you're like, oh man, it just got away from me. But you need to do it today.
J. Aughenbaugh: Then they start threatening. We're going to deny you access to the VCU system and you're just like, really? Because of some 30-minute ethics compliance training.
N. Rodgers: When I don't have any power to be unethical anyway. I don't own the contracts at VCU. I totally get why certain people have. But anyway, that's a whole different question that we won't bring up today because we're not complaining because we love VCU. But their compliance training regimen is going to be berserk.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: I agree with you and I hadn't even thought about that, but that's pretty funny that they're going to have to go through.
J. Aughenbaugh: Normally, I'm not all that sympathetic to Supreme Court clerks because it's [inaudible].
N. Rodgers: They were pretty cushy.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because once you go ahead and serve as a clerk, you can basically write your ticket in the American legal community. But in this particular instance, I'm so sorry.
N. Rodgers: You and the next three or four cohorts until they swing back to a more normalized environment. Because what it has been, has been apparently quite open.
J. Aughenbaugh: Quite large.
N. Rodgers: What you're going to do is slam that door so closed that nothing can get through it ever. Then it will come back to a place where there's an understanding of human nature. But yeah, you're right. It's going to be hard for the next few [inaudible] . Anyway. Thank you, Aughie. This is an interesting. We'll be interested to see if at some point way in the future, 40 years from now, when we're doing our last podcast, you say, by the way, we know who the Dobbs leak. But at that point you'll have to remind me all about it because I will have completely forgotten.
J. Aughenbaugh: This is how these things work. If you're good enough to withstand the initial investigation.
N. Rodgers: You're going to get away with it for awhile.
J. Aughenbaugh: You're going to get away for a while, and then at some point as you're about ready to retire, you're going to go ahead and say, yeah, by the way, folks, I was the leaker.
N. Rodgers: That was me. You can find me in the Cayman if you want to you want to sue me. Thank you, Aughie.
J. Aughenbaugh: Thank you, Nia.