Andrew Weissmann

And to me, the idea of saying, I don't want you to speak the truth to the military about what they are entitled to do.

For the same reason, by the way, they got rid of the top military.

lawyers, the Jags, right?

Why would you do that?

Again, you don't want independent, impartial people steeped in military justice, which I have a huge amount of respect for, to be giving that kind of advice.

And so I think if your view is might makes right, and you don't believe in principle, and you want to control the military,

I think that there are very scary things to worry about.

You know, in other words, I guess that's true.

Right.

I mean, I think that what you're saying about the description could be a completely accurate description.

It also is the case that you ask yourself if you're right, that that is the accurate depiction of who we have there.

When push comes to shove, will he be an Esper or a Mark Milley?

Or is he going to be, exactly, so again, another rhetorical question, or is he going to be, if he is a man-child, maybe even cut the man part, and will he have the moral fiber and gravitas to understand the impact and import of his decisions for a continuing democracy?

That might be right.

They may be thinking short-term, but it also may have long-term ramifications.

I mean, we're busy bombing all sorts of boats in the Caribbean where there's significant pushback by lawyers outside of the government in international countries that don't want to give intelligence to the United States because they think it's illegal, what our government is doing.

And if you get rid of impartial, sophisticated, experienced people, part of it is because you do not want that impartial answer.

which is it's against domestic law and international law.

I mean, to me, pliability seems to be the number one criteria here.

But CEG, Lindsay Halligan, to get back to where we started, I mean, that just seems to be the number one thing that you're looking for.