Michael

Let's just say that this person came from the legal background, both in the military and outside of the military.

And we were discussing this.

It's a woman.

And she was saying she was like, no, what he what Tulsi said is not accurate.

And I think her and I both agree, my assessment is this, that is as close as Tulsi could get to supporting Joe Kent without actually saying that she agrees with him.

Because what this woman was saying, and this woman held a position where she would be in, I'll call it the kill chain, the approval chain for kinetic activities from a legal perspective, signing off on, yes, this meets the law, the rule of war, the law of war, Geneva Convention, ROEs, all of these things.

Authority specifically and by doctrine is delegated down to these intelligence apparatus to make these assessments as to whether or not there is or is not a threat.

Now, they might deal in probabilities, but it is literally the role of these organizations to come up with.

and brief the president on what is and what is not an imminent threat.

And that's what I thought, but I don't come from the intelligence world.

And I might be speaking out of my ass because I am at this point paraphrasing what somebody else told me.

So this is like second or third hand at this point.

But it was just really weird.

And again, I fall back to my favorite answer as I get older.

Dude, I don't know.

I don't know what's going on.

I don't have access to any information.

information that other people don't.

Again, I had that interesting conversation with that woman.

Hopefully she's going to be able to come on and we can break this down in a pretty deep level of detail.