events in american history, and it needs to be treated as such. and i think that the strong statement of charging seditious conspiracy based on very detailed facts that i think fit the requirements of the statute, if they can be proven at trial, really does set the stage for, i think, future additional investigation. i know we talked a lot about roger stone. let's remember that roger stone is a convicted liar. i don't think anyone should take anything that he says at face value. but he has a potential go-between between the oath keepers and members of congress and the white house, and that may be a linchpin to get some conduct on the other side of things. that being said, i don't think that we will see members of congress or white house officials charged with seditious conspiracy unless we have some