Stuck out to me. number one, the judge did an excellent job of methodically walking the court and putting on the record exactly what it was that caused him to make the decisions in each of the cases of each of the defendants that he was responsible for. and the reason that that s so important is what it does is it really closes the door for any appeal on this stage of the trial being what they reach for for any of the defendants. it s all crystal clear. the second thing i noticed he did a fantastic job of, he made a clear distinction between the notion of justice or as i understand justice and he called it closure and accountability. he made a point to point out that, listen, we can maybe not necessarily guarantee closure, whereas i said justice in this case. what we can do is hold these individuals accountable. that was affirmed by the decision he made with every one of them. and the last piece of what i saw that i noticed was outstanding about what this judge did, he
Masha, in the case we re sort of spired in a very obviously authoritarian sort of freak show, what ought administration, the justice department, what can they do about it at this point? that s a great question. you know, i think that there has to there have to be efforts to restore the legitimacy of this administration, right? and it has to be an all encompassing project. it has to be a project that includes creating kind of national narrative, which includes both what happened on january 6th, which i don t think administration has done a great job of. it s really stepped away from telling that story. kind of trying to find some kind
This as well as bill burns, and jake sullivan, all work the together before they trust each other. they ve gone forward on this path of authorized disclosures. i think it s something we ll see in the future. in is operationalizing intelligence all for the good of the united states. so, we ve seen the escalations in eastern ukraine over the last 48 hours or so. how do we know when it changes from cross-border skirmishes to an official new russia invasion or incursion? we re going to see units move. you know, again, there s such a soak of intelligence. we will see with if not within seconds, within minutes either russian land forces move, missile strikes or russian air power. we ll get that. i go back to the idea of, i think the intelligence community has done a really good job of, you know, painting the right picture, of providing situational awareness for the administration. intelligence is never predictive. it shouldn t be. we ve given our policymakers the
For 36 days. we are really thankful for those weapons that were already shipped to ukraine. and, you know, our fighters are doing a very good job with javelins, with stingers. i mean, they shot a missile with a stinger. it s probably, you know, first time in ever it was done. but we do need some more heavy weapons. we would have the air defense systems because they re sending missiles from the black sea, from very, very long distance. and we do not have enough of that air system in ukraine. so, we would need that and we would need also the fire jets to do our job of, you know, closing the skies for ourselves. and, you know, we don t need any other army boots on the ground. we re doing that ourselves. i mean, there are queues to go to military, to join the defense
Our allies and partners which i think we need to do a much better job of. well, you have some red lines in space. do i have red lines in space? as far as what s happening with these attacks? bret the, i ve always found that it s never a good idea to publish red lines. i would say that it s really important to the united states of america to insure that we protect our capabilities. and i think, yeah, i think we ll stay focused on that. okay. i m just going to bounce around the world really quickly, and i know we don t have that much time, but do you have any regrets about the afghan withdrawal? bret, i regret the fact that we lost 13 of our finest at ab abbey gate. i regret that we lost ten