that might be the reason. but as i indicated, i believe if that was the motivation for the removal, i think that would be one of concern. and that perhaps should be looked at. i want to, again, reassure your viewers that even if that were the case, that would not submarine or in any way jeopardize an ongoing investigation. a career individual is there, in that office, they would continue the investigation. and they would make sure that if there was wrongdoing that had occurred, that there would be a prosecution. so it's -- even without a confirmed head leading a particular office, you're still going to have investigations. you're still going to have prosecutions that move forward. that's not jeopardized by the removal of the confirmed u.s. attorney. >> let me ask you in response to this statement put out by senator patrick leahy, where he writes that the removal of something like bharara has now called into question the