
So, how was your lunch? David Corn's got off to a miserable start, as I spent 15-20 minutes haranguing him about our competing theories of the 1x2x6 Plame leaks,* in the light of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald nearly having to give himself the Heimlich maneuver after being asked just what his team had confirmed about them. Neither Corn nor I gave an inch, so that will remain a cliffhanger for the time being. (Expect a post about this tonight, if I'm not too exhausted.) But thanks to David for being a good sport about discussing it.
(*David is quite deservedly needling me about mentioning this, so I'll add that you should check out his book, which covers the whole run-up to war. Marcy and I each bought a copy.)
It's 1:30 p.m. in Washington, D.C., FBI agent Bond is back at the stand for more Chinese water torture, so it looks like we're ready to get under way.
NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript -- just a very loose paraphrase, at best -- so don't treat it as one. (2) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing -- but you should buy it, if you haven't already. My own previous writings on Plamemania can be found here. (4) My own notes will be in parentheses and italics.
Fitz says that after Bond, we'll have Scooter's grand jury testimony... and, surprise, there are more "issues" to be resolved. There may be a break. Or maybe not.
Jeffress takes the podium. and starts to explain an issue regarding Andrea Mitchell. A voice says, "Are you sure this is what I'm objecting to?" Much crosstalk.
It's 1:35.
Wells: Agent Bond, I only have a few more questions... (Hallelujah.)
Wells walks Bond through the June 10 INR memo, reiterating that Libby said he never saw it, nor did he discuss it with Rex Marc Grossman, nor did he or Cheney have any role in directing the creation of the memo.
And Libby quoting Colin Powell during a Sept. 30 Situation Room meeting that it was no secret that Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger (this is a new wrinkle on the "Everybody knows..." story mentioned in the last thread).
Now we're reliving the Tenet statement on July 11, 2003 about the uranium controversy. Apparently Condi Rice wanted to make a joint statement with Tenet, but then Tenet insisted on making a solo statement.
More minutiae of Libby's testimony, followed by acknowledgement that Libby signed a waiver releasing reporters from promises of confidentiality. This is all Wells re-stating Libby's testimony, followed by Bond saying "Yes" or "That's what he told us."
The defense enters into evidence Libby's schedule for July 11, and also June 10, 11, and 12, 2003.
Now Wells asks Bond, was it your understanding when you started working on this investigation, that it was about who leaked Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA to Robert Novak? (Yes.) And are you aware that Richard Armitage has admitted to relating this information to Novak? (Yes.)
No further questions. Time for re-direct, by prosecutor Debra Bon Amici Peter Zeidenberg.
It's 1:49.
Z: Agent Bond, when Mr. Libby was first interviewed, his attorney stated that Mr. Libby felt he had not had enough time to review documents, right?
B: Yes.
Z: Tell us about the scheduling of the second interview.
B: It was scheduled for five weeks later.
Z: Did Mr. Libby convey that he still had not had enough time to review documents?
B: No.
Z: Was there any material difference in what he said in the second interview versus the first?
B: No.
Zeidenberg starts to ask another question that I didn't catch, and is interrupted by an objection. There's a private chat in front of Judge Walton.
Z: Did any of the documentation that Libby provided show that the President had authorized the leaking declassification of the NIE prior to July 8, 2003? (Whoa, that topic came out of left field -- maybe EW remembers it being asked about last week.)
B: No.
Zeidenberg brings up the didn't recall/denied dust-up regarding Ari Fleischer. Cites notes saying "No conversations with Rove, Ari."
Z: No conversations regarding...?
B: Wilson's wife.
Zeidenberg brings up similar notes of Libby saying he didn't have any conversations with other government officials -- he would only have talked about Wilson's wife with Cheney or Cathie Martin.
It's 2:05.
More fun with notes -- they cite Libby saying that he may have discussed with Cheney whether to get the Plame info out to the press, followed by "does not recall." Zeidenberg points out that the very next sentence is about calling Matt Cooper, then says "who else to call." (Z. doesn't go on, but right after that are the names Evan Thomas and Glenn Kessler.)
Zeidenberg started to ask another question inaudibly (he's wandering out of microphone range), and then everything broke down into another conference at the bench. (Seems like legal trench warfare.)
It's 2:20.
The bench conference to end all bench conferences is still goin on. It's worth noting that neither side is really trying to elicit anything from poor agent Bond at this point -- they're just reading testimony to her (or making her read it) and making her say "Yes."
Oh, but wait, people are moving...
Walton: "A short recess."
It's 2:37.
Okay, ten minutes later, peace in our time -- a variety of issues have been resolved, including the redaction of the word "snake" from the jury's copy of the now-famous Libby notes from talking with Mary Matalin.
Libby's attorney Well still has a problem with (I believe) the October 2003 WaPo articles, including the apparent fact that they weren't turned over to the FBI very promptly. He claims Libby and his lawyers had very little time to review all the appropriate documents, but Judge Walton doesn't seem very receptive -- to the point of citing calendar dates when this could have been done.
Juror questions for agent Bond, read by Judge Walton (JW):
JW: (to jury) Several of the questions you've submitted I can't ask. Please note that in these cases, you shouldn't speculate to yourself about the answer, nor should you discuss it with your fellow jurors.
JW: (to Bond) Why didn't you write down the comments by Mr. Libby's lawyer in October 2003 that Libby hadn't had enough time to review documents?
B: I typically just write down the notes from the interviewee.
Prosecution submits several calendar notes (from Libby, I presume) into evidence.
Wells gets up to ask questions. Shows the Libby response, dated Oct. 7, 2003, to an Oct. 3, 2003 request for documents. Notes that Oct. 3 is a Friday. Adds that Libby went with Cheney and Jenny Mayfield (Cheney's assistant) to Philadelphia on Oct 3rd and went on to Jackson Hole, WY, not returning until October 6th at 2pm. Libby almost immediately had a private meeting with his lawyer.
W: Within 24 hours they had made an initial document production, right?
B: To Mr. Addington.
W: When did Mr. Addington turn over documents?
B: Some on Oct 9th. others on Oct. 13th, most on Oct. 22nd. (took a few questions to establish this)
Wells suggests this shows good-faith compliance by Libby compared to other cases, Bond shrugs and says it depends on the case. Wells repeats, "The complexity of the case matters, right?" and declares victory no further questions.
Zeidenberg comes up and starts showing calendars for Libby -- a 4-hour meeting with his lawyer on Oct. 6, an all-day
Okay, everybody's done with agent Bond. Time for Libby grand jury testimony in a new thread.
It's 3:11.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZMAS!!!
JANE!
Fitz!!
“A voice says” could you elaborate on that please? Who is objecting to what?
Oooh, Corny is sorta cute! I’m sure Swopa is cuter, however, in his double-breasted blazer. Corn is probably wearing some kind of cheesy crewneck sweater.
That’s my stellar contribution to the high-brow litigation discussion, here. Over and out!
Thanks for this amazing live blogging. Found out about this place at Think Progress. You are at the forefront of a major panic for the “established media”. Mesmerising stuff.
You must trounce David Corn in any argument, Swopa, if only so I can deploy the headline, “Corn Gets Pwn3d!” at least once before I die.
Hello YA’ll and thanks to everyone!
FireDogLake Live Blog “Rules of the Road” - help us all share the road during Live Blogging! (Thanks, Peterr, for drafting these!)
p.s. Don’t forget to feed the ‘Lake by making a donation, see links in upper right of page. Site is self-sustaining, needs your help. Thanks!
Just can’t wait for Scooter’s gj testimony!
I’ve got my popcorn!
Let the show begin!!!
TRex @ 7
Use it, make him refute.
I am glad to see that people as clued in as Swopa get confused by all the goings on in the courtroom. I can’t keep myself from reading each and every post, but I do rely on experts such as Christy, Marcy, Pach, et al to straighten things out for me at the end of the day.
I plead innocent. What’s the beef with Corn? I am not clued.
BTW, TRex, if I’d known you were only going to be here until Tuesday, I would have made more of an effort to get in touch over the weekend; it would have been nice to meet you. Maybe next time.
Rayne @
9
Hi 2 U in FDL-land Rayne — Maybe a quick pointer to gabbly & why?
OK kid - Corn fed beef?
I was a eighteen year old vendor selling beer in the Polo Grounds and saw Willie Mays make that great centerfield catch . Think the Polo Grounds had the longest centerfield in the Majors . And was shaped for Giant football games and had very short distanced foul lines made for pull hitters .
Oklahoma kiddo @ 14
He made a drive-by appearence in the Viveca Novak brouhaha. Where he vouched for Viv-Vak based on the fact he played hoops with her hubby..
I’ll stop now before I’m allowed to alliterate again…
Gnome de Plume @ 17
Corned Beef?
(I’m sorry, really, shutting up now, I promise, moms).
The question I’d like to answer for my high school students who ask, if Libby is convicted; so what?
RevDeb @
4
That means I don’t know who was speaking. Regrettably, there are no subtitles on the video feed. :)
S.O.S. in MA — thanks for that.
To ease the burden on the FireDogLake server during the Live Blog, those of us who want to chat idly or about OT stuff are in a chat using Gabbly.
You can find us FDL addicts at:
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
Be sure to change your name in the Name box, click Change, and say howdy!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 21
Ouch! That’s a great question, one that won’t be answered for a long while. It has to be put in a historical context: We can go the way of Watergate, or the way of Iran/Contra.
Now Wells asks Bond, was it your understanding when you started working on this investigation, that it was about who leaked Valerie Wilson’s employment at the CIA to Robert Novak? (Yes.) And are you aware that Richard Armitage has admitted to relating this information to Novak? (Yes.)
Geeze Louise. How many times is Wells going to try to convince the jury that the case is about who leaked, when it’s really about Libby lying to the investigators? And, um, didn’t the revelation about Armitage come out after Libby was indicted, so it can’t possibly disprove Fitz’s assertions about Libby’s motive for lying?
mandrake @
5
Actually, Corn seems to be wearing exactly the same outfit worn in his Capital Games blog photo.
Which leaves open the question of whether he owns any other clothes. Is a sharp-looking outfit, though.
An organized and simple redirect should outline Bond’s relevant testimony here.
The defense was attempting to obfuscate the basic facts.
Way to go, FDL.
“Talk of the Nation” coming on now. Isn’t Marcy supposed to be on it?
Is it just me, or is Swopa’s live coverage a great deal less detailed than EW’s was?
Not complaining, just wondering.
So Wells’ big finale is the admission that Richard Armitage leaked to Bob Novak? Is that part of his “immateriality” argument?
Is Wells’ immateriality argument now conventional wisdom among Goopers? If so, do they realize that under this theory, President Clinton was free to lie with impunity about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? After all, Clinton had no reason to believe when he sat down for his deposition that he would be questioned about Monica Lewinsky, or that there was any relevance, in the minds of the lawyers for Paula Jones, between Jones’ allegations and his relationship with Lewinsky.
Better yet, perhaps Clinton should have invoked the “most powerful man in the world” defense to explain why, given his very very important and busy job, he had forgotten his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Andrea Mitchell (confused/conflicting audio/video statements she made made to Imus re: Libby and Tim) will be in the hot seat for the defense to refute Russert’s key testimony.
It is a lot less detailed. EW typed like a court reporter, taking down almost every line. It’s very hard to do. Swopa may be processing what he is hearing first, and then trying to determine what’s important to repeat on the blog — or to sum up.
That’s a downside of being a true transcriber. You don’t get to make judgments as you go along — you just type what you hear.
Marcy on Talk of the Nation - NPR with Byron York
Marcy and York are like a duo now. Good and Evil, Beauty and the Beast, …
Whoops, Swopa just did an EW and transcribed the redirect of Bond. Guess I was wrong.
Anyone have a link to talk of the nation?
TalkLeft @ 32
Exactly. Though it starts with not being able to type as fast as EW.
Also, following the defense cross-examination line for line is just too excruciating, because you can’t tell where they’re going with anything.
TalkLeft @
35
That’s still a massive condensation. But if people want me to fake it so it looks like dialogue, I can do that. :)
Seriously, it’s very important that people remember, even the stuff that looks verbatim isn’t. Like the house rules say, this is NOT a transcript.
ccmask @ 36
Go to npr.org, find it on the left hand side in the program list.
Marcy is talking on “Talk of the Nation” NOW!!!!
Whoever speculated earlier that Armitage might get dragged into this as the “real” guilty party, may have been more a prophet than a pundit, that seems to be where this is leaning.
And Powell seems to be another “target” of re-direction the defense hopes to use to defer guilt away from Libby and onto one of the many rejected wings of the old inner-circle.
Armitage and Powell, aren’t they pals?
Is the beginning of one superficial “house of cards” to fall, to protect the real house of cards? Will we see Armitage testifying against Powell in a Libby trial? …instead of hearing Rove testify against Cheney? Which testimony would really be more germane to the issue?
Makes one wonder, how long ago did Powell know he and his “team” would be the likely objects of these convenient guilt deferrals?
Probably about the time he walked out of the UN after that historic speech he gave them.
stingray @ 29
I think EW’s rapid-fire keyboarding ability qualifies her as a complete freak of nature!
Nobody, AND I MEAN NOBODY, could live up to that level of detail under these circumstances.
Swopa’s play-by-play (and commentary) is still well above what I would expect from a mere mortal.
Swopa - Thanks for being there for the rest of us and reporting back!
SharonRB @ 40
and taking calls!
Evan Thomas was on Imus this am and when asked what he thought of the Lobby trial, he responded he couldn’t comment as he might be called as a witness
seenos @
42
And don’t write me off, I may get more detailed/faster as I get used to this (like I said in my opening post). :)
It was really hard to feel inspired enough to transcribe the verbal loop-de-loops that Libby’s lawyers are going through, since their whole point is to make the case sound confusing.
All rfe “Talk of the nation”
you can’t get the live stream from npr.org but you CAN find your local affiliate. WARNING: Not all affiliates have the same program schedule. KOPB, which I’m listening to now, does carry it. And don’t forget to support public radio.
Oh - you can also get the audio (podcast), after 6:00 pm ET.
Oklahoma kiddo @
14
The corn beef is just Swopa’s rye sense of humor acting up again.
Corn famously beefed “you can indict a ham sandwich” to which Swopa quipped “not without a proper torta, you can’t”
We had to refer the whole dispute to the URL of Sandwich for mediation.
Swopa:
I thought the same thing being in the courtroom. It was painful to sit through. He seemed to go on and on with questions but there was no clue as to what he was getting at or why he was asking them.
I thought Jeffress was a much more effective cross-examiner. He made it like a tennis match, which is what I like to see in a good cross.
followed by Wells saying “Yes” or “That’s what he told us.”
Do you mean Bond?
Swopa @ 26
Not bad! Rowrrr.
Just a comment…
…the entries are too clean. No typos = typing too slow.
Ahgoo @ 43
Ditto
Oklahoma kiddo @
21
Tell them that that is only part of the question. He may be guilty or innocent, he may be convicted or not, and, if convicted, he might get pardoned.
So that leaves six possible permutations, some of which have more interesting consequences than others.
Innocent and found innocent Hurray, our system works. While not a likely looking outcome from where we sit now, it would be a just one. Probably derails the civil suit (as concerns him at least), and raises the interesting question of how we got to this point in the first place.
Innocent but found guilty Was he framed? How would we even know this had happened? Watch out for flying pigs.
Innocent, found guilty, and pardoned Even less likely than the case above, because the people that are being accused of framing him (Bush, et al) are the only ones who could pardon him. Look for an eventual Oliver Stone movie.
Guilty but found innocent Probably the end of the line; time to start watching the House Hearing instead.
In all of the above cases, there is a very real risk to our system of government, yet another example for would-be wrong-doers to look back on and say, “yeah, what the heck” when deciding if they should risk betraying our nation for private gain.
Guilty, found guilty, possibly pardoned This is the really interesting possibility. Either as a result of a pardon or as a consequence of a sentencing phase bargain, he may wind up being compelled to testify against others (Cheney? Rove? Bush?) and in any case the civil suit receives a boost. Also, this is the only case in which Ftiz seems likely to go for another round, working his way up the ladder towards the Justice that Libby was convicted (in this scenario) of Obstructing. And perhaps most importantly it will send the right sort of message to all other would-be wrong does; not about Libby or Plame, but about our system and how it applies to even the most powerful.
Note that a fair conviction won’t, in and of itself, solve all our problem (or even any of them) but it’s a necessary step.
– MarkusQ
Marcy on Talk of the Nation: One significance of this trial is, to what extent can the president and vice-president declassify things?
obsessed @ 47
OUCH! That’s all, just OUCH.
Notta Flatlander @ 47
wbur.org now
egregious @ 50
Yes, thanks — I’ll fix it!
JEP @ 53
My apologies: I really really appreciate your work! I’ve followed this story from when Joe Wilson’s book was first published till now. Was bummed when the trial was pushed until AFTER the midterm elections, but here we are now.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop real-time.
Byron on Talk of the Nation: There are a number of people, even in the Beltway, who are not interested in this case.
F*cking moron.
Jwoods @ 52
Heh, guilty as charged. Even back when I was taking typing tests for jobs, I would go back and correct errors on the spot rather than press ahead. It’s a habit I can’t break.
Biodun @ 55
Just “things,” or people too — Like Valerie Plame?
Would Cheney argue that he has the authority to out CIA employees? (never mind the question of ‘for what pressing national need?’)
_
Does anyone have a ‘feel’ for whether Mr. & Mrs. Sixpak are paying attention to this trial?
All these sidebars! I’m surprised more of these evidentiary issues weren’t worked out in advance by motions in limine.
Swopa @ 61
No problem…. keep up the good work!
i’m like the proverbial pigeon starving for your crumbs of postings…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 63
It’s not getting a lot of MSM evening news coverage.
_
Byron on Talk of the Nation: Bloggers are trying on this trial to be online court reporters.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 63
doubt they are. Only some folks in my well educated liberal congregation are and they would be far more motivated to tune in. I’m doing all I can to open their eyes and ears.
“Does anyone have a ‘feel’ for whether Mr. & Mrs. Sixpak are paying attention to this trial?”
Heck no! Ask Mr. & Mrs. Sixpak what they think of the Libby trial and they say, “WHO?!”. Unreal the level of ignorance about national politics and current events.
Biodun @ 67
And doing a damn good job of it, too. A fact that York probably hates!
_
politicalpolyanna @ 69
More important shit going on, like American Idol.
_
Byron lying again about Wilson. EVERY time Wilson talks about being sent he emphasizes that the VP did not send him but he WAS sent to answer questions the VP posed.
York claiming that Wilson cleaned up his statement in the op-ed.
Marcy on Talk of the Nation: Only people who have security clearance can be charged for leaking classified information.
Saying this as a reason that Novak cannot be charged. He doesn’t have security clearance. Important point. Marcy is sharp!
Are they still in a sidebar?
Swopa,
You can increase yr speed by using abbreviations and dropping capital letters and punctuation.
It reads poorly but then you go back and edit. That’s my steno method.
Byron on Talk of the Nation: Caller who said this trial is nonpartisan is in the minority.
Again: f*cking moron.
I believe you can listen here to Marcy: http://www.wbur.org
Biodun @
60
That’s what they said about Watergate, too.
On edit: Can’t get TOTN right now — I do hope Marcy is smacking the crap out of this bozo.
Oklahoma Kiddo;
Mr. and Mrs. sixpack?
My, just where do they fit into the class struggle? Is this just another simplification like, say, “soccer mom.”
Is there a cultural classification that determines who pays attention to these proceedings? Maybe Mom Sixpack is more tuned in than Pop Sixpack, it is hard to even couple two people into your stereotype, let alone a whole class of people.
Sounds like very thinly veiled elitism, and I don’t even drink beer… is there really an elite class somewhere in Oklahoma?
As a teacher, you are responsible to make sure all your “sixpack” family kids get the whole story, maybe you should turn them onto blogs like this one. It would be a great learning experience.
Marcy’s on Talk of the Nation right now, check your local public broadcasting station.
(oops, should have refreshed before posting this, I’m way behind, like usual! :) )
Swopa said:
And don’t write me off, I may get more detailed/faster as I get used to this (like I said in my opening post). :)
We all appreciate your efforts very, very much.
But if EW is a freak of nature then perhaps she’s best for the job if and when more critical witnesses come to the stand? Say Libby, Rove, Cheney, if they are ever called to the hot seat?
Marcy on Talk of the Nation: Not holding my breath for more indictments.
Byron York: Not guaranteed that Cheney will testify. What can the VP add to the evidence?
Marcy agrees with Byron on this point.
JEP: “… is there really an elite class somewhere in Oklahoma?”
Warren Buffet & Friends. I’m sure there are other ‘elite’ circles as well.
I, for one, am appreciating Swopa’s cleaned up version.
anything from poo
Oh, but wait, people are m
What, are those typos?
“But if EW is a freak of nature then perhaps she’s best for the job if and when more critical witnesses come to the stand? Say Libby, Rove, Cheney, if they are ever called to the hot seat?”
Who cares right now?
Save it for after the trial.
I’m new here today, to avoid all hypocrisy, I shouldn’t be preaching blog ettiquette to anyone. But this critical sniping seems a bit unrelated to anything Libby has had to hear today.
I suppose being new I have nothing to compare to, but it detracts from the real issues, discussing blogger methodology during the blog itself. Sorry, but like so many new bloggers, I do not know the inner-workings of this blog, but it seems this kind of criticism is best left to a time and thread started well after the legal debate of the day has transpired.
Just my opinion
Biodun @ 82
Cheney could add quite a bit to the evidence. It just wouldn’t be very helpful to Libby.
JEP @
86
Second that — and I’m not new here.
Welcome to The Lake JEP
having a lot of fun with GABBLY firedogs - seems there’s a ‘mute’ feature for the troll-like among us *G*
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
Swopa - Could you at least up-date with a time stamp saying they’re still at break? Last comment from you I notice was at the :29 minute mark?
Are they still at break? I feel guilty about refreshing.
JEP @ 86:
Agree with you completely. Comparing empty wheel and Swopa is like comparing apples and oranges. Swopa is doing a great job, period.
JEP @ 86
JEP - welcome. However, you do seem to have quite a few opinions - many of them rather negative towards folks who have been blogging on FDL for a long time.
Thanks.
Warren Buffet is from Omaha…
And what I meant by an “elite class”, is one that can somehow look down upon “the Sixpacks.”
Even Warren himself might not agree with that elitist assessment, in this country, money has much less to do with “class” than in ages past.
Some of our wealthiest people have the least amount of what is traditionally considered “class.”
But Warren Buffet, (the one from Omaha,) isn’t one of them. He’s really a pretty classy guy, compared to, say, the Bushes.
obsessed @
48
punaise-worthy!
BobbyG @ 66
They all think Libby is the guy who makes the canned pears.
if it says Libbys Libbys Libbys on the label label label ………..
dab from CT @ 92
Well, the fact is, I don’t know who I might be offending, so don’t anyone take anything personal.
And as for having opinions, isn’t that what these blogs are all about?
lina @ 96
he’s guilty guilty guilty at the table table table.
if you’ve got Cheney Cheney Cheney as your savior savior savior. . .
At the risk of extending this: actually, at Firedoglake, no. The fact content tends to outweigh the opinion content here. It’s what makes it so Firedoglake-olicious.
David Corn says he’s never listened to Fog Hat. I think I’m going to have to apologize.
it seems this kind of criticism is best left to a time and thread started well after the legal debate of the day has transpired.
Message received, sorry about that.
Thanks for anything and everything, Swopa, you’re not better or worse than EW. It’s just a different style from what I had gotten used to last week and I thought it perfectly reasonable to ask if anyone else had noticed. I’ll go back to silent mode now.
JEP-
Welcome! I’m enjoying and appreciate your comments.
-from one who has lurked/commented for about a more than a year
Jane Hamsher @ 101
WHAT? No FOGHAT?
Gimme a brek.
Fool for the City.
SEMI OT but check out this link, send a note to Pelosi, Impeach Cheney. Please forward.
http://www.petitiononline.com/WD13007/
Thanks! PS bought the BOOK ;-)
Hey Jane!!
Glad to see you “on the job”
“The fact content tends to outweigh the opinion content here.”
Is that a fact or an opinion, now, really?
stingray @
81
I think both Swopa and EW do a fabulous job and bring different (and also many of the same) talents to the table. I’ve enjoyed them both equally and invite others to appreciate all the effort and expertise they bring to the task. It’s awe inspiring.