Here we talked about we are all this * republican congressmen, Traig Gaudio who knew I heard from just a moment ago, congressmen, thanks for being with us, you said today from president Obama that he is quote either part of it or he is not, if he is part of it, then we've had a serious witness at the mislead the Committee, and if he is not part of it, then he is no business at asserting executive privilege. What do you exactly mean by that statement? are you implying that the president is involved in covering something up? No, quite the opposite, we've had no one that is testified before, either judicial area or over side that the president had any role at fast inference at all,  he said he didn't know about it that I take matters word, my point was more illustrating absurd than any of setting execute privilege for something you had no role in. Executive privilege is for conversations that are had with the chief executive, so he can rely on people's council, and he doesn't have to worry about them being subpoenaed before Committee Congress, he had no conversation. But that's not actually true though, I mean Cheney used executive privilege for discussions about energy policy, it was even used with Hillary Clinton and her role in the health care, debate under the Clinton administration, so it doesn't, that surely mean the president was sitting in meetings. Well, what is I meant, I meant executive privilege, it's not, it has to mean something, it can't cover the entire administration or no one would have to turn over documents. One of your democratic colleagues, Congressmen Elijah said today that attorney general Holder simply protecting documents that his prohibited by law from producing and he is in comply from federal statue passing by but the house and congress signed by the United States, clearly you voted all of them to contempt congress, you disagree with it. No, he is partially correct, I think the initial request was for wire tab applications which are rule sexy of the federal rules of criminal procedure does not allow anyone to give the anyone who is not part of the investigation of trial, so to the extent that the original request for document was overly brought and included protected material, and this congressmen is correct, where is not correct is after chairman Eisen narrow the scope of documents to not include anything that was legally prohibited from being discovered, he still not comply or what could possibly be protected about the drafting of in form letter Committee of Congress. But back in Bush administration when Cheney was talking about executive privilege because of discussion on energy policy and discussions with people from outside, the White House even, republicans rally around, said it's legitimate, democrats knew very much it's a partisan issue, just this is now, if it was ok though under the Bush administration, why isn't it ok now? what's the difference?  I've never answered that up, never subscribed that, theory in life, which is why I've made that belong for this town, I was a prosecutor by putting out what was going on, the notion that is ok for me to do it, only because you did it has never been appealing to me, if it's wrong to do it now, it's to wrong to do it then, and I would hope the court or someone else would have interfered and said you are wrong to assert executive privilege, the fact that republican's done something doesn't make it up, all to * clean agree with, in fact I would be happy to have everyone who's had their finger prints all wide receiver, fast and furious. Any gone walking investigation comment, I don't think you would be able to tell much of the difference in tone of my question irespectable of his political persuasion. Congress Gaudio, I appreciate your time today, thank you very much, sir. Thank you.