y. z. which will fit my narrative and all of you guys are going to see that you were wrong this whole time and you get permutations of that from every direction and it's really grotesque that we get to the point where we're so excited that we might be proven correct by an act of violence that it's going to fit our narrative that we don't even bother to say whatever just happened this was tragic people lost their lives we just jump straight to this you guys are going to finally understand i'm right and that's really grotesque. one thing that's exciting for me to think about is what we really mean when we say we. you know in the united states there's a tendency to say well. you know x. y. z. is happening we have to do something and there's it's very easy to just say we think that we means you know the military of our of our particular state but there's a different we there's women all over the world who are dealing with patchy arche wherever they are and these women can work in solidarity with one

which is to try to change the under lining facts that are under review. that's why they are interviewing on obstruction and ron johnson gave the game away. x, y, zforttinfoil and t means no one can run the investigation. >> republicans, i guess is ta n taking an oath. speaking of mcquaid, there is this news last night of mcquaid. he was influenced by donations to his wife's virginia state campaign three years ago. while he served as acting fbi director after the firing of james comey, president trump summoned him to the oval office and asked who he voted for in the 2016 election. mccabe considered to replace comey says he did not vote. he spent two decades of the fbi found the conversation with trump is disturbing. both the white house and the fbi declined a comment. i want to take it to joyce vans if i could. why would this be an interesttof mueller. >> this is a stunning investigation even though the president and the vice president are not required to avoid political activity. this is an unprecedented kind of conversation to have with one of the president's campaign employee. mueller and his team will be interested in pushing down on this inv

y and z on the news, did it happen in that fashion? are they accurate? >> we seem without a lot of effort moving in this area of being some sort of authority on events for which we hold the papers or which general marshall was involved and how we do that in a more intentional fashion, such as dain that's another one of our challenges. but this certainly seems to be an opportunity for organizations like ours in the public sphere where once perhaps and this sorts tr-- sounds trite, we're thinking somewhat intentionally about how we might do that and build on what we've done in the past. >> great. anyone else on that point? yeah. >> i would just say, i guess it's more as spirational than a reflection of current activity of our center. it seems to me to go back to this moment, this moment of potential of renewed interest in history, but also this moment of tremendous turmoil and upheaval the world over. one of the things historians can bring to bear on the current conversation is really a textured sense of the threat to democracy and here i'm really -- i'm always reminded of the litmus test proposed by the late, great yale political scientist who proposed i think