Charles Krauthammer Quotes Orin's Constitutional Analysis
of the eavesdropping matter in today's Washington Post.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Congressional Research Service Report on NSA Surveillance:
- Data-Mining, FISA, and the NSA Surveillance Program:
- New Risen Book Sheds Light on NSA Surveillance Program:...
- The NSA Surveillance Program and the Article II Argument:
- Charles Krauthammer Quotes Orin's Constitutional Analysis
- A Few Additional Thoughts on NSA Surveillance:...
- Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program:
- Deputy Attorney General Stepping Down:
- Staffing the Justice Department:
1. As far as I can tell, Professor Kerr never explicitly wrote that he believed the NSA surveillance program to be "probably constitutional" in all respects (i.e., even if it's constitutional on 4th Amendment grounds, it could still be unconstitutional on Article II grounds).
2. Krauthammer never discusses Professor Kerr's concerns regarding the fact that the President may have violated statute(s).
Nevertheless, it's great to see Prof. Kerr's invaluable and excellent blog post cited by the influential Krauthammer.
I'm sorry Orin.
You can read Delong's version of Krauthammer's column over at tpmcafe.
Yours,
Wince
Violating the Foreign Intelligance Surveillance Act, and then getting caught and trying to justify it by reference to some of the most absurd interpretations of the constitution and federal law ever set forward by the executive branch -- no big deal.
Lying about an extramarital blow-job -- constitutional crisis and the second impeachment in American history.
Ah, integrity --- remember when that used to exist?!?
FWIW, on the record as it exists, I do not beleive Bush should be impeached. But if we are going to use the Clinton-standard, he should not only be impeached but thrown in Gitmo for crimes against humanity. I, of course, reject that standard.
I am shocked, just shocked.
...to be selectively and misleadingly quoted by Charles Krauthammer. Sometimes it feels so good to be used!
This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor.
Yes, only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend to believe a "pretty decent argument," even in the fantasyworld in which Orin Kerr came out the other way.
Lots of points could be made here. But one stands out to me. If it is a close question about the existence of the President's authority (per Orin without Krauthammer dispute), doesn't it seem odd that such an ambiguous power would be above legislative restriction?
We're now just arguing over whether he had authority to break it. But the fact that the law was broken is pretty solidly attested to by the President's own confession, and brazen claim to continue to break it.
As for whether he has a right to break that law, that's another question. But let's please move past this bottleneck in the discourse where some people are debating whether the law was actually broken. Bush himself says he did and his Attorney General agrees.
And since you haven't got the message: Clinton's misconduct was more serious than Bush's conduct.
In other words, the chief of police of Los Angeles would violate the 4th Amendment (or 14th Amendment) by conduction warrantless searches (absent acting as an authorized agent of the Executive branch) of foreign agents in the U.S. suspected of plotting terrorist acts because the LAPD has no inherent authority to thwart foreign enemies, making the search unreasonable.
So the Article II authority is what supports the reasonableness of the 4th Amendment search, making them inextricably linked here. This is the argument that Krauthammer cites Prof. Kerr as authority for.
The second Article II argument everyone's focused on is the separation of powers argument: whether FISA can reign in the Article II power to repel foreign invasion/terrorism by limiting the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches of foreign agents in the U.S. plotting terrorist activities.
Prof. Kerr does not opine on this, but Krauthammer does not cite him for this. Krauthammer cites Bill Clinton's administration for the general principle that separation of powers principles means that FISA is unconstitutional (so Congress, not the President is exceeding its authority). Although the President is violating FISA, his violation can't be "illegal" b/c FISA is unconstitutional. It's not a crime to break an invalid law. This is Krauthammer's point.
Whether Bush should be impeached and removed is certainly Congress' call (as it was with Clinton) because the federal courts will not get involved here. As with the Clinton impeachment, it would be a dumb idea b/c even if he gets impeached Bush will not be removed from office and I seriously doubt that this will deter him from employing domestic surveillance of foreign terrorists, just as impeachment did not stop Clinton (God love him) from getting blow jobs from a non-spouse.
"Is there seriously anyone in the country who DOESN'T think Bush broke the (FISA) law? I mean, that's pretty much what Bush and Gonzales have been saying, right?"
No, DOJ wrote that "The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..." Incidentally, I disagree with that quoted statement. But, it seems to me that a later law (AUMF) modified the FISA.
Credibility gone. And color me surprised -- I did not think anyone would say that (save for people like Hugh Hewitt and Hindrocket, i.e. blatant, unapologetic partisans who are unconcerned with maintaining intellectual honesty).
before a grand jury
A civil deposition my friend. And a grand jury, where the questions were about a civil deposition. Sort of attenuated there my friend.
For those pushing this silly argument, I have a question: is there any law that even tangentially deals with security issues that was not modified by the AUMF in your view? Again, please explain the point of the PATRIOT Act if the AUMF is read in the manner suggested.
Note: while I find the inherent authority argument completely absurd (i.e., the inherent authority to disregard FISA -- not inherent authority in absence of FISA), I think the AUMF argument makes the inherent authority argument look like it was thought up by an eloquent genius of legal reasoning the likes of which we have not seen since Holmes.
In fact, I find the AUMF argument to be on par with the legal reasoning of Lionel T. Hutts' famous citation to the case of "Finders v. Keepers." But hey, if you want to push it, that's your bag not mine.
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.
Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
You think that this paragraph does not respond directly to the paragraph above it which uses the same language?
I have numerous other engagments now, and so will be signing off from this conversation, at least for the time being. I agree with you that Holmes was --- by and large --- an eloquent genius of legal reasoning. Amidst your insults, a question: "is there any law that even tangentially deals with security issues that was not modified by the AUMF in your view?" I am not aware of any law other than FISA that was modified by the AUMF, although it's conceivable that the AUMF and some earlier statute could come into conflict in the circumstances of a particular case. Why is it so extraordinary to suppose that a later statute (e.g. AUMF) modified an earlier statute (e.g. FISA)? That question was rhetorical.
Yes, pulling down one's pants is a form of requesting consent. The religious right -- of which that commenter is a member -- has very odd conceptions of sex lives.
Jeez, GC, what are you trying to do, make ME the most obnoxious commenter here? I need the cover, pal!
Sigh. Gotta get off the PC and wrap some stuff. Merry Christmas to all, and may you enjoy a surveillance-free holiday (Santa's surveillance excluded---maybe that's in Article Eleven too!)
GC: Yes, pulling down one's pants is a form of requesting consent.
This reminds me of the wonderful note in Prosser's casebook on torts (9th ed. p. 57):
I've never liked George Will, but at least he's made clear recently that he has some integrity. Krauthammer clearly doesn't.
I do think that paragraph responds directly to the one above as do the remaining paragraphs.
Two arguments:
(1) President violated the 4th Amendment. Answer, per Prof. Kerr, probably not based on case law that the constitutional authority from Article II to repel foreign invasions by conducting warrantless searches of foreign agents in U.S. is probably not restricted by the Fourth Amendment. (If the President doesn't have authority from Article II, then the search is automatically unreasonable and violates the 4th Amendment, as well as violates Article II). But the President does have the "constitutional authority" to repel foreign invasions unlike the LAPD who does not have this authority.
(2) President broke the FISA law. Answer, per Clinton administartion, FISA cannot restrict the President's inherent authority to repel foreign invasions by making illegal what is not unconstitutional (anymore than they can make legal what is unconstitutional). So the President didn't "violate the law" anymore than Mr. Johnson does by burning the American flag.
The "trampling on the Constitution" seems to suggest two things: (1) President violated the 4th Amendment rights; and (2) President ignored a Congressional law.
But if Prof. Kerr's tentative conclusion is correct, then (1) is out. And if the Clinton (and W. Bush view) is correct, then (2) is irrelevant. It's absurd to say that someone "violates the law" (even the President) when the law is unconstitional.
Certainly Krauthammer's column could be more explicit about this (as could the critics, who seem to say that Bush violated the law, even if the law is unconstitutiona), but there are space limitations.
I do not believe that a credible argument exists that the House ought not at least to be considering impeachment.
Constitutional with respect to the President and Congress (and the Courts) also means authorized by the Constitution. Here, the President is authorized to repel foreign invasions; Congress is authorized to pass laws necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the states and the Supreme Court is authorized to hear cases between two states.
Where and when did Clinton say that FISA infringed upon the Article II inherent power of the Presidency? And where and when did Bush say it? My understanding is that the President's justification of the surveillance relied entirely on the AUMF and not at all on this inherent power.
Even assuming that the President has inherent C-in-C power to repel a foreign invasion, it does not follow that the President has unregulated power to take whatever action he deems necessary to prevent such a hypothesized invasion. Otherwise, there could be no challenge to assassinating you or anyone, based on a Presidential assertion that this was necessary to repel some future speculative invasion in which he believed you might be complicitous.
You're right about Bush admin not taking this position, but Clinton administration apparently did (according to news reports, including the Krauthammer piece). It seems Bush admin is going for the AUSA argument for PR reasons and maybe to avoid a constitutional issue.
I agree that the President doesn't have "unregulated power to take whatever action he deems necessary to prevent such a hypothesized invastion" if that action is unconstitutional, as your assasination example is (at least I hope it is, for me, at least). Prof. Kerr's tentative conclusion is that the President's action probably did not violate the 4th Amendment based on his assessment of case law and best guess.
I think maybe I've been unclear that the constitutional authority (the place the President has to point to justify his actions) means constitutional under Article II. In other words, the President (or executive branch) has absolutely no power to get a warrant based on probable cause that I'm cheating on my state income taxes because he has no Article II powers to enforce state law, even if he has probable cause to believe I'm cheating on my taxes.
Now just because the President maybe has the Article II powers doesn't mean he has to exercise it, which is a different argument. I think Krauthammer's point is that Congress can't make it illegal for him to exercise it, even if he should cooperate with them to avoid a showdown by changing the law to make it explicit instead of potentially relying on Art II and actually relying on AUSA.
Article I Section 8 says:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Now, as I understand it the NSA is part of the "land and naval forces." FISA rules were written by Congress as "regulation" of NSA.
If Congress passed a law that said the army could not use nuclear weapons, could fire only rubber bullets, or anything else regarding the conduct of our military, would that be something the President could ignore because of his C-i-C power?
I believe that the neither President nor the NSA broke the FISA law, and I've been reading about it for days. If you've read the statute, including the definitions, you'd find there are loopholes you could drive a truck through. It would pathethically easy to design a program to do exactly what the President says is being done - monitoring - not surveillance, under the terms of the statute.
At the same time, revealing the details of the program in order to exonerate himself under FISA is itself against the law, and unwise to boot.
So please, consider Cass Sunstein, and give it up. You will not win. The details needed to prove your point aren't available, and shouldn't be.
Yours,
Wince
>President violated the 4th Amendment. Answer, per Prof. Kerr, probably not based on case law that the constitutional authority from Article II to repel foreign invasions by conducting warrantless searches of foreign agents in U.S. is probably not restricted by the Fourth Amendment. <
Huh? Where did Kerr say that? You mean the border search exception? Kerr specifically said that the administration's claim of Article II power was unprecedented and unsupported by case law.
>Answer, per Clinton administartion, FISA cannot restrict the President's inherent authority to repel foreign invasions by making illegal what is not unconstitutional (anymore than they can make legal what is unconstitutional).<
Where did the Clinton administration say this? That's an incredibly broad and vague statement. You're saying the Clinton administration claimed Congress has no authority whatsoever to instruct the president in matters of national security?
Your "space limitations" claim seems pretty silly. Do you really think he was misleading on accident? You think he would have liked to have been more straight forward, but couldn't find the space?
This was an obvious attempt to factually mislead his readers, by mischaracterizing the argument against Bush (the primary charges have been that he violated a law, not that he violated the constitution [except to the extent he has a constitutional duty to uphold the law]), blatantly mischaracterizing Kerr's position, and blending together several different issues while glossing over obvious distinctions.
"If Congress passed a law that said the army could not use nuclear weapons, could fire only rubber bullets, or anything else regarding the conduct of our military, would that be something the President could ignore because of his C-i-C power?"
Remember Daschle was voted out of office because he fail to support the war effort. Any Congress that pass the above war would be voted out as quickly. On Septenber 14, 2001 do you really think that Congress would give less than traditional war power to C-in-C?
It'd depend on whether the law interferes with the President's ability to "preserve, protect and defend" (Art II Sect 1)
Yes, we've reached the logical limit of the commander-in-chief-clause-that-ate-Manhatten school of interpretation: one man has the intrinsic right to start a nuclear holocaust on his own authority, and nothing the people's elected representatives can do can deprive him of that authority. That position was seriously argued by some Reaganites back in the '80s in a roundtable discussion reprinted in Peter Raven-Hansen, ed., First Use of Nuclear Weapons under the Constitution: Who Decides? (New York, 1987). I have no doubt that John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez would claim the same.
I have not the slightest compunction about saying that I consider advocating the Curtiss-Wright-Nixon-Yoo theory of Article II power to be eo ipso incompatible with meriting an office of profit or trust among a free people, and I should hope (although, sadly, I do not expect) that my Congressmen and Senators would refuse on principle to confirm any nominee who will not disown these ideas, and seek to impeach every officer who has given advice on the basis of such absurd claims.
Of course, the Administration is not claiming they complied with FISA. And if the Boston Globe article is accurate, then they are almost certainly violating FISA.
subpatre,
I'm glad your vision of the ideal government was not written into the Constitution, and also lost in the Youngstown case--it has made our country much stronger than your envisioned country could ever have been.
"The essence of our free Government is 'leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law' -- to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President, and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance, and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights. We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end. With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.
Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up."
And Jackson notes:
"We follow the judicial tradition instituted on a memorable Sunday in 1612 when King James took offense at the independence of his judges and, in rage, declared: 'Then I am to be under the law -- which it is treason to affirm.' Chief Justice Coke replied to his King: 'Thus, wrote Bracton, "The King ought not to be under any man, but he is under God and the Law."'"
Of course the president is not above the law, but he is entitled to his own interpretation of the law is as it applies to the exercise of his duties: co-equal branches and all that. Perhaps he takes the view that Congress itself -- which is no more above the law than he is -- has exceeded its constitutional powers in passing FISA, and yet he is in a weak position to contest the point openly. It does not follow from that that he is bound by FISA; he, at least, should not think so.
Congress, of course, exercising its own judgment, may hold that he is so bound, and impeach him and remove him. But it is under no obligation to do that. And if the president's actions, taken as a whole, are reasonable, it probably won't. The respective powers of the two branches in regard to defense are not completely distinct in the constitution, and the overlap or friction is usually thought to be healthy.
The president's first obligation, in any case, is not to distinguish the powers exactly right, but to defend the country, and if doing that gets him impeached, it is still his duty.
Well, if the issue is how to interpret the law, then that is ultimately the province of a third co-equal branch.
But I agree with you that if the President himself is resolute about violating the law, then the proper remedy would be impeachment and removal. And so that is indeed a matter for Congress ultimately, not the courts, and whether Congress would have the political will in this case is beyond my powers to predict.
Moreover, if the President had a defense to the effect that FISA was unconstitutional, then of course he would be entitled to present that defense during his trial in the Senate.
An interesting question arises in relation to the judgment of FISA's constitutionality, prior to a trial before the senate. If Congress says yes and the president says no, who decides? You refer to the other branch, but in practice, how? We don't have in this country the tradition of referring questions like that to the judiciary for a binding opinion; all we have is "cases and controversies."
It is a little hard to see how a case addressing this point would come before the judiciary: who is going to sue? Who is going to prosecute someone? I suppose theoretically members of Congress could sue the president, but what chance would they have of getting a hearing on the merits? Would the judiciary feel itself bound to, or able to, referee an issue like this one? This is uncharted territory, isn't it?
I agree that the President could not become a party or a defendant for any of this in an Article III court, at least not while he was still in office. Of course, that does not rule out the possibility of someone else being subject to such a legal action, in which case the courts might have an opportunity to speak on this issue.
But assuming that does not happen, then it would ultimately be up to the House (for impeachment purposes) and the Senate (for trial purposes) to decide if the President had a valid constitutional defense.
Still, the Chief Justice does "preside" over a trial of the President in the Senate. I'm not sure about the history on this, but I would think the Senate could ask the Chief Justice for something equivalent to "jury instructions" without violating the Article III jurisdictional principle that rules out advisory opinions. To put the same point more technically, I would think that in such a case the Chief Justice is acting as an Article I, Section 3 judge, not an Article III judge.
But even then it would not be the co-equal branch I mentioned before interpreting the law, so in that sense your point is well taken.
Actually, the second impeachment is about the President of the US violating an Oath and commiting perjury. Rightfully, lying under oath is actually a "High crime", as America's entire justice system is based on the veracity of "sworn testimony".
As for the potential of impeaching President Bush for fulfilling his Article II Constitutional duty, this would make an interesting comparison to President Clinton's impeachment for violating an oath, as President Bush would arguably be being impeached for the upholding of his Presidential Oath, to wit:
This reminds me of the first impeachment of an American President, Andrew Johnson, who was impeached for fulfilling his Article II. duties, to wit:
President Johnson, a Republican, was impeached by the Republican controlled Congress for violating a recently enacted law that restricted his Article II authority to choose his Cabinet. This is similar to how the FISA is restricting President Bush from fulfilling his Article II responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to successfully prosecute the War of Terror. In the case of the unconstitutional law on which President Johnson was impeached, the Tenure-of-Office Act, it had been enacted over the President's veto, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Interestingly, in 1926, the Supremes in Myers v. United States indeed found all such laws unconstitutional as they violated the the President's Artile II powers. Perhaps the Supremes may find the same of those provisions of the FISA that limit the President's authority to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and keep his oath. In any evident, unlike impeaching a President for a true "high crime" such a jerjury, it is difficult to impeach a President for upholding his Oath of office and doing his duty as he sees it.
Actually, the President has used his Presidential power as Commander-in-Chief to use nuclear weapons before - twice. BTW, the President is the only "representative of the people", elected by vote of "all the People". You assume that the first use of nuclear weapons would automatically equate to a "nuclear holocaust". In fact, there many scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons might actually prevent a "nuclear holocaust", such as taking out North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. The Framers of our Constitution knew that sometimes extreme measures must be taken in order to preserve the "public safety", which explains the powers of the President in time of war.
Of course, the Congress could insure that nuclear weapons will never be used by the President. This would be in unilateral disarmament and not appropriating the funds necessary for the system that are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Of course, such a policy in a World that has nuclear armed Chinese, North Koreans, Pakistanis, and soon Iranians, does not give any comfort.
It’d be interesting (though not here!) to see the explanation of how “starting a nuclear holocaust on their own authority” is the intrinsic right of a legislature. Since its inception, the nuclear trigger has been the prerogative of the people's elected executive, with continued Congressional assent.
I have not the slightest compunction about saying that I consider ..... refuse on principle to confirm any nominee who will not disown these ideas, and seek to impeach every officer who has given advice on the basis of such absurd claims.
Take a breath; the run-on sentence could surely use one. It appears you have issues with the United States form of government and the "separation of powers" concept, where each branch has a role.
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." " --US Constitution, Art II Sect 1
Art II Sect 3 states the President "… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Both an instruction and an admonition, it’s not the blind, mindless submission Blaine advocates.
As long as the President's actions are reasonably in defense of the nation --the Executive’s primary, most fundamental task-- the Courts have backed them; and judging by Orin’s cites, will continue. They understand the government isn’t a suicide pact, nor a blank license for unlimited executive Power; legislative options must be exhausted first and ‘reasonable’ has limits, just as it does in Amendment IV.
When justified the President may seize production resources; when it reaches too far, as in the too-often-cited Youngstown Sheet &Tube case, the Courts can restrict action. Those quoting Youngstown should be required to differentiate it from others in the history of wartime seizures. In short, Truman’s Presidency was far more assertive executive than now. Central to current events is the Office, though believing the correctness and need for the steel companies’ seizure, complied instantaneously with the Youngstown decision.
In Blaine’s world, the Executive power is no different than a hireling, capable of only what the Legislature allows. The constitutional term "Commander in Chief" becomes an honorific for ‘head manager’ or “messenger-boy”, relapsing to the disastrous legislative-commander model.
Taken to it’s extreme, Blaine’s executive power is only to “faithfully execute” laws, even if misspelled. IRS forms might be ridden in lame man’s terms to fund wars where the Navy tosses death charges at some marines, and traders will be shot.
[Those believing the Executive must recommend changes to Congress rather than,use convoluted reasoning to avoid legal shortcoming, apparently forget the routine convoluted circumvention of the Constitution that Congress uses to keep the armed Services.]
One has only to look at the morning of September 11th 2001 as an illustration of the sheer lunacy in advocating the Legislative-Commander or weak Executive model; unless national paralysis is the true intent.
The "balance of powers" in our government has worked, is working, there’s no evidence it won’t continue, or that weakening the Executive will improve it.
.....George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides....
Yet professor Kerr is forthright and writes:
...It's entirely possible that I goofed the analysis somewhere along the way; FISA, the AUMF, and Article II aren't my area of expertise, so we should consider this post a work in progress...
What critic hails professor Kerr as the man who "literally wrote the book on government siezure of electronic evidence"? Whatever that means. Mr. Krauthammer leaves us in the dark on that point in his rush to give Prof. Kerr's tentative thoughts more weight. We are left to wonder how an expert who wrote the book says FISA isn't his area of expertise and how Mr. Krauthammer missed that bit of Prof. Kerr's tentative analysis.
To be absolutely clear I make no criticism of Prof. Kerr's analysis. It is as good as any other given the fact that nobody on the outside including Mr. Krauthammer and myself really knows the scope of the surveillance at issue, what safeguards are involved in the review Mr. Bush says takes place every 45 days etc. etc.
I just thought Mr. Krauthammer's reference to the mysterious unnamed critic who claims, according to Krauthammer, that Prof. Kerr "wrote the book" says alot about the honesty and journalistic integrity of many of Mr. Bush's defenders. It's that very economy with the truth of many things that make some of us more suspicious than we would otherwise be on the surveillance and the claims of Bush and his supporters.
If Prof. Kerr has written "the book" on this kind of thing it would be odd for Prof. Kerr to freely admit that FISA is not his area of expertise.