Welcome back. Today, we have something a little bit different. Our very own Robert Noor facing off against Destiny and a debate over impeachment, Russian collusion, and several other topics. If you don't know who these guys are, Robert Noor is a Republican who has run for office, he's excelled in debate teams, and is well known on this channel for being an expert on all things Russian collusion and impeachment. Destiny is a left winger who invites people to his Twitch and YouTube channels to debate a variety of topics. I'm not real familiar with Destiny, but he's got a large following of around 250,000 subscribers. So kick back with a snack and beverage and enjoy the show. Make sure to subscribe to Robert's channel as well. I'll put a link in the description and pinned comment. All right, hit me up. What you got? Yeah. Yeah. So I just, I did a live stream the other day. I had met several people that were big fans of yours and I've been watching your content off and on for about a month and they recommended I get in touch with you about, I think they believe that you're for the impeachment of Trump based on the impeachment hearings. That's a pretty hard one. I'm in favor of wherever things wind up. I mean, it kind of seems pretty bad right now for the Trumpster, but yeah, I mean, whatever happens, happens, I guess. I'm not like super hanging my hat on impeachment or anything. Okay. Why do you think that I still haven't really got a clear answer for why the Democrats think Trump should be impeached is my understanding is it's not just a quid pro quo. It's that it has to be a quid pro quo with ill intent behind it for a personal gain or something like that. Would you agree with? No, I don't think it has to be, there doesn't have to be personal intent at all. Congress has the power to appropriate funds for other countries. The president doesn't really have the power to mess with that. And it seems like Trump was trying to extract political favors from Ukraine in an effort and then was holding that aid hostage to them. It seems to be what all the testimony points to so far. Well, I kind of disagree that that's the criteria for what should be impeachable because it seems that in foreign policy, particularly with aid, we use quid pro quo all the time. In fact, that's exactly what Biden admitted to do. He personally told them, we're going to withhold a billion dollars in loan unless you fire this particular prosecutor. The reason it seems to me the Democrats are okay with that, they say, oh, but that was for the good of the country. So therefore that quid pro quo, even though it was congressionally approved aid was okay. So I don't know as much about the Biden stuff and I don't really care about the whataboutisms that troubles like the poll when it comes to other types of politicians. It's entirely possible that Biden did bad stuff as well. I don't really know. I don't really care. I don't particularly like Biden, but it is not common practice for the president of the United States to hold aid that's already been approved over another country's head to extract information off of a political opponent. And then to request that said political, said investigation be made public, like it's very clearly. And the fact that that quid pro quo, whether it even happened or not, the idea that Trump attempted to do it is just bad in and of itself. And that offense alone is impeachable. Well, I don't think it's whataboutism. And here's why the actual, what Biden did, the fact that it's potentially being investigated, and it's not just Biden, by the way, this is somewhere the Republicans go wrong on. It's actually the Obama administration because Biden admits in his speech. I'm sorry. Before just to cut off this whole line. So let's say that Obama and Biden did bad stuff and can be prosecuted for it. Could Trump still have done bad stuff as well? No, because if Trump is using his position as the leader of the executive branch, which is to enforce laws, we have a long tradition in this country of the executive branch looking into things like corruption, including people from past administrations. For example, yeah, but we don't have a long tradition of the president. Well, firstly, when it comes to looking into corruption or whatever, the Department of Justice historically stands separate from the office of the presidency. It's not normal for the president to direct the Department of Justice. Those are two institutions that are supposed to stand separate of their own, aside from the fact that the president makes the appointee or appoints the head of the DOJ. But other than that, the institution is supposed to stand separately, first of all. And secondly, it's still not within the purview of the president to hold foreign aid that's already been approved by Congress, which already has the power of the purse, to take that foreign aid that's been approved and to use that as leverage against a current political opponent is highly irregular. None of that is normal. But it's because the reason that it's an irregular situation is because what was being investigated itself was an unprecedented situation. Can you name me one other time in the history of the United States that any executive branch official has withheld congressional aid to fire a prosecutor? I can't, but again, that's what about us. Can you name me another time in presidential history where a president has asked another country to dig up dirt on current opponents that like? Yeah, we saw that with Obama. We know for a fact that what Obama was doing was talking to people, particularly in the Five Eyes Agreement, all of our allies about finding potential crimes that Trump committed, whether it be colluding with Russia or other things like that. And by the way, Obama... Hold on, hold on. Again, okay. So this is a really common problem with a lot of Republicans. These institutions don't function this way. The FBI doesn't function under the order of Obama. Obama does not order the FBI to talk to allies that we have. So for instance, in our Five Eyes Alliance, that doesn't work that way. Obama wasn't investigating Donald Trump. The FBI had investigations related to Donald Trump. That's not an Obama investigation. Right. But we know that we can even see through text of Strauch and Page that we know that Obama was asked to be kept aware of this. And we also have... It's unprecedented that we've ever had a situation where personal phone calls have been leaked, not just leaked like with Trump, but actually had to have the transcript released. So we have no idea specifically what Obama was talking about to his counterparts in these countries. Alls we know is... Okay, wait. Sure. Go ahead. I'm sorry. There's so much... Yeah. Keeping Obama informed is part of the job of some of our intelligence agencies. It doesn't mean he's directing them. Just because somebody's keeping him informed, it doesn't mean that they're giving you direction. You should probably... The president should probably be aware of ongoing investigations like this. Absolutely. I mean, I think that would be a good idea. But... Well, right. But you could say the same thing with what we see with the transcript with Trump's call. Trump didn't say, I'm personally directing. He said, I would like you to cooperate with my DOJ and Barr. Trump literally personally requested that the investigation into Biden's son be made public by Ukraine. That was a literal request by Trump made that it's been supported by multiple testimonies given so far. Obama has done nothing of the sort. You never saw anything where Obama was saying... In fact, Obama's even said that he was like... That he tried like very hard to keep that stuff separated. It's one of the reasons why Comey went public with the information that he did into like Hillary's emails. There's a lot of weird like people trying not to say anything publicly. That was a huge trend in Obama's administration. People try not to come out publicly and say stuff. But in Trump's administration, everything is tried to make like be made public like very quickly. Well, two points on that. One, that's just... I don't believe that characterization. In fact, we know that Obama lacks regulations like never before to ensure that different agencies under his administration before Trump took over were able to share all the information of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which predictably then led to record amount of leaks. For example, we know I'm sorry, Brennan was working for CNN suggested to Comey that Comey actually briefed Trump on the P dossier, then use that hook of the P dossier for CNN to run the story the next day. So there was clearly unprecedented leaks whether they were coming straight from Obama or not. The fact is he was... There were unprecedented leaks. I don't know who's calling unprecedented.     And we've seen that Trump has severely compromised judgment when it comes to who he surrounds himself with, for instance, Giuliani or Cohen or Roger Stone.  So it's not really surprising to me that there are leaks and I don't need a conspiracy theory to explain the fact that a lot of the people around Trump are quite leaky. Yeah, but it wasn't... The leaks almost universally are opposed to Trump. And most of them are for people at the tops of the Intel agency. So for example, we know that the IG report found that it recommended a criminal referral to Comey, but said beyond that, that he had broke FBI policy by leaking information, some of which was classified. Like we know for a fact that... But again, that's... Sure, it's possible that other people made mistakes. This is where... What about is aiming to a huge level? It's possible the FBI made mistakes. A lot of people believe that Comey made mistakes when he went public with a lot of different things. When he talked publicly about the Hillary email stuff, a lot of people believe that was a mistake. But none of these mistakes exonerate Trump. The fact that people leak bad stuff about Trump doesn't excuse the bad stuff that's leaked.  Okay, it's neither here nor there, I guess, for the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm making is that if there was a reason to... There's three things that Trump wanted an investigation of, or that what he talked specifically, that all the testimony says. By the way, there has been not one person that testified that Trump personally said that he wanted anything in exchange for age. It's all... Or in exchange for this congressional aid. It's all based on their presumption, they said. I can believe he was one of those. A lot of testimony, a lot of presumptions, a lot of people that have the understanding that Trump was threatening to withhold aid or wasn't going to exchange aid without that investigation. Not only being started, but being publicly announced. That's what the testimony so far, thus far, has shown. Taylor said that he heard through one of his aides, who heard through one of Sondland aides, that Trump told Sondland that in the phone. So then when we get to Sondland's testimony, Sondland says, I presume there was a quid pro quo, but when he specifically asked by shift, he says, oh no, Trump's, but I asked Trump an open-ended question. He even said, he probably used a four-letter word. But basically he said, I said, what do you want from Ukraine? And Trump said, I want nothing.  I want Zelinsky to do what he promised to do when he was elected. Yeah. And he said that explicitly after things were heating up and elites had started about it. Of course. It's strange to me because you would never apply the same standard to somebody like Obama. Unless Trump literally is on a recording saying, I am requesting a formal quid pro quo from Ukraine, I want to, unless you have those exact words, it seems like nothing he says or does will prove that he's probably engaged in some pretty shitty behavior.  That seems insane to me. Yes. I'm perfectly fine with it. Just like I was perfectly fine with the Obama administration and all of the people under them, rather, even if you don't think Obama is personally involved, making sure that the president-elect of our country, Donald Trump, was not a Russian asset. I was okay with that as well. Okay. So two things. One, Obama doesn't direct the FBI. These institutions stand separately.  I don't like Obama. I don't care about Obama. I want you to defend Obama.  That doesn't exonerate Trump. The pivots to Obama doesn't help Trump look any better. Okay. Take Obama or the FBI or anyone out of it. Did you personally think there was enough evidence to warrant investigation into Trump and his team? It's rather not they colluded with Russia? It seemed to be the case. Yeah. Okay. But no one said, well, wait, it's unfair for the Democrats to be spearheading that investigation because it's their political opponent. We were told the implication is so severe that we could possibly have a president that's under the thumb of one of our enemies that we need an investigation, right? Do you recall any other massive investigations going on at the same time about a potential political person like Hillary? Yes. Like that probably cost her the election. Trump's stuff was pretty secretive until I think it was after he was elected. We started to find out way more information related to the FISA warrants and everything. If you want to complain about an unfair investigation swaying the last election, you should be looking at the Hillary email thing, not anything related to Trump, which there was way more evidence for than anything related to Hillary's email that got dragged out for years. Well, again, that's neither here nor there than just the general point. We could say that it is okay for it points for people to want investigations into their political opponents. Sure, but the general point was, and maybe not my time lens are fucked, I don't recall there being public statements about Trump being under investigation while he was running for president. There were Harry Reid, for example, I think four days before the election wrote a letter to the Senate, then he also released Mother Jones also did an article about the dossier. So there was stuff out there. Also, if you want to get technical about it, Comey's admitted that the only reason he reopened the investigation was two things. One, there was a whistleblower within the FBI that knew that Strach had been sitting on Wiener's laptop for over a month, which that's kind of a funny phrase sitting on Wiener's laptop. But anyways, the second point is Comey admitted the reason he did this was he assumed that Hillary had the election in the bag and he didn't want this to be an albatross over her neck for our first three or four months when people found out Oh, the FBI sat on this laptop until after the election. So I don't know if that's true. If that's something that he wrote in his book, regardless of whether or not that's true, that's still super far removed from anything we're talking about. The idea that in the idea that, okay, but you brought it up. The idea that investigations hurt like Trump more than Hillary is asinine. The investigations most likely would have been like the tipping point that cost Hillary her election. The emails were in the news constantly for a year. We didn't start to hear about the FISA stuff, about all the stuff related to Manafort and Carter Page and all these other people. We didn't start to hear about this until after Trump already won the election. So the idea that these investigations are causing somebody not to get elected. I mean, if you want to take that stance for sure, we can, but then you'd be defending Hillary, not Trump. Well, I didn't make the point about Hillary at all. And I didn't say that the investigations hurt Trump more than Hillary. I'm merely making the point here that we expect our executive branch at times. It's okay. I don't mean it had to come directly from Obama or Hillary or Trump or Bill Clinton, whoever the executive is, but we expect that sometimes it's okay for them to investigate crimes.  But the precedent that's set is for the DOJ is that typically they are very cautious. This is something that Comey has publicly talked about as well. But typically, this is one of his why Comey got so much heat. The DOJ is typically very cautious about publicly declaring anything related to investigations close to election time because they want to protect the integrity or electoral process. The FBI doesn't typically want to come out and say things like, by the way, we're investigating this candidate that's running for president because it's not the FBI's job to determine who's voted for by the American people. This is one of the things that's talked about pretty publicly quite a bit. Comey's brought this up a lot. That stands in stark contrast to Trump saying, hey, Ukraine, can you guys publicly announce that you started an investigation on Biden? He didn't even wait for any results or for any investigation to happen. He just wanted a public announcement that the investigation was even begun, which shows pretty clearly that he's not really concerned about getting to the bottom of anything. He just wants to hurt a political opponent. No, I disagree. As is one, we still have no evidence that Trump specifically said that. But even if we assume- We have tons. We have so much testimony right now that shows that Trump, from so many, what do you mean? Okay. No, honestly, I'm asking because we've had people say, we presume this is what Trump wanted. But the number one witness, Sondland says, I specifically trumped the Trump. He didn't say that. Now you'll say, well, of course, Trump was lying. But even if we grant that, like for example, with Hillary's investigation, the reason she was left off was because we couldn't prove intent. Why would that standard be any different here?  By the way, that's the same thing they say about Biden. They presumed that Biden's- You need intent. You don't need to prove intent when it comes to things like extortion or quid pro quo. That's not the intent as part of the crime. But right, but you need to prove that that's what he intended to do. No, you don't. Why wouldn't you?  If you say that, but if you just say, hey, I'd like Rob to give me $1,000, and then people say, I presume that meant he threatened to kill him unless he gave $1,000. That would be unfair to you. That's just- But that's not what Trump's done. Trump made a request and he, and then he was holding the eighth hostage in exchange for that request of an investigation. But we don't have proof of that. We don't have proof that's, and there's clearly, the only reason that we would need, let me put it this way, the only way we could assume that would be if there's not other plausible explanations. And there's all kinds of other plausible explanations, such as we know that Trump doesn't want to give foreign aid to pretty much any country, such as- Not Trump's call to make. I understand that, but that's a different issue as to whether or not this is impeachment, whether it was extortion. That's just you saying, Trump's using executive power more than he should, which by the way, I agree he and all presidents at least in my lifetime before him have done. I find that to be a very reasonable criticism of Trump, that he's expanded- Why has Trump kept so many people from testifying? If he thinks that he's in the clear, whatever, if he thinks that he's fine, why has he kept so many people, all the people that could either exonerate him or convict him, I guess, spending no testimony, why has he kept people from testifying if he thinks he's so much in the clear? Well, because it's his right. Because he, why did he release the transcript? Like, he's been asked to do things- He didn't release a transcript to be clear. That wasn't a word-for-word transcript of the call. That was like a summary. Yes, but even the Democrat witnesses admitted that it was the, that the summary acts as an effective transcript, because it was pretty accurate. With the, I think they quibbled about, did the word company, was that replaced with the word barisma? But, but I'll give you that. I understand what you're saying. But it's the same, the same argument could be used all the time. You could use the same argument for Biden. Why is Schiff refusing to let the whistleblower testify? Why is Schiff refusing to have Joe or Hunter Biden testify? Now, this isn't one about this- Why do we, yeah it is. Why do we keep pivoting to these guys? The question is whether or not Trump abuses his power of the president to withhold foreign aid until an investigation was announced by Ukraine. That's the question.  None of these people matter to this. I don't care about any, I don't like any of these people. I'm not going to defend them.  I'm not asking you to defend them. The point is, if there is reason for an investigation, then what Trump did wasn't impeachable. If there is a- That's not true. Sure is.  Would you admit that it's not cut and dry? It's more of a political calculus when it comes to impeachment. That's not what we're talking about at all right now, but of course. Right, so the argument would be then, what you're saying is the Democrats will say, we are fully admitting that Obama and Biden did exactly what we're accusing Trump of right now. And we're fully admitting that not only did we not want them impeached, but we're saying that even wanting an investigation into that is a bad idea and criminal. But Trump should still be impeached for this.  But that's, but not them. We can impeach them. We can impeach them. They're not in office anymore. Sure, you can still impeach them. In terms of criminal, what? I believe you can impeach a past president. It wouldn't have much effect, but. Okay, I think that's the law. If you can. I've never heard that before. I think you can. I don't know.  I don't care. But that still doesn't exonerate Trump. But no, but it's not them that I'm concerned about. It's the Democrats like Schiff, like Pelosi, like Schumer. Because we know then, if our argument then becomes, well, Trump should go down for this, even though we know the Democrats did this four years ago, and many of those same Democrats were okay with it then, and are now voting to impeach. That's the double standard. And that's because it's a political. Wait, okay, with what then? Nobody else was withholding aid from foreign countries in exchange for it? That's exactly what Biden admitted to do. That's what the Obama administration did. Exactly what they did. Biden was not the president. Right, Obama, he said in his conversation, he said, I told him you have six hours to fire this prosecutor, or I'm withholding a billion dollars aid. They said to Biden, in Biden's own word, you're not the president. Biden said, call him. He said that we could do this. So yeah, you're right. It's not Biden. It's the Obama administration. He gave Biden the go ahead to withhold aid that was congressionally approved, unless they fired a prosecutor who happened to be looking into Biden's son. Okay, I don't know if that's 100% true because I haven't looked into that. I suspect that that's exactly what went down. I'm pretty sure the rationale there was far different because there was a lot of corruption surrounding that prosecutor. I don't know 100% if that's true. That's what I've heard, but I haven't looked into that.  Well, it does in the sense that I think that it's okay for us to engage in foreign power. I have no problem with our executive authority withholding foreign aid to get something in exchange as long as it's to benefit the country and not to benefit yourself personally. It's to benefit Trump. But that's why the starting question is that's why it's not, what about is it? If we could prove that there was a- If I knew about this all the time, why didn't Trump do this investigation at any time over the past four years? Why did he wait until now? Sure, if you watch and you watch the testimony from all the Democratic witnesses, all of them said verbatim over and over. Zelinsky, it's finally a guy that's anti-corruption. He's the real deal. He's surrounding himself with prosecutors to fight corruption. I don't know if you knew this, but Zelinsky was basically the John Stuart of Ukraine. He's a stand-up comic. And you had, this is real quick, if you give me 30 seconds, this is just my layman's view of what's going on in the Ukraine.  Then he gets removed for Poroshenko, who's basically a Western stooge. The people in the Ukraine are just sick and tired of it, just like me and you would be with our political system. They just want someone looking out for themselves. So 75% of them vote for a stand-up comedian. This is Trump's first attempt to talk to this person.  Okay. And that's why I think- I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the impeachment hearings turn out. And we'll go from there. Like I said, I'm not super invested in this topic. I just find it strange how much charitability we extend when we're Republican to Trump and then how like quick we are to convict past presidents who are Democrats of certain crimes. But I don't really care much about the impeachment stuff. We'll wait and see. Well, if I could just, I don't feel, and I understand, and you're perfectly within your rights and probably correct to assume to paint with a broad brush. I think that people on all sides tend to be super forgiving and super one-sided when defending their side. But, and I'm guilty of that as well. But I am telling you, I have no problem with Obama working with foreign allies to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia or Obama's DOJ or whatever. So I don't think that that's the case. And I think that also I'm trying to get is, I think for you and your audience and correct me if I'm wrong in painting with a broad brush, I would guess that most of you dislike Trump and probably would want to see Trump at least lose the 2020 election. And I would point you to people like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald because I think they're right that all of these investigations are actually harming Democrats' chances of beating Trump in 2020. You want to talk about an optics point of view? I don't think impeachment is good at all, but that's a totally different question about whether or not Trump has committed crimes or whether or not you should be worried at how Trump is acting in the office of president. But I think though that I'm more worried the fact that we have an entire establishment, particularly the establishment Democrats, that are doing everything possible to cover up the actual investigation we should be having, which was 2016 Ukrainian election interference and the Bidens in their world and the Burisma Company. I mean, we were told probably went in and well if we were to do that because that the Yukovych, whatever the, what was the guy's name? Yukanovich. Yukanovich, Manafort extensively helped that guy's campaign. So I'm guessing that anything you dig up there is probably going to come back on Trump to some extent as well because Trump decided to surround himself with people like Manafort. So I mean, like I doubt that he's very invested in any type of investigation that involves that anyway. So, well, I mean, but that's kind of the crux of this in the first place. We have public, we were told for three years that foreign election interference is the biggest deal in our country. No stone could be left unturned. Now we have public admissions in the Financial Times of August 2016 from a parliamentarian in the Ukraine named Lyschenko, admitting that he worked with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which is the FBI of the Ukraine, in releasing a black ledger about Manafort because he wanted to swing the election for Hillary. Now that's election interference. We also have proof that there was a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa that actually was working with officials in the Ukraine to get that dirt. That's exactly what Trump was accused of for three years. But every single Democrat on the impeachment testimony said, oh no, that's a conspiracy theory. Wait, I did this. Fuck. I don't think, I feel like I've heard about this and I feel like none of this actually happened. Oh, it happened. I mean, I could send you the evidence, the email or whatever. Do you think that there was any conspiracy, like the Goose super hacking, would Russia working with Assad or anything like that? Or do you believe that all of that is fake or? I don't know. I'm very distrusting of the intelligence community. I have questions, for example, as to why the intelligence community would capitulate to the DNC and not get their hands on the physical server. But I'm willing to say, I could say- They didn't get their hands on the physical server because they didn't need the physical server. It wasn't necessary. Like you don't need a physical drive to analyze the contents of the drive so you can take an image of the drive. You don't really need, having a physical drive doesn't really do anything. But we know from Comey's own testimony that the FBI prefers to have the physical copy because their worry is they're the best professionals at this in the world and they don't want to rely on a possible mistake copying from a private company like Crowdstrike. So the FBI actually did request and the DNC denied allowing access to the physical. Why would they do that unless they had something- If it was going to be the exact same as getting a copy, what incentive does- So like the Ukraine interference stuff that you've brought up, I'm briefly familiar with. I'm uncomfortable talking about it but I'm like 99% sure that that is entirely baseless conspiracy.  None of that actually happened the way that- But the fact that- But maybe that did happen, but the fact that you're so willing to believe that but you're saying I don't really trust the FBI's conclusion on the investigations that they did, that's highly suspect to me. So you think that all of the indictments that Mueller made relating to those Russians, the Internet Research Agency, the Shell company that operated in the US, all of that was 100% fabricated and fake? No, no, no, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying I'm basically agnostic on the hack. It could very well be that the FBI- I don't know enough technologically-wise to know whether or not it happened as is being said. So I'm not condemning that the FBI was wrong about that. And in my argumentation and dealing with these things, I've assumed that they're right when it comes to the hack. Now I have questions why they didn't get to the physical server but that's neither here nor there. As far as the Russian trolls and the using Pokemon Go, yeah, that's a joke. Not only is it a joke, I'm sure they did it, but for example, a judge actually admonished Barr and Mueller saying that they're no longer allowed to publicly say that those people in that agency were connected to Putin because they have presented zero proof.  If we're going to act like that seriously affected an election, we're half a trillion dollars were spent and all sorts of things in the mainstream media. I mean, that's a joke. Okay, hold on. Actually, can you tell me real quick, what did you just say that a judge told Barr and someone else that- Mueller and Barr, yes. A judge admonished- What was his judge's name? So Mueller and Barr are no longer allowed to say the internet research agency was all fake? No, no, no. They're not allowed to say it was directed by Vladimir Putin. They thought that that was, the judge found that that was actually leading a potential jury because they had presented no proof even to this judge that there was any connection to the Russian government whatsoever. And that was the judge that was- Well, I can wait a few minutes. Can you throw me up a link on that? Sure, I absolutely will try to do that. Okay. And I can wait a few minutes. I understand if you don't have this on hand. Yeah, I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry to see this. By the way, you're absolutely correct to demand people put sources up because anyone can see. So, sorry, my internet's- So I got this Washington Times article. I think this will do it. And it's, I'll put a link up, but let me just read it real quick to make sure it's the right one because I'm just getting that. Federal judge sides with Russian company, rebukes Mueller and Barr, from the Washington Times, July 21st. It says it has chastised Mueller and attorney Barr for stating Russian government was behind the election year social media. The ruling by district judge Dabney L. Friedrich, culminated in a secret legal battle between the Justice Department. And I'll put that link if you want as well. But yeah, basically- I already have it. Hold on one second. Let me read this. Sure, please. I'll leave you go. Okay. So this is saying that basically the judge is telling Mueller and Barr that they're not allowed to state to a jury that the Kremlin like was personally involved in the direction of this company, but that it was still a Russian company that was involved in like American propaganda, right? Yes, exactly right. Alls we know is that- So the idea that this was at the behest of the Russian government, we don't know that at all. We don't have proof of that. We just have proof it was a Russian company. And I don't deny that this happened. Do you think it's more likely to assume that just a random Russian company decided to set up shop in the United States under a fake name and then mislead Americans that worked with them into thinking they were working with fellow Americans to try to throw the election for a different candidate? Well, what I think is most likely is irrelevant as to what actually happened and what could be proved. I mean, I also think what's most likely is probably, and this is just my opinion, they really didn't care if Trump or Hillary won. I think they assumed Hillary would win and so they wanted to muddy up the waters, which is why they played that same Internet Research Agency pushed all kinds of like pro Black Lives Matter stuff, pro LGBT stuff. After the election, they were personally responsible for starting rallies against Trump. So they just wanted to mess with the system.  Because I will concede to you that if the hack did actually happen from Russia to the DNC and to Podesta's emails, that's a bigger deal than this IRA stuff. You would agree with that, right? You don't believe the investigation right now that points to Gusevara being directed by Russian sources hacking into the DC? You don't think that that investigation was good or that that was proven? No, I'm not saying that. I'm assuming it was proven. I'm always skeptical anytime that I don't personally see proof whether it's to benefit my side or not. For example, I was skeptical. I think the worst thing Trump's done in his administration was bombing Syria. Now I think we're seeing credible evidence that it turns out the chemical attack wasn't as it was seen. But I was skeptical of that information from the intel company. I'm not saying that it's wrong though. I'll take them at word and I'll say that to me is obvious. All I'm saying is that's a step beyond these Russian trolls, right? Like I think we could agree with that. The idea of hacking Hillary or her campaign manager's email is a bigger deal to me than 12 Russian trolls posting memes. Sure, I don't like how you how you phrased the last thing. I think the last thing is so pretty troubling. But yeah, the hack that and the hack is also something that was I think with more evidence was stated to have been directed by the Kremlin. If you read those on Diamond Logs. That is the yes. That is what they found. That is a difference between what was going on with the RA and what's going on with the hacks. They can directly tie the hacks to the Russian government. So yeah, I will agree with you. Now again, I stand that I'm skeptical and ready to hear counter evidence, but I'm operating on the assumption that Mueller is right and that that is actually what happened. That's the assumption I'm and by the way, I'm by no means my Putin fan. And I think it is outrageous. If he hacked, I don't care if it was my candidate, a candidate that had nothing to do with an election that's outrageous and should be investigated. The reason I bring up the IRA point is even with that, even with these Russian trolls and no matter how severe, like I'll admit that my bias is leading me probably to downplay what they did compared to what you would take on it. But the point is, this is proof that even Russian or even foreign interference of that level of just releasing dirt is worth investigating. We've been told it's a big deal and it led to indictments. So why would it be different all of a sudden in the Ukraine? Why would we allow Ukraine? What is this Ukraine thing that we're talking about investigating? What are you referring to specifically now? Sure. So for example, we had a Financial Times 2016, August 2016 article where a parliamentarian named Sergei Lushenko publicly admitted to working with the Anti-Corruption Network which was set up with the help of the Obama administration. That's called the NABU. And what they did was they released this black ledger on details of Paul Manafort. And they released that, we now know through other articles that was in conjunction with a DNC operative named Alexandr Chalupa. But you could leave her out of it for now. Just know that parliamentarians in the Ukraine admitted to interfering in the election releasing dirt and they did so because they expressly said we hate Trump. We think that he will be someone who's more willing to talk to Russia. Almost 90% of our politicians are on board with Hillary. That's election interference. You might say, well good, Manafort sucked but it's still interference. No one said the interference is allowed if it's truthful. People are saying that this same guy was fired for corruption and later retracted these claims. Is that true or not? That's not, if I could clear that up. That's not true. This person's name is a man by the name of Lesh. Hold on, your mic, hold on, your mic is cutting out. Sorry, can we go down? I'm sorry. Can you hear me? The, this man's a man by the name of Lesh Shanko, L-E-S-H-C-H-E-N-K-O. Yep. Lot Sanko was a former prosecutor. That's someone that their saying was corrupt. I have quibbles with that as well but I'm not talking about Lot Sanko. I'm talking about Lesh Shanko. And if you look up Financial Times, it might be behind a paywall but Financial Times, Lesh Shanko, L-E-S-H-C-H-E-N-K-O. It'll come up and you can see his public admission. This is August. Okay, wait, real quick. I just want to see real quick of these are actually two separate people. Sure. Because I never read anything.  That's what he's referring to when he says there was interference in the election. So what exactly are we talking about when we talk about like election interference when it comes to this Ukraine stuff? So what they've admitted to doing, you can check out a Politico 2017 article or the Financial Times 2016. What they've admitted to doing was there was an ongoing investigation into this guy Yakanovic. You said it would be bad for Trump to bring this up because he was connected to Manafort. You're right about that. There was connections between Manafort and the previous President Yakanovic. There's an ongoing investigation into him in 2016. Parliamentarians and investigators decided to, while this investigation was ongoing, illegally leak that information to the United States. Now there's good evidence they leaked it with the help of a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa. But they publicly admitted to leaking this in August of 2016. That's official dirt as to official records they had. We now know that that Mueller didn't even find that black ledger credible enough to use it in his indictments of Manafort. So it turns out it looks that it's highly skeptical that the dirt they released on Manafort was even true in the first place. But they publicly... There are... I'm not concerned. I agree with the audience that's bringing up.   Who cares?  And I don't have a problem with that at all. But actually releasing this evidence, which later turned out to not even be credible enough for Mueller to use for an indictment, that seems to be exactly what Trump was accused of. Working with the foreign government. All right, okay, okay. I'll look into this because I just don't... I honestly just don't care about the impeachment show that much. I'll look into this. But yeah, I just don't know about the facts of the matter for this. So... Okay, well, hey, that's fair. I really appreciate it. If I wanted... If there was one other thing, I think this shows something endemic though that we see going on with these investigations, which is it seems that every time there's any kind of foreign interference that could have benefited the Democrats, that it seems that we brush that under the table. For example, what would you say was the biggest Russian interference into our election in 2016? Probably the hacking of the DNC, but I don't care that much. I've never really cared that much about like impeachment stuff. Okay, well, I would... That's I guess would be a good vote. I would think that even more than that though, you know that the dossier was sourced by Kremlin officials. The dossier was sourced by Kremlin officials. I thought the dossier was originally worked on by... Was it Christopher Steele? Yes, and he... Most... He had source A and source B. He admitted source A and source B are both Kremlin officials close to Putin. And that's where all of the allegations about Carter Page being in... Cohen being in Prague and Carter Page dealing with Russians to try to get gas shares in order to throw the election for Trump. That's where all of these accusations came from. We know for a fact the dossier was used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, which in its own right is the biggest political scandal in the history of our country that you used... Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. Do we have anything non-impeachment should we talk about? There are so many like crazy conspiracy theories regarding a lot of these claims that I have to go back and...    I need to get the facts of the matter straight again. If I want to go back and have these conversations. Okay, that's fair.  Sure. I don't think that was necessarily... If I'll just summarize it here real quick. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's debatable. I think that it's just out there. It's public fact that the Kremlin officials were behind this. Why aren't we investigating the Kremlin officials that their dirt was so effective that it led to a three-year investigation that affect our elections? Like it seems that... First of all, the investigations didn't affect our elections. Trump is already elected. So that's a false narrative. What affected the 2018 election? Maybe. Maybe now. We don't know that. But wait. No, wait. Let me in the interest of honesty then, well, we can say that Trump talking about Biden, that election is not for a year from now. We've never said that's affected anything either. Well, but that seems like... Like in order for it... No, it doesn't have to be. A quid pro quo doesn't require that the outcome is successful. It doesn't require that a black male or an extortion or anything actually works. None of that is required for it to be a quid pro quo. And maybe it doesn't have any impact whatsoever. But regardless, if we wanted to talk about how upset we are that a potential investigation can affect an election, why were we so quiet when Hillary was constantly being bombarded with stuff related to Benghazi or emails? It seems like we never cared about it then. But now we do... No, it's just like... Yeah, I don't know. I just don't care that much about the impeachment stuff. But I...  Like, look at Kavanaugh. Like, the support for Kavanaugh grew in the wake of those investigations. The support for Trump has actually grown after the testimonies are... Oh, I lost. Investigations are actually hurting Trump. Oh, are you still there? I'm sorry. Yeah, oh, sorry. Hello, I'm here. Yeah, I'm from... No, I agree with you, but I'm not the one who was starting on the position of, oh, we should avoid investigations because they'll interfere with the election. That is an argument that the Democrats are making. I understand your more nuanced argument is that process... I thought the argument that the Democrats are making right now is that there's just an investigation as if Trump withheld foreign aid in exchange for favors from Ukraine against political opponents. It doesn't have to do with election interference. Oh, no, no. They don't need a byproduct, but... No, if you listen to Schiff, all of their narrative coming on it, it's not about the... They know they can't argue about the process or they'll be hypocrites because they know that the Obama administration also used a quid pro quo. So their specific argument is, Trump did this in order to go against his biggest opponent in the 2020 election. This was to benefit Trump in the 2020 election. In fact, they specifically had many witnesses say they presumed that's what this was about was helping Trump in the 2020 election. So I do respect that your position is more nuanced and I actually think it's a firmer ground to stand on, but no, the Democrats are making the argument this is all about the 2020 election. So I'm agreeing with you that I think that's nonsense. I don't think that should factor into our calculus. If there's a... I don't know if I agree with you there because I'm not sure if that's really good. I don't know if that's the right point. This is a try in my part though, right? It's took a long time for Pelosi to come around on impeachment here or so, but okay. All right. Well, hey, listen. Yep. If we want, we can chat at like a later date about this and I'll start doing all my reading right now so that I can get a hold on this, but man, what a waste of time. I don't know why like so much time is spent on the impeachment stuff. Like it's a legal process. Like it has to happen. It'll go down its route or not a legal process or a legal political process. It'll go down its route. I don't know. She's not something that interests me that much, but that's fair enough. Make sure to head over to Robert Noir's channel right now to see the full one hour and 40 minute debate and make sure to hit that subscribe button.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering VMworld 2018. Brought to you by VMware and its ecosystem partners. Welcome inside the VM Village at VMworld 2018 where we have a nice big set, double set of theCUBE. I'm Stu Miniman joined with my co-host John Troyer and, wait, Case Townsend. Yeah, I don't know, did you mess up the intro? Oh my gosh. So, luckily, you know, what the great thing about VMworld is it's got a great community. Remember a couple of years ago, had a couple of my staff that weren't going to be here and I'm like, oh my gosh, what do we do? So I reached out to community members. John Troyer, Keith Townsend, I said, hey guys, how'd you like to do some CUBE stuff? Keith did a whole bunch of CUBE with us for a couple of years and something happened. You decided to go and take a real job? You know what, evidently, you can't live off borrowed time for too long. It catches up with you. But VMware, obviously, world-class organization, I've been on the other side, interviewed folks on here. So, you know, I've gotten a good window into the org over the past couple of years thanks to theCUBE. Yeah, well, Keith, look, first of all, thank you for all the time you did and we call you the once-in-future guest host of theCUBE, so we have not seen the end of Keith Townsend, the CTO advisor and you're now with Solutions Architect though at VMware. If people want, you know, go read Keith's blog. Great resource to the community as to look at the jobs. You know, Keith didn't apply to VMware once or twice. It was one of those you keep trying and eventually, you know, you found a pretty sweet job.   What's it like being inside, you know, wearing that logo? So, I've said on theCUBE a couple of times, VMware moves at the speed of the CIO. You can take that one of two different ways. You can say, you know, VMware is really slow organization or they go right where the CIO needs to go, needs them to go. The thing that intrigued me about VMware all the time is that no company is better positioned to walk through digital transformation than VMware, as seen by the announcements this morning. VMware is struggling through, we're struggling through to find our way through what it is that the right combination of partnerships, technologies, people, process to help companies transition to this new digital age. And that is a deciding thing to be a part of. Yeah, definitely interesting times. I'm sure there's a number of companies that would say, hi, Microsoft, Amazon, you know, and the like that we think we're pretty well positioned to lead companies to where you need to go, but definitely interesting stuff in the keynote, you know, the maturation of cloud and networking, you know, put your CTO advisor hat on there, how they doing? Yeah, this is where I got, you know, I tweeted it out earlier that, man, I got to be careful because some of the stuff that I wanted to tweet, I'm like, oh, you know what, I can't say that as a VMware employee, but I can't say, definitely. I was surprised at the RDS announcement and the people love the VMware ESXi on ARM. It's two amazing announcements, but what really excited me was the RDS announcement. You know, on theCUBE, I've pushed Chris Wolf, I've pushed Lee Caswell, all of these gems, these BU gems, about when is the innovation going to come out of VMware again? You know, let's not just get V1 updates, why should somebody upgrade from Vspear 5.5 to 6.7, give us a compelling reason? And I think this morning we heard some really compelling stuff, like RDS on Vspear is, I can't overstate how disruptive of a innovation that is. That could be really interesting. I liked what you said in the beginning about the digital transformation. I think we also heard this morning the word digital foundation a lot, right? Which is, again, one of my goals here for the show, that Stu and Keith, is to kind of pin down what does VMware do, like what does it do? And it's not quite fair, because it's quite a wide portfolio, but it seems to me, Keith, that like it feels kind of like the early days when I was there, of you had to work with a whole set of OEMs and the hypervisor, and some of the same things that were happening with the whole bunch of clouds. And working as a neutral Switzerland or partners with all of them. So, but I was actually wanting to pivot a little bit over to you as a communicator and as a member of the community, you were a customer, you worked for a large pharmaceutical company and ran a lot of billion dollars worth of stuff. You chose to become a communicator and an explainer and to be part of the learning process and buying process as an independent. Now, back on the vendor side, is there anything in that journey you've learned about 2018 and how people learn and how IT people like figure this stuff? How do I even know where to go or what to buy or even what to consider? Like, any insights into that? So, John, that's a really great question. I was, I went on a run this morning, the V-Fit run, we do it every year at VMworld, and I was with V-Mug CEO, Brad Thompson.  In reality, they need to transition from just being focused on vSphere, vSphere, vSphere and vSan and NSX to this broader picture. Pat on stage this morning talked through PKS, which is Kubernetes, he talked a little bit of serverless. I mean, from a CEO of a software company, that was a lot to consume just on the stage this morning. So you can kind of be a dear in the head, I can think, what should I focus on? And I think the thing to focus on, one of my peers gave a talk, or two of my peers, Craig Fletcher, who bought me into VMware, and Joseph Griffith gave a talk today on culture. And this is about culture, the culture to learn and grow. You don't necessarily have to learn a specific technology, but you should most definitely have the attitude that if the CXO comes to me and asks me about ex-business process, I need to know a high level answer to that. And how do I get there? Simple, simple steps is learn your business processes. I'll throw just one out there, order to cash. Every organization has some process from when they either request money, they place the order and how they eventually get paid. If you learn that process, the technology bits, I think, fall in place. Yeah, it's an interesting point. I've talked to some of the users here and they were a little bit overwhelmed this morning. I don't think there's anybody at this show that if you put them in front of the CEO of their company and said, okay, tell me everything VMware's doing. Nobody can explain that. Nobody inside VMware, nobody out. There's too much. Part of the answer I get all the time is, how do I keep up? It's like, look, you're not going to keep up on everything. You need to have like, I think the role that you're in now, Keith, is part of helping customers understand what are the things they need to understand, what are the steps they can be taking and the areas that they need to learn and things that they can lean on you and your partners to get there. Is that a fair statement? Yeah, you know, I did a podcast with Brian Grace Lee made about a year, a year and a half ago and we talked about this very topic. At the highest level, you just need, from a CIO perspective, CIO, CTO, and if you don't have a CTO, that's probably step one. But from a CIO perspective, you need someone who can just think about big picture, how the moving parts work and then you need people who can go deep in different areas. I talked to Financial Services, Senior VP and he was talking through how he needed today a pivotal guy. But tomorrow, that pivotal guy would not need to be a pivotal guy, but a Kubernetes guy specifically and then how that guy would morph into something else. So he's structuring his organization so that he can, you know, hey, today this guy or gal knows this technology stack, but more important, they know systems and they can adjust and learn the technology that they need to learn to be effective because even as an analyst, near the end of the CTO advisor as a full-time opportunity, I thought about focusing all on VMware because the company is that big now. You know, Pat on stage said that one of the things that they learned from AWS is how to add features every quarter. If I told you five years ago that VMware would add a feature every quarter, the culture just isn't there until now. Yeah, so, you know, Keith said that's a really interesting point, that pace of change because, you know, most people, when you talk about like vSphere upgrades, it was like, oh wow, it's like, it came out every year, year and a half or so like that, but I'm usually a couple of generations behind. Every quarter, there's no way I'm going to do that. We still have a little bit of an impedance mismatch. When I go use the cloud, some of the base things happen underline, but there's other things I still need to choose or there's automation that will help me. How do we help, you know, CIOs, IT businesses to get to this more fluid, dynamic, upgradable environment compared to the, oh wait, I need to consciously think about, you know, when do I upgrade? When do I move? How do I make those changes? So we have to get out of this mindset that IT is in this constant ops mode. Whether it's, you know, vSphere and then announcements that were made today or any other platform, we add no value by engineering upgrades, like putting time into designing and testing the upgrade from vSphere 6.7 to vSphere 6.7 update one, really doesn't add value at the end of the day. VMware made critical announcements about the path to having VMware manage that, you know, VMware cloud on AWS is a great example, but the technologies are out there where we're no longer consuming our OSs. You know, there's plenty of Linux distributions, there's Windows, 10 will be the last version of Windows desktop ever, and we'll get those updates directly from Microsoft. So we need to get out of the mindset that we add value as executives to managing upgrades and move our organizations where we're consuming these things as the black boxes they should be. All right, so Keith, last question, what surprised you so much so far inside of VMware? You know what, I'm going to give an honest, raw answer to that Stu, I'm not used to competing against my friends. So, you know, that is one of those things, you know what, you got to make money, you got to win deals, but both me and you have made a lot of friends and John, we've made a lot of friends in this community and you run into situations where you're pitting your technology against someone you just had dinner with the last night or week before the last conference and you've known for years and they're actually your friends and keeping that, you know, competitive nature but at the same time, you know, maintaining your friendships, that's been surprisingly interesting. All right, well, Keith, hey, pleasure to catch up with you as always. You're always welcome on our program in one of these seats and yeah, absolutely. What I love about this community is I see lots of people that are friends that are fierce competitors but they're grabbing out, hanging out at parties, you know, taking selfies together, doing stuff like that. So, community, definitely a key theme. So, Keith, thank you for being our community guest for today, day one of three days live waterwall coverage here in Las Vegas. VMworld 2018 for John Troyer, the CTO advisor, Keith Townsend. I'm Stu Miniman, thank you for watching theCUBE.


So one thing that I've been doing to bond people more with the ocean is create a virtual reality experience where people get to actually dive in the depths of the ocean and swim with a whale.  It's very exciting. You can look all the way around and see the world. It's not only 3D, but it's also 4D. It's experiential. We have the subaudible sub pack experience where you feel frequencies that are not audible to the human ear. So you actually feel it in your body. And what happens is you get into a submersible and you dive into the water and then you follow the lonely whale and you get a glimpse into the struggles that this whale has to face every day like ocean noise pollution where you see an oil rig sending out these high powered blasts from the seismic air guns which are very damaging to fish and just create this cacophony of sound under the water.  And so not only is it a fun experience, it's a glimpse into what we need to start facing if we really want to turn the oceans around and replenish them back to the way they once were.


from the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort in Orlando, Florida. It's the Cube, covering splunk.com 2016. Brought to you by Splunk. Now, here are your hosts, John Furrier and John Walls. Hey, welcome back everyone. This is the Cube, live in Orlando for dot com. This is Splunk's seventh annual conference. It's bigger and bigger. Of course, as does the Cube, SiliconANGLE Media's flagship program. Go out to the events and expect to see the noise. I'm John Furrier, my co-host, John Walls, here in Orlando. We are more expansive, aren't we, John? Yeah, we're getting bigger, we're always smiling. Rolling every day. We're very data-driven. We share that data live. No on-demand, just straight live. You can't put comments back in the bottle. Once they're out there, they're out there. All right, a couple of guests from Gigamon are with us right now. Ford Briston, who's the director of alliances and business development for Gigamon. Phil, thank you for joining us. And Jay Bala of Supermonion, who is the director of security product management at Gigamon, and Jay, welcome to you. Jay B, for short. Thank you. Until, right? First off, I know you're into visibility, right, that you're providing, in essence, peeling back that digital onion for companies and giving them insights into what's happening on the networks and the traffic. Tell us a little more elegantly, if you will, what Gigamon does, what your core business is, and what your relationship is, but it's fun. Why are you here? Sure, thanks, John. So that was a very good, and then a description of what we do, but it is all about visibility. So we sit between the network and any tools that need to see traffic from a network. So whether they be security tools or application performance tools, whatever, we add an architectural layer to the network, but make it very easy to take traffic from the network and deliver the relevant traffic to those tools. So rather than putting a tap straight into a network link, and if you like taking a fire hose straight into a tool, which, yes, gives you visibility into that portion of the network, but also gives you all the traffic that you don't need and makes it hard to see traffic from other parts of a network. We provide a way of having a total single tap into the network, so we work, every important link will provide taps into that part of the network, whether they're physical links or virtual links, if it's an NSX environment, or even now we're running beta trials in AWS in the public cloud. You can give you access to that traffic, take it into our platform and feed it to the wide variety of tools that you have that are looking at network traffic. So the same with Splunk, for example, and why we're here, we'll take packet data, filter that packet data to what is of essential interest to your security analysts and feed it into the Splunk app for stream so you can get it into your Splunk environment very easily. Also with Splunk, we'll take any traffic stream that we monitor and generate metadata from that and the way we deliver that metadata is either as NetFlow records or as IPvx records and again feed it into enterprise security or into the Splunk app for IPvx. This is a great point I want to highlight because what you're talking about is what was usually called data exhaust coming off your metadata, which is important to you, needs to go someplace and turning that into goals that we've always said about Splunk. You know, they take the exhaust where there's log files or whatever data and they turn value into it, exhaust to gold, whatever you want to call it. But here's the issue. As you guys throw off network data, the impact is significant. I want you to take a minute to describe what the value is because everyone's looking at NSX for instance from VMware, which is at Oracle Local World last week and the same things going on. People are looking at the network, putting all of the data into the network to make the network more efficient. How does this help you guys and what's the impact of the customers? Because the goodness of the metadata is going to provide great visibility into things they might not have seen before. What are some of those things? Sure. Yeah, I could take that. So the whole idea of us, the metadata project is to increase the amount of signal and reduce the noise that you get from our network. So we think the network is a great source of user application and all kinds of interesting security information. So some things which we do with our network metadata, let's take a look at all the certificates floating in the network. It's possible to take that. And then a tool can, security tools such as Plunk can then look for all expired certificates or certificates that are self-signed or issued by questionable certificate authorities. And you can do more further analysis. Other great examples of metadata are things like DNS. You know, a bot, any self-respecting bot, the first thing that it's going to do is try to resolve the DNS for its bot master. Let's say it wants to go and connect to www.evil.com. It's going to start a DNS request and Gigamon being part of that network fabric, we actually collect what is called the original authoritative DNS request and response information. We take that out and feed it to the tools. Well, a lot of hacking's being done on the DNS side, big time, so that's a low hanging fruit I can imagine. But other intelligence is being forced down and the network is seeing that now with virtualization and even whether it's non-virtualized or in the network fabric, this is where the action is. Because everyone's complaining, the network's the problem. Because all this compute is everywhere. All the storage is everywhere with flash and all this going on. What do you guys see that? I mean, what is customers, what are they seeing? What's the impact on them? So a lot of what customers are seeing is turn your, the network is the problem but also the network is a source of truth, if you like. Whatever you find on end devices, it's there but you don't know how it's being used. But if you're looking at actually data in motion, so if you're looking at what's flowing across the network, you know what's really happening on your network. So, you know, Gingham- Really is a moment of truth for sure. Right, and Gingham is in a great position to collect that information and feed it to our partners like Splunk and Gingham. All right, so take this to a customer scenario because this is really, I think, really critically important to understand. There's a lot of hacking going on, so in the bowels of the plumbing network, if you will, there's a lot of issues. You have intranetworks on the inside of the Kubernetes, you got to cross the internet, people looking at direct connects now, all kinds of stuff, but it used to be easy when you throw a circuit together between offices, you manage it end to end, but now it's more dynamic. What do customers do with you guys? What can they, how do they roll this out? How do they get the value? So this is where, right, we often bring in what is called the APT chain, which is, you know, there's the malware, it starts floating all around the network, looking for, you know, target hosts, et cetera, and finally, exfiltrating it. A lot of security practitioners are saying that it's too late to catch malware in the final stages when data is actually being stolen, and that's what we call the North-South patterns. You want to be catching malware early on, and it's actually noisy. When it's moving around. When it is moving around. If they're going through the host, once they get to the host, they're done, it's hard to get out. But the problem is to do that, you actually need to go deep into the network and see east-west traffic patterns. You need to see traffic between your VMs. You need to see traffic between your access switches, et cetera. And that's where Gigamon works. Also too, on the host thing, as they move from the host to penetrate further, they got to traverse some network. That's right. So all of a sudden, let's say there's peer-to-peer connections happening between my endpoint and yours, normally it shouldn't happen if we both are working in an organization. But we as Gigamon can provide those kind of feeds and give it to. So this is the moment of truth. I like that angle. So if you look at the network, it's like a car. You can sit in your driveway all day long, but the minute you get out of the road, you're moving. Yes. So that's where you guys take that approach. Exactly. And as soon as it moves, we can pick it up and package it and deliver it to a tool that's going to do the analysis. So this is where Splunk makes sense because what I hear you saying is network visibility has always been out there in some form. It's just catching it fast enough. Seems to be the issues. I think that is right. And we want to evolve this project to go further. We want our grand vision would be when we can actually get into user and application information and you can actually provide that. So you know which user is accessing which application. So you can actually do things like forensics, policy, et cetera. Just from a pure security standpoint, tools and then we have new apps and then we have evolving networks. And so it's a potential cycle, right? Trying to stay ahead of the game. So how do you help people, I guess, where their status quo is, you know, existing systems that they're going to grow and then you have new intrusions, new threats? I mean, how do you, Gigama, how do you philosophically approach that? So that's a great question because actually what you were saying about seeing things quickly. Yes, seeing things quickly is vitally important but also as technology changes, being able to expand your visibility and cover that new technology is also vitally important. So Gigamon spends a huge amount of effort making sure that partnership with VMware to be able to see into NSX environments. We do similarly with Cisco and ACI environments. As I said, we're just going into public cloud because yes, you can see the traffic that's going into the public cloud and coming out. How do you see that East-West traffic that you were talking about? Making sure that we have the ability to see that and to pull that out and speed as network technology. We can actually act as a buffer between that. Whether it's network speeds changing, our process fast enough for the new 40 gig lengths you've put in, you can share the load across. So as Jay mentioned, drop out the noise and just put the important stuff over to the tools. I just like to add that we have this middle layer between a fast network and tools that are the statistic we often quote in our company, 6.7 nanoseconds. That's the speed between two frames in 100 gigabit ethernet. And you've got to do a whole lot in that timeframe. Let's take a second to talk about the company you came on because you guys have an interesting culture for the folks that are watching might not know. This is a culture of a company that was a really big Silicon Valley success story rejected by 35 plus venture capitals in 2003. Founders bootstrap this company for gone salaries for multiple years. And I know how it is, I've done that too. I know how the life could be on your case. There's the cash. But they stayed the course. During that time, you guys bucked the trends against Gartner. You guys were disruptive outside the box thinkers, if you will. And there's other stuff going on. Y2K, post Y2K, bubble bursting, all that stuff. Now you're successful. Okay, so hats off to you guys.  This is a great example of some successful, large bootstrap Silicon Valley. This is the way it is, not like on HBO. But my question is this. One of the things that has made you different in the sense rejected by all the VCs in the early days was that you were counterculture to the Gartner current model of thinking. You weren't in a category at the time. So, question. What is that new disruptive mentality that you guys have now? What are you guys doing that's disruptive that no one's seeing? Because we're talking about the moment of truth. That's data driven. What is the one thing that's still in that culture today that's disruptive? I think from a product perspective and maybe Phil can talk from a cultural perspective but from a product perspective, we want to evolve what we call as a security delivery platform and make it a reference architecture for all tools. So, all of a sudden tools can take intelligent decisions and can program the Gigamon to say, I'm seeing something interesting happening here. I want to start a packet capture or I want to start metadata. So, Gigamon sort of serves as the central to analyze it further. Really the success. I look at the world right now and I've got all the hundreds of events this year. That's the magic quadrants down in Bitesilo. Getting great stuff and again, congratulation on the great success story. Jay said a couple of times, signal. Our job is to bring you the signal. Truth is here on theCUBE.