At just 22 years old, Julian Andreone has made a name for himself by doing something surprisingly rare in Washington: asking politicians difficult questions, then refusing to let them off the hook when they don't answer. As a reporter for Drop Site News, Andreone spends his days roaming the halls of the Capitol and tracking down lawmakers from both parties, confronting them about everything from U.S. foreign policy to their allegiance to corporate donors. His often-viral videos have exposed just how unprepared, and often unwilling, our elected officials are to answer even the most basic questions about their decisions. Andreone recently wrote about his experiences as an “ambush journalist” for Current Affairs—available to read in our upcoming print edition—and sat down with editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson to discuss the strategy behind his confrontations, the arrogance of Washington's political class, and why he believes ordinary people don't need a journalism degree to hold those in power accountable.

Watch the full conversation here:

Nathan J. Robinson

Julian has what I think of as the best job in journalism, which is to say, he gets to go around to your elected representatives and gets to make them deeply, deeply uncomfortable by asking them things that they would prefer that nobody ever ask them. He has written a new article for our print issue about his experiences doing this. It's called "Getting Them on the Record: The Capitol Hill Adventures of an 'Ambush Journalist.'"

You have to pick up our print edition. You have to read it, because it's just so fascinating what you do, Julian. Welcome to Current Affairs.

Julian Andreone

Thanks so much for having me, and thanks for having my article in the edition. I'm excited to read it too. I'm excited to see how it fits into everything. I've liked your guys' work for a really long time.

Robinson

And we also have another article in this issue by your Drop Site colleague Nika Soon-Shiong about Bari Weiss that also came out really well. But listen, I got in touch with you because you have endless videos that you put out now, and they're amazing. For some reason, until you did this, nobody was doing this. Instead of going to press conferences, you just follow these people around, which apparently you can do, and ask them things that they should have to answer.

So tell us a little bit first about what it is that you do that has gained you such notoriety.

Andreone

I think you put it great there. I'll just stake out in the hallways between these members' offices and the committee rooms that they hold their hearings in, or between the members' offices and the floor where they go to vote. I'll just wait in the hallways and whatnot, and when I see somebody who I want to talk to, I'll go up and ask them a tough question.

You mentioned there that I don't really spend much time in the gaggles or the press conferences, and I think that sort of gets at the philosophy behind what we're doing here. We want to be more of a boots-on-the-ground, shoe leather type of journalist rather than somebody who is at the will of the lawmaker. I think when you're in a gaggle or a press conference, they get to control the pace of the game. You can think about it like basketball, where it's like if one team is controlling the pace of the game, then the other team kind of has to match that. If they're taking the ball up really slow, the other team will tend to take the ball up really slow. You can't get out in transition.

And I think that's the way that we look at it here, where if there's a lawmaker who's hosting a press conference and they get a question that they don't like that's adversarial, they can move off it really quickly. They can say a talking point, and they can point at another journalist and say, "We're moving on to that one."

But if I'm walking with you for five minutes, you can say that you don't want to answer the question, but I'm just going to keep asking it. And if you're willing to evade a question several times on video and have that blasted out to your constituents via social media, which is where everybody gets their news these days, then I guess that's your prerogative. But we're going to continue to do that type of work, and it's worked out really well for us. We probably get more revealing answers than you would if you chose that access channel where the lawmakers come to you and ask to be broadcast on your network, but in exchange for that access, you are not allowed to ask certain questions that are adversarial or would push them away.

Robinson

Yes. In the article, you describe the differences between the typical way in which the press interacts with members of Congress and the way that you interact, and you have to do something that requires, I assume, thinking on your feet and a bit of quick judgment.

Basically, if people haven't seen your work, instead of being at a press conference—and you've been at press conferences; there are videos where you're standing around there a bunch of journalists shouting questions and they just call on you, and then if they don't like the question, they give a brief answer and go, "Next." You are chasing these people down the hall. Tell us a little bit about how you do this.

Andreone

I think one of the skills you have to develop to do the style of reporting on Capitol Hill that I'm doing is to "learn the man." There's a saying from this show Suits, which is to "learn the man rather than to learn the game," and I think that's really notable, not only in terms of the way that they think but also literally the way that they move. So knowing which stairwell they like to take and which hallway they like to take.

And I swear to God, there are specific members who have very specific patterns of movement, and if you can learn those, you can plan it up and say, "I'm going to catch them. I'm going to catch them at the beginning of this pattern of movement, and I'll have this long with them to be able to have this type of interaction. And these are the types of questions that I would be able to fit within that time window."

Or you're trying to find one person, and you need to know where they're going to be. And there's a vote at this one place, and you know that after every vote they come out of this door, so you can just wait outside that door, and you know that they're going to come that way. A lot of them, I learned their pattern of movement. I think consciously when they're doing it subconsciously, and so they don't even know—

Robinson

They don't know how predictable they are.

Andreone

Yes. I've actually been asked before, "How do you always catch us?" And they just don't realize that they're taking the same route every day. And so I think that's become a feature of my reporting. There's a lot of strategy involved.

I've been talking about this with people recently who've been asking that I don't learn everything that I do from mentors within the field. Ryan Grim has been an amazing mentor within the field, and he's my boss. He's great, and he's really taken me under his wing, which I'm grateful for. But I also learn things from athletes. I learn things from artists. I learn things from politicians.

Robinson

Yes, you would have to learn things from athletes, given some of what you do!

Andreone

That's true, running around. But even just in terms of the strategy of presentation, like when to leave space.

I was watching this Jon Ossoff debate the other day and the one before that as well, and he's really, really, intentional about the way that he leaves space within conversations. And when I went to go interview him recently, I wanted to do the same thing or to find a way to break through that, because I was like, "Oh, I'm learning the man here." I know that he likes to control the pace and introduce pauses to take command over the exchange, so I brainstormed before I went to go talk to him. Not only the substance of what I was going to ask, but also how I was going to break up that pacing.

Robinson

And that's interesting because people who see your videos really only see the tip of the iceberg. Videos look very spontaneous because they're shot by hand. You got a tiny mic. You're following them down the hall. They're not composed cinematically. This looks very impromptu, but you are doing a lot of conscious thinking. You've got all your follow-up questions ready. It's always clear—

Andreone

Not always. I would say I can tend to predict what their initial response will be based on the talking points that they've rehearsed, and so I'm prepared to follow up in a certain way. I actually never really write out any specific questions unless it's coming from a constituent. So it's like "this constituent wants to ask this question to this member," then I'll write it out, and I'll have it on my phone. Sometimes I'll draw on content from the newsletter or something that I've seen in my morning news read or on social media. I actually don't write out a specific script because I do want to keep it pretty natural and impromptu. I'll ask those questions in different ways to different members.

If I'm going to ask a question to Randy Fine, and if I'm going to ask a question to Ro Khanna about the West Bank, I'll phrase it differently to elicit the most substantive response for our audience that we could possibly get. If I said "the genocide in Gaza" to Randy Fine, he would immediately dispute the use of the word "genocide," and it would bog down the substance of what I want to get at, which is his stance on perhaps the use of white phosphorus or whatever.

And so I'd want to phrase things in a specific way, and I think of those on the fly to a specific member, and then the follow-ups thereafter can be quite easy because, again, a lot of the times, these politicians don't actually answer your questions. They just have a talking point ready to go on a general subject matter that you tapped into with your question.

Robinson

What's especially great, though, is the way that you catch them—oftentimes, you catch them without their talking points ready, and so they end up really not knowing how to answer your question, and sometimes in so doing, they will say something that clearly you wouldn't say if you had devised your talking point before. We had a number of examples of that in the article.

Andreone

Yes, the one that I think that you're thinking of, or at least that came to mind for me, is the Troy Nehls clip, which the House Republican Caucus actually held a meeting on after it happened and said "this is the way that you don't message ahead of the midterms."

We got word that they had actually organized a meeting to talk about that clip and how to better address the affordability issue, because in that clip, he said we asked him—or I guess Pablo Manriquez, who is doing videos for Meidas Touch and founded Migrant Insider—how he's going to talk to people about the affordability issue when he goes home for July 4. And he goes, "Affordability issue? What do you mean? I'm going to go and get some ribeyes and some lobster tails. I'm going to kick back with my friends. We're going to watch the fireworks."

And I followed up, and I said, "Do you think that the 60 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck can afford to have ribeyes and lobster tails on the Fourth of July like you are?" And he said, "Maybe 60 percent of Americans don't work as hard as I do," as he's getting ready to leave after a two-day workweek when they had just taken a week off beforehand.

That sort of illustrates to you that sometimes these people have become quite comfortable in and entitled to their power, and they are surprised to even hear a journalist on Capitol Hill ask them something in the interest of holding them to account for their record. I think that they've come to expect journalists to either ask them difficult questions about the salacious topic of the day, whether that be Hasan Piker or trans athletes, or to have a journalist who's openly amicable to them and lay up PR questions. And I go to members of each party, and I ask them difficult questions—

Robinson

You do.

Andreone

Yes, because they're all taking the corporate money, they're all working in some capacity or at some end of the spectrum against the interests of working Americans, and that's my interest. I went to, as you mentioned, a fancy journalism school; I went to a fancy high school. I grew up immensely privileged, and I see my position in this as using the education and the opportunities that were placed in my lap that I did take advantage of, to sort of funnel political power and attention back down to the working class.

There are not many 22-year-olds like myself who end up in the halls of power or in Congress doing the type of work that I do immediately after college. And I think, why would you not use that to try to help people who would never even be able to get there? So I think that's the purpose.

Robinson

It is incredible in some of these clips where you think, "Wow! Nobody has ever asked you this basic question?" The one where you can really see the gears trying to turn in his brain was when you asked Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania Republican, about the U.S. bombing desalination plants, and he's like, "Well, Iran commits many more war crimes than us." And you ask him the very simple question, "Well, if Iran commits war crimes, does that mean it's okay for us to commit war crimes?" And the guy's brain seems to just explode. He just can't process this question, and then he just starts calling you a moron.

Andreone

Yes, he said something along the lines of, "Well, do you support the Iranian regime killing their protesters in the streets?" And I said, "No. Do you support bombing desalination plants?"

They're expecting you to just take the opposite side of whatever they take. They're showing their hand there, Nathan. You know they're showing us that they view politics as an intellectual exercise. They see it as this form of high school debate for this lofty class of academics, intellectuals, and businessmen to go and step into as like a fun playground; one side can be the Republicans, the other side can be the Democrats, and they can argue on these points. Whichever side one takes, the other takes the opposite, and it's like high school debate class all over again—model UN.

And they're totally divorced from the material impact of the policies on the ground for 60 to 80 percent of the American electorate, maybe more. We're talking about 60 percent of people who are deciding between putting food on the table and getting the prescription medication that they need to live, and getting the gas that their car needs to go to work to make the money to get those things. And these people are expecting you to say that you support the Iranian regime killing protesters in the streets just because you don't support the US bombing their access to water.

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive? They don't, of course. Our politics are oriented around an access of humanity. We just care about human life. We want a higher standard of dignified living for people, and so it's easy to ask those types of questions and get them into a bind because they're just expecting you to take the devil's advocate position, and you don't always have to. Just drop the self-imposed restraints. You don't always have to do a both-sides thing in journalism where it's like, "Oh, this Republican's talking to me about this, so I'm going to take the opposite side. This Democrat's talking to me about this, and I'm going to take the opposite side." No, just think critically, and usually you'll see those flaws in the logic, and those holes start to open up everywhere.

Robinson

How many times have you interacted with John Fetterman? Your interactions with him are so funny. That guy....

What's incredible to me—and it's not just him. People might attribute it to him because he's notoriously incompetent and arrogant. You ask him simple questions like, "Well, how does the war in Iran make us safer in Pennsylvania?" And he's just like, "Yep, it does." And you're like, "But how?" And no explanation. And you're like, "Oh my God, the people who are making life-and-death decisions just have no answer to the most basic questions of why they're even doing what they're doing.

Andreone

That's kind of the degree of arrogance and entitlement we were getting at. I interact with him every once in a while. Sometimes it is worthwhile to go and talk to him because something is so obviously wrong. He was the only Democrat recently to vote with the Republicans in opposition to this war powers resolution—no, actually it was to recognize the killing of Americans in the West Bank. It was a Chris Van Hollen resolution just to acknowledge that Americans had been mistreated or killed in the West Bank, and the resolution had the testimonials of each American who had been killed, with details about who they were, their lives, and verifiable facts. And Rand Paul voted with every other Democrat except Fetterman to recognize the killing of Americans in the West Bank, but John Fetterman wouldn't and voted with the rest of the Republicans outside of Rand Paul to not recognize the killing of Americans in the West Bank.

This isn't even about Palestinians. This is about American citizens who've been killed by Israel, and he still won't recognize it because his allegiance is to Israel above America. And so I guess when I go up to interact with him, it would be about something like that, where I want to ask him about something that is just obviously uniquely cruel and idiotic about something that he's done. But for the most part, his response is usually, "Who are you with?" I say "Drop Site," and he's like, "Oh! Well, let me—"

Robinson

"Hamas. Hamas, you mean!"

Andreone

"Tell your boss I'm really sorry about the killing of the Ayatollah." So my interest is in getting the most substantive clips possible for our audience. There's no substance in anything he has to say because he's actually not thinking at this point. I think it's more apparent when you're in person and you're talking to him. And I'm actually not saying it as an insult, as much as it would sound like one. I genuinely mean this. I don't think that he's thinking clearly.

Robinson

It sounds more insulting when you say it genuinely, but yes.

Andreone

I just don't think he's thinking clearly. He's clearly impacted by that stroke, and his ideology has completely changed. I think he's impacted by some people in his life that have been placed around him conveniently afterward, and I think he's also becoming incredibly stubborn, like an old senile man who reverts to childhood, although he's doing it in his 40s or 50s. And I think there's not really much to glean in terms of substance when you go and talk to him. So I can go and get a funny clip where he just freaks out and loses it and whatever.

But the reality is, you're not going to get much from it, and so I tend to lean towards other people. But there's a time for it.

Robinson

Does he really have an Israeli handler? What's the deal with that?

Andreone

I think that was reported. I don't know if the guy is actually Israeli, but he's quite pro-Israel, and I did read a report about that. I'm blanking on where it was. But he has an aide who is very close to him, who is in and out of the office but is not staffed by the office and is not on their payroll, who has become one of his closest advisors and sends him his news diet and the information that he consumes and advises him on votes, according to this reporting.

Ordinarily, in any other Congress, maybe that would be a scandal, but you just had Susan Collins accepting bribes from defense contractors in exchange for federal contracts as chair of the Appropriation Committee, and you've got Bernie Moreno dealing with his son-in-law who's also in Congress and is abusing his daughter and their granddaughter. There's so much scandal in this Congress that I guess an Israeli handler is last on the list of priorities to address.

Robinson

You mentioned that, as you say, just having him flip out at you isn't that substantive. But many of your clips are really confronting these people about the most serious issues in the world and seeing what they say or things that they don't want to confront. The Shri Thanedar thing was very interesting. This was about aid to Israel, where he was saying he's going to stay with Hakeem Jeffries and supporting it, and you are like, "But your base opposes this. What do you say to them?" And he just goes, "Well, I'm with the Leader."

And it was an interesting kind of foreshadowing. He then lost his election because he was out of step with the base, and he didn't have an answer to your question. And if he had an answer, maybe it would be—

Andreone

That clip got hundreds of thousands of views in the week leading up to the election as well. Honestly, I think that's another example of just trying to ask questions in a way that draws them away from their talking points. His use of a talking point about October 7 or about terrorism or about standing with Israel or whatever didn't make any sense because of the way I framed the question at the outset, where I said, "Here's what your leader of your party is saying in Jeffries, and here's what your voting base is saying in that 79 to 80 percent of people support this thing. They're at odds with each other. Which do you choose?"

And so, if he uses a talking point about Israel, you're evading the question. I just get to ask it again. But luckily, he just decided to come out and say, "I'm with Leader Jeffries," and so that implies that you're not with your base. I just think that these guys, with just a tad bit more critical thinking and not asking as a reporter, "What do you think about this thing?" and then just letting them spout off their talking point, framing a question in a specific way, can be more and more revealing, and you can give more information to the public that they can use when they're going to the voting booth to make the most educated decisions about how to improve their own lives.

Robinson

Because they can see that their legislators don't have satisfactory answers on things. When you asked James Clyburn about the reports that the United States went to war with Iran because Israel was going to strike first, at first he goes, "Oh, I don't know anything about those reports," and you go, "You don't?" and he's like, "Well, I might have read a little thing." You're like, "Well, so do you think Israel is a liability to the United States?" And the guy replies, "I don't do foreign policy."

You are a member of the United States Congress that is given the constitutional power to declare war, and you "don't do foreign policy"? What are you doing in office? You should be thrown out of office if you don't think about foreign policy! It's your job!

Andreone

I think the outrage is well placed there. I think that Jim Clyburn is a really interesting example of something else, which is that I don't think he would have answered that way 10 years ago. But I think that when these members become so entrenched, they feel more and more entitled to the position that they're occupying. They feel more and more invincible in elections in their district, and they just drop the care. They've begun to associate their personal identities with the seat that they occupy, and that has become more important to them than the function of the office that they are in and what they can use it to do for people.

And so I think that Jim Clyburn is just like, "Oh well, I can just say I don't do foreign policy, get away from this annoying reporter, and then I can just get on with my day. I'm not worried about it." During the FISA battle for the surveillance, they wanted a clean reauthorization for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we talk about that in the article too—he was one of the people who I asked in this big push to try to get more awareness around this issue and what they were actually trying to do, which was give Stephen Miller and President Trump more spying powers by collaborating with the CBC. I asked him about the loophole that they were trying to allow to pass without any amendment, which was used in 2020 to spy on Black Lives Matter protesters. I said, "Does that concern you, or are you worried about that?" He goes, "I'm not worried about anything." And you're like, "Okay, well, you would never say that if you were worried about getting reelected."

Why would you ever want your constituency to know that you're not worried about anything in the face of the biggest threat to our democracy, our republic? It's the most totalitarian policy we've ever seen in the history of this country, and you're not worried about anything? That seems to defy all logic of, at the very least, campaigning but also public service. Why would you ever go into public service if you're not worried about anything? Life is great, right? Wouldn't you just go and get a cushy private sector job and enrich yourself? No, you would go into a public service job. Well, how would that help you? Because they're also using those offices to enrich themselves. They're also using those to build up their own personal status and their professional upward mobility in these circles of DC elites and insiders that make them feel really valuable for doing nothing.

Robinson

Kind of extraordinary. We included the exchange you had with Shontel Brown. You've started this thing where instead of just asking your questions, you will literally bring constituent questions, people from these people's districts who have never gotten a chance to directly ask their member of Congress a question, or followed through the halls and confronted with what they actually want to know. And you asked her about her support for aid for Israel at a time when, in her very poor district, SNAP benefits were being cut, which is what her constituent wanted to know. And just the level of, "Ugh, a constituent? Who is this constituent who wants to know something from me?"

Andreone

It's amazing the level of arrogance and detachment, and also the fact that they don't think about how a comment like that might be received as out of touch. It's like, "Oh, I'm just going to say whatever because I don't care. I've got all the corporate money behind me. I've got Israel money behind me. So, sure, run a grassroots candidate to my left or to my right. But I think I am going to bet on myself. I've got all the power brokers and the money behind me. So I'll just say whatever I want, and hopefully they can pay my way to the finish line."

Robinson

Yes, you mentioned it earlier, but when Troy Nehls goes, "Well, maybe these Americans don't work as hard as me." It's like, my God, the level of contempt there.

Andreone

Yes. They just hate their voters. I will say, I think that Republicans have tended to look down on their voters but have seen them as an opportunity to obtain and wield power in their own financial interests and in the financial interests of their donors. I think Democrats see their voters as these annoyances; they're like, "Oh, stop asking us for things! Stop asking us for healthcare. Stop asking us for higher wages. We don't want to give you stronger collective bargaining rights. Stop telling us not to bomb places in the Middle East. We have fun doing that. It's like a video game for us. So just stop asking us for things and be happy with the incremental change that you get, because we're not the Republicans."

Robinson

"Shut up and vote for us."

Andreone

Yes, shut up and vote for us. And I think the theory that we're trying to bring to Capitol Hill is just because the Republicans are especially cruel or especially corrupt doesn't mean that the Democrats are your only good option. You can organize power on the ground. That's where real change starts: with the grassroots. Organize power on the ground, demand more from your representatives in your party of choice, and say, "Hey, look, I'm just going to let you guys lose. I'm going to hang you out to dry if you don't deliver something that I want." And then they will be forced to concede that they actually do work in service, or they're supposed to work in service of their voters and not their donors.

Without that, they're just going to rely on the fact that they're anti-Trump and that you're going to always vote against Trump because he's, I guess, especially authoritarian. But you don't have to do that. You can submit questions to Drop Site. You can get accountability. You can pressure your members regardless of whether they're in a close election or a not close election. It doesn't matter. These people serve you. They're in public service, so ask them a tough question and fight for your democratic rights.

Robinson

Well, that gets us to where I want to end up. As you've said, there is prep that goes into this, there is study, and there is skill. You do have a degree in journalism. You have some background and training. One of the things that you emphasize is that anyone can do this. That you are ultimately just a guy with a camera and a microphone who shows up in the capital, and you didn't necessarily need to have gone to fancy journalism school to do that.

Andreone

It's not necessary.

Robinson

You mentioned other people do this well. You talk about CodePink. We recently interviewed Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans about CodePink, and the holes are open. People can do what you do.

Andreone

The anecdote that I gave about going to a fancy journalism school or a fancy high school or growing up in a nice neighborhood—that's all just to say that's how I've developed my worldview. That's why I know that these people should not be in power. But it didn't give me any of the skills that I'm using up there. All the people who are sending me constituent questions are thinking just as critically about these issues as I am. You can trial and error. Ask your question; if it doesn't work well, amend it, and ask it again. But a lot of those buildings are open to the people, and in a lot of ways, journalism has become an overly gatekept and prestigious profession. We have no rightful claim to withhold any information from getting to the public in the name of being the arbiters of what is okay and what is not okay to digest. We are people who aggregate information and disseminate it. That's our role. We are the middleman between what's happening behind the scenes and the people on the ground.

And any person who spends enough time looking into what's happening behind the scenes thus has the ability to funnel that information to a broader swath of the public in their community. And also you don't even need to really say anything. Things are happening on the ground all day these days, and just like me on Capitol Hill with my camera, you guys all have cameras too. Most people have a phone. If you don't, you can ask somebody around you who has a phone to use that to film.

But there's something going on in all of our communities. You can just grab your phone and say, "Hey, they're building this data center in my community. Nobody's talking about it." Post it and say, "This is the noise that it makes," and go out at 2 a.m. and say, "It's really light outside. Why is it light outside at 2 a.m.?" That'll blow up because people are going to say, "How outrageous!" and then you're going to get a place like More Perfect Union, Drop Site, or Zeteo, who are going to pick that story up and amplify it to the masses. So this is a team effort. Everybody's got to be hands-in, and we're going to take our government back. It doesn't require any degrees.

Robinson

And you don't have to be in Washington, and you don't have to go up to members of Congress. You have local politicians and local CEOs too. You can be like Michael Moore and confront business leaders.

Andreone

Just go up to anybody. Dude, honestly. Again, you can go to your city council meetings. You can go up to business leaders, like you said. Tennessee Holler goes to the state legislature in Tennessee and reports on things that are happening there. When the Justin Pearson stuff was happening and the redistricting was happening, they had really good on-the-ground reporting for that.

There are tons of grassroots organizations, nonprofits that are doing amazing work and aren't as big as Drop Site or whatever, but they're doing amazing work on the ground. You can start that. Any person can do that, and this idea that "I might not be qualified enough" is nonsense. You're an American. This is your government. It's your community. So just go and take it back.

Robinson

What I like about what you do, Julian, and this comes across in the piece—this is the phrase that I would leave people with: "Act as if you live in a democracy." Treat it as if citizens have a right to talk to their legislators.

Andreone

If we don't, then they can imprison me, and then it'll be even more evidence for people that we don't. But until then, I'm going to exercise the rights that are enshrined in the Constitution as it's written down, so I'm going to use those until they take it away from me physically.

Robinson

Love it. Well, people really got to follow your work, Julian, and follow Drop Site generally because it's really doing a lot of the work that the New York Times and certainly the Washington Post under Jeff Bezos won't do. Really phenomenal reporting coming out of there every day. Follow Julian's videos, and pick up our new print issue so you can read this really excellent report.

Andreone

Feel free to reach out to me as well. I always respond to people's messages, so reach out to me on Signal or my email. It's all out there on my social media or in my bios, and I will respond. So please do reach out.

Robinson

Okay, thank you so much, Julian Andreone, for joining us on Current Affairs.

Andreone

Thanks, guys.

Transcript edited by Patrick Farnsworth.