The White House is unleashing what at least one pundit calls “a calculated effort” to attack former FBI Director James Comey

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: Former FBI Director James Comey gave “false testimony” and “leak[ed] privileged information to journalists.” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted that former FBI Director James Comey gave “false testimony” in his appearance before Congress and that he “leak[ed] privileged information to journalists.” From the  White House’s transcript of the September 11 press briefing:

Ms. SANDERS:  [...] First on the Comey firing, I think that we've been pretty clear what our position is.  And certainly, I think that that has been shown in the days that followed, that the President was right in firing Director Comey. Since the director’s firing, we've learned new information about his conduct that only provided further justification for that firing, including giving false testimony, leaking privileged information to journalists, he went outside of the chain of command, and politicized an investigation into a presidential candidate. [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/11/17]

Sanders: Prosecuting Comey is “something that certainly should be looked at.” The following day, Sanders said that prosecuting the former FBI director is “something that certainly should be looked at.” From the White House’s transcript of the September 12 press briefing:

Q [...] You said that the actions of James Comey could have been illegal. You, the other day, referred to potential false testimony. The DOJ is not commenting, but I would put to you, would the President encourage the DOJ to prosecute Comey?

MS. SANDERS: That's not the President's role. That’s the job of the Department of Justice, and something they should certainly look at.  

Q Is that something you'd like to see?

MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure about that specifically, but I think if there's ever a moment where we feel someone has broken the law, particularly if they're the head of the FBI, I think that's something that certainly should be looked at. [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/17]

Sanders: “Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act,” and “that’s pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation.” On September 13, Sanders again asserted that Comey violated federal law after his removal as FBI director, saying, “Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act,” and called on the Department of Justice to “look into” the allegations. From the September 13 edition of MSNBC Live with Katy Tur:

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director. He claims they were private property, but they clearly follow the protocol of an official FBI document. Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreement, and nondisclosure agreement all personnel must sign. I think that’s pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation.

REPORTER: So what would you like to see happen?

SANDERS: That’s not up to me to decide. I’m certainly not an attorney, but I think the facts of the case are very clear.

AYESHA RASCOE: And just following up on that, so you’re not saying that the Justice Department should look into this, but you do believe that Comey did -- that his act of leaking those memos was illegal?

SANDERS: The Department of Justice has to look into any allegations of -- whether or not something is illegal or not, that’s not up to me to decide. What I’ve said and what I’m talking about are facts. James Comey, leaking of information, questionable statements under oath, politicizing an investigation, those are real reasons for why he was fired, and the president’s decision was 100 percent right, which we’ve said multiple times over and over, and in fact, I think, the more and more we learn, the more and more that’s been vindicated. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, 9/13/17]

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti: White House’s comments about Comey are “certainly inappropriate, and I think it’s part of a very calculated effort by the White House to go on the offensive against Comey and attack the system.” Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told MSNBC’s Ari Melber that Sanders’ comments are “certainly inappropriate and … part of a very calculated effort by the White House to go on the offensive against Comey and attack the system.” From the September 11 edition of MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber:

RENATO MARIOTTI: There are typically walls that are built between the White House and the Department of Justice, and there are very specific channels of communication between the political side and the Justice Department about continuing investigations. And so what this is -- it seems to me like an end around where Sanders, who’s obviously representing the White House, makes a public statement in which she suggests that a witness against the president be prosecuted for perjury. She knows it’s going to get in the front page of the newspaper, people at DOJ are going to hear it, and it’s a suggestion that this is  what the White House wants to do. Now, I’m not saying that folks at DOJ are going to follow that, but it's certainly inappropriate, and I think it’s part of a very calculated effort by the White House to go on the offensive against Comey and attack the system. [MSNBC, The Beat with Ari Melber, 9/11/17]

While talking with Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, Hannity bragged that Sanders borrowed his talking points on Comey

Hannity: Sanders repeated “everything I've been saying” about Comey. Radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity hosted Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow on his radio show and bragged that Sanders repeated his talking points on Comey, saying to Sekulow, “I won't regurgitate everything Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, but it's pretty much everything I've been saying and I think you've been saying as it relates to Comey.” From the September 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Look, I won't regurgitate everything Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, but it's pretty much everything I've been saying and I think you've been saying as it relates to Comey, and now on top of the new news about Comey basically having the fix in for Hillary and not doing an investigation, his statement kind of took me back.

JAY SEKULOW: Well, I mean, everything he said was not -- nothing he said was correct.

[Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 9/12/17]

Sekulow has been calling for legal action against Comey for months, often appearing on Hannity’s shows to do so

Sekulow: “Will the Department of Justice prosecute fired FBI Director #JamesComey?”

Will the Department of Justice prosecute fired FBI Director #JamesComey? We discuss on #JayLive. https://t.co/73roS3jSQJ

— Jay Sekulow (@JaySekulow) September 13, 2017

 [Twitter, 9/13/17]

Sekulow: “James Comey thinks he’s above the law,” and “there must be, there has to be an investigation.” Later that evening, on September 12, Sekulow appeared on Hannity’s Fox News show as well and complained that “James Comey thinks he’s above the law,” saying again that “there must be, there has to be an investigation” into Comey’s conduct prior to being removed as FBI director. From the September 12 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I’m getting all these rumblings that Comey’s in real legal trouble now. Any truth to that?

JAY SEKULOW: So, here's what we're hearing on the Hatch Act. So, that's an internal -- if you're a government employee there are prohibitions on engaging in political campaigns. So, what happened was, there was a report from the Office of Special Counsel, -- not to be confused with Robert Mueller; this is the Office of Special Counsel inside the Department of Justice -- that was investigating, or is investigating, James Comey's activity for exactly what you just said just moments ago, this kind of intervention in the campaign last year. And that could include being barred for up to five years from federal service, it can include fines and penalties. But it points to something deeper. There's also an inspector general's investigation going on right now as to James Comey as well.

In addition to that, you've got Sen. [Lindsey] Graham [(R-SC)] saying last week he smelled a rat in the fact that the declination letter, and that's what it was, regarding the whole Hillary Clinton email situation was written at least two, maybe three months before they interviewed 16 witnesses, including the target. So he had already been transferring around this declination letter. So, all of this together, to me, points to the fact that there must be, there has to be an investigation of James Comey going on, and it should be at multiple levels.

[...]

SEKULOW: When James Comey got on his -- made a statement about how he was just shocked and appalled at what had happened with former President Clinton and then the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on that tarmac and he had to take action, he bypassed the entire internal operating procedures within the Department of Justice. He himself took on the role as attorney general. Now, granted, Loretta Lynch was severely compromised in this, without question. But there was still a deputy attorney general and there was a process to go forward with.

Here's what you have: James Comey thinks he is above the law. He thinks he's above the rules and regulation, and in a sense, James Comey is creating his own, really, constitutional crisis here, because you've got this idea that there are policies, procedures, rules, and guidelines, and he ignores them. And he can get away with impunity? That's not the way it's supposed to be. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/12/17]

Sekulow: There “should be a full investigation with FBI agents and Department of Justice lawyers supervising” into Comey. Sekulow demanded that there “be a full investigation with FBI agents and Department of Justice lawyers supervising” into Comey’s actions before being fired. He also added that Comey sending personal notes to a friend that were later provided to The New York Times was “a setup.” From the September 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

JAY SEKULOW: He plays this righteous indignation and holier-than-thou approach. James Comey, at bottom, and this is the one I keep going back to, had a conversation with the president of the United States, took notes of that conversation on his government computer in his government car, stuck them in his government desk, and then he leaked his conversation with the president of the United States, he leaked it to a friend of his, who was a law professor, for the sole purpose of getting it to New York Times, with the end goal of getting a special counsel. So, you look at this entire setup, and that’s exactly what it was, a setup.

[...]

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Well it also, to me, that very fact should open up the door for the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to appoint a special counsel or at least begin the investigation into a matter that clearly was never investigated in a proper fashion, and it seems collusion took place on a number of fronts.

SEKULOW: So, I don't know if you have to have, I don't think you have to have a special counsel for this. I think this can be done within the Department of Justice. It should be a full investigation with FBI agents and Department of Justice lawyers supervising. Now for all we know, Sean, that could be going on. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 9/12/17]

Sekulow: Comey is “in serious legal jeopardy” and “needs to be the subject of an investigation.” Sekulow told Hannity that “Comey’s actions and his statements before Congress” put him in “serious legal jeopardy.” Sekulow also asserted that Comey “needs to be the subject of an investigation.” From the September 5 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

JAY SEKULOW: James Comey had a predetermined outcome of where  this was going. He said that in the information that Sens. [Chuck] Grassley [(R-IA)] and Sen. [Lindsey] Graham [(R-SC)] said very clearly, that the information -- they were already writing up their exoneration, their declination letter, as it’s called, regarding criminality. This was before 16 witnesses were interviewed and before the target of the matter, as James Comey was told to call it, was even interviewed. So, what James [Kallstrom] said was right. This was a faux investigation from the start, and the problem is, it's really been a fraud on the American people here. This whole scenario of James Comey’s actions and his statements before Congress were not only incorrect as a matter of fact, but I think it puts him in serious legal jeopardy.

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Does this now, Jay, open up the possibility that the attorney general should now get to the truth, considering -- I think this reveals more than anything else that the fix was in for Hillary and James Comey was involved in it.

SEKULOW: Look, I think James Comey needs to be the subject of an investigation as to what’s going on here. I mean, look at the evidence. I mean, this information is damaging, to say the least. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/5/17]

Sekulow: Comey violated “the Hatch Act at a minimum,” and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server “was a faux investigation.” Sekulow claimed that Comey violated “the Hatch act at a minimum” in his capacity as FBI director prior to the 2016 presidential election, calling the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “a fraud on the American people” and “a faux investigation.” From the August 31 edition of Hannity, guest-hosted by Kimberly Guilfoyle:

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (GUEST HOST): Jay, I’ll begin with you. Do you feel that there is a violation here of the Hatch Act?

JAY SEKULOW: I think the Hatch Act at a minimum. But I think there’s something more serious, and that is, the whole investigation [into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server], evidently, was just a fraud on the American people. It was a faux investigation. You've got James Comey, now, with emails going back and forth where he’s drafting three months before they interview 16 witnesses, including the supposed target of the investigation, exoneration, basically a declination letter, before they entered with the witnesses. So, you've got to ask yourself really, what's going on here? And James Comey had the nerve to testify under oath that he had to come forward last July to make his statement because the whole process where Loretta Lynch met with President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix cast doubt on the scope and nature of the investigation and the integrity of the Department of Justice and the FBI. But Kimberly, here's the fact: The fact is, evidently, he already made up his mind three months before the investigation really got underway. So this whole thing was a fraud on the American people. [Fox News, Hannity, 8/31/17]

Sekulow: Comey “released” private notes to a friend “in violation of the law.” Sekulow complained that Comey “released” private notes, which he deemed to be “government property,” regarding a personal conversation with the president to a friend who subsequently provided them to The New York Times, saying Comey did so “in violation of the law.” From the August 16 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

JAY SEKULOW: Supposedly there is a inspector general’s report coming out regarding James Comey and that whole issue of releasing the private notes that he took -- or he called them private notes; I think they’re government property; I think most people agree with me that it’s government property -- that he released those in violation of the law, and there’s an inspector general report coming out on that.

[...]

That’s why with these cases that we do, you’ve got to be really vigilant and staying on top of it, because you just don’t know where it’s going to end up unless you’re very aggressive. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 8/16/17]

Sekulow: “If we think that it’s OK for” the FBI director  to “leak” personal notes on a conversation with the president, then “we’ve lost the constitutional republic that our forefathers fought for.” Sekulow claimed that if the American public believes “that it’s OK for” Comey to “leak” personal notes on a conversation with the president to a friend, then “we've lost the constitutional republic that our forefathers fought for.” From the July 27 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

JAY SEKULOW: I don't like leaks from any source. I think this is harmful to the Constitution, it’s harmful to the rule of law, and it's got to be stopped. But I agree with Gregg [Jarrett], until you prosecute this -- and you’ve been saying this -- until you go after the people that are engaged in leaking, investigate them -- it goes back to the James Comey matter. I mean, if we think that it’s OK for the former FBI director, while he was the FBI director, to take notes from a private conversation he had with the president of the United States and leak them for the purposes of obtaining a special counsel, if we think that's OK, well then we've lost the constitutional republic that our forefathers fought for. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/27/17]

Sekulow: “An illegally-leaked memo of conversations that [Comey] had with the president of the United States was the basis for which a special counsel was put in place.” Sekulow referred to Comey’s notes, which were eventually provided to The New York Times, as “an illegally-leaked memo,” claiming that “investigators and the special counsel and the government have concluded” that Comey’s notes are, “in fact, government property.” From ABC’s transcript of the July 23 edition of This Week:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): Which Comey crimes does the president believe the Justice Department or Mueller should be investigating?

SEKULOW: Well, I think there's a really serious one, George, and that is the president of the United States is concerned, as I am as his lawyer, that James Comey, when he was the FBI director, took notes of conversations he had with the president of the United States.

He put them on a government computer, put them in his government desk. And then he was fired. He took his private -- he called them private notes. By the way, the investigators and the special counsel and the government have concluded it is, in fact, government property.

He took government property, which was his private notes on conversations with the president, leaked them to the press for what purpose? And he had said this under oath, for the sole purpose of obtaining a special counsel, who happened to be appointed the day after that special counsel, Bob Mueller, right before he was special counsel, interviewed for the FBI job.

So, you know, I think, look, this is the reality of what happened. So the special counsel comes out of this illegally leaked information by James Comey, because let me tell you what an FBI director nor an FBI agent can do, leak government property.

And that's what happened here. And if it was an FBI agent that did it, they would be investigated by the FBI. Now maybe they are. I don't know that they are. We can't make that determination, certainly not public. But I think it has to be done.

An illegally-leaked memo of conversations that he had with the president of the United States was the basis for which a special counsel was put in place.

And let me also say this. It was also that conversation would have been covered by executive privilege. And James Comey ignored that, did not give the president or anyone else at that point, when he leaked the information, the opportunity to assert that privilege. [ABC, This Week, 7/23/17]

Sekulow: Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation “is based on evidence that was illegally leaked” from Comey. Sekulow asserted that Comey’s personal notes were “illegally leaked,” and therefore, the special counsel’s investigation “is based on evidence that was illegally leaked.” From ABC’s transcript of the July 16 edition of This Week:

JONATHAN KARL (HOST): The president has said over and over again, again this week, that this is a witch hunt. I want to get specific on this. Is he saying that the Mueller investigation is part of a witch hunt?

SEKULOW: Yes, look at how it started, as it relates -- especially as it relates to the president.

But let me put this in context. How did this whole situation start? And we tend to lose this fact and we should not.

James Comey takes notes of a conversation, or a series of conversations he has with the President of the United States. He takes notes. He puts them on a government computer in his government vehicle, put them in his government desk. He gets fired by the president of the United States. He was terminated as the FBI director, which James Comey acknowledged the president had the right to do.

James Comey then leaks those documents to a friend of his for the sole purpose of leaking them to The New York Times, and with the desire to be -- and James Comey said this under oath. Let me just finish this, Jon. He said under oath that he hoped to get a special counsel, which he did.

So the special counsel then is based on evidence that was illegally leaked. And that to me raises questions about the whole spectra of what’s going on here. [ABC, This Week, 7/16/17]

Sekulow: Comey “illegally distributed” information that led to the appointment of special counsel Mueller. Sekulow claimed that special counsel Mueller was “appointed based on evidence that was illegally distributed” and called into question “the legitimacy of this entire process.” From the July 11 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Here is what's the amazing thing: We've got Ukraine. We've got the Bibi Netanyahu; Obama tried to impact that election. We've got the MI-6, the intelligence guy from Great Britain, his dossier -- who paid for that? And then we've got real crimes, for example, do you believe or have any doubt that Hillary Clinton committed crimes, mishandling and destroying classified top secret special access program information?

JAY SEKULOW: I mean, look, we could start with the server that was held in the town house in Colorado. Then you go to what James Comey said when he saw the evidence -- that it was extreme carelessness, which, by the way, is the definition of gross negligence, which is what the criminal statute has for mishandling.

Then let's talk about James Comey. And add him to this. Here's a guy that leaks information. I mean, think about this. He leaks information --

HANNITY: Classified

SEKULOW: -- based on conversations he had with the president of the United States, leaks them to go to a reporter, through a friend of his at Columbia Law School, who then -- for the sole purpose of doing what? Obtaining a special counsel, which ends up getting appointed.

So, basically, look at this, Sean. The special counsel is appointed based on evidence that was illegally distributed. Think about that for a moment with the legitimacy of this entire process. And instead, what we've got now is Donald Trump Jr. comes forward, releases all the emails, the email chains. And the media is in a frenzy because he released the emails. Unlike the opposition, who did not. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/11/17]

Sekulow: “At a minimum -- at a minimum -- [Comey] gave out information about a conversation with the president of the United States. That violates section 641 of the criminal code.” Sekulow asserted that “Comey was leaking -- potentially leaking classified information” after he was removed from his post as FBI director. Sekulow added that “at a minimum -- at a minimum -- [Comey] gave out information about a conversation with the president of the United States that violates section 641 of the criminal code.” From the July 11 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): First off, the story in The Hill that came out a couple of days ago that talked about James Comey, in his nine meetings with the president, seven of those meetings he took notes on. It is said in this story that four of the seven contained some type of classified information, some type of classification.

JAY SEKULOW: Right.

KILMEADE: What does this mean to you?

SEKULOW: It means that James Comey was leaking -- potentially leaking classified information. But we know he was leaking information, and it may well have been classified. Look, I mean, just think about for a moment here what has happened. James Comey had conversations with the president of the United States. He wrote those conversations or put them into a memo that he typed in his government car on his government computer, put them in his government desk, and then, when he got fired, he releases them to a friend of his who then releases them to The New York Times. This was not just conversations extending pleasantries, exchanging pleasantries. This was a conversation with the president of the United States. The classified information situation increases the level one more time. But look, at a minimum -- at a minimum -- he gave out information about a conversation with the president of the United States that violates section 641 of the criminal code.

AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): Jay, will we ever find out if any of the information that he leaked to his friend, if that information was classified?

SEKULOW: Yeah, I think we're going to because ultimately this information has been turned over to the special counsel. I'm sure the committees, the Senate and House committees, are going to ask for it. If you look at the number percentages, the percentages are there that something was classified. But I want to take a step back again, Ainsley. This was a conversation with the president of the United States. It was covered by executive privilege at a minimum and James Comey ignored that when he, illegally, and I'll underscore that again, distributed that information for one purpose only: to get a special prosecutor. He gets a special prosecutor based on illegally leaked information. What does that tell you about the whole basis for this special counsel?

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): Well there you go about that. Mr. Comey's -- the fellow who leaked to The New York Times, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman -- he says that no memos were given to the press, no memos were classified at the time he received them. I think he says they weren't given because I believe he read them to them over the telephone.

SEKULOW: Correct. Right.

DOOCY: He also says this was not classified at the time and remains unclassified.

SEKULOW: Well he doesn’t -- how does this law professor know that, by the way? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/11/17]

Sekulow: “The Department of Justice needs to investigate James Comey. There should be a grand jury impaneled and he should be investigated.” Sekulow gave Hannity his personal view of “what should be happening” with regard to Comey, saying that “the Department of Justice needs to investigate” the former FBI director and that “there should be a grand jury impaneled.” From the July 10 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

JAY SEKULOW: Yeah, well this is -- you talk about a double standard. And he said [Hillary Clinton] was careless -- extremely careless, by the way, it’s the standard for gross negligence with the unsecured server situation. But you look at the law and you look at the facts, and this is not hard to put together. So, the question now is, what is going to be done with regard to James Comey? And here’s what should be happening: First of all, the Department of Justice needs to investigate James Comey. There should be a grand jury impaneled and he should be investigated.

Let's understand what he did. He had a conversation -- or several now, we know he leaked at least, what, four memos. He had a conversation, a series of conversations with the president of the United States. He went to his government computer, put them on into a memo form, put them in his government desk to when he needed them after he gets fired, and then releases them. Now he says, of course during his testimony, this was his own private -- he called it recollection recorded. The government’s saying no it's not. It’s government property. Those are crimes. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/10/17]

Sekulow: Comey is “leaker in chief” and if an FBI agent “did that, they’d be in jail.” Sekulow referred to Comey as “leaker in chief,” saying, “If that was an FBI agent that” provided contemporaneous notes of a personal conversation to a friend, “they’d be in jail.” From the July 7 edition of Fox News’ Hannity guest-hosted by Laura Ingraham:

JAY SEKULOW: He had a conversation with the president of the United States that he puts in a memo. So that’s the president of the United States he’s in a conversation with,  he puts the memo together on his computer, puts it in his government desk, and leaks it out. But here’s the thing with him, here's what we know about Comey: the leaker in chief. We know for a fact that he leaked information from -- that he took as a government employee at the time, and then leaked it when he was terminated. If that was an FBI agent that did that, they’d be in jail. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/7/17]

Sekulow: “The James Comey matter, for instance, has to be looked at. I would do it through a grand jury. Impanel a grand jury.” Sekulow stated that “the James Comey matter … has to be looked at,” demanding that the Department of Justice “impanel a grand jury and say, ‘What went on here?’” Sekulow went on to complain of what he perceived as “a double standard” or “like a quadruple standard” in the justice system and to conclude that “we have to remember what's at stake, and that is the constitutional republic.” From the June 20 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Where does this end if all of these conflicts are ignored, if all of these instances of real crimes -- Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton -- are ignored, then where does this all end up?

JAY SEKULOW: Well, for the good of the republic it's got to end up within the framework of the Constitution, which means you've raised -- I mean, you've raised some very significant and real issues. And that means if you've got, I think the James Comey matter, for instance, has to be looked at. I would do it through a grand jury. Impanel a grand jury and say, “What went on here? Why did he think it was OK to give this information out? Why did he think it was OK to leak it to The New York Times, to a professor who leaked it to The New York Times? Why did he think it was OK for him to do this with the intent of drawing a special counsel? Why is that OK?” And again, the special counsel has been established, but the idea that this was drawn out this way raises serious issues. And then you go back to what we've been talking about for a year and a half. It's not even fair to say it's a double standard -- it's like a quadruple standard here, of what's going on. But Sean, at the end of the day, we have to remember what's at stake, and that is the constitutional republic. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 6/20/17]