Thank you.
Another area of the testimony that seems to be.... Mr. Ellis comes at it a different way, is with respect to the tough questions that adjudicators are expected to ask. At least at the appeal level, it seems to be putting the panels in both the position of arbiter but also in the position of prosecutor.
I'm wondering whether or not it should be really, at least with respect to the appeals, the panels who are the ones who should be asking the appellants, or whether or not it should be counsel for the government who are going to be asking these hard questions so the person who's both asking the question and the person who is determining whether or not the question is leading, or whether or not the question is being honestly answered, should not be the same person.
What are your thoughts on that argument that there should be counsel for the government?