Glenn Beck Never Thought He'd Say THIS About Film Director Oliver Stone

Legendary movie director Oliver Stone, director of the new movie Snowden, joined The Glenn Beck Program for a fascinating discussion about national security and cyber warfare.

"Hello, America. And welcome to Friday," Glenn greeted his radio listeners. "Well, I never thought I would be saying these words (and I have no idea how the next 20 minutes will end up), but here we go: Oliver Stone joins us on the program, beginning right now."

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these mind-boggling questions:

• Does Oliver Stone think Glenn's name is Jeff?

• Was Glenn rude to Oliver Stone?

• Does Snowden deserve prison or a parade?

• On what topic does Stone accuse Glenn of jumping to conclusions?

• Why did Snowden go to Russia and stay there?

• What's the one thing Glenn respects about Oliver Stone?

• How closely does the movie follow the actual story?

• Is the central CIA figure portrayed as a father figure or creepy, spooky guy?

• Do we need a cyber treaty with the rest of the world?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Mr. Oliver Stone. How are you, sir?

OLIVER: I'm fine. Is this Jeff?

GLENN: This is Glenn.

OLIVER: Oh, Glenn. I'm sorry. I talk to too many people at once.

GLENN: That's okay. That's all right. You can call me Jeff. I'll call you Bill. How are you?

OLIVER: No, Oliver is fine. I'm fine. I'm good. And I'm in New York.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

So, Oliver, do you -- because this is a really dicey thing because I think there's a billion things we really strongly disagree with you on.

OLIVER: Uh-huh, sure.

GLENN: And, you know, I watched -- I saw Snowden.

OLIVER: Yes.

GLENN: And I will tell you that I -- I wanted to believe his side, but you made the movie. And so -- you know, I don't know -- you do -- and one thing I do respect you on is you at least say what your agenda is. So how is somebody like me or somebody in my audience supposed to take Snowden knowing you have a very strong opinion on America and --

OLIVER: Well, Jeff, I -- I'm sorry. Glenn, I'm sorry.

GLENN: Right. Right. Okay. I got it.

OLIVER: Beyond embarrassing.

But, listen, I have a strong agenda as a citizen, but when I do my work, I take it very seriously, as you do. And I'm a dramatist. I am a dramatist above all. I tell the story.

This is a story that speaks for itself. I spoke to him many times, but I also spoke to other people. And we got as realistic a story as we could out of it. And maybe new things had come out. But this is -- is as authentic as you can get it. Because not many people have written about the NSA or the CIA from the inside.

GLENN: Right. Well, as you know, I mean, we have gone up with whistle-blowers and gone up against this government with whistle-blowers.

OLIVER: Yeah, I admire that.

GLENN: Well, thank you.

And it is not an easy thing. And we have been very torn on Snowden. I think personally if he hadn't have gone to Russia, he would be viewed as a hero. But because he went to Russia, it puts it into question. And his relationship with Julian Assange, who is also getting, you know, Russian Secret Police, you know, protection.

OLIVER: Well, yeah, you're jumping to conclusions there.

Keep in mind that Snowden went to Russia on his way for asylum in Ecuador via Cuba. He had to get there, and the airspace allowed him to do that. He did not stay in Russia out of his own volition. His passport was cancelled by the State Department in mid-air, which is rare. And happens that they wanted him perhaps to be stuck in Russia. I don't know.

But, anyway, he's there. And they have given him asylum, and they're one of the few countries in the world that could actually protect him.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden in the new movie 'Snowden,' directed by Oliver Stone. Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden in the new movie 'Snowden,' directed by Oliver Stone.

GLENN: That is true. How do you feel about Russia and Putin?

OLIVER: That's another. You're -- that's next year's movie. Let's -- let's not go there.

GLENN: No, because honestly, Oliver, we are probably one of the shows -- I don't know how many people have done this -- I know one show lately -- one show was for him to be in prison, and now that he's against -- or now that he's for taking out Hillary Clinton, "Oh, let's give him a parade." We still don't know.

We tend to feel that he is a patriot. However, there is that -- that Russia connection that makes it --

OLIVER: Yeah, I could understand your concern. But, look, there are two central truths here. One is that our government deployed and developed the most massive surveillance system global that we've seen in history.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yes.

OLIVER: The second truth is that there was a person that revealed it. A person who has tremendous patriotism and conviction that we were breaking the Constitution by doing this.

GLENN: Yes.

OLIVER: So that was what -- those are the facts of that movie, as it stands. The Russia element is a distraction used by Democrats, Republicans. You know, you can be a Libertarian and still support Snowden in this matter.

GLENN: I am a Libertarian.

OLIVER: Oh, good.

PAT: How closely did you stick to the actual story? Did you take a lot of liberties for dramatization?

OLIVER: Oh, we had to. I mean, it is a nine-year -- it's about nine years in his life. And we see you can't do that as perhaps a documentary, but we're asking for a large audience. And we made a dramatic thriller. That was always my fear, that this thing was going to get too technically heavy. Because it is complicated.

GLENN: Yeah.

OLIVER: We threw out about 50 percent of our research but kept this film as simple as possible, but put the tension in. Don't alter the truth. And stick to it. Stick to what -- the propulsion of the story carries itself. You don't have to invent anything.

GLENN: But here is where the Oliver Stone moviemaking comes in: Did you have to make the guys from the CIA like the spookiest guys ever?

OLIVER: Well, they weren't. I disagree. I think the fellow who plays the senior NSA and CIA official -- he's played by Rhys Ifans -- is actually a father figure because he nurtured his career. And, you know, he does say things --

GLENN: Well, you know, a really creepy father, yes.

OLIVER: Well, that's what you think, but, you know, he has his views. And he talks about the mission that they have to protect the world.

GLENN: Yeah.

OLIVER: He talks about, you know, global intelligence. He talks about the need for it. He talks about America's position in the world. At one point, he even criticizes the Iraq War as a waste of energy and time. And he says, "You don't have to be a patriot to disagree with your politicians."

GLENN: So how can you -- I'm trying to -- I mean, this is just such a complex thing because your involvement.

OLIVER: Well, you keep putting it back on me.

GLENN: Well, because you made the movie. And so you are a very good filmmaker. And so, you know, films are very, very effective. And what interests me here is that here we are supposedly on the same side of saying, "Hey, the government cannot do these things, the Constitution."

OLIVER: Yeah.

GLENN: And yet, you are a guy that will hang on with some of the worst dictators around.

OLIVER: Well, here we're talked about the American system. And that system was deeply violated by the NSA. I think you'll admit that.

GLENN: Yes, I do.

PAT: Definitely.

OLIVER: And we're trying to come to terms with it, but we don't a lot. So we have to start somewhere by talking about these issues, by bringing some awareness to the American people who are left in the dark. They haven't trusted us with that information.

GLENN: Are you surprised -- and in talking to him, how surprised is he that America didn't go crazy when they found out the truth?

OLIVER: On the contrary -- before he said my greatest fear was that it would drift into indifference. And that's how tyranny -- tyranny will happen. Because the steps will be taken away from us. The freedoms will be taken away from us. The civil liberties. And one day we'll simply be a passive Orwellian population. And there will be a new guy coming along, or woman, who may be completely different and play a harder ball game, if he or she faces pressure.

GLENN: Are you concerned about the man or the woman that are currently --

OLIVER: Absolutely. Everyone should be.

You know, we're living in a world of great privilege in this country. We have tremendous -- consumerism is a religion. But this can all be -- how do you say it? Destroyed, by this overreaching that we're doing in the NSA, as well as we're listening on everybody.

And we're -- the whole other element you haven't discussed yet what Snowden revealed was about cyber warfare. Cyber warfare is extremely dangerous. It was us that presented the program, that used it first on an offensive capability in 2007 in Iran.

And since then, it's gotten out of control. Snowden described it as a surveillance free-for-all. Nobody knows who is doing what because it takes months and months to unwind these things and find out. So crazy accusations go out there.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, we're very concerned. And it doesn't seem like very many people are, that we are in a cyber war right now.

OLIVER: Yes.

GLENN: That's what's happening. World War III, I believe, is already happening. It's just happening with digits at this point.

OLIVER: There's some truth to what you say. But it's not necessarily a war with Russia. It's a war with all hackers in every country. If you remember, cyber warfare -- remember when the atomic bomb got dropped in '45, Truman told Oppenheimer back then, you know, "This is -- we're going to keep this a secret." And Oppenheimer scoffed at him. He said, "You can't keep this a secret."

Same with cyber warfare. We started a new form of warfare. We're very good at it. We've spent a huge fortune on it. And we need is a treaty, to cut to the quick here, a cyber treaty with the rest of the world. Very important.

GLENN: The one scene where he first sees the Arabic woman coming in and undressing and he's very uncomfortable. One of the guys from the CIA or NSA comes in --

OLIVER: Yeah, yeah, NSA.

GLENN: And hacks into her phone or her iPad.

OLIVER: Right.

GLENN: And he's just watching her undress and he's very uncomfortable.

OLIVER: Right.

GLENN: I don't think people really understand as they put their iPhone next to their bed as they charge it at night and they're doing what they do at night in bed. Nobody understands that.

OLIVER: No. The program was described as Optic Nerve, which it was. That was a British program. You know, the NSA has more than 150 programs. The depth of this stuff is even beyond that. We showed that as even an obvious example. Snowden is a bit of a prude, and certainly he didn't want to go there. But they have pornographic abilities to use to discredit their enemies.

Now, they used it on the Muslim population in the United States. They passed the raw intelligence -- this is outrageous, and it pissed off Snowden. They passed the raw intelligence that they were getting while he was in Hawaii to the Israeli Mossad. So imagine, you know, what they can do with that, with all the Arab relatives of the people who live in the Middle East close to Israel. It's this huge. It's an overreach and an arrogance about people's lives. It's disgusting.

STU: Oliver, if you make a movie about a historic event that, you know, was decades and decades ago, you have a long time to essentially marinate in perspective and look back and see the full picture of that. What's the difference between doing something like that and something like Snowden, which is really you're making a movie about an event that is still going on today?

OLIVER: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mr. Obama has presided over the worst excesses of the surveillance age. I mean, he's taken the Bush program which was illegal in the first place, and he's doubled down. And that was part of the story we're telling. And you see very clearly the Obama path. You see Snowden believing -- believing that Obama is going to reform that system in 2008 when he's elected. And by 2013, when he released those secrets, he's given up hope that Obama will do anything.

GLENN: When you see all of this going on and America not paying attention, what do you think is going to happen when we watch this movie? We're just going to take it as a movie and move on with our lives?

PAT: Move on?

OLIVER: As I said earlier, I don't have an agenda. I'm not an activist that way, although you may think I am. I really think it's presented to you. It's a movie. Enjoy it. It's an intense movie. It's a thriller. You walk out, you make your own conclusions, or you might just think about it some more and start to do a little more research because there's a lot to be done.

GLENN: Yeah, there is. Oliver Stone, thank you so much.

OLIVER: Thank you very much, Glenn.

GLENN: God bless. You bet. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.

STU: It's out this weekend, right?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: You saw it already?

GLENN: I saw it last night.

PAT: So it opens today?

GLENN: Yeah, opens today. I saw it last night.

PAT: Nice. You liked it, or not?

GLENN: It is -- I'm not sure. Yes, it's worth seeing. It's worth seeing. I, again -- and I didn't mean to be rude to him, and I hope I wasn't --

STU: No. It was an interesting --

GLENN: No, but I was just being honest, and he was being honest back to me.

I don't trust him. He's Oliver Stone, so I don't trust him. And when you see the movie, you will see -- you know, I should bring it in on the break. I'll show you a couple of places in the movie where you'll watch it and you'll say, "Oh, my gosh." I mean, he's -- you tell me, you watch that scene with the CIA guy when he's asking Edward Snowden, "So tell me about yourself. How come you want to be in the CIA?" He's the creepiest dude ever. And then the guy who he says is his father figure is always in the shadows and always like, "So what do we've got to do? What do we've got to do?"

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, you've got just that layer of Oliver Stone moviemaking that does taint it, which I wish it didn't have that because I think it would be a much more powerful film. You wouldn't walk out dismissing because it was Oliver Stone.

STU: Did you see the documentary about Snowden?

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: The actual documentary.

STU: My joke all the time. The actual documentary.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I'm curious if it's consistent largely with that.

GLENN: I didn't see the documentary. I wish I did. I didn't see the documentary.

Featured Image: Director Oliver Stone attends the 'Snowden' premiere during the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival at Roy Thomson Hall on September 9, 2016 in Toronto, Canada. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.