poor tulsi the mainstream media controlled by the corporate fat cats will do all in their power to lie about her and mislead the people. Soon, we'll read about her affair and failed marriage.....and some made up stuff. Russia ain't our enemy, Iran ain't our enemy, Our enemy are those who would turn this country into a corporatocracy. Who controls your "news" media? Is that control essentially of an altruistic nature?
The bourgeoisie has, in this sense, always been our enemy. To me, it is interesting how historically we don't seem to get around to this framework unless actually saying so somehow helps those alleged enemies. They were our enemy when we were supposed to be worrying about two men having sex with each other, or even wanting to get married. They were even our enemy in the bit about two men having sex with each other because the real problem was the idea of two women having sex with each other for their own benefit. No, really. They were still our enemy when we were supposed to be worrying about the strings hanging out of a woman's cervix. It's kind of like the whole #AllLivesMatter thing. There is a ¡duh! aspect about the retort, but its function is as striking as it is mundane: If there is a particular problem, then we should accept the fact that other problems exist in the world, or that problems exist generally. It seems, and functions as, an excuse to do nothing about a particular problem. And it is in its way perfectly human behavior. Nonetheless, there is a difference 'twixt the fact of human frailty, to the one, and the willful choice to exploit it, to the other. Here is a mundane example: The other day it occurred that something ridiculous was happening. A friend responded to the point of the situation being ridiculous by pointing out that we're all ridiculous, and any number of questions flashed to mind, like, Really? You're sure that's where you want to go with this? Or: Do you really think it's the same? Perhaps something more declarative: That is ridiculous because it is happening. We are ridiculous because we give a damn. That is to say, the general and particular read differently. The thing is, there exists an aspect, not at all inaccessible to me, by which my friend's point that we are all ridiculous is precisely true. At the same time, I'm not certain what it was supposed to mean in the moment. So while we're all supposed to fret about how racist it is to try to settle deadly racism, guess who we're not dealing with? #BlackLivesMatter means something compared to what is happening in the society. The #AllLivesMatter retort is a means of minimizing perception and comprehension of the problem. That it also finds sympathetic audience with those who would believe and even propagate a racist lie only reinforces the point. But at least we're not talking about that enemy you mentioned. And there is always a reason why not. The bourgeoisie was our enemy the whole time. These were our enemy, too, when the Christianist adulteress captivated the nation complaining about other people's adultery; and they were our enemy throughout that entire quarter-century campaign. And think of it this way: While they were focused on other people's sex lives, and scouring the notion of consent from their outlook on sexual behavior, it wasn't exactly a coincidence that they were electing these alleged enemies who would turn this country into a corporatocracy. To the one, check in with Weber°; to the other, we needn't reach back a century to observe the fact of a Blue Dog Caucus. In our generally two-party political fights, Democratic candidates needed particular outreach to conservatives; throughout the Eighties, Democratic voters chose what led to the DLC; given a choice between what brought us the Clintons or the push of rainbows and movement of hopeful coalition, Democratic voters most assuredly did not raise Jesse Jackson, for instance. The perpetual pseudocentrist pull on the Democratic Party has been what its voters bring. "Those who would turn this country into a corporatocracy", as such, are hardly a new idea; when addressing them from the Left, they are called the bourgeoisie. And inasmuch as they are our enemy today, they always have been. Strangely, it's times like this when the argument finally comes out. No, I'm not talking specifically about the fact of the Trump presidency and two years of Republican Congressional clusterdiddlydoo. Rather, if the Devil itself walked, it's not so much that some would shrug and say we're all sinners°°, but those among them who will also complain of subsequent outcomes. Sometimes the difference 'twixt the Parties seems small, but there is a reason liberals and progressives look to Democrats. While Republicans specialize in bourgeois interests, Democrats repeatedly fail to properly juggle market priorities such as necessary appeasement of the bourgeoisie with its ostensible desire to find something better, especially given how often Democratic voters pull back toward whatever passes for a political center. Most days it can easily seem hopeless, but what it brings ought to make some sort of point: Fears about anything people could imagine wrong with Hillary Clinton, including corruption, compelled enough people to elect actual, known corruption among all sorts of other real problems. Imagine that: Voters tired explicitly of the corporatocracy just in time to elect it. As to Russia and Iran, it's all a matter of how one classifies an enemy. Iran isn't a great friend of ours in the moment, but neither should they be; we've made that clear over the years. The Russian government, meanwhile, has apparently been caught in some pretty nasty adversarialism; we can certainly trade out "the" for "an". And, besides, the Russian head of state is an apparent closet case who has actually postured himself in a manner that does in fact describe him as an enemy of people like me. No, really, his choice; and his justification includes a line that only works if one has exposure. In any case, I'm pretty sure the governments of both Russia and Iran count as bourgeoisie. And as to poor Tulsi, corporatocracy and news media and enemies being what they are, some things people do to themselves. Like, "Tulsi 2020 with the Russians", for instance. I don't know, maybe she and her staff can take it up with Twitter, but it looks self-inflicted. ____________________ Notes: ° Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905. °° And therein we find a psychoanalytic fuckall, given how many are offended by the mere possibility of their own sin.
#handsupdonthumansrightsmebecauseihaveeverythingineedsoitsallyourfaultnotminesogoawaywithyourproblemsbecauseimdoingokthanks #workingclasspoorlivesarenotworthasmuchasrichpeopleslifes
But we are looking at Gabbard's own Twitter feed. Why do you think Ms Gabbard went out of her way to claim that Mueller's report concludes Trump did not collude with the Russians? Mind you: she has not read Mueller's report. So what is she trying to do, there?
LOL. When the news about this was yet new, I have read a Russian prediction about the reaction which has to be expected from the Dems. Given that such reports will contain some classified information (a lot of information is classified in the US even if it contains no valuable information for any enemies at all) the report will not be published completely. So, this will be the starting point about conspiracy theories supported by the Dems and their media that the report nonetheless contains something which proves Trump's collusion with the Russians, so that Trump's collusion with the Russians will remain part of the Dem propaganda forever. YMMD. What about Ms. Gabbard simply thinking that the summary given is enough, and even the full text will not give anything different?
Since we already have - in the public record - extensive evidence of Trump's collusion with "the Russians", there is no need for your always conveniently ignorant Russians to exercise their imaginations unduly. And no need for them to deflect the more serious charges of obstruction of justice, corruption, etc - they can leave that to the US media and their corporate ownership. Because when we read Barr's report, we find two things: 1) There is no summary. Barr has denied that his report is a summary, and he is obviously correct to cover his ass like that - much of what we already know about Trump's dealings, even the subset as investigated by Mueller, is omitted. 2) Ms Gabbard is delivering the Republican Party line as presented by the classic hired gun Barr, who is reprising his role in similar past scandals - same as we saw after Iran Contra, and the Iraq War: time to move on, time to pretend none of the bad stuff done by a Republican president and administration ever happened. Disappointing, from Ms Gabbard. But hardly surprising.
So... Republicans? Your selective attention is revealing. Most media does reporting, a few propaganda outlets promote the current GOP trend to outsource government to corporations. I mean almost total capitulation to private oversight of food and chemical industries. The GOP is literally killing us for profit.
You just don't get it dad. I do not like "republicans" any more than i like "democrats". I ain't a particular fan of Tweedism. Would you vote for the yellow dog?
Ok, if we compare this with the evidence you have presented for whatever you have presented about what I think and so on here, there may be indeed a lot of evidence. Even if there would be, for reasonable observers, none at all. For me, this is nothing but a nice observation of totalitarian thinking.
Of course - that's the Republican Party Line, and so far you have bought the Republican Party Line on every issue of US politics. You have no information, no base of physical fact to use in assessing, so the US marketing pros make a fool of you. Copout. Bothsides is bullshit.
A nice Russiagate Requiem: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/no_author/a-russiagate-requiem/ Some quotes relevant to what we have discussed here: Blame yourself. You do not even make attempts to present here parts of the Dem Party Line which would be worth my support. There would be some, say, directed against Saudi Arabia after the US influence guy Khashoggi or so was killed. I have heard that the Dems with the support of some part of Reps have made some resolution against the continuation of US participation in the Yemen genocide. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/us/politics/yemen-war-end-vote.html Here I would support the Dems, 100%, even if the US participation in this cruel murdering started under Obama rule, it is nice that Dems have now recognized that it is a horrible crime which has to be stopped.
I have drawn your attention to the role sheer ignorance of physical, historical, and political reality plays in your vulnerability to Republican Party marketing pros many times - with specific examples highlighted. The role of willful ignorance (including amnesia) in the Republican Party base is a central issue in US politics, highlighted in the Republican media presentation of Barr's attempted coverup, and you illustrate it well. That's why.
not always however when they play out the pseudo petty party bickering blaming the other side for them not being able to do what is right for the average person yeh--------that is bullshit Our millionaire's congress seems to be able to do their jobs when it comes to military spending, and pork for their millionaire cronies. While claiming other party obstructionism when it comes to single payer medical care, or a progressive tax system, or...etc...etc...
In this context, always. That would be you and the bothsides media, doing that: refusing to assign blame or responsibility to the wrongdoers specifically. AOC is not a millionaire with "cronies" of that kind. Neither was Paul Wellstone, to introduce context (this isn't brand new - the real trouble dates to Reagan). Neither were, or are, a good many Congresscritters - consider their affiliations. And the Republican Party, its media and Congress and corporate backed lobbying groups together for the past forty years or so, is directly responsible for the rise of the influence of money on US Federal governance - as well as the "partisan bickering" line currently being used to make chumps of the rubes. Directly responsible. Specific legislation and media efforts were involved, traceable to people we can name and a political Party with an organized and identifiable agenda. I don't see the Republican Party claiming other Party obstruction of single payer, restoration of New Deal taxation and regulation, etc. I see it obstructing - and doing so in an organized, Partisan, coordinated, agenda-driven, strategically orchestrated, purposeful manner.
Yesterday I read a fairly specialized article about another, tangentially related aspect of the Trump administration, a recent attempt to blame Obama, as such, that highlights something important about the discourse. The thing is that superficially, the blame-Obama line appears attractive to critics; it is true that Barack Obama signed a particular statement. Still, though, what is the function of that statement? It's like that line I always use about people not being able to tell the difference. Obama's statement actually reflects the duty of his office; what corruption his conservative—and, as we find, some leftist—critics might accuse of such a statement actually arises and occurs in the Trump administration action. And, sure, we've seen that over and over again, and could spend threads on conservatives and self-inflicted wounds, but in this case what I want from the issue, and why I'm not wasting greater description on it, is simply that the Trump administration line reflects, and would exploit, ignorance akin to that described in a common American lament about civics education. For Americans, there is a lot about what just happened with the Barr summary that they will not see even if it happens right in front of them. More directly, the key to understanding Barr's letter using the word "summarize" that wasn't a summary really is to scrutinize what he says according to the point of how it is not a disqualifying lie. Even beyond that, though, part of what our neighbor misses in his question↑ about simply thinking that the summary given is enough is what Barr's maneuvering actually represents. Most Americans don't know the once and would-be summary was extraneous, not part of the Attorney General's job. Furthermore, our neighbor has consistently, over the course of years, shown a lack of comprehension about American nuance. The idea of what Barr has done will seem considerably less dramatic if one does not understand at least something of the expectations attorneys face. But the idea that Barr's summary isn't a summary is another example of how this goes. When we check his pretentious correction against what the letter purported to summarize, we see a technical difference. The 24 March letter↱ asserts to "summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report". The 29 March letter↱ disputes public characterization of its predecessor as a summary, stating explicitly that it was "was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel's investigation or report". This is a word game, and while you or I might have different thresholds for transgression, it is also a particularly affecting example of something American lawyers are expected to guard against. And, again, this is one of those things that slips most Americans, so it is unclear what to expect of an international critique presenting such established habits as we observe. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page three of the letter is a mysterious statement that will haunt Mr. Barr over time. Everything about the sentence is a calculated sleight at the edge of what an attorney should allow himself: "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." What leaves which to whom? The number of things that can go wrong with Barr's statement is nigh on wicked. One of the most striking aspects we might bear witness to, though, is how Mr. Barr walked into this job under the most ridiculous cloud of conflict feeding obvious conspiracist suspicion, and has performed pretty much precisely to spec, and we're all supposed to somehow not notice; it would be better if every once in a while, the #trumpswindle could fail to fulfill the most apparent expectations. But in the question of what the Attorney General's performance actually means, while it ought to be easy enough for any rational observer to see the general shape of what is happening, the detail of how Barr is doing it seems a preposterous contrast of clumsy refinement, not quite brain surgery with an oil drill, but the valence of manipulation he is attempting actually requires a much finer hand. And if I wonder at yet another unfortunate pun about lowering the bar, it is because some part of this lack of subtlety will be woven into the society's future standard of subtlety. Like the blame-Obama argument, the discourse generally does not attend such detail. We can even look at the recent desperate attempt to ask the Court to please strike down the ACA as another iteration of the Trump administration and its surrogates and supporters being unable to discern certain basic differences. And between the blame-Obama and imitate-Obama straws, what is either an inability to discern or a refusal to acknowledge basic differences seems a common element, and arises in conservative celebration of Attorney General Barr's dysfunctional extraneity, as well as the letters themselves. It is not that international commentary is necessarily uninformed, or somehow immune to similar insensitivity. While ignorance is not necessary to the politicking, as Mr. Barr's unfortunate appearance makes clear, it is unclear to what degree our neighbor is explicitly ignorant or not, but his statements in lieu of an argument depend on such dearth in order to have any credible pretense to begin with. To the other, Rep. Gabbard is a war veteran with a baccalaureate in business administration; while most certainly not an attorney, she has fifteen years in electoral politics, is a member of Congress serving on the Armed Services and Financial Services committees, and would like a promotion to the presidency. That is to say, the Distinguished Member from Hawai'i Two ought not have any trouble comprehending Mr. Barr's maneuvers. Inasmuch as her tweet aged poorly over the course of twenty-four hours, part of that question would involve wondering how she missed murmur and buzz and rising clamor over the prior ninety-six. Gabbard ought to have known better, yet chose the words she did. The naïveté required for her to simply think the summary given is enough would, itself, present a political problem for this presidential aspirant. Everything about that tweet is strange. And our neighbor's post? It's quite the condescension for being based on naïveté, which in turn is probably significant for being so common a example of lackluster, propagandous flaccidity. And, sure, that can mean something about our neighbor as a posting member of this community and how he goes about it, but Gabbard is a member of Congress, Barr is the Attorney General, and I even mentioned at some point at some point would-be revolutionary journalists throwing in with Barr, and one of them, in addition to being a media boss with a spouse in Congress, was in his former career an actual practicing attorney. All of these people ought to know better than to say what they said. It is, therefore, uncertain how actual knowledge of how these processes and offices work will affect these critiques that apparently depend on overselling a clumsy and even dangerous sleight. This uncertainty, in turn, highlights the vapidity of the talking point. The next vapidity to watch for will have to do with what material Congress is entitled to see, which, technically, is all of it. Over the long run, the question is how long the President and his empowered allies can hold out is its own vital question. It is easy enough to presume our neighbor does not grasp the subtleties, according to the suggestion that he might create better propaganda if he did. As it goes, though, history will show a pretty impressive record of just what it took to defend Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and American conservatism. And it will also suggest Tulsi Gabbard needed a similarly low bar. Even as a marketing decision, that tweet would be one of those ill-advised Frankenstein-misnomer sort of mistakes. To be certain, it is the sort of gaffe one can recover from; in and of itself, it is hardly a career-crasher. By the scale of the actual Trump-Russia question, though, she can certainly light her own kindling in the course of trying to pile on. That nobody pushing the Trump case, right now, can do much better than some overseas troll hanging out in this remote corner of the web ought to make some sort of point about the tenuousness of the President's defense in general, and, also, the Attorney General's behavior and justification in particular. ____________________ Notes: Barr, William. Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committee. Office of the Attorney General. 24 March 2019. Justice.gov. 6 April 2019. http://bit.ly/2CYoC6M —————. Letter to Chairmen of Senate and House Judiciary. Office of the Attorney General. 29 March 2019. CNN.com. https://cnn.it/2U634uI
You have done no such thing. Ok, maybe you are completely stupid so that you completely miss how your writings will be interpreted by other people which follow usual standards of argumentation? Those who are not impressed by cheap claims of type "you are ignorant of" whatever, if they are not supported by any evidence that at least some of the information provided by that person is wrong or at least one of the claims is contradicted by a simple widely known fact that person is obviously ignorant of? You should be quite aware that such empty claims are nothing but empty claims and ignored. To draw the attention of other people to something you have to provide some nontrivial information. For me, such clarifications look completely unproblematic. As a mathematician, I'm quite familiar with formal languages, and the language of the law is always in essential parts a formal language. They always have important differences where common sense sees only another wording for the same thing. It is clear that one can, in common sense, summarize something but has to avoid to name it a "summary" if that word "summary" has some legal meaning which may become relevant. Even in "three felonies a day" America it may be unproblematic to summarize whatever one likes to summarize, but it may be a felony to give a "summary" in some legal meaning of the word if it does not meet some legal obligation like being "an exhaustive recounting of" whatever is summarized. BTW, the clarification is only about a summary of the whole report vs. a summary of its principal conclusions. So, it remains a summary. What matters is, in fact, only if the claims made in that summary are lies or not. If not, Russiagate has failed. (In fact, this failure gives in my eyes a +15 points for the US legal system, I have expected that with some probability they will start to fabricate something forcing those "cooperating" to lie against Trump. But this could be as well something Mueller has not done because it looked too dangerous to him.) And if the full report contains beyond the "summary" also some minor points which the Dems can nonetheless use for their propaganda or not is something politically irrelevant.
The rest of the paragraph isn't unimportant, but it kind of makes the point: The problem with Barr's summary starts with the fact that it is extraneous. There is an actual law that governs what happens in these situations, and presently the Attorney General has every appearance of trying to find some way to sabotage it. He sent a letter advising that Mueller submitted a report; that was his job. A couple days later he sent another letter, summarizing the principal conclusions. Several days later, feeling the heat for his action, he issued yet another letter, compounding the problems of the first. Any number of political points can go here, but the first and foremost fact to bear in mind is that the 24 March letter and its 29 March clarification both were beyond prescribed duty and protocol. In the question of why a public attorney, especially an attorney general, would do that, simple answers like saying it seemed like a good idea so what's wrong with it jump past the heart of the question. We have, here, a process, and an Attorney General who took office under an obvious cloud of suspicion, which in turn he has only fulfilled. Sure, that reads like a basic political point but its underlying American reality is a reminder of why we have standards in the first place. This occurs in the plain light of statute, but also in a seemingly obscure corner of juristics that people need to remember: All attorneys have obligations toward integrity, conflict of interest, and basic appearances thereof. For all the dirty business we accuse lawyers of getting away with, there are some things that are supposed to be sacred. An attorney is not supposed to outright lie, and this actually looks like what happens when a lawyer verges up against that threshold. Think for a moment of defense attorneys. In the U.S., they are notorious, but also the stuff of legend. Donald Trump's attorneys in his business dealings over the years have been effective, but the true stuff of legend is the laws they had to work with. And within the context of establishing doubt, as a defense attorney does, there is only so much room to maneuver before crossing the line into dissimulation. Once upon a time, Americans abided a pretense that state attorneys were supposed to be above all that, but, even still, the mere appearance of impropriety is a standard in effect for law enforcement lawyers, and especially one with a title like Attorney General. And we can make a political point, to be certain, about this being the Mockery Presidency, to the point of President Trump actually calling off The New Colossus, but we're so deep into all of this extraordinary deviation it will be a while before people recognize what buzzed through Twitter but not so much any substantial banner headlines; by the time we get down to the joke about the evangelical bloc ... well, that is its own manner of point that is not unimportant. Still, though, the functional realities of such political considerations are stark; another of this President's iconic moments is yet again striking for its reckless petulance. While a political point would be to observe the fact that these are Republicans behaving exactly like they accuse and wail about others, or that the Party known to argue that government doesn't work seemingly hell-bent on demonstrating its thesis, the underlying functional point of governance in this is that everything about Attorney General Barr's installation and subsequent actions in re the Mueller investigation drips with the look and stench of impropriety. To simplify: Were it you and me watching the pub regulars do their thing, certain behavior might not seem problematic; were we listening to the speaker at the symposium clarify, not only would clarification generally not be problematic, it would in particular cases seem useful. By contrast, Attorney General Barr's clarification is as problematic as what it clarifies because this isn't a pub, where ethics of argument are considerably less constraining, nor a symposium wherein the presentation and clarification are part of the reason for the person in front of us to even be speaking in the first place. This is the Attorney General of the United States behaving extraordinarily poorly in about as obvious a manner as he might. Here's a difference between the political and the functional: As a political consideration, sure, the purpose of addressing Iceaura in this manner, according to the dispute 'twixt the two of you, seems pretty straightforward. As a functional consideration, even setting aside the question of whether Iceaura's repeated assertions of your ignorance and vulnerability have valid basis, we might wonder what the point you made has to do with you. More generally per the proposition of argument itself: Why change the subject to other people? Do you need the implied weight of their implied scrutiny as some sort of surrogate? It just seems the weirdest change of subject. Which, in turn, is the problem with political hits as substantive argument: Yeah, really, it does seem pretty straightforward, and, sure, we all get you, and maybe Iceaura is either embarrassed at feeling he has been somehow burned or, more likely, annoyed at the stupidity of it all. But that's the thing: Sure, maybe we get you, but that doesn't mean you actually have a useful point. That is, sure, we get what you're after, but, no, you're really not the one to deliver that line. As a political zinger, your line is what it is. The functional reality, of course, is that those who attend more usual standards of argumentation are an interesting question about a meaningless phrase. Even setting aside the fact that this is Sciforums, there is your history of making believe in lieu of more useful or valid° forms of argument. And inasmuch as our neighbor might repeatedly assert your ignorance and vulnerability, it's also true I can think back ten months ago↗, when I said your anti-Americanism relies on a phantom caricature of America even more dysfunctional than the real caricature Americans have made of themselves over the years. And while it is true, even many Americans just don't attend the basic workings of government closely enough to notice certain subtleties, that does not change the point that your arguments depend on critiques not necessarily attending the detail of what they purport to criticize. Such as the clarification not being problematic; the difference, compared to Iceaura's reference #306↑ to the 29 March letter, that Barr "is obviously correct to cover his ass like that", is that your point is entirely political and disregards what American civic understanding would cover; my phrasing, in #316↑, to scrutinize what Barr wrote according to the point of how it is not a disqualifying lie, reflects the same basic understanding. The clarification, in its own context, is straightforward and dubiously predictable. To be clear, dubiously because to presuppose an Attorney General of the United States would behave this way is itself a grave and presupposing insult. As long as your arguments characterize the U.S. and its people according to foreign-born, oppositional propaganda, your assessments of what is going on in this country will always be suspect. Consider that the answer to your question about how other people will interpret what he writes is already known: They will either leave it to the two of you, pick a side based on superficial factors, or spend some effort trying to figure out what either of you are on about. Meanwhile, you're not doing your own self any good along the way. The question of how other people see one's writing is, as you have expressed it, left to each author. And, furthermore, this is Sciforums, after all. So, all in all, your appeal to shame, as it seems to be, reads as some manner of trembling indignance thoroughly unprepared to make any dignified or useful stand, which might result from the lack of principle or even mere point to stand on. ____________________ Notes: ° Per its usage, "usual standards of argumentation" implies statistical outcomes, and thus does not preclude that one might discard reliability and validity while encountering or achieving a "usual" argumentative circumstance or outcome. Accuracy is not a prerequisite of what is or isn't usual.
Yeah, I have. Many times. You have often informed me of such interpretations, largely by making such interpretations yourself - or rather, posting Republican wingnut stuff you found persuasive in your ignorance. That is indeed your usual standard of argumentation. Nothing I can do about that. Then you are a gullible fool, ignorant of the physical reality you think has been "clarified" by comically inadequate Republican media handouts. Barr himself has denied - explicitly, and in public - that his four page report was a summary. That's because he is a professional lawyer, and is not about to suffer the consequences of making such a claim. His job is to cover Trump's ass, as he has covered Republican ass before - but he's not going to sacrifice his own to the cause. Nonsense. The claims made in the media release - which was not a summary - are cleverly worded to claim almost nothing. Barr is a skilled professional at this kind of thing. What matters - in this issue - is what's in the Mueller report. And Trump's tax returns. And in the findings of the 2nd District investigation. And in the security clearance investigation. And so forth. About a dozen serious ones, and a few more of lesser import.
