The Mueller Investigation

[Vraith]

That's kinda funny...cause as a member of the USN as an elisted man, I was expected to handle classified information with utmost care, and to assume it was unless directed to otherwise, with penalties that included jail time if I mismanaged the information.

Are you attempting to tell me that the Secretary of State isn't even held to that high a standand?

As a vet who handled classified material, I'd expect you to back up what I said.
I was at the bottom layer you're talking about, too. And the middle--top-ish.
Did you not read the part where I mentioned the function/control/expertise, and how it devolved as it rose? Perhaps you never witnessed it, or perhaps never had to deal with those above and/or from other levels/silos.

And BTW, that structure exists in PART BECAUSE manipulation becomes possible...that is PRECISELY how [[in the civilian/familiar world, as example]] BP can INTENTIONALLY make decisions that KILL people and then deny responsibility. How Bhopal killed 1800. And those are minor examples, not the big shit. Picked them cuz they're semi-familiar.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And yet for all the fuss Republicans made over her emails, and all the laws she supposedly violated, she was never charged with a crime.

That is the FBI's fault--either the evidence was sufficient at the time to charge her with a crime or it was not. The FBI chose not to press charges so she got a free pass. Old news and only die-hard Hillary haters still care about that.

Since y'all get so wound up about this sort of thing, how do you feel about Ivanka using her personal email account for government business?

FLOTUS is not an elected position and has no real authority. Should the FLOTUS--I suppose we should use FSOTUS for "first spouse"--be subject to recordkeeping laws/regulations? *shrug* That person is not technically a "government official".

And while we're on the subject of national security, what about the revelation today that Don McGahn and John Kelly both balked at giving Jared and Ivanka security clearances, so Daddy did it himself?

So what if he did? Doesn't the President have the authority to issue de facto security clearances? What if the President takes some top secret document into the residential quarters and just starts showing it to people? Surely that has happened a lot over the decades..... Still, giving your family members positions in the Cabinet or White House staff reeks of old-school nepotism.

*************

Goddamnit--4chan bleeding over into the Tank again. And yes, I hate alts even though I cannot technically do anything about them.

[Avatar]

You could, if you like, institute a 'Tank rule that only main accounts can be used. I'm not against alts for fun purposes, like DPJ or Plains of Ra, but not a fan of "alt by numbers" type things.

--A

[sgt.null]

You could, if you like, institute a 'Tank rule that only main accounts can be used. I'm not against alts for fun purposes, like DPJ or Plains of Ra, but not a fan of "alt by numbers" type things.

--A

Agreed. Let's have a vote?

[TheFallen]

Am I being thick here? (Hint - the correct answer to that is "No, that'd be impossible"). What - or who - the feck are you guys talking about?

I suppose Av's doing some deep IP address detect stuff or something...

FWIW, apart from the RPG threads, I see no upside, but loads of possible downsides in allowing alts in the Tank.

Gawd knows how this would be enforced though...

[Ur Dead]

Wow.. there must be people who really love this place to have multiple
accounts. I'm lucky just to remember the PW to one.

[Dread Poet Jethro]

Yes, I love this place
But when using alts, I aim
First, to do no harm

[Zarathustra]

But it doesn't matter because the law says nothing about intent. It says, "grossly negligent" in handling classified info.

I don't know what precisely you are talking about. But almost every law, and the underpinnings, related to this do, in fact, require intent.

How is it possible to be intentionally negligent in mishandling classified info? If your intent was to mishandle it, it would be something much worse than negligence, like stealing or concealing classified info--the latter of which she clearly did.

For that matter, how is setting up a private email server to do official State Department business--and not telling anyone about it for two years until she was outed--negligence in the first place?? It clearly shows intent to hide her communications. The fact that she destroyed hard drives before anyone had a chance to look at them (except her own lawyers) shows intent to hide her communications! Jesus, it's plain as day! Are you sure you're awake? lol. What other possible reason could she have had? She didn't accidentally hide her State Department communications for two years. That's not negligence, it's intentional mishandling of classified info.

And why is it Comey's call to make, and not the Deputy Attorney General?

And "grossly negligent" requires evidence to meet that standard. When the MAXIMUM error rate [and I mean everything that could POSSIBLY be thought by ANYONE involved was classified] was AT MOST by that ridiculous standard---and it IS ridiculous, that's a fact---was 1% [[and in reality, roughly ONE THOUSAND TIMES LESS or lesser]] "Gross Negligence" simply does not apply.

If legislators intended for the law to be interpreted in terms of a percentage of "errors" (ha!), they would have given the percentage. Try getting off from reckless driving charge by telling the police officer that 99% of your driving experience hasn't been reckless. I can't believe that passes even your own sniff test. It's bullshit, and you know it. The FBI found 100s of classified emails, over a hundred which were classified at the time of sending/receiving, and some that rose to our highest level of top secret classification.

The "grossly" part of the negligence doesn't come from how many times she did it (which we don't really know, because she wiped her server and only gave us what her lawyers reviewed), but in the manner that she did it. 100% of her official State Department communications--including with the President--went through her own unsecured private server! 100% The fact that Comey could only find a small percent of classified docs is irrelevant. Her negligence (or rather, her intentional disregard of the law), comes from the initial act of setting up the server in the first place, which would then handle 100% of anything classified she happened to discuss.

But regardless of all that, how is "grossly negligent" substantially different from "extremely careless?" Is that defined in percentages, too? Are you going to pull something else out of your ass to get her off the hook for that, too?

When they say "should have known" in every case I've seen [[and I read ALL that shit that can be found]] the reality is NO, she could not have known, because NO ONE knew/could have known...in part because most of it FACTUALLY, WAS NOT.

You read every single thing relevant to this? So you know better than the FBI what is or is not classified. Wow. Why didn't they get you in on the investigation? [cough*delusions of grandeur*cough]

You'd think that someone who has read "ALL that shit that can be found" would have stumbled upon the "grossly negligent" vs "extremely careless" distinction. Weird.

It doesn't matter whether or not she "should have known" or "could not have know" if this or that document was classified. She had no system set in place to handle classified material should that decision arise, because, as I've said, 100% of her communications was on an illegal, unsecured private server. She made absolutely NO effort--zero percent!--to distinguish classified information and handle it appropriately.
(Which, again, is why it rises at least to the level of grossly negligent.)

********************************************************

When are you going to address the fact that the President can give pardons as one of his Constitutional powers and the implications this has on whether he can obstruct justice in using his presidential powers? If he was given the *explicit* power to "make crimes go away" for whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, why do you think it makes sense that he can implicitly obstruct justice when he makes a personnel change (which the Constitution allows)? Clearly, the Framers *wanted* him to be able to "obstruct justice" (a statute which didn't even exist then) or they wouldn't have given him the power to pardon.

[Vraith]

I can't believe that passes even your own sniff test.

It's bullshit, and you know it. The FBI found 100s of classified emails, over a hundred which were classified at the time of sending/receiving, and some that rose to our highest level of top secret classification.

Most of your facts are wrong. [[for instance, the number of properly marked classified messages was apparently ZERO.
For instance, NO, 100% of her communications did NOT go through that server.
there is an entirely separate system for that shit.

The REASON there wasn't a metric shit-ton of classified stuff on HER email, is cuz the classified stuff was APPROPRIATELY handled on another system, the RIGHT system]]

You think you know things you don't. [like the above. those are so.]
And things you CAN'T.

And fuck your shithead remarks...I said, among other things, I read everything that COULD BE FOUND. Like the FBI report on it. And the IG report on the FBI investigation.

I don't know better than the FBI WHAT is classified [though some very specific things I MIGHT...back when it was my job I definitely DID.
But I know the SYSTEM.
Kludge-fucking-Ocracy is too kind.
And I know for a fact that we have god knows how many orgs that have classifying power---and all those orgs have INTERNAL divisions. I'd guess at least a few 100 by now, maybe more. EVERY ONE of them has absolute, irrreconcilable differences over what, when, what level various things are classified. I know those things aren't polite disagreements...they're turf-wars, they're nasty, they're loud, they're power/politics.

As I said, there may be some things she was guilty of...but the only punishment was administrative.


On the Pardon power...it can be misused/corrupt/criminal, too. It's slightly more extensive than the other, in some ways. But not unlimited.]

[Zarathustra]

I can't believe that passes even your own sniff test.

It's bullshit, and you know it. The FBI found 100s of classified emails, over a hundred which were classified at the time of sending/receiving, and some that rose to our highest level of top secret classification.

Most of your facts are wrong. [[for instance, the number of properly marked classified messages was apparently ZERO.

I didn't mention any markings, properly done or otherwise. I said that over 100 were classified at the time of receiving/sending, and I will add that Clinton should have known:

With regard to mishandling of classified information, Comey said, "there is evidence that they [Clinton and her team] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." The investigation found 110 emails that should have been regarded as classified at the time they were sent; another 2,000 emails were retroactively classified which means they were not classified at the time they were sent.[165][168] Comey said that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding ... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."[169][170]

That's in Comey's own words.

For instance, NO, 100% of her communications did NOT go through that server.
there is an entirely separate system for that shit.

I know there's an entirely separate system for that "shit." That's the point: she set up her own server to by-pass that system.

Hell, it's in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia entry (in other words, the most basic fact of this entire controversy):

During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using her family's private email server for official communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on secure federal servers.

What evidence do you have that she used any other system? (I should have said 100% of her emails, not "communication.")

And fuck your shithead remarks...

The idea that you have any interest whatsoever in civility in the Tank is demonstrably false. The fact that you are a mod here, in a position to weigh in on the civility of others is a travesty of in-group cliquishness (for instance, I've been here longer than you but I've NEVER been offered a mod position). You are absolutely at the bottom of the heap in terms of making this place civil and enjoyable. You're the new Cail.

[SoulBiter]

I can't believe that passes even your own sniff test.

It's bullshit, and you know it. The FBI found 100s of classified emails, over a hundred which were classified at the time of sending/receiving, and some that rose to our highest level of top secret classification.

Most of your facts are wrong. [[for instance, the number of properly marked classified messages was apparently ZERO.
For instance, NO, 100% of her communications did NOT go through that server.
there is an entirely separate system for that shit.

The REASON there wasn't a metric shit-ton of classified stuff on HER email, is cuz the classified stuff was APPROPRIATELY handled on another system, the RIGHT system]]

Lets be even more clear than that. The documents on her personal email server did not have any classified markings at the time they were moved there. But 100's of those documents were declared as confidential after that fact. Its still negligence on her part is that she was not performing due diligence on what was being sent to her personal server, (Surely the Secretary of State can recognize classified information) not doing due diligence on checking what was on there on an ongoing basis to ensure that nothing had changed or she was intentionally moving it there knowing those should have been marked confidential and using the "plausible deniability" excuse to get away with it.

I find your statement about the REASON classified stuff was not on her server lacking in evidence. If documents on her personal email server were subsequently classified, then those documents were govt business correspondence that she should have been reviewing prior to it going on her personal email. That means the classified documents were NOT being appropriately handled on the correct system AND that at the very least she WAS being negligent in the handling of classified information.
.
Then as Z says, her erasing that server the way she did, at the very least, has the perception of destroying evidence and/or evidence tampering which is a crime in itself.

[Zarathustra]

On the markings issue (as if that's even relevant when discussing material that her legal team edited for our eyes), Clinton is on record telling subordinates to remove classification markings in order to send her stuff nonsecured:

On June 16, 2011, Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, was having trouble sending his boss a list of talking points that contained sensitive - and possibly classified - information. Sullivan told Clinton there were issues "sending secure fax," an email released by the State Department early Friday shows.

So Clinton offered a shocking solution: remove the markings identifying the information as sensitive and send it by regular fax.

"Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton instructed Sullivan.

It wouldn't stretch the imagination to believe that she instructed her lawyers to remove classified headings prior turning over her emails, but the fact that we have smoking gun evidence that she actually did this (at least once) makes that no longer something in the realm of imagination.

That's not negligence. That's intentional mishandling of classified info.

If Comey can't find evidence for intent--when IT'S RIGHT THERE--he's the dumbest investigator we've ever had.

[TheFallen]

And fuck your shithead remarks...

The idea that you have any interest whatsoever in civility in the Tank is demonstrably false. The fact that you are a mod here, in a position to weigh in on the civility of others is a travesty of in-group cliquishness. You are absolutely at the bottom of the heap in terms of making this place civil and enjoyable. You're the new Cail.

Worse than that.

Honestly, this feels like the quite deliberate exaltation of hypocrisy, the ultimate in "Do as I say, not do as I do." It's hard to take it any other way than a quite intentional rubbing of people's noses in the shit of blatant double standards.

NB the language doesn't bother me in the least, solely in and of itself. Nope it's the studied usage of it now, given recent events. It comes across as I'm sure it was intended to... as the quintessential in triumphalist "Fuck you, peons".

[Vraith]

The documents on her personal email server did not have any classified markings at the time they were moved there. But 100's of those documents were declared as confidential after that fact. Its still negligence on her part is that she was not performing due diligence

There are people in the chain whose job is to do EXACTLY that.
The markings are HOW the people on the receiving end know whether or not it is classified [[because those, especially appointees/"civilians" of various kinds/functions, people are not, and never can/will be expert/aware of the status of all the info they have to handle]].
----------------------
The "turn to nonpaper" thing ONLY matters IF the thing was classified to begin with. No evidence of that. I've seen OTHER versions of that incident that DON't have the "possibly classified" inserted into it.
----------------------
If she was doing/involved in stripping markings and mishandling everything [[especially the stripping]], we'd know by now, cuz there would be dozens of people involved, god knows how many aware of, and unhideable---because almost all--and probably every single one-- of those tens of thousands of emails, and the "missing" ones everyone's worried about would have been found---there HAD to be multiple copies of them all over the place. The copies on her server could not possibly be the only copies. PLUS copies of the "originals" in unaltered form, if classified things were being de-marked.
----------------------
I probably won't stop swearing.
But anyone who doesn't want to be called things shouldn't call me things.
It's really that easy.

[Skyweir]

And fuck your shithead remarks...

The idea that you have any interest whatsoever in civility in the Tank is demonstrably false. The fact that you are a mod here, in a position to weigh in on the civility of others is a travesty of in-group cliquishness. You are absolutely at the bottom of the heap in terms of making this place civil and enjoyable. You're the new Cail.

Worse than that.

Honestly, this feels like the quite deliberate exaltation of hypocrisy, the ultimate in "Do as I say, not do as I do." It's hard to take it any other way than a quite intentional rubbing of people's noses in the shit of blatant double standards.

NB the language doesn't bother me in the least, solely in and of itself. Nope it's the studied usage of it now, given recent events. It comes across as I'm sure it was intended to... as the quintessential in triumphalist "Fuck you, peons".

As to the language thing ... to me personally that ISNT a mark of civility or incivility in interchanges. The Tank is akin to a pub, in a way ... the beer is flowing and we are all throwing in AS YOU DO to sort the worlds problems. No more, no less.

At the pub among mates .. ya slap each other on the back laughing and drop an odd Fbomb here or a Wbomb there. Or if your mighty passionate a Dbomb or a Tbomb might join in the fray.

The only reason Im not filling in those blanks because two posters requested cussing be reigned in.

Howver, to my mind, its not a lack of civility to cuss.

But to my mind IT IS a lack of civility to talk down to someone, to shit all over them for no apparent reason ... I read Vs tone as tongue in cheek with a fair shake of smart arsery thrown in for good measure.

But I concede that sometimes, without the right tone .. it can come across as aggressive, mean spirited or rude.

And given typographic nature of ALL our communication adds to the challenge of conveying the intended tone.

Luci made a comment just today .. re tone ... that to provide the intended context to her comments .. she used emojis.

The written word alone does not lend itself convey tone .. that a wink or a smile does. I mean its possible to do so but you are dependent on the reader to interpret correctly your intended meaning.

For example hugs n shit .. a greeting on the face of it ... NOT literally appealing .. .. or even desirable greeting, right?

But if you insert the right tone .. its a friendly but not over the top, saccharine loaded expression of friendliness.

To my mind its the personally offensive and maliciously intended insulting commentary that IS unnecessary and offensive.

Me asserting that X is uneducated or moronic, or obviously illiterate when common sense would indicate otherwise or that X is unequivocally clueless etc etc etc. To me .. thats where the line is and crossing it.

Whatever form the personal attack takes. Its unnecessary to run people down, thats the stuff of bullies, the emotionally manipulative and abusive. Thats the nasty stuff.

As far as Im concerned you can swear like a sailor .. but targeting someone personally .. is where it gets nasty imv. Thats where a lack of basic respect is flagged, thats the stuff that can be done overtly or subtly .. and its impact is the same.

I dont consider the Fbomb in and of itself as particularly offensive .. but thats just me .. Sarge and Fist not so much. So to respect them, I am ok with refraining, here.

I dont see hypocrisy in cussing .. I see hypocrisy in being personal, running someone down, treating them like shit, targeting Watchers for whatever reason ... including their politics ... and actively discrediting them, twisting their words to imply meaning never intended ... and doing that ad infinitum and expecting to get away with it ad infinitum.

THATS what wears folk down. Thats what I had a gut full of .. but again, thats just me

And my 2 cents.

[Skyweir]

Oops I mis cited .. it was Sarge and Ur Dead that dont like the cussing ... but I have a niggling sense that Fisty, also not a fan... hence my moderating my personal inclinations to cuss.

[Zarathustra]

The idea that you have any interest whatsoever in civility in the Tank is demonstrably false. The fact that you are a mod here, in a position to weigh in on the civility of others is a travesty of in-group cliquishness. You are absolutely at the bottom of the heap in terms of making this place civil and enjoyable. You're the new Cail.

Worse than that.

Honestly, this feels like the quite deliberate exaltation of hypocrisy, the ultimate in "Do as I say, not do as I do." It's hard to take it any other way than a quite intentional rubbing of people's noses in the shit of blatant double standards.

NB the language doesn't bother me in the least, solely in and of itself. Nope it's the studied usage of it now, given recent events. It comes across as I'm sure it was intended to... as the quintessential in triumphalist "Fuck you, peons".

As to the language thing ... to me personally that ISNT a mark of civility or incivility in interchanges. The Tank is akin to a pub, in a way ... the beer is flowing and we are all throwing in AS YOU DO to sort the worlds problems. No more, no less.

At the pub among mates .. ya slap each other on the back laughing and drop an odd Fbomb here or a Wbomb there. Or if your mighty passionate a Dbomb or a Tbomb might join in the fray.

. . .

Jesus, it has nothing to do with "cussing." There is NO DIFFERENCE between "go fuck a sheep" and "fuck your shithead remarks." None.

You people are unbelievable. This isn't about dropping "F-bombs." I *am* being personally attacked, no less than you were Sky, and you're dismissing it, because the guy doing it is on your side of the political aisle . . . just as we suspected all along. Now, all of a sudden, "fuck your shithead remarks" is just "pub talk." Ok. Right.

I probably won't stop swearing.
But anyone who doesn't want to be called things shouldn't call me things.
It's really that easy.

I didn't call you anything. I gently mocked your superior attitude and know-it-all smugness. But I really don't care how you talk. Be as foul and crass and incomprehensible as you want. I'm the guy who said we should all say what we want--not the one who pretended that civility was important to him, indeed important enough to justify silencing someone. It's your transparent hypocrisy that I have a problem with, not your language.

[aliantha]

Since y'all get so wound up about this sort of thing, how do you feel about Ivanka using her personal email account for government business?

FLOTUS is not an elected position and has no real authority. Should the FLOTUS--I suppose we should use FSOTUS for "first spouse"--be subject to recordkeeping laws/regulations? *shrug* That person is not technically a "government official".

I didn't say Melania. I said Ivanka -- who, by virtue of her title as advisor to the President, is in fact a government employee, just as Hillary was.

And if you don't think the First Daughter has any pull with Daddy Dearest, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...

[SoulBiter]

If she was doing/involved in stripping markings and mishandling everything [[especially the stripping]], we'd know by now, cuz there would be dozens of people involved,

Well those that knew and were willing to testify against either of the Clintons had "accidents" and aren't with us now.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

What to do when the president is a crook [Opinion]

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters Jan. 4 at the White House in Washington, following a meeting with congressional leadership about the ongoing partial government shutdown. (CNS/Jim Young, Reuters)


[...]

Prosecutors, and subsequently House Democrats, must also consider which crimes the president may have committed warrant prosecution or impeachment proceedings. This article from Brookings by John Hudak notes that Republicans still believe the president did not collude with Russia and are not convinced that other crimes should be on the table: The Mueller investigation was started because of allegations of collusion with a foreign adversary, an allegation that truly does outstrip most others.

Hudak correctly notes that partisans will not be afraid of their own hypocrisy if Mueller or the Southern District prosecutors bring forth charges of illegal activity, but do not produce evidence of collusion with the Russians. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton because he lied under oath and obstructed justice in the Ken Starr investigation. That investigation, recall, began with a real estate transaction in Arkansas, Whitewater, but grew to include Monica Lewinsky's affair with the president, an affair which probably was not illegal itself, but there is no doubt the president lied about it. That will not prevent them -- indeed they have already started -- from arguing that similar obstruction of justice charges are "process crimes," the kind of thing that routinely happens in investigations, surely not the stuff of an impeachment. Similarly, campaign finance laws are broken all the time, usually inadvertently, and Republicans will be sure to minimize any such violations.

It is a sad day when the nation's chief executive, who swore an oath to uphold the laws, can dismiss obstruction of justice as a "process crime," but how can the Democrats object? During the impeachment of President Clinton they were quick to dismiss the significance of the fact that the president lied under oath, to say nothing of the fact that he engaged in sex with a subordinate.

The Constitution does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." The reason Trump and his TV lawyer Rudy Giuliani have been so intent on setting the goal posts within easy reach of their kicks is because they know the definition of those terms are political, not legal. They know that, legally, they can fall back on the Justice Department's policy that says you cannot indict a sitting president. Politically, they know that so long as the Republicans stick together behind the president he will not be removed from office in an impeachment proceeding, that an acquittal in the Senate would be seen by many as a vindication of his conduct. And such an acquittal would be claimed as evidence that the Democrats really were on a witch hunt.

What to do? We can hope that, if there is no hard evidence of collusion with the Russians, the prosecutors have overwhelming evidence of other criminal activities not only against the president but against his children. That would permit the kind of plea bargain that could remove the whole sordid ordeal from political considerations. Of course, Mueller would have to insist that the president allocate to any crimes he is pleading to. There must be nothing for Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham to spin.

If not, if Mueller simply turns a report over to the attorney general and Congress continues its own investigations, Democrats must resist the urge to impeach. Yes, this would mean that the president is seen to be above the law, at least until he is out of office. But, impeachment must never be used as a partisan tool. Never. Unfortunately, it was designed precisely for the circumstance we are in, a rogue president conducting illegal activities that undermine our democratic institutions, but given the hyperpolarized political environment, it is more important that the Democrats conduct themselves in such a way that they would themselves be able to govern in the future. It will fall to them to restore faith in democracy, and they can't do that if they have led an unsuccessful effort to remove the president from office.

N.B.: This aversion to impeachment is made more necessary because Tom Steyer has been running ads since the beginning of Trump's presidency calling for it and some Congresspeople have done the same, making the Mueller investigation appear partisan even though it has not been.

Democrats should rely on that same Justice Department policy about not indicting a sitting president that Giuliani relies on. Let them pursue their investigations. Let the evidence against the president -- of campaign finance violations, of payoffs, of money laundering -- let it all be brought into the public domain. Let the president run for reelection with all that nasty stuff just sitting there. But, only take legal action once he is out of office. The country will survive two more years of this brutish man, but our democracy would be imperiled perhaps beyond repair if impeachment is to become a normal method pursued by the opposition party.

Can the Democrats exercise this degree of self-restraint? A completely unrelated episode this week suggests the answer may be "no." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi intended to bring a resolution condemning anti-Semitism to a vote, in response to freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar's outrageous accusation of dual loyalty against Jews. The Democratic caucus meeting was turbulent after some objected to the proposed resolution. Why were they singling out Omar and not, for example, the president? Truly his bigoted comments were more frequent and more destructive, yes? The answer is simple, but none of the reporting indicated any Democrat hit on it: Because we are better than that.

[...]