November 18-20, 2019

Nov 18 01:34 Adam Schiff, Democrat autocrat
Nov 18 08:47 Pelosi's disgusting deceitfulness
Nov 18 10:28 Trust in Impeachment Democrats' fairness doesn't exist

Nov 19 01:13 David Hale is star GOP witness
Nov 19 07:22 Another milestone for LFR
Nov 19 11:58 Rep. Ratcliffe shines again

Nov 20 05:34 Schiff vs. the Sixth Amendment
Nov 20 08:53 Pelosi's Dear Colleague letter

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Adam Schiff, Democrat autocrat

What's becoming perfectly clear is that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is an autocrat. Remember how he reacted when Elise Stefanik challenged him? Let's refresh everyone's memory:
[Video no longer available]
After Friday's hearing, House Impeachment Committee Republicans noted that Chairman Schiff's Democrats established rules that prevent committee members from using testimony if the transcripts haven't been made public :

Ratcliffe: Several Democrat members of this House Intel committee have already voted to impeach this president. They've already made up their minds without regard to evidence. Yes, this is dead on arrival at the Senate without looking at the most important witnesses. They don't want the whistleblower to testify because we now know that that person coordinated with Schiff's committee in order for that person to become the whistleblower. Schiff hasn't even released the first transcript of the first witness (the IC IG) because it will tell you what the IG knew and didn't know about the relationship between Schiff and the whistleblower based on what the whistleblower and Schiff did or didn't reveal to the IG.

This isn't a hearing as much as it's a made-for-TV docudrama. The first 3 testifiers aren't witnesses because they didn't witness anything pertaining to this sham. Of Ms. Yovanovitch, Rep. Nunes rightly stated that he didn't know why she was there considering the fact that she didn't have first- or second-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call because she'd been fired from her position in Ukraine. William Taylor and George Kent didn't provide any evidence of anything, much less proof of high crimes, though Taylor provided the insight that President Trump was corrupting "official US foreign policy." That's despite the fact that presidents, not diplomats, according to the Constitution, establish official US foreign policy.

Former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright wrote this article in February, 2017:

Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis. Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.

Said an intelligence officer: "I know what's best for foreign policy and national security: And I'm going to act on that." Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump. One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.

Ames' flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law.

Adam Schiff isn't a CIA officer but he's part of the cabal that's decided that they, not the American people, should decide who's fit or unfit for serving as commander-in-chief.

That makes Schiff both an autocrat and a fascist. The fact that Schiff considers himself a Democrat is virtually irrelevant. He has little in common with Hubert Humphrey or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

However, some of America's spies are deciding that that's not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they've taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.

Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."

Schiff isn't a spy but he determined years ago that President Trump should "die in jail." He's orchestrated the rigged hearings that've produced nothing. Finally, Wright wrote:

During my time as a CIA officer, I quickly learned why all these rules were in place. I read people's emails. I listened to phone calls. I recruited assets that told the dirtiest and most embarrassing of secrets. I came to realize that my power was both an awesome responsibility and, at times, wickedly seductive.

Schiff's lack of character caused him to play judge, jury and executioner. That's unacceptable.

Posted Monday, November 18, 2019 1:34 AM

No comments.

Pelosi's disgusting deceitfulness

In her interview with CBS's Face the Nation , Speaker Pelosi said that President Trump "could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants. He has every opportunity to present his case."

Technically , she's right that he could do that. She's being more than a little deceitful in that House Impeachment Committee Democrats wouldn't believe anything he said. Let's remember how this phase of the coup started. A CIA snitch, allegedly named Eric Ciaramella, met with Adam Schiff's staff. One of the things that was initially reported about the CIA snitch's complaint was that President Trump pressured Ukraine President Zelenskiy up to 8 times to investigate the Bidens. That turned not to be true.

Since then, President Zelenskiy has repeatedly denied, in multiple settings, these accusations. He even took the extraordinary step of holding a day-long press conference attended by 300+ legitimate, truth-seeking journalists and told the same thing. Further, Ukraine Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, who has first-hand knowledge of the US military aid negotiations, said "Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events."

Despite all of this first-hand information from Ukraine's President and Foreign Minister, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi still trust the CIA snitch more than they trust Ukraine's highest-ranking leaders. Considering the fact that House Impeachment Democrats trust snitches who don't have first-hand information on the negotiations and considering the fact that House Impeachment Democrats, why would President Trump think that he'd get a fair hearing? Considering the fact that Adam Schiff has insisted since March, 2017 that he's seen proof that's "more than circumstantial" that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, proof that's never surfaced, why would President Trump think that he'd get a fair hearing?

Ms. Pelosi knows that the final decision has been made. House Impeachment Committee Democrats will send a report to Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee, where they will write articles of impeachment. From there, House Democrats will vote on a straight party line vote to impeach President Trump.

If House Impeachment Committee Democrats were interested in the truth, Chairman Schiff wouldn't have stopped one Republican after another from introducing points of order or points of parliamentary procedure. Schiff isn't interested in the truth. He's hell-bent on impeachment whether the proof is there or not.

Pelosi isn't interested in the Constitution, prayer or patriotism, as she frequently insists. She's a partisan hack. Trusting her is like trusting foxes guarding hen houses. Trusting Democrats is like trusting a cobra not to strike when you make a sudden motion towards it.

President Trump won't trust Pelosi's 'invitation', though he'll mess with her mind a little:




I don't take this seriously, though it's fun watching President Trump mess with Pelosi's little mind.

Posted Monday, November 18, 2019 8:47 AM

No comments.

Trust in Impeachment Democrats' fairness doesn't exist

Saying that public support for House Impeachment Committee Democrats' process has dropped precipitously is understatement. According to this Monmouth Poll , "24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all . "

That's almost 3 out of 4 people who have little or no trust "in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted" thus far. If that's the case, that'll require the Democrats to bribe tons of people to reach a positive job approval rating on their coup d'etat, otherwise known as their impeachment inquiry.

That's just the tip of the Democrats' iceberg. A Politico/Morning Consult poll "found that 81 percent of voters said 'there is no or little chance they will change their minds.'" At this point, with 2 polls showing that the American people don't trust the Democrats' all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda by overwhelming majorities, it's difficult to picture how Democrats won't get crushed next November.

That's just part of the Democrats' difficulties. Here's more:

Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi joined the chorus:

The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry and that the president abused power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival.: The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into elections. That's bribery.


Democrats aren't backtracking upon seeing how the polls are tanking on them. Pelosi's tripling down on impeachment. Pelosi apparently hasn't learned the first rule of holes. She's having a difficult morning so let's help her with that:


The Democrats' problem is that the hole keeps getting deeper. Andy McCarthy writes this:

[T]o establish a bribe, corrupt intent must be proved. While it would obviously have been preferable if Trump hadn't singled out the Bidens, it is nevertheless permissible for presidents to encourage countries receiving American aid to investigate and root out corruption. Indeed, the legislation authorizing aid for Ukraine actually directs the executive branch to certify that Ukraine is making such efforts.

Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." The LFR definition of political insanity is to "double down on blind partisanship, then expecting not to suffer political consequences."

When three-fourths of the American people don't trust the Democrats' impeachment process, that's a losing fight on steroids. Democrats would be wise to listen to the lyrics to Kenny Rogers' song 'The Gambler', especially this part:

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

and this part:

Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner
And every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die
in your sleep

Right now, the Democrats' hand is a loser. It won't turn into a winner. Period. The part about knowing when to walk away and when to run applies. It's time to run. It isn't time to go all-in.

Posted Monday, November 18, 2019 10:57 AM

No comments.

David Hale is star GOP witness

Based on David Hale's deposition , it's impossible to not think of him as a potential star witness for the GOP. Starting with pg. 96 of Hale's deposition, Hale was asked "But during the pendency of the security assistance hold, from July 18 through the date you got the cable from Ambassador Taylor, did you hear the names Biden, Burisma?"

Hale replied "No. No, not in government channels. If it appeared in the media, it was in the New York Times -- I won't say I don't read the New York Times or whatever. But, yeah, it was not something that was apparent to me."

Next, GOP Counsel Castor asked "So at no point during that time did the official chain of command, from the field, articulate these concerns to you?" Hale replied "No. No."
Castor: And, in fact, you didn't even hear the name Biden, Burisma?
Hale: No. No. When the whistleblower reports and all that came out of that, that's when I first saw this.

In other words, the man with first-hand knowledge of the holding of lethal military aid and the Biden investigation said that he hadn't heard about conditioning lethal aid with the Biden investigation until the faux whistleblower's report was published.

This can't be emphasized enough. David Hale said that he didn't hear about tying the lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens. Couple that with the fact that Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Foreign Minister, said "Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events."

Couple Hale's statement with Minister Prystaiko's statement and President Zelenskiy's statement that President Trump never tied the aid to investigating the Bidens. After tying those statements together, it's impossible to take the Impeachment Democrats' theory of the event seriously. People of integrity would admit that the Democrats' case is the weakest impeachment case ever. First, lots of people wouldn't admit that anything speculated on or proven rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Next, there isn't much in the way of evidence that hurts President Trump. Whether you hate President Trump or think that he's Superman, it isn't shameful to admit that last week's testimony didn't produce evidence of any sort.

Third, people of integrity wouldn't hesitate in admitting that Zelenskiy's, Prystaiko's and Hale's statements affirm that President Trump applied little or no pressure on President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. Without that, the Impeachment Democrats' case collapses faster than a house of cards. It's time to end these seemingly endless investigations.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:13 AM

No comments.

Another milestone for LFR

Today marks the fifteenth anniversary of my starting blogging. It's been lots of work but it's been so worth it. Whether I've written about the Purple Finger Revolution in Iraq, the Orange Revolution in some little country called Ukraine or the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, I've become much better informed. In those 15 years, I've reported on City Council corruption. I was the Vote No operation when the ISD 742 tried sneaking through the Tech HS bonding referendum of $140,000,000+ I'm proud to say that we defeated that referendum. Although we lost the 'return match', at least we made sure the citizens were fully informed.

I've covered other issues of corruption too, including the widespread corruption at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and at MNLARS.

Along the way, I've met some great people who've become good friends. Since I can't remember each of their names, I'll just thank my friends and tell each of you that I'll be in touch soon.

These days, of course, I'm focusing on Adam Schiff's faux whistleblower, aka CIA snitch, and Schiff's carefully choreographed impeachment hearings. Right around the corner is the 2020 presidential election. Unlike the Never Trumpers, I expect a positive outcome for the GOP.

For those of you interested in helping defray the costs associated with LFR, leave a comment & I'll help you through the process of financially helping me.

Posted Tuesday, November 19, 2019 7:22 AM

Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 19-Nov-19 05:16 PM
I want to thank you for all your hard work in covering the political scene in Minnesota and in Washington, DC. This is not an easy task. Observing events as they happen is only the tip of the mountain of work involved in pulling everything together and writing the story.

Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Nov-19 09:33 AM
You are the George Blanda of blogging. Or would you rather I say Gordie Howe? Gordie had more attitude over his lengthy career. Or there is the bunny with the drum, still going, still going? The big question is whether you keep it up during the two Bernie terms. He's not the rogue Clinton is/was, no opportunity to critique that way, but his policy does differ somewhat from yours. Somewhat.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-19 11:12 AM
I'd prefer Gordy Howe. He played longer & he kept playing regular shifts.

Rep. Ratcliffe shines again

This morning, Rep. Conaway yielded his time to Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-TX), to cross-examine Jennifer Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman. Rep. Ratcliffe started by asking if either of them had noticed the Democrats' change during the impeachment inquiry from insisting that President Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo to being guilty of committing extortion to finally settling on "bribery." Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that bribery wasn't used until Speaker Pelosi used it. After that, Ratcliffe noticed that Pelosi's use of the word opened the floodgates within the MSM.

Ratcliffe then stated that the words bribe or bribery weren't used in either witness's deposition. In fact, Rep. Ratcliffe said that the word bribery was used only once in 3,500 pages of depositions released thus far. Then Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the term bribery wasn't used in connection with President Trump. Ratcliffe stated that the only time the term bribery was used was in connection with Vice President Biden.

Ratcliffe's presentation was, in my opinion, as powerful of a presentation as Rep. Chris Stewart's cross-examination of Ambassador Yanokovitch:
[Video no longer available]
The other standout cross-examination was Jim Jordan's cross-examination of William Taylor:
[Video no longer available]
I will update this post with the video of Rep. Ratcliffe when it's posted. Thus far, the thing that's most clear is that Republicans have made some significant points without jumping the shark with either Jennifer Williams or Lt. Col. Vindman. Another thing that's clear is that Democrats haven't gotten that bombshell testimony that they need to move public opinion.

UPDATE: Here is the video of John Ratcliffe's cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:
[Video no longer available]
Of course, the MSM essentially ignored Ratcliffe's cross-examination because it didn't fit their storyline. Rep. Ratcliffe talked about how "last Thursday, in a press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump had committed the impeachable offense of bribery, evidenced in the transcript of his July 25th phone call with President Zelenskiy. In concert with that, several Democrat members of this committee gave TV and radio interviews over this past week discussing how the President's conduct supported his impeachment for the crime of bribery, all of which struck me as odd because for the longest time, this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistleblower's complaint."

Posted Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:12 PM

No comments.

Schiff vs. the Sixth Amendment

Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, Democrat Impeachment Committee Chairman Schiff insisted that the Sixth Amendment's protections shouldn't protect President Trump. It's time to out the CIA snitch, then demand that he testify. Lt. Col. Vindman essentially admitted that he spoke to the CIA snitch during questioning from Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes:

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman admitted to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday to leaking information to the anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' partisan impeachment proceedings. "Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25 phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25 or the 26 and if so, with whom?" Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California inquired.

"Yes. I did," Vindman answered in the affirmative. When pressed on who Vindman spoke with about the call, Vindman said he spoke with two individuals not in the White House, including Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and another individual in the intelligence community that Vindman refused to name before being cut off by Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.

"We need to protect the whistle-blower. Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistle-blower through these proceedings," Schiff interjected. "If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we're here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly."

At this point, it's time to end this theatre. It's disgusting that Adam Schiff is working with Trump-hating lawyer Mark Zaid to protect Zaid's client. If House Democrats impeach President Trump, the CIA snitch will be forced to testify or be put in jail. (If the CIA snitch refuses to appear after getting slapped with a Senate subpoena, Mitch McConnell will march into court and demand that the court uphold the Sixth Amendment's protections. At that point, the judge will quickly rule in the Senate's favor. At that point, Eric Ciaramella will be forced to testify or go to jail.)

Republicans should confront Schiff on this constitutional issue. Forget about the ICWPA statute. The Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump's attorneys the right to confront his accuser.

Democrats, especially Schiff and Pelosi, have played hardball with impeachment. It's time to confront them. These Democrats have shown that they aren't interested in ending this stalemate. These Democrats are interested in extending this stalemate. Force vulnerable Democrats to s--t or get off the pot. This is truly a 'you're with us or you're against us' moment. This isn't nuanced. This isn't complicated. It's just one of those situations where diplomacy should get replaced with brass knuckles and RPGs.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:34 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Nov-19 08:28 AM
I don't know. It seems to me this whole thing, despite all the media and Democrat breathless hype, is akin to a grand jury, where the normal trial rights and protections do not always apply. They are secret, by law. Of course, if your "show trial" goes public, then different rules apply, but obviously that makes the kangaroo Democrats unable to indict this ham sandwich. They do not even follow Robert's Rules, which require a "point of order" to stop all business until it is heard and ruled upon. More and more, this is looking like one of those "bright new shows" on TV that gets cancelled after 6 episodes. But if it runs longer, more people will realize how it smells to high Heaven.

Pelosi's Dear Colleague letter

Speaker Pelosi's Dear Colleague letter is filled with more s--t than a Thanksgiving turkey. The first pile of BS in Ms. Pelosi's letter is "Last week, the country was impressed by the valor and patriotism of the dedicated public servants and career diplomats, appointed by the President, in speaking truth to power."

That's utter BS. Wednesday's snooze fest attracted 13,800,000 viewers. By comparison, Jim Comey's testimony attracted 19,500,000 viewers. Further, Friday's made-for-TV episode attracted 12,700,000 viewers. If "the country was impressed", wouldn't interest be building, not shrinking?

Then there's this BS:

The facts are uncontested: that the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests.

Actually, those facts were contested yesterday afternoon by Tim Morrison and Special Envoy Volker. Each of the testifiers from last week and this, by the way, have agreed that President Trump has done more to help Ukraine militarily than President Obama did. President Trump is 7-for-7 amongst the testifiers. Further, one of the testifiers said that it was appropriate for President Trump to hold the aid until they were certain Ukraine had dealt with their corruption issues. In fact, there's a provision in the NDAA that requires that determination before the aid is released.

The most telling part of Ms. Pelosi's letter is this part:

The weak response to these hearings has been, "Let the election decide." That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.

The next bit of proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense will be the first bit of proof that he's committed an impeachable offense. Last week's testifiers weren't even witnesses because they didn't witness anything. They testified about their thoughts, feelings and impressions of what they'd heard the President had done. Yesterday was the first time we had legitimate witnesses who had a firsthand understanding of what President Trump had done with Ukraine policy.

Why should We The People trust a bunch of corrupt Democrats who've wanted to impeach President Trump since the day after his election? That's foolishness. That's like trusting an arsonist with some unstable chemicals and some detonators. What could possibly go wrong? This cross-examination pretty much sums things up:
[Video no longer available]
So many words, such a BS blizzard from House Democrats.

Posted Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:53 AM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more