Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Shalcker]

Mueller wants to testify in private? Hell no!

It is a few day old news.

[rda]

It is a few day old news.

This Mueller thing together with all the rolling of eyes about the report and what he supposedly wanted to say there but could not because Trump is the president and whatnot is hilarious:

Mueller investigates Trump.
Mueller says he is done.
Dems "finally!!! now we'll get Trump".
Mueller "I am not saying Trump is not guilty, and if I knew for sure he is not guilty I would have said so, no indictments though".
Everyone "AHA!!!! he CLEARLY said here Trump is guilty! woohoo".
(Barr - Pelosi - contempt - nothing)
Dems "hey, Mueller, come testify"
Mueller suddenly "I don't want to say anything in public"

LOL

[Gorsameth]

Mueller refusing to testify in public is disappointing but not unexpected. As I said a while ago when the report came out, Mueller will only get 2 questions, and variations of those questions from Democrats "is Trump Guilty?" and "If a person that isn't President did what Trump did would you charge him?" and Mueller will not answer those questions as explained in his report due to standing DoJ policy and guidelines.

If his hearing ends up being public it will be "I won't make such a statement" for a few hours.

[DocSavageFan]

Mueller refusing to testify in public is disappointing but not unexpected. As I said a while ago when the report came out, Mueller will only get 2 questions, and variations of those questions from Democrats "is Trump Guilty?" and "If a person that isn't President did what Trump did would you charge him?" and Mueller will not answer those questions as explained in his report due to standing DoJ policy and guidelines.

If his hearing ends up being public it will be "I won't make such a statement" for a few hours.

There will be lot more than 2 questions guaranteed. Here's a few for starters.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/14...fies-congress/

https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/04/...obert-mueller/

https://www.justsecurity.org/64137/w...-he-testifies/

[Felya]

Mate. I quoted "If Trump manages to beat China ..." because you said that "nothing [you] quoted mentions the trade war" and this was about the trade war. If you don't understand the relation of the phrase to the trade war, maybe go learn about the trade war, why it is fought, who is fighting, etc.

Jesus fucking Christ... nothing you quoted, means that nothing you quoted Skroe saying, mentions the trade war. You went off topic for some unknown reason. To me, the only part that was on topic, is integrity of Trump’s character. Where if he behaved as someone else, he would be treated like someone else. Is this some shitty attempt to derail the thread?

I don't know how much Trump's investigations into investigators are going to cost. Your "stay on topic" is ironic because nobody but yourself was talking about that. If you are asking me whether Trump is right to launch investigations into investigators, then I see the only legit reason to be Ukrainians supplying the Hillary campaign with data on Manafort who was on Trump's team - that might warrant some small scale investigation, especially because most of what happened has already been figured out. If you don't know about that either, go and read what happened there.

It’s not ironic, the topic is muller investigation and am asking how much it will cost to investigate the muller investigation. The Trump investigation into muller investigation, has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about the surveillance that was used to gather info for muller investigation. WTF?

[Bodakane]

This Mueller thing together with all the rolling of eyes about the report and what he supposedly wanted to say there but could not because Trump is the president and whatnot is hilarious:

Mueller investigates Trump.
Mueller says he is done.
Dems "finally!!! now we'll get Trump".
Mueller "I am not saying Trump is not guilty, and if I knew for sure he is not guilty I would have said so, no indictments though".
Everyone "AHA!!!! he CLEARLY said here Trump is guilty! woohoo".
(Barr - Pelosi - contempt - nothing)
Dems "hey, Mueller, come testify"
Mueller suddenly "I don't want to say anything in public"

LOL

You should probably learn to read the report before you act all incredulous. It just makes you come across as petty and biased.

[Orbitus]

Oh, so even two years of Mueller investigations weren't enough, you still need some more time. Cool, let's wait more then. I don't know what you think these unfinished investigations you are talking about will bring you, and why you still, after all this time, think that they will bring anything non-pathetic, but sure, let's wait. Wake me up when something happens.

No, the Mueller investigation led into a great deal of these investigations, and some of the investigations weren't tied to the Mueller investigation. Like his fucking Inauguration committee. He raised more than Obama did, and apparently "spent" it all, on literally nothing in comparison to what Obama had. That and we know there were illegal contributions to it from foreign governments.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone with half a brain knew Trump wasn't part of collusion and thus wouldn't be charged. Good for you, there is hope for you.

Except for the instances that were laid out in the Mueller report. But hey, you ignore evidence. Considering he has admitted to knowing the Trump Tower meeting was coming. Which corroborates Cohen's testimony that Trump Jr told Sr with Cohen in the room about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I'm just gonna throw him on the list and pretend he doesn't exist.

- - - Updated - - -



That's too funny. Why's it always Russians. Christ.

Because, like his wife, he had to outsource to other countries to get shills, I mean supporters.

[Masark]

Oh god he's Russian?

Yes.

I am a Russian, too, and am living in Russia.

/10char

[Mekkle]

I can assure you, new guy, I've been accused of many things in this forum, but not having something to say has never been one of them.

Fellas, do I have a second on that?

You have written so much you could archive it all and it would be bigger then a dictionary.

I love it btw.

[Pterodactylus]

I did not say that a wall is an effective idea to curb immigration. I said something completely different. Yet you somehow read it into what I said and put an exclamation mark.

I told you to go back under your bridge.

[Skroe]

Well, i think i've said essentially same thing for long time. Because it was quite obvious that no, Republicans aren't going to go against Trump en masse with most serious charge being "minor campaign finance violation" (and even less so on "obstruction" - that only ever matters when other side does it).

I don't think that is quite correct. I think there could have been an outcome where it was more definitive on the Collusion, but most especially the Obstruction front, that rallied Republican opinion against Trump. It's worth remembering: these guys all detest Trump. They're just afraid of his twitter account (lol). Give them a reason where they could stand and be a critque proof-wall to take down a terminally isolated President, and they would have done it. They may still do it.

The thing with Mueller is, I think, a difference between how he saw himself and his office, and how the public saw it. The public saw him as essentially a US Attorney-for-a-topic and a prosecutor. He saw himself as an investigator more than a prosecutor. That's why he farmed out most indictments rather than ran them from his office. Not only to protect the investigation, but also because he simply saw his job more about producing a report that would allow Congress to decide what to do, rather than him being the one to draw firm conclusions.

The issue of Obstruction in particular, is pretty clear. I've read the entire report, and the obstruction section twice. Mueller clearly believes Trump obstructed about a dozen different times. That is rock solid. But it's also clear that he thinks that since he can't indict the sitting President, it is unfair to issue an accusation that the President, who under our system would be presumed innocent, would have no legal recourse (i.e. a trial) to demonstrate his innocence. Basically he didn't want to create a situation that violated our legal norms.

I personally disagree with him doing that. I think that's a noble principle for normal times, but this is an extraordinary situation, and it required Robert Mueller to do something extraordinary, and point a firm finger at the President. But that's never been Mueller's by-the-book style, so he kicked it to Congress. In the process of "saying it but not saying it", in conjunction with Barr's mechanations (memo+presser), it gave Republicans enough of an out.

*shrug* He released report and there is still no impeachment.

And Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing.

The final word on impeachement hasn't been written yet by far, and you'd be foolish to think it has.

Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing most likely because anything he says in public will be weaponized by one side for another. For example, Democrats will trying to get him to say something to the effect of "Trump Obstructed 12 times", while Republicans will try and get him to say "No Collusion", all so they can run adds on it in 2020. For Mueller, an institutionalist, there is no way that hearing ends in a way that upholds the reputation of the Special Counsel's office and the impartiality of the report. The reputation of America's justice system will not come out well from it.

Just think about it. If Mueller is angled, under Democratic questioning, to essentially say that Trump is an unindicted criminal, Trump and his base will villify him and the entire SCO more than they already have to paint the investigation as a fraud. If Mueller is angled, under Republican questioning, to say obliquely "there was no collusion, but....", everything before the "but" will be cut off and used to justify that the investigation is a fraud. Hell, Barr, already did this in his memoy, when he cut a sentence in half to take a Mueller quote wildly out of context. This is the kind of shit the worst of forum shitposters do, and the fucking attorney general did it.

So Mueller's reluctance is understandable. If I were him, I'd be reluctant to.

But I still think it needs to happen. I think, from the angle of taking down Trump, it's worth the risk.

Okay, i see that there is stuff like "only chairman of committee can request this and that", and apparently they can only appoint chairman if they control the House, so, maybe.

Three months isn't that much of the wait.

Yup. Not maybe. Simply "thats the way it is". Things get done via majority vote, and the majority votes in a block. Before January it was Republicans. Now it's Democrats in the majority. And the legal fights are working their way through the system, and sure enough, Trump is losing in courts yet again. Because oversight is an essential function of the legislative branch.

Isn't it more on "can Democrats produce candidate that might actually win those states"? It isn't just on Trump.

Absolutely.

So in the end it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses?

As I wrote to rda a few posts back, it matters from a moral perspective more than a functional perspective.

Even now we see this. I've cataloged this extensively here.

The President cannot change regulations without justifying it via a court process that assumes the standing regulation is more desirable and puts it on the new regulation to prove why it is better. Trump's skeleton crew White House has enjoyed a 94% loss record in the courts because the Obama White House produced detailed justifications / reports for their regulations, and the Trump White House doesn't bother to produce any reports whatseover apparently.

Trump has signed two budgets, and is about to sign two more (one this year, one next year), under the two-year-deal system that is a scaled up version of the 2015->2017 two year deal signed by Obama. Frankly the two year deal system is proving so stabilizing and desirable to lawmakers, there is little reason to think it will go away for years to come, regardless of who is President. The far right and far left hate them, but the center-right to center-left majority loves them. And so they keep getting signed.

The President losing control over the budgetary process is actually an Obama thing that won't change anytime soon as Congress has rediscovered its taste of building its own budgets and ignoring what the President of the time wants, which leaves the President mostly as the regulator in chief and chief "evangelist" of the US.

From a functionary perspective, the government will run as a kind of status quo as far as the eye can see. Remember, the shutdown was over $5 billion for the wall. A wall republicans don't even really want and just care about fund raising off of (like Obamacare repeal). It wasn't over cuts. It wasn't over tax increases. It was over this, basically budgetary hangnail. And sure enough, as soon as Trump caved on the wall, the budget was passed in a day.

That wall scheme will not live past the Trump administration, which means that budget blockages will be back to things like Planned Parenthood and the EPA, which get worked out at the Committee level for the most part.

Which means that President Trump, President Bernie or President Biden will all sign budgets that are pretty much the same as the last 4 Obama/Trump signed. That's just the way things are going to be.

But taking down Trump, as I wrote in that prior post, is a moral imperative. It's about America's character and America's system of justice. It is not about politics. As far as politics are concerned, Trump has been constrained for some time. He does terrible small things that he can (mostly targeting vulnerable groups). But it is the kind of thing the next President will instantly reverse.

*shrug* Putin will most likely be out at the end of this term anyway.

And if he doesn't he'll have bigger problems. So, not that scary really.

Oh, you think Putin's tenure of office is the ceiling on Russia's confrontation with America?

No. It is not. It doesn't get better after him. All of us who oppose Trump will never forgive and never forget what you people did. And we'll never stop making you pay.

Consider Elizabeth Warren. She's a liberal. She and I have basically no political overlap on traditional political issues. But is there any doubt that a "President Warren" would not order US intelligence agencies to retaliate in a way Trump has refused to do? Oh... she would. They all would. Even Sanders, who will be under immense pressure to illustrate he's not some foreign policy pushover.

[rda]

Skroe, I am enjoying your posts and have always enjoyed them. I always said it and I will continue saying it even after your little God complex episode a few pages ago in this thread where you thought for some reason that your writing gives you a free pass on being obnoxious and disingenuous. Your posts are nice reads. They are a welcome diversion from empty monotonous blabber in the posts of many other anti-Trump folk.

But in your posts you are consistently missing the forest for the trees. You get too carried away and you don't see the simplest things.

Regarding this:

Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing most likely because anything he says in public will be weaponized by one side for another. For example, Democrats will trying to get him to say something to the effect of "Trump Obstructed 12 times", while Republicans will try and get him to say "No Collusion", all so they can run adds on it in 2020. For Mueller, an institutionalist, there is no way that hearing ends in a way that upholds the reputation of the Special Counsel's office and the impartiality of the report. The reputation of America's justice system will not come out well from it.

Just think about it. If Mueller is angled, under Democratic questioning, to essentially say that Trump is an unindicted criminal, Trump and his base will villify him and the entire SCO more than they already have to paint the investigation as a fraud. If Mueller is angled, under Republican questioning, to say obliquely "there was no collusion, but....", everything before the "but" will be cut off and used to justify that the investigation is a fraud. Hell, Barr, already did this in his memoy, when he cut a sentence in half to take a Mueller quote wildly out of context. This is the kind of shit the worst of forum shitposters do, and the fucking attorney general did it.

So Mueller's reluctance is understandable. If I were him, I'd be reluctant to.

First off, what you wrote is exactly right. What's puzzling is how can you not see that it is bad (for Mueller / Dems, etc).

Why the hell do you think we have this oh-so-complex situation with Mueller thinking hard and you writing paragraphs explaining his hard thinking? Why do we have these complexities?

We have them because Mueller found no conspiracy BUT still wants to say that Trump is somehow guilty without saying it.

This is all there is. Mueller and the larger camp which he is playing in cannot say they found a crime, but they still want to say something that would keep Trump kind-of guilty, and they want to say it in the manner in which they are not responsible for saying it.

How can you not see that this is a travesty? If you don't think this is a travesty, let's wait for one of "your" guys to get elected, and then let's do a two-year investigation on, I don't know, his supposed drug cartel links, find precisely nothing on drug cartel links, but still try to hang him on him objecting to the witch hunt a couple of times. Let's also do it in the manner in which nobody is responsible for actually saying that the president is guilty. Let's see how you will like it. I am going to count how many megabytes of red-hot fuming text you will pump out in an outrage. And what's going to be the difference from what we have now? Why, just him being "your" guy vs Trump being not "your" guy.

You - and others - spend so much time writing these long texts about how Mueller meant this or that, but could not say it exactly because of some super-complex reasons so he gave some kind of a signal here and a signal there. You are writing how you personally read the report more than once and how you can clearly see that Mueller means this and that between the lines even though he is saying something else entirely. You spend so much time building these complex sandcastles, while everybody outside of the biased anti-Trump camp just wonders why the hell do you not just use the text of the report instead of attempting to read between the lines, why the hell do you try to add one more layer of interpretation on top of it.

What happened is utterly simple. Mueller could not really say that Trump is guilty, but he still wanted to say that in some way. For some reason you are interpreting this as Mueller is right, Trump is wrong. But in reality it is Mueller and his buddies do this for political reasons, and Trump is plain not guilty of the crimes he was investigated for.

[Dontrike]

Mueller wants to testify in private? Hell no!

You're right, he should do it in public, so that way your Orange Messiah can throw another tantrum and threaten with treason.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then let's wait until the Congress charge the president, right? :-)

They could.

And no matter how guilty Trump actually is (the answer is HELLA guilty), the R controlled Senate will just vote to acquit. And then all the supporters, MAGAts, idiots, rednecks, racists, KKK, etc. will scream "EXONERATION, NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING, ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WINNING"

But you know this. You're not dumb (or are you?), a trial that makes it through Congress and dies in the Senate will just boost Trump's popularity, and the Trumphadis keep egging on a trial because they know this. So why do you keep acting as if you don't know this over and over and over and over and over and over and over every time someone has this conversation with you, ad infinitum for the last couple of months?

- - - Updated - - -

We have them because Mueller found no conspiracy BUT still wants to say that Trump is somehow guilty without saying it.

Mostly wrong. The collusion conspiracy is shaky at best. Obstruction is rock solid, and even Mueller has said this. He followed AG protocol to let Congress impeach a sitting president since that is not the job of the FBI director.

Is this really such a hard concept for the Trump teet suckers that they can't get it through their skulls into their brains? I'm not really sure why I have to keep explaining this.

"DURRRR HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WELL WHY DOESN'T CONGRESS INDICT TRUMP DEN IF HE SO GUILTY?!"

Gee, I wonder why...

[Bodakane]

They could.

And no matter how guilty Trump actually is (the answer is HELLA guilty), the R controlled Senate will just vote to acquit. And then all the supporters, MAGAts, idiots, rednecks, racists, KKK, etc. will scream "EXONERATION, NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING, ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WINNING"

But you know this. You're not dumb (or are you?), a trial that makes it through Congress and dies in the Senate will just boost Trump's popularity, and the Trumphadis keep egging on a trial because they know this. So why do you keep acting as if you don't know this over and over and over and over and over and over and over every time someone has this conversation with you, ad infinitum for the last couple of months?

- - - Updated - - -



Mostly wrong. The collusion conspiracy is shaky at best. Obstruction is rock solid, and even Mueller has said this. He followed AG protocol to let Congress impeach a sitting president since that is not the job of the FBI director.

Is this really such a hard concept for the Trump teet suckers that they can't get it through their skulls into their brains? I'm not really sure why I have to keep explaining this.

"DURRRR HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WELL WHY DOESN'T CONGRESS INDICT TRUMP DEN IF HE SO GUILTY?!"

Gee, I wonder why...

Conspiracy is not shaky at all. it was proven. The problem is, the only way Mueller would have been allowed by the DoJ to indict Trump on conspiracy is if they were audio/video or written proof he said "I'll do X if you do Y".

That is not the burden of proof required for any other instance of conspiracy.

Here's the statute: 18 U.S.C. § 371

[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.

That's the legal definition of conspiracy. When you know that and read the Mueller Report it is a no brainer.

Congress, OTOH, can go after him for conspiracy. They aren't bound by the ridiculous extra burdens that were placed on Mueller by the DoJ. If Dems he'd enough power in Congress, they would be able to go after Trump for conspiracy and obstruction and win, because there's evidence there.

If Trump were any other person, the evidence is so compelling his lawyers would try and plead out.

[Zan15]

So I wonder how much of the expense of Hillary's email investigations we got back.....


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

s part of his plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Manafort forfeited $22 million in New York real estate — including three Manhattan apartments, a Brooklyn townhouse and a home in the Hamptons, The New York Times reported at the time.
He also agreed to turn over three bank accounts and a life insurance policy.
Manafort's 1,509-square-foot condo at Trump's iconic building on Fifth Avenue is estimated at $2.5 million, according to online real estate website Zillow.

[Dontrike]

So I wonder how much of the expense of Hillary's email investigations we got back.....


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

s part of his plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Manafort forfeited $22 million in New York real estate — including three Manhattan apartments, a Brooklyn townhouse and a home in the Hamptons, The New York Times reported at the time.
He also agreed to turn over three bank accounts and a life insurance policy.
Manafort's 1,509-square-foot condo at Trump's iconic building on Fifth Avenue is estimated at $2.5 million, according to online real estate website Zillow.

Grabbing corrupt campaign manager....$22 million
Grabbing one of Trump's hotels...priceless

[I Push Buttons]

The final word on impeachement hasn't been written yet by far, and you'd be foolish to think it has.

Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing most likely because anything he says in public will be weaponized by one side for another. For example, Democrats will trying to get him to say something to the effect of "Trump Obstructed 12 times", while Republicans will try and get him to say "No Collusion", all so they can run adds on it in 2020. For Mueller, an institutionalist, there is no way that hearing ends in a way that upholds the reputation of the Special Counsel's office and the impartiality of the report. The reputation of America's justice system will not come out well from it.

Just think about it. If Mueller is angled, under Democratic questioning, to essentially say that Trump is an unindicted criminal, Trump and his base will villify him and the entire SCO more than they already have to paint the investigation as a fraud. If Mueller is angled, under Republican questioning, to say obliquely "there was no collusion, but....", everything before the "but" will be cut off and used to justify that the investigation is a fraud. Hell, Barr, already did this in his memoy, when he cut a sentence in half to take a Mueller quote wildly out of context. This is the kind of shit the worst of forum shitposters do, and the fucking attorney general did it.

So Mueller's reluctance is understandable. If I were him, I'd be reluctant to.

But I still think it needs to happen. I think, from the angle of taking down Trump, it's worth the risk.

I mean the angling has already happened... Go look at the responses on Reddit and Twitter at his desire for private testimony.

I am looking at the top Reddit thread on the subject presently (an article posted in /r/politics called 'Dear Robert Mueller: Not Testifying Publicly is an Intensely Political Decision') and almost all of the comments are essentially at best "REEEEE Fuck Mueller he's a coward!" and at worst "REEEE Let me remind you all that Mueller is a Republican and thus automatically evil! He's clearly been a Trump sycophant all along and this just proves it! We should have never have trusted him or believed he would see justice done!"

[Cthulhu 2020]

Seems like @rda got a little testy he was called on his pretending to be ignorant. Perhaps he should post more constructively instead of continuing to pretend he doesn't know what's going on?

[rda]

Seems like @rda got a little testy he was called on his pretending to be ignorant. Perhaps he should post more constructively instead of continuing to pretend he doesn't know what's going on?

I am not sure what it is you are talking about and I am not sure vague posts like this are helpful. If you want my opinion on a specific question, ask. If you want to say that my opinion on a specific question is wrong, say so and preferably say why. But be specific, please.

- - - Updated - - -

In the interests of truth, following up on Skroe's outburst last week, I dug out some of the numbers on child immigration / detention during Obama vs Trump, and while I haven't been able to find everything I wanted, I think I have a more or less clear picture now. Sharing the key things here on the chance others are interested.

Key things:

* Immigration started increasing dramatically under Obama. Obama tried to deal with it, built detainment camps, some were for adults, some for families, some for children. The policy for putting children into separate camps was that this happened when they were "unaccompanied". In practice, sometimes children were separated from adults as well, this depended on whether the authorities felt like believing the adults that the children are theirs. What was the ratio of such cases is hard to tell, this is the biggest not found number.

Some numbers: the number of detained children was ~6k in 2011, grew to ~25k in 2013 (the growth rate of about 0.8k per month), and continued to grow even faster after that (to at least 1.2-1.4k if we were to extrapolate from the growth of total crossings, but no direct numbers). The number of apprehended children has also been growing rapidly and is toying with the figure of ~100k a year.

* Obama was criticized for his detainment camps and had to relax policies. The courts reinterpreted Flores and this made Obama's DHS choose between either releasing detained children within 20 days but keeping the adults if they had to stay for longer (that's separation) or releasing both within 20 days (that's called "catching and releasing"), and Obama's DHS chose the latter. The choice made the immigration skyrocket, but then it was Trump's problem.

Not numbers: this is what the other side calls the moral choice. It made the immigration skyrocket, but it was moral, that's the argument.

* After all this, Trump had an even bigger immigration issue to deal with than Obama. He tried to deal with it by instituting a "zero tolerance" policy which should have ended "catching and releasing". The policy was superseding all previous policies, thus overriding the choice made by Obama's DHS above. Under the policy, if the adults had to stay for more than 20 days, the detained children had to be released before that. This created additional separation on top of the separation that existed before, that was based on the authorities not believing the adults that the children are theirs - under Trump's zero tolerance policy, even if the adults and the children were believed to be a family they should have been separated unless the entire incident is over in 20 days.

Numbers: Trump's zero tolerance was adding children to detainment camps at the rate of about 1.3k per month. This rate was higher than the last documented rate (that I could find) during 2011-2013, but about the same as the rate extrapolated for further years. The change was seemingly a local increase however, in that in previous months there were fewer detentions of children (no numbers though).

* Trump had to abandon zero tolerance due to pressure from activists, same as Obama had to relax some of what he has been doing. As a result, "catching and releasing" is back in full force, immigration jumped up again and is now waiting for someone to try to tackle it again.

TLDR:

I was mostly right about the numbers, although some of my statements were perhaps a little reaching, and Skroe and I guess a couple of others had their point on this being not about the numbers but rather about the ethics of separating -- the numbers argument was not contradicting the ethics argument and vice versa.

It is a pity nobody could link anything useful and I had to dig it all out by myself though.