In shock move, Trump fires FBI Director Comey

[iReason]

FBI agents group endorses Mike Rogers for FBI director

 

"FBIAA President Thomas F. O’Connor said in a statement that Rogers, who was formerly chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, "exemplifies the principles that should be possessed by the next FBI Director."

 

“It is essential that the next FBI Director understand the details of how Agents do their important work," O'Connor said."

 

"Mike Rogers’ background as a Special Agent, veteran of the armed forces and former member of Congress sets him apart as someone capable of confronting the wide array of challenges facing our help ensure that the Bureau remains the world’s premiere law enforcement agency."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/13/fbi-agents-association-endorses-mike-rogers-fbi-director-238356

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Farang hunter said:

Thank you trump, because of people like you I don't feel ashamed or embarrassed when called stupid anymore. 555

Good point. 

Described on Real Time as a low information voter that became president. 

[riclag]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Another example of attacking the messenger because you didn't like the message.

 

Since you consider mainstream media to not be a useful resource, I assume you rely on fringe media sources, or are content to remain ignorant.  If it is the former, can you give us some examples?  If it is the latter, your opinion carries little weight.

Sorry if you thought I was attacking. This is a discussion. I wasn't attacking .You and I have different views . I prefer not to converse with you . I tried in the past ,I don't like how you talk to me..Cheers ! Have a nice day

[riclag]

55 minutes ago, riclag said:

  Thank God the statue of limitation  has not expired my friend. Just recently the new deputy atty of the USA wrote" I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives". This reopening of investigation  of crooked Hillary will be a breath of fresh air.Drain that swamp!

I quoted a verse from  a letter from the Deputy AG to the AG of the USA .http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Another example of attacking the messenger because you didn't like the message.

 

Since you consider mainstream media to not be a useful resource, I assume you rely on fringe media sources, or are content to remain ignorant.  If it is the former, can you give us some examples?  If it is the latter, your opinion carries little weight.

 

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

Sorry if you thought I was attacking. This is a discussion. I wasn't attacking .You and I have different views . I prefer not to converse with you . I tried in the past ,I don't like how you talk to me..Cheers ! Have a nice day

You attacked, or, if you prefer, dismissed, mainstream media.  I asked a legitimate question:  What is your source of information?

 

I'll pose the question to all those who don't trust mainstream media:  How do you stay informed?  If it is not mainstream media I assume you rely on fringe media; if so, what fringe media do you consider reliable?

 

I ask this because the attackers of mainstream media never discredit the facts reported by this media, and rarely give sources for their 'alternative facts'.  They give the impression that they believe what they want to believe regardless of facts.  That is why they are routinely dismissed by those interested in debating facts.

[stevenl]

57 minutes ago, riclag said:

Sorry if you thought I was attacking. This is a discussion. I wasn't attacking .You and I have different views . I prefer not to converse with you . I tried in the past ,I don't like how you talk to me..Cheers ! Have a nice day

Since you refused to answer, let me try:

Since you consider mainstream media to not be a useful resource, I assume you rely on fringe media sources, or are content to remain ignorant.  If it is the former, can you give us some examples?  If it is the latter, your opinion carries little weight.

[Ramen087]

A different look at the current investigation: An article on the website The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity (penned by jason raimondo). 

 

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/may/13/shut-down-the-russia-gate-farce/

 

EXCERPT:  ...Now the conspiracy theorists who have taken over the Democratic party are screaming that the firing of James Comey is all a part of the plot: Trump did it to scotch the year-long investigation into “Russia-gate,” which has so far yielded nothing. The White House denies this, although we’re now hearing a different and probably far more accurate account: the President was pissed off that Comey wasn’t investigating leaks of classified information, and was paying too much attention to the Russia probe...

[attrayant]

27 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Listening to Rush Limbaugh for 30 years is going to rot anybody's brain.

 

You misspelled 'minutes'.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Exactly...it is a reflection of the investigation itself.

The consensus view of US intelligence agencies, which I don't think are staffed with left-wing conspiracy theory fanatics, along with the limited unclassified information they have released justify a thorough investigation.

 

Democracy depends on free and fair elections.  Any possibility that outside actors are secretly influencing elections needs to be thoroughly investigated.  Everyone who cares about democracy agrees.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.   The thread is not about whose sources are better.   Stay on topic, please.  

 

[ilostmypassword]

14 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

A different look at the current investigation: An article on the website The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity (penned by jason raimondo). 

 

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/may/13/shut-down-the-russia-gate-farce/

 

EXCERPT:  ...Now the conspiracy theorists who have taken over the Democratic party are screaming that the firing of James Comey is all a part of the plot: Trump did it to scotch the year-long investigation into “Russia-gate,” which has so far yielded nothing. The White House denies this, although we’re now hearing a different and probably far more accurate account: the President was pissed off that Comey wasn’t investigating leaks of classified information, and was paying too much attention to the Russia probe...

And the author of this piece knows the investigation has "yielded nothing" exactly how?

[Andaman Al]

17 hours ago, riclag said:

Like I said, thank god the statue of limitations hasn't expired.There is a lot of wrong doing that should of been handle by a grand jury..Trump is very shewed.  Now he has the tools to use to bring justice  to the Washington  Swamp that have obstructed his path to change, for American's .

Nobody in congress or the Senate actually want Hillary prosecuted because if they did  and she was convicted it would set precedence and then every member of both houses who used private servers (and there are LOTS) would be subject to the same swift legal process. Now that really would drain the swamp.

 

BUT if they do go for Hillary for the reasons you want that is cool, and then we can also lock up the entire Bush administration for the illegal deleting of over 5 million White House emails referring to the transition to war in Iraq. You seem happy for justice so I presume you man justice for all. It wouldn't be one-sided now would it?

 

16 hours ago, riclag said:

I quoted a verse from  a letter from the Deputy AG to the AG of the USA .

So it was from a poem or a song?

[MaxYakov]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nice try. The mistakes he explicitly condemned had nothing to do with his refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton. One of the mistakes he cited was Comey's castigation of Hillary Clinton that accompanied his decision not to press for prosecution. That was a massive violation of FBI policy.

He also condemned Comey for making the decision not to prosecute instead of leaving it to the attorney general. This was because Loretta Lynch recused herself. At the time, the right wing was celebrating giving Comey the power to decide. When his decision didn't please them, then they got indignant.

 

Comey's press conference on July 5, 2016 lasted less than 16 minutes.  His "Finally with respect to our recommendations to the Department of Justice ..." begins around 12:40 on the below video.

 

Are you saying the "right wing" was celebrating up until Comey's recommendation not to prosecute is voiced and then when "his decision didn't please them, then they got indignant"?

 

I can say that in my case, I was simply stunned by the content of the press conference until I realized (and very shortly and on my own) that he had no business doing what he had done in that press conference.

 

I may or may not be right wing, but I usually can come up with what is rightful and just without being led by the nose by some pundit or political hack.

 

The Comey July 5, 2016 Press Conference (hopefully unedited):

 

 

[anon4546543]

Surely, this is all just business as usual in the US. Surely the land of the free is not controlled by the land of the corrupt. 

Sigh. Politics in Thailand is so much more pure than politics in US.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Comey's press conference on July 5, 2016 lasted less than 16 minutes.  His "Finally with respect to our recommendations to the Department of Justice ..." begins around 12:40 on the below video.

 

Are you saying the "right wing" was celebrating up until Comey's recommendation not to prosecute is voiced and then when "his decision didn't please them, then they got indignant"?

 

I can say that in my case, I was simply stunned by the content of the press conference until I realized (and very shortly and on my own) that he had no business doing what he had done in that press conference.

 

I may or may not be right wing, but I usually can come up with what is rightful and just without being led by the nose by some pundit or political hack.

 

The Comey July 5, 2016 Press Conference (hopefully unedited):

 

 

The point was you tried to co-opt Rosenstein's report into being a condemnation of his decision that there wasn't sufficient grounds to indict Clinton.  And that's not what Rosenstein said, In fact, he condemned Comey for his conduct at the press conference for Clinton. And conservatives were celebrating when AG Lynch recused herself from deciding whether to prosecute and handed the power over to Comey. It's only after he came to a decision that they loathed that their attitude towards Comey changed.

[anon4546543]

1 minute ago, spiderorchid said:

Surely, this is all just business as usual in the US. Surely the land of the free is not controlled by the land of the corrupt. 

Sigh. Politics in Thailand is so much more pure than politics in US.

sigh

[MaxYakov]

33 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point was you tried to co-opt Rosenstein's report into being a condemnation of his decision that there wasn't sufficient grounds to indict Clinton.  And that's not what Rosenstein said, In fact, he condemned Comey for his conduct at the press conference for Clinton. And conservatives were celebrating when AG Lynch recused herself from deciding whether to prosecute and handed the power over to Comey. It's only after he came to a decision that they loathed that their attitude towards Comey changed.

Huh? I didn't try to "co-opt" anything or anybody. I made the decision on my own  (as I said in my reply) that Comey should not have made any recommendation about prosecution or that it was only his opinion and should have been voiced only to the DoJ. I came to this conclusion shortly after he made the press conference last year.

 

Shortly thereafter it became apparent that "intent" to break the various national security laws by Hillary Clinton was not a requirement for prosecution (Comey believed "intent" was necessary for prosecution). The whole thing stunk to high heaven even to someone with only half of their olfactory nerves.

 

Do you think that Lynch "handed the power over to Comey"? It could be that Obama or Lynch put Comey up to the press conference and his recommendation, but do you have any solid evidence of any of this? It would just be another "conspiracy theory", AFAIC. I often refer to them as"conspiracy hypotheses" so as not to give them the full weight and recognition of a formal (usually scientific) theory.

 

In fact, I'd have to confirm this by evaluating all of your posts, but I suspect you are susceptible to jumping on conspiracy hypotheses. 

[anon4546543]

On 2017-5-14 at 9:56 AM, mogandave said:

 

There is nothing stopping the media from investigating Trump. Unfortunately, they do nothing but provide cover for him.

The days of investigative journalism are over.

The "media" are mostly just kids regurgitating what comes in over the wire.

 

Except the president can influence the media. QED

[mogandave]

Except the president can influence the media. QED

You mean like Nixon did?

I think it safe to say the media has much more influence over the President than the other way around.

[Jingthing]

The media can be helpful but the only body that really has the bandwidth to thoroughly do such a massive international investigation happens to be the FBI. So if trump picks a political loyalist ... watch out.

 

Or an independent investigator with support of the FBI. Of course, the sleazy republicans are BLOCKING that. 

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Huh? I didn't try to "co-opt" anything or anybody. I made the decision on my own  (as I said in my reply) that Comey should not have made any recommendation about prosecution or that it was only his opinion and should have been voiced only to the DoJ. I came to this conclusion shortly after he made the press conference last year.

 

Shortly thereafter it became apparent that "intent" to break the various national security laws by Hillary Clinton was not a requirement for prosecution (Comey believed "intent" was necessary for prosecution). The whole thing stunk to high heaven even to someone with only half of their olfactory nerves.

 

Do you think that Lynch "handed the power over to Comey"? It could be that Obama or Lynch put Comey up to the press conference and his recommendation, but do you have any solid evidence of any of this? It would just be another "conspiracy theory", AFAIC. I often refer to them as"conspiracy hypotheses" so as not to give them the full weight and recognition of a formal (usually scientific) theory.

 

In fact, I'd have to confirm this by evaluating all of your posts, but I suspect you are susceptible to jumping on conspiracy hypotheses. 

Do you remember how until recently, you denied that there was any evidence of an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign -Russian connection? You're  deep in denial again.  You are amazingly ill-informed about the Lynch decision to leave it up to Comey to decide:

Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0

 

And tell me something, if intent, as you believe, plays no part in decisions on whether to prosecute or not, what about General Mike Flynn? When he was in the military, he passed classified information to foreign nationals who weren't cleared to receive that information. But it was decided that because he didn't know that the law precluded him from passing that information, there was no criminal intent and that he wouldn't be disciplined. 

 Trump's defense secretary presided over investigation into his national security adviser for disclosing classified secrets

President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of defense once presided over an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to foreign allies that was carried out by Trump's pick for national security advisor, according to a new report from The Washington Post.

According to the Post, a 2010 investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn found that he shared "classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan without proper authorization." Post sources said the secrets were about CIA operations in Afghanistan.

Flynn was never disciplined, documents released to the Post under the Freedom of Information Act showed, since it was not "done knowingly," and the investigation found the disclosures were not damaging to national security.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mattis-michael-flynn-improper-disclosures-2016-12

 

 

 

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

A different look at the current investigation: An article on the website The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity (penned by jason raimondo). 

 

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/may/13/shut-down-the-russia-gate-farce/

 

EXCERPT:  ...Now the conspiracy theorists who have taken over the Democratic party are screaming that the firing of James Comey is all a part of the plot: Trump did it to scotch the year-long investigation into “Russia-gate,” which has so far yielded nothing. The White House denies this, although we’re now hearing a different and probably far more accurate account: the President was pissed off that Comey wasn’t investigating leaks of classified information, and was paying too much attention to the Russia probe...

There's a reason why Ron Paul's presidential campaigns never got far.

 

Let's examine your excerpt:

 

"Now the conspiracy theorists who have taken over the Democratic party are screaming that the firing of James Comey is all a part of the plot"

 

Funny that they don't give examples of the 'screaming' or say who is doing it.  Even among comedians, who are having great fun with this situation, I'm not aware of any screaming.

 

"Trump did it to scotch the year-long investigation into “Russia-gate,”" followed by "President was pissed off that Comey wasn’t investigating leaks of classified information, and was paying too much attention to the Russia probe"

 

Notice how the author ridicules the possibility of the firing being related to the Russia investigation, then gives the idea credence in the very next sentence?

 

The rest of the article is the same; hyperbole and opinion unsupported by fact.

[MaxYakov]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you remember how until recently, you denied that there was any evidence of an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign -Russian connection? You're  deep in denial again.  You are amazingly ill-informed about the Lynch decision to leave it up to Comey to decide:

Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0

 

And tell me something, if intent, as you believe, plays no part in decisions on whether to prosecute or not, what about General Mike Flynn? When he was in the military, he passed classified information to foreign nationals who weren't cleared to receive that information. But it was decided that because he didn't know that the law precluded him from passing that information, there was no criminal intent and that he wouldn't be disciplined. 

 Trump's defense secretary presided over investigation into his national security adviser for disclosing classified secrets

President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of defense once presided over an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to foreign allies that was carried out by Trump's pick for national security advisor, according to a new report from The Washington Post.

According to the Post, a 2010 investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn found that he shared "classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan without proper authorization." Post sources said the secrets were about CIA operations in Afghanistan.

Flynn was never disciplined, documents released to the Post under the Freedom of Information Act showed, since it was not "done knowingly," and the investigation found the disclosures were not damaging to national security.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mattis-michael-flynn-improper-disclosures-2016-12

 

 

 

I believe I was referring to a "current" investigations based on Comey's alleged remarks to Trump that "he" was allegedly not being investigated.

 

Even if I weren't, so what? Who is supposed to know or even should know anything about a ongoing FBI investigation of anybody or anything in past or in the present or even (especially) the future? Don't kid yourself. I don't have the complete timeline of the FBI Russian / Trump campaign investigation. Why should anyone? I don't believe Comey had a press conference exposing that information to the public regarding those types of investigations. Or did he and I missed it?

 

I believe that the Truth is  impossible to obtain from either the Democrats, the Republicans or any politician or the MSM and just about anyone else, for that matter. Certainly, one level removed from the former out and out government liars, I'm not hanging much on a lot of the posters on this thread without a citation from a credible source that can cite the original source by name. 

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You mean like Nixon did?

I think it safe to say the media has much more influence over the President than the other way around.

The media certainly influences this president.  But that' his fault, the media is just doing its job.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, MaxYakov said:

I believe I was referring to a "current" investigations based on Comey's alleged remarks to Trump that "he" was allegedly not being investigated.

 

Even if I weren't, so what? Who is supposed to know or even should know anything about a ongoing FBI investigation of anybody or anything in past or in the present or even (especially) the future? Don't kid yourself. I don't have the complete timeline of the FBI Russian / Trump campaign investigation. Why should anyone? I don't believe Comey had a press conference exposing that information to the public regarding those types of invdstigations. Or did he and I missed it?

 

I believe that the Truth is  impossible to obtain from either the Democrats, the Republicans or any politician or the MSM and just about anyone else, for that matter. Certainly, one level removed from the former out and out government liars, I'm not hanging much on a lot of the posters on this thread without a citation from a credible source that can cite the original source by name. 

Now you're not being candid. You repeatedly questioned whether an investigation of a Trump campaign - Russian connection even existed. Once I pointed out to you that Comey testified in March front of a congressional committee that such an investigation was ongoing, you dropped that line.

And as for the truth being impossible to obtain, maybe so, but facts aren't. And you seem woefully misinformed of them. Even ones that had been plastered all over the news media, like the fact that Lynch had recused herself from making the decision on whether or not to prosecute Clinton.  A decision that people in the conservative news media celebrated. Apparently you don't get your information from any major news media. So where to you get your information from?  Tea leaves?

[MaxYakov]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Now you're not being candid. You repeatedly questioned whether an investigation of a Trump campaign - Russian connection even existed. Once I pointed out to you that Comey testified in March front of a congressional committee that such an investigation was ongoing, you dropped that line.

And as for the truth being impossible to obtain, maybe so, but facts aren't. And you seem woefully misinformed of them. Even ones that had been plastered all over the news media, like the fact that Lynch had recused herself from making the decision on whether or not to prosecute Clinton.  A decision that people in the conservative news media celebrated. Apparently you don't get your information from any major news media. So where to you get your information from?  Tea leaves?

I missed most of Comey's testimonies before Congress. I watched a few minutes of them until I got nauseous.

 

I guess he felt obligated somehow to expose such an investigation I wonder why? He refused to answer several questions when I was watching his testimony.

 

I may have or may not have all the facts, but I was aware that Lynch recused herself. What!  She doesn't have a Deputy Attorney General? Get real. Or did her recusal really mean that she wasn't going to have the DoJ prosecute Hillary under any circumstances?

 

From what I understand, there are/were other mechanisms within the DoJ in place to handle Hillary's prosecution (not that anyone every thought a presidential candidate would actually be prosecuted), from what I understand. If there aren't then it's a pretty crippled organization, huh?

 

Yeah, that's the ticket! Tea leaves! Even tea leaves would be better than the MSM, AFAIC.

 

What's your definition of a "major news media"? One that's operating in lock-step with the Democrat Party? Feel free to list your favorites.

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

I missed most of Comey's testimonies before Congress. I watched a few minutes of them until I got nauseous.

 

I guess he felt obligated somehow to expose such an investigation I wonder why? He refused to answer several questions when I was watching his testimony.

 

I may have or may not have all the facts, but I was aware that Lynch recused herself. What!  She doesn't have a Deputy Attorney General? Get real. Or did her recusal really mean that she wasn't going to have the DoJ prosecute Hillary under any circumstances?

 

From what I understand, there are/were other mechanisms within the DoJ in place to handle Hillary's prosecution (not that anyone every thought a presidential candidate would actually be prosecuted), from what I understand. If there aren't then it's a pretty crippled organization, huh?

 

Yeah, that's the ticket! Tea leaves! Even tea leaves would be better than the MSM, AFAIC.

 

What's your definition of a "major news media"? One that's operating in lock-step with the Democrat Party? Feel free to list your favorites.

Are you familiar with a thing called google? It's actually possible to look this stuff up.

As I pointed out, conservative news media also were reporting this. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/under-fire-after-secret-meeting-lynch-to-step-back-from-clinton-probe.html

[mogandave]

The media certainly influences this president.  But that' his fault, the media is just doing its job.

I meant the President in general, not Trump in particular.

Truthfully, I think the media have less influence on Trump than they have had on any other President in my lifetime.

Sure, they get the POC to react, but that's about it.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I meant the President in general, not Trump in particular.

Truthfully, I think the media have less influence on Trump than they have had on any other President in my lifetime.

Sure, they get the POC to react, but that's about it.

 

"Truthfully, I think the media have less influence on Trump than they have had on any other President in my lifetime."

 

You've got to be kidding!  He goes on tweet storms because of things he sees on television.  He won't fire Sean Spicer because he gets good ratings.  He brings up the ratings of "The Apprentice" during a national prayer breakfast.  He accused the UK of illegally spying on his campaign because of something he heard on Fox.  He's reported to do little reading and constantly watches TV.  The man is obsessed with the media and how it presents him.

[MaxYakov]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Truthfully, I think the media have less influence on Trump than they have had on any other President in my lifetime."

 

You've got to be kidding!  He goes on tweet storms because of things he sees on television.  He won't fire Sean Spicer because he gets good ratings.  He brings up the ratings of "The Apprentice" during a national prayer breakfast.  He accused the UK of illegally spying on his campaign because of something he heard on Fox.  He's reported to do little reading and constantly watches TV.  The man is obsessed with the media and how it presents him.

Yep, we finally agree on something, assuming your claims are the truth. But even if they aren't he should be listening to Mark Levin and some other insightful folks instead of wasting his time with TV and Twitter. Maybe he should discover YouTube and the wider internet some day.