Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, David Laufman resigns for personal reasons.
What is the DOJ and FBI hiding?
To find out maybe We the People should take a class from this well paid “expert” that has so many contacts here and abroad.
WHAT IS AN EXPORT?
Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.
How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.
Certain job-related technical data is subject to U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR §§730-774) which regulate the export of “dual-use” items. These items include goods and related technology, including technical data and technical assistance, which are designed for commercial purposes, but which could have military applications, such as computers, aircraft, and pathogens. In order for certain foreign nationals to access this technology/data, companies must apply for and be issued a deemed export license from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Any foreign national is subject to deemed export regulations except a foreign national who (1) is granted U.S. Permanent Resident status, as demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent resident visa (i.e., Green Card); or (2) is granted U.S. citizenship; or (3) is granted status as a protected person (i.e., Asylee or Refugee) under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3).
From 02 08 2018
From our friends at The Daily Caller:
DOJ Official Who Worked On Clinton, Russia Investigations Steps Down For Personal Reasons
By Chuck Ross
The Department of Justice official who interviewed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of the investigation into her emails is leaving the agency, he announced on Wednesday.
“I am getting aggravated at Laufman,” Strzok wrote in one March 23, 2016, text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
“But he’s literally doing nothing other than sitting in on the big interviews,” he said in another dated April 9, 2016.
The timing of Laufman’s decision is sure to raise questions because of a Justice Department inspector general’s forthcoming report about the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Strzok’s texts were discovered during the court of that investigation.
“It’s tough to leave a mission this compelling and an institution as exceptional as the Department of Justice. But I know that prosecutors and agents will continue to bring to their work precisely what the American people should expect: a fierce and relentless commitment to protect the national security of the United States,” Laufman told The Post in a statement.
McCabe Resigns After FBI Director Wray Reviews House FISA Abuse Memo
By Sara Carter
January 29, 2017
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was forced to resign Monday, just as the House Intelligence Committee is expected to vote on the public release of a classified memo this afternoon revealing extensive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse under the Obama administration, sources told this reporter.
McCabe apparently lashed out to his colleagues when he was told he would be asked to resign, according to sources. FBI Director Christopher Wray viewed the four-page memo on Sunday, sources familiar with the discussions said.
McCabe, who is facing three federal inquiries for conflicts-of-interest during his time at the FBI, is one of the numerous names mentioned in the classified memo detailing FISA abuse, according to sources who reviewed the memo.
The federal inquiries into allegations against McCabe, who was expected to resign in March, are based on documents and interviews conducted by this reporter over the past year and range from sexual discrimination to improper political activity.
McCabe, a central figure in the ongoing Russia investigation against Trump, is also part of the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s ongoing review into the FBI’s handling of former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send classified information.
Current and former FBI officials said McCabe’s resignation is the beginning of more resignations to come.
“There are people lining up in the bureau to go after McCabe,” said a former FBI official, with knowledge. “There will be a clean up at the Bureau of his cronies.”
According to several U.S. officials, McCabe’s government communications were collected as part of the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation, which is expected to be completed by March.
FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty declined to comment on the resignation.
The process to declassify the document could take anywhere up to five days. President Trump is not expected to object to the memo’s release and the House Intelligence Committee is expected to pass it, stated White House officials in an earlier report.
“My understanding is they will proceed with the vote tonight,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican. “This memo is something I want every single journalist and American to see, I think it’s that important. If Wray saw the memo, there maybe something to McCabe’s resignation. Or it could also be something as innocent as him using his sick time or leave up until retirement.”
The classified memo is considered “explosive and shocking” and hundreds of Republican members and only a dozen or so Democrats have taken the opportunity to review the report in a secured area, according to congressional sources. The memo also contains information that suggests Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reauthorized warrants based in part on the unverified dossier to gather communications on former Trump advisor Carter Page, sources said.
House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, R-NC, said that he is hopeful the memo will be released to the public and called its contents “shocking.”
“I think from my standpoint there are concerns about political interference by law enforcement and judiciary agencies,” said Meadows, as he prepared to board a flight back to Washington D.C. “These important issues require greater transparency ad it’s critical lady justice remains blindfolded and that the privileged do not have the upper hand in the judicial system.”
Democrat Adam Schiff, D-CA, who has long stated he believes President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia but has offered no proof, said the classified memo is “profoundly misleading” and asked that it not be released
Carter Page, who is one figure at the center of the memo’s revelations, filed his most recent libel lawsuit against Oath and Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Free Europe for the story “Report: U.S. Intelligence Officials Examining Trump Advisor’s Russia Ties” written Sept. 23, 2016. The report came a day after Yahoo published a report, which cited multiple sources that suggested Page was under investigation for his ties to Russia. Page has also filed libel suits against Yahoo News and Buzzfeed. Page asserts in the lawsuit that he was a victim of “swatting,” a term used when a group or person provides false information to law enforcement to provoke an emergency action to be taken against a target.
The dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign. The DNC and Clinton campaign had hired now embattled research firm Fusion GPS to compile the research. Fusion GPS had previously lobbied on behalf of companies closely connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin against the Magnitisky Act, a U.S. law prohibiting companies and people connected to the death of Sergei Magnitsky from owning property or conducting business in the United States. Magnitsky was an auditor at a law firm in Moscow who uncovered $230 million worth of fraud by Russian tax officials and police officers. After he reported the fraud he was detained by Russian authorities and then died in a prison under suspicious circumstances in 2009.
“By falsely and publicly identifying Dr. Page in the U.S., Europe and worldwide as the main accomplice in the most prominent crime story in recent history and simultaneously mischaracterizing the libelous articles as primarily stemming from slightly more legitimate leakers within USG (U.S. government) agencies rather than the opposition political research consultant Christopher Steele, BBG and RFE played an essential roles in the USG’s black propaganda campaign by branding him as the subject of completely outrageous criminal allegations instigated by earlier excerpts from Mr. Steele’s final report (the “Dodgy Dossier”),” Page states in his complaint filed on January, 19.
Page, who lists a number of previous ‘swatting’ cases, states in his complaint, “In these more benign and little-known swatting cases, defendants have been held accountable by courts…The alleged untruthfulness attached to the DOJ’s allegations in the illegitimate FISA warrant issued against Dr. Page and related abuse of process in 2016 based on the dodgy dossier helps to directly fulfill that burden.”
The Department of Justice and some leading Democrats attempted to stop the committee from releasing the classified FISA abuse memo, citing that the classified nature of the document could threaten national security. The DOJ argued in a letter written by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd that the department had not been given the document for review.
However, several members of the committee told this reporter that the information contained in the memo is lists extensive FISA abuse that occurred before and after the 2016 presidential election cycle.
“What’s important is that the American people will be informed and that the corruption by a few people inside the bureau and DOJ will be exposed,” said a former FBI source with knowledge of the situation. “We can’t move forward unless we as a nation are willing to come clean about what’s been going on and the first step is telling the truth.”
Sara Carter is a great friend and member of Stand Up America. She is an award winning National Correspondent and War Correspondent. She is a Fox News and Circa contributor and has been at the forefront of the ongoing nefarious events at DOJ and the FBI.
Just being released ………via Stand Up America US (MG Paul Vallely)
When the nuclear agreement was reached in 2015, it was described as “the most robust intrusive inspections and transparent regime ever negotiated for any program in history.” Specific intelligence relating to four facilities and two headquarters confirms that a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear project had been conceived and developed in its military centers.
The following measures must be taken and are necessary.
Immediate, complete, simultaneous and unfettered inspection of all six sites and centers with disclosure of the results.
Speedy inspections of any other location, including military sites, suspected of nuclear project development.
The IAEA must have access to and interview all scientists and experts involved in the nuclear projects.
Revelation of any information of involvement in illicit nuclear activities and relationships with foreign parties like Russia, China, and North Korea.
What are the chances this will happen?
End of this fifth edition of the intel report………………” Iran’s Nuclear Core”
*Published and authorized by National Council of Resistance of Iran.
“Balochistan is a strategic center of gravity in South Asia”
By: Lawrence Sellin, Phd.
November 19, 2017
It seems like all the players in the South Asian power game think Balochistan, Pakistan’s southwest province on the Arabian Sea, is important – except the United States.
For the sake of argument, imagine that Balochistan reverts to its previous condition as an independent and secular state before it was forcibly incorporated into Pakistan or, more simply, is a blank space on the map.
Here are a few things that would change.
– The single most important Taliban safe haven, training and support infrastructure would be eliminated, isolating the Taliban’s Peshawar Shura and the Haqqani Network to be dismantled piecemeal.
– Afghanistan would have a reliable route to the sea and no longer be subjected to Pakistan’s economic stranglehold.
– An embryonic transnational terrorist epicenter containing the Islamic State (ISIS) and other extremist Wahhabi groups would be prevented.
– The flow of opium and heroin originating in Afghanistan, which fuels the Taliban, other insurgent elements and the world’s illicit drug market, would be disrupted.
– Chinese regional hegemony as represented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the related construction of Chinese military bases on the Arabian Sea would be thwarted.
– Iranian infiltration and military action in Balochistan to counter groups supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabian would be halted and reduce the likelihood of another Syria-like crisis.
– An independent and secular Balochistan would drive a stake into the heart of Pakistan’s Islamization policy and its reliance on Islamic terrorism as an instrument of its foreign policy.
Two questions arise from those speculations.
Why is the U.S. still fighting a war in Afghanistan under rules of engagement determined by Pakistan?
Why is the U.S. not exploiting opportunities to influence the strategic conditions in South Asia that might favorable affect the outcome in Afghanistan and future American influence in the region?
The ugly truth is that, lacking any new ideas or alternative approaches, the counterinsurgency and nation-building program in Afghanistan remains on automatic pilot, where everyone is being reassured that everything is going according to plan and that “progress is being made.”
Within the military bureaucracy, the tendency to give and accept happy talk is pervasive. Negative views can only be expressed as whispers in private conversations. Public criticism is suicide and, contrary to popular belief, changing the system from within is at best serendipity or at worst urban myth. In a system highly resistant to change, innovative thinking can be a risky proposition.
Military careerism fosters the development of political correctness, a finely-tuned sense of risk aversion, and a laissez-faire attitude toward demonstrable progress, where the appearance, rather than the substance of success, is a satisfactory outcome. The longer you are in such an environment, the more the bureaucracy can shape your thinking and behavior. You become a stakeholder in maintaining the status quo.
Current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is not designed to win, but not to lose, until a graceful exit can be achieved. Even if a long-term presence could be sustained, it is not a viable strategy when Pakistan determines what is sustainable.
The time is long overdue to take a serious, comprehensive look at the manner in which the war in Afghanistan is being conducted, whether the continued and exclusive pursuit of a yet unsuccessful 16-year-old strategy is, in actuality, suppressing our options and setting us up for future failure.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Full transcript of White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly’s statement concerning President Donald Trump’s call to the widow of a U.S. Army soldier recently killed during a counter terror operation in Niger:
JOHN F. KELLY, White House chief of staff: Well, thanks a lot. And it is a more serious note, so I just wanted to perhaps make more of a statement than an — give more of an explanation in what amounts to be a traditional press interaction.
Most Americans don’t know what happens when we lose one of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, our Coast Guardsmen in combat. So let me tell you what happens:
Their buddies wrap them up in whatever passes as a shroud, puts them on a helicopter as a routine, and sends them home. Their first stop along the way is when they’re packed in ice, typically at the airhead. And then they’re flown to, usually, Europe where they’re then packed in ice again and flown to Dover Air Force Base, where Dover takes care of the remains, embalms them, meticulously dresses them in their uniform with the medals that they’ve earned, the emblems of their service, and then puts them on another airplane linked up with a casualty officer escort that takes them home.
A very, very good movie to watch, if you haven’t ever seen it, is “Taking Chance,” where this is done in a movie — HBO setting. Chance Phelps was killed under my command right next to me, and it’s worth seeing that if you’ve never seen it.
So that’s the process. While that’s happening, a casualty officer typically goes to the home very early in the morning and waits for the first lights to come on. And then he knocks on the door; typically a mom and dad will answer, a wife. And if there is a wife, this is happening in two different places; if the parents are divorced, three different places. And the casualty officer proceeds to break the heart of a family member and stays with that family until — well, for a long, long time, even after the internment. So that’s what happens.
Who are these young men and women? They are the best 1 percent this country produces. Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know anyone who knows any one of them. But they are the very best this country produces, and they volunteer to protect our country when there’s nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is not only appropriate, but required. But that’s all right.
Who writes letters to the families? Typically, the company commander — in my case, as a Marine — the company commander, battalion commander, regimental commander, division commander, Secretary of Defense, typically the service chief, commandant of the Marine Corps, and the President typically writes a letter.
Typically, the only phone calls a family receives are the most important phone calls they could imagine, and that is from their buddies. In my case, hours after my son was killed, his friends were calling us from Afghanistan, telling us what a great guy he was. Those are the only phone calls that really mattered.
And yeah, the letters count, to a degree, but there’s not much that really can take the edge off what a family member is going through.
So some Presidents have elected to call. All Presidents, I believe, have elected to send letters. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you could imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call.
When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s nice to do, in my opinion, in any event.
He asked me about previous Presidents, and I said, I can tell you that President Obama, who was my Commander-in-Chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family. That was not a criticism. That was just to simply say, I don’t believe President Obama called. That’s not a negative thing. I don’t believe President Bush called in all cases. I don’t believe any President, particularly when the casualty rates are very, very high — that Presidents call. But I believe they all write.
So when I gave that explanation to our President three days ago, he elected to make phone calls in the cases of four young men who we lost in Niger at the earlier part of this month. But then he said, how do you make these calls? If you’re not in the family, if you’ve never worn the uniform, if you’ve never been in combat, you can’t even imagine how to make that call. I think he very bravely does make those calls.
The call in question that he made yesterday — or day before yesterday now — were to four family members, the four fallen. And remember, there’s a next-of-kin designated by the individual. If he’s married, that’s typically the spouse. If he’s not married, that’s typically the parents unless the parents are divorced, and then he selects one of them. If he didn’t get along with his parents, he’ll select a sibling. But the point is, the phone call is made to the next-of-kin only if the next-of-kin agrees to take the phone call. Sometimes they don’t.
So a pre-call is made: The President of the United States or the commandant of the Marine Corps, or someone would like to call, will you accept the call? And typically, they all accept the call.
So he called four people the other day and expressed his condolences in the best way that he could. And he said to me, what do I say? I said to him, sir, there’s nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families.
Well, let me tell you what I told him. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me — because he was my casualty officer. He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1 percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war. And when he died, in the four cases we’re talking about, Niger, and my son’s case in Afghanistan — when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this Earth: his friends.
That’s what the President tried to say to four families the other day. I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning, and brokenhearted at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the President of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion — that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero, he knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist; he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be, exactly where he wanted to be, with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken.
That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted.
It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life — the dignity of life — is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.
Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought — the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.
And when I listened to this woman and what she was saying, and what she was doing on TV, the only thing I could do to collect my thoughts was to go and walk among the finest men and women on this Earth. And you can always find them because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery. I went over there for an hour-and-a-half, walked among the stones, some of whom I put there because they were doing what I told them to do when they were killed.
I’ll end with this: In October — April, rather, of 2015, I was still on active duty, and I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986 — a guy by the name of Grogan and Duke. Grogan almost retired, 53 years old; Duke, I think less than a year on the job. (Editor’s note: The F.B.I. agent for which the building is named was named Jerry L. Dove, not Duke.)
Anyways, they got in a gunfight and they were killed. Three other FBI agents were there, were wounded, and now retired. So we go down — Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well, and law enforcement so well.
There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there, and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.
And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money — the $20 million — to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.
But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, O.K., fine.
So I still hope, as you write your stories, and I appeal to America, that let’s not let this maybe last thing that’s held sacred in our society — a young man, young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country — let’s try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.
So I’m willing to take a question or two on this topic. Let me ask you this: Is anyone here a Gold Star parent or sibling? Does anyone here know a Gold Star parent or sibling?
O.K., you get the question.
Q Well, thank you, General Kelly. First of all, we have a great deal of respect — Semper Fi — for everything that you’ve ever done. But if we could take this a bit further. Why were they in Niger? We were told they weren’t in armored vehicles and there was no air cover. So what are the specifics about this particular incident? And why were we there? And why are we there?
GENERAL KELLY: Well, I would start by saying there is an investigation. Let me back up and say, the fact of the matter is, young men and women that wear our uniform are deployed around the world and there are tens of thousands, near the DMZ in North Korea [sic], in Okinawa, waiting to go — in South Korea — in Okinawa, ready to go. All over the United States, training, ready to go. They’re all over Latin America. Down there, they do mostly drug and addiction, working with our partners — our great partners — the Colombians, the Central Americans, the Mexicans.
You know, there’s thousands. My own son, right now, back in the fight for his fifth tour against ISIS. There’s thousands of them in Europe acting as a deterrent. And they’re throughout Africa. And they’re doing the nation’s work there, and not making a lot of money, by the way, doing it. They love what they do.
So why were they there? They’re there working with partners, local — all across Africa — in this case, Niger — working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights; teaching them how to fight ISIS so that we don’t have to send our soldiers and Marines there in their thousands. That’s what they were doing there.
Now, there is an investigation. There’s always an — unless it’s a very, very conventional death in a conventional war, there’s always an investigation. Of course, that operation is conducted by AFRICOM that, of course, works directly for the Secretary of Defense.
There is a — and I talked to Jim Mattis this morning. I think he made statements this afternoon. There’s an investigation ongoing. An investigation doesn’t mean anything was wrong. An investigation doesn’t mean people’s heads are going to roll. The fact is they need to find out what happened and why it happened.
But at the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, you have to understand that these young people — sometimes old guys — put on the uniform, go to where we send them to protect our country. Sometimes they go in large numbers to invade Iraq and invade Afghanistan. Sometimes they’re working in small units, working with our partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America, helping them be better.
But at the end of the day, they’re helping those partners be better at fighting ISIS in North Africa to protect our country so that we don’t have to send large numbers of troops.
Any other — someone who knows a Gold Star fallen person.
Q General, thank you for being here today and thank you for your service and for your family’s sacrifice. There has been some talk about the timetable of the release of the statement about the — I think at that point it was three soldiers who were killed in Niger. Can you walk us through the timetable of the release of that information? And what part did the fact that a beacon was pinging during that time have to do with the release of the statement? And were you concerned that divulging information early might jeopardize the soldiers’ attempt to be (inaudible)?
GENERAL KELLY: First of all, that’s a — you know, we are at the highest level of the U.S. government. The people that will answer those questions will be the people at the other end of the military pyramid.
I’m sure the Special Forces group is conducting it. I know they’re conducting an investigation. That investigation, of course, under the auspices of AFRICOM, ultimately will go to the Pentagon. I’ve read the same stories you have. I actually know a lot more than I’m letting on, but I’m not going to tell you.
There is an investigation being done. But as I say, the men and women of our country that are serving all around the world — I mean, what the hell is my son doing back in the fight? He’s back in the fight because — working with Iraqi soldiers who are infinitely better than they were a few years ago to take ISIS on directly so that we don’t have to do it. Small numbers of Marines where he is working alongside those guys. That’s why they’re out there, whether it’s Niger, Iraq, or whatever. We don’t want to send tens of thousands of American soldiers and Marines, in particular, to go fight.
I’ll take one more, but it’s got to be from someone who knows — all right.
Q General, when you talk about Niger, sir, what does your intelligence tell you about the Russian connection with them? And the stories that are coming out now, they’re —
GENERAL KELLY: I have no knowledge of any Russian connection, but I was not, in my position, to know that. That’s a question for NORTHCOM or for — not NORTHCOM — for AFRICOM or DOD.
Thanks very much, everybody.
As I walk off the stage, understand there’s tens of thousands of American kids, mostly, doing their nation’s bidding all around the world. They don’t have to be in uniform. You know, when I was a kid, every man in my life was a veteran — World War II, Korea, and there was the draft. These young people today, they don’t do it for any other reason than their selfless — sense of selfless devotion to this great nation.
We don’t look down upon those of you who that haven’t served. In fact, in a way we’re a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our service men and women do — not for any other reason than they love this country. So just think of that.