The Arpaio pardon is an impeachable offense? I thought he did legally separate himself from his business when he took office, signed over his businesses to his kids. I haven’t heard anything to the contrary. I’ll need evidence. Why does he have to read briefing and why can’t he be told what is in them quicker and more succinctly. What are his repeated lies? Name three big ones out of the 1,000,000 that have been reported? Come on the number of lies grows exponentially by the week. I don’t understand your descriptions of your proofs about Trump’s cognitive deficits or general demeanor.
Basically, Trump’s morality is abhorred, end of story?
Which are you disputing?
Arpaio pardon; failure to separate himself from his business interests; refusal to read briefings; likely cognitive deficits;
repeated lies; general demeanor.
See who can take some fucking person that says something like that seriously?
I am Pro-America, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Free-Speech, and Anti-Deep-State.
The Democratic Party has become severely corrupt. Joe Biden committed a Quid Pro Quo, and yet, the DNC wants to launch an impeachment and attempt to remove a duly-elected President, even though Biden has committed the crime that they are charging Trump? Ridiculous! This is completely corrupt and unjust! Democrats have gone way too far. This is an abuse-of-power of Congress, to so blatantly launch 100% purely-Partisan impeachments. Impeachment was never intended to be a Partisan tool, used by a One-party Congress. Furthermore, the corrupt manner in which the impeachment was ran, charged, without Defense, without Rules, without Due Process, and in contempt of the US Constitution, is a smear against the entire US public, our Republic, our system, and even the core of US Governance. It is a dark stain, in Modern History, to attempt such a Coup.
The Deep State is another matter of contention. Trump was elected to ‘Fire’ people. And he does. These lifelong politicians and Deep State operatives have lived comfortably, without threat of being fired for bad jobs, negligence, or for simply not doing their jobs at all. This corruption has festered, which is why Trump was elected in the first place. The DNC, the liberal-left, haven’t figured this out yet. Those who push for Trump, are Anti-Establishment and Anti-Corruption.
Thus the Full Corruption is on display, and struggling to survive. The Deep State, the Media Mob, those who hate America, our Constitution, our Republic, are feeling threatened. And they should be threatened. They should be rooted-out, exposed, and destroyed. These forces are fundamentally evil, and Anti-American.
If anybody threatens to undermine the US Republic, Constitution, and Democracy, as the DNC has done with this sham-impeachment, then a strong counter-force must occur. If you abuse your power, trying to veto the votes of millions of Americans, WITHOUT CAUSE and UNJUSTLY!? Then you must pay a severe price. And I hope this toll is exacted soon, for the liberal-left and DNC.
To attempt to remove a duly-elected President, for NO CRIME COMMITTED?!?! is about as corrupt as you can get, in US history. These are dark days, and perhaps, many more to come, until these corruptions and treasonous forces are rooted-out. It is fundamentally Anti-American.
It isn’t “Fox is #1 and so it’s fair”. Not when you have the next several “news” agencies, clumped-together, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, etc. all pushing agendas and political points of the Radical-Looney-Liberal-Left.
Remember 20 years ago when every fucking commercial on television, was not miscegenation, “here’s a black guy fucking a white woman, marriage, mixed race weird looking progeny, this is so normal” laden in every form of modern mass media? I do.
The “message” pushed by the Radical-Left has gone so far, that it is now obvious, and no longer deniable. That this contaminates all other forms of media, Fake News, and modern socialist-communist “Democrats”, is the point.
One of the core-motivations of those pushing impeachment, is because Trump is fighting back against all this, and he is giving the middle-finger to the Corrupt DNC, Fake News establishment, and all the other corrupt, treasonous Deep Staters, who want their Federal pensions and health insurance (while the rest of the working-class America can “go fuck themselves”). Fuck that.
Grandiose hypotheticals as “what could count” as “foreign election interference”, is a moot-point, even if there was a clear example, which there’s not.
Start with what’s real and practical, which is, the overwhelming dominance of the Liberal-Left, Commie-Socialist, Mass Media, Facebook, Google Search algorithms… until these issues are addressed, there is no ‘foreign’ interference comparable.
“Russia” did not interfere in 2016. Russian soldiers did not fly to the USA, forcing people at gunpoint, to vote for Trump. And until such a thing happens, you had/have no point on the matter.
The fact that DNC wants to push this garbage, trashcan narrative, for 3-4+ years now, is pedantic and childish.
The US voted, and very well knew (most of) the consequences of their vote. Trump was elected as Anti-Establishment. That’s exactly what he’s done. That’s exactly what he’ll continue to do.
DNC should look within, if self-reflection were even possible for the Radical-Loony-Liberal-left?
There is no Law regarding a President’s “decorum” when conducting his sworn and official duty. You can have a foulmouth, abrasive, bully for a President, as there certainly was other times in US history, and that’s just fine.
You cannot impeach a President for such. Well, apparently, now you can, because the DNC have chose to denigrate our Society by spreading their corruption.
It is neither a HIGH CRIME nor MISDEMEANOR to call Schiff a pencilneck, Hillary a crook, or no talent Biden.
The fact that Liberal-Left expose, daily, that the motivations for impeachment are emotionally based, the further solidifies the nature of this argument, and the Unjust composition of this impeachment.
Purely Partisan, by the way. This was the very intent of the Constitution to avoid.
I’ll repeat my earlier point. Impeachment votes should require 66% majority of the House, as with the Senate. That would ‘undo’ this dark stain. But, as the status-quo continues to degenerate, there is only more Partisanship to come.
Hopefully Republicans can take the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Executive in 2020, and start leveraging corrupt Democrats out of political power for decades to come, soon.
The owners of those news stations are either doing what they think is best for business, or promoting political views that they agree with. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it. I promote political views that I agree with, and if inclined, would buy a yard sign…but I’m not as demonstrative as all of that. I prefer to talk quietly about things.
If I created a, “News,” channel, then the presentation would be a fairly boring breakdown of the views of both sides with a big focus on what is or is not statistically accurate. That’s what turns me on. Those sexy, sexy numbers. We’d probably break down, “The letter of the law,” in proposed bills to as great an extent as we could, as well. It’d be like C-SPAN, but with actual hosts, and you could hear what’s going on a lot better.
Yeah, I also remember five years ago when you could have a commercial about an exercise bike and nobody would ever think to bitch about it. I don’t mind a statistically accurate representation of society, I also don’t mind the statistically inaccurate ones, other than it makes it tougher for white actors to get day rate jobs. I mean, when minorities aren’t 50% of the population but you think 50% of the people in your commercials have to be non-white, and of the white ones, at least 20% should be gay, just to be safe…yeah. I could see where some people might resent that. I don’t. I can understand it.
I’m still missing the part where this is a cabal, unless it’s like, literally the worst hidden cabal of all-time. I don’t think, if it is a cabal, that I am one of the only people smart enough to see it. More likely it’s not a cabal.
Topic for a different thread, “What does a cabal look like to You?”
How would you know one if you saw it? Or is it one of those, “if I don’t see it, it doesn’t exist”? I hear that a lot. USIG Horowitz has that disease. The big giveaway is the exact same words and phrases at the exact same time from supposedly competing networks.
Those clips were not expressly about inter-network collusion and anti-trust violations, the “cabal”. Although based on rumor, a woman was accused of leaking that video then had to leave ABC. When hired by NBC due to the rumor was immediately fired. That kind of news of journalist abuse should have been hot for publication between competitors regardless of the Epstein story. Fox interviewed her and broke the story.
Although there is obvious ideological bias from the US mainstream media (Leftist propaganda), that alone is not direct anti-trust evidence. Evidence is the conspicuous collusion between supposed competitors.
A true democracy cannot exist under the reign of unified propaganda. The majority merely merely votes in the direction promoted by the media.
Again, this is a sidetrack subject from this thread.
The following is Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talking to Bryan Dean Wright (former CIA ops officer) about how the Deep State use leaks to the media like the New York Times and the Washington Post to steer the narrative in a direction more favorable to their interests.
That would be a CIA directed cabal if the outlets were aware of the shared source (and on one level very probably are aware. How could they not?). John Brennan and James Clapper come to mind.
Anti-trust is about covertly sharing information or resources.
Do you agree that the record as we have it establishes that the investigation went away as soon as the alleged pressure went away? Once the wistleblower’s complaint was made public, and the military aid was released, Ukraine dropped the investigation.
And if you agree, doesn’t that suggest that the pressure was a necessary part of the motivation for the investigation?
This is true, but its reach is not unlimited. On the other margin, if we have one piece of evidence that is a recording of a phone call, we won’t get any additional exculpatory evidence from a second recording of the same phone call. Similarly, we get no additional evidence from a blank tape: if the evidence contains no information, it can’t contain exculpatory information. That kind of question about the usefulness of evidence doesn’t depend on how well-defined the charge is, it’s that there’s no additional information in duplicative or null evidence. (For the null evidence, I mean evidence that doesn’t and wouldn’t be expected to convey information; it’s possible to get information from a blank tape (e.g. Nixon))
That’s not what we have here, but the principle applies to some extent: there isn’t much disagreement about the phone call, so the whistleblower wouldn’t provide anything by just saying that he, too, listened to the call and heard the same things. And the whistleblower isn’t close to Trump, to he doesn’t and wouldn’t be expected to have access to information about Trump’s motivations or similar context.
Your point about the Bidens is fair; I agree that there is a set of answers to your questions that would make knowing whether there was actually misconduct on the part of the Bidens somewhat exculpatory (though I think that set of answers is not a natural set of answers, i.e. you’ll only get to them if your goal is to exonerate Trump is innocent, rather than to find the best answers). But even there, I don’t think the whistleblower is actually a very good witness to the relevant facts, and even there other witnesses with a similar level of facts can provide the same information. And given the intent behind whistleblower protection laws, and given how small a lift it is to just ask one Ukraine expert instead of another about the situation in the Ukraine, we should prefer someone else.
To sum, even to the extent that the whistleblower could answer a question that would provide evidence relevant to the case, we have and should prefer other sources of that same information.
Fair, but if one of the cashiers blew the whistle on the owner’s embezzlement, I would not call that cashier just to describe how the cash registers work. Any other cashier would do.
There’s a difference between ‘talking to’ and ‘calling to testify publicly’. Talking to everyone seems wise. Calling everyone to testify publicly doesn’t, because 1) time is a finite resource, 2) additional testimony doesn’t always move us towards truth, and 3) calling people to testify publicly has a non-zero cost for those people and for other similarly-placed people who might be in a similar position later.
More generally, both-sides-ism is a good prior, but I don’t think it holds up to scrutiny here. Democrats have been significantly less obstructionist on this, and their limited obstruction is much better justified. I know that claim is hard to defend in a world of hyperpartisanship, motivated reasoning, and few common sources of truth, but it’s important that both-sides-ism is the beginning and not the end of the discussion.
This overstates it. The President can’t directly fire most executive branch employees. Granted, he can hire people who will fire people he wants fired, or hire people who will hire people who will fire people he wants fired, but in practice his authority gets more diffuse with every step. Not only that, but firing everyone would be incredibly costly to an incoming president, both directly (because people don’t like people losing their jobs, many of them are unionized, it would be clearly politically motivated, etc.), and indirectly (because so much institutional knowledge is stored in the minds of career civil servants).
I don’t think the illegalness is important, but for sticklers like Urwrong maybe it makes the difference. For me, I’d say impeachment and removal are preferable because he broke the law in order to subvert the democratic order. Just say it out loud: he broke the law to force an ally to announce a non-existent investigation into a political rival to help himself win an election. That is so obviously not what the powers of the presidency are for.
And he kept breaking the law after he was told that it was against the law. It an absolute liability to leave him with the powers of the presidency through the election.
If you ever plan to travel to France, it matters if the president of France declares you an enemy of the state. If you want to not be assassinated, it matters that the Prime Minister of Israel declares you responsible for a terrorist attack.
It’s not about you being insulted, it’s about those words being the driving force behind powerful national machines.
But I think this is mostly a failure of imagination. Being accused of a crime by a foreign leader would ruin your life and you would care.
It would be a lie if there were not investigation and Zelensky announced an investigation. It would be a lie if, in announcing the investigation, Zelensky suggested that it was motivated by anything other than pressure from the US. If he didn’t mention the pressure from the US, it would be a lie by omission.
What about buying ads targeting the US? There are national laws that apply to international companies when those companies intentionally target that particular nation, e.g. the GDPR privacy law in the EU.
But more generally, I don’t think the standard is whether Russia has the right to do what it’s doing or the responsibility not to. The US has every reason to be mad at Russia for doing what it’s doing, and to penalize American citizens who support it or seek to benefit from it.
Sure, but that doesn’t make their interference legitimate or welcome, or make it wrong to, again, be mad at them for doing it and to penalize Americans who participate.
I agree that a transparent influence campaign is very different. Obama endorsed Trudeau, and I don’t think that was untoward (though the optics were not great). If Putin expressly endorsed Trump, I don’t think there would be a problem.
But Russia used deceptive tactics to influence the vote and generally sow discord in the US. That’s the opposite of transparent endorsement.
Claims to the contrary say that the withholding of aid was due to what was perceived as Ukrainian corruption, in general, including interference related to the DNC server in the 2016 Presidential Election. If that’s true, then the whole thing relating to the Bidens is just correlative with that, but perhaps not causative. In other words, if the aid was withheld for multiple reasons, then picking one out and saying that is THE REASON is kind of cherry-picking.
The Ukrainian Prosecutor General provided Rudy Giuliani (and, by extension, Trump) with information and documents that would point to the existence of corruption involving the Bidens in Ukraine. So, not only had Ukraine (by way of the prosecutor) said they were going to investigate (and didn’t announce it) they claimed they had what they believed was proof. From the source:
So, you have the prosecutor saying, “Hey, here’s what happened.” Then the Administration is asking, “Well, why don’t you investigate it?” It looks to me like they were just asking them to investigate what they themselves were claiming there to be a good reason to investigate. The FBI was involved, the whole nine.
It seems to be that there is a chance that all of these things occurred at some level below Trump. Trump is very much a, “Just the cliff notes,” kind of guy. He’s also not an investigator. “Oh, Biden might have done something bad according to them? Well, that’s good for me. Hell yeah, I want them to investigate it!”
It just seems like there is a lot more involved than the narrative that the Democrats want the public to have which amounts to, “There was no reason to investigate the Bidens. Trump just wanted an announcement of an investigation because Biden’s son was involved with a Ukrainian company and it might look bad.”
I agree with that as relates the phone call recording. I just want the testimony from all of the different parties as to what the problem might have been with Ukraine. I’d like to hear from Giuliani officially. It seems like the whole question of an investigation is a closed matter for now. I don’t see any proof that Trump would have absolutely believed the investigation to be baseless at the time, so the investigation might have the consequence of aiding him politically, but wouldn’t be the sole reason for it. It’s not like he’s saying, “Shit, just make something up.”
As far as whistleblower protection laws, do we know who it is or don’t we? I think we can all agree this whole thing is completely silly. If everyone knows who it is, why are we pretending not to? I’d think being outed would be good for his protection. If I’m Trump, I wouldn’t even so much as let a gentle breeze muss his hair.
How would the cashier know about…? Oh, right, the whistleblower might be a politically convenient frontman…“Look, this can’t come from me, so…”
Pelosi doesn’t seem terribly worried about time. How many people could we have talked to already? I’d like to think who talks and what they say would have an influence on some people. You don’t get 67, I know that, but if a few Republicans vote the Removal route, then I think it at least looks better for Democrats. Similarly if Democrats vote to acquit, like Joe Manchin, then it looks better for Republicans. I could see Manchin being very concerned about the sufficiency of the process and he’s one of the few that I would see as legitimately concerned because he’s one of what…maybe ten (?)…who I think would even consider looking at this with an eye towards what is fair and correct.
Also, I don’t mean, “Ten Democrats,” I mean ten total Senators, both sides included. 90 have already decided, probably more.
In general, I look at testimony like I look at many other things, “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.” Not every testimony needs to be a bombshell. This really ought be a boring process (other than the supposed implications, of which there are none) not political theatre.
It’s really hard to defend a claim of justified obstruction when one of the Articles is specifically for obstruction, yes.
In practice is my point, it’s probably better not to change what happens, in practice, in this regard. In practice, it would be best for the only difference between one day and another to be a different person takes the Oath of Office.
If we’re going to be locked into a strictly two-party and partisan environment anyway, which we shouldn’t be, but which the Constitution essentially necessitates…I think really a ticket should be President and a selected Vice-Presidential candidate from the opposite party. Maybe even codify some duties for the Vice-President outside of breaking Senate ties.
As far as firing, it’s just cost-benefit. I don’t think it’s impossible, I really don’t, where we see one out of every two Presidents Impeached. I mean, one of your supporting reasons basically amounts to, “He’s an asshole,” and I mean no offense when I say that. Well, guess I have to make sure nobody near me thinks I’m an asshole.
I also see increasingly single-party in the top offices as a very negative consequence, so don’t misunderstand that.
If the source above-linked is to be believed, Trump may have believed there was reason for the investigation. That’s the whole thing that I am suggesting could be exculpatory, I’d just never really looked into it.
As to the rest, I don’t know. Any other conversation and I think we could agree that the law is not always, “Good,” and is sometimes justifiably subverted.
Well, yeah, and I’d certainly avoid France if that happened. I don’t know in what way that influences an American election directly. I don’t think being accused of a crime by Ukraine would ruin Biden’s life, similarly. I don’t think it would ruin his campaign. Hell, I think it would have helped him. The Democrats would have been really pissed…but not at Biden.
It was motivated by information that was conveyed prior to Zelensky taking office.
1.) I guess it would depend on:
A.) Were they in physically in Russia?
B.) Are they in U.S. legal reach?
C.) If A. is yes and B. is no, then does Russia itself have a law against it that Russia itself cares to enforce?
2.) I’m just saying it explains their actions. Actions that could have been done openly if such actions were allowed and had to be done in a transparent way. I think anything else is akin to saying that they do not, and should not, have any interest in becomes U.S. President. Of course it affects them.
3.) True, but I don’t even think it has to be the leaders. I think anyone should be allowed to do it transparently.
He didn’t though. That’s where you and the Looney-Liberal-Left are simply dead-wrong. No Quid Pro Quo (unless you mean Biden). No Bribery. Nothing. Furthermore, if you want to press the matter of “favor-for-a-favor” politics, then you may as well impeach 99% of Congress and the rest of the Bureaucrats. That’s always been the matter of politics. Favor for a favor. So Trump is no ‘more’ complicit in the process than any Democratic or Republican politician. “Personal gain”? This is a non-argument. Trump became president at a loss to his Business empire. Thus he is less corrupt then these corrupt Democrats who you back and represent.
As-if we couldn’t go through Obama, Clinton, Pelosi’s backlog and catch hundreds of examples of corruption, bribery, and quid pro quo? As-if Democrats accept campaign contributions and donations “for free”???
Source? I find this hard to believe as a justification, since the Senate is Republican-controlled, and Zelensky should know that.
It seems late in the game for this to be a real motivator: he was planning to announce an investigation of the sitting president’s political rival during an election year, he was deep in the US political battle already.
This is possible, but we don’t have anything beyond saying “X might be possible” as evidence for it. Speculation is weak evidence. The certain evidence we do have is that the they have publicly acknowledged that they were planning to make an announcement, and they did not.
There’s a chance of a lot of things. It’s possible that Trump and Giuliani have access to better information than the career civil servants who have much more experience working in the Ukraine. It’s possible that an ousted prosecutor (who has publicly denied any evidence that Hunter Biden had broken any laws) provided Giuliani with evidence that Hunter Biden broke the law. There’s a chance that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, which seems to have begun with Trump just mixing things up (c.f. cliff-notes kind of guy, doesn’t read briefings, etc.), is actually a real thing.
But that is speculation, not evidence. Clever people can come up with narratives that paint any set of damning evidence as totally innocent. But that isn’t the test of reality day to day, it’s not a sound methodology for accurately modeling the world. The best established evidence better supports the narrative that Trump is appealing to vacuous conspiracy theories to deflect from and exonerate his abuse of power.
I would say this is an example of how two things that might both fit under the umbrella of ‘obstruction’ are very different. Giuliani was the guy doing the behind the scenes negotiations with Ukrainian officials, he was in touch with both Trump and the Ukrainian administration, and has specific knowledge about what Trump knew and what Trump ordered, and what he passed on to the Ukrainians, and he defied a congressional subpoena. By comparison, the whistleblower was an analyst on a phone call, with only second-hand knowledge of the rest of the affair, and he’s protected by law from having information about him publicly disclosed. The degree of obstruction is different, the scope information that the obstruction kept hidden is different. They are both colorably ‘obstruction’, but they aren’t comparably bad.
I don’t know his name, and I’m pretty plugged in. My understanding is that Trump and several Republicans have tweeted it, but it isn’t a household name.
I don’t think you’re wrong to suggest that being a household name might be safer for him, but I don’t think that’s the question. Whether he’s strategically wrong to exercise the protections of the whistleblower protection laws, he has those laws to protect him and he’d prefer to use them.
It doesn’t matter. First, in the hypo, we’re calling that cashier for the limited purpose of explaining how a cash register works (comparable to calling the whistleblower solely to describe the workings of US foreign relations). And where we have laws to protect the cashier, and we can get testimony about the facts relevant to the embezzlement without the whistleblowing cashier, we should do that. We’re trying to prove embezzlement, not whistleblowing.
As Hamilton predicted, impeachment is a political process. It only works if the jurors (Senators) feel pressure to act against their political interests to hold the president to account for his actions. And so a boring process doesn’t work: the public needs to be engaged enough that senators think they care about the accusations and the outcomes.
Following on my comments above, this is something of an equivocation. Is Pelosi preventing testimony from the whistleblower? Arguably. Is that the same as the obstruction for which Trump has been impeached? No.
So, rather than ‘justified obstruction’, it might be easier to think of it as ‘not obstruction in the relevant sense’.
Sure, and I’m open to this specific law being invalid for Constitutional reasons; I don’t think it’s open-and-shut, but the separation of powers argument is there and a good lawyer could make a decent prima facie case. But arguing that the president broke the law as written but it’s OK because it’s a bad law is a very different thing from arguing that he didn’t break the law.
No do I. But Biden has been vice president, barring any extremely bad press that’s going to be how he’s remembered. The point is that, if for someone who hasn’t been vice president, the kind of accusation is life-ruining, it’s hard to say that it doesn’t matter at all to someone who has been vice president.
Compare to a loss of money: A billionaire cares about losing $100k, even though it doesn’t really touch their bottom line.
This part of the conversation seems weird to me, so I think I am not understanding our disagreement. I don’t see any tension between the claims:
Russia has good reasons for wanting to affect the outcomes of our elections.
We have good reasons not to want Russia to affect the outcomes of our elections.
Russia is entitled to transparently endorse our candidates.
We can be mad at Russia for transparently endorsing our candidates.
Russia is not entitled to run disinformation campaigns to affect the outcomes of our elections.
We can be mad at Russia, sanction them, and penalize any US citizen who assisted, endorsed, celebrated, participated in, or benefited from Russian disinformation campaigns to affect the outcomes of our elections.
We can be mad and take those actions even if Russia only tried to do those things, and failed, and didn’t actually change anything.
Do you see a tension here? Do you disagree with any of those claims?
It wasn’t the entire Senate. It was, I think 3 Senators (probably democrats). You seem to have an odd perspective of how US Senators behave. My source was in the middle of a video awhile back. Sorry, but searching videos isn’t worth it for this discussion (you are never going to change your attitude regardless of what you see).
That is only from your perspective. Believe it or not, officials in other countries have plenty to do besides attend to US politics. Zelensky didn’t even know the phone call had become an issue in the US until Mr Trump asked if it was okay to release it to the public. And even then still didn’t understand the whole quid quo pro complaint.
Everything that you have been saying has been nothing but your speculations about Mr Trump’s intentions and other people’s attitudes. And Zelensky didn’t say anything about making a public announcement. He promised an investigation. Once again, you act like Ari Melber on MSNBC twisting and misrepresenting (fake news) about what you see to suit what you want seen.
That only applies to budgeted moneys being deferred toward different purpose. The moneys that Mr Trump reassigned were unused and all within the National Defense purpose. The totally partisan Supreme Court agreed that it was Constitutionally compliant.
Trying to deny or veto the Trump votes of 2016, is 100% Unconstitutional, which is what you and the Demorats are trying to do.
If you want to impeach and remove a duly-elected President, then there must be Bi-Partisan support (there wasn’t, at all). There must be a High Crime and Misdemeanor (there wasn’t, at all).
Because of these two facts, you and yours, are wrong. You are damaging the US Constitution, the Republic, and Western Society as a whole, with your Corruption.