The biggest reason Nancy Pelosi's lies matter is – she's third in line to be the President of the United States. If President Obama were to become unable to serve, Vice President and Gaffemaster General Joe Biden would succeed him. After Biden, the job falls to the Speaker of the House, and that's Pelosi. After Pelosi, it goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate, 91-year old former Klansman Robert Byrd. Following Byrd is the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Yikes. Biden, Pelosi, Byrd. What a cast of miscreants.
(Note to self – Contact Congressional representatives and urge them to introduce legislation to make the Secretary of State second in line to the presidency, asap.)
I have no idea how someone of Nancy Pelosi's caliber rose to such dizzying heights of power (though the 'dizzy' part fits), but I'm now a firm believer in the Peter Principle. Exhibit A – Pelosi's press conference from two days ago, where she attempts to rehab all her previous contradictory statements about waterboarding into one big contradictory statement, and also accuses the CIA of misleading Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT's):
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Let's review Nancy Pelosi's many different positions on waterboarding, in chronological order:
1) She was never briefed on waterboarding.
2) She was briefed about it, but was told it wasn't being used.
3) After being confronted with information that she was briefed about the waterboarding being used against Abu Zubaydah, Pelosi said she was told the methods were legal.
4) She was told it was being used, and was against it, but there was nothing she could do about it.
Those were her positions before the above press conference. Now we can add:
5) The CIA misled her about waterboarding.
And after CIA chief Leon Panetta contradicted Pelosi by saying the CIA didn't mislead Congress and the briefers were truthful, Pelosi added:
6) She respects the CIA. It was the Bush administration that misled Congress.
And this is the same woman who wants to convene a "Truth Commission" about EIT's. How can someone as highly partisan and dishonest as Pelosi, who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the butt, who even threw in "we're creating jobs" in the middle of a press conference about waterboarding, call for a TRUTH commission ? In the same breath Pelosi calls for a Truth Commission, she states that the CIA was lying and the Bush Administration was lying. This reveals there is another name for what Pelosi wants. It's not a Truth Commission at all. It's commonly referred to as a Witch Hunt.
In addition to Pelosi, let's look at some of the other Democrats calling for a "Truth Commission." I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. Leading the charge for a Truth Commission on the Senate side are: Pat Leahy, the treasonous Senator from Vermont, and Diane Feinstein, the corrupt Senator from California.
Wonderful. A Truth Commission By Known Treasonous Corrupt Liars.
What's next ? Maybe a discussion of fiscal responsibility by the President who is running up federal deficits and debt faster than any other administration in history ??? Oh, wait, I almost forgot. That was my last post.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
Mr. King,
If Pelosi is complicit in torture, fine, prosecute her also. But if she is an accessory to a crime, shouldn't we first prosecute those who actually ordered the crime? If the "enhanced techniques" were legal, as you posit, what crime did she commit?
Making the target Pelosi takes the scope off of the real criminals who deserve prosecution….or at the very least, an investigation. This conservative tantrum reminds me of the Schiavo embarassment. Don't conservatives care, at all, about how ridiculous they appear to others?
If torture is legal, then, conservatives should welcome any investigation. Wouldn't that follow?
For the record. I am not in favor of a truth commission. I have no idea what that would even mean. I am in favor of a special prosecutor. The evidence is already overwhelming, and thus, deserving of a special prosecutor.
Some on the left suggest that a truth commission should come first, followed by any needed prosecutions. That, to me, is the best way for the criminals to avoid accountability. The argument would then be over the findings of the truth commission. There's enough evidence of Bush/Cheney crimes right now, to warrant a special prosecutor.
I don't think anyone's saying she's an accessory to a crime. They're saying she's a flaming liar who's willing to place the safety of American lives in jeopardy to further her partisan goals. Kind of like you two.
Rev, they say to investigate. Even Cheney says to investigate and open ALL of the memos and briefs, I heard him say it. Or do you think he really doesn't mean it? This woman is nothing but a liar. I heard her say the other day, that when all of this stuff was happening and she was involved in the approval of the torture, she wasn't paying that close of attention becasue her first priority was to get their people elected. They don't care about you folks that back and support them. You are their tools to get done what they really want. They throw their constituents a little bone like a tax cut and villanize their employers and then "tax and fee" their employers so much that their people lose their jobs. They cut their payroll tax by $10 per week then raise taxes on the things they enjoy like beer, cigarettes and now sugared products. When McCain talked about taxing benefits it was a bad idea, when Obama mentions it is it supposed to be okay? Come on now, really? And Pelosi is the leader.
King – what I want to know is, who is Chip in your title and how desperate can he be? (Is it Chip Clinton? Or is he a taxi driver in Chicago. Just Kiddin…)
Skippy, are you sure that it's conservatives who are being ridiculous? Don't you think that Pelosi is being the same kind of ridiculous my daughter is when I catch her in a lie, so she changes her story and tells me a different lie?
"Audrey, go back to bed."
"Rose came to my room and woke me up."
"I just checked on Rose, and she's fast asleep."
*whine* *pained expression*
"It was the kitty cat. She jumped on my bed and woke me up."
"I let Sophia out just after I put you to bed."
"Well, she was scratching my window."
"Audrey, stop lying to me and go to bed."
Pelosi decided, for whatever reason, to harp on the whole waterboarding thing and raised a big ruckus when she thought that no one would see that she was involved, too. But she was involved, and if she weren't such a coward, she would stop lying and face up to her part in it.
frank,
Did I say Pelosi committed a crime ? I don't believe I did. I just called her a liar, which she so obviously is.
Rev,
I apologize for being so ridiculous as to point out that the third most powerful person in the federal government is a bald-faced liar. Don't know what I was thinking. I guess I forgot the rule – if a Democrat does it, it's okay, because they're the good guys. That's the ticket.
Who would you suggest as the Grand Inquisitor, I mean, the special prosecutor, to roast Bush/Cheney for the heinous crime of attempting to keep America and the world safe from terrorists ??? Maybe somebody neutral and honorable, like Pat Leahy ? How about Ward Churchill, or anyone from Code Pink ?
Tory,
Good analogy between Pelosi and your daughter.
But your daughter was more convincing, lol.
joe,
C'mon now, you know Pelosi doesn't take taxis.
Chip was the stretch limo driver who took Pelosi to the airport, so Pelosi could fly her private jet to a conference on climate change at Al Gore's mansion.
Pelosi did not lie. You have no substantive evidence, at all, to prove she lied.
Those who blather on like some are doing here…..have zero evidence that Pelosi lied…..nothing whatsoever……just your own torture-accepting, rumor and Knee Padder believing, Bush/Cheney defending, distraction-loving, neo-con minded…..pipedreams.
Skippy? From someone calling themselves Tory Bug? Okay.
"They'll welcome us as liberators."
Skippy, if the people who informed Pelosi of what was going on documented their meetings with her and are now able to produce that documentation to prove that she's lying, it ain't a pipedream. It's reality. So, stop *your* blathering and come join us in the real world.
My observation is that the farther you go to the left or right, the less you see of rational thinking and the more you see of Pavlovian, knee-jerk responses. Say the magic word, e.g. abortion, gun control etc., and look around you to see who's frothing at the mouth.
At some point out there on the fringes, truth becomes unimportant and winning the argument – even if by shouting down your opponent – becomes everything.
Mr. King,
So all the hoo-haw is about a politician lying? Sounds pretty much like a "dog bites man" kind of event.
Tory is simply regurgitating what Fox and Rush and the others have spouted.
The facts are, naturally, entirely dfferent.
Bob Graham, ex-senator from Fla. was told by the CIA that he had been briefed on torture intelligence on 4 separate occasions. Graham checked his exhaustive notebooks and found that he had been briefed one time, in September, when Pelosi said she was briefed. Who was telling the truth? Graham has proof, the CIA has squat.
Either the CIA was lying to Graham, or had no effing idea what they were talking about. The Reverend reports, you decide.
Pelosi never said she wasn't briefed at all. What she said was that she was not briefed about the Bushies already using waterboarding on prisoners. Perhaps, Tory, you have further evidence disproving Pelosi's point. We'd be tickled pink to see that evidence.
The facts remain. Waterboarding began in February, 2002 in Egypt at our CIA's request. al-Libi was waterboarded then. And then the fun began…
"…where authorized, it may be used for two “sessions” per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period."
…The CIA used the waterboard “at least 83 times during August 2002” in the interrogation of Zubaida…and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM”
The first paragraph is from the "legal" memos by Bush torture lawyers. It says 5 days out of thirty. Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times in 30 days. These effing savages couldn't even obey their own bogus "legal" memos.
Finally, and to wrap everything up, Pelosi was briefed Sept. 4, 2002. After Zubaida had already been waterboarded, not only just illegally because waterboarding is torture, but also contrary to Bush administration's own faux guidelines.
Skippy–I like it! As nutty and dense as a jar of peanut butter.
Yeah, Skippy, I've got no proof. Whatever. You are the one who is completely ignoring that Pelosi herself has produced no evidence to prove what she's saying. You've only produced evidence that at a single meeting, she was briefed, although you haven't shared what exactly she was briefed about. For all I know, they gave her a personal demonstration of waterboarding, so she knew all the niggly details. (Try providing links to back up what you're saying. It's fairly easy.) Not only have you yourself said she was briefed on interrogation techniques of some sort, but she keeps changing her story on what was said at those meetings.
When you have Leon Panetta, a fellow Democrat and director of the CIA, stating that records, "indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of (terrorist suspect) Abu Zubaydah, describing `the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" you've got someone with *documentation* telling us that she's a liar. She's got zilch, has offered no proof that what she's saying is true, only words. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture Am I to believe the director of the CIA, another Democrat who is not running for office, or a politician who wanted to stir up a bunch of crap until it backfired on her?
You are a Skippy. Deal with it.
Somewhere up above someone mentioned the Peter Principle. As I recall Peter had a list of 'indicators' or some such so you could tell when someone had reached his /her level of incompetence. One of these was that an executive who could not do his whole job might pick some small part of it that he COULD do and concentrate on that. I once knew a colonel who seemed to spend all his time working with a 'Leroy Lettering Set' making and revising briefing charts. He seemed to be quite good at it. I would suggest that what Pelosi has gotten to be quite good at over the years is bitching at the government. It worked better when she was not a person of influence in the government. Now that she is a member of the majority (and way on up there at that), she has a very fine line to walk, bitching about those things done by a previous government in which she was still fairly influential, but also trying to distance herself from what she's bitching about.
Give her time. Some of the more successful politicians get to be pretty good at it.
I learned long ago that neo-con apologists are very much like tops. There's no intelligent course ever set…..just endless spinning.
stating that records, "indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of (terrorist suspect) Abu Zubaydah, describing `the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'"
Records from the same guys who told Graham, just recently, they had briefed him on 4 separate occasions…when in reality, he was only briefed once….something the CIA now readily admits.
I want a thorough investigation of everyone involved. Others want to direct attention away from the real culprits by disingenuously pointing the finger at someone they claim lied.
Educate thyself…
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/senator-bob-graham-the-cia-made-up-two-briefing-sessions/
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/16/the-two-torture-tape-suspects-the-pelosi-briefing-and-the-panetta-statement/
I had another thought this morning that I'll throw out there. I consider this a good indication that Pelosi might not be telling the truth.
Leon Panetta was named as Obama's pick for the CIA in January of this year. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/06/nation/na-obama-cia-panetta6 He really has no reason to lie about documentation of meetings that occurred 7 years before he became CIA director. He could have jumped on the bandwagon of Blame Bush, and no one would think anything of it. But he didn't. If Skippy (or is it Chip? Is that why you're so zealously defending Pelosi?) could explain that one to me, maybe I can see why you think she's being honest?
I gave you a link to consider on Panetta's response. He didn't really say what I think that you think he said. Without doubt, motivations are hard to determine, and barring empirical evidence, impossible.
That said….I want all of this investigated, do you? Would you be in favor of a full independent investigation into every aspect of the torture issue?
I never click links that are given to me in Elizabethan English. I've read his response in full. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051504076.html No need for me to remind myself, but in case you've only read opinion pieces on the subject, here ya go:
"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice–indeed, my direction–to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is–even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.
Leon E. Panetta"
I see nothing that can be misconstrued. I think he's saying, in essence, we told Pelosi the truth. We are too busy trying to protect the country to get caught up in political games. Let's continue to operate with honesty and integrity, keeping ourselves above political chatter, because the mission of the CIA is too important to allow ourselves to get distracted. That's what I read. Pelosi knew what was going on; the CIA is not in the business of hiding the truth from its bosses.
You remind me of a guy I used to know. Are you by any chance from Cinti, Chip?
BTW, I'm with Boehner on all this. If Pelosi is telling the truth, she should produce evidence so that the CIA folks responsible for lying to her can be prosecuted. If she can produce no evidence, she owes a few people some apologies for the distraction she's created.
Rev, even Cheney said let's investigate the whole thing and release all of the briefs and memos. If this went to trial and a public jury were to dcide the fate of Bush-Cheney pertaining to the torture issue, there would be a non-guilty verdict. Most Americans are all for a "do whatever it takes to protect us" type of defense and most agree that our leaders should do what they gotta do to protect us..
You talk about and chastise Reps for protecting liars and criminals yet you defend the people that have caused this whole thing. Why?
Tory doesn't see anything that can be misconstrued.
" It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress."
That sentence has no meaning, whatsoever. It's not my policy to steal from my neighbors. Not my policy. Doesn't mean I didn't or won't.
"Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
This is a call for an investigation. Congress, "ultimately", must decide "what happened." He sounds really confident, doesn't he?
Funny, in your comment, I never saw an answer to whether you wanted an investigation. Is that a no?
Let's see how serious you really are about truth, Ms. Bug. How about an investigation to find out the truth? How about it?
I want a full investigation, average. Cheney does not want a full investigation. He wanted to release more cherrypicked intel which he felt vindicated his barbaric orders.
But this…
"Most Americans are all for a "do whatever it takes to protect us" type of defense and most agree that our leaders should do what they gotta do to protect us.."
..is simply mob rule. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. The Founders made their decision….now it's up to our generation to make our decision. I'm for the rule of law. So far, everything I've seen from Republicans and conservatives on torture….just like during the Plame case….is that they want a nation of men.
The Dems and libs arent a nation of men. We take prayer out of school over 1 persons protest. We take Christ out of "Christmas on the townsquare" over one persons protest? We allow the murder of almost 100M children over the protest of 1 person in abortion, calling it womens rights. We make harsher laws for the murder of certain groups calling them hate crimes, for gays and minorities. We are not a nation of laws that protect all we are a nation of laws that protect the special interests that get our poilticians elected. Look at history Rev, the reps write laws to benefit everyone not just 1 or 2.
Rev, you and Frank can go on and on about torture this and torture that. But if you knew your kids or the baby in that picture were going to be raped and then murdered and you had the perps accomplice in your possession, You would do whatever it took no matter how long it took to get the information you needed to get that child safely back to your home. Even if it took a year or 2 as long as there was hope…you wouldn't quit. Unless you would rather make friends, buy them dinner and take them for a visit to Obama's favorite cab driver.
Cheney didn't say to cherry pick, that is your assumption. Cheney said to open the investigation but to be sure all of the briefs and memos are released. Not cherry pick like the Dems have done. Are they afraid there may be a WMD for the Dem party hidden in there? I think so.
Dems could care less about a nation of laws. There is no doubt that Dems want a nation of agreement with Dem policies. Laws only get in their way. They will even obstruct the Constitution to obtain their goals. The Freedom Of Choice Act, the Fairness Doctrine, nationalized health care, the carbon tax, banning oil drilling. These things have nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't authorize any of it. The only time Democrats become Constitutional experts is when they are attempting to override the Constitution.
If there is even one Democrat who cares about the U.S. Constitution, I'd love to hear about it. I haven't heard one voice yet about that.
Nothing you mention is outside particulars of the Constitution. Nothing.
Workers have the right to organize….and the WAY they organize is their business, not the employer's.
Americans auction the spectrum space to big media and their close corporate sponsoring buddies ride the monopoly. Add political incest into the mix and American voters might wind up being propagandized into a war. Never know. The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is just. FOX is a prime reason to regulate further.
We've already introduced national health care with Medicare, something needs to be done about climate change and we don't have enough oil under our ground to make much of a dent.
So I have no idea what Constitutional violations you are referring to.
Rev scientists say we have plenty of oil and there is nothing we can do about climate change if that's what we are calling the change in climate patterns. This is the planet earths show we are just visitors.
Rev,
Give me one example. Show me where the Constitution allows the federal government to take over health care.
The Constitution says the government should regulate commerce, not run it. The Constitution also says that specific powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states or the people.
Get around that.
And Rev,
You were very dishonest in your response to Tory. You selected the parts of Panetta's quote that served your purposes, but you left out the essential part of his statement:
"As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed.""
That's pretty clear. It takes an act of willful ignorance to disregard it. Panetta directly contradicted Pelosi.
And if you consider Pelosi calling the CIA liars to be a distraction, you're nuts. If the CIA lied to Congress, that is a serious crime. Pelosi accused the CIA of committing a crime.
Chip, what King said. Also, I've got to say that you're pretty obtuse to think from my statements that I don't support an investigation. I say, have Pelosi produce evidence that she was mislead, and if she can, then those who did that should be prosecuted. AS I SAID.
But, then again, I guess it serves your purpose to be intentionally obtuse, huh?
Tory says that she wants Pelosi to defend herself, even though Pelosi did not draw up plans to torture, nor did she order torture to be carried out. Pelosi, according to Tory, lied by saying the CIA misled her and Congress. Why Tory would defend the CIA without ANY evidence is beyond me…..but if you need a freaking example of the CIA misleading Congress and the American people….think National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.
What I asked Tory, was whether she supported an investigation into all aspects of Bush's torture regime.
Still waiting for an answer. I know of no Republicans who want an investigation. So, which is it? Does Tory want an investigation of Pelosi or an investigation of torture?
Pelosi is making a serious charge against the CIA, and I would expect that she had evidence to back up her accusations. If she didn't take notes on meetings concerning national security, I'm not sure she's the kind of person who should be involved with national security. The CIA took notes, notes that conflict with her accusations. The CIA records are all the evidence we have thus far, and they indicate that Pelosi was informed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/pelosi-cia-misled-congress-over-waterboarding/ (In particular, [“I am slack jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned,” Mr. Goss wrote in The Wall Street Journal.])
She actually has said that she knew about waterboarding after September 4. She said nothing to anyone about any issues she had with it, although she reports that she 'supported' a letter sent by her successor on the subject. Supported a letter, a year after she knew that waterboarding was being used, in her own words. If she'd gone to the press about any of this while it was happening, I might be more inclined to believe her. It just looks like political posturing so many years after the fact.
Yes, I want Pelosi to give us something to indicate whether she's telling the truth. When we have evidence that she was actually misinformed by the CIA, then something can be done about that. Lying/misinforming a congress person is a criminal offense. But, thus far, all we've seen from Pelosi are unsupported accusations. If she's going to scream foul, then she should be able to proceed with prosecuting those who lied to her.
I don't want to investigate Pelosi, necessarily. I really don't think there's anything to investigate, except whether her claims are true. When are you ever going to get it, Chip? Did you do that poorly on the reading comprehension sections of your achievement tests? "Cause, man, you don't seem capable of comprehending a simple sentence. I'll spell it out AGAIN, call it Tory's Opinion for Dummies. I think that an investigation of Pelosi's charges is warranted. If she's telling the truth, which she could be, then the CIA was lying to her on a matter of national security. Those who did so should be prosecuted. If she's stretching the truth for political gain, then she should just come out and admit it so that the entire nation can stop worrying about whether she was lied to and start worrying about the whole torture issue.
I think that there were both Democrats and Republicans who didn't think that waterboarding was torture in 2002. You forget the times during which these events occurred. I'm sure that you'd feel differently about waterboarding if you or someone you loved had been in one of the buildings that planes were crashed into. It's my opinion that, as loud-mouthed and critical as Pelosi is, that she was as frightened as most Americans after a terrorist attack here in America and supported waterboarding at the time. Only when the political tide turned did she change her mind. And for some reason, she wants to get America all riled about something she had a part in.
Is the Rev now saying the CIA intentionally misled Congress with it's Iraq NIE ?
He'll say whatever it takes to keep the delusion going. The realization that he's been taken by charlatanism is too hard to bear.
Wait a minute. You mean Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is NOT an innocent victim of U.S. fascism ?
That's radical right wing extremist talk, larry.
I'm sure I'm in THE DATABASE by now.
Thank you Tory for answering and I take your answer as a "no."
It's okay to investigate Pelosi's answers in a press conference….but it's not okay to investigate the authors and implementers of a new lawless torture regime.
Just so we're clear on where we stand, right?
"I think that there were both Democrats and Republicans who didn't think that waterboarding was torture in 2002."
There may have been some Democrats and Republicans, in 2002, who thought Jesus was coming back before 2009, but he didn't. Waterboarding was a felony before 9-11, and it was still a felony after 9-11.
"You forget the times during which these events occurred. I'm sure that you'd feel differently about waterboarding if you or someone you loved had been in one of the buildings that planes were crashed into."
I don't forget anything. And what I remember is how many dead American soldiers there are as a result of Bush/Cheney, plus the extra bonus of making the country less safe. It ain't a matter of how anyone "feels", it's about law and order and respect for the Constitutional framework of our democracy.
"It's my opinion that, as loud-mouthed and critical as Pelosi is, that she was as frightened as most Americans after a terrorist attack here in America and supported waterboarding at the time. Only when the political tide turned did she change her mind. And for some reason, she wants to get America all riled about something she had a part in."
You have no information, other than buffoonish Villager talk, disproving anything Speaker Pelosi said. None of the Bush crimes are about Nancy Pelosi…they're about Bush/Cheney.
Rev,
I have to say I don't understand the thinking of either party on the CIA issue. Many Dems claim to want a truth commission (lol, since when does the truth ever come out of Congress ?), yet when the GOP proposes an investigation into whether Pelosi's claims about the CIA are true, all the Dems vote against it and call it a political trick. That makes no sense at all. If the Dems want a truth commission, they should WANT to find out the, you know, TRUTH.
On the other hand, the GOP doesn't want the truth commission, but they want to check out Pelosi's claims about the CIA. That's the same contradiction in reverse.
What this reveals is that it's all nothing but political games. Big surprise, I know.