264

I’m leading with the money quote-problematic is an understatement.

Going into yesterday I had some  serious misgivings-I was skeptical it would be a . I didn’t have tons of faith in either Mueller-who as Ronald Klain argues, who seemed to constructed his report in a way to downplay Trump’s wrongdoing as much as possible-it’s all there or at least a lot of it is there but it’s in a pretty muted way. For an example of a report that far from downplaying wrongdoing by its subject clearly plays up and hypes it see the Starr Report-or the Dem leaders led by Speaker Pelosi who often has sounded in the last few months as if she finds the whole issue of Trump’s illegitimacy as a distraction from all those messaging bills the Dems send Mitch McConnell who then drops them in a shredder.

If any thing, however, Pelosi’s comments after the hearings yesterday give us some reason for hope. But more on that below.

Indeed through much of Mueller’s early testimony all I could think of is when a Democrat is a target-Bill Clinton in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton in 2016 you get a cowboy-Ken Starr, James Comey-who never stop leaking and speaking out publicly. When it’s a GOPer being investigated you get the ultra reticent Mueller.

But that’s just it: if a Democrat is investigated we get a cowboy-Starr or Comey-when it’s a GOPer we get an excessive sense of fairness.

And in the early going I admit my thought was ‘Where is James Comey when you need him?’ Mueller is the opposite of a scintillating witness. When he was asked who Russia wanted to elect he admitted it was Trump only with great reluctance. I mean it was beyond him hewing religiously to the four corners of his report-in much of his testimony he seemed reluctant to even acknowledge his own report.]

He refused to read his own words and when they were read back to him his response was often ‘I’m not going to talk about that.’

They are his own words! Glenn Kirschner sums up Mueller’s style.

Having said that I do think in some ways the Dems have been too focused on getting Mueller to state the blindingly obvious-of course Trump obstructed justice.

But when you add Mueller’s extreme reticence with the fact that at times he really did seem to have lost a step

his testimony was at times-stylistically at least-the opposite of scintillating.

Side note: Maddow made a good point last night-of course she’s always making good points!-that the Dems should have Mueller’s deputies testify as clearly he didn’t do this entire investigation on his own and much of the details were handled by his staff.

And, of course, the Chuck Todd MSM focuses mostly on style so many early on declared Mueller’s testimony ‘a disaster for Democrats.’

Still on content you had Mueller declaring that Trump is not exonerated and giving us all the elements of obstruction of justice-without calling it that. He even stunned GOPer Ken Buck in an own goal moment by stating that Trump can indicted when he gets out office.

However, once again, the punditry cares only about style so the early narrative is that this was a disaster for Democrats.

As Sargent’s buddy Paul Waldman points out, if what Mueller said helped Trump the GOPers sure didn’t sound like it.

So the dichotomy is basically that Mueller said what he needed to say at the Judiciary hearing-he described the blindly obvious fact Trump obstructed justice without saying ‘Donald Trump obstructed justice’ but his style was often far from scintillating. Often watching him I think of what Nietzsche said about an untimely man.

Mueller is not a man of our time-he’s reticent before the cameras and public in a time when what wins are those who are hungry for it, make love for it. James Comey is a man who understands the time-Mueller seems out of place-he ties himself into knots to avoid saying anything interesting.

And the MSM as usual messed this up. Yesterday morning before Mueller testified, Margaret Sullivan had urged her fellow reporters that Mueller’s testimony gave them a shot at redemption.

In political media, as in love, there aren’t many chances to correct a serious wrong.

But the news media will get just that on Wednesday when Robert S. Mueller III testifies before Congress, months after his long-awaited report on Donald Trump and possible Russian collusion to swing the 2016 election was competed.

Recall how gullible — and therefore misleading to the public — the news media was in March when Attorney General William Barr characterized the unreleased report in a four-page letter.”

Coverage of that letter set in place an inaccurate narrative that has been almost impossible to dislodge.”

Yes but why has it been so hard to dislodge? Because the Beltway media itself refuses to dislodge the false narrative even now that they acknowledge its false.

As usual, most of them failed to rise to the moment and passed on their shot at redemption.

So the Democrats got what they needed from Mueller’s Judiciary testimony-but it wasn’t exactly scintillating from a stylistic standpoint.

However, in Mueller’s afternoon testimony before HSPCI the Dems not only got more of what they needed-problematic is an understatement-but it was actually far more compelling even from a stylistic standpoint.

No question Adam Schiff set the tone in his opening statements. Schiff has this voice and delivery that could make reading the phone book sound fascinating and infused with high moral purpose. Even Mueller seemed sort of fascinated-or at least very engaged.No doubt a large part of what makes Schiff such a great speaker to listen to is his extremely high intelligence added to a great deal of knowledge-no other one person in Congress knows anywhere near as much as he does about Russian interference and collusion in the 2016 election.

Schiff and Intel were able to give more of the big picture-ok Trump obstructed justice and that matters regardless-you have the GOP co-conspirator narrative that it’s fine to obstruct justice so long as there was no underlying crime ignoring the fact that obstruction handcuffs the prosecutor’s ability to find a crime-Mueller was clear yesterday that neither there allegedly being no underlying crime or the fact that the obstruction wasn’t successful-are a defense against obstruction of justice charges-but Schiff and Intel reminded viewers of the bigger picture: Russia successfully attacked our election in 2016, they rigged it and rammed through their own Machurian candidate-and Russia’s candidate embraced this interference.

Within that welcoming of Russia’s help includes coordination, collusion, and, yes, conspiracy even if Mueller didn’t find it chargeable-Russia if you’re listening!

Schiff did a masterful job of giving us this larger moral picture. Yes obstruction is a crime wether or not you  believe there’s an underlying crime. But Schiff reminds us what the true stakes of this are: our elections, the integrity of our democratic system of government itself

Schiff: During the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?

Mueller: That occurred. [. . .]

Schiff: The campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?

Mueller: We report indications that that occurred, yes. [. . .]

Schiff: The president himself called on the Russians to hack [Hillary Clinton’s] emails?

Mueller: There was a statement by the president on those general lines.

Schiff: Numerous times during the campaign, the president praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?

Mueller: That did occur. [. . .]

Schiff: Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win . . . Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?

Mueller: You’re talking about the hotel in Moscow? Yes.

Schiff: When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury and to Congress?

Mueller: A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out, did lie. . . .

Schiff: When the president said the Russian interference was a “hoax,” that was false, wasn’t it?

Mueller: True. [. . .]

Schiff: In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?

Mueller: I think, generally, that would be accurate. [. . .]

Schiff: Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?

Mueller: You’re talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? Absolutely.

Schiff: Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents?

Mueller: Generally, that’s true.

Schiff: And then they lied to cover it up?

Mueller: Generally, that’s true.

Schiff’s sense of moral purpose seemed even to inspire Mueller a little.

While his style is so reticent HSPCI Dem Mike Quigley was able to get Mueller to do what the former Special Counsel seldom does-elaborate.

Which brings us to the day’s money quote:

“Democratic Reps. Mike Quigley of Chicago and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Schaumburg participated in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing. Quigley asked Mueller about Trump tweets praising WikiLeaks, such as “‘I love WikiLeaks.'”

“How do you react to that?” Quigley asked

“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said, “in terms of giving … some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

What is and should be-note that impeachment is not only about crimes but what should be a crime-and Mueller is saying Trump gave a boost to something which at least should be a crime. While he declined to say anything about impeachment either way that certainly can be read as an endorsement.

Another Chicago Democrat got the biggest scoop of the day-while the MSM narrative is that there were no new revelations so impeachment is dead-this actually was a major new revelation:’

“Krishnamoorthi got a “yes” when he asked Mueller if individuals who lied about interacting with foreign powers could be blackmailed. He cited Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who was convicted of lying about conversations with Russians, and wondered about a potential national security risk.”

“I cannot get into that mainly because many elements of the FBI are looking at that,” Mueller said.

“Currently?” Krishnamoorthi questioned.

“Currently,” Mueller said.

The exchange, picked up by cable news, “was an unexpected moment,” Krishnamoorthi later told the Daily Herald. “That was news to me.”

Although the report includes information about attempts to build a Trump tower in Moscow, it “does not address or detail the president’s financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct?” Krishnamoorthi asked.

“Correct,” Mueller said.

“Similarly, since it’s outside your purview, it does not address questions whether (Russian) oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the president’s businesses?” he said.

“Correct,” Mueller said

For Krishnamoorthi, “the big take-away is Mueller’s report did not reach any counterintelligence conclusions. Because of that, there’s a lot of work to be done,” he said after the hearing.

A lot of work to be done. 

This was the sentiment at both Judiciary and HPSCI by the end of the day.

As for the MSM narrative-despite Margaret Sullivan’s imploring them to do better most of them are up to their usual tricks-it’s over. The Democrats have to forget this now and just run against Trump like a normal candidate in 2020-impeachment is totally off the table as if it were ever on the table.

“Many Democrats long have considered Robert S. Mueller III a potential savior, as the agent of President Trump’s eventual undoing. Wednesday’s hearings on Capitol Hill probably shattered those illusions once and for all. If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.”

“In reality, that has been the case for months. Still, scheduled testimony by the former special counsel before two House committees offered the possibility that he would say something that would suddenly change public perceptions and dramatically jump-start long-stalled prospects for an impeachment inquiry. That was certainly the Democrats’ goal. If anything, things could move in the opposite direction.”

Greg Sargent warned beforehand this would be the MSM narrative regardless of what happened.

Yet even as Dan Balz declares impeachment dead in a deep, dark, cold grave he admits Pelosi didn’t actually say that:

“The backdrop for Wednesday’s hearings has changed little over many months. A majority of the country has consistently opposed the idea of impeachment, although a majority of Democrats has supported such an effort. That has generated tensions between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and some members of her caucus.”

Actually a poll last week showed 45% favoring impeachment-which is a pretty high number before it starts-what the savvy punditry never seems to get is that you don’t expect to see majority support for impeachment before you start the inquiry-you expect the inquiry to garner majority support. 45% is a lot more impressive than the 19% who supported Nixon’s impeachment  in July, 1973.

“Pelosi, with an eye on public opinion, has put the brakes on her House colleagues. But the pressure to act began to mount with the release of the Mueller report. Bringing Mueller to testify was designed to shift public opinion and give impeachment advocates fresh momentum, but it was a long-shot strategy, coming months after the report was released and with no sign that public opinion was changing.”

At the end of the day Wednesday, Pelosi remained cautious about moving ahead with an impeachment proceeding, noting that there are ongoing court cases in which the House is seeking testimony and documents from a White House that she said is engaged in a “cone of silence” and a “massive coverup.” House Democrats, she said, are continuing to gather evidence. “If we go down that path, we should go in the strongest possible way,” she said, referring to an impeachment process.

However…

But she pushed back against the suggestion that she thinks Republican control of the Senate precludes her from recommending such action. “If we have a case for impeachment, that’s the place we will have to go,” she said.

With the MSM’s focus on new news and information this is news. Pelosi’s call for bipartisan support back in March let many to presume she meant precisely this-that GOP control of the Senate precludes her agreeing to impeach-and until now she let them believe that. The fact that she did correct them this time certainly seems significant.

Add to that some reporting that she is warming to impeachment behind closed doors:

On Wednesday, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash reported that though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still publicly downplaying the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump, she is considering the idea more seriously behind closed doors.

“The speaker had a meeting … there was a robust discussion about impeachment, with member after member pressing the leadership, what next? What are we going to do now?” said Bash. “What was interesting, according to our sources, is that although the speaker said we’re not there yet, she and the Judiciary Chairman [Jerrold Nadler] welcomed questions and talked in a more detailed way about the potential process going forward.”

“One example, Jerry Nadler indicated that a possibility would be after the court proceedings and when and if they get to this point, all six committees investigating could come up with articles of impeachment,” said Bash, although she noted that this scenario was presented as a hypothetical.

Actually speaking of Nadler, in his opening statement to Mueller yesterday morning he made a reference to the notion that ‘You, Robert Mueller, have done your job. Now it’s time for us to do ours.’

He discussed a major investigation the Judiciary would be doing-and that they would make a recommendation to the House. This investigation he was describing sounded quite like an inquiry-the recommendation could be for the House to vote to impeach.

And last night there was reporting about an idea apparently being floated by Nadler that an impeachment vote wouldn’t happen in the full House but just in the Judiciary.

“House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) revealed that Democrats could hold an impeachment vote in a committee to save Democratic members in difficult swing districts from making a difficult vote.”

“The news came from CNN reporter Manu Raju, who reported that the group of committees that have open investigations into President Donald Trump could work as a group to draft the articles of impeachment.”

According to an earlier CNN report, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is warming to the idea of impeachment “behind closed doors.”

“On Wednesday, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash reported that though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still publicly downplaying the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump, she is considering the idea more seriously behind closed doors.”

Indeed, that’s the most logical way to proceed-a majority of Judiciary Dems already support impeachment.

So ignore the MSM-they didn’t take Margaret Sullivan’s advice alas.

Amazingly even Morning Joe gets it-optics don’t matter.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Robert Mueller gave Democrats all they need to justify impeachment.

“The “Morning Joe” host blasted Republicans who are celebrating the former special counsel’s apparent age-related impairment, but he said even a diminished Mueller showed why Democrats must take action to hold Trump accountable for crimes uncovered by the nearly two-year Russia probe.”

“Some people will talk about optics, optics don’t really matter here,” Scarborough said. “They got all the facts they needed, that the president of the United States acted inappropriately. They should either start an impeachment inquiry or they should leave it for good.”

“If they don’t start an impeachment inquiry,” he added, “given all we learned yesterday, then obviously nothing justifies an impeachment inquiry, then Democrats not starting that inquiry will be proving Trump right that he can do the equivalent of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and nothing will be done about it.”

To quote Archie Bunker: Gee, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

“The former Republican said the president’s political allies spent their day undermining the credibility of a former war hero and revered former FBI director, in an effort to shield Trump from accountability under the law.”

“That’s the American hero that a lot of these losers were screaming and yelling at,” Scarborough said. “Afterwards, which I think was really sick, they were celebrating the fact that he is obviously challenged by some condition. The fact that they were cheering that afterwards and talking about how he was struggling with his words shows how sick and how low the Donald Trump party is now going, how twisted it is.”

Which is why we have to be grateful Pelosi is now clearly stating the Party of Donald Trump doesn’t get to veto an impeachment of Donald Trump.

CF: Published this chapter as a blog post morning after Mueller testified-July 25, 2019.

UPDATE:

 

UPDATE 2.0

 

 

 

Oops Chuck Todd did it again.

This was the same story the MSM’s Clinton Fatigue discussed in Chapter A. In that chapter we quoted Todd accurately stating that Clinton Fatigue wasn’t about how Americans felt but the MSM. Once the pundit class has decided on a narrative-facts be damned. If there’s any truth to the underlying narrative this is purely accidental-usually it seems the last reality behind their groupthink the better.

Sandy Quinn speaks for much of Blue America

Again the opportunity to channel Archie Bunker: Gee, I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

 

This rant piece contains some great points:

 

No one ever bothers to compare Emailgate to Trump Russia collusion but the reality is the MSM was always more scandalized by the former-there was never a point where they were like ‘Ok enough Emailgate already.

 

Yet this-at best-a minor email scandal PACE the Washington Post editorial page September 2016. Three years after a minor email scandal decided an election deconstructing the talking heads and their dismal optics remains a crucial, undone task.

So let’s stop for a second and think about what’s really happening.

Start with the dreaded “optics” takes. What is optics anyway? Generally speaking, it’s the perception of how an event or action is perceived by the public. By how do pundits know how something will be perceived in the moment? They don’t have real-time polls being fed to them in their earpieces.

They assume. What the Chuck Todds of the world are saying when they talk about “optics” is what they think people will think. An educated guess is putting it strongly, given they usually base this off of nothing but their own views alone.”

In response to criticism by their own readers and viewers the MSM response is predictable: they dismiss their readers and viewers as irrelevant.

Who cares what you think we’ll tell you what to think.

If the substance is important you’d never guess that by listening to their puerile commentary.

This is very significant-Ralston’s priors going into the hearings-which is likely the same as the priors of most MSM pundits-were identical to that of Matt Gaetz, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan-it was put on for partisan reasons-who cares if an election was stolen?

 

Unfortunately Margaret Sullivan’s plea for the MSM to redeem itself after it’s gruesome gullibility for Barr’s fake exoneration letter fell on deaf ears.

Even Maddow had to say something about this puerile navel gazing.

As we saw in Chapter A, Ezra Klein made this point after the third 2016 debate-after the MSM oohed and aahed over Trump’s allegedly brilliant canards about trade-the MSM take was wether what he said about ‘bad trade deals’ was actually true or not they had 0 doubt that it was brilliant politics.

As I’ve had to note more than once the MSM and the Dem leadership complex essentially believes Trump’s own delusions: that he’s got exceptional political instincts and that he really can shoot someone on 5th and get away with it-and this is fine; don’t fight back; savvy political strategy dictates you allow him to get away with homicide in broad daylight so you can win in 2020-the fact that we’ve now established that at least Republican Presidents-or in Trump’s case ‘Presidents’-can now commit first degree murder in public with 0 consequences is no source of concern.

In his testimony Mueller said he feared colluding with a hostile foreign power is now the new normal. There’s a great deal of reason to believe it is but if so it’s not just about the cynical traitors of the GOP who have forthrightly and explicitly embraced fascism-as argued in Chapter A to say process be damned if you like the resulting policies is the definition of fascism-it’s about the utterly decadent MSM complex-Jay Rosen’s View From Nowhere-while the MSM is outraged in any comparison of Trump to Hitler, as apt and necessary as those comparisons are; at least if you’re calling him Hitler, as I do, you aren’t normalizing him like the Beltway quibblers do-who is finding new ways to normalize Fuhrer Trump every other second-as well as the leaders of the Democratic opposition-the Party of Neville Chamberlain-who agree with the GOP fascists and the MSM both sides do iters-the smart, savvy strategy is pure appeasement; just don’t confront the Fuhrer whatever you do as, well he wants you to do it he wants you to.

Regarding this designation of my party, the Democratic party. as the Party of Appeasement:

Again say what you want about the Trump co-conspirators over at Washington Examiner but they are dead right:

Look at the last impeachment, that of President Bill Clinton in 1998. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr delivered his report on the Lewinsky affair to Congress on Sept. 9. The House voted to start impeachment proceedings on Oct. 8. The formal impeachment vote was Dec. 19. The matter then went to the Senate, which voted to acquit Clinton on Feb. 12, 1999. The process took a few days more than five months.

Imagine a similar timeline today. The House stays out on recess until the second week in September. Say they vote to begin proceedings in October. The impeachment vote comes in mid-to-late December, and the Senate verdict in February — probably somewhere between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

That is a crazy scenario, and that is what would happen if impeachment work got under way immediately after the House returns from recess. If it were delayed further, the whole thing would move weeks or months farther down the road. Why not a Senate trial during Super Tuesday, or the summer political conventions? The possibilities are mind-boggling.

But again as seen in the tweet above, even impeachment proponents like Ted Lieu are saying that once we hit the Iowa caucus it’s ‘too late.’

And this is where I for one have suspected this was going since March. Pelosi is the Mother playing a game with her kids ‘Sure we can go to DisneyWorld-I’m not saying we won’t. Maybe we will. But first we have to do these court cases that we’re moving slowly on.’

Until we get to Iowa-at latest-then the refrain is ‘Oops-I had wanted to maybe do it later but now it’s too late.’ After Mueller testified on Wednesday Pelosi was still saying ‘Maybe but it’s still too early we have to go to court first.’ After this Nadler finally put in the lawsuit to demand Don McGahn testify.

But soon Pelosi will stop saying ‘It’s still too early’ and she will say ‘Now it’s too late because I dawdled so long. Oops!’

 

I agree with everything in the Examiner piece except this:

So the non-impeachment fix appears to be in, and everybody knows it except the voters and some cable news hosts. Every day the political world talks about Mueller’s performance, or a new Democratic lawsuit, or another Democratic caucus meeting, is a day that impeachment is not happening. And when it finally doesn’t come to pass, there will be a lot of disappointed people who made the mistake of taking all the talk seriously.”

Au contraire for many of us the shell game is and has been clear for months. Wether Pelosi ends up regretting the way she is kicking sand in her own voters faces-Democratic leaders bend over backwards to never do that to GOP voters; this is the true bipartisan aspect of DC: both Dem and GOP leaders respect GOP voters and disparage and marginalize Democratic voters-time will tell.

Even Adam Schiff is apparently part of this shell game.

 

Meanwhile the MSM is talking about 2020-which might make sense if the lessons of 2016 have totally not been learned.

I’m a fan of Chris but his Hillary coverage-as documented in Chapter A-was pretty awful-far from pushing back against the awful Emailgate freakout he gave it a ‘bipartisan’ hue by asking Hillary Clinton if she worried about being indicted in his March 2016 interview of her. The problem is that the notion that she would be indicted was always very remote-but for ‘even the Far Left liberal Chris Hayes’ to agree it was a live possibility gave this false narrative further credence.

UPDATE 3.0:

 

MUelelr also asked to expand his mandate-apparently was denied..

 

Mueller Moments You Might Have Missed

UPDATE:

Dream walking?

At the end of the day it’s on us. We have to have mass town halls with the Dem Reps the next 46 days

 

UPDATE: With some of the absurd things the Dem moderates have been saying about impeachment-one claimed there are no impeachable offenses! What would he call impeachable if not obstruction of justice and colluding with a hostile foreign power to ‘win’ an election?- here’s a reality check by Adam Jentleson. 

Here’s a helpful impeachment inquiry tracker from the Cook Political Report.

https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1155340212723171328

Meanwhile an authority no less than Laurence Tribe declares the Eagle has landed-the action taken by Nadler and his Judiciary Committee on Friday is tantamount to launching an impeachment inquiry.

Dream walking? It keeps getting better

And like clockwork some more Dems come out for impeachment including Emmanuel Cleaver-long an impeachment skeptic

 

UPDATE: While the MSM claims there was no news in his testimony, Mueller confirmed that the FBI is still conducting counterintelligence investigations on Trump’s inner circle.

Emptywheel has more on this continuing counterintel investigation into wether or not ‘President Trump’ is a national security risk. 

UPDATE:

She also recalls what just now retiring GOPer William Hurd wrote back in September 2018:

Still the question begs:

UPDATE:

UPDATE: A cautionary piece by Ryan Goodman-did Mueller’s testimony actually narrow the scope of impeachable offenses?

“Let’s assume that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony remains strictly within the boundaries of his public report, as he suggested it would and as the Justice Department said it must. Within the four corners of Mueller’s public report is far more evidence of impeachable offences than the 10 potential cases of criminal obstruction the report outlines. That’s because “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a category of misconduct that includes abuses of power by a President that are not limited to whether such actions meet the elements of a federal crime. The report is replete with incidents that cross the line. We detail below some of the most significant allegations. Our analysis is important even if the House never goes down the road of impeaching President Trump. Regardless of what Speaker Pelosi ultimately decides, it is important that the public understand and that the historical record is clear on the abuses President Trump has committed.”

 

UPDATE:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/12/robert-mueller-media-podcasts-227613

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book