Democratic Party Cover Up of Socialism Facts
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect for his great cartoon
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect for his great cartoon
Abuse of Power Update:
And that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by them that digged it. ~1Nephi 14:3
GOWDY: All right. So we’re three for three on her working on the two most important bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond. Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to leak information to a news outlet?
HOROWITZ: She was a special counsel, and as we indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through whom he provided that information.
GOWDY: The same Lisa Page who admonished the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that interview “loaded for bear” because Clinton might be the next president, and it’s the same Lisa Page who said Trump was “loathsome,” “awful,” “the man cannot become president; Clinton just has to win,” and that Trump “should go F— himself.” And we are somehow supposed to believe that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I don’t know how you can win if you’re gonna wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: It’s impossible for us to replay the whole thing. We’d have had to go gavel to gavel on it. Gowdy was at this for about 20, 25 minutes. Just hammered Horowitz. But he wasn’t hammering Horowitz. He was just getting Horowitz to admit what was in the report but in an entirely different context. (snort) Gowdy made it plain that it was nothing but political bias guiding all these people, and he was stunned that nobody could see it in terms of the final report. Here’s the next example.
GOWDY: Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote, “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on the Clinton email investigation? Do I have that right?
HOROWITZ: That’s correct.
GOWDY: Same Peter Strzok who not only worked the Russia investigation when it began, was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have the right Peter Strzok?
HOROWITZ: That’s my understanding.
GOWDY: Now, is it the same Peter Strzok who was put on the Mueller special counsel team?
GOWDY: Same Peter Strzok. And this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone, either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said, “Trump is an idiot. Hillary should win 100 million to zero.” Now, Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me, because he’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he can’t think of a single, solitary American that wouldn’t vote for her for president. Can you see our skepticism?
GOWDY: What do you think the “it” is in that phrase “we’ll stop it”?
HOROWITZ: Oh, I think it’s clear in the context it’s we’re gonna stop him from becoming president.
GOWDY: That’s what I thought too. Now, I wonder who the “we” is in the “we’ll stop it.” Who do you think the “we” is?
HOROWITZ: Well, I think that’s probably subject to multiple interpretations — them or a broader group beyond that.
GOWDY: How about “finish it”? When he said, “I unleashed it. Now I need to fix it and finish it,” what do you think he meant by “finish it”?
HOROWITZ: I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August, the prior August that you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation that or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.
GOWDY: Did you ever have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias?
HOROWITZ: My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values. In my personal view having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents, I can’t imagine FBI agents suggesting, even, that they might use their powers to investigate, frankly, any candidate for any office.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect for his great cartoon
RUSH: Let me tell you what would happen if you watched this whole thing, as I did. If you watch Gowdy from beginning to end, with even more of what we haven’t had time to air here, you cannot conclude anything other that this is one of the sleaziest, dirtiest, most corrupt, politicized and biased attempts to destroy a particular presidential candidate while protecting another one. It is paramountly obvious.
The way Gowdy unpacked this and presented it versus the way the inspector general presents it? The two techniques, Gowdy and Horowitz, are so disparate that the conclusion has to be that the inspector general report — as filed, as reported, and as written — is actually part of the cover-up and the fix being in for all of this from the get-go. Because, folks, if this thing were interpreted as Gowdy did and written by the IG as Gowdy has interpreted it and any common sense person with the information would, these people would be in handcuffs already.
They would have been charged. The things they have done are worthy of serious criminal charges. And yet they’re still employed, many of them and still receiving paychecks. And specially they have been exonerated under the theory that there wasn’t any operational bias here that determined the outcome of any of these various operations. So I think — especially after listening to Gowdy the way he presented this today — it is clear that the ongoing effort to cover up and to water down what actually happened is still widely in practice.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon
The government has willfully deleted critical information that may have prevented two recent Islamic terror attacks on American soil. “The power of Shariah is very difficult to exaggerate how much influence it has on the lives of Muslims around the world,”Haney warns.
In fact, Haney believes America is presently locked in a battle between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law.
“Are we going to submit to the influence of Shariah law and make it legal for one particular religion to have more than one wife?” he asked. “Or are we going to say, ‘No, you cannot implement those provisions as long as you want to be a citizen of United States’?”
The answer, according to Haney, is for Americans to become more familiar with the Constitution.
“If you become more familiar with the Constitution, you’ll be able to see more clearly the points of conflict between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law, and then you can discuss it without fear of being called a racist or a bigot or an Islamophobe,” he advised.
Haney, who testified before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday, told CBN’s audience his Christian faith has helped him get through his long ordeal. In fact, only faith in God could help him overcome the dark forces he has faced.
“We’re talking about very, very high-level, malevolent kind of forces here at work, and it is very sobering to see these kinds of things operating,” he said. “These are biblical-level events that we’re talking about.”
Haney said the Obama administration did not wish to investigate Muslim Brotherhood members as terrorists because it relied on the Brotherhood and other Muslim groups with ties to terrorism to help form U.S. counter-terrorism policy.
Three years later, in 2012, the administration purged all 67 of Haney’s records dealing with Muslims associated with a movement known as Tablighi Jamaat.
“This time they didn’t just modify the information in the records; they completely eliminated them out of the system, erased them forever,” Haney explained. “And then they investigated me for putting that information into the system when that was exactly the job that I was supposed to be doing.”
This pattern continued after the recent terror attack in Orlando, when the Justice Department initially redacted all of shooter Omar Mateen’s references to Islam and ISIS from a transcript of his 9-1-1 call. In fact, Haney discovered immediately after the shooting that the Fort Pierce, Florida, mosque Mateen attended had ties to the Tablighi Jamaat case that the Obama/Clinton State Department shut down in 2012. If Haney’s information had not been eliminated, the Orlando massacre might have been prevented.
“I can’t explain to you the ideology or the worldview of this administration that makes them so adamant to protect Islam from harm by addressing it in its true nature,” Haney said.
Islam, he noted, is not just a religion, but a system of laws – Shariah – that Muslims who adhere to fundamental teaching wish to establish over all the world.
“The power of Shariah is very difficult to exaggerate how much influence it has on the lives of Muslims around the world,” the whistleblower warned.
One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.
Who exactly is the enemy we face, not only in the Middle East but also within our borders? Is it “murderers without a coherent creed” or “nihilistic killers who want to tear things down,” as some described ISIS after 130 people were brutally slain and another 368 injured in a coordinated attack on Western soil that authorities say was organized with help from inside France’s Muslim communities.
After the Paris attacks, Obama, himself, described ISIS as “simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations.”
But how much do words and definitions really matter? According to the legendary military strategist Sun Tzu, if “you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one (battle) and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was “preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism.” The Bush administration’s definition of the enemy as a tactic, terrorism, rather than a specific movement, proved consequential amid a culture of political correctness. By the time President Obama took office, Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders in the United States were forcing changes to national security policy and even being invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.
When recently retired DHS frontline officer and intelligence expert Philip Haney bravely tried to say something about the people and organizations that threatened the nation, his intelligence information was eliminated, and he was investigated by the very agency assigned to protect the country. The national campaign by the DHS to raise public awareness of terrorism and terrorism-related crime known as If You See Something, Say Something effectively has become If You See Something, Say Nothing.
In “See Something, Say Nothing,” Haney – a charter member of DHS with previous experience in the Middle East – and co-author Art Moore expose just how deeply the submission, denial and deception run. Haney’s insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative.
The “words matter” memo imposing the demands of radical U.S. Muslims leaders on the DHS, including stripping intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism;
In this well-documented, first-person account of his unique service with DHS, Haney shows why it’s imperative that Americans demand that when they see something and say something, the servants under their charge do something to prevent a cunning, relentless enemy from carrying out its stated aim to “destroy Western Civilization from within.”
Philip Haney studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before becoming a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 as a Customs & Border Protection agriculture officer. After advancing to an armed CBP officer where he served several tours of duty at the National Targeting Center near Washington, DC, where he quickly was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team, an unprecedented accomplishment for an agent on temporary duty assignment. Officer Haney won numerous awards and commendations from his superiors for meticulously compiling information and producing actionable reports that led to the identification of hundreds of terrorists. He has specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. He retired in July 2015.
The government has willfully deleted critical information that may have prevented two recent Islamic terror attacks on American soil.
Appearing on the popular Fox News program “Hannity,” former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney said he was directed to delete hundreds of records he had compiled on various Muslim individuals and organizations with ties to terrorist groups.
While on assignment at the National Targeting Center, Haney had obtained valuable information on members of a worldwide Islamic group known as Tablighi Jamaat. However, in 2012, the Obama State Department effectively shut down the NTC’s Tablighi Jamaat Initiative, demanding intelligence based on religious affiliation be disregarded out of concern for Muslims’ civil liberties.
In his eye-opening new book “See Something, Say Nothing,” Haney writes that Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre last December, fit the profile of the Tablighi Jamaat members Haney interviewed at the Atlanta airport. He told Hannity that if his Tablighi Jamaat information hadn’t been deleted, the DHS may have been able to prevent the San Bernardino attack from happening.
“I believe I have a plausible premise that we could have stopped it by two major ways – either Syed Farook would have been put on the no-fly list and not allowed to travel, or his pending fiance [fellow San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik] would have been denied a visa because of his affiliation with an organization with plausible ties to terrorism,” Haney explained to Hannity.
What’s more, he said the Orlando nightclub shooting could have been prevented as well if only law enforcement officers had realized the connections between the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, where Omar Mateen attended, and the San Bernardino mosque where Farook attended.
“There’s an entire network of those kinds of mosques across the United States, and I found out a couple days ago that the mosque in Fort Pierce is also related to the same network,” Haney revealed.
There is an old saying about the Emperor Nero in Roman history: Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Benghazi Blows Up on Bob Schieffer
May 06, 2013
From Rush Limbaugh Radio Show
RUSH: CBSNews.com: “‘Everybody in the mission’ in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a US consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror ‘from the get-go,’ according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ Face the Nation. ‘I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,’ Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking US official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.”
Now, we can beat this Benghazi stuff to death all day today if we want to, and I don’t really intend to do that, but this article from CBS News (and we’ve got some supporting audio coming up) points out four important things. Number one: Greg Hicks, the top US diplomat in Libya after Chris Stevens (he’s right beneath Chris Stevens) knew from the get-go that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He wasn’t even in Benghazi. Remember, the regime was saying, “Nobody knew!”
“We thought it maybe was a bunch of ruffians, a bunch of ne’er-do-wells reacting to the video that was causing all kinds of stuff to happen in Cairo!” Remember that? This guy is saying, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We knew from the beginning.” Number two: Despite Hillary’s claims to the contrary, Greg Hicks was never contacted. I’ll tell you, Hillary does not look good in all of this. Hillary doesn’t come off well. These are the whistleblowers. These are the people that the regime didn’t want anybody to ever hear from.
Remember all of us saying back during the aftermath of Benghazi and during the campaign last year, “They’re gonna try to put this to bed but this is gonna come back and bite ’em”? Because the excuses they were offering, the video and all this — they were so public about that — was so obviously wrong, and they were obviously trying to cover something up. The third of the four important things in this particular story at CBS News is that Greg Hicks says that he knew Susan Rice was lying when she appeared on those five talk shows, and he was not happy about it.
He knew she was lying when she said that all this happened because of this video. And the fourth point that’s made, according to Greg Hicks, is that Susan Rice directly contradicted the president of the Libya who said Benghazi was a terrorist attack right before she came on, and this led Libya to delay the FBI’s access to Benghazi. Do you remember we were all wondering, “Where’s the FBI? Why aren’t they there?” Well, the reason is the president of Libya had been embarrassed on TV. He was on CBS and he said it was a terrorist attack.
He finishes, and Susan Rice comes out and says, “No, no, no, it wasn’t a terrorist attack. It was this video guy!” The president of Libya said, “You’re gonna call me out like that?” So he kept the FBI at bay and delayed their access to Benghazi, which hurt their investigation tremendously. All of this is pretty damning. Let’s go to the audio sound bites. Grab number 14. This is Bob Schieffer yesterday morning, Face the Nation. This is how he opened the show, and you will hear Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf and Susan Rice in this piece.
SCHIEFFER: (bouncy music) Today, only on Face the Nation, startling new details about the Benghazi attack from the number two American official in Libya. It’s been almost eight months since the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. We’ll get new details today and more insight into the stunning contradictions between the president of Libya and ambassador to the UN Susan Rice when they appeared after the attack on Face the Nation.
MAGARIAF: This is preplanned, predetermined. So —
RICE: We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
RUSH: So there you hear it. The Libyan president says it’s a “preplanned,” premeditated terrorist attack. Susan Rice says, “No, no. It wasn’t. We don’t have any information like that.” So they call him a liar. Now, it’s Bob Schieffer here. He’s okay, but I must tell you something, folks: It has to be a little insulting to whatever viewers this show has left that Bob Schieffer is trying to treat this as breaking news that the administration and Susan Rice lied to Bob Schieffer’s and everybody else’s faces.
The viewers of this program know different.
Everybody by now, by yesterday, long ago knew that Susan Rice had made it up. The only question with Susan Rice was, “Who sent her out there and why and who gave her that story?” You know, “Why Susan Rice to fall on the sword?” so to speak. But Schieffer yesterday was treating this as, “Well, up until this very moment, we thought it was the video! Up until this very moment we believed what Susan Rice said. But now this Greg Hicks guy has come forward and we now realize that we have been lied to!” Long after everybody else paying attention knew.
We couldn’t do this before the election, you see.
We couldn’t get anywhere near this before the election.
RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites, Bob Schieffer, CBS, Face the Nation. During the segment on the Benghazi attack, the host Bob Schieffer set up the segment by saying this. Now, what he does here is a dramatic reading of the testimony that we’re gonna get from Greg Hicks, again, who is the 22-year Foreign Service diplomat, number two official in Libya right underneath the ambassador, and this is Schieffer.
SCHIEFFER: The administration claimed the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration provoked by protests in Egypt. Greg Hicks told investigators that was simply not true. Part of what he said. Hicks: I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Question: Did you ever have any indication that there was a protest, a popular protest outside the mission in Benghazi? Greg Hicks: No question. And if there was such a protest, would that have been reported? Hicks: Absolutely. For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’ front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable.
RUSH: I’m telling you, they’re blowing this thing sky-high. They’re blowing it up. Now, remember what we heard. I’ll take you back. Benghazi happens. Just a brief timeline. Five o’clock in the afternoon is when Washington ostensibly becomes aware, the White House. Obama talks to the defense secretary, Leon Panetta, and Hillary. He says (paraphrasing), “You guys deal with it however you need,” and vanishes, and nobody to this day knows what Obama was doing the next five to eight hours. Honestly. If somebody knows, please tell me. I don’t think anybody knows.
Earlier in the day in Cairo, if you will recall, somebody at our embassy — remember, it’s the 9/11 anniversary — somebody in our embassy put out an apology. Nothing has happened and somebody in our embassy issued an apology, a justification for protests that might occur against the embassy in Egypt. Nothing had happened. That apology came before anything had happened. We’re all sitting here saying, “What in the world are we apologizing for now?” Then the protests started and somebody attempted to get in the embassy, it you recall, climbed over the walls.
That is what led the Obama administration to say that that protest was spawned by the video, and that protest inspired an ad hoc protest at Benghazi. Nothing was gonna happen in Benghazi until this ad hoc, ad-lib protest happened in Cairo, after we apologized. There was nothing to apologize for, just some typical left-winger in our embassy over there decided to go PC and try to stop any protest by apologizing for the United States in advance. Honest to God. I know many of you have probably forgotten this, but that’s what really got that day going. It was somebody in our embassy apologizing, nothing had happened. We later learned that the apology was written by some subordinate staff member in an attempt to stop any protest from taking place.
Yes, if we’re just nice to them, and if we just admit that it’s all our fault, then maybe they won’t attack us today. That’s the thinking on these people’s part. Well, that was just an invitation. And the mob began to attack the embassy, in Cairo. So the White House immediately distanced itself from that apology. The first thing they did was to distance themselves from that apology, saying that it was a rogue staff member acting on her own over there, and then they said that a video, at which time nobody had ever heard of or seen, was responsible for that protest. Then Benghazi happened, and the administration said, Hillary, Susan Rice, everybody said the video inspired the protest in Cairo, and that inspired an ad-lib protest in Benghazi.
Now, what we know is that what happened in Benghazi had nothing to do with what happened in Cairo. We had a planned, premeditated terror attack in Benghazi, four Americans killed, including the ambassador. For weeks after the administration continued to try to blame the video, some video that nobody had seen. The filmmaker, by the way, of that video is still in jail somewhere in California. Hillary and Obama cut public service announcement type commercials that ran on Pakistan TV, apologizing for the United States and that video, claiming that all of this protest activity had nothing to do with anything other than that video.
None of that was true. Bob Schieffer, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, you name it, all ran with the video story for weeks. And now the number two man is coming forth and saying none of that is true. That’s what this is all about. Bob Schieffer’s got an exclusive here ’cause Hicks’ testimony was leaked to them first, his upcoming testimony. So all of this that is being reported yesterday and today in the Drive-By Media was known before the election, folks, all of it was. So Obama gets reelected under false pretenses under a timeline story that’s made up.
Remember how we were called racists and sexists for complaining about Susan Rice’s lies? The only reason anybody was disagreeing with her was because she’s black, yep, we were racist, and we were sexist. And the mainstream media even said that people challenging the veracity and honesty of Susan Rice, this is just the GOP’s War on Women, that’s all it was, they said. And make sure we remember here, Obama was only talking to Panetta because they had a previously scheduled meeting at five o’clock. It wasn’t even Benghazi that forced the meeting. Obama was scheduled to meet with Panetta at five o’clock anyway. Benghazi just happened to come up at the end of that meeting. Obama never even had a meeting devoted to Benghazi.
Who was the person most attacked in the days after the Benghazi attack? Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was the person most attacked in the media after Benghazi because he dared issue a statement after the protests in Cairo. He dared act presidential during the campaign, and the media launched into him as creating problems for America. It’s not his role to speak out. It’s not his responsibility. He shouldn’t be doing it. He should shut up. Mitt Romney was portrayed as an absolute irresponsible idiot for jumping to conclusions.
Now, all of what Bob Schieffer reported yesterday was known back then. It was all covered up by an administration that every American media outlet was loyal to and duly invested to report. Next up on CBS Slay the Nation during the segment on the Benghazi attacks and after reading what Susan Rice had said about the attacks, that they were a response to a video, Bob Schieffer then read what Greg Hicks told investigators about her remarks.
SCHIEFFER: My jaw hit the floor as I watched this. I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day. I never reported a demonstration. I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris’ last report, if you want to say his final report is, “Greg, we are under attack.” It is jaw dropping that, to me, how that came to be. I was personally known to one of Ambassador Rice’s staff members. I could have been called. And, you know, the phone call could have been, “Hey, Greg, Ambassador Rice is gonna say blah, blah, blah.” I could have said, “No, that’s not the right thing.” The phone call was never made.
RUSH: Imagine that. The phone call to correct what Susan Rice was going to say was never made because they didn’t want her saying anything other than what she said, that it was an ad hoc, ad-libbed, totally instantaneous protest. Not a terror attack brought about by this unseemly anti-Muslim video, again, which nobody had seen. Now, let’s move to Fox News Sunday yesterday. Chris Wallace is interviewing Stephen Lynch, a member of Congress, Massachusetts, during a discussion about the Benghazi attacks and how they were represented in the public. Chris Wallace said, “How do you explain the fact that that Sunday Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows and never mentioned Al-Qaeda extremists. It had been scrubbed from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video, which had never been in any of the talking points?”
LYNCH: Well, it was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. You’re absolutely right. There’s no excuse for that. It was false information. What they tried to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.
RUSH: There’s Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts, admitting that the correct things were “scrubbed” from Susan Rice’s prepared text for her Sunday appearances and the video substituted. He’s admitting it, and he also admits that what they tried to do “is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.” What that means is they tried to link what happened in Benghazi to these ad hoc, spontaneous protests in Cairo brought about by the video.
This whole thing just a mountain of one lie on another, and it was all done to not upset any pre-electoral poll data, and they made sure to jump all over Romney. Romney was the guy most criticized in the American media after the Benghazi attack. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with it, at all. He just issued a presidential statement about it. He objected to this mindless, senseless apology for nothing that came out of our embassy in Cairo. One thing here. Darrell Issa was on Fox America’s Newsroom this morning. Bill Hemmer talked to Issa, who’s gonna be running the hearings on this. Hemmer said, “Based on what you know now, how damaging is all of this to Hillary?”
ISSA: It’s damaging because it happened on her watch. I think the important thing is that Hillary Clinton is no longer secretary of state, but there are many people still at [the] State Department who were involved in this at the highest levels who continue to keep their jobs and keep this symbol of, “The war is over, terror is behind us.” We know in Boston, we know in Syria, we know every day for the survivors, if you will, from Benghazi, that that just simply isn’t true.
RUSH: And besides, “It’s eight months ago. “What does it matter now? What difference does it make?” That’s the administration line now: “What difference does it make?” The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes has written up a very detailed report on the timeline of how the talking points were scrubbed based on State Department and other administration e-mails and records.