Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yet another reason I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for her.
Spoiler:
Hillary Clinton weighed in on her 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist on Saturday, her first comments on the case since it came under scrutiny following a Washington Free Beacon report last month.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Clinton told Mumsnet on Friday that she was appointed to the case and petitioned the judge to remove her, but her request was denied.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
The response appears to be at odds with Clinton’s comments to Reed in the 1980s. She told Reed in the recordings that the local prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, asked her to take the on case as a personal favor.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
However, Gibson, who did not respond to earlier inquiries by the Free Beacon, told a different story to CNN. He said Clinton was appointed by the judge and did not want to take the client.
According to Gibson, Clinton called him after the appointment and asked him to help get her out of the case.
The question of why and how Clinton ended up serving as the attorney for accused child rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 is still murky.
At the time, Clinton was running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, which provided legal services to clients who could not afford to pay.
Taylor’s case was initially assigned to the local public defender, but, according to several accounts, Taylor insisted he wanted a female attorney instead.
Taylor “started screaming for a woman attorney,” Gibson told CNN in a June 25 interview.
However, in another June 25 interview with Talk Business & Politics, Gibson said he did not know why the public defender was replaced.
“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.
Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.
“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”
She wrote that she “didn’t feel comfortable” taking the client, but Gibson told her she could not refuse a request from the judge. Clinton had, until this weekend, never previously suggested that she actively sought to be removed as counsel.
Gibson said he had never spoken to Clinton prior to that 1975 phone call, and has not spoken to her since.
“I’ve had one conversation in my life with Hillary Clinton that I can remember, and I think that’s the only one I ever had really,” Gibson told Talk Business & Politics.
Clinton ran the local legal aid clinic in Gibson’s district from 1974 until 1977, according to biographical accounts.
Gibson did not return the Free Beacon’s requests for comment prior to publication of the “Hillary Tapes” story.
Clinton told Reed in the 1980s that she was able to strike a favorable plea agreement for her client after the prosecution lost crucial DNA evidence that linked Taylor to the crime.
Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.
The University of Arkansas barred the Free Beacon from conducting research at its special collections archives after the “Hillary Tapes” story was published in June, arguing that the news outlet broke library policy by failing to get permission to publish.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a Hillary Clinton donor, demanded in a June 17 letter that the Free Beacon “cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection.”
However, the library now says it does not hold the copyright for Roy Reed’s interviews.
Reed told NWA Online that he does not object to the Free Beacon publishing excerpts from the recordings.
“I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t object to it,” Reed said last Thursday.
I view this as evidence that she will be a good president. She was able to set aside her personal bias and achieve the best result possible for her interests.
As president, she will do the same for the US. She's dirty and crooked, but that's International Politics. Always has been.
Trump is such a vainglorious clown with an incredible, unparalleled inconsistency . Its like he gets out of bed, opens his Monster Manual and rolls a D1000 on "Today's Policy Chart".
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Yet another reason I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for her.
Spoiler:
Hillary Clinton weighed in on her 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist on Saturday, her first comments on the case since it came under scrutiny following a Washington Free Beacon report last month.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Clinton told Mumsnet on Friday that she was appointed to the case and petitioned the judge to remove her, but her request was denied.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
The response appears to be at odds with Clinton’s comments to Reed in the 1980s. She told Reed in the recordings that the local prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, asked her to take the on case as a personal favor.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
However, Gibson, who did not respond to earlier inquiries by the Free Beacon, told a different story to CNN. He said Clinton was appointed by the judge and did not want to take the client.
According to Gibson, Clinton called him after the appointment and asked him to help get her out of the case.
The question of why and how Clinton ended up serving as the attorney for accused child rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 is still murky.
At the time, Clinton was running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, which provided legal services to clients who could not afford to pay.
Taylor’s case was initially assigned to the local public defender, but, according to several accounts, Taylor insisted he wanted a female attorney instead.
Taylor “started screaming for a woman attorney,” Gibson told CNN in a June 25 interview.
However, in another June 25 interview with Talk Business & Politics, Gibson said he did not know why the public defender was replaced.
“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.
Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.
“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”
She wrote that she “didn’t feel comfortable” taking the client, but Gibson told her she could not refuse a request from the judge. Clinton had, until this weekend, never previously suggested that she actively sought to be removed as counsel.
Gibson said he had never spoken to Clinton prior to that 1975 phone call, and has not spoken to her since.
“I’ve had one conversation in my life with Hillary Clinton that I can remember, and I think that’s the only one I ever had really,” Gibson told Talk Business & Politics.
Clinton ran the local legal aid clinic in Gibson’s district from 1974 until 1977, according to biographical accounts.
Gibson did not return the Free Beacon’s requests for comment prior to publication of the “Hillary Tapes” story.
Clinton told Reed in the 1980s that she was able to strike a favorable plea agreement for her client after the prosecution lost crucial DNA evidence that linked Taylor to the crime.
Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.
The University of Arkansas barred the Free Beacon from conducting research at its special collections archives after the “Hillary Tapes” story was published in June, arguing that the news outlet broke library policy by failing to get permission to publish.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a Hillary Clinton donor, demanded in a June 17 letter that the Free Beacon “cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection.”
However, the library now says it does not hold the copyright for Roy Reed’s interviews.
Reed told NWA Online that he does not object to the Free Beacon publishing excerpts from the recordings.
“I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t object to it,” Reed said last Thursday.
I view this as evidence that she will be a good president. She was able to set aside her personal bias and achieve the best result possible for her interests.
As president, she will do the same for the US. She's dirty and crooked, but that's International Politics. Always has been.
Trump is such a vainglorious clown with an incredible, unparalleled inconsistency . Its like he gets out of bed, opens his Monster Manual and rolls a D1000 on "Today's Policy Chart".
Not sure how I feel about Hillary, but honestly, anyone's better than Trump, even the Zodiac Kill- I mean Ted Cruz
skyth wrote: Notice you didn't say anything about the main point, which is cutting benefits to wounded soldiers once they come back...
Possibly because it's untrue? Funding's gone up, not down.
Don't tell me you fell for the same kind of shilling propaganda you're always decrying around here.
While true that funding has gone up.... it's gone up under duress and under scandal.
In recent years, up through the scandal in 2014, I recall seeing very consistently that the VA was lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid.... two programs that are regularly under threat of funding cuts.
Now, we could all probably sit here and argue till we're blue in the face that it's just political gamesmanship, but personally, I think it's dead wrong on all counts.
As a vet myself, I have real problems with how congress uses the things that were in writing on my contract, certain things that I earned coming under threat of being diminished. For instance, I was promised a certain amount of money for schooling under the GI Bill, the Post-9/11 GI Bill was better, but then a few years later, with draw downs happening, suddenly there's talk of "ohh, we're gonna have to cut some of that funding, sorry guys" The VA has pretty much never been properly funded, but I think that only now that you have a generation of vets coming out of the military who are social media savvy that are shining the light under that rug, we're starting to see some difference. (I mean that those vets who came before us certainly complained to the proper channels about conditions at the VA, but nothing got done because there was no general public knowledge, social media allows us to put this in public light, with or without the "proper authorities")
d-usa wrote: I don't know about her specifically, but I have heard quite a few lawyers speak about defending unpopular, and even guilty, people.
Their main concern is not to get the person off, their main concern is to make sure the State does everything the correct and constitutional way. If the person gets convicted, and their work during the trial results in a conviction that will hold up to appeals because their work got rid of any grounds for appeal, then they consider their work a good thing.
I'd argue that there should always be someone on your side. Even if you've done something horrible, and totally deserve what you get, you should have someone on your side. To accept less than that is for society to say "we don't give a gak what happens to you because we don't like you" and while we might not care what happens to that person today, ten years from now, or twenty, or thirty, or one hundred who knows what will fall under the banner of "we don't like you." Lawyers get a lot of crap for doing something that has to be done. I enjoy a good joke about lawyers being soulless vampires who feed on us all when we aren't looking () but once the jokes are set aside, I think we should all sit back look outside our own lives for a moment and appreciate those folks who bite the bullet so the system can work (on the bright side, they get paid really well ).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/10 17:16:12
There are only two people ever on your side: Dog and family. When push comes to shove, thats it.
To the topic: Don't care. She was a lawyer paid to do a job. She did it. Thats neither moral nor immoral.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 17:18:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I remember when that story broke and wonder what idiot went public with that. Then I wonder how long confindentuality(sp) works and duration it has.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
Frazzled wrote: There are only two people ever on your side: Dog and family
Known enough families where that would not be true that it may be more prudent just to say that it is just you and your dog.
Unfortunately you are probably right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
Who are you referring to?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 17:34:53
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: If you knew the stuff I laugh about you wouldnt like me.
It's mostly personal experience, but I don't hold laughing about stuff against people in high impact high stress jobs.
I get the gallows humor....we in the medical field have it to keep us sane.
I don't believe it was appropriate in her situation, however...and I get the feeling it was more of an "effu" attitude. Without hearing the audio, I only have my gut feeling.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
However, even *I* can see the writing on the wall. I don't see the RNC changing the nomination rules to stop Trump.
Honestly, he would be a big gak bird if he jumped back in at this point. It really would (should?) be considered insight into his character, and not in a good way.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: I don't see the RNC changing the nomination rules to stop Trump.
I could see it happening, if they can find a way to do it. It would be incredibly short-sighted and stupid, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: And I stand by my statement about doing a good job vs doing good.
But in a way it is doing good. A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone is entitled to the best defense possible. If you don't give everyone that defense then you change it to "innocent until proven guilty, unless we think you're a Bad Person who should be thrown in prison without a trial". The process of defending horrible people is unpleasant to think about, but it's definitely a necessary thing for the good of society.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 19:12:26
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
Aren't "write in" ... or something ? ....... votes allowed in something like 43 states ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
Your posts do give me a bit of whiplash every now and then
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
Your posts do give me a bit of whiplash every now and then
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Yeah... I disagree with KK's premise.
Keep in mind that <40% of the GOP primary voters voted for the guy...
What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 20:23:20
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Oh come on really? He's much more like Mussolini.
Except Mussolini had better hair.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
No, because that's not what the voters voted for, and that's not how it works under the current rules. If party leadership wants to say "screw the will of the people and the rules, we're stopping Trump" then it might be legal for them to do so, but they'd be completely destroying their party in the long run. Is having a better chance* of winning in 2016 really worth losing every election for decades, until the republican party is rebuilt entirely into something that barely resembles what we have now?
*Not that this is really the choice, since whoever the republican party nominates over Trump is almost guaranteed to lose and will probably do worse than Trump, but we'll assume kicking out Trump helps their chances in 2016 for the sake of argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 20:29:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
No, because that's not what the voters voted for, and that's not how it works under the current rules. If party leadership wants to say "screw the will of the people and the rules, we're stopping Trump" then it might be legal for them to do so, but they'd be completely destroying their party in the long run. Is having a better chance of winning in 2016 really worth losing every election for decades, until the republican party is rebuilt entirely into something that barely resembles what we have now?
It may be a means to simply deny Trump to re-define the GOP party. He's running on a populist/nationalistic platform... which GOP leadership may want to prevent.
Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this: -Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile? -Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/10 20:37:19
~1.5k
) but once the jokes are set aside, I think we should all sit back look outside our own lives for a moment and appreciate those folks who bite the bullet so the system can work (on the bright side, they get paid really well 
