Archive for the ‘CIA’ Category

One thing that isn’t in question is whether House Democrats, starting with Chairman Schiff, (D-Calif.), rigged the rules to ensure an unfair impeachment process. Something that Chairman Schiff repeatedly made clear was that the CIA snitch’s identity would remain cloaked in anonymity. That’s foolishness. Eric Ciaramella’s identity will become known at some point.

Much bandwidth has been used to talk about the Sixth Amendment and whether its protections extend to impeachment hearings and trials. The simple answer is this: they do if the House and Senate write those protections into their impeachment rules. Ditto with federal rules of evidence. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits these considerations from getting written into the House or Senate rules.

There are, however, partisan reasons why Democrats wouldn’t write the federal rules of evidence into their rules. Ditto with omitting Sixth Amendment protections from their rules. The simple explanation is that Democrats didn’t insist on applying the federal rules of evidence into their hearings because those rules would utterly gut their case. Without hearsay testimony, the Democrats’ storyline collapses immediately. Remember this hearsay:

If that doesn’t qualify as hearsay, nothing does. WOW! Then there’s Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?
Ambassador Sondland: Yes.
Rep. Mike Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Ambassador Sondland: Other than my own presumption.
Rep. Mike Turner: Which is nothing.

By not excluding hearsay testimony, each testifier was able to provide a juicy-sounding soundbite to the Agenda Media, which then dutifully splashed that “bombshell” across their website all day. The Agenda Media didn’t care that the soundbite got ripped to shreds on cross-examination. They had their juicy-sounding headline, their click-bait.

Democrats understood that, in these impeachment hearings, hearsay was their friend. Democrats understood that because their case was exceptionally weak. Had Democrats been interested in fairness, they wouldn’t have put the nation through this. That wasn’t their mission. The Democrats’ mission was to utterly demolish the president they’ve hated since he was elected.

That’s why Democrats approved the rules they approved.

Democrats understood that the CIA snitch would get ripped to pieces the minute his identity was confirmed, too. Without hearsay testimony, which got started with the CIA snitch, the Democrats don’t have anything. They have nice-sounding testimony from people with impressive resumes but they don’t have the evidence they’d need to win a high-profile case like this.

Democrats wanted this impeachment so badly that they’d do anything for it. In the final summation, that sums things up best. Democrats wanted this so bad that they ignored the needs of the country.

How sick is that?

Anyone with an IQ north of 75 and a willingness to view last week’s testimony honestly isn’t surprised that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings went terribly. Still, it isn’t surprising that Democrats are surprised that the polls are tanking for them.

New public opinion polls are moving against Democrats on impeachment, as independents sour on the House inquiry and increasingly express opposition to the hearings that have consumed Washington in recent weeks. The new data comes as a surprise to Democrats, many of whom believe the roster of witnesses have offered damning testimony about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump so badly for so long that they’d do anything to make it happen. The past 2 weeks, the Democrats’ testifiers would say something provocative in their opening statement, which was immediately leaked to CNN with the heading of “bombshell” testimony.

It didn’t matter that, in each of these instances, the testifiers’ provocative accusations was utterly shredded during the Republicans’ cross-examinations. For instance, Mike Turner got Gordon Sondland to admit that “I was presuming” the meeting was being conditioned on the investigation. Turner said that Sondland didn’t have anything on this theory, to which Sondland replied “Other than my presumption.” Turner immediately replied “Which is nothing.”

Democrats have based this impeachment on a series of nothingburgers. Seriously, each of the Democrats’ testifiers have gotten crushed. The apolitical people haven’t had any problems identifying the Democrats’ testifiers’ flawed testimony. That’s why the polling shows Democrats in trouble:

In October, independents supported impeachment 48 percent to 35 percent in Emerson’s polling. In the new poll released this week, independents opposed it by a 49 percent to 34 percent margin. In that time, overall support for impeaching Trump swung from 48 percent in favor and 44 percent against, to 45 percent in opposition to impeachment and 43 percent in favor.

Going from a +13 to a -15 is a 28-point swing in a month. That’s like falling off a cliff. This isn’t just a modest drop. It’s a warning sign to Democrats that the people want them to actually do things rather than insisting on impeaching a gruff but productive president. Voters have factored in President Trump’s personality traits and said ‘we can live with that as long as the economy keeps humming.’

Democrats bet everything on impeachment. They lied to the American people for 3+ years. When the Mueller Report went bust, Schiff’s Democrats found a CIA snitch, dressed him up as a whistleblower, then insisted that President Trump had tried strong-arming the Ukrainian president into investigating the Biden family. The problem was that President Trump released the transcript of the phone call. The minute that happened, the Democrats were screwed.

People could read the 5-page transcript and judge for themselves. They didn’t need to watch the Democrats’ testifiers to know what happened. Try as the media might, they couldn’t move the Democrats’ impeachment needle. As I’ve said consistently, these weren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything substantive. They were testifiers. Democrats voted to investigate a rabbit hole that was empty.

Only Democrats are surprised that they found nothing.

What’s becoming perfectly clear is that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is an autocrat. Remember how he reacted when Elise Stefanik challenged him? Let’s refresh everyone’s memory:

After Friday’s hearing, House Impeachment Committee Republicans noted that Chairman Schiff’s Democrats established rules that prevent committee members from using testimony if the transcripts haven’t been made public:

Ratcliffe: Several Democrat members of this House Intel committee have already voted to impeach this president. They’ve already made up their minds without regard to evidence. Yes, this is dead on arrival at the Senate without looking at the most important witnesses. They don’t want the whistleblower to testify because we now know that that person coordinated with Schiff’s committee in order for that person to become the whistleblower. Schiff hasn’t even released the first transcript of the first witness (the IC IG) because it will tell you what the IG knew and didn’t know about the relationship between Schiff and the whistleblower based on what the whistleblower and Schiff did or didn’t reveal to the IG.

This isn’t a hearing as much as it’s a made-for-TV docudrama. The first 3 testifiers aren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything pertaining to this sham. Of Ms. Yovanovitch, Rep. Nunes rightly stated that he didn’t know why she was there considering the fact that she didn’t have first- or second-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call because she’d been fired from her position in Ukraine. William Taylor and George Kent didn’t provide any evidence of anything, much less proof of high crimes, though Taylor provided the insight that President Trump was corrupting “official US foreign policy.” That’s despite the fact that presidents, not diplomats, according to the Constitution, establish official US foreign policy.

Former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright wrote this article in February, 2017:

Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis. Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.

Said an intelligence officer: “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security… And I’m going to act on that.” Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump. One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.

Ames’ flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law.

Adam Schiff isn’t a CIA officer but he’s part of the cabal that’s decided that they, not the American people, should decide who’s fit or unfit for serving as commander-in-chief.

That makes Schiff both an autocrat and a fascist. The fact that Schiff considers himself a Democrat is virtually irrelevant. He has little in common with Hubert Humphrey or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.

Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president “will die in jail.”

Schiff isn’t a spy but he determined years ago that President Trump should “die in jail.” He’s orchestrated the rigged hearings that’ve produced nothing. Finally, Wright wrote:

During my time as a CIA officer, I quickly learned why all these rules were in place. I read people’s emails. I listened to phone calls. I recruited assets that told the dirtiest and most embarrassing of secrets. I came to realize that my power was both an awesome responsibility and, at times, wickedly seductive.

Schiff’s lack of character caused him to play judge, jury and executioner. That’s unacceptable.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:

But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.

Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:


About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.

That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.

According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.

This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.

I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.

Democrats apparently think that the hand that they’re badly misplaying is the political equivalent of a straight flush. Their blind hatred of President Trump is turning them into political idiots. What other term fits a person who thinks that not immediately complying the House Democrats’ subpoenas is worthy of an article of impeachment.

In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Democrat committee chairs wrote “‘Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry,’ the chairmen wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.” That might be taken seriously if Democrats had called for a vote of the entire House to authorize the initiation of an impeachment inquiry.

Democrats didn’t do that, perhaps to restrict the Republicans’ ability to put together their counterarguments to the Democrats’ articles of impeachment. As a result, the Democrats’ subpoena power isn’t as strong. The courts won’t give them access to as many documents as fast as they’d prefer.

That isn’t to say that Republicans will resist each subpoena. Instead, they should only resist with lawsuits the most questionable subpoenas. I’d think it’d be difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to create an article of impeachment over contested subpoenas.

In other impeachment news, Democrat Bryan Dean Wright criticized Democrats:

“You better stand up and do it publicly,” said Wright, blasting House Democrats for seemingly being uninterested in collecting additional facts about the phone call. “This isn’t about trying to get facts. We’ve already decided, as a partisan Democratic Party. I’m sorry to say, we’ve already decided we have to get rid of the president. We’re moving forward with it, irrespective of facts. That is clear.”

That’s a sad thing to hear. What’s worse is that the Washington Post’s article reads like a thread from a Fever Swamp blog, not a serious newspaper. That article insists that the whistleblower’s account is accurate and that the CIA agent is some sort of superhero that’s saving our nation.

Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would start an impeachment inquiry before she’d seen the call transcript or the whistleblower’s complaint. In other words, Pelosi said that Democrats were launching impeachment without any evidence. I’d expect that from AOC or Maxine Waters. I shouldn’t expect that from the Speaker of the House.

Ari Fleischer put it best, saying this:

As offensive and norm-breaking as Trump can be, it is more norm-breaking and offensive to refuse to accept an election result and instead seek to turn all forms of political disagreement into a constitutional crisis in which the Congress tries repeatedly to remove the president from office, negating the results of an election.

Democrats repeatedly insist that President Trump is a threat to democracy. What hypocrites. Throwing out a duly elected president because they hate him is a true threat to democracy. I’ll do my best to highlight this injustice to the American people. In this instance, Democrats couldn’t get more vindictive, more disgusting.

The only way to restrict the Democrats’ troublemaking ability is to defeat them in sufficient numbers next November. If they’re in the minority, Democrats can’t push idiotic ideas like impeaching a president just because they don’t like him.

That’s the real threat to democracy.

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), “told Fox News he’d reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government’s surveillance and the government’s investigation. That’s pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele’s document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn’t be verified if Steele’s life depended on it. Check out this interview:

It’s important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn’t sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don’t know what does. This isn’t just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn’t a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump’s administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.

This article highlights the things that the leftists want us to ignore.

It opens by saying “President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is the ‘most transparent in history,’ and that it has ‘cooperated totally’ with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or words to that effect. But the truth is quite the opposite. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to deflect outside scrutiny to the same degree as this one. In a recent letter from the White House to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the president, in effect, rejected the entire notion of congressional oversight as illegitimately political: ‘Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.'”

This Democrat apparently thinks that whatever House Democrats do in investigating is fine even if the Mueller Report was supposed to be the be-all-end-all of investigations. When the report didn’t deliver the impeachment goods that Democrats were looking for, House Democrats launched a full frontal assault on the Trump administration, issuing 81 subpoenas for documents from people who either haven’t been in office ever or who aren’t in office anymore.

That’s the definition of a fishing expedition. Feel free to call it a witch hunt instead if that’s your preference.

By contrast, prior presidents understood that respect for the rule of law means, in the end, complying with the law, no matter what the cost. That was true even of those under investigation, such as President Bill Clinton. And I should know—I was a member of the team led by Independent Counsel Ken Starr that investigated him.

President Trump didn’t utilize executive privilege while the Mueller investigation was happening. The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege frequently. President Trump made his personal staff available for interviews. President Clinton didn’t allow his personal staff to meet with Mr. Starr’s investigators.

Mr. Rosenzweig should stop trying to rewrite history.

Consider, by way of example and comparison, Clinton’s use of executive privilege—a privilege that Trump has also invoked in recent days to frustrate the House’s effort to get the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Just what is executive privilege, and why do we have it?

Notice the subtlety. President Clinton invoked executive privilege while the grand jury was seated. President Trump invoked executive privilege after Mueller had wrapped up its investigation.

That’s a significant difference. President Clinton protected his high-ranking staff from grand jury exposure. President Trump didn’t protect his senior staff in that way.

It isn’t a matter of if in terms of whether Mueller, Clapper, Comey and Brennan testify. Mueller will testify before Congress. Comey, Clapper and Brennan will testify before a grand jury. Sen. Graham and Mr. Durham will have them sweating bullets.

Democrats know that they’re sort of fine if they stick to their talking points. Democrats know that they’re in trouble the minute they’re pushed off their talking points.

Now that AG William Barr is investigating whether President Obama’s political appointees acted improperly in starting the surveillance into Carter Page, the same suspects (literally) are resurfacing with the same discredited excuses. Byron York’s article asks all the right pointed questions.

The article, though, starts by saying “In February 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released the so-called Nunes memo. In four pages, the document, from the committee’s then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed much of what the public knows today about the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier in pursuing since-discredited allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Specifically, it revealed that the FBI included unverified material from the dossier in applications to a secret spy court to win a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy volunteer adviser Carter Page. All that was classified. To release it, the committee appealed to President Trump, who made a declassification order. That is the only way Americans know about the Page warrant. From that knowledge came later revelations about the FBI’s use of confidential informants and undercover agents to get information on Trump campaign figures.”

Now the same doomsayers are back predicting more gloom:

Now, some of the same people are issuing somber warnings of the damage that will be done if Attorney General William Barr declassifies documents showing what else the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies did in the 2016 Trump investigation.

I’m shocked to hear Brennan, Clapper and Comey are using alarmist tones about exposing national security secrets. Coming from them, it rings hollow. Byron York explains in this interview:

We’ve heard this refrain before. Yes, we should handle this information with the greatest of care. No, we shouldn’t trust the most untrustable trio of partisan hacks in US intelligence history.

Earlier tonight, President Trump “ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into ‘surveillance activities’ directed at the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Let the finger-pointing begin. Comey, Clapper and Brennan are already attempting to incriminate each other. In the end, I suspect that they’ll each be ‘successful’, with each of them getting prosecuted and convicted or getting prosecuted and flipping on the other 2. Either way, the chances of this turning out well for that trio isn’t high.

Let’s get serious about this for a minute. Democrat spinmeisters point to the DOJ’s IG report and insist that it’s a comprehensive report on the origins of the faux investigation. It isn’t because it isn’t exhaustive. It can’t reach the places that the AG’s investigation can get to. First, the IG can’t call in people from all of the IC agencies. It’s limited by statute to the agency it’s assigned to.

Next, the IG can’t interview people who worked inside the DOJ but have since left. That means the IG can’t interview the central figures in the investigation. Specifically, it prohibits the IG from interviewing Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Ditto with Clapper and Brennan.

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. “Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said.

This gives Attorney General Barr wide latitude to investigate the investigators. Last Sunday, Trey Gowdy made a rather interesting prediction during Maria Bartiromo’s show:

Considering the fact that Trey Gowdy a) has seen these documents and b) is one of the most honest people to ever serve in Congress, I’m betting that there’s some former employees of the FBI and the IC who should be exceptionally worried.