10 Most Corrupt Politicians of 2007

[WolvenBear]

As determined by Judicial Watch:

6 of the 10 are Democrats:
Clinton, Conyers, Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, Reid

Or in other words, some of the most influencial Democrats in the field. For pretty serious offenses.

Though the list isn't without flaw. Scooter Libby's on the list, and compared to the others...he's not even in their league.

[Musician]

Barrack Obama? yeah...

[Proteas]

At 12/28/07 06:21 PM, Musician wrote: Barrack Obama? yeah...

I just find it FUCKING HILARIOUS that Obama would make it on the list, and President Bush doesn't even make the top 10. And here I was led to believe by people on this forum that Obama could do no wrong and that Bush should be drawn and quartered. Go figure.

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 06:21 PM, Musician wrote: Barrack Obama? yeah...

Yeah. Barrack Obaba. I know you're a lazy bastard and won't click the link. Heaven forbid your worldview get challenged. So here, I'll post the relevant parts.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A "Dishonorable Mention" last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

That's a huge no no. Buying stock then passing laws to make that stock go up is not only unethical, people have gone to jail for less.

A quick summary of the other five:

Clinton- Blocking info that may implicate her in old scandals and illegal activity. Accepting money from a known felon and not turning him in. Keeping the money, even though it was fraudulently obtained. And for filing false financial statements.
Conyers- Broke ethics Rules by having his staff serve private services like babysitter, valet and housekeeper.
Feinstein- Sent military contracts to her husband. Blocked ethics reform. Is involved in some kind of flight scandal that Judicial Watch is looking into.
Pelosi- Passed a bill that will raise the value of multiple properties she and her husband own. Tried to get access to military aircraft for private use. Shut down the Ethics process in Congress.
Reid- Helping a campaign donator clear hurdles to a building project. Had his son hired by the same guy, and is unduly helping him. Scandal plagued in general.

[SmilezRoyale]

Clearly this is republican propaganda at work.

We must be cautious

[SlithVampir]

HEY LOOKIE! WolvenBear made a topic I agree with! I don't like anyone on the list. But Karl Rove and/or The Dick should have been on it.

[Jizzlebang]

I just did a quick search which go against the allegations on Obama. (suuupriiiise). They all state that Obama never did anything illegal. In fact, first link claims Antoin Rezko even dealt with Bush (But that doesn't matter, does it).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit le=Antoin_%22Tony%22_Rezko

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoin_Rezk o

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/pol itics/14rezko.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[LadyGrace]

"Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, "Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore." Whittemore also hired one of Reid's sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father's office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest."

Lol not to mention mob ties. He and Oscar Goodman make a great pair. >:(

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 06:39 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/28/07 06:21 PM, Musician wrote: Barrack Obama? yeah...

I just find it FUCKING HILARIOUS that Obama would make it on the list, and President Bush doesn't even make the top 10. And here I was led to believe by people on this forum that Obama could do no wrong and that Bush should be drawn and quartered. Go figure.

Yeah exactly what I was thinking, George Bush broke the Geneva Convention and his administration leaked the name of a CIA agent (treason). How could he not be in the top 10.

At 12/28/07 06:41 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Clearly this is republican propaganda at work.

We must be cautious

I don't think republican propaganda, but still worth taking with a grain of salt.

[Leeloo-Minai]

what about that bribe-taking Louisiana representative who's been protected by his crooked-cronies because he stashed his loot IN his capital hill office? He's a democrat, and his scheming is small change compared to some on that list . . . but still, the man was caught red-handed and got away on a technicality.

[Memorize]

At 12/28/07 07:21 PM, Musician wrote:

Yeah exactly what I was thinking, George Bush broke the Geneva Convention and his administration leaked the name of a CIA agent (treason). How could he not be in the top 10.

1) Geneva applies to fighting another organized state. Not an organization which targets civilians in a state.

2) Bush did not leak the name. Even the guy that flipped and said he was mislead into saying his adminstration had nothing to do with it even says Bush had no knowledge of it.

2a) The family who was leaked, leaked classified information against the adminstration while hiding under their covert status, so why should I care about it?

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 06:50 PM, SlithVampir wrote: HEY LOOKIE! WolvenBear made a topic I agree with! I don't like anyone on the list. But Karl Rove and/or The Dick should have been on it.

Karl Rove quit. Don't know if you got the memo. It was a huge story at the beginning of the year. Therefore, he can't be on the 1007 list. And what did Dick do? Other than being in and out of hospitals all year?

At 12/28/07 07:00 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: I just did a quick search which go against the allegations on Obama. (suuupriiiise). They all state that Obama never did anything illegal. In fact, first link claims Antoin Rezko even dealt with Bush (But that doesn't matter, does it).

Yet, Judicial watch never claimed he did anything illegal himself. It says that he took money and had business transactions with a man who was under federal investigation.

Since your first two links are wikis, I'll ignore them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/pol itics/14rezko.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

But from this one:
Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.

And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.
The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.
"Senator Obama is a very intelligent man, and everyone by then was very familiar with who Tony Rezko was," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonpartisan research group. "So it was a little stunning that so late in the game Senator Obama would still have such close involvement with Rezko."

It's not that Obama had taken money from him, or had business deals with him. That can simply be chalked up to bad luck. What's raising eyebrows is that he kept involved with him after he became indicted, still accepting money. Much like Hillary, with Norman Hsu, once called on it, he got rid of the money and gave a mea culpa. It's the appearance of impropriety, which you can't have in Washington.

And way to address the part of that that clearly breaks ethics rules.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 07:46 PM, Memorize wrote: 1) Geneva applies to fighting another organized state. Not an organization which targets civilians in a state.

The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war, the reason George Bush isn't being prosecuted because the Patriot Act strips the rights of anyone he labels a "terrorist".

2) Bush did not leak the name. Even the guy that flipped and said he was mislead into saying his adminstration had nothing to do with it even says Bush had no knowledge of it.

Bush admitted that his administration leaked the name

2a) The family who was leaked, leaked classified information against the adminstration while hiding under their covert status, so why should I care about it?

Uh, because it's treason? And the CIA agent who was leaked had nothing to do with her husbands politics?

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 07:21 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/28/07 06:39 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yeah exactly what I was thinking, George Bush broke the Geneva Convention and his administration leaked the name of a CIA agent (treason). How could he not be in the top 10.

Because Bush didn't break the Geneva convention, and Valerie Plame's name was leaked first by her husband Joe Wilson and then by Richard Armitage. And since she wasn't covert, it's not a crime, let alone treason.

And if you want to bitch about waterboarding, The Dems approved it back in 01. So, most of your beloved leaders would still be on the list above Bush. So shut up already.

At 12/28/07 06:41 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I don't think republican propaganda, but still worth taking with a grain of salt.

You seem to miss sarcasm.

At 12/28/07 07:27 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: what about that bribe-taking Louisiana representative who's been protected by his crooked-cronies because he stashed his loot IN his capital hill office? He's a democrat, and his scheming is small change compared to some on that list . . . but still, the man was caught red-handed and got away on a technicality.

Cold cash Jefferson was on the list last year. As he's under investigation, I'm sure he's keeping his nose pretty damned clean this year.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 08:33 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Valerie Plame's name was leaked first by her husband Joe Wilson and then by Richard Armitage. And since she wasn't covert, it's not a crime, let alone treason.

I can't believe you just said that, do you really believe it's not a crime to leak the name of a CIA agent? Are you really that deluded?

And if you want to bitch about waterboarding, The Dems approved it back in 01. So, most of your beloved leaders would still be on the list above Bush. So shut up already.

Funny since in 2001 Congress AND the White House we're both controlled by the republicans.

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 08:22 PM, Musician wrote: Bush admitted that his administration leaked the name

His actual quote, from your link:

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."

I may have missed something, but "someone probably did", is a far cry from "They did." And that doesn't implicate Bush in the "leaking".
And it's less that Bush knows someone leaked the name, than that he's simply accepting the results of the investigation as valid...even though the whole thing was a ridiculous circus.

Uh, because it's treason? And the CIA agent who was leaked had nothing to do with her husbands politics?

Uh, yes she did. She got him sent over. And he was using his connection to her to legitimize his findings, which he later distorted.

And she wasn't covert. So it's not treason.
You're simply trying Proof by Assertion.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148555
It further links to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/sit e/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

Which states:
The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

Or in short, a critic of Bush's war in Iraq, a man who was known as a gossip, leaked the name on his own, not out of malice, but because he couldn't get his stupid mouth shut.

Which undermines the case for treason. Even if Plame had been a covert CIA agent instead of a desk jockey, and even if her "outting" had heard national security (doubtful), he wouldn't be charged with treason, because there was never an intent, or even an effort, to hurt the US, much less "give aid and comfort to our enemies".

Furthermore, Taft, from the state department deliberately didn't tell Bush or Gonzalez about Armitage:

also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source-possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more.

Your entire case is bullshit.

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 08:41 PM, Musician wrote: I can't believe you just said that, do you really believe it's not a crime to leak the name of a CIA agent? Are you really that deluded?

Well, feel free to advocate charging Wilson with a crime then. Or armitage. I don't terribly care. But you have no desire to do that, because that doesn't get you what you want, and at the end of the day, it's not like you actually CARE about the CIA.

Otherwise you'd be pissed about things like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.
html

Funny since in 2001 Congress AND the White House we're both controlled by the republicans.

What does that have to do with anything? Top leaders of both parties were briefed on it back after 9/11, and all gave their approval. We know that Pelosi was among them. They raised no stink about it. The House just NOW passed a bill to outlaw it:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/200 7/12/house-vote-outlaws-waterboarding-by -cia.html

And the Senate has yet to take action on it.

So what we have....Dems oked it. Let it go on. Waited for the CIA to stop using it. Then they raised a stink about it. And for almost a year in power have just NOW taken a step to end the practice.

My observation still stands. You are only against waterboarding because it's a Republican in office. And you're more than willing to overlook Democrat culpability into it. Just partisan politics...not principles.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 08:49 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/28/07 08:22 PM, Musician wrote: Bush admitted that his administration leaked the name

I may have missed something, but "someone probably did", is a far cry from "They did." And that doesn't implicate Bush in the "leaking".

I still consider it to be him admitting to it, why else would he come out and say something like that? He did it to dry a draw attention off the fact that he pardoned libby before he could be brought to justice. He's not acting like an innocent man, he knows the leak came from his administration,

And she wasn't covert. So it's not treason.

Yeah she was.
here's another source from The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Your entire case is bullshit.

haha

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 09:02 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, feel free to advocate charging Wilson with a crime then. Or armitage. I don't terribly care. But you have no desire to do that, because that doesn't get you what you want, and at the end of the day, it's not like you actually CARE about the CIA.

Otherwise you'd be pissed about things like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.
html

I am pissed about things like that, not that it has anything to do with this discussion at all.

What does that have to do with anything? Top leaders of both parties were briefed on it back after 9/11, and all gave their approval.

I'd like to see exactly what you're referring to, why don't you provide a link

We know that Pelosi was among them. They raised no stink about it. The House just NOW passed a bill to outlaw it:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/200 7/12/house-vote-outlaws-waterboarding-by -cia.html

Good, it's a barbaric and inhumane practice and we're above it.

So what we have....Dems oked it. Let it go on.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, we've convicted people for waterboarding before.

Waited for the CIA to stop using it. Then they raised a stink about it. And for almost a year in power have just NOW taken a step to end the practice.

It has only just come to the publics attention that waterboarding was being permitted.

My observation still stands. You are only against waterboarding because it's a Republican in office.

Nope, I'd think it was despicable whether it was a Dem or a Rep.

And you're more than willing to overlook Democrat culpability into it. Just partisan politics...not principles.

sure thing buddy.

[Memorize]

At 12/28/07 08:22 PM, Musician wrote:

The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war, the reason George Bush isn't being prosecuted because the Patriot Act strips the rights of anyone he labels a "terrorist".

Prisoners of war... who follow UN regulation.

Are you saying that suicide bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

Bush admitted that his administration leaked the name

"President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative".

"The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative."

You said "Bush did it", not his administration. I said Bush didn't do it, I said nothing of his administration.

Uh, because it's treason? And the CIA agent who was leaked had nothing to do with her husbands politics?

Leaking classified information while under your covert status while acting politically against the President is also treason.

So considering Plame and her husband comitted treason, why not oust them from CIA?

I predict your answer will be "His adminstration still did it" or something to that affect considering your stance and calling troops nothing more than "hired killers". Why is it that the people who protest the war and demand a withdrawl always consider soldiers and troops as a lesser class?

[Proteas]

At 12/28/07 09:37 PM, Musician wrote: I still consider it to be him admitting to it, why else would he come out and say something like that?

If there was any evidence to implicate him in leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the media, the Dems in charge of that joke of a trial would have ridden it like on a 95 pound jockey on Barbaro straight to Bush's impeachment. The evidence was tenuous as best, otherwise they would have actually been able to convict someone of being the LEAK and not simply convict Libby of "lying to investigators" ABOUT the leak they couldn't conclusively prove the origin thereof.

He did it to dry a draw attention off the fact that he pardoned libby before he could be brought to justice. He's not acting like an innocent man, he knows the leak came from his administration,

*rolls eyes*

Yeah she was.

... would you care to explain to everyone why an unclassified document would name plame as being a covert agent? Wouldn't that be CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 10:01 PM, Memorize wrote: Prisoners of war... who follow UN regulation.

Prisoners of war period.

Are you saying that suicide bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

Even "terrorists" have rights

You said "Bush did it", not his administration. I said Bush didn't do it, I said nothing of his administration.

Nope, I said it was his administration that did it, and honestly I think if there was a real investigation on the matter, they would find that the leak went much higher then Libby.

Uh, because it's treason? And the CIA agent who was leaked had nothing to do with her husbands politics?

Leaking classified information while under your covert status while acting politically against the President is also treason.

So considering Plame and her husband comitted treason, why not oust them from CIA?

Yeah! fight treason with treason!
also, why don't you provide some sources on the treason her husband supposedly committed.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 10:09 PM, Proteas wrote: ... would you care to explain to everyone why an unclassified document would name plame as being a covert agent? Wouldn't that be CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

It was declassified for the purpose of holding an investigation

[Musician]

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/200 70316104030-43341.pdf

that's what this document says anyhow.

"Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her
CIA employment in open session.
I have met with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say
about Ms. Wilson's service.
My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified
information."

[Proteas]

At 12/28/07 10:16 PM, Musician wrote: Prisoners of war period.

A prisoner of war is defined by the Geneva convention as a clearly identifiable opposition soldier who is captured in a warzone. By "clearly identifiable" they are referring to a uniform style of dress that would leave no doubt in the capturing party's mind as to whom the captured soldier is fighting for.

By simple definition, you are wrong.

Nope, I said it was his administration that did it

But you are eager to see Bush held personally responsible for the crime and charged with treason for it.

At 12/28/07 10:25 PM, Musician wrote: It was declassified for the purpose of holding an investigation

The term "declassified" is not even mentioned in the article. Even then, government documents are usually only declassified after a long passage of time has occured from their creation, so as the sensitive information cannot be used against us. Unless you want me to believe that the prosecutors have a time machine, you're going to have to explain to me how an unclassified document that somehow wasn't viewed as a security risk held information that was somehow considered classified.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 10:36 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/28/07 10:16 PM, Musician wrote: Prisoners of war period.

A prisoner of war is defined by the Geneva convention as a clearly identifiable opposition soldier who is captured in a warzone. By "clearly identifiable" they are referring to a uniform style of dress that would leave no doubt in the capturing party's mind as to whom the captured soldier is fighting for.:
By simple definition, you are wrong.

By simple definition, but you're riding on a technicality, and it doesn't make the torture of Iraqi detainees any less despicable.

But you are eager to see Bush held personally responsible for the crime and charged with treason for it.

What I'm eager to see is a real investigation into what happened.

At 12/28/07 10:25 PM, Musician wrote: It was declassified for the purpose of holding an investigation

The term "declassified" is not even mentioned in the article.

Maybe not, but

Even then, government documents are usually only declassified after a long passage of time has occured from their creation, so as the sensitive information cannot be used against us.

The fact that she was covert was the only thing that was declassified, and even then it was because an investigation had to the source of the leak.

Unless you want me to believe that the prosecutors have a time machine, you're going to have to explain to me how an unclassified document that somehow wasn't viewed as a security risk held information that was somehow considered classified.

They took care into what the allowed to become unclassified.

"Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information."

Honestly, asking how an unclassified document can show the CIA agent was covert is just a dodge to avoid actually addressing the evidence that she was a covert CIA agent.

[Musician]

At 12/28/07 11:09 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/28/07 10:36 PM, Proteas wrote: The term "declassified" is not even mentioned in the article.

Maybe not, but

*Maybe not, but that hardy proves that it wasn't

[Jon4life]

I would have to say all republicans, and hilary, obama.

[Proteas]

At 12/28/07 11:09 PM, Musician wrote: By simple definition, but you're riding on a technicality, and it doesn't make the torture of Iraqi detainees any less despicable.

I find it funny how despite definition or technicality that you have adopted the use of the term "detainee" all of the sudden. What's the matter, not so strong in your convictions? 20 minutes ago you wanted them treated like actual SOLDIERS and not simply the mercenaries and goons they actually are.

And I defy you provide evidence of "detainees" being tortured in U.S. Custody... or is the most recent thing you can come up with Abu Ghraib?

What I'm eager to see is a real investigation into what happened.

Do you want me to click my heels together and say "there's no place like home" together first?

Honestly, asking how an unclassified document can show the CIA agent was covert is just a dodge to avoid actually addressing the evidence that she was a covert CIA agent.

And you focusing in on Bush as being solely responsible for the leak is just a dodge from the fact that all evidence pointed towards Rove because you're to blinded by your own hate for the man to see straight.

[WolvenBear]

At 12/28/07 09:44 PM, Musician wrote: I am pissed about things like that, not that it has anything to do with this discussion at all.

Exactly. You're NOT pissed. That was classified CIA info.
Wait....classified...CIA. HOLY SHIT THAT'S TREASON!
We should find whoever leaked it an hang them.

I'd like to see exactly what you're referring to, why don't you provide a link

Alrighty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.
html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

The Democrats present were: Pelosi, Harman, Graham and Rockefeller.

Good, it's a barbaric and inhumane practice and we're above it.

It's an unpleasant treatment that leaves no injury.
Regardless, it's an obsolete practice, no longer used, that Dems are so against, but aren't in any rush to stop.

You know, that makes them as bad as the Republicans...oh no wait, that makes them worse.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, we've convicted people for waterboarding before.

Once, a sherriff from Texas. Police are bound by different rules than military.
As I've shown repeatedly, we have never convincted any military personnel for what is being done now.

It has only just come to the publics attention that waterboarding was being permitted.

So, the moral objections for Dems don't start until the public finds out? What kinda bullshit is that?

sure thing buddy.

Well I just provided proof Pelosi knew, so you haven't be double standarded on that YET. But you're a wealth of double standards everywhere else on this board. Hell, "leaking" Plame's name is a crime, but revealing confidential CIA info isn't a crime according to your post (though I could be misunderstanding you...I'll be fair).