[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #644 Epstein time

quote:

US President Donald Trump lobbed a verbal hand grenade into Theresa May’s carefully constructed plans for Brexit, saying Thursday that the British leader had wrecked the country’s exit from the European Union and likely “killed” chances of a free-trade deal with the United States.

Trump, who is making his first presidential visit to Britain, also told The Sun newspaper that May’s nemesis, the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, would make a “great” British prime minister.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 14:42 schreef Kun-Aguero het volgende:

[..]

Concentratiekampen waren echt iets anders, vrij grof om dat te gebruiken.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 15:33 schreef Mike het volgende:
Wat moet je het dan moeilijk hebben met Trump, Chivaz, want die doet amper wat anders dan zich bemoeien met andere landen:
[..]

_{Bron: AP}

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 15:28 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat deed hij niet. Hij geeft gewoon aan dat de UK feitelijk overnieuw moet beginnen met het maken van handelsverdragen. Wat ook gewoon zo is. Ga nu niet feiten verdraaien en dan je eigen mening als feit weergeven. En ga in op de gehele post ipv te cherry picken, want nu kom je over als een evangelist.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 15:57 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Je bent in de war met vernietigingskampen. Dat zijn inderdaad anders dan concentratiekampen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 16:09 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

#neveragain

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 15:57 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Je bent in de war met vernietigingskampen. Dat zijn inderdaad anders dan concentratiekampen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 17:16 schreef Bernhard.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

Ja ook voor concentratiekampen geldt #neveragain

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 17:33 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Ik ken zijn exacte woorden.

Begin een beetje moe te worden van je. Ga eens in op de rest, argumenteer volwassen en stop gewoon met het stellen van leidende vragen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 17:58 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

https://spectator.org/oba(...)ctions-six-examples/

Blijkbaar niet, want je geeft er wel een heel vreemde draai aan.

quote:

And the Obama administration was open about its efforts. The Los Angeles Times reported that the “Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization…” The MB’s mission statement states, “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Sounds like a group Obama would support.

quote:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 17:47 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben blij dat de betekenis van uitspraken door Cortez door mensen zoals jij vertaald worden zodat mensen zoals ik zich niet kunnen verwarren met wat de originele betekenis is.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 18:13 schreef Bernhard.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

Je kan alle hulp gebruiken. At your service.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 18:17 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Ietwat wankele bron

American Spectator
RIGHT BIAS
Factual Reporting: MIXED

Story selection and editorial positions consistently favor the right. Reporting has poor sourcing techniques and a lack of disclosure with funding.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-spectator/

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 18:15 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Is dat trouwens ook ergens online te vinden dat woordenboek?
Het zou wel handig zijn als ik weer eens een uitspraak van Cortez tegenkom. Dan weet ik in ieder geval wat ze echt bedoelt ipv wat ze concreet zegt.

twitter:

DavidNakamura twitterde op zaterdag 13-07-2019 om 01:07:25 Pool report from @jdawsey1 with @VP and GOP lawmakers on trip to McAllen, Tx, border patrol station. https://t.co/jFv4L8xSwq reageer retweet

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

I don't think the mainstream media is free speech either...To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposefully write bad. To me that’s very dangerous speech and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.

Bron

twitter:

shannonrwatts twitterde op zaterdag 13-07-2019 om 05:57:56 This image will go down in history. New video shows shows Mike Pence callously observing and turning his back on severe overcrowding of men in cages at a detainment facility in Texas. https://t.co/ij5Zlt5neV reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 19:16 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Dit is allemaal natuurlijk geen bewijs want van horen zeggen he?

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 18:12 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:
Consortium News: Concord Management and the End of Russiagate?
Washington Times: Judge chides Justice Department over statements tied to Mueller prosecution

Een federale rechter in Washington DC heeft de helft van Mueller's rapport over Russische beïnvloeding van de 2016 verkiezingen gesloten omdat Mueller teveel dingen heeft gezegd die verder gingen dan het rapport zelf. Dit zou Trump te zeer benadelen.

RussiaGate trilt op z'n grondvesten.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 20:23 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie een 503 van ongetwijfeld weer één of andere dubieuze bron en een artikel van de WT waarin het gaat over uitspraken van het ministerie van justitie, niets over Mueller.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 21:43 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

Jammer joh, zit je er weer naast: Consortium News - Media Bias/Fact Check

De link werkt. Ik zal hem hieropvolgend dan nog maar eens als URL plaatsen: https://consortiumnews.co(...)e-end-of-russiagate/

Duidelijk wordt dat Mueller bij een hoorzitting niet zomaar meer mag stellen dat er sprake was van enige vorm van Russische beïnvloeding van de verkiezingen van 2016.

quote:

But now Judge Dabney Friedrich has ordered Mueller to stop pushing such stories because they’re unfair to Concord Management and Consulting, another Prigozhin company, which astonished the legal world in May 2018 by hiring an expensive Washington law firm and demanding its day in court.

quote:

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that Concord’s motion for an order to show cause why Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III and Attorney General William P. Barr should not be held in contempt is DENIED;

ORDERED that the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order shall remain in effect through trial;

ORDERED that, on or before July 5, 2019, the government shall file under seal any opposition to Concord’s request to unseal (1) the May 28, 2019 hearing transcript, Dkt. 144; (2) the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order, Dkt. 137; (3) the parties’ supplemental briefs, Dkts. 139, 140, 142, 143; and (4) this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Concord shall file any response to the government’s opposition on or before July 11, 2019. Both parties shall include in their respective filings any proposed redactions to these materials in the event they are released.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 22:03 schreef Montov het volgende:
Zoals ik het lees in de sealed order gaat het om een lopende juridische zaak waar men voorzichtig moet zijn met openbare informatie?

En gelijk wordt een conclusie getroken dat de helft van Muellers rapport fout is? Confirmation bias heet dat.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 21:59 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan het artikel ook lezen, maar ik haal er echt wat anders uit dan jij. Het is niet dat het Mueller rapport gesloten zou worden (wat dat dan ook moge betekenen), maar dat, omdat deze organisatie aangeklaagd wordt, het niet eerlijk zou zijn naar de organisatie in het beklaagdenbankje.

Het is niet, omdat het oneerlijk naar Trump zou zijn. Waar haal je dat vandaan?!

Het artikel verwijst trouwens naar deze uitspraak in deze zin:
[..]

Maar als ik dat document open zie ik niet dat Mueller zelf gemaand wordt niks te zeggen?! Of interpreteer ik dit verkeerd?
[..]

quote:

Don’t look now, but a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has just shut down half of Robert Mueller’s Russian-interference case.

(...)

Contrary to internet chatter, Friedrich did not offer an opinion as to whether the IRA-Kremlin connection is true or false. Rather, she told the special prosecutor to keep quiet because such statements go beyond the scope of the original indictment and are therefore prejudicial to the defendant. But it may be a distinction without a difference since the only evidence that Mueller puts forth in the public version of his report is a New York Times article from February 2018 entitled “Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian Oligarch Indicted by US, Is Known as ‘Putin’s Cook.’”

Bottom line: Russiagate is going up in smoke. The claim that Russian military intelligence fed thousands of emails to WikiLeaks doesn’t stand up to scrutiny while Mueller is not only unable to a prove a connection between the Internet Research Agency and the Kremlin but is barred from even discussing it, according to Friedrich’s ruling, without risking a charge of contempt. After 22 months of investigating the ins and outs of Russian interference, Mueller seems to have finally come up dry.

(...)

Now Mueller is in an even worse pickle because he’s barred from mentioning a major chunk of his report. What will he discuss if Democrats succeed in getting him to testify before the House intelligence and judiciary committees next week – the weather? If his team goes forward with the Concord prosecution, he’ll risk having to turn over sensitive information while involving himself in a legal tangle that could go on for years, all without any conceivable payoff. If he drops it, the upshot will be a public-relations disaster of the first order.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 22:07 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Dat het nadelig is voor Trump klopt inderdaad niet.

quote:

[...]
In this case, nothing about the government’s conduct to date suggests a flagrant disregard for the Court’s authority.

To the contrary, the government has demonstrated that moving forward it will comply with Rule 57.7 and any further order of the Court. On May 29, 2019, following the Court’s hearing, the special Counsel held a press conference to announce the conclusion of his investigation and his resignation as Special Counsel.

In delivering his remarks, the Special Counsel carefully distinguished between the efforts by “Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military” and the efforts detailed “in a separate indictment” by “a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.” Special Counsel Statement Tr. (emphases added). He also repeatedly referred to the activities described in the Report as “allegations” and made clear that his Office was “not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.” Id. The Special Counsel added that the defendants were “presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.” Id. These actions demonstrate that the government understands and intends to abide by the Court’s May 28, 2018 Order, and they serve as a strong indication that contempt proceedings would be both unnecessary and excessive under the circumstances.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 20:23 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie een 503 van ongetwijfeld weer één of andere dubieuze bron en een artikel van de WT waarin het gaat over uitspraken van het ministerie van justitie, niets over Mueller.

quote:

But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree.

twitter:

dcexaminer twitterde op donderdag 27-06-2019 om 23:15:58 "There were concentration camps under Obama and under Bill Clinton. That’s in the story you retweeted. Did you call them concentration camps at the time when Obama was president?" @jaketapper asks @AOC "at the time I was working in a restaurant ..." https://t.co/R0ltbQyJr0 reageer retweet

Dem. Rep. Admits Obama Tried To Hide The Children Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:12 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:
Nog even over 'concentratiekampen':
[..]

twitter:

dcexaminer twitterde op donderdag 27-06-2019 om 23:15:58 "There were concentration camps under Obama and under Bill Clinton. That’s in the story you retweeted. Did you call them concentration camps at the time when Obama was president?"@:jaketapper asks @:AOC "at the time I was working in a restaurant ..." https://t.co/R0ltbQyJr0 reageer retweet

Dem. Rep. Admits Obama Tried To Hide The Children Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:12 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:
Nog even over 'concentratiekampen':


and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify.

quote:

That includes the facilities themselves, which at that point were mostly built—by the Clinton administration in the '90s—to house single adult males who were crossing the border illegally to find work. By that point, Border Patrol was already forced to use them to hold families and other asylum-seekers, and agents told me the situation was untenable. They lacked requisite staff with the training to care for young children, and overcrowding was already an issue.

...

But according to a report from Trump's own government—specifically, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security—the situation has deteriorated significantly even since then. The facilities are overcrowded, underfunded, and perhaps at a perilous inflection point. It found adult detainees are "being held in 'standing-room-only conditions' for days or weeks at a border patrol facility in Texas," Reuters reports. But it gets worse.

...

This was at Paso del Norte, a facility near El Paso, which has a stated capacity of 125 detainees. But when DHS inspectors visited, it was holding 900. For a period, Border Patrol tried housing migrants in cage under a nearby bridge.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:26 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Dat Obama net zo slecht was, gokje.

Men probeert gewoon het feit te verbergen dat onder Trump onmenselijke behandeling onderdeel is van het beleid.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:32 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Je moet dat artikel even verder lezen.
[..]

Faciliteiten gebouwd voor alleenreizende mannelijke asielzoekers zitten op 700% van de capaciteit waar families moeten staan, kinderen voorgoed van de ouders worden gescheiden en mensen buiten opgesloten worden in een kooi, terwijl er een stelselmatig proces van dehumanisatie en militarisatie bezig is door de Trump administratie, maar nee hoor het is allemaal de schuld van Hussein Obummer. Waarom zouden ze het eerst geen concentratiekampen genoemd hebben en nu wel, vast allemaal liberal bias!

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:33 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

Jouw redenatie is dat er onder Clinton en Obama goede concentratiekampen waren?

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:36 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Ik betoog dat het grotendeels detentiecentra waren. Maar ik geloof dat je het artikel dus niet echt gelezen hebt?

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:37 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

Dat betoog klopt dus niet. Het artikel maakt duidelijk dat er onder Clinton en Obama al concentratiekampen waren, maar dat de toestand in de kampen verslechterd is onder Trump.

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 23:37 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

Dat betoog klopt dus niet. Het artikel maakt duidelijk dat er onder Clinton en Obama al concentratiekampen waren, maar dat de toestand in de kampen verslechterd is onder Trump.

quote:

In the origins of the camps, it's tied to the idea of martial law," says Jonathan Hyslop, author of "The Invention of the Concentration Camp: Cuba, Southern Africa and the Philippines, 1896–1907," and a professor of sociology and anthropology at Colgate University. "I mean, all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they're all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population. And the idea is that you're able to suspend normal law because it's a war situation."


This pairs well with the rhetoric that Trump deploys to justify the system and his unconstitutional power grabs, like the phony "national emergency": he describes the influx of asylum-seekers and other migrants as an "invasion," language his allies are mirroring with increasing extremism. If you're defending yourself from an invasion, anything is defensible.

That goes hand-in-hand with the strategy of dehumanization. For decades, the right has referred to undocumented immigrants as "illegals," stripping them of any identity beyond an immigration status. Trump kicked off his formal political career by characterizing Hispanic immigrants as "rapists" and "drug-dealers" and "criminals," never once sharing, say, the story of a woman who came here with her son fleeing a gang's threats. It is always MS-13 and strong, scary young men. There's talk of "animals" and monsters, and suddenly anything is justifiable. In fact, it must be done.Trump's supporters have noticed. At a recent rally, someone in the crowd screamed out that people arriving at the border should be shot. In response, the president cracked a "joke."


Trump’s rhetoric about the border has served the purpose of militarizing the system and dehumanizing its subjects.


"It's important here to look at the language that people are using," Hyslop says. "As soon as you get people comparing other groups to animals or insects, or using language about advancing hordes, and we're being overrun and flooded and this sort of thing, it's creating the sense of this enormous threat. And that makes it much easier to sell to people on the idea we've got to do something drastic to control this population which going to destroy us."

In a grotesque formulation of the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, housing people in these camps furthers their dehumanization.

"There's this crystallization that happens," Pitzer says. "The longer they're there, the worse conditions get. That's just a universal of camps. They're overcrowded. We already know from reports that they don't have enough beds for the numbers that they have. As you see mental health crises and contagious diseases begin to set in, they'll work to manage the worst of it. [But] then there will be the ability to tag these people as diseased, even if we created [those conditions]. Then we, by creating the camps, try to turn that population into the false image that we [used] to put them in the camps to start with. Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are."

quote:

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2019 21:43 schreef Oostwoud het volgende:

[..]

Jammer joh, zit je er weer naast: Consortium News - Media Bias/Fact Check

De link werkt. Ik zal hem hieropvolgend dan nog maar eens als URL plaatsen: https://consortiumnews.co(...)e-end-of-russiagate/

Duidelijk wordt dat Mueller bij een hoorzitting niet zomaar meer mag stellen dat er sprake was van enige vorm van Russische beïnvloeding van de verkiezingen van 2016.

quote:

D. Order Regulating the Parties’ Statements Moving Forward
Rule 57.7(c) provides that “[i]n a widely publicized or sensational criminal case, the
Court, on motion of either party or on its own motion, may issue a special order governing such
matters as extrajudicial statements by parties[.]” Local Crim. R. 57.7(c). The Court previously
suggested that a Rule 57.7(c) order might be warranted under the circumstances and ordered the
parties to brief the potential terms of such an order. May 28, 2019 Hr’g Tr. at 22–23, 45, 48–49.
In response, the parties appear to agree that the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order effectively serves as
a Rule 57.7(c) order and that the terms of that order are adequate and appropriate. See Concord’s
Supp. Br. at 11 (stating that the May 29, 2019 Order “is, for all intents and purposes, an order
entered pursuant to Rule 57.7(c)” and that “its terms are appropriate”); Gov’t’s Supp. Br. at 14,
Dkt. 139 (indicating that the “government does not oppose an order in this case further restricting
extrajudicial statements” and proposing terms similar to those already contained in the Court’s
May 29, 2019 Order). Accordingly, that order will remain in effect through trial.

E. Unsealing this Opinion and Related Materials
The Court initially chose to resolve this matter under seal to protect Concord’s interests
and enable a candid discussion of the redactions to the Special Counsel Report. However,
Concord now objects to that decision and requests that the Court unseal the May 28, 2019
hearing transcript, the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order, the parties’ supplemental briefs, and
presumably this decision as well. Concord’s Supp. Br. at 11–15. The government has requested
an opportunity to brief the issue before the Court decides whether to unseal these portions of the
record. Gov’t’s Response to Concord’s Supp. Br. at 9.
Before acting on Concord’s request, the Court will give the government an opportunity to
file an objection and propose any redactions if the materials are to be released. If the
government objects to releasing the materials, in whole or in part, it should address in its
opposition the public’s right to access those materials and any First Amendment concerns that
might arise from maintaining them under seal.

quote:

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Concord’s motion for an order to show cause why Special Counsel
Robert S. Mueller, III and Attorney General William P. Barr should not be held in contempt is
DENIED;
ORDERED that the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order shall remain in effect through trial;
ORDERED that, on or before July 5, 2019, the government shall file under seal any
opposition to Concord’s request to unseal (1) the May 28, 2019 hearing transcript, Dkt. 144; (2)
the Court’s May 29, 2019 Order, Dkt. 137; (3) the parties’ supplemental briefs, Dkts. 139, 140,
142, 143; and (4) this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Concord shall file any response to the government’s opposition on or before July 11, 2019. Both parties shall include in their
respective filings any proposed redactions to these materials in the event they are released.

quote:

Judge Warns Prosecutors About Public Statements in Case Against Russian Firm

US District Judge Dabney Friedrich admonished prosecutors for statements about an indicted Russian company, but she declined to initiate contempt proceedings. "Nothing about the government's conduct to date suggests a flagrant disregard for the court's authority," Friedrich said.

quote:

Trump ally Lindsey Graham says president should 'admit clmate change is real'

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump should "admit that climate change is real" and start figuring out ways to confront it.

That wasn't advice from prominent congressional Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but rather from one of the president's staunchest allies in Congress: Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

"I'm tired of playing defense on the environment," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday as he and other GOP lawmakers announced the formation of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus, which will "embrace and promote constructive efforts to resolve conservation and environmental problems."

In response to a question about the president's environmental record, Graham said Trump should agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is warming and come up with an aggressive response.

"I would encourage the president to look at the science, admit that climate change is real and come up with solutions that do not destroy the economy like the Green New Deal," the senator said, referring to the plan progressive Democrats have promoted to halt climate change. "We will win the solution debate. But the only way you're going to win that debate is to admit you've got a problem."

Trump often mocks the science behind climate change and once referred to it as a "hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese to gain competitive advantage. He has instructed his administration to expand the development of carbon-emitting fossil fuels that contribute to a hotter planet. And he has rolled back previous efforts to reduce carbon emissions, including the Clean Power Plan that was a signature of President Barack Obama's efforts to confront the growing crisis.

In a White House news conference Monday defending his environmental record, Trump's only mention of climate change was when he said he "withdrew the United States from the unfair, ineffective, and very, very expensive Paris Climate Accord."

'Moral Imperative': 'A moral imperative:' AOC, Bernie Sanders call for climate emergency declaration

Environmental defense: Donald Trump claims environmental progress; environmentalists disagree

The pact that called for countries to meet voluntary emissions reduction goals was signed by nearly 200 nations, including the U.S. in 2016 when Obama was president.

Frustrated with the administration's continuing push to expand fossil fuels, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive lawmakers earlier this week called on Congress to declare a "climate emergency," a largely symbolic effort designed to spur action on global warming.

"This is a moral imperative," Sanders, I-Vt., a top-tier contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, told reporters on a phone call Tuesday. "There is no choice. We are going to have to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry and the ignorance of Donald Trump and transform our energy system in a very bold way."

quote:

Op zondag 14 juli 2019 00:42 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Dat was inderdaad ook mijn interpretatie van het geheel.

Het is kennelijk nog al moeilijk onderscheid te maken tussen "het is niet de bedoeling publiekelijk uitspraken te doen die een lopende zaak kunnen beïnvloeden" en het geïmpliceerde idee dat het halve onderzoek van Mueller niet valide zou zijn of iets dergelijks.