Author Topic: "Truth Matters"  (Read 16083 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2007, 01:08:17 PM »
<<So no there is no reason to beleive that he lied nor intended to deceive. The "lie" he told is as easily understood as an honest mistake as it is anything like a lie.It is in fact an inconsequential mistatement.>>

I think if the jury had concluded, as you seem to have, that Libby made an "honest mistake" they could not possibly have found that he lied to an investigator.  Much less that there is not even room for any reasonable doubt on the subject.

The jury in fact made a finding of fact that Libby lied to an investigator.  That there wasn't even room for a reasonable doubt as to that.  WERE they wrong or not?  He lied to the investigator or he didn't lie to the investigator.  Which do you think it is?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2007, 02:25:46 PM »
<<So no there is no reason to beleive that he lied nor intended to deceive. The "lie" he told is as easily understood as an honest mistake as it is anything like a lie.It is in fact an inconsequential mistatement.>>

I think if the jury had concluded, as you seem to have, that Libby made an "honest mistake" they could not possibly have found that he lied to an investigator.  Much less that there is not even room for any reasonable doubt on the subject.

The jury in fact made a finding of fact that Libby lied to an investigator.  That there wasn't even room for a reasonable doubt as to that.  WERE they wrong or not?  He lied to the investigator or he didn't lie to the investigator.  Which do you think it is?


Can you repeat what this lie was?

Without recourse to Google?

The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous , the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence and ther Jury presumed him guilty , the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.


Quote
"Juror Denis Collins on Wednesday summed up the dilemma that he and his associates faced behind closed doors.

 

 
 
"There was a frustration that we were trying someone for telling a lie apparently about an event that never became important enough to file charges anywhere else," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"I would hope that the message sent by this jury shouldn't be that big a message," he said.


"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."




http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070307/D8NNB2PO0.html
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 02:34:08 PM by Plane »

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2007, 02:37:28 PM »
Plane:
<<Note also ;
Quote
"Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Shamed he is , this will haunt him for all his life.>>

I thought at first you meant Scooter would be shamed...had to read it again, and of course it's the prosecutor you think is the bad guy in all this.  RULE OF LAW doesn't mean much to you all, does it?  Not if it gets one  of  yours.  Scooter had the same opportunity any citizen had: He could have told the truth to various investigators, to a grand jury, to the court, but he did not. He lied and continued to lie.  And you excuse him because...he's one of your own, I guess.
 
This is a victory for democracy. 
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 02:40:54 PM by Lanya »
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2007, 02:46:01 PM »
Plane:
<<Note also ;
Quote
"Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Shamed he is , this will haunt him for all his life.>>

I thought at first you meant Scooter would be shamed...had to read it again, and of course it's the prosecutor you think is the bad guy in all this.  RULE OF LAW doesn't mean much to you all, does it?  Not if it gets one  of  yours.  Scooter had the same opportunity any citizen had: He could have told the truth to various investigators, to a grand jury, to the court, but he did not. He lied and continued to lie.  And you excuse him because...he's one of your own, I guess.
 
This is a victory for democracy. 

No, it was actually Fitzgerald who left the room looking embarrased at what has been done.

It is a shame for all who take joy in the punishment of one for the imagined crimes of another.

The court of Sctotsbourough Alabama , and its jury was no better.

Can you admit in self examination that you are glad for his suffering because he is an associate of someone you hate?

gipper

  • Guest
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2007, 02:54:41 PM »
In typical reckless fashion, Lanya scoffs at and scorns Libby and his family and their suffering a 30-month prison term will impose. Just what was the lie he told? How central was it to Fitzgerald's investigation? As central as Bill Clinton's dodge to that civil lawsuit?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2007, 03:06:31 PM »
Quote
"He said, “some jurors said at one point, ‘We wish we weren’t judging Libby…this sucks.” More than once he said many jurors found Libby “sympathetic.”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/oj-style-juror-gives-his-thoughts-on-guilty-libby-verdict



Quote
"Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 — one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/woodward-got-the-word-before-rove-libby
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 03:09:30 PM by Plane »

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2007, 03:20:18 PM »
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/potential_juror.html



Is there any possibility for a change of venue for the appeal?

gipper

  • Guest
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2007, 03:27:20 PM »
No. Changes of venue apply exclusively to tainted jury pools for whom the factual questions in the trial have been exposed extensively and which leads to pre-formation of impressions and conclusions. On the other hand, appellate judges, distinguished as being trained professionals presumptively immune from the effects of publicity, do not engage in fact-finding but rather simply construe the facts that the record objectively establishes, and determine their significance in light of the applicable legal principles.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2007, 03:44:33 PM »
No. Changes of venue apply exclusively to tainted jury pools for whom the factual questions in the trial have been exposed extensively and which leads to pre-formation of impressions and conclusions. On the other hand, appellate judges, distinguished as being trained professionals presumptively immune from the effects of publicity, do not engage in fact-finding but rather simply construe the facts that the record objectively establishes, and determine their significance in light of the applicable legal principles.

That's too bad.


It seems to me that DC is a single industry town , and that the jury is tainted just because the case is so involved in that industry and there is little jury pool that is disintrested in the question.


A juror who votes guilty , but then later expresses resons for doing so that are inappropriate , produces grounds for appeal?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2007, 06:58:44 PM »
<<Can you repeat what this lie was?

Without recourse to Google?>>

Well without recourse to Google, I'd guess that the lie was either what he told a reporter or who told him what he'd told a reporter.  How would my personal ability to recall the minute details of this criminal's felonious misdeeds possibly affect his guilt or innocence?

<<The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous  . . . >>

Any lie told to an investigator is of course potentially "consequential," as the investigator has to piece together a thousand facts to make up a case, and the importance of each of the thousand pieces in the overall case may not be immediately apparent.  It's probably for this reason that the law created the offence of telling lies ( and not "consequential lies") to federal investigators.  Otherwise every investigation could be stymied at will by lying, the defence to which would be that the lie was not "consequential" or did not appear so to the liar at the time.

Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?"  A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?

 <<the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence>>

Oh?  What standard was that?  Didn't Libby's lawyers object to the standard set by the judge?  Did the judge not agree that her standards were ridiculous, seeing as how that was so obvious even to you?

<< and ther Jury presumed him guilty . . . >>

And you know this because they convicted him before all the evidence was in?  Or because they confided their presumptions to you, one and all?  (Keeping in mind that if even ONE of them had not presumed him guilty, he'd be walking free right now.)  How do you know they presumed him guilty?  By the colour of their skin?  Is that not a tad racist?

<< the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.>>

Really?  Do you know much about the Scottsboro Boys?  Do you know that their convictions were maintained in re-trials after one of the two complainants retracted her evidence and admitted to consensual sex with them in the boxcar?  Did you know they went on trial for their lives within one week of being arrested?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2007, 07:58:50 PM »
<<Can you repeat what this lie was?

Without recourse to Google?>>

Well without recourse to Google, I'd guess that the lie was either what he told a reporter or who told him what he'd told a reporter.  How would my personal ability to recall the minute details of this criminal's felonious misdeeds possibly affect his guilt or innocence?

  Because it is the quality of his memory that is the diffrence between a plausable mistake and a lie, you cannot recall what the lie is even in the middst of celebrateing it and on the same day that we have been reviewing it. Why is a guy of his age having remembered nine conversations out of order and diffrently from someone who took notes , construed as a lie?  What would be his motive for lieing? It seems to be presumed that he was covering up somthing but this turns out to be nothing. It is no wonder that the special prosicutor is seen skulking from the shame faced.
Quote

<<The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous  . . . >>

Any lie told to an investigator is of course potentially "consequential," as the investigator has to piece together a thousand facts to make up a case, and the importance of each of the thousand pieces in the overall case may not be immediately apparent.  It's probably for this reason that the law created the offence of telling lies ( and not "consequential lies") to federal investigators.  Otherwise every investigation could be stymied at will by lying, the defence to which would be that the lie was not "consequential" or did not appear so to the liar at the time.

Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?"  A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?
No , we should all be in prison , unless we have never lied at all
Quote

 <<the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence>>

Oh?  What standard was that?  Didn't Libby's lawyers object to the standard set by the judge?  Did the judge not agree that her standards were ridiculous, seeing as how that was so obvious even to you?

  The jdge stated in his opinion that the defendant discussed someone without finding out whether that person was a overt CIA agent . Except for Maxwell Smart Seret agents are not supposed to be famous how exactly is one supposed to never discuss anyone who may be a covert agent?
Try calling the CIA and askig for a list of covert agents in your neighborhod .
This judge is rediculously ignorant .
Quote

<< and ther Jury presumed him guilty . . . >>

And you know this because they convicted him before all the evidence was in?  Or because they confided their presumptions to you, one and all?  (Keeping in mind that if even ONE of them had not presumed him guilty, he'd be walking free right now.)  How do you know they presumed him guilty?  By the colour of their skin?  Is that not a tad racist?

I know by the statements that the jurors have made to the press ,they are saying that they considered this guy a fall guy anbd they really wanted to try the administration people that they would have recognised.

Quote



<< the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.>>

Really?  Do you know much about the Scottsboro Boys?  Do you know that their convictions were maintained in re-trials after one of the two complainants retracted her evidence and admitted to consensual sex with them in the boxcar?  Did you know they went on trial for their lives within one week of being arrested?



All right, I was exaggerateing, lock me up for thirty months .

Although the Scotsbourough boys and the OJ Simson case were more serious in the consequences involved there is a sameness in the nature of the problem. The jurors hd too much to cosider how their verdict would play with their neighbors and too ittle t consider the real evidence or lack thereof.   

gipper

  • Guest
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2007, 08:22:05 PM »
An inconsequential lie: "I couldn't have been privy to that conversation in person because I was in Omaha at the time" (when he actually was in Des Moines. Assume he lied because his mistress lives in Des Moines, and his wife is beginning to piece things together). This type of lie, having no bearing on the rightful conduct of the investigation, is often "inconsequential" because not punished seriously or not prosecuted at all, which are matter usually residing in a prosecutor's discretion.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2007, 10:04:17 PM »
Plane, here are some articles to bring you up to speed on the news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/08/BL2007020801013_pf.html

and this one:
Russert testifies in Libby perjury trial
Packed court hears NBC newsman deny identifying CIA operative
NBC News and news services
Updated: 12:54 p.m. ET Feb 12, 2007

WASHINGTON - NBC newsman Tim Russert, who drew the biggest audience of Washington's hottest new courtroom reality drama when he took the stand on Wednesday, testified against former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on a key part of his defense.

The host of "Meet the Press" was to be the final government witness in a trial that for three weeks has provided a rare glimpse into the Bush administration and occasionally offered entertainment and gossip for news and political junkies.

Speaking before a packed courtroom, Russert said he never discussed a CIA operative during a July 2003 phone conversation with Libby. Libby has testified that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday about such an exchange. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."

(MSNBC.com is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

Unlike previous witnesses who discussed the tense atmosphere inside the West Wing and revealed some of the administration's press strategies, Russert offered little in the way of fireworks. But the discrepancy between his account and Libby's is at the heart of the perjury and obstruction trial.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

During Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony, he said Russert told him "all the reporters know" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby now acknowledges he had learned about Plame a month earlier from his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, but says he had forgotten about it and learned it again from Russert as if new.

Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing information from government sources.

Defense questions Russert’s claim
Plame's identity was leaked shortly after her husband began accusing the Bush administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq. The controversy over the faulty intelligence was a major story in mid-2003.

Given that news climate, defense attorney Theodore Wells was skeptical about Russert's account.

"You have the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States on the telephone and you don't ask him one question about it?" Wells asked. He followed up moments later with, "As a newsperson who's known for being aggressive and going after the facts, you wouldn't have asked him about the biggest stories in the world that week?"

"What happened is exactly what I told you," Russert replied.

Russert originally told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby but had no recollection of it, according to an FBI report Wells read in court. Russert said Wednesday he did not believe he said that.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has spent weeks making the case that Libby was preoccupied with discrediting Wilson. Several former White House, CIA and State Department officials testified that Libby discussed Plame with them — all before the Russert conversation.

Fitzgerald has said Russert would be his final witness. Prosecutors spent the past few days playing audiotapes of Libby's grand jury testimony in court. In the final hours of those tapes Wednesday, Libby described a tense mood in the White House as the leak investigation began.

Though President Bush was publicly stating that nobody in the White House was involved in the leak, Libby knew that he himself had spoken to several reporters about Plame. He said he did not bring that up with Bush and was uncertain whether he discussed it with Cheney.

Libby remembered one conversation with Cheney, however, in which the vice president seemed surprised when told by his aide where Libby had learned Plame's identity.

"From me?" Cheney asked, tilting his head, Libby recalled.

Libby says notes triggered memory
Libby said he had forgotten that Cheney was his original source until finding his own handwritten notes on the conversation. The notes predated the Russert phone call by a month.

Libby said on Wednesday that he had asked Cheney twice if he wanted to hear details about Plame and Wilson that he Libby had heard in conversations with reporters.

"I would have been happy to unburden myself of it," he said in court. "He didn't want to hear it."

"We shouldn't talk about the details of this case," Cheney said, according to Libby.

Libby also said on Wednesday that Bush told the White House cabinet room on October 7, 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." He said he was aware the president had asked officials to come forward.

Russert's grand jury testimony questioned
Fitzgerald, in a court filing early Wednesday, wrote of the Libby-Russert phone conversation, "Mr. Russert will testify that, during this conversation, neither he nor the defendant made any mention of Valerie Plame Wilson or her employment at the CIA."

In the audiotapes played Tuesday during the trial, Libby told the grand jury in March 2004, "It seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time" when, according to his account, Russert told him about Plame on July 10 or 11, 2003. Only later, when looking at his calendar and notes, Libby said, did he remember that he actually learned the information from Cheney in a telephone conversation on June 12, 2003.

Fitzgerald also addressed an issue that Libby's defense attorneys brought up in court, asking prosecutors to disclose any accommodations that were offered to Russert in obtaining his testimony in the course of the grand jury investigation.

The special counsel wrote that the government requested that Russert voluntarily cooperate by testifying before the grand jury. Russert, through counsel, "sought to avoid providing testimony," Fitzgerald wrote. Russert's attorneys first attempted to convince Fitzgerald that he had nothing relevant to say because he had not been the recipient of any leak regarding Plame's employment.  Russert then filed a motion, under seal, to quash the grand jury subpoena issued for his testimony.

After Russert's motion was denied on July 21, 2004, the special counsel and Russert's attorneys agreed on a procedure in which he would forgo an appeal and provide testimony.

The questioning of Russert, according to prosecutors, "… was limited to telephone conversation(s) between Mr. Libby and Mr. Russert on or about July 10, 2003," and any follow-up conversations which involved Libby complaining to Russert about the on-the-air comments of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Fitzgerald said Russert was also asked "… whether during that conversation Mr. Russert imparted information concerning the employment of Ambassador Wilson's wife to Mr. Libby, or whether the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife was otherwise discussed in the conversation."

Fitzgerald also stated that "nothing in the government's possession" reflects the existence of "any tacit agreements, incentives or benefits beyond those provided as part of government counsel's efforts to 'accommodate the interests of both the grand jury and the media' as required by the DOJ Guidelines."
© 2007 MSNBC InteractiveThe Associated Press and NBC’s Joel Seidman contributed to this story.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17020411/
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

gipper

  • Guest
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2007, 10:10:03 PM »
Blah, blah, blah, blah. From your news article: "Washington's hottest new courtroom reality drama .... "

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2007, 01:44:58 AM »
 <<Because it is the quality of his memory that is the diffrence between a plausable mistake and a lie, you cannot recall what the lie is even in the middst of celebrateing it and on the same day that we have been reviewing it. Why is a guy of his age having remembered nine conversations out of order and diffrently from someone who took notes , construed as a lie?>>

So I guess, Libby of course NOT having lied to Federal investigators, then either his lawyers were too incompetent to have raised your points with the jury, or alternatively, the jury were just so fucking STUPID that not even one out of all twelve of them was able to follow the argument.   Which explanation do you prefer?

<<This was a DC jury , they re very likely complicit in this . . . >>

Oh yes, of course, I forgot momentarily that a DC jury was incapable of giving an honest verdict.  Tell me, do you think that's the result of the colour of their skin, the minuscule size of their brain-pans or is it just due to something in the District's air and water?

<<did you note this statement?  Quote:
"One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one.">>

Ah, now I understand.  The quote makes all the difference.  Basically, the jury could not have come to an honest and impartial verdict on the facts presented to them, as in fact they were all sworn to do, because the unknown person quoted has gone on record as saying that the case merely affirms widely held public views on the Bush administration.  And that settles it.  Waste of time and money really to go through the jury trial then, wasn't it?  Makes ya wonder why the old Scootster didn't just plead hisself guilty nad throw hisself on the mercy of the court.

<<  Q:  Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?"  A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?

<< A:  No , we should all be in prison , unless we have never lied at all>>

The question, I think, involved lying to a federal investigator, presumably in the course of an investigation.  Wanna try again?

<<The jdge stated in his opinion that the defendant discussed someone without finding out whether that person was a overt CIA agent . >>

Well, in that case not to worry.  If in fact that was the substance of what the judge told the jury, I'm sure it will be corrected on appeal and the Scootster will walk out a free liar, er, I mean a free man.

<<I know by the statements that the jurors have made to the press ,they are saying that they considered this guy a fall guy anbd they really wanted to try the administration people that they would have recognised.>>

Well I'm sure that's very understandable and commendable.  Bush and Cheney SHOULD be on trial for lying, war crimes, torture and a good many other things as well.  Although I don't see - - and apparently neither did the jury - - how this in any way exonerates the "fall guy" if he himself was basically committing the same crimes as his bosses, but just on a smaller scale.  Did the jurors' statements include the admission that they nailed the guy anyway despite the fact that he was innocent?

<<The jurors hd too much to cosider how their verdict would play with their neighbors and too ittle t consider the real evidence or lack thereof. >>

Oh, I see.  The jurors' neighbours were actually parading in the street with torches and signs saying "Kill the Jew from New York" (referring to the Scottsboro defence lawyer Samuel Leibowitz) or some similar reference to Libby's lawyers?  They were threatening to lynch Libby?  I didn't realize the jurors' neighbours were so het up over this.  Or was this maybe another one of your exaggerations, worth another 30 months?