What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The investigation investigations: DOJ exonerates McCabe (2 Viewers)

Among the reasons was that if he said that Trump wasn’t a target and then he later became one, correcting the record would be in order lest the statement become a lie — but that’s a terrible situation to be in because correcting the record would mean publicly saying that Trump was the target of an investigation, which would be bad for a bunch of reasons. (For one thing, it would unfairly cast a shadow over Trump when a conclusion of criminal culpability hadn’t been reached.) That’s why the FBI has a general policy of not saying who is or isn’t a target unless and until a decision to indict has been made.
But Comey suggested that Trump WAS a target of the investigation.  He suggested the entire Trump campaign was a target, without ruling anyone out.  

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining. (3/20/17)


BLUMENTHAL: Have you ruled out anyone in the campaign that you can disclose?

COMEY: I don't feel comfortable answering that, Senator because I think it puts me on a slope to talking about who we're investigating.

BLUMENTHAL: Have you -- have you ruled out the president of the United States?

COMEY: I don't -- I don't want people to over interpret this answer, I'm not going to comment on anyone in particular, because that puts me down a slope of -- because if I say no to that then I have to answer succeeding questions. So what we've done is brief the chair and ranking on who the U.S. persons are that we've opened investigations on. And that's -- that's as far as we're going to go, at this point. (5/3/17)
So he was able to reveal to the entire world that the Trump campaign was being investigated for potential collusion with Russia, possibly including Trump himself, despite telling Trump privately that he was not a target of the investigation.  It's remarkable really. 

If what he'd told Trump was that he was not a target of the investigation, though he could potentially become one, I don't see why he couldn't testify as much and simply walk it back if the circumstances changed.  

From the article:

As the Mueller report details, Trump’s frustration mounted later that March when Comey’s first public statement acknowledging a probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election left the impression that Trump himself was a target. When Comey refused in May 3, 2017 Senate testimony to rule out anyone in the Trump campaign as a potential target of the criminal investigation, including "the president" — the opposite of what he had intimated to the president -- Trump fumed to then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that it was “the last straw.”

Just a few days later, on May 9, Trump unceremoniously fired the FBI director. In response, Comey’s deputy McCabe ordered agents to formally open investigative files on Trump for espionage and obstruction of justice. “It’s pretty clear that Comey’s firing is what prompted McCabe’s fury," former federal prosecutor and independent counsel Solomon L. Wisenberg said.

So Comey cast a shadow over the entire Trump campaign almost from the very beginning, and did nothing to defuse concern that the President of the United States was involved in a Russian conspiracy against the US.  It really set the tone for the following months/years of Trump/Russia speculation.  

 
So he was able to reveal to the entire world that the Trump campaign was being investigated for potential collusion with Russia, possibly including Trump himself, despite telling Trump privately that he was not a target of the investigation.  It's remarkable really. 
He correctly explained in the testimony you quoted why he couldn't publicly rule anybody out.

The FBI has a policy of not saying that a person is the target of an investigation. So when asked whether so-and-so is a target, he can't answer "yes." And if he can't answer yes, that means he also can't answer "no." Because otherwise...

"Is Tom a target?"

"No."

"Is **** a target?"

"No."

"Is Harry a target?"

"I can't say."

Once you start saying "no" about people who aren't targets, suddenly "I can't say" becomes a "yes," which is what we're trying to avoid. (Apart from the other issue of possibly being forced to correct the record if things change.) It has to be "I can't say" for everyone, targets and non-targets alike.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The FBI has a policy of not saying that a person is the target of an investigation.
But he suggested the entire Trump campaign were potential targets of an investigation.  That every person in the campaign could be a target of the investigation.  How is that inline with not saying a person is the target of the investigation?

 
Golly another way to look at this is not hiring Flynn as NSA and just not talking to Comey at all per tradition would have avoided huge chunks of this as well and it’d be a lot simpler.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But he suggested the entire Trump campaign were potential targets of an investigation.  That every person in the campaign could be a target of the investigation.  How is that inline with not saying a person is the target of the investigation?
"Investigating links" doesn't mean that they have specific targets. It's in the "I can't say" category at most, and "I can't say" is standard operating procedure.

 
:scratching temple: gee I just don’t know why Presidents have always avoided contacting FBI directors about specific cases, I just can’t figure it out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guess the story I posted a month ago checked out
I thought about looking for that actually, but what I recall is that that was basically the Sara Carter side, which is basically what Fox gets and feeds to Carter to create a thin veneer of journalistic independence. Glad to look at the post again but that's what I recall about it. I think actually it was Overstock guy's Deep State rambling itself.

 
Trump appointees routinely bullied State Department staffers, IG reports - Numerous employees subjected to ‘disrespectful,’ ‘hostile’ and ‘inappropriate’ treatment

A long-awaited investigation by the State Department’s inspector general concluded in a report released Thursday that multiple career employees were subjected to “disrespectful,” “hostile” and “inappropriate” treatment at the hands of political appointees.

The review specifically focused on allegations of political retaliation against career employees at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, which leads and coordinates U.S. policy toward the United Nations. For over a year, House and Senate Democrats have pushed for a thorough investigation into whistleblower complaints and news reports that political appointees were vetting career employees at the State Department and retaliating against those they deemed insufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump and his administration’s conservative agenda.

The IG review found that though “numerous” employees raised concerns internally to department management outside of the IO bureau about the mistreatment within the bureau, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kevin Moley failed to take “significant action to respond to such concerns.”

Moley was frequently at the center of concerns raised by employees interviewed by the IG’s office.

The 34-page report details numerous examples of Moley’s and then-bureau senior adviser Mari Stull’s treatment of staffers. The review also describes Moley’s pursuit of unjustified first-class travel accommodations, and conflicts of interests held by Stull from her time at the United Nations. Stull no longer works at the department.

“These failures of leadership have led to serious morale problems in IO and to the departure of a significant number of career staff,” the report states. “OIG encourages the department to take action to address these concerns promptly.”

The IG report made two recommendations to the undersecretary for political affairs, who oversees the IO bureau, to develop a “corrective action plan” to address management problems and to consider “disciplinary action.”

The State Department said it accepted the recommendations.

...

‘Generally engaged in unprofessional behavior’

The probe found that Moley and Stull, who both started working at the department in April 2018, improperly dismissed or blocked the promotion of two senior career employees, including a principal deputy assistant secretary who had criticized their behavior toward staffers.

At another point, an IO legislative affairs staffer, who as part of her official duties accompanied a Congressional Black Caucus delegation to the United Nations, saw most of her job portfolio taken away when she returned from the trip after Stull accused her of attempting to “thwart” Trump’s agenda, according to the report.

“Nearly every employee interviewed by OIG raised concerns about the leadership of IO and the treatment of staff. Then-Undersecretary [of State for Political Affairs Tom] Shannon told OIG that IO employees had described to him a negative and ‘vindictive’ environment in IO cultivated by Assistant Secretary Moley and Ms. Stull,” the report states. “The majority of employees OIG interviewed either directly experienced hostile treatment or witnessed such treatment directed at others.”

These employees told the IG’s office that Moley, who led the United States’ U.N. Geneva office for several years during the George W. Bush administration, and Stull, a former food and beverage lobbyist and wine blogger, frequently berated employees, yelled and “generally engaged in unprofessional behavior toward staff.”

According to the report, a significant amount of this behavior was directed at junior employees, which concerned high-level department officials outside of the IO bureau.

“Today, the OIG substantiated many of the concerns State Department employees have raised with the committee since day one of the Trump presidency,” Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “Left to its own devices, the Trump administration has had no limits or shame in how they’ve targeted career employees because of a perceived political preference or otherwise mistreated them, a problem that has been compounded by the inability or unwillingness of both Secretaries [Mike] Pompeo and [Rex] Tillerson to stop this behavior.”

Democrats on Thursday made clear they want Moley fired.

“Assistant Secretary Kevin Moley, who is somehow still running the bureau, appears to have done nothing to stop this vindictive culture,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot L. Engel of New York said in a statement. “Ultimately, of course, the buck stops with Secretary Pompeo, who continues to employ Mr. Moley as part of his senior leadership team. Mr. Moley should resign or be fired.”

Bullying and conflicts of interest

The IO bureau has roughly 300 employees, including roughly 70 Foreign Service officers. In the 16 months that Moley has headed the bureau, he has gone through three principal deputy assistant secretaries, including one whom he dismissed from the bureau after she questioned his and Stull’s management practices, according to the report.

A recurring source of friction between Moley and Stull and career employees was the latter group’s adherence to longstanding chain-of-command procedures for the development and clearance of official documents, according to the report. These clearance procedures allow junior desk officers at regional bureaus to provide input on U.N. matters to IO bureau staffers. Under these procedures, the head of the bureau and senior adviser would not initially be copied on the developing documents until they were in the later development stage, depending on the significance of the issue.

“I wouldn’t need to be on the clearance if the [document] reflected this Administration’s position! It definitely does not . . . Got it!” Moley wrote in a June 2018 email to a junior desk officer at a regional bureau who had not copied him on a developing document.

Stull criticized employees for clearing certain documents that pre-dated her time at the department even though they had the authorization to do so, according to the report. Several employees also told the IG’s office that she often would refer to them or other career staffers as “Obama holdovers,” “disloyal” or “traitors.”

Additionally, Moley was upset when employees informed him that official travel he wanted to take in May 2018 did not warrant first-class accommodations under the department’s travel policies, according to the report.  The assistant secretary criticized the employees for “not fighting hard enough” to get him his desired travel accommodations.

Stull is a former employee of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. During her time with the U.N., she attempted to get IO bureau staff to push for the FAO to favorably resolve a personnel claim she had filed with them, according to the report. But after receiving advice from the department’s legal adviser that such an intervention would be inappropriate, the IO bureau took no action on her behalf with FAO.

However, once Stull was appointed to the IO bureau, she almost immediately “retaliated against the two IO career employees whom she believed had been insufficiently supportive of her position in her employment claim with the FAO,” according to the report.

The retaliation took the form of multiple comments in the presence of others by Stull to Moley that one of the individuals was “unprofessional” and attempting to “undermine” her. And she attempted to take away from that staffer the food security portfolio he had long held and been regarded as the department’s leading expert on, according to the IG report.

Stull also directed a lower-level staffer to sit in on and monitor the other individual’s phone calls with international organizations, which was deemed inappropriate and halted by the principal deputy assistant secretary of the bureau, who was later dismissed after she pushed back against Moley and Stull, according to the report.

“Ms. Stull’s criticism of these employees and her attempts to remove job responsibilities from the employee whose assistance she sought appear likely to have been based on her belief that the individuals did not provide her with sufficient assistance in her private employment dispute,” the report concludes.

Additionally, the IG report notes Stull pushed to block the promotion of the “leading candidate” for a vacant position as the deputy director for the bureau’s human rights office. Stull took this action after she learned the career foreign affairs officer being considered had previously worked on issues relating to the U.N.’s office dealing with Palestinian refugees and on gay and lesbian rights.

“Assistant Secretary Moley and Ms. Stull appear to have violated department prohibitions on using non-merit factors in personnel assignments,” the report concludes.

Last August, Stull wrote to the IG’s office alleging she had experienced retaliation in response to her efforts to weed out fraud, waste and abuse. However, the IG’s office did not find any independent evidence backing up her claims, and she refused to meet with the inspector general to discuss the allegations made against her, the report notes.

The IG’s office said Moley was at fault for leadership failures, noting he claimed to the IG’s office that no employee had “ever” raised a concern with him about morale or hostile management practices.

“This is inconsistent with the statements of numerous IO employees from different offices who described to OIG such conversations with the assistant secretary [about bullying practices],” the report states. “Similarly, when individuals raised concerns with Ms. Stull about her treatment of employees, she asserted that she was herself the victim of harassment and informed at least one employee that raising such concerns was pointless because the Trump administration ‘has my back.’”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am totally shocked that this administration would appoint people with low ethical and moral standards. Seems so out of character from their leadership.

 
So what happened here? From what I read, it appears that Comey broke some rules, but didn't reveal classified information and he's not going to jail the way that some people around here were claiming. Is this correct?

 
So what happened here? From what I read, it appears that Comey broke some rules, but didn't reveal classified information and he's not going to jail the way that some people around here were claiming. Is this correct?
Yes.  They will not bring indictments.  

 
So what happened here? From what I read, it appears that Comey broke some rules, but didn't reveal classified information and he's not going to jail the way that some people around here were claiming. Is this correct?
I’m sure there will be a deluge of Trump supporters in here screaming “exonerated!” as they were with Trump.  

 
I believe the official wording was, while we cannot prove Comey was guilty we cannot fully prove his innocence.  Interesting times we live in.

 
Absolutely shocked we’re not seeing any of the Pro-Trump crowd in here chanting exonerated as I know how much they liked doing that.  

I’m also completely positive they’ll be rushing in any time now to apologize and admit they fell for a hoax just like they were expecting in the Trump threads.  

 
Hoax?  The head of the FBI lied and leaked documents.  That doesn't bother you?  A little premature to say Comey is in the clear.

 
Hoax?  The head of the FBI lied and leaked documents.  That doesn't bother you?  A little premature to say Comey is in the clear.
Hoax? The President of the United States lied and obstructed the investigation in to Russia.  That doesn't bother you?  A little premature to say President Trump is in the clear. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comey  not being thrown in Azkeban actually helps the fringe Right and The Trump  Machine.  They can continue to A) perpetuate the danger of Deep State and B) keep their fish on the hook with the old...."We just need X, Y and Z to happen and THEN Comey will get got....so vote...."

 
He did not lie about anything. Giving memos to his attorneys, who then turned them over to the FBI without making them public, is not leaking.


Ransom Stoddard: You're not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?

Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

 
He was asked who he gave copies to and did not disclose he also gave them to his attorneys.
This is not correct, as far as I can tell. He was not asked whom he gave copies to. Rather, he was expected to "immediately" notify the FBI on his own without being asked. (See page 59.)

Horowitz's criticism of Comey was that it was Comey's attorney who notified the FBI rather than Comey himself. And it was within 48 hours rather than "immediately."

In no way can that be fairly characterized as Comey lying.

If you have a reference to a different page, please share.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not correct, as far as I can tell. He was not asked whom he gave copies to. Rather, he was expected to "immediately" notify the FBI on his own without being asked. (See page 59.)

Horowitz's criticism of Comey was that it was Comey's attorney who notified the FBI rather than Comey himself. And it was within 48 hours rather than "immediately."

In no way can that be fairly characterized as Comey lying.

If you have a reference to a different page, please share.
It was my understanding he was asked during his testimony and did not disclose he also gave copies to his attorneys.  I could be mistaken on this.

 
It was my understanding he was asked during his testimony and did not disclose he also gave copies to his attorneys.  I could be mistaken on this.
Oh, yeah, if you mean his public Congressional testimony, you're not mistaken. I thought you meant that he was asked by the FBI.

He told Congress that he gave one of the memos to his law-professor friend (Richman). He did not mention during the hearing that he also gave the memos to his attorneys (which info would be privileged), but his attorneys returned the memos to the FBI shortly after the hearing.

 
Thunderlips said:
What's done is done. It's over.  As a country, it's time to move on. 
100% incorrect. There are still a bunch of investigations happening right now regarding DJT and his corrupt life and businesses. When they eventually conclude we might, just might, be able to move on. 

 
100% incorrect. There are still a bunch of investigations happening right now regarding DJT and his corrupt life and businesses. When they eventually conclude we might, just might, be able to move on. 
No...I meant in regards to Comey.   If the Republican led DOJ isn't looking to nail the guy...then there's obviously something to hide.  

 
Not really sure how anyone would understand this is what you meant...

No...I meant in regards to Comey.   If the Republican led DOJ isn't looking to nail the guy...then there's obviously something to hide.  
....from this post....

Thunderlips said:
What's done is done. It's over.  As a country, it's time to move on. 
But, thanx for clarifying. 

 
HHS Inspector General report on immigrant children held in HHS custody released.

“According to facility staff, longer stays resulted in higher levels of defiance, hopelessness, and frustration among children, along with more instances of self-harm and suicidal ideation.”
"A 7- or 8-year-old boy was separated from his father, without any explanation... The child was under the delusion that his father had been killed and believed that he would also be killed. This child ultimately required emergency psychiatric care."
Summary - HHS inspector general report on separated kids:
 

- The process increased trauma

- Some kids thought their parents had abandoned them

- Separated kids sometimes isolated themselves, even refusing to eat

- HHS was not prepared for this level of trauma

  • "You get a lot of “my chest hurts,” even though everything is fine [medically]. Children describe symptoms, “Every heartbeat hurts,” “I can’t feel my heart,” of emotional pain. "
  • "The little ones don’t know how to express what they are feeling, what has happened. Communication is limited and difficult. They need more attention." - program director to HHS's inspector general about separated children in their care.
  • The HHS IG report also details what some of these kids experienced before arriving. This speaks to arguments over whether they are fleeing for "economic reasons". It is hard to read.
  • "Staff in multiple facilities reported cases of children who had been kidnapped or raped, some by members of gangs or drug cartels. ... A medical coordinator reported that a girl had been held in captivity for months, [during which she] was tortured, raped, and became pregnant."
  • "Other children had witnessed the rape or murder of family members or were fleeing threats against their own lives. In one case, a [clinician] reported that, after fleeing w his mother from an abusive father, the child witnessed the murder of his mother, grandmother, and uncle."
  • “HHS was not prepared for this level of trauma.”
  • The inspector general found that they did not have enough mental health professionals, that some they had were not prepared for this depth of trauma.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, yeah, if you mean his public Congressional testimony, you're not mistaken. I thought you meant that he was asked by the FBI.

He told Congress that he gave one of the memos to his law-professor friend (Richman). He did not mention during the hearing that he also gave the memos to his attorneys (which info would be privileged), but his attorneys returned the memos to the FBI shortly after the hearing.
Richman was acting as legal counsel for Comey, I believe. As I understand it,  not all of the four memos shared with Richman were truly "classified". Comey had redacted portions that he knew were "Classified" while other memos were simply "confidential" (the lowest standard). Other memos were retroactively tagged "classified". Those were all later handed to the FBI by Richman. In short, the IG had cause to say he "violated" policy guidelines but it also doesn't warrant charges. 

 
State IG Set to Recommend Discipline for Trump’s Top Iran Hand

>>>>>Brian Hook is reportedly in the running for national security adviser, and any discipline for his role in politically motivated State Dept. firings would likely hurt his chances.

The State Department is preparing to recommend that the Trump administration’s top representative for Iran policy receive disciplinary action for his role in politically motivated firings of employees at the department, according to two government sources involved in carrying out the investigation. 

The department’s inspector general has been investigating Brian Hook and other State Department officials for their involvement in layoffs and other personnel decisions that impacted individuals who were thought to have perceived loyalty to the Obama administration. Several whistleblowers raised allegations against Hook and others, prompting the inspector general to analyze emails and other documents as part of the probe. The recommendation for Hook is set to be outlined in a new report by the inspector general. It is due out within the next several weeks.

Hook is one of the main Trump officials helping craft and promote the administration’s Iran policy. He liaises with the Treasury Department and the White House on Iran sanctions and Jared Kushner’s proposed Middle East peace plan. Hook worked with former National Security Adviser John Bolton during his time as the United Nations ambassador, and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson brought him in to work on Middle East policy. Hook has traveled overseas to places like Israel and Saudi Arabia to work on gaining the confidence of allies on the U.S.’ so-called strategy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran.

The Daily Beast reported in March that Hook was among at least eight administration officials the inspector general was examining over reprisals against career department personnel for their perceived disloyalty to the president. At that time the investigation was in its final stages. The State Department at the time told reporters that “the personnel accusation” was “without merit and has no evidentiary, procedural, or legal basis.”

It’s taken several months for the IG office to get to this point. This report, although not 100 percent finalized, is the second part of a larger study about the State Department. The first section found that State Department officials harassed, mistreated, and retaliated against employees deemed disloyal to President Trump. It did not mention Hook.

Hook is reportedly in the running for national security adviser following Bolton’s departure earlier this week. Any findings of fault or recommendations for discipline would likely hurt his chances at moving up in the national security ranks. Both officials who spoke to The Daily Beast agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the State Department investigation.

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment for this story. 

The public first learned about the State Department’s investigation when in early 2017 Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, a career official and Iran expert, had her assignment to Hook’s policy-planning directorate cut short. The Conservative Review soon after wrote that Nowrouzzadeh, an “Iran deal architect,” had “burrowed into the government under President Trump.” 

Outside parties, including Newt Gingrich, sent that article around to State Department officials. Hook received the article and sent it to a career staffer in the policy planning office, Edward Lacey. Lacey, in an email first reported by Politico, called Nowrouzzadeh and other colleagues “Obama/Clinton loyalists.”

Lacey told Hook, “I succeeded in ousting five whose details expired before your arrival.”

Hook replied, “Ed– This is helpful. Let’s discuss on Monday.”

It’s that email and several others that have come under scrutiny by the State IG’s office, sources say. 

When Nowrouzzadeh was reassigned, Politico reported on it. State officials attempted to craft a response for the piece. “[H]ow about saying something like: ‘It is regular practice for detailees to return to their parent office at the completion of their detail assignments,’” Lacey emailed colleagues on April 17, 2017,  according to emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

Nowrouzzadeh replied: “Ed—My assignment was not ‘completed.’”

Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) in August 2018 expressed alarm about Hook’s appointment as the special representative for Iran. “Internal documents... show [Hook] engaging in significant acts of political retaliation against career State Department employees,” they wrote to Pompeo.

Since that time, the State Department has handed over investigative documents and emails to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both are conducting an internal investigation into political retaliation at the State Department. The IG report has not yet reached Capitol Hill.<<<<<

 
VandyMan said:
Sorry to bump an old post, but want to add a link to the actual OIG report. It's worth reading.

https://www.stateoig.gov/system/files/esp-19-05.pdf
OIG notes one illustrative example. Shortly after Assistant Secretary Moley and Ms. Stull arrived at the Department in April 2018, a career employee accompanied a congressional delegation of members of the Congressional Black Caucus to the UN. According to IO officials, IO routinely accompanies such delegations, regardless of the composition of the delegation, because it allows IO to identify any pressing issues of congressional concern. The employee in question was responsible for legislative affairs and accompanying congressional delegations to international organizations was one of her assigned duties. However, when the employee returned from the trip, Ms. Stull expressed displeasure with her for accompanying the Congressional Black Caucus delegation because it consisted of only Democratic members. Ms. Stull accused the employee of trying to “thwart” President Trump and undermine his agenda. After the trip, many of the employee’s job responsibilities were taken away. The employee reported that she was excluded from all sensitive discussions and was effectively no longer IO’s congressional point of contact. She was instead assigned mostly administrative tasks and eventually left the Department because she was frustrated by the lack of substantive work. Other witnesses told OIG that many of the employee’s congressional affairs-related job duties were reassigned after she accompanied the Congressional Black Caucus. Such actions are clearly inconsistent with Department policies requiring that assignments be on the basis of merit.

 
Moley sounds like a real turd, and Stull comes off as spiteful witch.

I get the feeling these two wrecking balls were on a mission to screw up the Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top