“They Were Right To Do It”: Swalwell Praises FBI For Using Campaign Briefing To Investigate Trump [Updated]

440px-Eric_Swalwell_114th_official_photoAs I discussed in a column this weekend, Democratic members have spent years mocking allegations that there was any spying or surveillance of Trump or his campaign by the FBI. That was just a conspiracy theory. Now however there is proof that the FBI used a briefing in August 2016 of then candidate Trump to gather information for “Crossfire Hurricane,” the Russia investigation. It turns out that it did not really matter after all and Rep. Eric Swalwell did not miss a step. He simply declared that such targeting of the opposing party and its leading presidential candidate was the right thing to do. That’s it. A conspiracy theory suddenly becomes a commendable act.

The document, a seven-page summary of Trump’s intelligence briefing, undermines past claims that there was no spying or intelligence operations directed against the campaign or Trump.

Nevertheless, Swalwell told Martha MacCallum on Fox: “I hope they do it if a Democratic candidate ever does that with any country … So, Martha, remember right before this meeting occurred, candidate Trump said, ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you have Hillary’s emails.’ And what do they do? They actually did it. So think about it.”

It is indeed worth thinking about. Most people took Trump’s statement as a taunt of Clinton and the press.  He stated “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

Trump insists it was a joke. That is how many took it but, in fairness, he is later asked by NBC reporter Katy Tur whether he was encouraging a foreign country to hack into emails, he said, “Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”  That does not sound quite as jovial and many of us criticized him for such an irresponsible statement.

However, that is not collusion with the Russians or a crime of any kind. Indeed, not only did Robert Mueller and the Inspector General find no evidence of any contact by the campaign with Russian intelligence or officials, but former Deputy Rod Rosenstein stated recently that he would not have approved on the continued investigation if he knew about the false information used as the basis for the investigation. He said he would have stopped the investigation and has called for the continued investigation into the bias shown by various officials who were key to the investigation.

There was a time when, after Mueller found no evidence of such collusion, leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Peter Schiff assured the public that he had evidence of such collusion.  Schiff never produced the evidence.  So Swalwell and others are left where we began with the campaign statement of Trump to suggest that the statement alone is a fair basis for an investigation into him and his campaign.  Swalwell even justifies the FBI (in a Democratic Administration) using a campaign briefing to gather information on Trump and his campaign.

Note the FBI did not simply call and demand for answers about Trump’s public comments. It used a briefing for investigative purposes while assuring Trump that the briefing was solely for his benefit. This is a briefing that the FBI strongly encourages candidates to accept in the interests of national security.

Swalwell also added “By the way, he says in the meeting, ‘Joe, are the Russians bad?’ It’s like, yes, the Russians are bad and don’t eat glue. Like, should we even have to tell you that? … He told the country for years, but he was never given this briefing.”

They “don’t eat glue?”  The report states that Trump asked whether Russia or China was presenting a greater threat in intelligence activities in the United States. It describes basic questions of comparison by Trump and his aides. Here is what the document actually said:

Trump asked the following question,”Joe, are the Russians ~se they have more numbers are they worse than the Chinese?” Writer responded by saying both countries are bad. The numbers of IOs present in the U.S. is not an indicator of the severity of the threat. Writer reminded Trump the Chinese asymmetrical presence in the U.S [had to be] considered when making comparisons.

During the ODNI briefs, writer actively listened for topics or questions regarding the Russian Federation . During Mull i gan ‘ s brief, he stated the U. S . i s the world leader in Counterterrorism. Trump then asked,” Russia too? ” During a discussion regarding nuclear testing, Russia and Chi na were brought up as cheating o n the Nu c l ear Test Ban Treaty . Trump asked,”Who ‘ s worse? ” – stated,”They are b oth bad , but Russia is worse .” Trump and Christie turned toward each other and Christie commented ,” Im shocked .”

Back to the main issue, the document shows an agent who was reporting on what was said and observed for Operation Crossfire Hurricane.  As stated in the column, my concern is that there has been reporting on this document but little analysis of its implications. We spent three years of analysis on Russian collusion theories that proved to be based on false information. The media eagerly pursued analysis of possible Russian moles or a Manchurian candidate in our midst. Similarly, there was ample (and in my view justified) analysis of how the Ukraine scandal might have involved the use of government authority for political benefit. Yet, there is no substantive analysis of how the Obama Administration conducted an investigation of the opposing party’s leading candidate. Even with new documents showing that the FBI quickly refuted the claims used to justify the investigation, there is no interest in that story.

To the contrary, Swalwell now insists that it was always a good thing if the Trump campaign was targeted or subjected to intelligence gathering.  Indeed, he wants it to happen again if a candidate makes a statement on the campaign trial that is deemed an invitation to a foreign power. According to Swalwell, an Administration not only can but should investigate the opposing party if it deems public campaign statements to be suspicious. So if a candidate like Bernie Sanders says that he wants to declassify most intelligence and be transparent with the Russians, should the FBI investigate him? What if he calls on Russia to supply leadership and support on domestic political issues or publicly supports figures under sanctions by the current Administration?  After all, Sanders was long criticized for visits to Russia and close associations in the country.  Is that now “the right thing to do” in Swalwell’s world to target such a candidate in an election year?

Swalwell has long been an example of rage overwhelming reason in our current politics. Yet, he embodies the dangerous reckless that is taking hold of our national discourse on both sides. Spinning such stories is now more important than maintaining long-standing bright lines against using national security powers to target opposing parties or candidates.

346 thoughts on ““They Were Right To Do It”: Swalwell Praises FBI For Using Campaign Briefing To Investigate Trump [Updated]”

  1. The logic here is sound, and if love to share the piece, but there are a number of editorial issues that is kindly ask Mr. Turley to consider addressing. Referencing “Peter Schiff” when presumably the intent was to reference Adam Schiff is one, but there are others, most of which are more minor. Help?

      1. “Turley used to have a Corrections page that was open to comments: https://jonathanturley.org/corrections/ But for some unknown reason, he closed it to new comments over a month ago.”

        CTHD talks about obsessions that others have but if one looks at the link above one will find a slew of puny comments made by CTHD on the comments section. CTHD is unhinged and quite ungrateful. Single-handedly it appears he caused Professor Turley to close the comment section denying legitimate posters of its use.

  2. Not ONE Democrat has denounced Watergate when THEY did it to Trump.

    No one is surprised at the Democrats’ crass hypocrisy and that of the national press in going on and on about abuse of the Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies in influencing elections and pushing false narratives about their political opposition, or their cynical revival of McCarthyism by the Democrats in Congress.
    It’s happened so often without any condemnation by the press..

  3. Oh. My. G… Jon Sez uses a paper by Spencer!

    Spencer is a religious nut. Which kind of nut are you, Jon Sez?

    Certainly don’t use science. Maybe a member of the Flat Earth Society…

    1. No I used a graph by spencer – not a paper.

      Are you saying that NOAA is wrong – or that the CIMP5 & 6 Models are wrong ?

      Data is data.

      You can find probably find the same data at Real Climate

      Though I am sure Gavin probably has a version with different origins or base or some other graphical trick

      1. The Science is now so fuc*ing screwed up (politicized) that there is nothing trustworthy – from either side. Thanks a lot you asshol*s.

    1. I would if I could afford to – as well as investing in the Maldives. Even Obama invested in a spot on Martha’s vinyard that is supposed to be under water in 20 years.

  4. Jon Sez — You are flat-out wrong about how a GCM is designed. There is a book about it which you could attempt to study, although I doubt that you would understand it.

    1. You have tried this silly argument on me before.

      I am well aware of the crude models hanson did for Venus decades ago.

      Regardless, except that there is far more of it and it is even more complex, the same math the same basic science that is used for weather is used for climate. But eaven for weather we have to simplifiy the formulas – beause the problem is just too complex for modern computers.

      Presumably you know a tiny bit about calculus. Well a climate model takes the basics of atmospheric science and like calculus it applies it to an infinitesimal part of the planet – then it must resolve the interactions between each cell, and then it must repeat this for all the cells in the planet.

      The current GCM’s have cell sizes that are several orders of magnitude too large – because the time for a run increases exponentially as the cell size decreases – but the error increases exponentially as the cell size increases.

      And even with cells that are way too large – the math is still way to complex – and numerous equations are replaced by constants and the hope that the effects of those equations is small enough to not matter – but that is not done once or twice, but myriads of times – because the math is just not doable in real time.

      This should not really be that hard to understand – as I said before 5 day weather forecasts or huricane tracking are subsets of the climate models – and on these simpler tasks – going only a few days into the future for small parts of the planet and focusing on only a few things – we still have a very high error rate, and we are barely able to do it with modern supercomputers.

      There is no some magical secret here. You are the one who claims that one needs to know the science.
      Go study the actual atmospheric science equations, Not some guy who wrote a books over simplifications to make them calculable.

      Or look how badly we have done with C19 models – and these are billions of times simpler. They are probably among the simplest of computer models. They are only a few orders of magnitude more complex than the basic life computer models that go back to the 60’s.

      And we still can not get viruses right.

      And you think we are going to do climate ?

  5. Jon Sez — Nope, the GCM perform quite well. I gave a reference.

    You can’t correctly determine even the temperature change from 1900 to present, although the graph in one of my recent posts should make it clear.

    The trouble is that you comprehend neither basic mathematics nor elementary science. So what you *should* do is accept what the scientists tell you. Yet you maintain blind prejudice against Real Climate.

    A democracy requires an informed public; you are an example of why democracy may fail. Too bad.

    1. You do not seem to get it – there is no need to read some paper of yours telling me how well the models perform.

      They have self evidently failed.

      Here is just one example using CIMP5 and CIMP6 models compared to NOAA actual temps over 50 years
      The models are already running 1.5-2C hot. And the actual trend is less than .5C in 50 years.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP6-corn-belt-temps.jpg

      Using Satelite temps the end of June deviation from the average of the last 40 years is 0.43C

      That is the highest it has been since 2016. and before that since 1998.
      And in 2019 it was down to .2C

      That is the 40 year variation – and you are expecting another 3.1C in the next 60 years ?

      Can I remind you again that the Math – YOUR math says that TCR is a parabolic function.
      The warming should be front loaded to CO2 increases, not real loaded.

      If YOUR thesis is correct you will get LESS than ,43C of warming in the next 60 years.

      You seem to think that some paper is going to explain why reality is wrong ?

    2. Jon Sez — Nope, the GCM perform quite well. I gave a reference.

      You can’t correctly determine even the temperature change from 1900 to present, although the graph in one of my recent posts should make it clear.

      I have not offered you the Temp Change from 1900. I have provided you actual data from places like HadCRUT or BEST.

      Are you claiming the high priests of warmendom got it wrong ?

      “The trouble is that you comprehend neither basic mathematics nor elementary science.”
      I have probably given you my credentials in the past – but it does not matter – that would just be an appeal to authority.

      Further the fundimental issue is not math – it is failure.
      The models have failed.,. the scale of the error is too large to support the hypothesis.
      It is also so large that even a child can see it. It does not take advanced math to see that human sacrifice will not alter the weather.

      “So what you *should* do is accept what the scientists tell you.”
      That is pretty much what you should never do.
      You life, your future is ALWAYS your responsibility.
      It remains your responsibility even when you defer to others.
      If you choose to F yourself on the advice of others – you are still F’d, and you own their error.

      “Yet you maintain blind prejudice against Real Climate.”
      No they are just well known idiots. They are not the only well know idiots – you have refered me to several other such sites.

      Further – it really does not matter anymore – you would require a miracle to get to 3.5C by 2140.

      Currently CO2 is increasing by about 1.6ppm/year We will reach 600ppm by 2140 if that trend continues – that would be double the CO2 of 1960. That is when you will have to be 3.5C above 1960’s temp. Only 3C more to go.

      Of course I am being generous – because you think the rate of CO2 increase is accelerating and we will get there by 2100,
      That does not leave you much time.

      “A democracy requires an informed public; you are an example of why democracy may fail. Too bad.”

      We are not a democrary. Democracy is just about the worst form of government there is.

  6. Paul C Schulte uses a 13 year old paper as indicating problems with current GCMs. Nope.

    Further, the paper cites heavily John Christy! Ha, ha, ha. Chortle, gasp. The man is not a scientist, but a religious nut.

    Rather like Paul C Schulte in the nut part…

    1. Old attacks on Climate science work quite well – because it is still broken.

      For decades you have been told you F’d up – and you have ignored the critiques – and you continue repeating the same errors over and over.

      Climate skepticism is timeless, Hysterical warmists have learned nothing.

  7. Paul C Schulte makes dull referencing Seattle and Portland. Gets it wrong, failing elementary meteorology.

    Ignoramus.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – David, if the models are right, shouldn’t YOU personally, be sloshing around in waders right now.

  8. And Paul C Schulte has a reference to an older Science Daily article which comes up
    404 Not Found

    Why am I not surprised by the incompetence?

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – you have the cites to the article. If your library is open you can track it down.

  9. Paul C Schulte, wrong again.

    The climate models have been shown to perform. But even the summary articles are too hard for you.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia

      Here is the article you cannot get
      This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

      “The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

      Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change “forecasts” from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

      “Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere,” said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center. “The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

      “When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.”

      The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

      The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

      After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

      “The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts,” said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. “Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution.”

      The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

      “The question was, what would the models ‘forecast’ for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?” said Christy. “To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

      “As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

      “Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend,” Christy said. “Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

      “We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results.”

      make a difference: sponsored opportunity
      Story Source:

      Materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

      Cite This Page:
      MLA
      APA
      Chicago
      Wiley-Blackwell. “New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 December 2007. .

      RELATED STORIES
      Wetter Climate Is Likely to Intensify Global Warming
      May 6, 2020 — New study indicates the increase in rainfall forecast by global climate models is likely to hasten the release of carbon dioxide from tropical soils, further intensifying global warming by adding to …
      Causes of Multidecadal Climate Changes
      July 24, 2019 — A new reconstruction of global average surface temperature change over the past 2,000 years has identified the main causes for decade-scale climate changes. The new temperature reconstruction also …
      Models Overestimate Rainfall Increases Due to Climate Change, Experts Say
      Dec. 10, 2015 — Most climate models overestimate the increase in global precipitation due to climate change, research shows. Specifically, the research team looked at 25 models and found they underestimate the …
      New Study Narrows the Gap Between Climate Models and Reality
      July 30, 2015 — A new study addresses an important question in climate science: how accurate are climate model projections? Climate models are used to estimate future global warming, and their accuracy can be …

    2. “The climate models have been shown to perform. But even the summary articles are too hard for you.”

      It is not hard to see that current temps are 2.5 std dev below the average of climate model predictions – and that none of the models have been updated to reflect that.

      It is not hard to see that less than 5 of 102 climate models are within 1 std dev of reality – and those models all predict a mild future.

      It is not hard to see that no warmist has ever made an accurate prediction of the future

      And no “bad things will happen” is not an accurate prediction – the scale and complexity of the earth means that 100year old records will be broken thousands of times every day,

      To be meaningful you have to predict something specific and prove right REPEATEDLY

    3. Why do I even respond to you ?

      You are the little boy who cried wolf.

      You have burned your credibility many ways and many times.

      Do you not understand that almost no one listens to you are those who share your warmist nonsense ?

      Even the EU nations are quietly backing away from alarmism.

      They pay lipservice and go on climate junkets, but they do not do anything, in fact they are slowly undoing what they did do.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – if you were right, it should be drenching the rioters in Portland and Seattle. However, they are dry as a bone.

    2. Ah, more of this nonsense. Wait for something bad to happen – and then claim that it if man made climate change.

      If next your Japan has droughts – that too is man made climate change.

      When you have a hypothesis that can not be falsified – than you are selling religion not science.

      Make a prediction – that your models actually support, about something 5 years from now – and be right about it,
      And then repeat that 10000 times – and then we can talk.

      For now, your predictive accuracy is ZERO.

      i.e. NOT SCIENCE.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.html New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

      They still haven’t solved the problems from this study, David.

      1. I do not know the specific study and I did not read the link – but I know a great deal about computer modeling.
        And High Performance Computing.

        Huricane projections and local 5 day weather forecasts are computationally trivial – many many many orders of magnitude simpler than projecting global climate ahead a year – much less a century.

        It is far outside the capacity of silicon based computing any time in the foreseeable future to model climate accurately at substantially faster than real time.

        The GCM’s are NOT accurate implimentations of the current mathematics of climate. They are vastly simplified to make it possible to calculate them,

        And this of course ignores that error bars increase exponentially the farther forward in time you go.

    2. DBB – you can not be “right on” and still have a 3.5TCRE

      Real science is not “given to you” – that is RELIGION.

      Real science conforms to the real world. CAGW does not.

      I have attacked the GCM’s – because they fail – that is more than sufficient,

      But there are more fundimental problems – that I have addressed in other posts.
      Absent some major advance in quantum computing – we will never be able to run anything close to a a real GCM on Silicon based computing that we are ever likely to have.

      The required grid sizes are too small and the equations have to be simplified too much to run on the technology available to us.

      The only mathematically possible way to model climate is from outside the earth as a black body – and that has not worked out well for warmists.

      Finally I would note – it is 2020 in 1988 James Hanson told us all the world was going to hell pretty much instantly. Yet Temperatures today are well below Hanson’s respond immediately in 1988 with draconian measure scenario.

      We are constantly told by you and those that you worship that we have some small random number of years before claimate armagedon.
      In 1989 the UN told us that rising seas could eliminate entire nations by 2000.

      AOC told us that miami would be gone in a few years – but then AOC tells us that facts do not matter if you are morally right.

      In 2008 ABC told us that NYC would be under water by 2015.
      Al Gore told us in the early 2000’s that arctic ice would be gone in 7 years.

      In 1988 we were told the Maldives would be under water by 2018 – today Billions are being invested in property on the Maldives which are still doing fine

      1989 NY West side highway under water by 2019
      2005 Manhattan underwate by 2015

      2009 Price Chalse told us we have 96 months to save the world.
      2014 only 500 days until climate chaos

      And those are only some of the hysterical climate mistakes the left has made in the past 40 years.

      Can you name a single prediction that has been RIGHT ?

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia I do not need a paper from Nogales High School to tell that if the monsoons do not produce, we are short of water. Even a third grader knows that.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – the cementia is harding. Those are ad hominems, not arguments.

    1. Yes, The planet has been warming since the little ice age.

      According to warmists, human C02 emissions could not have appreciably effected climate before 1965.

      You can fudge that if you want – shifting the year back to 1950 or ahead to 1975 changes very little.

      The point is that Human CO2 spiked only very recently – but the trends in global temperatures did not.

      The planet has been hotter in the past and colder. We are currently about 4C below the average of the last Billion years.
      At the same time the recent few million have been very cold and we are very warm compared to that average – we are in an interglacial.
      And when we return to the norms of the past million years – we will not be worried about Global Warming.

      http://parracan.org/image/gallery/Growth/emm1.jpg

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – The cementia is really settling in.

      Regional precipitation response
      Unlike the positive regional temperature response, regional precipitation change to cumulative emissions are positive or negative, depending on location.[13] Partanen et al., (2017) show a strong positive precipitation response in the Arctic with negative responses (meaning reduced precipitation) in parts of Southern Africa, Australia, North and South America.[13]

      Hence, according to the “model” if you are getting wet, it is you own darn fault. Here, it is the monsoon. Comes every damn year. We don’t need a model to tell us it is coming.

Leave a Reply