80ZGQQL

McCabe draws blank on Democrats’ funding of Trump dossier, new subpoenas planned – I SMELL A RAT

EXCLUSIVECongressional investigators tell Fox News that Tuesday’s seven-hour interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe contained numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting the Republican majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee to decide to issue fresh subpoenas next week on Justice Department and FBI personnel.

While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday’s HPSCI session.

The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department’s top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two branches, even worse than the months-long tug of war over documents and witnesses that has already led House Speaker Paul Ryan to accuse DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” and HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

“It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth,” said one House investigator after McCabe’s questioning.

Fox News is told that several lawmakers participated in the questioning of McCabe, led chiefly by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

Bruce G. Ohr was demoted at the DOJ for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump ‘dossier.’ (AP)

 

Sources close to the investigation say that McCabe was a “friendly witness” to the Democrats in the room, who are said to have pressed the deputy director, without success, to help them build a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia-collusion probe. “If he could have, he would have,” said one participant in the questioning.

Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.

The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe’s own signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier’s financing and provenance.

The decision by HPSCI staff to subpoena Ohr comes as he is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Until earlier this month, when Fox News began investigating him, Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.”

Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but was stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of “Main Justice.” Department officials confirmed that Ohr had withheld from superiors his secret meetings in 2016 with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the dossier with input from Russian sources; and with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Subsequently, Fox News disclosed that Ohr’s wife Nellie, an academic expert on Russia, had worked for Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016.

Former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before the House in March, described the dossier as a compendium of “salacious and unverified” allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

DOJ and FBI say they have cooperated extensively with Nunes and his team, including the provision of several hundred pages of classified documents relating to the dossier. The DOJ has also made McCabe available to the House Judiciary Committee for a closed-door interview on Thursday.

The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment for this report.

Net Neutrality DEBUNKED

Net Neutrality DEBUNKED – All You Need To Know About Net Neutrality and WHY IT SUCKS

OP on Reddit

Brilliant Trolling  from Chairman of the FCC Ajit Pai – Net Neutrality DEBUNKED

Terms You Need to Know:

  • Title II / Common Carrier / “Net Neutrality” = internet becomes gov’t utility = Obamanet = not good
  • FTC Regulation = no monopolies (comcast), no price-fixing, no unfair shit = good
  • Open Internet Rules / Bright Line Rules = no throttling, no blocking, no paid-priority = very good

Timeline You Need to Know

  • 2005 Open Internet announced as FCC policy (by Republican chairman). Internet still so new, not much for FCC to really do.
  • 2010 Open Internet Order = Open Internet Rules (aka Bright Line) specified (good)
  • 2014 Verizon v. FCC prevents FCC from enforcing Open Internet Rules unless it also enforces Title II (big gov’t comes in and literally makes the internet its utility) <<wtf,why??? fun fact the two judges who fucked open-internet were appointed by clinton, the third dissenter was reagan
  • 2015 Net Neutrality (pushed by Obama) = Open Internet Rules (renamed to Bright Line) (good) + Title II Utility Classification (BAD)
  • 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal = FTC Regulations (good) + no Title II (good) + no Open Internet Rules (bad) ‘(

The reason Obama’s 2015 Net Neutrality is bad isn’t because it includes the Open Internet Rules (created in 2005), but because it includes the Title II Utility Classification of the internet. AND- get this- the Open Internet Rules are only included provisionally, UNDER Title II. This basically says “hey all ur free speech is only allowed if big gov’t gets to turn the internet into its utility”. Umm what? 2015 Net Neutrality was advertised as being equal to the Open Internet Rules, but Open Internet had already been an FCC policy since 2005. Obama pressured the FCC to repackage the 2010 Open Internet Order under a Title II Utility Classification of the internet. This is what we oppose.

Everyone here agrees that ISPs should not throttle/paywall/censor/restrict our content. Period. End of story. ISPs are notoriously shady, but here are some reassurances the FCC has given us:

FTC Privacy Regulation, sec.177 aka MARK SUCKERSPERG CAN’T STEAL YOUR PRIVATE RARE PEPE FETISH PORN COLLECTION:

Restoring FTC [Federal Trade Commission] jurisdiction over ISPs will enable the FTC to apply its extensive privacy and data security expertise to provide the uniform online privacy protections that consumers expect and deserve.651

Direct quote from the homies: No throttling. FCC release, p.83

  1. Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508

b-but im an ISP I don’t wanna be transparent I just wanna bait-and-switch my customers while they watch intergalactic bdsm porn SORRY HUNNY U GETTN REGULATED (FCC release p.82):

The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503

Conspiracy theorists put down your pitch-forks, ISPs cannot conspire. (FCC invokes Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85, FCC release)

  1. Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per seillegal under the antitrust laws.518

**UNLIMITED NETFLIXXX, [UNCENSORED EDITION] **

If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.

Obama & The Globalist Friendship Squad attempted to create a communist takeover safe space on the internet.

  1. We also conclude that the Commission should have been cautioned against reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service in 2015 because doing so involved “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy …”

AT&T got uppity, tried to slide a fat & nasty nude into America’s DMs and the FCC said behave yourself hunny. FCC now reserves the right to return to Title II (Obama Net Neutrality) regulations if ISP fuckers get uppity.

176.We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.

And finally, the cherry-on-top.

Should the hypothetical harms that proponents of Title II imagine eventually come to pass, application of the antitrust laws would address those harms.

TLDR

  • Regulatory rollback throwback to 90’s.
  • FCC claims the 2015 Regulations gave the government “extravagant statutory power over the national economy”. * laughs in Kenyan *
  • Regulatory oversight of the ISP now includes the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) as it was in the 1990’s. Unlike the FCC, they can fuck Comcast for being a monopoly (which they are allowed to be if they’re a utility).
  • FCC is enforcing against throttling, censorship, restriction, etc. by invoking consumer protection and anti-trust laws (via FTC).
  • If ISPs collectively conspire to paywall a content-provider, they are subject to FTC anti-trust penetration.
  • FCC repeatedly acknowledges that its new policy is deliberately business-friendly in hopes to increase competition in the market so that Comcast isn’t the only fucking one. FCC acknowledges that potential abuse of this friendliness will result in stricter policy.
  • America has some of the shittiest internet in the world because our infrastructure is antiquated and fiber-optic trenching projects keep getting killed. Title-II strangles investments, but this repeal attracts it. Better infrastructure means faster speeds and cheaper service. #Pray4FiberOptic
  • Remember all the Congressmen who wanted to sell out our personal information earlier this year? This FCC repeal will block that, because of FTC consumer privacy protection regulations don’t allow it.

How this may negatively affect you:

The major loophole lies here:

Many of the largest ISPs have committed to not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC…

FTC prevents throtting/blocking/etc because that’s what ISPs are advertising, and they must be held accountable. If multiple ISPs each individually stop advertising it, it’s not immediately clear that the FTC can hold them all accountable to it. However, if the ISPs collude to collectively enact abusive policies, then the FTC can fuck them up. Further, if an ISP paywalls websites, they must explicitly notify consumers. If customers have no alternative ISP and are forced to obey their one ISP’s abusive policies, then the FTC can declare them a monopoly. That would whip up a shitstorm for the ISP, but it could still happen.

Later in the report the FCC admits that they have to eliminate the Open Internet Rules, which is bad for us. The FCC was forced to do this because of the two Democrat judges in the D.C. Circuit who presided over Verizon v. FCC and ruled that the FCC is no longer allowed to enforce open-internet unless they force the ISPs to become Title II Utilities.

The Democrat judges admitted that they were

…not to assess the wisdom of the Open Internet Order regulations, but rather to determine whether the Commission has demonstrated that the regulations fall within the scope of its statutory grant of authority.”

These two judges were appointed by Bill Clinton. Almost sounds like he paid them a visit on the tarmac.

FCC Bright-Line / Open Internet Rules

  • No Blocking
  • No Throttling
  • No Paid-Prioritization

The FCC Bright Line Rules are replaced with FTC regulations:

  • No monopolies. (lookin at you comcast)
  • No collusion. (still lookin at you)
  • No consumer abuse
  • No unfair business practice. (holy fuck comcast)

The report clarifies that the repeal of FCC Bright Line does not inhibit the FTC from enforcing an open internet, and regulation enforcement is delegated to the FTC heretofore. (FTC has a good record protecting consumers).

In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness, despite the paucity of evidence of such incidents, we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address such conduct. Other legal regimes—particularly antitrust law and the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices—provide protection for consumers.

The FCC admits that this has the potential to become a problem. They claim it is highly unlikely because the FTC can come in and penetrate ISPs who act as monopolies. Plus, content providers (Google, Amazon, etc.) have an obscenely higher market capitalization than ISP’s (Google alone has higher market cap than all ISP’s combined), and that they can easily pressure ISPs to obey.

For example:

  • Comcast tries to throttle Netflix.
  • Netflix says fuck you we won’t serve any of your Comcast kind here.
  • Comcast customers can’t watch Stranger Things.
  • Comcast customers screech autistically.
  • Everyone (who can) leaves Comcast.
  • If nobody can leave Comcast, the FTC can declare Comcast a monopoly and bust their nuts. This nut busting can legally bind Comcast to their past promises of Open Internet, since there are no competitors keeping them incheck.

Thus the FCC concludes it is unlikely that ISPs will paywall their content providers because content-providers will easily prevent them from doing it. FCC asserts that monopolies like Comcast will be combated with FTC anti-monopoly regulation, increased competition, and more ISP choices for customers that will drive price down and quality up. FCC will address individual ISP violations case by case if/when they arise.

  1. Consumer Protection. The FTC has broad authority to protect consumers from “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”495

I can’t imagine anything more unfair than Comcast monopolizing your internet.

Timeline Review

  • 2005 Open Internet announced as FCC policy by the then Republican chairman.
  • 2010 Open Internet Order = Open Internet Rules (aka Bright Line) (good)
  • 2014 Verizon v. FCC D.C. Circuit of Appeals (aka the swamp) prevents FCC from enforcing Open Internet Rules unless it alsoenforces Title II (big gov’t comes in and literally makes the internet its utility) <<wtf,why??? Fun Fact: these two judges who fucked the internet were appointed by Clinton (I wonder if they had a tarmac meeting to talk about their kids’ internet usage). The third judge who tried to stop it was a Reagan man.
  • 2015 Net Neutrality (pushed by Obama) = Open Internet Rules (renamed to Bright Line) (good) + Title II Utility Classification (BAD)
  • 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal = FTC Regulations (good) + no Title II (good) + no Open Internet Rules :'(

Conclusion

The FCC couldn’t have done any more for Open-Internet, thanks to Bill Clinton’s judges in the D.C. Circuit strangling the shit out of the FCC’s jurisdiction. They said “make the internet a utility or end Open-Internet”. Instead of caving in to either of those demands, the FCC did a brilliant end-run around the judges by bringing the FTC in to do what the FCC no longer can. This will prevent blocking and throttling, and it’ll be the first time they’ve attacked ISP monopolization (Comcast)! Unfortunately, the possibility still exists that paid-prioritization (bundling internet packages by speed) will emerge in the future, especially if the FTC fails to crack down on monopolies like Comcast, and/or if the markets fail to produce enough competitors to the existing ISPs. Keep your eyes open and stay vigilant.

Merry Christmas!

11 YEAR OLD

French prosecutors rule 11 year old girl ‘consented’ to sex with 28 year old and will not charge him with rape – RIP FRANCE

French prosecutors have ruled that an 11-year-old girl ‘consented’ to sexual relations with a 28-year-old man as she did not verbally and physically protest. The young girl had been lured to the man’s home in the Paris suburb of Montmagny in April this year, where he sexually assaulted her.

However, prosecutors said they could not justify charging the man with rape as there was no ‘violence, constraint, threat or surprise’.  Instead, the 28-year-old has only been charged with sexual abuse of a minor, The Local reports.  The girls’ family insists she was raped and say she had been ‘paralyzed with fear’ throughout her ordeal.  ‘She thought it was too late, that she didn’t have the right to protest, that it wouldn’t make any difference, so she went into autopilot, without emotion, and without reaction,’ the mother told a French news website according to The Local.

The decision not to prosecute the man for rape has caused outrage in France, with experts telling the media that ‘submitting is not consenting’.

Children’s rights groups have called for the legal system to introduce laws similar to those in the UK to protect children from predators. In the UK, intentional penetration of any orifice involving a child under 13 is classed as rape, as it is deemed that those aged 12 and under are not legally able to give consent to any form of sexual activity. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides specific legal protection for children aged 12 and under. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

kim

North Korean leader ‘begging for war’ as U.N. mulls sanctions

The United States accused North Korea’s trading partners on Monday of aiding its nuclear ambitions and said Pyongyang was “begging for war” after the North’s powerful nuclear test on Sunday and signs that further missile launches were on the way.

South Korea said it was talking to Washington about deploying aircraft carriers and strategic bombers to the Korean peninsula.

U.S. President Donald Trump held calls with foreign leaders,including South Korean President Moon Jae-in and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the White House declared that “all options to address the North Korean threat are on the table.”

Moon and Trump agreed in a telephone call to scrap a warhead weight limit on South Korea’s missiles, South Korea’s presidential office said, enabling it to strike North Korea with greater force in the event of a military conflict. The White House said Trump gave “in-principle approval” to the move.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said North Korea’s Kim Jong Un was “begging for war” and urged the 15-member U.N. Security Council to impose the “strongest possible” sanctions to deter him.

“War is never something the United States wants. We don’t want it now. But our country’s patience is not unlimited. We will defend our allies and our territory,” Haley said.

“The United States will look at every country that does business with North Korea as a country that is giving aid to their reckless and dangerous nuclear intentions,” she said.

Haley said the United States will circulate a new Security Council resolution on North Korea this week and wants a vote on it next Monday.

China, a top trading partner with North Korea, and Russia called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

“China will never allow chaos and war on the (Korean) Peninsula,” said Liu Jieyi, the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, urging North Korea to stop taking actions that were “wrong” and not in its own interests.

Russia said peace in the region was in jeopardy.

“Sanctions alone will not help solve the issue,” Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said.

North Korea has been under U.N. sanctions since 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Typically, China and Russia only view a test of a long-range missile or a nuclear weapon as a trigger for further possible U.N. sanctions.

Officials said activity around missile launch sites suggested North Korea planned more missile tests.

“We have continued to see signs of possibly more ballistic missile launches. We also forecast North Korea could fire an intercontinental ballistic missile,” Jang Kyoung-soo, acting deputy minister of national defense policy, told a parliament hearing on Monday.

North Korea tested two ICBMs in July that could fly about 10,000 km (6,200 miles), putting many parts of the U.S. mainland within range and prompting a new round of tough international sanctions.

MILITARY EXERCISES

South Korea’s air force and army conducted exercises involving long-range air-to-surface and ballistic missiles on Monday following the North’s nuclear test on Sunday, its joint chiefs of staff said in a statement.

In addition to the drill, South Korea will cooperate with the United States and seek to deploy “strategic assets like aircraft carriers and strategic bombers”, Jang said.

South Korea’s defense ministry also said it would deploy the four remaining launchers of a new U.S. missile defense system after the completion of an environmental assessment by the government.

Rollout of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system south of the South Korean capital, Seoul, which neighboring China and Russia vehemently oppose, had been delayed since June.

At the Security Council, neither Russia nor China mentioned their long-held opposition to THAAD or the prospect of further U.N. sanctions in the wake of North Korea’s nuclear test.

North Korea said it tested an advanced hydrogen bomb for a long-range missile on Sunday, prompting a warning from U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis of a “massive” military response if the United States or its allies were threatened.

Trump has previously vowed to stop North Korea developing nuclear weapons and said he would unleash “fire and fury” if it threatened U.S. territory.

Despite the tough talk, the immediate focus of the international response was on tougher economic sanctions.

Diplomats have said the Security Council could now consider banning North Korean textile exports and its national airline, stop supplies of oil to the government and military, prevent North Koreans from working abroad and add top officials to a blacklist to subject them to an asset freeze and travel ban.

Asked about Trump’s threat to punish countries that trade with North Korea, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said China has dedicated itself to resolving the North Korean issue via talks, and China’s efforts had been recognized.

“What we absolutely cannot accept is that on the one hand (we are) making arduous efforts to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, and on the other hand (our) interests are being sanctioned or harmed. This is both not objective and not fair,” he told a regular briefing.

On possible new U.N. sanctions, and whether China would support cutting off oil, Geng said it would depend on the outcome of Security Council discussions.

China’s state-run Xinhua news agency said in an editorial that North Korea was “playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship” and it should wake up to the fact that such a tactic “can never bring security it pursues”.

SKEPTICISM

While South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed on Monday to work with the United States to pursue stronger sanctions, Russia voiced skepticism.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said sanctions on North Korea had reached the limit of their impact. Any more would be aimed at breaking its economy, so a decision to impose further constraints would become dramatically harder, he told a BRICS summit in China.

South Korea says the aim of stronger sanctions is to draw North Korea into dialogue. But, in a series of tweets on Sunday, Trump also appeared to rebuke South Korea for that approach.

“South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!” Trump said on Twitter.

Still, Trump’s response was more orderly and less haphazard than he had offered after North Korea’s previous hostile actions.

His handling of its latest nuclear test reflected a more traditional approach to crisis management, which U.S. officials said illustrated the influence of Mattis and the new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps General John Kelly.

Japanese and South Korean stock markets both closed down about 1 percent on Monday, while safe-haven assets including gold and sovereign bonds ticked higher, but trade was cautious. U.S. markets were closed for the Labor Day holiday.

“Assuming the worst on the Korean peninsula has not proven to be a winning trading strategy this year,” said Sean Callow, a senior foreign exchange strategist at Westpac Bank.

“Investors seem reluctant to price in anything more severe than trade sanctions, and the absence of another ‘fire and fury’ Trump tweet has helped encourage markets to respond warily.”

South Korea’s finance minister vowed to support financial markets if instability showed signs of spreading to the real economy.

(Additional reporting by Shin-hyung Lee, Hyunjoo Jin and Cynthia Kim in SEOUL, Tim Ahmann and David Shepardson in WASHINGTON, John Ruwitch in SHANGHAI; Writing by Lincoln Feast and Jeff Mason; Editing by Sandra Maler and James Dalgleish)

dead russia

The Russian “fingerprints” on the DNC documents were put there on purpose

Never before has media hysteria surround a story that is completely absent of any substantial evidence. Anyone in their right mind can see that. The questions are: Why? What are you hiding? Is the media complicit?

From IJR.com:

The murky, obtuse, politically motivated rationale and grandstanding is beginning to test the tolerance of the public. It is also beginning to test those on the intellectual left, who have every reason to want President Donald Trump implicated in a crime to hasten his departure from office.

However, without evidence of a crime there can be no conviction.

Now, the infamous hack of the Democratic National Committee, the cornerstone of the Russia hacking allegations, indeed the root which holds together the very underpinnings of the scandal, has been blown wide open by a new bombshell report by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country’s most liberal publications.

The report details at length for the first time solid evidence in the case, compiled through exhaustive interviews with forensic experts and former national security intelligence officers who are independently investigating the DNC “hack.”

The conclusion of the report: This was not a hack — a hack was impossible based on the evidence. This was instead an inside job by someone who directly downloaded information from the DNC servers onto a hard device and transported it, intending it to be released.

Compelling Arguments:

File Transfer times impossible without someone in the DNC building.

Person Downloading File In USA, NOT RUSSIA

MOST DAMNING – Russian “fingerprints” put there on purpose:

No independent agency has ever been granted access to the “hacked” DNC server.

Experts Agree: THIS WAS NOT A RUSSIAN HACK

I encourage readers to examine the original report for yourselves as the mounting evidence seems indisputable at this point. The whole Russia narrative is made up and willfully ignored by the media. Makes you wonder how big this deep state conspiracy is. How deep does it run in the bowls of government?