reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I briefed the press as an analyst and interrogator for the CIA, circulating disinformation to influence public opinion. I targeted influential journalists like Robert Chaplin and Kais Beach, planting false information to support US interests in Vietnam. I would also mislead reporters by briefing diplomats to provide false confirmation. Despite my involvement, I now oppose these propaganda tactics, believing they serve no purpose for the CIA.

There are functions of the CIA that include running secret wars and disseminating propaganda to influence people's minds, a major function that overlaps with information gathering. You have contact with a journalist; you will give him true stories and you’ll get information from him, and you will also give him false stories. You also work on human vulnerabilities to recruit journalists as agents to control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by deception. You can tell them to plant stories on a schedule. Concrete evidence of using the press this way was highlighted by the church committee in 1975, and later by Woodward and Bernstein in Rolling Stone, noting that about 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA to consciously introduce stories in the press. A concrete example from Angola: one third of the staff was propaganda. There were propagandists around the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. They would take stories they wrote and put them in the Zambia Times, then pull them out and send them to a journalist on payroll in Europe. But the cover story was that the journalist had gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times, and after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it. The contact man in Europe was used to pump dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but there was not a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for breakfast.

Rasputin held substantial influence at the royal court, reportedly having 'the ear of Ptsareena herself,' and that 'a word from Rasputin in those ears could achieve just about anything that you desired.' This proximity meant that 'currying favor with Rasputin was a pretty much direct route straight to the Tsar and Tsarina.' The description highlights the perceived power of personal access to the ruling couple and the potential impact of Rasputin's influence on imperial reach.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

Many members of Congress have an "APAC person," akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have direct access to them. Some members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence advertising decisions. It's surprising that this arrangement isn't widely known, as it could be perceived negatively by constituents. Congress members likely keep this relationship private because it doesn't serve their interests to disclose that they have a close connection with a representative of a foreign entity.

The CIA has various functions, some more legitimate than others. One function is to run secret wars, while another is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds. They use journalists to spread both true and false stories, exploiting their vulnerabilities to control them. In the past, the CIA had around 400 journalists cooperating with them, including well-known names. An example of their manipulation is seen in the Angola war, where they planted false stories about Cuban atrocities to create an illusion of communist brutality. This shows how the CIA uses the press to further their agenda.

This US politician, Michael McColl, earns $24,000,000 per month, lives in a $10,000,000 mansion, owns a $1,100,000 car collection, including a Rolls Royce Wraith and a Ferrari 488 GTB, and has a $20,000,000 private jet. He has traded $576,000,000 in the stock market in the past 3 years. To view his trades, visit borsfinance.com.

The speaker recounts a formative encounter with a trusted family friend, John Harrington, who had become an influential figure close to the Reagan administration. Harrington, once a lawyer and a strict Calvinist, had been Reagan’s advanced man in the 1980 campaign. After Reagan’s election, Harrington received a special appointment and moved his family from the West Coast to the East Coast, living in Langley Farms, Virginia. On a cross-country road trip for Harrington, the speaker and a couple of friends drove Harrington’s two cars and his dog, just after graduating high school in 1981 and preparing to attend UCLA. They witnessed Harrington’s status change: he returned home with a black Lincoln Town Car, a secret service escort, and a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist, signaling his high-ranking government role. At a family dinner, Harrington’s two daughters—whom the speaker had known growing up—reconnected with the speaker, turning the gathering into a family reunion. During the evening, Harrington’s personality and state of mind stood out. Although he had been a man of high character, integrity, and personal restraint—non-drinker, non-swearer, in good physical shape—the speaker noticed Harrington looked haggard and emotionally burdened, drinking Jim Beam in the backyard as they talked. When the speaker asked about his new job, Harrington initially refused to elaborate, calling it classified. Eventually, he revealed that to obtain the position, he had to undergo months of briefings in an underground facility in West Virginia. After each briefing, Harrington would cry himself to sleep, a detail that shocked the speaker, who could not imagine such distress in someone they had looked up to. Pressed further, Harrington explained something about the world he had entered into, including a reference to the speaker’s own childhood interests in science fiction and comics. He finally conveyed a startling line: “Aliens are real. They're here, and I've seen them.” This revelation underscored the weight and disillusionment Harrington felt about the world he believed he was helping to shape for his family. The speaker emphasizes the emotional impact of these disclosures, highlighting the juxtaposition between Harrington’s respectable public persona and the private, burdensome truths he carried.

I was introduced to him by Rothschild, a prominent lady in law. He had connections with many influential people.

The speaker talks about going back to base and conducting interviews and interrogations. They mention a conversation with someone who wants to know how much money another person has in their account. The speaker is instructed to find out and give the money in cash. They comply and give the person around $53,000. The speaker also mentions that the person took their mobile phones. Everything continues as normal until the speaker is called to meet the person late at night, which makes them uneasy because they know who they work for.

The CIA has admitted to having operatives embedded in major media outlets to influence stories for their benefit. Reports indicate that they have relationships with reporters from various national news organizations, persuading them to alter or withhold stories that could threaten national security. Evidence from the Pike Committee revealed that 42 CIA employees were placed in key media centers, often as national security reporters. A Time Life board member remarked that journalists are merely taking dictation from powerful entities, indicating a loss of journalistic integrity. Some reporters have shared experiences of their stories being spiked by editors, and payments to these operatives were made discreetly, often without proper reporting to tax authorities.

Speaker 0: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Speaker 1: There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. So that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we've made the investment, and we're further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It's not just insurance. It is knowing that down the road, we're gonna continue to have problems like this, particularly in a globalized world. Speaker 2: The CIA, they really love it when a new president is elected, and he has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. Barack Obama, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in intelligence. The day after an election, the director of the CIA authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a PDB, a president's daily brief. And so the day after the election, they go with this this 16 page document and they say, Mr. President-elect, wait till you see the cool things we're doing all around the world. And they've sucked him in. They made him one of the guys. And then we get the feedback at the CIA. Oh, the president loved this. The president had a follow-up question on that. Oh, the president said, oh my God, when he read this. Speaker 3: It almost sounds like you're psychologically profiling the president. Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's exactly what they do. Speaker 3: And so they use the tools that they have employed for decades to subvert foreign governments, to subvert their own government. Speaker 4: 02/2008, something unbelievable happened for us in the FBI. We were getting lots of rumors about this high level asset that worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time. He worked for the Saudi Intelligence Service. He worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not even a United States citizen, but it was said that he was a student visa and that he was a a national from another country. In 02/2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. Speaker 1: And I will faithfully execute. Speaker 3: The office of Speaker 2: president of the United States. Speaker 1: The office of president of the United Speaker 4: One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sartaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within, one institution at a time. One of the things he did, of course, was he he defunded our military. He brought down he brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ICEs. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your Speaker 0: order. Forty four and one before that, '43, Bush and Obama. Well, there are pictures of Bush with his arm around eight year old Barack Obama because his stepdaddy, adopted daddy, Lolo Sotoro, had done a lifetime where the business with the Bushes. Wow. Uncle George Herbert Walker, after whom George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush won president, was named, founded Halliburton in 1946 in Oklahoma. And Lolo Sotoro had been international executive vice president for Standard Oil. There there was talk of him being a CIA asshole. Well, yeah. See, he ran the death squads for the Indonesian army. On his own call, anyone could be assassinated. So when George Herbert Walker Bush became head of the CIA under the Ford administration, he just got with his old buddy in the oil business, Lolo Sotoro, and pulled off the hits. See, Barack's grandmother has been acknowledged as being the woman that operated the channels through which CIA money went to the Southwest Pacific. So she introduced her daughter who had just had Barry Barack to Lolo Sotoro, and they got married and Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack Obama. The name was changed to Barry Sotoro. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now when he went to high school in Hawaii, I know about that high school. I almost sent my oldest son to it. I could afford it, but I didn't think he observed deserved it. Twenty years ago, the tuition was $95,000 a year, not including room and board. When Obama went there, I've talked to two of his classmates. They independently state that the tuition, not including room and board, was 45,000. Now Business Insider reports his income for 2017 at over 200,000,000 net. That's after taxes, deductions, write offs. For this last year, 2018, they've reported it as 570 plus million dollars, and that's after all deductions tax. Right? Speaker 2: Trump doesn't make that net. Speaker 2: All these other ones who thought they were untouchable, now they're gonna have to answer for their actions. In the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. The teams go out. They kill everybody that's on the list, and then they meet next Tuesday and get that kill list. And you just do it week after week. Well, if you're not having to devote armies of targeting analysts, to to finding these guys, if if your computers can find them just based on their, you know, email messaging, text messaging, whatever, metadata. There. Your job's easy. You just fire a missile from the drone or you drop a guy in that does a close in shot, and then you get back Speaker 4: on the helicopter and fly home. Speaker 2: I hate to sound cynical like that, but that's just the way it is. Speaker 5: I think that's, just calling it how it is. What, what year or years was that was Brennan doing that Tuesday morning kill list? Speaker 2: He started in o nine and kept it going. I have no idea if Donald Trump kept it or Joe Biden kept it or revived it, But it was something that they were very proud of in the Obama administration. They were just going out whacking everybody. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, no nobody dropped more missiles from drones than Obama did. Speaker 2: No. Nobody.

Kennedy was seen as a privileged president planning to disarm nuclear warheads. The speaker, with inside knowledge from Jesuit headquarters, discusses details of the assassination team and Watergate. Deep Throat, revealed as Mark Felt, guided Woodward to follow the money to Nixon's involvement in Watergate. The CIA head, McCone, was kept in the dark.

High-ranking individuals in the government are being controlled through monetary and sexual bribery, as well as blackmail and threats. This control extends to officials in the federal government, including the State Department, Pentagon, and even the White House. Additionally, there are ongoing investigations into unidentified White House aides from the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations for their involvement with book hall boy rings.

We have a prominent political family that runs 64 NGOs, and it looks like a lot of people are working for free as trustees while others are getting paid huge salaries. For example, we see a Senior VP for policy research making $400,000 a year and someone in strategy affairs making $330,000 a year. Remember, this is all from your tax dollars. These families in government are like thieves who found an open bank vault. Each NGO is a bag for cash. They stuff as much money as possible into each one, then they start a new LLC with a new purpose. Do they achieve anything? Not really. Do they build anything or make anything better for anyone? Not tangibly, but the people working for them are doing quite well.

The discussion centers on concerns that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back and be circulated in the United States, potentially allowing the CIA to manipulate U.S. news by channeling it through a foreign country. There is emphasis on looking at this very carefully. Questions were raised about whether any people paid by the CIA contribute to major American journals or to television networks. One speaker notes that some individuals submit pieces to American journals, and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who work for television networks. The response indicates that this is a level of detail better addressed in executive session. It is stated that at CBS, the CIA had contacted the organization, and that by the time the head of the news and public affairs operation was appointed in 1954, “the ships had been established,” and he was told about them and asked to carry on with them. Regarding final reporting, there is a commitment to evaluate all the detailed information and to include any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety in the final report and to make recommendations. The question is raised again about whether there are people paid by the CIA contributing to national news services such as AP and UPI, with the response again preferring to handle those details in executive session. When asked whether the new organization’s final report would be named, the speaker indicates that this remains to be decided. It is asserted that correspondents at that time were allowed to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other CIA executive staff as sources of information useful in their assessments of world conditions. The question is asked whether this continues today. The response acknowledges that it probably does for a reporter, but notes that due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter would need to be much more circumspect now, and must be careful not to be viewed with considerable disfavor by the public.

In 1948, I was a special agent with CIC (counterintelligence corps) in occupied Germany, stationed in Augsburg, handling a network of German informants, among them Klaus Barbie. I later discovered that he was wanted for murder by the French, and I reported this to my superiors; they told me to keep nice and quiet, saying he was still valuable, and that when he was no longer valuable, we’d turn him over to the French. I thought I would get a promotion for reporting Barbie, but they told me to keep quiet. Colonel Gunther Bernal was an agent informant working for military intelligence in Stuttgart. We provided him a home, a safe house in Ludwigsburg, and I met him three times a week; he brought us information about communists and whatever we wanted to hear. He was certainly a very strong Nazi. I sat in his office one day and opened his album of pictures from the war; in the middle of the album, there was a nice picture of Adolf Hitler. Several other high ranking SS officers came to visit him at the safe house we provided. He told me that if for any reason he needed help, by one telephone call he could contact 200 former SS leaders from Hamburg to Munich. I remember him taking me to a particular spot we uncovered and dug out; there were rifles, small arms, grenades, all nicely wrapped in cosmoline. He said he had thousands of these all over the country, and that sort of made me a little suspicious, and I reported it. They said, well, we know this—they're all working for us in case the communist come across the Iron Curtain. A former SS general, Paul Houser, was a frequent visitor at Bernhaus House, and they worked together hand in glove on certain programs which we didn’t know anything about, and I wasn’t even asked to find out more about it. Somebody above me must have been running this network already at that time.

Politicians have close ties with APAC, like a babysitter. They have lunch and conversations with APAC members who influence their decisions. Some congress members even ask their "APAC guy" to tone down ads. This buddy system is surprising and not widely known.

In Saigon, I operated under various covers, but those I interacted with knew I was with the CIA. I was there from 1969 to 1975, involved in analysis and press briefings, sometimes disseminating disinformation. Our success rate in planting information was about 70-80%. I targeted respected journalists to gain their trust and share data, which often included half-truths. While independent reporting was strong, many journalists were wary of CIA contacts. The CIA's primary objective is intelligence gathering, but disinformation can be counterproductive. After publishing my book, "Decent Interval," I faced a lawsuit for not submitting it for government censorship, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that imposed restrictions on government employees regarding their writings. The court's decision expanded the conditions for prior restraint, impacting First Amendment rights.

The discussion centers on who is funding the film project and who is involved in backing the production. One speaker states that “Jim’s” name is funding the movie and that a great group of people have come together to invest in the production. They note that “the Carlos Slim family is involved from Mexico,” highlighting their participation in the financial backing. When asked to introduce Carlos Slim for those who may not know who he is, the speaker identifies him as “one of the wealthiest men in the world” and explains that his business interests are in telecommunications in Mexico and Latin America. The speaker adds that Carlos Slim’s son, Patrick, serves as the point of contact for the Slim family and is described as being very passionate about the work they are doing and about fighting trafficking. A second speaker adds context by stating that Carlos Slim is the largest shareholder in the Times. They reiterate Slim’s Mexican origin and claim that he has given “many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives.” They further assert that Carlos Slim is the largest owner of the newspaper from Mexico and offer a provocative claim about reporters at the New York Times, stating that they are not journalists but “corporate lobbyists for Carlos Slim and” for Hillary Clinton. The exchange emphasizes a narrative about financial influence and media relationships, linking Carlos Slim’s wealth and ownership to political connections and advocacy. The dialogue ends with an incomplete utterance, “Carlo,” which appears to be cut off and does not form a complete thought or claim within the transcription.

I became friends with the senior guys in Amtrak, especially Angelo. He once grabbed my cheek and shirt, scaring me. He told me that he had read in the newspaper about my extensive travel as vice president, covering 1,000,000 miles. But he casually mentioned that he had ridden 1,000,000,327 miles himself.

John and Mario discuss the EpsteinFiles with a focus on who is behind the cover-up, the involvement of intelligence services, and the implications for justice and power. - Epstein as Mossad asset and broader intelligence links: - John reiterates his original conclusion that Epstein was a Mossad access agent and adds that he was actively seeking contact with the CIA, the FBI, the NSC, MI5/MI6, Germany, and even Vladimir Putin, aiming to burnish his credentials with intelligence communities. Epstein allegedly requested private meetings with Putin, which were arranged with others present, and there were FOIA requests by Epstein’s attorneys to confirm associations with the CIA and NSC, which reportedly went unanswered. - Mario notes Epstein’s access to the Skiff (a highly restricted, sealed room for classified discussions) and argues Epstein’s entry suggests closer ties to American intelligence, since only Five Eyes would have access to such a space. He contrasts this with a broader view that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political classes drive the cover-up, as evidenced by congressional mandates to release documents and the DOJ’s involvement. - The discussion flags that the released files show Epstein’s attempts to connect with major intelligence actors, and hints at a possible broader Israeli involvement (Mossad) and questions about whether Israelis were spying on the CIA/NSC. - The scope of the release and accountability: - John emphasizes that Congress passed a law mandating release of these documents; the executive branch has not released all materials, with millions unreleased and only a fraction of available data being disclosed (debate around 2% of data released in some outlets). He criticizes the DOJ for surveillance-like behavior of congressional briefings (e.g., a DOJ official observing members while they review materials). He also notes the CIA/FBI/FIVE EYES redactions that obscure sources and methods, and argues that there should be little redaction since Epstein is deceased. - Mario adds that the files reveal extensive redactions and questions about what remains unreleased, comparing it to the torture report’s redactions, and suggests the redactions may be politically or strategically motivated. - Notable file threads and alleged illicit activities: - A Libyan assets subplot: An associate, Greg Brown, discusses identifying and recovering frozen Libyan assets (potentially 80+ billion dollars). The plan purportedly offered Epstein a percentage (10-25%) for recovery, with Libya’s reconstruction as a potential cost. Brown claimed connections with MI6 and Mossad to identify stolen assets, illustrating a pattern of opportunities for private actors to profit from geopolitical upheavals. - Ukraine 2014 dispatches: A tweet claimed that Epstein, in 2014, discussed opportunities arising from Ukraine upheaval, with the Rothschilds emailing Epstein to discuss asset management and Ukraine, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in exploring opportunities amid regime changes. - The role of wealth and elite involvement: Mario and John describe how Epstein’s financial power enabled him to operate at the intersection of intelligence and global finance; the “go-to” for large asset claims is a reality that would require serious governmental or intelligence ties. - Death of Epstein and questions surrounding it: - The panel discusses the widely accepted view that Epstein did not kill himself, citing multiple irregularities: the July 23 attempt, the deletion of relevant footage, Epstein’s removal from suicide watch against protocol, a mass-murderer cellmate, unmonitored calls, camera malfunctions, and a decoy body claim. They discuss the autopsy differences (ear shape, penis description) and an DOJ note dated a day earlier than the death as a potential anomaly. - John explains that in the federal system prison guards’ qualifications and camera reliability are problematic, and argues that the death raises serious questions about the suicide narrative, while acknowledging a lack of inside information to confirm any particular theory. They discuss a decoy body and the possibility that Epstein was secretly killed, with ongoing debates about whether he’s alive or dead. - They reference a note about an escape plan and a will being signed days before death, suggesting Epstein anticipated danger and attempted to plan escape, though this is balanced against the argument that prisoners often contemplate escape. - Victims, threats, and blackmail: - They recount death threats to Epstein’s victims, including threats in Hebrew and references to Mossad-like intimidation. John explains that Western intelligence rarely issues direct threats to civilians, whereas Mossad has historically used such tactics; Epstein’s circle included individuals who reportedly faced threats and harassment. - They discuss Epstein’s private security cameras and alleged blackmail operations, citing emails in which victims describe transactional sexual experiences and Epstein’s networks. They consider whether intelligence agencies exploited Epstein’s perversion to further strategic aims and whether those networks used blackmail to recruit or control powerful individuals (e.g., Prince Andrew, Les Wexner, etc.). - High-profile associations and potential redactions: - Fergie (Sarah Ferguson) is mentioned as having close ties with Epstein, including emails after his conviction and marriage-like language; Prince Andrew is highlighted as heavily implicated. They discuss whether these relationships were used for blackmail or influence, and whether such information remains usable as leverage. - The breadth of individuals implicated ranges from Trump to Clinton to business titans; John notes there is no direct evidence of crimes by Trump or Clinton in released materials, but the extent of connections complicates public perception. - Conclusion and ongoing questions: - The conversation closes with an agreement that Epstein’s death and the surrounding files reveal a web of intelligence connections, high-level influence, and potential blackmail, with substantial redactions and a continuing need for full disclosure to understand the full extent of involvement, high-level figures, and the truth behind Epstein’s death. They anticipate further file releases and ongoing analysis.

It's difficult to prevent corruption, even with higher salaries, because insider trading can be so lucrative. People justify taking questionable actions for their families, especially when it's legal. If you're involved in passing a bill and know how it will affect certain industries, buying stock beforehand seems logical. However, the problem goes beyond just stock portfolios; there are other, less traceable methods of wealth acquisition. Honestly, discussing these topics is dangerous. I have to be careful not to push too hard on the corruption issue because it could put my life at risk.