Posts: 16,147
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59664
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(06-04-2019, 04:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So.... 0 happened?
It seems there was enough pressure on him not to carry them out that they didn't happen.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 16,298
Threads: 234
Reputation:
121238
Joined: Oct 2015
Mood: None
(06-05-2019, 08:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It seems there was enough pressure on him not to carry them out that they didn't happen.
Is that what actually happened, or is that an "heads I win, tails you lose" approach?
If the alleged rumors happen, we called it!
If the alleged rumors don't happen, we called it so they backed off!
Where in there does it allow for an article about alleged actions from unnamed sources to just be wrong? Otherwise were people also made too aware of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse that there was too much pressure on the world to not carry it out that it didn't happen? 
- - - - - - - - - -
Unless you saw something I didn't as far as pressure actually being the reason, I never heard about it again after the wave of outrage articles and then the deadline passed. It actually reminded me an awful lot about the migrant convoy before the election. After the election it was radio silence.
____________________________________________________________
Posts: 5,207
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23388
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-05-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Is that what actually happened, or is that an "heads I win, tails you lose" approach?
If the alleged rumors happen, we called it!
If the alleged rumors don't happen, we called it so they backed off!
Where in there does it allow for an article about alleged actions from unnamed sources to just be wrong?
Sure it might be wrong all along. I don't think it's particularly likely though, that NYT or the officials they talked to just made the requests up without any basis in truth. More likely, I'd say, is that Trump didn't follow through on the idea. It's not like he always does (follow through on ideas he floats).
Posts: 38,637
Threads: 1,703
Reputation:
55524
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(06-05-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Is that what actually happened, or is that an "heads I win, tails you lose" approach?
If the alleged rumors happen, we called it!
If the alleged rumors don't happen, we called it so they backed off!
Where in there does it allow for an article about alleged actions from unnamed sources to just be wrong? Otherwise were people also made too aware of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse that there was too much pressure on the world to not carry it out that it didn't happen?
- - - - - - - - - -
Unless you saw something I didn't as far as pressure actually being the reason, I never heard about it again after the wave of outrage articles and then the deadline passed. It actually reminded me an awful lot about the migrant convoy before the election. After the election it was radio silence.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cools-on-plans-to-pardon-alleged-war-criminals
Quote:Trump Cools on Plans to Pardon Alleged War Criminals
Blowback from veterans groups caused the president to rethink the idea. At least for now.
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]After facing a torrent of pushback and harsh criticism from military veterans, Donald Trump has backed off plans to potentially pardon convicted and alleged U.S. war criminals—at least for now.[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The president was personally taken aback by the nearly across-the-board resistance to his administration’s consideration of pardons for several U.S. servicemen accused of grisly crimes in war zones, two people familiar with the situation told The Daily Beast.[/color][/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The sources also noted that Trump, while monitoring much of the reaction in newspapers and cable news last month, had not expected the blowback to be as fierce and widespread among veterans as it was. Eventually, he decided to tap the brakes on the highly controversial idea, with the possibility of revisiting it in the future.[/color][/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The decision marks another instance of President Trump reconsidering his plans to dive head-first into a divisive debate at the egging of his media boosters.
[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Last month, news first broke that the president’s staff had ordered the fast-tracking of the required paperwork for the possible granting of pardons to American servicemen accused or convicted of war crimes, with plans to potentially issue those pardons on or right around Memorial Day. The idea had been privately pushed to the president for months by, among others, Fox & Friends co-host Pete Hegseth, who, in addition to being a war veteran and Trump pal, has been one of the biggest supporters of Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL platoon leader who was turned in by his own men for allegedly shooting civilians, including a young girl, and knifing to death a captured Islamic State fighter.
[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]After the news broke, Hegseth and others in the pro-Trump media universe continued to rally around the idea. And it all appeared to be moving toward pardons being issued, until it wasn’t. No pardons were granted on Memorial Day weekend, and Trump hasn’t publicly brought it up or tweeted about it since, in large part due to the backlash from veterans’ advocates.
[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“The military is a profession, and it has professional standards. Non-professional militaries hold themselves above the law,” said David Desroches, a former senior Pentagon official. “And America’s military prides itself on operating within the law. If you have guys committing war crimes, and getting away with it, that really damages our effort tactically. No one is going to cooperate with us.”
[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Last month, major veterans’ advocates and organizations said they hadn’t been consulted or contacted by the Trump White House on the proposal, and urged extreme caution in pardoning or excusing U.S. military personnel who may have very well committed murder overseas.
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“These are not the types of decisions to be rushed and should be made after long and careful consideration,” Jeremy Butler, the chief executive of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told The Associated Press. “We want to hear from the administration as to their rationale—what additional information they have and why they are taking this course.”[/color]
[/color]
Quote:![[Image: 5OJ82RsQ_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/750693893637746688/5OJ82RsQ_normal.jpg)
VoteVets
@votevets
When you have 5 draft deferments like #cadetbonespurs you think #MemorialDay is for pardoning war criminals instead of the memory of our fallen troops. This is sad for America.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.amp.html …
822
4:03 PM - May 18, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
![[Image: FXKJkkm3?format=jpg&name=600x314]](https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1134931540599824384/FXKJkkm3?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Trump May Be Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes
Military officials received expedited requests for paperwork needed to pardon several military members on or around Memorial Day.
nytimes.com
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The sources stressed to The Daily Beast that because Trump hadn’t acted by now didn’t mean that the issue was dead in his mind. Right before leaving for a Japan trip late last month, the president told reporters at the White House, “I haven’t done anything yet, I haven’t made any decisions” on pardons, and that “it’s very possible that I’ll let the trials go on, and I’ll make my decision after the trial.”
[/color]
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]The White House, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice press offices had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.
[/color]
https://news.yahoo.com/war-criminals-and-trumps-pardon-power-222215390.html
Quote:Why there's debate: The pardons have been pushed by some conservative lawmakers and pundits on Fox News, who argue that soldiers are being punished for doing their jobs.
The idea has gotten strong pushback from current and former military officers, who believe the pardons would undermine America's moral authority and make foreign allies less willing to trust the United States. Others have called for the president to wait until the individual cases have played out in court, to avoid undercutting the military legal system.
Democratic presidential candidate and Navy veteran Pete Buttigeig said the pardons would promote the idea that “being sent to war turns you into a murderer.” There is even some discussion that the act of pardoning war criminals could itself be a war crime.
Although President Trump has the power to pardon anyone he chooses, his previous uses of that authority, some argue, have been guided by personal and political motivations rather than correcting injustice, as the Founders intended.
What's next: Initial reporting about the pardons suggested they would be issued on or around Memorial Day, although Trump later told reporters he may allow the court cases to play out before making his decision.
Perspectives
Pardons would defy the wishes of military leaders
"The possibility that Trump could issue pardons has brought a flood of opposition from current and former high-ranking officers, who say it would encourage misconduct by showing that violations of laws prohibiting attacks on civilians and prisoners of war will be treated with leniency." — David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times
[url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pentagon-oppose-trump-pardon-murder-warcrimes-20190522-story.html]https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pentagon-oppose-trump-pardon-murder-warcrimes-20190522-story.html
Quote:Current and former military officers have urged the White House not to pardon service members and security contractors implicated in war crimes, warning that forgiving their offenses would send a dangerous signal to U.S. troops and potential adversaries.
Aides to President Trump have been examining high-profile war crimes cases from Iraq and Afghanistan, preparing paperwork so Trump could issue pardons during Memorial Day commemorations next week, according to two senior U.S. officials.
But the possibility that Trump could issue pardons has brought a flood of opposition from current and former high-ranking officers, who say it would encourage misconduct by showing that violations of laws prohibiting attacks on civilians and prisoners of war will be treated with leniency.
“Absent evidence of innocence or injustice, the wholesale pardon of U.S. service members accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the law of armed conflict seriously,” retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a tweet Tuesday. He added: “Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of moral responsibility. Risk to us.”
Among those under consideration for a pardon is Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL awaiting court-martial on charges that he shot unarmed civilians and stabbed a teenage Islamic State fighter in Iraq in 2017, according to one officials who discussed the internal deliberations on condition of anonymity.
Gallagher has pleaded not guilty, and commentators on Fox News have lobbied Trump to pardon him.
Other cases being examined by the White House include those of Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who is charged with killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010; three Marine snipers prosecuted for urinating on the corpse of a dead Afghan fighter in 2011; and a former security guard for Blackwater Worldwide who was convicted of murder in December for killing unarmed Iraqis in 2007.
Other officers warned that if U.S. personnel accused of such crimes escaped punishment, civilians on foreign battlefields would be less inclined to cooperate with U.S. forces, and U.S. service members taken prisoners would be more likely to be mistreated or even killed when taken captive.
“If President Trump issues indiscriminate pardons of individuals accused — or convicted by their fellow service members — of war crimes, he relinquishes the United States’ moral high ground and undermines the good order and discipline critical to winning on the battlefield,” said retired Gen. Charles Krulak, a former commandant of the Marine Corps.
Several officials said Trump is not believed to have consulted his senior military advisors about issuing pardons.
The possibility of military pardons was first reported by the New York Times.
Senior officers have not spoken out publicly about the possibility Trump could pardon accused war criminals, but many are privately outraged, according to one currently serving at the Pentagon.
“I think a lot of us would see it in the same way — that it’s just awful,” he said.
The possibility of that reaction inside the military could cause Trump not to go ahead with the pardons. But the president has ignored top military officers before, and Pentagon officials who once served to check his impulses, including former Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, are no longer in the administration.
Asked about the possibility that Trump would pardon service members, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters Tuesday: “I'm not really going to speculate on any of the pardons, but I would just say we'll leave it to the White House to comment on the situation there.”
Trump has repeatedly bypassed normal procedures for issuing pardons and granting clemency, seizing on cases mentioned on Fox News or those that resonate with him or his supporters. This month, he pardoned Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who was convicted of killing an Iraqi during questioning in 2008.
“We are talking about some of the most despicable war crimes. To even contemplate pardons in such cases is disgusting and dishonorable,” said Raha Wala, a lawyer at Human Rights First. “It’s no wonder that some of our most respected military leaders are speaking out against this, as they should.”
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-05-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Is that what actually happened, or is that an "heads I win, tails you lose" approach?
If the alleged rumors happen, we called it!
If the alleged rumors don't happen, we called it so they backed off!
Where in there does it allow for an article about alleged actions from unnamed sources to just be wrong? Otherwise were people also made too aware of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse that there was too much pressure on the world to not carry it out that it didn't happen?
- - - - - - - - - -
Unless you saw something I didn't as far as pressure actually being the reason, I never heard about it again after the wave of outrage articles and then the deadline passed. It actually reminded me an awful lot about the migrant convoy before the election. After the election it was radio silence.
I'm sure ALCON applaud his decision to listen to reason
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(06-05-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Is that what actually happened, or is that an "heads I win, tails you lose" approach?
If the alleged rumors happen, we called it!
If the alleged rumors don't happen, we called it so they backed off!
Where in there does it allow for an article about alleged actions from unnamed sources to just be wrong? Otherwise were people also made too aware of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse that there was too much pressure on the world to not carry it out that it didn't happen?
- - - - - - - - - -
Unless you saw something I didn't as far as pressure actually being the reason, I never heard about it again after the wave of outrage articles and then the deadline passed. It actually reminded me an awful lot about the migrant convoy before the election. After the election it was radio silence.
Eddie Gallagher got a few more Trump mentions after the story and his trial is about to start in a few days, so there's been a few stories in the news, but nothing headline.
The fact that he hasn't gone to trial could be a reason why a potential pardon is being fast tracked (but not yet ordered). If he wins his trial, he's proven innocent. If he is pardoned before, there is always a level of doubt.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Don't know if folks are keeping up with this, but there is a dramatic turn:
https://www.newser.com/story/276810/trial-witness-navy-seal-chief-didnt-kill-captive-i-did.html
Quote:Navy SEAL medic said at a court martial Thursday that it was he who killed a captured ISIS fighter in Iraq in 2017—not Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, who is accused of the murder. After Gallagher stabbed the teen, causing what Special Operator First Class Corey Scott testified was not a life-ending wound, Scott says he applied pressure to the captive's breathing tube to cause death, per the New York Times. "I wanted to save him from waking up to whatever would have happened to him," Scott said, suggesting Iraqi forces would have tortured and killed the teen; the SEALs were helping Iraqi troops rid Mosul of ISIS fighters at the time.
I think the whole thing could lead to a discussion on the merits of granting witnesses immunity.
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-21-2019, 07:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't know if folks are keeping up with this, but there is a dramatic turn:
https://www.newser.com/story/276810/trial-witness-navy-seal-chief-didnt-kill-captive-i-did.html
I think the whole thing could lead to a discussion on the merits of granting witnesses immunity.
I doubt it. The witnesses, Gallagher's own teammates, all agree he stabbed their captive in the neck at least once.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-21-2019, 08:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I doubt it. The witnesses, Gallagher's own teammates, all agree he stabbed their captive in the neck at least once.
No doubt it appears his actions were inexcusable; however, this may get him a not guilty on the murder charge.
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-21-2019, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt it appears his actions were inexcusable; however, this may get him a not guilty on the murder charge.
It's possible, but I don't think that witness' testimony is credible at all. In my opinion, I believe he is lying to get a teammate off for the murder charge. He even stated on the stand he didn't believe Gallagher should go to jail. His alleged motivation for clamping off the breathing tube makes no sense at all. Once Gallagher stabbed him, and they all agree he did, they had a duty to treat his injury: meaning they had to medevac him to the next higher level of.care which was supporting their mission and not turn him over to anyone else as seemed to be suggested. Basically, you break it, you bought it. Especially, if wounds involve life, limb, or eyesight. And a stab wound to the neck in a patient who had already been intubated or had a crich is urgent surgical. Wounded enemy soldiers are supposedto be treated the same as your own. Whether we like it or not. That's our duty.
Something to clarify: before they saw Gallagher stab their captive, they may have claimed they intended to turn him over to the Iraqis if they didn't believe his wounds were the result of US forces actions. That goes out the window once Gallagher stabbed him. Because that eliminates any doubt US forces caused his wound.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-21-2019, 09:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's possible, but I don't think that witness' testimony is credible at all. In my opinion, I believe he is lying to get a teammate off for the murder charge. He even stated on the stand he didn't believe Gallagher should go to jail. His alleged motivation for clamping off the breathing tube makes no sense at all. Once Gallagher stabbed him, and they all agree he did, they had a duty to treat his injury: meaning they had to medevac him to the next higher level of.care which was supporting their mission and not turn him over to anyone else as seemed to be suggested. Basically, you break it, you bought it. Especially, if wounds involve life, limb, or eyesight. And a stab wound to the neck in a patient who had already been intubated or had a crich is urgent surgical. Wounded enemy soldiers are supposedto be treated the same as your own. Whether we like it or not. That's our duty.
Absolutely no need to go there. I stated, by the testimony given, Gallagher's actions are inexcusable and he should be placed not in jail; but beneath it. My point was more toward the immunity given a witness and how this guy's admission of murder might allow Gallagher to escape the death penalty.
You do realize we are allowed to agree on some things?
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(06-21-2019, 09:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely no need to go there. I stated, by the testimony given, Gallagher's actions are inexcusable and he should be placed not in jail; but beneath it. My point was more toward the immunity given a witness and how this guy's admission of murder might allow Gallagher to escape the death penalty.
You do realize we are allowed to agree on some things?
I understand. But, witnesses lie. Whether they receive immunity or not. I don't find his testimony credible enough to believe him or cast a shadow of doubt so to speak. To me he's just a guy who thinks he out smarted the system. Maybe he did. It depends on what the jurors believe.
I don't think there is enough here to change how immunity in exchange for testimony works which I think is always going to be on a case by case basis at the prosecutor's discretion.
The imperfections in the system are why my opinion on capital punishment has changed over the years.
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
Eddie Gallagher found not guilty for the murder of the ISIS fighter after one of the medics claimed in court that he, not Gallagher, killed the wounded combatant when he suffocated him after Gallagher stabbed him, a wound he claimed wouldn't have killed him.
The prosecution reiterated to the jury that this was the first time the medic had ever claimed this and that the medic had immunity and was likely saying this only to save Gallagher. The medic confirmed this and said he didn't want to see a father and husband go to jail.
Crazy and disgusting.
He was found guilty for the photo he took with the body.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-02-2019, 11:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Eddie Gallagher found not guilty for the murder of the ISIS fighter after one of the medics claimed in court that he, not Gallagher, killed the wounded combatant when he suffocated him after Gallagher stabbed him, a wound he claimed wouldn't have killed him.
The prosecution reiterated to the jury that this was the first time the medic had ever claimed this and that the medic had immunity and was likely saying this only to save Gallagher. The medic confirmed this and said he didn't want to see a father and husband go to jail.
Crazy and disgusting.
He was found guilty for the photo he took with the body.
It is why I asked earlier about the immunity of witnesses. The limited responses i got was it does more good than bad. Do you find the practice to be crazy and disgusting?
Posts: 11,044
Threads: 38
Reputation:
48466
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-03-2019, 12:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is why I asked earlier about the immunity of witnesses. The limited responses i got was it does more good than bad. Do you find the practice to be crazy and disgusting?
You got one response. From me. And my response was, and is, I doubt this one case changes the practice of granting immunity in exchange for testimony. Which is definitely not the same as, "it does more good than bad."
But, I'm going to rest easy tonight secure in the knowledge you have have a dictionary and you're not afraid to use it.
I find the practice of granting immunity in exchange for testimony less crazy and disgusting than stabbing an EPW or intentionally suffocating your patient or the lack of integrity on display during this trial.
Like Granny used to say, "You lie with dogs you're gonna get fleas."
Posts: 38,637
Threads: 1,703
Reputation:
55524
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
"Glad I could help". 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(07-03-2019, 12:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is why I asked earlier about the immunity of witnesses. The limited responses i got was it does more good than bad. Do you find the practice to be crazy and disgusting?
I can’t make a broad statement like that about granting immunity when the range of what you can be immune from can range from petty crimes to murder.
I’d save that for individual cases
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-03-2019, 02:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You got one response. From me. And my response was, and is, I doubt this one case changes the practice of granting immunity in exchange for testimony. Which is definitely not the same as, "it does more good than bad."
But, I'm going to rest easy tonight secure in the knowledge you have have a dictionary and you're not afraid to use it.
I find the practice of granting immunity in exchange for testimony less crazy and disgusting than stabbing an EPW or intentionally suffocating your patient or the lack of integrity on display during this trial.
Like Granny used to say, "You lie with dogs you're gonna get fleas."
I'm glad my ownership of a dictionary aids to your nightly tranquility.
I'm not sure how many more times I can say Gallagher's actions were inexcusable. It seems you keep trying to argue against something not said. I simply said this case may lead to us re-look witness immunity. Because it's quite possible that Gallagher got away with murder because of it.
How did Granny know that?
Posts: 38,637
Threads: 1,703
Reputation:
55524
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(07-03-2019, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm glad my ownership of a dictionary aids to your nightly tranquility.
I'm not sure how many more times I can say Gallagher's actions were inexcusable. It seems you keep trying to argue against something not said. I simply said this case may lead to us re-look witness immunity. Because it's quite possible that Gallagher got away with murder because of it.
How did Granny know that?
Seems he got excused.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 37,460
Threads: 884
Reputation:
122333
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-03-2019, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seems he got excused.
...and there's a very good chance it was because of Witness Immunity.
|
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 190520-swin-Pete-Hegseth-tease_bafoyg]](https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1440,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_128/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1558396492/190520-swin-Pete-Hegseth-tease_bafoyg)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
