WaPo: Dems really don't give a sh#t about Hillary's email

[ucrdem]

NOTE: THE ACTUAL March 4 WashPost HEADLINE is:

"Democrats simply don’t seem to care about Hillary Clinton’s email server issue"

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/04/democrats-simply-dont-seem-to-care-about-hillary-clintons-email-server-issue/

[haikugal]

1. They're wrong. Plenty of us care.

[ucrdem]

8. Why? If past is prologue

1) Hillary did nothing illegal
2) her office was 80x more scrupulous than any GOP predecessor
2) no other official will ever come under similar scrutiny
4) when this one becomes a national laughing stock another nothing burger will be raised to the level of scandal until it too crashes and um . . . incinerates . . .

[haikugal]

9. So you say.

We'll know soon.

[Recoverin_Republican]

101. Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "chatter is just plain ridiculous"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511398999

[CoffeeCat]

55. The FBI is investigating Clinton and her private email server

How do you know that HRC didn't do anything illegal? There are scads of FBI agents attempting to answer those questions. You certainly aren't on the inside and don't have any idea.

What I am hoping is that the FBI wraps this up very, very soon.

For the good of our party, we need closure on this as soon as possible.

We can't have a Democratic Presidential candidate being investigated by the FBI--while stories about her colleagues being granted immunity in exchange for testimony--are leaked by the FBI to the press.

This cloud will continue to hang over our party and her candidacy as long as this is an open investigation.

I imagine that we should know a great deal more shortly. This testimony from Brian Pagliano--HRC's IT guy--should definitely tell us if this gets worse for Clinton or better.

We need closure, and we need it yesterday.

[ucrdem]

61. Sept. 11, 2015: "Justice Department Says No Laws Were Broken"

meant to put this here:

Reality has bitten Republicans in the backsides again as the Justice Department is saying that Hillary Clinton’s emails broke no laws.

Justice Department lawyers argued before a federal court that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her emails broke no laws.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html
..........

Yes we have a problem, but it is not with Hillary Clinton. Were you around in the 90s? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, so to speak.

[CoffeeCat]

83. The Justice Department never said that Clinton didn't break ANY laws.

The Justice Department was specifically and ONLY talking about her deleting emails--when they said that Clinton didn't do anything illegal.

The quotes you cited were spoken the Justice Department argued in court that Clinton broke no laws when she deleted emails.

To suggest that the Justice Department made some sweeping general statement about Clinton breaking no laws, with respect to this ongoing investigation--is false.

[NurseJackie]

12. "Plenty" at this web site, perhaps. But out in the real-world, not so much.

The word "plenty" is rather subjective. How many is "plenty" exactly? (The Washington Post pegs it at just 7% ... less than 1-in-10 ... that seems rather small to me.)






Go, Hillary! We love you!

[haikugal]

14. Keep telling yourself that.

[NurseJackie]

15. Actually, the Washington Post told me.

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[haikugal]

16. Any tween could be that clever....enjoy yourself.

[NurseJackie]

18. Well, that's not a nice thing to say. You hurt my feelings.

16. You think a lot of yourself but you sound like a tween.

I haven't attacked or insulted you. Why would you say something like that about me? (Don't worry, I'm not going to alert.)




Go, Hillary! We love you!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. What's a "tween"

tween
a girl ages about 9-14...too old for toys, but too young for boys.

Very easy to market to, will usually follow any fashion trend set for them, will most likely go through the phase of 'finding themselves' as they 'grow up'.
1. Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen's main fanbase are all tweens.

2.
tween 1: LyK oMg, I aM jUsT gOiNg ThRu TeH hArDeSt TiMe Of My LyF...i RaN oUt Of EyEsHaDoW!!!!
tween 2: OMG!!!! DO YOU NEED ME TO COME OVER FOR SUPPORT?!?!?!?!?!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tween&defid=1118992

[ucrdem]

29. Tequila!

[NurseJackie]

35. Excellent idea! (But later on tonight.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. "Keep hope alive."/nt

[CoffeeCat]

84. That WaPo poll was conducted in February, before her IT guy was granted immunity

Brian Pagliano being given immunity by the FBI, in exchange for his testimony, was a complete game changer.

More people are plugged into this story now. Many are paying attention, including Democrats, because this has the potential to be extremely bad for Clinton.

The FBI releasing this information to the public has ignited concern that her candidacy could affect our Democratic party, the election and the fear is that this could put Trump in the White House.

The good news? We should know more very soon. I imagine Pagliano's testimony will veer this investigation off in one direction or the other. So that is a positive.

[kstewart33]

23. On DU, absolutely.

But for the Democrats nationwide, not so much.

[LonePirate]

58. The only Dems who care are those who hope she's indicted because it might impact the primary race.

[haikugal]

65. The fact that she might be is reason to be concerned..this isn't a fantasy it's real

I want us to win the GE and have real concerns about her ability to do that. This doean't even begin to address the fact that Clinton is on the wrong side of history in so many ways.

[LonePirate]

73. The reason for the concern is a disingenuous one.

The people who want her indicted want her out of the race and this investigation is merely what they are grasping onto right now. If there was some other more likely event or cause that would push her out of the race, that's what people would glom on to instead. Any possible security breaches don't mean anything because it could be any issue at all. The fact that the actual subject of the investigation is irrelevant to these people suggests they really don't give a damn about the emails. They only care about the indictment and not the details associated with it.

[haikugal]

85. A fish rots from the head...since when do democrats cling to criminals?

This is much bigger than you seem to know.

Here, I just read this and it says it well.

Angry In the Wake of Trump, Hillary is Poised to Carry the Neoconservative Torch

It might be worthwhile for supporters of Hillary Clinton to consider that, as of the last week or two, they are bedfellows with members of the most odious U.S. political movement in recent memory: neoconservatism. That’s right—in a not-so-surprising twist, America’s most vocal and unapologetic war-lovers are starting to imply allegiance to the doyenne of the Democratic Party.

Eliot Cohen, former official of George W. Bush’s unholy State Department, called Hillary Clinton “the lesser evil, by a large margin.” The greater evil, of course, is Donald Trump, who in Cohen’s estimation would be “an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy.” While it is perhaps axiomatic to state that Trump embodies some degree of evil, Cohen’s beef with The Donald isn’t that he’s racist or fascist or Hitlerian in temperament (favorite charges of the “liberal” media)—it’s that he’s not eager enough to kill people with bombs.

To his credit, Trump has made a ton of (desperately needed) sense on foreign policy. His characterization of the Bush 43 administration’s Iraq war as “a big, fat mistake” that “destabilized the Middle East” is spot on. It was also a crime of extraordinary proportions (not merely a mistake), but Trump’s comments are refreshing nevertheless. His fellow GOP candidates would sooner self-immolate than criticize a former Republican president, for to do so would be to bite off the hand that feeds them. Trump, as we all know, feeds himself; the only people he kowtows to are his potential voters (hence his stupid immigration rhetoric). The Republican establishment sucks—as does the Democratic one—and Trump, to our delight, has no qualms about saying so.

This has pissed off a lot of political elites in this country, the movers and shakers who actually operate and profit from the American political machine. A major component of said machine is the Military-Industrial complex, the guardian (or guarantor) of perpetual warfare. The neoconservatives love the Military-Industrial complex because it ensures that their lust for war and carnage and mayhem will always be satisfied.

...

Therefore, the neocons are throwing in with Hillary. This is completely understandable. After all, she voted in favor of the Iraq war, and refused to acknowledge the mistake for years afterwards. Her line on Iran is exceptionally hawkish. She wants to implement a “no-fly zone” over Syria. She led NATO’s successful efforts to topple Gadaffi in Libya (now arguably the worst place in the world). As First Lady, she encouraged her husband to bomb Serbia, and bragged about it in her book. She’s vehemently anti-Palestinian, and vehemently pro-Israeli apartheid. She’s a neocon’s wet dream, in other words.

more

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/in...rvative-torch/

Found here..
http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?5627-In-the-Wake-of-Trump-Hillary-is-Poised-to-Carry-the-Neoconservative-Torch&p=30747#post30747

[LonePirate]

87. So by calling her a criminal, you've completely forgotten about innocent until proven guilty.

She has not been indicted. There has been no trial. All of the evidence and information about the investigation has not been released and you're ready to send her to prison. As I said, the details of the case (the emails and any possible security breaches) don't matter at all. It is simply about punishing Clinton. Thank you for making my point for me that you don't care about the emails.

[haikugal]

88. Well it depends on the definition...isn't that Bills line?

By the same token you're declaring the entire thing as meaningless when the results haven't come in yet.

[LonePirate]

90. I'm simply not rushing to judgment unlike those who have already convicted her.

I have no issues with the investigation continuing. If there is criminal activity, then I would support an indictment. If there is nothing criminal, then it should be dropped entirely. So yes, the whole thing is meaningless until evidence of a crime has been uncovered.

[TeddyR]

70. Maybe the Dems who care

Are worried about the rule of law?

[LonePirate]

81. Given the complete absence of the presumption of innocence, that's very unlikely.

If they were worried about the rule of law, they wouldn't be rushing to convict her, which they are obviously are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. I am an independent voter

And I care because of rule of law I know, this is alien

[LonePirate]

82. Do you also care about innocent until proven guilty? Or does that cornerstone not matter for HRC?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. What do you thnk the two cases

On DoJ and IG are about? Never mind the actual witch hunt that has allowed discovery to proceed. (That be Judicial watch)

You know, from reading about Watergate, partisans made the same exact arguments. None cared, until it exploded. Back then only nerds followed it too until well, it exploded.

[LonePirate]

91. For me, being the subject of an investigation does not automatically equate to guilt.

For some people, simply being investigated is tantamount to a guilty conviction and prison sentence. If you want to go down the path about partisans making certain arguments, the vast majority (if not all) of the people who have already convicted her without all (or any evidence) or highly partisan - they are either Republicans or Bernie or Bust voters. You don't get much more partisan than that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. And for me at times covering courts

I understand why the details of this are beyond comprehension. The press has yet to do a nuts and bolts. For the record, I can't or I would have awhile ago. This is actually more complex than that third rate burglary incidentally. If there is anything here though, like that one, it is not the crime, but the coverup. 30,000 personal emails were deleted. I am willing to bet the farm FBI techs have been busy little beavers st Quantico rebuilding all that data. Incidentally that be the 4rth leg, the foundation.

[randome]

98. Yeah, the details are beyond comprehension -to everyone but you.

We get the details just fine. It's painful to watch DUers hope against hope that something will happen to catapult Sanders into the lead -because he clearly can't do that without an outside 'event' like Clinton being indicted.

Painful.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Well when people still argue that something

That is born classified is not because it was not marked that way. This has been explained a thousand times. Yup pretty much. Either people are obtuse. Or this is way too complex. Your choice

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Oh and lastly. Some of us had the same view

About bush. We just don't change our moral centervaccording to letter behind a name oh and for the record, wanting an investigation to clear or indict is what people here should want before the nominating. If you think this will be dropped by the R's. Well then

[Vinca]

2. We're going to care a whole lot if she's the nominee and hasn't been cleared by the FBI.

[scscholar]

93. Why would we care?

If they had something, they would have acted long agai.

[Vinca]

102. If she isn't cleared, the GOP will convince the country it's because she's a criminal.

And I disagree that they would have acted long ago. There are, reportedly, 100 or more agents working on the case so they must have their reasons for whatever is taking so long to either clear her or indict her. I assume she will be cleared, but if not the ads will write themselves.

[basselope]

3. I don't.

I have 1000 other reasons I would never vote for her.. which server e-mails were stored on just doesn't hit the list compared to the political corruption, Iraq war vote, bungled foreign policy, etc..etc..

[djean111]

4. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[Chichiri]

5. Benghazi! nt

[basselope]

6. Don't care about that one either.

She could no more control the events in Benghazi than I could.

Her bungle in Libya is a whole other story.

She simply doesn't have the foreign policy chops to be commander in chief. Bad call after bad call.

[kstewart33]

20. And Bernie's foreign policy chops?

Any achievements there other than a vote against the Iraq war?

[basselope]

31. Yes. Many.

He's gotten it right time and time again.

Clinton ALWAYS seems to get it wrong.

She has about a 100% fail rate when it comes to foreign policy.

[kstewart33]

34. Ah, come on.

If he has so many, how about listing a few?

[basselope]

59. A few...

Both Iraq wars.
Spoke AGAINST Lybia overthrow.
Been fighting for YEARS for more normal relations with cuba.
Against full normalization with China on trade
2 state solution.

He's just on the correct side of the issues.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I'm a helluva lot more concerned about her dumb/espedient forign policy decisions.

Not to mention, (but, I will) my concerns about her ties to Wall Street, her support for fracking, and her corruption in other spheres.

[kstewart33]

24. Bernie is the Saint. Hillary is the Satan.

Those are getting to be tired stereotypes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. What would Jesus do?

Being a Buddhist (aka: agnostic) I'm not influenced by religious notions. I don't view Sanders as a saint but I agree with most of principles. I don't view Hillary as Satan, just an overly ambitious politician who is unfit to hold public office.

[artislife]

54. But you know what they say about stereotypes....nt

[kstewart33]

72. Now, Art, those are your stereotypes, not mine.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Better tell Obama's FBI

[ucrdem]

13. This is another reason I miss Eric Holder. nt

[oasis]

11. Supreme Court appointments top my list of concerns.

Emails are in the rear view mirror.

[EndElectoral]

17. That pie chart is off. Foreign policy concern should be 60% Clinton and 40% Wall Street.

I frankly don't care about the email thing except as a reference for her positions such as convincing Obama to go into Libya. As Sanders said we don't care about her emails as anything criminal only as policy.

[kstewart33]

19. Count me in.

She had a server at home. None of the emails that she sent or received were top secret at the time. No evidence that any laws were broken.

The issue only matters to people who wouldn't vote for her anyway. Just more Hillaryhate.

[TeddyR]

22. She ignored the rules

Are you on with that?

[kstewart33]

25. And you think that Bernie, at some time in his political life, hasn't?

What's next? She double parked at the Capitol building? She colors her hair - another deception?

Bernie is the Saint. Hillary is the Satan.

Tired, very tired stereotypes.

[TeddyR]

32. So you equate double parking

With rules designed to protect national security? And you didn't even address the issue, which is Hillary's decision to ignore rules designed to protect this country.

[TeddyR]

21. The fact that she thinks she can ignore

The rules shows a serious lack of judgment that isn't fit for a presidential candidate

[kstewart33]

28. Oh please.

Restricting gay rights and civil rights show a serious lack of judgment. Ruling for Citizens United was a serious lack of judgment. Keeping a server at her residence?

Hillaryhate.

[TeddyR]

33. So anything Hillary does

Is ok in your mind?

[TeddyR]

37. And who restricted

Gay rights or civil rights? Hillary at the very least violated state department protocol, but if you are ok with that then fine.

[kstewart33]

41. Yes, in the larger scheme of things, I am fine with that.

I don't expect any politician or any human for that matter, to be perfect.

She isn't perfect. Neither is Bernie.

[TeddyR]

43. She ignored a rule

Designed to protect national security!!!! And you are ok with that? Really, that's ok? No need to worry about national security because I'm Hillary and can do what the fuck ever I want?

[kstewart33]

46. Geez Louise.

She made a mistake. No harm was done. The server was not hacked. Even if it was hacked which it wasn't, none of the emails on the server were top secret. She did what other previous SOS's have done. So yes, I am fine with that.

TeddyR, can we get some perspective here? Only 7% of the Dems have a problem with the email situation. Obviously 93% see something that you do not.

Bernie is not the Saint. And Hillary is not the Satan.

[TeddyR]

53. I'm not defending Bernie

I'm asking questions about Hillary. Questions for you:

Why does it matter if the server was hacked? That isn't the issue.

Are you really taking the position that there were no top secret emails on Hillary's server? Last I saw there were at least 20 top secret emails, and who knows how many secret/confidential.

So if previous Secretaries of State ignored the rules and perhaps broke the law it is ok for Hillary to do so? I'm not a big fan of the everyone else broke the law defense.

You seem really reasonable, and I hope you can see why I'm not really swayed. As a lifelong Dem I expect candidates to be honest, trustworthy and exercise good judgment.

[kstewart33]

68. Teddy.

You must know that everyone of those Top Secret emails were classified TS retroactively, not when they were sent by or received from Hillary. Those emails are irrelevant.

Obviously, you're not going to apologize. So let's drop that. But IMHO, you have a serious case of Hillaryhate going on, and I wish that all of the Hillaryhaters here would stop posting every purported reason to supposedly support that Hillary is a corporatist, corrupt scumbag. It's getting ridiculous, no it is ridiculous.

As a whole it reads like Hillary is the Satan. She must be stopped at all costs. Her actions have placed our entire democracy, no the future of civilization, at risk.

It is very tiring.

[RiverLover]

94. Exactly. And we all know her real reason for going to the EXTREME length of setting up a

PRIVATE server for govt business was NOT the bs not wanting 2 devices (she has 2 already with her ipad.)

Any thinking person knows it was to hide things from the American public. That's what happens when you've got a foundation set up to take money from the same countries & companies you're helping as SoS. You have to hide things.

Our party should not be backing such a person.

[malletgirl02]

27. One rule for the powerful and another for the ordinary.

This whole email issue is another example of how there is one rule for the powerful and another for the rest of us. If a regular person did half of what Clinton did with this email scandal, he or she would be fired soon as the bosses found out what happened, and lose his or her security clearance. They would most likely never be able to get another job.

[dana_b]

30. yes, but you see

something like 45% of those voting for either Clinton or Sanders are not Dems and to many of us, they matter.

[DCBob]

36. Me too. It's a fake scandal.

Ginned up by the GOP and RW media.

[TeddyR]

38. Please provide sources

For the claim that this is a fake controversy? I'll apologize if you provide a convincing source.

[ucrdem]

42. Newsweek, March 10, 2015: WHY HILLARY CLINTON’S “EMAILGATE” IS A FAKE SCANDAL

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784

[TeddyR]

44. That's almost a year old

Anything recent to support your argument since we all now know Hillary had TOP SECRET emails on her server? I mean, the government literally had to redact the content of emails on her server because it was so sensitive.

[ucrdem]

47. Sept. 13, 2015: USA Today admits “Hillary Clinton email scandal” is a sham

links within:

But now that the Department of Justice has flat-out stated in a legal briefing that Hillary Clinton had all along been within her legal rights to handle her Secretary of State email however she wanted, the mainstream media outlets appear to no longer have any choice but to acknowledge that the entire “controversy” had been a sham. The Washington Times admitted as much on Friday. MSNBC host Chris Hayes did the same on-air. And now the conservative leaning USA Today, whose audience consists largely of moderate to conservative readers, is finally fessing up and admitting that there was never any “there” there.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/usa-today-admits-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-is-a-sham/22371/

"There was never any there there" is about as clear as it gets.

[kstewart33]

48. He's got you there Teddy. Don't step away from your pledge.

And your Top Secret point is bogus. None of the emails on her server were given the Top Secret classification at the time they were sent or received.

[kstewart33]

51. Come on, Teddy. Time to apologize.

He called your bluff.

[NurseJackie]

52. +1

[TeddyR]

57. I'm not sure any bluff was called

Since I wasn't bluffing. But I'm willing to admit that Hillary has not yet been indicted and if she's the Dem nominee I'll support her. At the same time, I hope you'll agree that if she is indicted she should immediately drop out of the race.

[ucrdem]

64. If the investigation is a sham any indictment will be to. She should ignore it.

I will happily support her just like I supported Bill in the 90s.

[TeddyR]

67. That doesn't answer the question at all!

Wow! Great straw man you created there. Now we are taking about "sham" investigations. Please provide support for your claim that the investigation being conducted by the FBI - under President Obama - is a sham.

[ucrdem]

71. The investigation is being conducted by the FBI, not President Obama. They are NOT the same.

And I've so far provided three citations flatly stating that the investigation is a sham. Which one(s) do you dispute?

[ucrdem]

56. Sept. 11, 2015: "Justice Department Says No Laws Were Broken"

Reality has bitten Republicans in the backsides again as the Justice Department is saying that Hillary Clinton’s emails broke no laws.

Justice Department lawyers argued before a federal court that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her emails broke no laws.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html

[Beowulf]

45. I guess the FBI forgot to consult Newsweek.

[ucrdem]

49. They forgot the password they used to reset that SB iPhone too.

They forget a lot of things.

[DCBob]

50. Mostly common sense and looking at what evidence we have so far.

Here is what we know now..

-- It started out as a FOIA request from a RW operation called "Judicial Watch".
-- The FOIA request revealed there was classified information in some of the emails.
-- None of the emails were marked classified at the time.
-- The investigation into emails also revealed Hillary Clinton used a personal email server for her State Dept emails.
-- The FBI got involved when it was determined that classified information may have passed through her server
-- The FBI wanted more information about the security of the email server so they gave the IT guy immunity.

None of this means she did anything criminal or illegal or that they are even focusing on any criminal aspects of this. To be charged with anything they would have to have evidence she willfully and knowingly sent/received classified information. Nothing like that has come out or any indication they found anything like that.

I think their main concern is whether her server may have been hacked and classified information compromised. Of secondary concern did any individual break security protocol and if so was it intentional.

Once that is complete and I think they are near that now, its will be over. No scandal.

[TeddyR]

62. I want to clarify

Your position. What she did is ok so long as it didn't break any law, even though the rules said she shouldn't have had a private server as SOS?

And I'm not talking about breaking the law - let's assume she didn't - I'm talking about failing to follow the rules.

[DCBob]

66. Was it wrong to have a private server at that time?

Please provide evidence to support that. I think now its not allowed but back then it was permitted.

Regardless I think the issue most are concerned about is whether a crime was committed.

[TeddyR]

74. So it was ok

If it wasn't illegal even though it might have violated state department policy? That's the standard now for our elected officials?

[DCBob]

77. I don't think it did violate policy..

Here....

The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during Clinton's tenure at SOS required that "agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

[RiverLover]

95. It would be fake, if it weren't true. But it is. /nt

[DCBob]

97. Its a bogus exaggerated interpretation of actual facts.

That makes it a fake scandal.

[DCBob]

60. This must be devastating to the Bernie die-hards.

Their last desperate hope to beat her is quickly disappearing.

[TeddyR]

63. I personally don't think this is about Sanders

But whether Democrats want someone who doesn't think the rules apply to them running this country.

[DCBob]

69. Most people dont care unless she is indicted.

Short of that few care.

[dana_b]

75. you are SO wrong

but keep touting that meme!!

I don't even get to vote until June 7th so we have a loooong way to go.

[DCBob]

80. I think I am right but its ok..

I didnt expect any Bernie die-hard to agree with me.

Have a nice day.

[AgerolanAmerican]

78. Why isn't 'foreign policy' on the Hillary chart?

Are they trying to hide the number of Democratic voters who are deeply concerned that she will start another war per year on average as she did as SoS?

[PaulaFarrell]

79. For this to mean anything, both charts would have to ask the same questions

For example, I am very concerned about Hilary's foreign policy. The emailisue is only a concern inasmuch as if she gets the nom, it will probably stop her getting elected

[MaggieD]

86. DU is in NO WAY reflective of the Dem party

Not about the DNC, not about "transcripts" or email or believing Bernie's pie in the sky proposals. In fact the real world of Dem voters is far, far from what we see here on DU.

DU is a bubble, IMO.

[bernbabe]

96. But the FBI does.

[mcar]

103. K&R