# The Trump Impeachment Inquiry **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 24, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771 "2019-09-24T20:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 222
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4421 "2019-11-14T08:27:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If this is true then the OMB “hold” is irrelevant, as is all this business with the 7/25 phone call. President Trump was failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” over a year ago, sometime around the end of October 2018, right? And while we’re on the subject of presidents failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”, I’d like to ask you your thoughts about Obama withholding weapons from Ukraine in spite of Congressional authorization. The FY2016 NDAA authorized lethal aid for Ukraine (SEC. 1250(b)(2)) > > [PolitiFact writes](https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/): > > It appears to me that Obama violated the law and the Constitution by failing to send Ukraine lethal aid in 2016. Do you think Obama should have been impeached for that violation? Did he admit openly to withholding aid for his own private gain? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4422 "2019-11-14T08:51:26Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Did he admit openly to withholding aid for his own private gain? I don’t believe that’s relevant to **Max S.**'s argument, which he summarized in this succinct paragraph: > [@Max\_S](#): > > … Let’s start with what I think is the strongest argument: impoundment. The short of it is that Congress enacted a law appropriating a sum of money must be sent to Ukraine, but the President after signing that law directed his officers to withhold the funds. That is a violation of another law that says you can’t defer apportionment of appropriated funds except on specific grounds which I don’t think were met. Therefore the president directed his officers to violate the law, thereby the president of Article II Section 3 which requires the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed; therefore, the President should be impeached for using the power of his office to violate the law and constitution. … Notice that his therefore’s and thereby’s make no mention of the “why” / the _reason_ that the president violated the law and Article II Section 3, only that the violation happened, and that happening is enough to justify impeachment in his eyes. A similar, perhaps even more severe, violation of law occurred under Obama’s watch. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4423 "2019-11-14T09:27:24Z")
Ignoring, for the moment, the bad-faith nature of the whataboutism that Hurricane Dikta demonstrates, quoting the relevant portion of the act he refers to may be illuminating: > [@](#): > > SEC. 1250. UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE. > (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.—Of the amounts > authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 by title XV > and available for overseas contingency operations as specified in > the funding tables in division D, $300,000,000 shall be available > to the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary > of State, to provide appropriate security assistance and intelligence > support, including training, equipment, and logistics support, supplies and services, to military and other security forces of the > Government of Ukraine for the purposes as follows: > (1) To enhance the capabilities of the military and other > security forces of the Government of Ukraine to defend against > further aggression. > (2) To assist Ukraine in developing the combat capability > to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. > (3) To support the Government of Ukraine in defending > itself against actions by Russia and Russian-backed separatists > that violate the ceasefire agreements of September 4, 2014, > and February 11, 2015. > (b) APPROPRIATE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT.—For purposes of subsection (a), appropriate security assistance and intelligence support includes the following: > (1) Real time or near real time actionable intelligence, > including by lease of such capabilities from United States > commercial entities. > (2) Lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, > mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade > launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition. > VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:57 Feb 20, 2016 Jkt 059139 PO 00092 Frm 00344 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL092.114 PUBL092 > ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW > PUBLIC LAW 114–92—NOV. 25, 2015 129 STAT. 1069 > (3) Counter-artillery radars, including medium-range and > long-range counter-artillery radars that can detect and locate > long-range artillery. > (4) Unmanned aerial tactical surveillance systems. > (5) Cyber capabilities. > (6) Counter-electronic warfare capabilities such as secure > communications equipment and other electronic protection systems. > (7) Other electronic warfare capabilities. > (8) Training required to maintain and employ systems and > capabilities described in paragraphs (1) through (7). > (9) Training for critical combat operations such as planning, > command and control, small unit tactics, counter-artillery tactics, logistics, countering improvised explosive devices, battlefield first aid, post-combat treatment, and medical evacuation. > (c) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.— (1) TRAINING.—Up to 20 percent of the amount available > pursuant to subsection (a) may be used to support training > pursuant to section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization > Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note), relating to > the Global Security Contingency Fund. > (2) DEFENSIVE LETHAL ASSISTANCE.—Subject to paragraph > (3), of the amount available pursuant to subsection (a), > $50,000,000 shall be available only for lethal assistance > described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b). > (3) OTHER PURPOSES.—The amount described in paragraph > (2) shall be available for purposes other than lethal assistance > referred to in that paragraph commencing on the date that > is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act > if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees > that the use of such amount for purposes of such lethal assistance is not in the national security interests of the United > States. The purposes for which the amount may be used pursuant to this paragraph include the following: > (A) Assistance or support to national-level security > forces of other Partnership for Peace nations that the Secretary of Defense determines to be appropriate to assist > in preserving their sovereignty and territorial integrity > against Russian aggression. > (B) Exercises and training support of national-level > security forces of Partnership for Peace nations or the > Government of Ukraine that the Secretary of Defense determines to be appropriate to assist in preserving their sovereignty and territorial integrity against Russian aggression [From here.](https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ92/PLAW-114publ92.pdf)\<\\> So. This part stipulates that $50 million shall be available only for lethal equipment, subject to paragraph 3. Paragraph 3 immediately follows. It specifically states that that $50 million held for lethal military aid “shall be available for purposes other than lethal assistance” if the Secretaries of Defense and State feel that the use for such funds for lethal equipment is not in the national security interests of the US, and certify this decision to the appropriate Congressional committee (which, by the way, was all done). Therefore, there was no violation by the Obama administration in this matter. Again, this is rather pointless, as it was no more than a refutation of Hurricane Dikta’s bad-faith use of “whataboutism”. What Obama did, or didn’t do, has abso-fucking-lutely no bearing on what Trump is doing now. What the whistleblower’s party is, has nothing to do with the evidence that has been reported, investigated, and corroborated. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4424 "2019-11-14T09:54:43Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I hadn’t realized that I had become…elucidator. > > There’s only one elucidator. That was weird! I knew this was your writing, **asahi** , and intended to credit you as such. But I do [agree](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530168) (decade-old thread alert). ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4425 "2019-11-14T10:03:38Z")
To set the record straight — since this whole thread is about who said what 🙂 > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **asahi** : > For some percentage of the electorate, it’s possible to dislike Trump but dislike the idea that their opportunity to vote for or against him could be taken away from them. Excellent observation, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4426 "2019-11-14T12:42:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Your posts use the phrases “need to testify” and “must be called to testify”. I don’t think either of those imperative phrasings are accurate, which is why in my response I said that “Republicans **want to** to call him to testify” (emphasis added). Are you seriously claiming that Trumpists in government are NOT saying the whistleblower “must/needs to” testify, and they are instead saying “should” testify? What’s next, are you going to claim that Trumpists are NOT saying that Trump has a right to face his accuser? > [@](#): > > . I responded with “something about the 6th Amendment” to try to correct his ignorant misunderstanding on that point of criminal justice. It was simply fighting his ignorance, not making any broader claim about President Trump and Ciaramella. Several posters apparently failed to grasp that, yourself included. Again with the calling your opponents stupid. What we are seeing is your backpedaling on throwing out weak arguments, being called on it, and going on the attack, Roger Stone-style. We are surely going to see this again in just a few minutes, when you realize that your weak position on “must/needs to” cannot be defended on its merits. You’ve gotten confused again. _I_ wasn’t the one that first raised the issue of Ciaramella being called to testify in the impeachment inquiry. YOU did, in post #4288. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4427 "2019-11-14T12:43:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If this is true then the OMB “hold” is irrelevant, as is all this business with the 7/25 phone call. President Trump was failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” over a year ago, sometime around the end of October 2018, right? And while we’re on the subject of presidents failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”, I’d like to ask you your thoughts about Obama withholding weapons from Ukraine in spite of Congressional authorization. The FY2016 NDAA authorized lethal aid for Ukraine (SEC. 1250(b)(2)) > > [PolitiFact writes](https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/): > > It appears to me that Obama violated the law and the Constitution by failing to send Ukraine lethal aid in 2016. Do you think Obama should have been impeached for that violation? You are a part of the problem with what’s wrong with America today. And it is sad because I don’t think your dumb, or ill-informed (misinformed perhaps), or in a cult-like daze, like so many of Trump’s supporters. But look, Trump is a very bad person. Trump is also a very bad president. Trump is an obvious conman. Trump is an obvious criminal (sufficient for proof in court, perhaps not, but sufficient for a reasonably intelligent person to put 2 and 2 together to get criminal, oh heck yeah). It is obvious that Trump is using the office for his personal gain, and the gain of the Trump organization. Maybe Democrats and their policies are awful for the country. Maybe the Republicans are great. But none of that matters because Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is a criminal conman that is wrecking the democratic foundations and rule of law of YOUR country. A country that I legitimately think you love (I can tell by your posts, I may disagree with you, but I can tell that you want the policies that are best for the USA). Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is the swamp that he claims he’s going to drain. You do the USA no favors by continuing to carry water for Trump and sinking deeper into the muck with the Republican party. In my view, the best thing you could do is try to help the Republican party pull itself out of the Trump swamp. Not that I think any of this will matter to you so carry on. ---
**Author:** ![2Bits](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e95f7d/32.png) [@2Bits](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2Bits)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4428 "2019-11-14T13:15:39Z")
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4429 "2019-11-14T13:39:17Z")
Typed at my work computer. Oh yeah, I got paid to do this! ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4430 "2019-11-14T13:51:48Z")
From 2 separate posts: > [@asahi](#): > > … > We live in a different age. Regularly televised hearings during the day when everyone’s at work. But for a lot of people, it’s Netflix and viral cat videos at night. > … > This. I don’t think people care; it’s international politics, which is something most Americans just don’t understand and don’t care to understand. > … Comparing this to the Nixon proceedings, that was less than 50 years ago, but my impression was that a considerable portion of the population, and much of the media, considered those to be serious matters, worthy of forming some informed opinion on. And the participants seemed not solely motivated by “scoring points.” Having a hard time viewing today’s environment as an improvement or progress. Someone help me - is this a blip, or evidence of a trend? And how is it “a good thing”? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4431 "2019-11-14T13:56:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, I’d like to see him “on stage” (I assume we’re really talking about him testifying before a Congressional committee) because I’d like to have him answer some questions about his contacts with Schiff’s staff, among other things. Why? What does this have to do with anything anymore? Look, whether you’re invoking it or not, the Sixth Amendment gives one the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The whistleblower will not be called as a witness against Trump - the case is relying entirely on other sources. How we became aware that there was a case to be made is purely of historical interest now. Or honest curiosity. Or revenge. None of which gives anyone the right to demand his presence now. If the whistleblower keeled over dead right this minute, the case against Trump would be every bit as solid as if he were alive. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4432 "2019-11-14T14:12:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, I’d like to see him “on stage” (I assume we’re really talking about him testifying before a Congressional committee) because I’d like to have him answer some questions about his contacts with Schiff’s staff, among other things. Just to clarify, do you believe any of the information that can be obtained by having the whistle blower take the stand has the potential to exonerate Trump, or do you just believe that potential “collaboration” between a whistle blower and the House Intelligence Chairman is unethical/illegal (damages the whistleblower process itself)? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4433 "2019-11-14T14:22:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > How we became aware that there was a case to be made is purely of historical interest now. Or honest curiosity. **Or revenge.** None of which gives anyone the right to demand his presence now. If the whistleblower keeled over dead right this minute, the case against Trump would be every bit as solid as if he were alive. Do note that Ditka is making this case in support of a man who has openly exhorted his supporters to make “2nd amendment solutions” on his political enemies. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4434 "2019-11-14T14:29:25Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Fox News is criticizing Secretary Kent for … drinking water. > [https://twitter.com/ndrew\_lawrence/status/1194826909156335616](https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1194826909156335616) and here i was impressed that kent was using a nice blue water bottle and not one of those wee one use bottles that were sprinkled about the room. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4435 "2019-11-14T14:32:41Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Do note that Ditka is making this case in support of a man who has openly exhorted his supporters to make “2nd amendment solutions” on his political enemies. Those are just locker room threats. ---
**Author:** ![Running\_with\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Running\_with\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Running_with_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4436 "2019-11-14T14:43:33Z")
The sixth amendment does not apply for at least two reasons: [ol] [li]This is not a criminal trial[/li][li]“Accusers” only applies to witnesses called to testify. Even if this proceeded to a criminal trial, there is no reason to assume that the WB wold be called as a witness. That would be totally up to the discretion of the prosecutor (although the defense could call such a person, I can’t imagine that it would be in their best interest to do so)[/li][/ol] Note that IANAL but I have read several articles from legal professionals regarding this issue. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4437 "2019-11-14T14:49:42Z")
> [@Running\_with\_Scissors](#): > > The sixth amendment does not apply for at least two reasons: > [ol] > [li]This is not a criminal trial[/li][li]“Accusers” only applies to witnesses called to testify. Even if this proceeded to a criminal trial, there is no reason to assume that the WB wold be called as a witness. That would be totally up to the discretion of the prosecutor (although the defense could call such a person, I can’t imagine that it would be in their best interest to do so)[/li][/ol] > > Note that IANAL Ditka has stipulated to #1, and completely ignored #2. People in this thread have compared the inquiry to a grand jury – I don’t even think that comparison is apt. We’re at the stage in the process where detectives call in witnesses to give statements at the station. The idea that anyone has a “right” to confront any witness at this stage, or publicly name them, is absurd. It’s mobster thinking. What makes this process uniquely frustrating is that this SHOULD all be happening behind closed doors, by the FBI at the direction of the AG, except the AG has decided he serves the president and not the constitution. So the only recourse congress has is to hold hearings. Except half of the people tasked with the investigation have already decided that no crime has been committed, so they’re completely uninterested in asking relevant questions. It’d be like 2 detectives investigating a case, one is interested in the truth and calling appropriate witnesses down to the station to give statements, and the other is trying to burn the police station down. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4438 "2019-11-14T14:53:15Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > … It specifically states that that $50 million held for lethal military aid “shall be available for purposes other than lethal assistance” if the Secretaries of Defense and State feel that the use for such funds for lethal equipment is not in the national security interests of the US, and certify this decision to the appropriate Congressional committee (which, by the way, was all done). > > Therefore, there was no violation by the Obama administration in this matter. … Do you have a cite for when this certification by SecDef and SecState took place? I looked and couldn’t find that it had been done. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4439 "2019-11-14T15:02:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you have a cite for when this certification by SecDef and SecState took place? I looked and couldn’t find that it had been done. Back to the Trumpist tactic of having an impossibly high threshold to prove wrongdoing by Trump, but Obama et al need to prove their innocence even when your charge that they broke the law misfires, eh? ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4440 "2019-11-14T15:13:11Z")
I just spot-checked yesterday’s proceedings — I had to turn it off about two minutes into Devin Nunes because I didn’t want to break the television by throwing something at it — but I really liked Ambassador Taylor’s facial expressions when the Republican counsel kept trying to make him say that CFSG’s actions were really no big deal. Oh, and Peter Welch’s response to Jim Jordan hammering away at **HD** ’s main talking point: > [@](#): > > Jordan: “There is one witness, one witness that they won’t being in front of us — won’t bring in front of the American people — and that’s the guy who started it all: the whistleblower.” > > Welch: “I’d say to my colleagues, I’d be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.” (From what I could see, if Jordan had been brought in to be an attack dog, he needs to go back to the pound. Not even good theatrics.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=221) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=223)