The co-founder of Fusion GPS, the source of the completely false dossier compiled by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele, has refused to testify before Senate Judiciary Committee.
The co-founder of a political and corporate intelligence firm behind an explosive dossier alleging Russian intelligence influence over President Donald Trump will not testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to two sources familiar with his plans.
The committee on Wednesday announced a July 19 hearing that listed Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, as a witness. His inclusion raised the specter of public testimony about the dossier’s seamy and contested claims of sexual misconduct and a years-long Kremlin conspiracy to get Trump elected.
He was also present at the meeting with Trump Jr.
Simpson and that Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya have a history it seems.
What an incestuous group this is turning out to be. Fusion GPS, Russian lawyer, McCain, Lynch, Comey. But no set up…yeah right.
— Hope Rising (@Boomingbox) July 13, 2017
This will once again explode in the Democrat’s faces and once it does we’re going to see some bouncing-off-the-walls crazy
See author page
Unless he (and those like him) can be compelled to testify, this is how it’s going to be.
@Nanny G: He can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify.
The information in the dossier has never been demonstrated to be “completely false” by anyone. It has been neither substantiated nor disproved.
Fusion GPS isn’t actually the source of the information to begin with. They were initially hired by republicans to conduct an investigation of Trump, but contracted the work to Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 agent who now works as a corporate private investigator. It was Steele who compiled the information presented in the dossier. He obtained it from third party sources.
Hillary obliterates emails. Trump Jr. releases them. Hillary’s liars for hire refuse to appear to verify his innocence and, if he IS compelled to, will 5th all over the place, no doubt; just as all other liberals compelled to testify for this scandal or that do.
Liberals lie, deny and hide. Trump’s people come forth with honest disclosure. That’s pretty much the sum of it all.
@Greg:
Oh, good f**king grief. Has any of it been proven even partially true? Give it up… Trump won and no matter how many “crimes” you imagine, he ain’t going anywhere except, most like, to another term.
Oh… you mean like a foreign agent? You’d best stop while you are only way, way behind.
So Simpson was at the meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer. Why? Did he promise to deliver dirt on Hillary as well? It was against his own interests to do so, or to let the Russian do it. This just gets curiouser and curiouser. The facts will eventually come out, but the conclusions may not be what the Dems expect.
The information in the dossier has been neither substantiated nor disproved, and that is a fact. It’s hearsay, and nothing more. It’s a distraction. There are actual events that can be proved or disproved to focus on.
When Trump bragged that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters, he probably had voters such as yourself in mind.
@Greg:
It’s not for anyone to disprove. It’s for democrats to prove the idiotic assertions
I don’t think the dossier is worth the effort one way or the other. It’s tawdry tabloid newspaper material.
So anyone can refuse to testify now? Since when is it a choice? Haul his arse in to court and make him testify!
Look at it from the standpoint of Obama being turned down for a FISA warrant on the Trump camp just days before.
The emails were filled with exactly the words the FISA court judges had to see to a Trump to reverse the FISA court’s decision.
And, right after these emails were sent to Don Jr., the FISA court did just that.
It reversed it’s decision and allowed Obama/Hillary to learn whatever they could straight from the Trump teams communications.
The only reason she lost was she was such a poor candidate.
She had everything she needed to win, if she’d have put in the effort.
Clinton won the popular election by nearly 3 million votes.
How many votes did it take in specific precincts to shift the electoral college count in Trump’s favor, and were those specific precincts given special attention by foreign operatives for email and social media manipulation? There’s a question that needs an answer.
@Greg: so it was a Dimocrat colluding with a foreign agent to get something on Trump. You’re right.
@Greg: Sorry, but that “Hillary won the popular vote” has long been disproven. http://truthfeed.com/breaking-over-7-million-illegal-voter-registrations-uncovered/74405/
@Greg: Greggie,
There was no popular election, there was only a vote to get electoral votes. That was the objective. Who ever succeeded, won. Trump won the election because he understood it was an electoral vote not a popular vote. I’m sure if his objective had only been to win popular votes, he would have done things differently. Unfortunately for the Hill, she didn’t understand the objective. She was aiming for those 6 million illegal voters in gayfornia. It didn’t help her.
@Greg:
interesting hypothesis. The dumbass dimocrats in certain precincts were mislead by emails from a Russian more than they were by the in person appearance of the Hildabeast, so they voted for Trump. Count to 3 and we’ll all laugh at the same time. So that’s your story, can we quote you on that as THE reason Hilda lost? Chuckle…..
Recall, how Obama made sure he won the Electoral College vote?
Hillary didn’t do that at all.
She rally acted like the presidency ought to be conferred on her.
It wasn’t.
She ignored, for example, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin had 10 Electoral College votes.
She ignored the “Rust Belt” because she thought she had it in the bag.
It wasn’t.
The Rust Belt states Wis, Mich, Penn, she lost cost her 46 Electoral College votes.
She concentrated on Arizona and Texas – which everyone knew Trump would win – wasting efforts on another 49 Electoral College votes she couldn’t win.
She spent tons of cash to have feet on the ground but under-utilized those feet and only paid their supervisors, not them.
Bad campaigner.
She lost for that reason.
Russia had nothing to do with it.
Who cares if the producer of this crapola wont even testify to its authenticity, then we must all consider it nothing but a contrived fairy tale only to be believed by the weakest of minds. Such an outrageous pile of steaming unicorn poo the DNC wouldnt even believe it. If it involved Bill Clinton…….
@Greg:
But, again, NONE of it even has the ring of truth. To the liberal mind, you simply invent the worst possible behavior imaginable and then assume it is true. Yet, when faced with PROOF about your own trashy leaders, you deny the obvious.
I guess that’s different from actually having people killed and getting away with it, isn’t it? Or mishandling classified information, illegally destroying state documents, committing perjury to Congress and getting away with it. To liberals, law are only in place to use against the opposition.
3 million ILLEGAL votes. Now, prove they weren’t.
@Al:
It’s only been disproved in the right’s imagination. The right hasn’t yet been able to figure out that inaccurate registration rolls and voter fraud are two entirely different matters. I realize, of course, that they really aren’t trying very hard to grasp the distinction, and that their conservative media outlets do everything possible to encourage their confusion.
How many registered voters to you think call the state they’ve just left to report that they’ve moved to another? Does one state notify another regarding new arrivals? How many millions of registered voters die each year? Do they call in to report that their names should be removed from the registration rolls?
The number of cases of proven voter fraud is so small that it’s statistically irrelevant, and conservative activists have been out beating the bushes to find such cases. Every legitimate study that has been done has come to that same conclusion. What you’ve got isn’t a legitimate proof. You’ve got a propaganda meme.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #19:
Neither does half the bullshit Trump says. Remember how he was going to release his tax returns? Or how he was going to see that Clinton was prosecuted for her “many many crimes?” I put his bullshit and the dossier claims on approximately the same level.
There’s something seriously wrong at the center of the Trump administration. How many times does a story have to change before people begin to wonder why it keeps changing?
Greg is a troll. He needs to go. But, on the other hand, floppingaces wouldn’t have nearly as many comments. Perhaps he is actually one of the floppingaces staff. It would be a good ploy. His comments are just inciting and stupid enough to elicit responses. I think he is a Russian!
@Greg:
Why do you want more returns? So you can treat them like you’ve treated Trump Jr’s openness and honesty? NOTHING satisfies you vultures, so you should get NOTHING.
Clinton’s not out of the woods yet. Trump is simply Trying to be merciful towards the old hag. She is pushing her luck, though.
Trump hasn’t lied. He was right about Obama illegally spying on him. He was right about Comey. He has been right about the lying media. Just because you don’t have the courage to accept it doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
Besides, you LOVE lies. You loved it when Obama lied to you, you loved it when Hillary lied to you, you loved it when Lynch and Holder lied to you and you LOVE it when the media lies to you.
Yeah, there’s something “wrong”… if you are craving the same liberal cronyism you’ve had for 100 years.
@Deplorable Me:
They especially loved it when Slick lied to them. Let’s see, he was impeached for something, ummmm, what was it? Oh yeah, lying under oath. But they sure loved it.
@Deplorable Me, #23:
Openness and honesty? From The 4 times Donald Trump Jr. has changed his story about meeting with a Russian lawyer:
Saturday, July 8, after the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya was revealed: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”
Sunday: “After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
Monday: “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen.”
Tuesday: “To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian fever was in vogue.”
From the same Washington Post article:
That’s four changes he’s made in his story regarding a single meeting. This guy can’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Lying and misdirection are a totally routine part of how these people conduct business. They say and do whatever they think they can get away with, and seem to believe no one notices or remembers anything they said or did previously.
@Greg: When you’re chewing on a nothing burger, you don’t get more just because you keep chewing. I’m sure when your wife confronts you about some of your lady friends the ‘whole’ truth won’t come out on the first round.
Tell me which law prohibits meeting with a Russian. Tell me which law specifically says that I can’t take a donation from a citizen of another country. George Soros is a Hungarian citizen, is it against the law for him to donate money to Dimocrats?
I feel sure that the US has attempted to influence every election in Russia since they started having elections and I’m quite sure Russians have attempted to influence American elections for many many years. Tell me which law prohibit that. There is NO LAW that makes it illegal just because of nationality. Is it illegal to attempt to break into internet and change votes? I’m sure it is for people subject to American jurisdiction, but I’ll bet you would have a hard time trying to get someone extradited from Russia to the US for election tampering. And verse-visa.
I’ve noticed one thing in common of all the people that say you can’t collude with Russians about the election. Every article I can find on google, while saying it may be and it might be and some say it is and some say it isn’t. They all have one thing in common. No one can quote a specific law that prohibits an American citizen from meeting with a Russian citizen to discuss ways which might influence the outcome. So folks, you can wish it all you want to, but just be advised there is NO LAW that prohibits it. NADA……..
It’s not the Russians who may have sold out their country, is it?
@Greg:
I missed you quoting that law. How do you know what the conversation was about? Were you there? Were you listening in? Is that a violation of law? Oh yeah, which law is that again?
I don’t know what the conversation was about. It’s going to be very interesting to find out. We’ve now got at least 8 people at the meeting that Donald Jr initially said was never set up. In addition to Trump Jr and Jared Kushner, there was Paul Manafort; Rob Goldstone; Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-linked attorney, and her buddy Rinat Akhmetsin, a former Soviet counterintelligence officer; an unnamed translator, and an unnamed representative of the Russian billionaire Agalarov family.
@Greg:
is there a reason you neglected to mention that these four were on the Dimocrats payroll?
@Greg:
You are talking about a 20 minute meeting that accomplished nothing. It was forgettable, so it was mostly forgotten. Compare that to Hillary setting up her own secret, private, unsecured email server and conducting ALL State Department business on it, but “not remembering” she had trafficked thousands of classified documents, open and unsecured, through it. Of course, you WORSHIP Hillary, defend her and make excuses for her.
All the furor over this huge nothing of a meeting is about is you frustrated liberals grasping at weak and silly straws to TRY to justify and rationalize your irrational hatred. Swing and a miss… again.
Hillary committed perjury before Congress, yet you VOTED for her and are throwing a major infantile fit because she LOST (I emphasize that because SHE LOST the election due to her own unlikability and incompetence. NO RUSSIAN played any part in that)
No, it’s the Democrats. They are doing what the Russians could not accomplish.
In response to Greg’s post number 20, why is it that every time a state wants to verify the number of legally registered voters and clean up the voter roles, they face multiple law suits generated by Democrat front groups ( think ACLU ) demanding that the effort stop. Most of these efforts use the canard ” disenfranchise minority voters.” If you have to renew your drivers license every four years ( I realize that the example used is a revenue generating scheme) why don’t you have to renew your voter registration every four years, or eight years or once a decade? That would go a long way toward ‘cleaning up voter rolls’. Also Greg, don’t quote anything from the Washington Post. The fact is that they pushed Richard Nixon into making a number of unwise decisions while colluding with a disgruntled employee, to put pressure on the President. This is their crowning achievement and they are now trying to replicate it against Trump.
@71 Grad:
I suspect this is a rhetorical question. The answer is quite simple. The left intends to use voter fraud as yet another of their unfair advantages to try and assure they can circumvent the will of the people and place their own hand-picked “representatives” in power.
They seem to lack patience, though. Even though they have the corrupt media in their pocket, which results in their own abuses being suppressed but those of the opposition (or those invented) are exaggerated out of all proportion, they cannot accept the loss of an election they were guaranteed to have handed to them on a silver platter. So they are acting like children and trying to destroy the duly elected and preferred President of the United States. They could just show some patience and wait for the thousands of liberal activist judges to continue to ignore law and the Constitution and interpret laws so that they benefit the liberal socialist agenda.
If they allow the lawful and logical evaluation of voter rolls and them to be rendered down only to those ALLOWED to vote, then all their efforts to flood the country with parasitic illegal immigrants would be wasted. What would be the point of that?
@71 Grad, #71:
Because republican legislatures in multiple states have attempted to use unverified claims of widespread voter fraud as an excuse for requirements that would have the effect of targeted voter suppression.
Such requirements have often been part of a larger context, which included such things as eliminating weekend after-church voting, shortening the time frame for early voting, reducing the number of voting machines at specific locations with the effect of increase lines and waiting times, refusing to accept valid student ID cards for identification purposes, requiring students to return to their home counties or home states to cast a vote, etc—all of which would have predictably greater impact on those more likely to vote democratic.
Taken as a whole, the pattern looks a lot more like a calculation than a coincidence. It certainly isn’t as if the people trying to impose such new rules were unaware of their overall effects.
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. All studies have indicated that the incidence of voter fraud is statistically insignificant—that is, it doesn’t affect the outcome of elections. Unjustly disenfranchising millions of entirely legitimate voters does.
Enormous evidence? Trump must have written the statement for Miller to read during the interview.
They assert there’s such enormous evidence again and again—but never get around to telling anyone exactly what it is. Sorry, Steve, buy I’m not stupid. I analyze what people say, I don’t just swallow such claims like a damn pill.
Out of date registration rolls aren’t evidence of voter fraud. They’re evidence of inadequate record keeping methodology. Maybe you should think about fixing that.
Really? Based on what? Based on nothing. This jackass is just saying things.
@Greg:
You slipped a cog there, sport. how do you think you verify claims of voter fraud? You prove it happened.. That’s what they are doing because every voter roll they get into has mass ineligible names on it. Yes, the Dumbocraps don’t want the rolls examined because they know what will be found. They’ve already verified over 6 million illegal voters in Gayfornia alone.
you should be happy for that one. Dumbocraps don’t go to church (well except the GodDamn America church of the very very reverand Wright)
Why would anyone accept a student ID card as valid ID? You mean like the one that shows Obozo as a registered foreign student from Indonesia. Must be valid, it’s a ‘student ID card’ I can make you up one in less than 5 minutes.
So you think they should be allowed to vote in 2 places legally? Should everyone have that right, or just dumbocraps? If I live in La and work in Ms, should i be able to vote in both places? That’s what you’re arguing.
Explain to the poor unwashed here why a Dumbocrap is more likely to be a student at a Univ in another state than a Republican is? I went to college in a different state than where I grew up and I’m not a dumbocrap. Maybe you should attend one of those neighboring states schools and take a course in logic.
They have never proved their assertion of widespread voter fraud. There have been many investigations, but the number of proven cases is so small it’s statistically irrelevant. If they truly had evidence of 6 million illegal voters, they could explain what it is and present it. They don’t. They never do. They’re lying, plain and simple.
Another plain and simple fact is that Trump can’t accept that he got 3 million fewer popular votes than his opponent. A majority of American voters didn’t buy his brand of bullshit—even with a years-long character assassination effort directed against his opponent. Now he’s resisting all efforts to discover the truth about himself. This is understandable. He can’t tolerate the truth any more than a Hollywood vampire could tolerate sunlight. If it all ever comes out, he’ll probably go up in a puff of smoke like Count Dracula at high noon.
@Greg:
Slipped another cog there, Sport. maybe you should read that paragraph 2 or 3 times after taking that course in Logic 101.
IF,,, that’s big letters IF there is NO voter fraud then how could reviewing the registered voter rolls result in disenfranchising millions of voters? Wouldn’t the review just verify that there is no voter fraud? Geez…..
You make a stupid statement while claiming you’re not stupid. “They assert there’s evidence but never get around to telling” But what they’re telling you is that the evidence is right there in the registered voter lists and you refuse to let them look at that evidence or show it to the voters. What do you have to hide. If all voters are legal and legit, isn’t that what a review of the rolls would show? Must be something to be kept hidden. You’re certainly in a panic about something.
@Greg:
You ain’t gonna have any cogs left if you keep that up. It’s the Hildabeast followers that don’t want to accept that Trump won the election that mattered. The one for electoral votes. :There was NO popular vote election so it’s not possible to have won that election. Why would it matter to you if Hillary got 3 or 6 or 8 million illegal votes? Does that make you feel better? I think the dumbocraps are showing that they don’t have the maturity to even understand the rules of democracy (or Republicanism). I’ll repeat this again, but I don’t expect you to get it. There was NO popular vote election so NO ONE won a popular vote election. Please don’t waste another Cog.
@Redteam, #37:
College students as a whole were far more likely to vote democratic than republican, so it would be advantageous to republicans to reduce the student turn out in general. Requiring that you vote in your home state was one means of doing that.
Even at the colleges where Trump was most popular, less than one-quarter of the student body supported him. The most (and least) Trump-loving college campuses
@Greg:
Why do you refer to college students as a ‘whole’? When, in the history of the nation, has any state ever allowed registered voters from another state to vote in their local elections? Are you implying that back when college students favored the Republicans that they were allowed to vote in their neighboring states and that’s why the Republicans got elected? So now you’re saying Dumbocrap college students favor dumbocraps so they should be allowed to vote at their school and in their home state. Why not let them also vote by absentee ballot? That would give each of them 3 votes and maybe that would be enough to sway the election. I think the very fact that the voter rolls might be examined is absolutely a terrifying nightmare to the Dumbocraps because they’re afraid they might lose about 50 percent of their voters. If you’re convinced there is no ‘there’ there, then you should be insisting that all those rolls be reviewed so all those illegal Republican voters could be removed. No one needs proof that the liberal socialists rule the college campuses. That communist move started back in the 30’s. We all know about that. Wow, you actually wrote one comment without slipping another cog. Keep it up.
@Redteam, #39:
Because every voter registration roll error does not automatically equal a case of voter fraud. The overwhelming majority of them don’t. They’re simply cases of registered voters who have moved from one place to another or who have died, with a registration roll somewhere not yet reflecting that change. Nor does a voter registration card filled out in the name of Mickey Mouse mean that an anthropomorphic rodent turned out on election day to cast a vote.
@Greg:
Wait, wait, wait……this is too good. So if a voter has moved from one place to another and registered to vote in that new place and submits an absentee ballot back to his original place, that’s not ‘voter fraud’ it’s ‘just good politics if it a dimocrat? But if the voter has died, but still continues to vote, as long as it’s for a dimocrat, it’s NOT voter fraud? I’m gonna guess that if you know you can be safely and ‘legally’ registered to vote in 2 or 3 places and then actually vote in those 2 or 3 places and you thought your 2 or 3 extra votes would swing the election that you would take the high ground and not use that little quirk in the system to sway your votes. Tell me when it’s okay to stop laughing. But let me ask you this, and I realize I’m pushing the limits to ask a logical question of a dimocrat, why would you not want all those dead and moved voters names not removed from the ‘eligible voters’ list? All together now……….
Oh yeah, and one bonus question. How does removing dead and moved voters from a list ‘disenfranchize millions of voters’ That kinda implies they are ‘voters’, doesn’t it. If they aren’t voters, they can’t be disenfranchized can they?
@Greg:
As many as 5.7 million illegal votes in 2008 election
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/
Voter fraud in Detroit
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
Nah, illegal immigrants don’t vote
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
A study of non-citizens voting
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf
Obama encourages illegal immigrants to vote; no repercussions
Obama encouraging illegals to vote.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Illegal immigrant votes illegally 5 times in Texas
The dead are voting in Chicago
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/
The dead are voting in Philadelphia
http://6abc.com/politics/action-news-investigation-voting-from-the-grave/1575596/
Florida voter fraud
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html
Virginia registration fraud
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Man-Accused-With-Filing-Fake-Voter-Registration-Applications-399027631.html
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/virginia-democrat-registers-19-dead-people-vote-hillary
Nah. NO evidence. Not a smidgen. One thing is for sure, there is a million times more evidence of Democrat voter fraud than there is any Trump-Russian collusion, but you want to ignore the crime and pursue the fantasy based on lie.
People die, don’t they? Even those who don’t have associations with the Clinton’s die, but they don’t always get removed from the voter rolls. Democrats have been famous for using the dead as believes in their ideology. What is it you see wrong with removing the dead from voter rolls? Afraid of losing one of your primary election strategies?
Every illegal vote disenfranchises a legal vote, but liberals don’t care too much about those people. The fraud doesn’t have to be “widespread”, however you would want to define that. How many races have been determined by a few hundred votes? Voter fraud is voter fraud and, no matter what the quantity, it is illegal. You know, just because a crime does not adversely affect a liberal does not mean it ISN’T a crime.
Hmm…. impeachment has been pursued for far less. Hasn’t it, Greg?
Hey, goofball…. he has accepted it. You know why? Because it makes NO F**KING DIFFERENCE. He won the ELECTORAL VOTE, and per the Constitution (you’ve heard of that, haven’t you?) THAT’S what counts. But, there is a VERY SOLID possibility that that margin, and then some, was fraudulent.
They are also far more likely, if you accept no-background check college ID to vote, to vote both in the state where they reside and the state where they go to college.
Does every one represent a disenfranchised voter? No, because they are DEAD.
There is but one reasonable explanation to oppose the legal examination of voter rolls to assure that they represent the electorate: “The ends justifies the means”. Sound familiar?
And, back to the topic at hand, why do liberals always refuse to cooperate with investigations?
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #46:
Do you understand that there’s a difference between evidence and bullshit right-wing news articles?
Nothing at all, and I didn’t say that I did. There seems to be a strong tendency on the right to imagine people on the left have said things they never said, and then proceed to argue about it. For example:
I didn’t say that it wouldn’t be. What I said was that the fact that a person is on two registration rolls as a result of moving doesn’t indicate that the person has committed voter fraud. All it indicates is that he or she didn’t contact their former voter registration authorities to inform them that they have left their jurisdiction. Does anyone do that?
Arguing about what others say I’ve said is a waste of my time.
@Greg:
Yes you did, you said it would disenfranchize millions of voters, and of course, you meant Dimocrat voters
@Greg:
I understand that fully. I also understand why you classify everything you see that is not liberal-supportive as “bullshit”… because you can’t face the facts.
What you and the rest of the left say is that any search or investivation for potential fraud (fraud that the left carries out time and time again) is “racist” and “disenfranchising”. It is NOTHING of the sort; it is preserving the sanctity of the vote.