Delivers house IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Senate Trial

House officially delivers impeachment article to Senate for second trial against Trump

The nine House Democrats tapped as prosecutors in the second Senate trial against former President Donald Trump have officially delivered an article of impeachment to the upper chamber.

What are the details?

The managers put on a somber display marching ceremoniously through the U.S. Capitol on Monday to present the Senate with its single article that alleges Trump incited an insurrection through his actions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the very same building by a mob of Trump supporters.

The Hill reported that the lower chamber “impeached Trump 12 days ago and Senate leaders have agreed to postpone the start of the public trial until the week of Feb. 8.” The longest-serving Democrat in the upper chamber, Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced Monday that he would preside over the trial rather than Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts.

Ten House Republicans joined Democrats in voting for impeaching Trump, making the condemnation a bipartisan effort as opposed to the first impeachment of the then-president last year when no GOP members cast a vote in favor of his ouster.

The initial impeachment attempt by House Democrats failed in the GOP-led Senate, but the upper chamber is now split 50-50 with Democrats in control. Only Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah voted to convict Trump in the first trial, and while Democrats have more leverage in this second go-round, several conservative members have expressed reservations about convicting the former president now that he is out of office.

The New York Times reported that the 50 Republican senators “for now appear reluctant to convict him,” and Democrats need 17 GOP members to join them — which could be a tall order.

According to The Washington Post:

While no final decisions on trial strategy have been made, House impeachment managers are concentrating on building their case around Trump personally — both what he said in the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack and at a rally that day, and how his words were interpreted within the White House and outside of it, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

President Joe Biden told CNN Monday that the impeachment trial against Trump “has to happen.” The Associated Press reported that while the Democrat acknowledged “the effect it could have on his agenda, he said there would be ‘a worse effect if it didn’t happen.'”

Anything else?

NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O’Donnell reported that “former President Trump chose the time of the second impeachment being presented to the Senate to announce of post presidency office,” tweeting out a public statement by Trump.

It reads:

Today, the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, formally opened the Office of the Former President.

The Office will be responsible for managing President Trump’s correspondence, public statements, appearances, and official activities to advance the interests of the United States and to carry on the agenda of the Trump Administration through advocacy, organizing, and public activism.

President Trump will always and forever be a champion for the American people.

IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mitch McConnell Second Senate Trial trump

McConnell signals that second impeachment trial won’t happen while Trump is still in office

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a memo to his colleagues Friday spelling out how a second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump might be conducted in the upper chamber if House Democrats follow through with their vow to bring articles against the president next week.

One major detail sticks out in the plan: the soonest the Senate would even consider the matter would be the day before the president leaves office.

What are the details?

The Washington Post obtained the memo, and reported that the Senate “will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.”

The outlet noted:

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

The Washington Examiner pointed out that this revelation means that McConnell is effectively handing the prospective new impeachment battle in the Senate to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), who will take over as Senate Majority Leader after the inauguration due to Republicans losing control of the Senate earlier this week.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hailed McConnell’s move on Friday, tweeting, “Completely agree with @senatemajldr‘s analysis that the Senate cannot process the impeachment being contemplated by the House before January 20. I firmly believe impeachment would further destroy our ability to heal and start over.”

Democrats expressed outrage over McConnell’s timeline, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—who spearheaded the first impeachment of Trump—telling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “If Mitch McConnell wants to move with expedition, he knows how to do it. And if he doesn’t, then he will bear the responsibility for whatever dangerous acts this president commits.”

Anything else?

If the second impeachment trial does occur, “there is also a question of who exactly would preside over a trial of a former president,” The Post stated.

The newspaper reported that according to McConnell’s memo, “Senate impeachment rules require Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. preside over a trial of a sitting president, but whether he would have to once Trump is no longer president is ‘unclear.'”

Big Pharma candidates COVID-19 distribution drugmakers genetic material Headline News Immune System Intelwars late stages mandatory Military Pfizer RNA. mRNA Scientists Trial trials two dose vaccines

Pfizer’s Late Stage COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Near Completion

Pfizer, the drugmaker of one of the COVID-19 vaccines said nearly 36,000 of the volunteers have already received the second of its two-dose of the vaccine. This vaccine is in the very late stages of trials now.

The phase three trials are a critical last step needed to get the vaccines cleared for distribution. Three other U.S.-backed candidates are in phase three: Pfizer expects to apply for an emergency use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration next month.

Trump: “The Military Is Ready To Deliver A Vaccine”

[This vaccine] contains genetic material called messenger RNA, or mRNA, which scientists hope provokes the immune system to fight the virus.

In September, Pfizer expanded the enrollment of its phase three trial to up to 44,000 volunteers from the initial target of up to 30,000. The company said the expansion would allow it to further increase diversity in the trial as well as include adolescents as young as 16 years old and people with preexisting conditions. –CNBC

Pfizer said their data monitoring board, which will assess whether the trial has been successful, has not conducted an interim efficacy analysis yet.

Pfizer Begins Mass Production of COVID-19 Vaccines Anticipating EUA Approval

Pfizer has already begun the mass production of its COVID-19 vaccines even though they are still at the end of phase three trials. It’s too bad people are going to line up to get injected with this concoction. Once it is approved, expect the military and other private companies to begin rolling out this vaccine.

Trump: “The Military Is Ready To Deliver A Vaccine”

FedEx Readies A Plan To Help Distribute COVID-19 Vaccines

Three other United States government-backed vaccine candidates are in phase three also: Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. Be aware that this vaccine will be coming and know what you intend to do.  This may not be “mandatory” but the punishment for not taking it could be harsh.

The post Pfizer’s Late Stage COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Near Completion first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Defamation Intelwars Lawsuit New York Times Sarah Palin Trial

Judge rules Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against The New York Times can go to trial?

Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward and headed to trial after a federal judge ruled Friday that a jury will decide whether the newspaper acted with “actual malice” when it published a false editorial pointing to Palin as the motivation behind the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

What are the details?

Palin sued The Times in 2017 over a piece that linked materials distributed by the former Alaskan governor’s political action committee and the Tucson, Arizona, mass murder at a Giffords event that left six people dead and Giffords injured.

An excerpt from the editorial — which was later corrected — read:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

The lawsuit has been tied up in the courts ever since, and on Friday, Manhattan Federal Judge Jed Rakoff denied The Times’ request to bring the case to a close, which Law & Crime called “a major procedural win” for Palin.

“Gov. Palin brings this action to hold [former editor] James Bennett and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” the judge wrote.

“Specifically,” he continued, “on June 14, 2017, The Times published an editorial authored in the name of its Editorial Board (which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times) that falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Gov. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, mass shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona.”

Rakoff added, “Taken in the light most favorable to (Palin), the evidence shows Bennet came up with an angle for the editorial, ignored the articles brought to his attention that were inconsistent with his angle, disregarded the…research he commissioned, and ultimately made the point he set out to make in reckless disregard of the truth.”

In reaction to the judge’s decision, a spokeswoman for The Times said in a statement, “We’re disappointed in the ruling but are confident we will prevail at trial when a jury hears the facts,” the New York Daily News reported.

arrest Celebrities denied bail distraction escalation Federal judge Ghislaine Maxwell Headline News Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein murdered New Hampshire no trial Politicians Prepare psyop Suicide talking Trial trials

Ghislaine Maxwell Fears She’ll Meet The Same Fate As Epstein & Be Murdered

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Cipriani Wall Street on March 15, 2005 in New York City. (Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)

Ghislaine Maxwell doesn’t think Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, not does she think she’ll be around to “name names” in the global pedophilia and sex trafficking ring both were a part of. No one will be “allowed” to use the system that was set up to protect the people who set up the system.

Courts, politics, and laws were created to keep the public in line, not to be used against those who set it up to control us.  It’s become absurd that anyone still believes lawsuits against the government (using the government to sue the government) will get them anywhere. If anything, we’ve seen Trump’s inability to do just that over the past three and a half years. This is all by design. Maxwell understands this and is fearful of meeting the same fate as her ex-lover.

“Everyone’s view including Ghislaine’s is Epstein was murdered. She received death threats before she was arrested,” an unnamed friend told The Sun. The friend, who is described as “in regular contact with Maxwell at her secret New Hampshire hideaway,” said the death threats spurred the British socialite to hire security guards, and led her to believe she may not live to see her trial.

A federal judge denied Maxwell bail on Tuesday and ordered the 58-year-old to spend the next year awaiting trial at the Brooklyn Detention Center, where she has been held since shortly after her July 2 arrest in New Hampshire. All of this ensures she’ll be in a location that’s known by those who have a vested interest in her not seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Maxwell, like Epstein, is expected to expose celebrities and politicians if she ever stands trial, which is precisely why she understands she will not.  People need to wake up and realize this. Putting your hopes and faith in a politician or person who is connected at the highest levels of this disturbing cult is worrisome.

This whole situation is starting to look like another psyop. People want to believe the system will somehow deliver justice to those who are the architects of the system.

Lawyer: The MSM Will Report On Ghislaine Maxwell’s Death In Jail

This is all a part of the agenda, and it could very well be a distraction.  There won’t be much that comes out of it as far as using the government to “takedown” these elitists. That should be obvious by now.

Prepare and become more self-sufficient. Things will continue to escalate over the next few months, and having a few extra days worth of food and water wouldn’t hurt.  If you haven’t started preparing yet, it is getting close to being too late. Shelves are emptying and food costs are skyrocketing.  Don’t hang your hopes on Maxwell talking. Prepare and be ready for anything.


Amy berman jackson Denied Intelwars Judge Roger Stone Trial

Judge denies Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial

Roger Stone, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, has been denied his motion for a new trial by the same judge who refused to recuse herself from the case and sentenced him to more than three years in prison.

What are the details?

Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote that Stone failed to “[supply] any reason to believe that there has been a ‘a serious miscarriage of justice,” ABC News reported.

Stone was found guilty in November on seven counts stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and was sentenced by Berman Jackson in February to 40 months of incarceration.

But just ahead of his sentencing, Stone’s attorneys requested a new trial after reports emerged that the lead juror in the trial, Tomeka Hart, was a longtime Democrat whose social media posts further threw her impartiality and honesty into question.

President Trump tweeted at the time, “There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”

Stone’s attorneys also requested that Judge Berman Jackson recuse herself from hearing his argument for a new trial, saying that the judge herself could hold some bias because she praised the jury for its integrity during sentencing. Berman Jackson refused to step down.

In her decision Thursday, Berman Jackson wrote, “The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected.”

The judge wrote that Stone’s “conviction is final.”

Coronavirus Intelwars lab paid Trial Vaccine

UK lab offering $4,500 to human guinea pigs willing to be injected with coronavirus

A medical research firm based in the U.K. is offering more than $4,500 to individuals willing to serve as guinea pigs and be injected with two strains of coronavirus similar to COVID-19 in a bid to find a vaccine for the new deadly virus.

What are the details?

The offer comes from London-based company Hvivo, which is seeking 24 healthy individuals at a time to receive the weaker shots of coronavirus before being administered vaccines in what The Times of London described as “a $2 billion race to find a vaccine” for COVID-19.

According to the New York Post, participants would make around $4,588 to participate in Hvivo’s “flu camp,” which entails a two-week quarantine where they must “eat a restricted diet and avoid human contact and exercise.”

The firm is still awaiting approval from the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency before trials can begin — but even if they get clearance quickly, a cure is not expected until next winter despite more than 20 firms participating in the race to find a shot to prevent the virus that has already taken nearly 4,000 lives globally.

Anything else?

Here in the U.S., another firm is seeking participants for a COVID-19 vaccine study, but the pay is not as, high nor as quick, nor as risky.

Business Insider reported that Seattle’s Kaiser Permanente Washington’s research clinic plans to enroll 45 healthy folks to participate in a 14-month trial to test three doses of a potential vaccine against the novel coronavirus for safety.

However, in the Seattle study, participants would not be injected with the coronavirus. The researchers are offering $100 per visit for volunteers to show up in person 11 times, offering a total payout of $1,100 for those willing to serve as guinea pigs to test out the safety of what could be a life-saving vaccine.

College admission College admission cheating College admission scam College admission scandal Daughters Evidence Giannulli Intelwars Lori loughlin Loughlin Mossimo giannulli Trial

Lawyers for Lori Loughlin and husband say new evidence in college admissions scam exonerates them of wrongdoing

Lawyers for actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli, argue that new evidence proves the couple did not knowingly bribe their daughters into admission to the University of Southern California.

According to a report by CBS News, prosecutors recently provided the defense with new information, including notes written by Rick Singer — the admitted mastermind of the college admissions scandal — in which he alleges that the FBI told him to lie by saying that he made known to parents involved in the scheme that their payments were bribes, and not “legitimate donations,” as Loughlin has maintained.

“They continue to ask me to tell a fib and not restate what I told my clients as to where their money was going — to the program not the coach and that it was a donation and they want it to be a payment,” Singer reportedly wrote in the filing.

Defense attorneys argue that the notes written by Singer about his discussions with the FBI supports the couple’s claim that they were not under the impression that their payments were bribes.

“This belated discovery … is devastating to the government’s case and demonstrates that the government has been improperly withholding core exculpatory information, employing a ‘win at all costs’ effort rather than following their obligation to do justice,” wrote defense attorney Sean Berkowtiz.

On Thursday, a federal judge scheduled an Oct. 5 trial for Loughlin, her husband and six others, Variety reported.

What’s the background?

The “Full House” actress and her husband are accused of paying $500,000 in bribes to ensure their daughters were accepted into USC as crew recruits despite neither of them having any experience as rowers.

They were charged last March as part of the largest college admissions cheating scandal ever prosecuted in the U.S.

Loughlin has maintained her and her husband’s innocence, arguing that they did not knowingly pay off the university in turn for their daughters’ admission. Last April, a source close to Loughlin claimed that the actress “felt that she hadn’t done anything that any mom wouldn’t have done, if they had the means to do so.”

The couple had also reportedly accused the prosecution of “concealing” key evidence in the trial that would prove their innocence. In a court motion filed in December, the couple’s lawyers asked a judge to turn over FBI records needed to mount a proper defense.

“This court’s intervention is urgently needed,” defense lawyers wrote in the filing. “The government is applying a flawed disclosure standard that systematically deprives Giannulli and Loughlin of information necessary to prepare their case and ensure a fair trial.”

What’s next?

While the new evidence at least appears to put the prosecution on the defensive, it is unclear whether it will effectively exonerate Loughlin and Giannulli.

In its coverage of the news, Hot Air asks whether Singer’s word is reliable, anyways: “If Singer’s word can’t be trusted in his own notes to himself, why should a jury believe Singer when he testifies that Loughlin and Giannulli knew that the money was a bribe and not a donation?”

Then there is the accusation that, in addition to paying half a million dollars to Singer, the couple also created a fake resume for one of their daughters.

Here’s more about this story:

Amy berman jackson Intelwars Judge Jury Roger Stone Trial

Judge denies Roger Stone’s motion to disqualify her amid questions over lead juror

The judge who sentenced Roger Stone to three years in prison says she is not stepping down from hearing his argument for a new trial, calling his request for her recusal unwarranted for “several reasons.”

What are the details?

Stone, an ally of President Donald Trump, was sentenced last week by federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson to 40 months in prison from charges stemming from the Mueller probe. The judge made the decision to move forward with sentencing despite Stone’s request for a new trial, given revelations that the lead juror is a Democratic activist who expressed anti-Trump bias on social media.

On Friday, Stone’s attorneys filed a motion requesting that Berman Jackson disqualify herself from the hearing for a new trial, arguing that the judge could hold some bias because she praised the jury during sentencing by saying they “served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”

Over the weekend, Judge Berman Jackson denied Stone’s request, writing that “there are several reasons why recusal is not warranted.”

In her rejection of the motion, the judge concluded Stone’s request appeared to be for show, writing, “Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and biased’ in it.”

The Washington Post reported:

Stone’s motion regarding the juror remains sealed, but the record indicates that it is his second attempt to argue for a new trial on grounds that jurors were biased against him. Jackson denied his first such motion, saying there was no evidence that a juror was biased merely because she was a lawyer with the Internal Revenue Service.

The second motion, Jackson said, specifically ‘raised questions about a juror’s written questionnaire and sworn answers during individual voir dire.’

Indeed, the Daily Caller reported Monday that the lead juror on Stone’s trial, Tomeka Hart, “withheld information during the jury selection process regarding her views of Stone and President Trump.” In one of Hart’s several social media posts expressing her political views on the president, she wrote of Trump supporters, “Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank.”

Criminal defense attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon told the outlet, “If that information had been presented to the judge that she thought all supporters of the president were racist, the judge would have excluded her.” McAdoo Gordon said that Hart “minimized her answers to the voir dire and she was not honest in answering that question about whether she could be impartial.”

Acquittal Court guilty Harvey harvey weinstein Intelwars Metoo not guilty Rape Sexual Abuse sexual assault allegations Sexual Harassment Trial Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein found guilty on just two counts, acquitted on most serious charges

Disgraced former Hollywood filmmaker Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of third-degree rape and criminal sex act but has been acquitted on the most serious charges brought against him in the most high-profile case of the #MeToo movement.

The monthslong trial officially came to a close Monday when a jury of seven men and five women read the verdict after five days of deliberation, sealing Weinstein’s fate.

Weinstein, 67, was convicted on a count of criminal sex act against Mimi Haley, a former “Project Runway” production assistant, in 2006, and raping former aspiring actress Jessica Mann in a New York City hotel room in 2013, the Associated Press reported. The two convictions could land Weinstein in prison for as many as 29 years.

The jury found him not guilty on the most serious charges, however, which were two counts of predatory sexual assault, and one count of first-degree rape against Jessica Mann. The two predatory sexual assault charges each carried a life sentence.

NBC News reported that Weinstein “showed no emotion” as the verdict was read.

District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said the guilty charges signaled “a new day” for survivors of sexual assault in America.

“It is a new day because Harvey Weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed,” he added. “Weinstein is a vicious, serial sexual predator who used his power to threaten, rape, assault and trick, humiliate and silence his victims.”

Weinstein maintained his innocence throughout the trial and pleaded not guilty on all five counts. Late last year, he even insisted that he should be credited for helping women achieve success in Hollywood.

“As sure as I’m a bald man, we will be appealing,” Weinstein’s defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, said.

The guilty verdict is seen as a reckoning for Weinstein and a win for the #MeToo movement, which encourages victims of sexual harassment to publicly speak out against powerful offenders who use their power and influence to harm others.

In all, more than 80 women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein since October 2017, when a bombshell report by investigative journalist Ronan Farrow made the “open secret” of Weinstein’s history of abuse public.

Weinstein was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs and is scheduled to be sentenced March 11.

Here’s more about the verdict:

epstein FBI Florida Florida investigation Indictment Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein Sex abuse Sex Offender Sexual Abuse Trial

Feds in Florida knew about the victim central to Jeffrey Epstein’s indictment 11 years earlier: report

Federal agents in Florida were aware of key allegations of childhood sexual abuse against Jeffrey Epstein over a decade ago, ABC News revealed Thursday.

According to court documents, a woman had come forward with detailed accounts of abuse against Epstein and was set to appear before a grand jury in the original federal investigation against the billionaire hedge fund manager in Florida. But after Epstein secured a favorable deal with prosecutors that resulted in him serving 18 months in county jail, the case was closed and the allegations went unheard — until last year.

Here’s the scoop from ABC News:

A woman whose allegations of childhood sex abuse in New York were central to last year’s indictment of Jeffrey Epstein was questioned by the FBI and subpoenaed for testimony by federal prosecutors in Florida more than a decade ago in connection with the first federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged child sex trafficking, according to court documents and multiple sources familiar with the events.

But the woman, who was 19 at the time of her initial contact with federal agents in 2008, did not appear before a grand jury in West Palm Beach, as the subpoena commanded. Before her testimony could be secured, Epstein cemented a controversial and once-secret non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami by pleading guilty to two state prostitution charges for which he was sentenced to 18 months in a county jail … with the deal done, the federal grand jury was suspended, the investigation halted, and the subpoena to the woman, ultimately, withdrawn.

The report notes that the woman’s account could have helped strengthen the already expansive case against Epstein by “potentially unraveling an alleged network of child sexual abuse at his Manhattan residence,” which was similar to what had been uncovered at his Palm Beach estate.

“I certainly think with the FBI’s capabilities, even back then, that they could have unraveled the entire network from New York to Paris to New Mexico,” said Spencer Kuvin, an attorney who represented three of Epstein’s alleged victims during the original investigation in 2008. “The potential was always there. [The government] shut this thing down and pled this thing out before going through and talking to probably more than half of the women that were involved in this whole thing. Had they conducted a full investigation and taken their time, this would’ve been a whole different story.”

The woman’s account was finally heard in court during the federal investigation in New York in 2019 and proved to be central to the prosecution’s case. She was identified as “Minor-Victim 1” and was the only alleged victim from New York whose allegations are specifically detailed in the indictment.

The ABC News report details that the woman was initially recruited in 2002, when she was only 14 years old, to provide massages to Epstein at his Manhattan residence, and that she went on to suffer escalating sexual abuse over a number of years. The woman was also enlisted to bring other girls to Epstein so that he could engage in sex acts with them.