Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Dershowitz's purpose on the defence team is to make the constitutional argument as to what is impeachable conduct and what isn't. He never made arguments as to whether the president was acting in the national interest or acting to take out Joe Biden for 2020. This wasn't his job. Trump's other lawyer addressed this.
There've been multiple accounts saying that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. The Dems have yet to produce a witness saying Trump's sole purpose was to get Biden.
It's tiresome to hear people continually saying that we can read intent from the action alone. We can't. You need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke to him.
I beg your pardon, I believe you are wrong in saying that you cannot take what the president did and examine it carefully before coming to a conclusion on what the president wanted. As for what you say is Alan's contribution to the presidents defence, respectfully I put it to you that you are wrong when you say Alan did not make any ARGUMENT to US interest [or national interest - as you are now calling it] as part of Dons defence team. Alan made it clear that he believed when the president made a decision on what he called US interest, the decision was unquestionable by way of impeachment trial for high crimes and misdemeanours. Alan was a member of the Trump defence team at the time he made that statement. BTW. I made some alterations to my last when you were in the process of replying to it. You might want to run your eyes over my last again, thanks.
Edit. Having gone over your argument again, in reference to asking Don or some-one who spoke to him, are you serious in putting forward that given how Mitch, the overall manager of the trial set-up, refused to have or allow witnesses give testimony at the trial. I humbly suggest you might examine that act of Mitch, if you weren't aware of Mitch's refusal to allow witnesses give testimony,0 -
You mean a defence lawyer successfully defended someone?Dershowitz helped a brutal murderer get away scot free,
Dersh wasn't close friends with him. But he did defend him even though he was probably guilty of an egregious crime (although this wasn't as clear at the time as it is now) because he is a highly competent and sought after defence lawyer known for successfully defending seemingly unwinnable cases. What does any of this have to do with the current impeachment?was close friends with one of the world's foremost serial paedophiles whom he also helped escaped justice for a decade,
Strangely, Israel is the only point of policy agreement being Dershowitz (a lifelong liberal Democrat) and the Republican president he's defending which cuts against the idea that Dersh is just another one of Trump's henchmen. Why would the most sought after defence lawyer in the world (a democrat no less) sully his reputation by being on Team Trump unless he thought something genuinely wrong was taking place. Yes I'm sure he's being paid well, but c'mon, this guy doesn't need the money.is a regular apologist for appalling war crimes,
Bear in mind that Dersh isn't even defending Trump's conduct. His other lawyers are doing that. Dershowitz is simply laying a constitutional argument as to what quid pro quos are impeachable and what aren't.
Maybe try arguing against Dershowitz's actual argument instead of laying out why he is such a bad, mean, mercenary lawyer.and one of the most despicable me in America. Hs role in this fiasco is simply to provide a patina of legality to a repulsive parody of an impeachment trial. It's entirely possible he meant exactly what he said.0 -
Good news then, they already have that person! His name is John Bolton and he was Trumps national security advisor, meaning he was Trumps chief advisor on national security. Literally the person Trump chose as his 'go to guy' on such matters.There've been multiple accounts saying that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. The Dems have yet to produce a witness saying Trump's sole purpose was to get Biden.
It's tiresome to hear people continually saying that we can read intent from the action alone. We can't. You need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke to him.
This is precisely why the Republicans have hit an absolute crisis in the last few days
rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bolton-book-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-investigations-943468/
President Trump told then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, in August 2019, that the hold his administration placed on the military aid to Ukraine should continue until Ukraine officials announced investigations into Trump’s political opponents, including former vice president Joe Biden and his son. This contradicts Trump’s public statements that he withheld the aid because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.0 -
A president can say EVERYTHING or anything he does is in the public interest. So then nothing really matters if this is the interpretation. It's about what HE considers to be in the so called public interest. Where does it end? Nixon could have said the Watergate break in was in the public interest. Even Bill could say getting a blow job from an intern was in the public interest to keep him fulfilled sexually.You've quoted him precisely and you still fail to comprehend what he's saying.
Yes, what you're saying he said would call for the president to have dictatorial powers. It also assumes a baseline level of stupidity for the man who helped get OJ Simpson off the hook. No lawyer in their right mind would make this argument because it's insanely stupid.
I'll break it down:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
He's saying here if the president does something. A. thing. in. the. public. interest.
This is important. He's saying the thing that is being done is being done in the public interest. And the president also believes that doing this thing will help them get elected. The fact that it will help them get elected doesn't mean an abuse of power is happening, provided the action is being done in the public interest.
I actually don't believe people are taking Dersh out of context here but rather misunderstanding due to the unfortunate way he structured the statement.
Dershowitz said “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..." Dershowitz is not saying that it can be considered in the public interest for a president to be elected if the president himself happens to believe so.
"that he believes will help him get elected", this is a belief/opinion/observation about the consequences doing the thing will have for the president. It is of no consequence whatsoever with regard to the legality of the action
itself.
"in the public interest" tells us the rationale for why the president is doing a thing. This is what tells us if abuse of power is happening or not.
Let's considered this:
Dersh said, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..."
Now imagine he said, “If a president does something in the public interest which he believes will help him get elected..."
In terms of meaning, these two sentences are precisely the same. There's not a shred of difference between them.0 -
Well you can't really conclude intent from the action itself.aloyisious wrote: »I beg your pardon, I believe you are wrong in saying that you cannot take what the president did and examine it carefully before coming to a conclusion on what the president wanted.
Consider this:
The action that took place was that Trump held back aid on the condition that Ukraine investigate corruption. In the July phone call, Trump piles in a load of stuff under the general rubric of corruption: Ukrainian interference in 2016, CrowdStrike, the Bidens as well as non US related corruption in Ukraine.
If we want to know why Trump did this, we have to hear from Trump why he did it or from someone who spoke to him. We need to know why in order to judge if this is an abuse of power or not. We've heard from Trump and people who spoke to him that Trump thought it was in the US national interest for taxpayers to know to what extent Ukraine interfered in 2016, to what extent the former VP engaged in corruption with them. Also they argue that it's not in the national interest to give money to a corrupt regime in any case. This is Team Trump's case.
My point is that we wouldn't know any of this just by analysing the actions alone. We had to hear this from Trump and his subordinates. Conversely if Democrats wish to say this was entirely motivated by the 2020 election, they need witnesses who spoke to Trump testifying that he said so. They haven't done this yet.
Yes. That's what I said. Dershowitz isn't arguing whether Trump's actions were in the national interest or not.aloyisious wrote: »As for what you say is Alan's contribution to the presidents defence, respectfully I put it to you that you are wrong when you say Alan did not make any ARGUMENT to US interest [or national interest - as you are now calling it] as part of Dons defence team.
He's arguing IF they were in the national interest, it's not impeachable and if IF they weren't in the national interest then it is impeachable.
Yes he said this. And he was right. He also said that being re-elected isn't something you can cite as being in the national interest even if you believe that it is.aloyisious wrote: »Alan made it clear that he believed when the president made a decision on what he called US interest, the decision was unquestionable by way of impeachment trial for high crimes and misdemeanours. Alan was a member of the Trump defence team at the time he made that statement.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreeThePants wrote: »Good news then, they already have that person! His name is John Bolton and he was Trumps national security advisor, meaning he was Trumps chief advisor on national security. Literally the person Trump chose as his 'go to guy' on such matters.
This is precisely why the Republicans have hit an absolute crisis in the last few days
rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bolton-book-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-investigations-943468/
President Trump told then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, in August 2019, that the hold his administration placed on the military aid to Ukraine should continue until Ukraine officials announced investigations into Trump’s political opponents, including former vice president Joe Biden and his son. This contradicts Trump’s public statements that he withheld the aid because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.
Bolton's supposed "bombshell" isn't half as consequential as people think it is.
Bolton's statement is that Trump tied Ukrainian aid into looking into Biden.
(crickets)
We've known this for weeks. We know what the Quid Pro Quo was. It was aid in exchange for investigations into corruption regarding the Bidens.
The question is was this motivated solely by the 2020 election in which Biden is running or the fact that it is in the national interest for Americans to know if their former VP was corrupt.
The fact that Biden happened to be a political opponent of Trump's whose demise as a candidate would benefit Trump is purely circumstantial. You need evidence of Trump's intent.
Bolton hasn't said anything about Trump's intent in that leak from his book. All he says is that Trump tied the aid into an investigation into Biden which we already know.0 -
A president can say EVERYTHING or anything he does is in the public interest. So then nothing really matters if this is the interpretation. It's about what HE considers to be in the so called public interest. Where does it end? Nixon could have said the Watergate break in was in the public interest. Even Bill could say getting a blow job from an intern was in the public interest to keep him fulfilled sexually.
Again, conveniently ignoring the fact that Dershowitz has said and clarified multiple times now that wanting to be re-elected in itself doesn't qualify as in the national interest even if the politician believes so. There must be intended benefits to the national interest from the action that extend beyond the candidate merely being re-elected. Here's his article that was published today.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/480720-dershowitz-i-never-said-president-could-do-anything-to-get-reelected
You guys just keep swinging at those windmills. (sigh)0 -
You mean a defence lawyer successfully defended someone?
Yeah, he successfully defended a murderer and won the case mainly through courtroom tricks and the manipulation of public opinion.Dersh wasn't close friends with him. But he did defend him even though he was probably guilty of an egregious crime (although this wasn't as clear at the time as it is now) because he is a highly competent and sought after defence lawyer known for successfully defending seemingly unwinnable cases. What does any of this have to do with the current impeachment?
Not close at all. He was only an overnight guest at his homes. Flew with him on his private jet a number of times and borrowed his Palm Beach house for a family vacation. He's also been accused of raping a young girl, procured for him by Epstein.Why would the most sought after defence lawyer in the world (a democrat no less) sully his reputation by being on Team Trump unless he thought something genuinely wrong was taking place. Yes I'm sure he's being paid well, but c'mon, this guy doesn't need the money.
lol, yeah, why would a man who hangs out with paedophiles, defends murderers and advocates war crimes want to sully his reputation?Maybe try arguing against Dershowitz's actual argument instead of laying out why he is such a bad, mean, mercenary lawyer.
To counter the suggestion that he is in any way a reputable, 'honest' or respectable character when he is in actual fact, a piece of ****.0 -
Lawyering in other words. Manipulation of public opinion? That jury was sequestered. Trials by jury sometimes result in miscarriages of justice. As a defence lawyer hired to do a job by someone who was probably guilty it was his job to capitalise on that for his client. Does this make him a bad man or someone who's good at his trade?Yeah, he successfully defended a murderer and won the case mainly through courtroom tricks and the manipulation of public opinion.
Is there a source for this? I can't seem to find anything about it online other than the fact that he's now suing the one who accused him of rape for defamation.Not close at all. He was only an overnight guest at his homes. Flew with him on his private jet a number of times and borrowed his Palm Beach house for a family vacation. He's also been accused of raping a young girl, procured for him by Epstein.
Emm, the left LOVED Dershowitz until exactly five minutes ago when he joined Trump's team. Suddenly people started caring about all the other stuff.lol, yeah, why would a man who hangs out with paedophiles, defends murderers and advocates war crimes want to sully his reputation?
Just one thing. I never said that you should believe what Dershowitz said because he is respectable or honest. You should judge his argument on the merits of the argument rather bringing up every morally questionable aspect of his career and concluding that he's not worth listening to.To counter the suggestion that he is in any way a reputable, 'honest' or respectable character when he is in actual fact, a piece of ****.
Whether you like Dersh or not. (I don't) He is a highly competent lawyer (his record reflects this) and the idea that he would argue that a president can deem his own re-election to be in the national interest and therefore do as he pleases is patently absurd. Putting aside that he has since clarified that statement for people who don't understand english.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Well you can't really conclude intent from the action itself.
Consider this:
The action that took place was that Trump held back aid on the condition that Ukraine investigate corruption. In the July phone call, Trump piles in a load of stuff under the general rubric of corruption: Ukrainian interference in 2016, CrowdStrike, the Bidens as well as non US related corruption in Ukraine.
If we want to know why Trump did this, we have to hear from Trump why he did it or from someone who spoke to him. We need to know why in order to judge if this is an abuse of power or not. We've heard from Trump and people who spoke to him that Trump thought it was in the US national interest for taxpayers to know to what extent Ukraine interfered in 2016, to what extent the former VP engaged in corruption with them. Also they argue that it's not in the national interest to give money to a corrupt regime in any case. This is Team Trump's case.
My point is that we wouldn't know any of this just by analysing the actions alone. We had to hear this from Trump and his subordinates. Conversely if Democrats wish to say this was entirely motivated by the 2020 election, they need witnesses who spoke to Trump testifying that he said so. They haven't done this yet.
Yes. That's what I said. Dershowitz isn't arguing whether Trump's actions were in the national interest or not.
He's arguing IF they were in the national interest, it's not impeachable and if IF they weren't in the national interest then it is impeachable.
Yes he said this. And he was right. He also said that being re-elected isn't something you can cite as being in the national interest even if you believe that it is.
If all he was arguing was if they were in the national interest then he may go home and get a new job and leave someone else to give an actual argument.
We know it wasn't in the national interest. The US didn't gain. We know it wasn't int he national interest as the business was done through Trump's personal lawyer on behalf of Trump, not the US. We know it wasn't in the national interest because the man who ordered it admires corrupt regimes (Russia, Israel etc.). We know it wasn't int he national interest as the man who ordered it has owned multiple fraudulent businesses and charities (Trump U and Trump foundation for starters).
Anyone who believes Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine of all places really needs to take a look around0 -
Well you can't really conclude intent from the action itself.
If we want to know why Trump did this, we have to hear from Trump why he did it or from someone who spoke to him. We need to know why in order to judge if this is an abuse of power or not. We've heard from Trump and people who spoke to him that Trump thought it was in the US national interest for taxpayers to know to what extent Ukraine interfered in 2016, to what extent the former VP engaged in corruption with them. Dershowitz is arguing IF they were in the national interest, it's not impeachable and if IF they weren't in the national interest then it is impeachable
And if Don is unable to appear as a witness at his own trial due to the decision of Mitch McConnell not to allow witnesses so questions can be put to him, how do you suggest the senate trial jurors [acting in the interests of the US and Don] get around that hurdle so people come and testify before the jurors [and the US public] in the US interest as to what they know about the Burisma/Biden investigation carried out by Rudy and provide the senate trial with any and all evidential documents they have access to/knowledge directly relevant to that investigation?
Do you think that Mitch actually has the power to stop the president from testifying as a witness before the senate [as is exemplified by his refusal to allow any witnesses come before the trial]? Isn't that decision by Mitch an actual abuse of power denying the president the right of personal appearance to defend himself at his own trial, constitutional rights etc?
Do you BELIEVE that Don would be prepared to come to the senate and provide direct testimony himself? Don does have a V/P for the express purpose of providing continuity of governmental administration in the US under the constitution which would enable him to unburden the US of the vista he has faced the US senate and nation with.0 -
I get the feeling you are not aware what is stated in it, because one of the reasons republicans have immediately cancelled town halls following this and gone into full turtle mode (not a mitch McConnell reference, promise!) is that Pompeo admitted to Bolton that there was no basis to the corruption claims they made to withhold aid. This is also largely what caused Pompeo to blow up at a news reporter last week, and has seen the white house to ban journalists from that public service outlet (NPR) as a result.The fact that Biden happened to be a political opponent of Trump's whose demise as a candidate would benefit Trump is purely circumstantial. You need evidence of Trump's intent.
You also readily admit that the quid quo pro happened, so is it fair to assume that you acknowledge Trump spent weeks flat out lying about "no quid pro quo" and why do you think he repeated that lie so often?0 -
26000 Elephants wrote: »:cool:
I wish all defense teams would open their arguments with lines like this.
"All the forensics tell us is that my client murdered the victim - but we already knew that, right?"
The Quid pro Quo alone is not the crime. There’s nothing illegal about Trump holding back that aid to push for an investigation of the Bidens.
The crime would be if Trump did the quid pro quo specifically in order to benefit himself in 2020 and for no other reason.0 -
[PHP][/PHP]Again, conveniently ignoring the fact that Dershowitz has said and clarified multiple times now that wanting to be re-elected in itself doesn't qualify as in the national interest even if the politician believes so. There must be intended benefits to the national interest from the action that extend beyond the candidate merely being re-elected. Here's his article that was published today.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/480720-dershowitz-i-never-said-president-could-do-anything-to-get-reelected
You guys just keep swinging at those windmills. (sigh)
Except he did not say that at all in the senate trial and has not since gotten up there and said Chief Justice Roberts, I mislead and I wish to change what I said here yesterday. What he said in the senate is completely different to what he says in that article.0 -
Schiff is back to his parodies again, the latest one pondering on what Trump may say to Putin in a secret meeting about Ukraine:"I want you to hack Burisma. I couldn't get the Ukrainians to do it, and I'll tell you what: you hack Burisma and you get me some good stuff, then I'm gonna stop sending money to Ukraine"
Nuts. Time to end this madness. They have no case, never did - hence these stupid theatrical imaginings.0 -
Both sides have done their job pretty well. People having a go a Dersch need to remember, he is doing a job. In my opinion, there won't be witnesses, the GOP need to finish this or it'll drag on and on. I do think Trump warrants censure at minimum but again, GOP have set their stall out. Perhaps more info will come to light, 8 months is a long time. The political reality is that the voters will choose the side they believe and both sides, politically, are far too puritanical with the other side as evil. US politics is in trouble, Trump is just the latest player, not the root cause.0
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Schiff is back to his parodies again, the latest one pondering on what Trump may say to Putin in a secret meeting about Ukraine:
Nuts. Time to end this madness. They have no case, never did - hence these stupid theatrical imaginings.
How do you not find Trump sending his personal lawyer to do official US business (avoiding traditional channels). Multiple people stating that there shady goings on. The man himself changing his story as time has gone on at least suspicious. Like whether you think he did something wrong surely you see there is enough that the possibility should be investigated? Witnesses spoken to, documents looked at?0 -
https://twitter.com/SenAlexander/status/1223093577145864194?s=19
The last argument left.
He did it.
He did it all.
We are just not going to impeach him for it.
Disgraceful.
Utterly disgraceful.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
everlast75 wrote: »https://twitter.com/SenAlexander/status/1223093577145864194?s=19
The last argument left.
He did it.
He did it all.
We are just not going to impeach him for it.
Disgraceful.
Utterly disgraceful.
Did we expect better though?
I certainly didn’t.
What will they say when Bolton’s book comes out in March?0 -
How do you not find Trump sending his personal lawyer to do official US business (avoiding traditional channels). Multiple people stating that there shady goings on. The man himself changing his story as time has gone on at least suspicious. Like whether you think he did something wrong surely you see there is enough that the possibility should be investigated? Witnesses spoken to, documents looked at?
I believe the answer to your first question is that Pete is unwavering in his support of trump. No action or information will affect this support. His arguments are contradictions and when he is confronted by someone pointing this out he frequently ignores the response or evades.0 -
Cody montana wrote: »Did we expect better though?
I certainly didn’t.
What will they say when Bolton’s book comes out in March?
What's funny is I wouldn't have minded if this was their defence from the start.
It would have saved everyone a lot of time and enegry to just come out and say "so what"?
It was the constant shifting of the goal posts;
1) he didn't say it
2) when the memo proved he did, the argument was there was no quid pro quo
3) then the argument was - no direct evidence of a QPQ
4) then there was direct evidence, the argument changed to no credible evidence of a QPQ
5) then - okay, there is credible evidence, we just don't want to hear it
6) and lastly... okay, it's all true, but it isn't impeachable.
Utterly, utterly bankrupt of credibility0 -
everlast75 wrote: »What's funny is I wouldn't have minded if this was their defence from the start.
It would have saved everyone a lot of time and enegry to just come out and say "so what"?
It was the constant shifting of the goal posts;
1) he didn't say it
2) when the memo proved he did, the argument was there was no quid pro quo
3) then the argument was - no direct evidence of a QPQ
4) then there was direct evidence, the argument changed to no credible evidence of a QPQ
5) then - okay, there is credible evidence, we just don't want to hear it
6) and lastly... okay, it's all true, but it isn't impeachable.
Utterly, utterly bankrupt of credibility
I can see Trump winning the presidency but I hope he loses the senate because of this.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34364
Why do I think that if there's a democrat in the White House, this sudden, important belief in the sitting CiC being negated from criminal prosecution or liability will suddenly vanish into the bushes? That if Biden or Sanders decided to start operating in a similar fashion, the Republicans won't be indulging in a little sauce for the gander.
It's partisanship writ large, and hard to see how this isn't another erosion of legitimacy of executive power. Any slide into actual dictatorship will happen by degrees, does make one wonder if this is another step in that direction. Certainly any country whose legislators wonder aloud if the highest office should be a little immune from prosecution doesn't get to beat its chest at being democratic0 -
A crime is still a crime if you do something which is not a crime at the same time.
I'm trying to come up with an example to illustrate this given Sean, and the Reps stupid argument for justification and can't quite hit on it.
Would it be something like...
I'm collecting money for charity. I pocket half of it for myself, but you know I'm still giving the rest to charity, so that's ok
Or,
I'm helping a sick elderly woman across the road to the hospital, I rob her purse while doing so. I'm committing a crime, but you know, I did get her safely to the hospital, so I guess that means its ok0 -
spacecoyote wrote: »I'm trying to come up with an example to illustrate this given Sean, and the Reps stupid argument for justification and can't quite hit on it.
Would it be something like...
I'm collecting money for charity. I pocket half of it for myself, but you know I'm still giving the rest to charity, so that's ok
Or,
I'm helping a sick elderly woman across the road to the hospital, I rob her purse while doing so. I'm committing a crime, but you know, I did get her safely to the hospital, so I guess that means its ok
I am robbing a shop to feed my family so I guess that makes it ok0 -
I wouldn't really spend too much time arguing with people who would put forth the argument that AD did. It only actually gives it credibility it doesn't deserve, it is a ludicrous suggestion and one that you would see in a tin pot authoritarian regime or a dictatorship, not a federal republic with 3 separate branches of government where the president is supposed to serve the people not the people serve the president.
Those who were going to vote to continue the charade and complete the cover up will do so anyway and they know with their audience they don't really have to make a coherent argument in favour of their actions just the faintest hint of political cover for their next election campaign.
It's a joke but it is what it is."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
Is there a source for this? I can't seem to find anything about it online other than the fact that he's now suing the one who accused him of rape for defamation.
Note the lack of denial.King: As I understand it, you've been an overnight guest at his homes. You flew with him on his private jet a number of times. You borrowed his Palm Beach house for a family vacation. That doesn't sound like an academic relationship.
Dershowitz: ...I never had a kind of social relationship where we had dinner together or we had discussions about our personal lives. Our relationship was predominantly academic.
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741739336/alan-dershowitz-weighs-in-on-his-work-on-the-jeffrey-epstein-case
Plenty more about the relationship here.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/alan-dershowitz-devils-advocate
There's really no mystery as to why a bigoted war crimes advocate and probable rapist is perhaps the most appropriate representative for Trump.0 -
Advertisement
-
the fact that republicans are blatantly letting Trump getting away with what he did and not allowing evidence could well hurt them more then they think, Trump was never getting convicted but maybe they should have been a bit more subtle about it....people are saying the democrats messes up by pursuing impeachment but I think it has left Trump badly exposed.... there is going to be more and more revelations about the Ukraine scandal and some very awkward for republican senators to answer... and I'm sure Lev has more videos and Bolton will be doing many interviews0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement