Read the Mueller Report

 

Attorney General Bill Barr released the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller today. Here it is so you can read it and draw your own conclusions.

Let us know in the comments what you think.

Fox News has also uploaded the report to Scribd, which you can view below. This may take up to a few minutes to load on your device, however.

Mueller Report by Fox News on Scribd

 

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 113 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’ve said for a long time now that if Trump had constantly repeated the mantra that he fired James Comey on the recommendation of Rosenstein, there would be no special prosecutor.

    It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller. Are you saying that once Rosenstein learned that Rosenstein was the one who recommended firing Comey, Rosenstein wouldn’t have appointed him?

    (Recall also that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey to provide a reason to appoint Mueller.)

    Eh . . . it’s a nice theory if we had honest people running the show.

    • #31
  2. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I’ve said for a long time now that if Trump had constantly repeated the mantra that he fired James Comey on the recommendation of Rosenstein, there would be no special prosecutor.

    It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller. Are you saying that once Rosenstein learned that Rosenstein was the one who recommended firing Comey, Rosenstein wouldn’t have appointed him?

    (Recall also that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey to provide a reason to appoint Mueller.)

    Eh . . . it’s a nice theory if we had honest people running the show.

    My argument was predicated on the belief that Rosenstein actually drafted his memo unprompted (which is what Woodward reports in his book.) As the rest of my comment makes clear, the Mueller report disputes this.

    If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation may have prompted him to appoint the Special Prosecutor. This was my reasoning behind my repeated statement.  Now, it seems likely that Trump trying to falsely blame Rosenstein for the decision may have prompted Rosenstein to appoint Mueller.  

    • #32
  3. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    In the interview with Byron York this week, Papadopoulos (I call him “Papa D”) categorically denied that what’s described in the above paragraph from the Mueller Report ever happened. 

     * * *

    If Mueller’s still saying, in official documents, that PapaD talked about Russia and emails to Downer, when PapaD and Downer both completely deny that, what else is Mueller lying about?

    Here’s one possibility, from page 5 of Volume I:

    Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact
    with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to
    Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told
    Papadopoulos chat the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands

    of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a
    representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from
    the Russian government that it could assist the Campajgn through the anonymous release of
    information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months
    thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting
    between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

    (italics added)  I don’t think Mifsud has or had any connections to Russia.  That’s likely why – even if Mueller is granted the benefit of doubt that he doesn’t deserve in the rest of his narrative – no meeting took place.

    As Trump’s lawyer John Dowd told Byron York, Mueller knew by Thanksgiving 2017 that he had proved there was no collusion.  By waiting until March of 2019 to send his report to the AG, Mueller affected the 2018 Congressional elections, the consistent theme of which was ORANGE MAN BAD.  Over 50 Republican congressmen chose not to run for reelection in 2018.  So the GOP was forced to run its candidates in a news environment where

    the “Russia Collusion” hoax

    was being perpetrated by

    The Federal Government, in concert with 

    The Mainstream Media, all based on a work of fiction commissioned by

    Hillary Clinton and the DNC,

    without even the benefit of incumbency.

    Historians must report the results of the 2018 Congressional elections with an asterisk.

    • #33
  4. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    (italics added) I don’t think Mifsud has or had any connections to Russia. That’s likely why – even if Mueller is granted the benefit of doubt that he doesn’t deserve in the rest of his narrative – no meeting took place.

    I listened to Byron York’s podcast with Papadopolous yesterday while I was running. There is some stuff in the Mueller report that contradicts Papadopolous’s assertions, but it is still frightening to think that what Papadopolous said is true.

     

    • #34
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I just saw Newt Gingrich on Fox and friends. It’s amazing how much more overt lawbreaking Bill Clinton engaged in over Trump (ZERO). And Mueller’s team was just insanely politically biased. Incredible. 

    The statists are going to take everything over, one way or another. Thank God for the Second Amendment. 

    • #35
  6. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation

    There is zero evidence that Trump said any such thing to the Russians. Your assertion is based on anonymous sources who were not in the room at the time Trump supposedly said this. Multiple people who were in the room, including the secretary of state and the national security advisor, went on the record subsequently to say the news report was false in every regard including the other anonymous allegation that Trump had divulged classified information.

    I believe I’ve already told you this. 

    • #36
  7. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation

    There is zero evidence that Trump said any such thing to the Russians. Your assertion is based on anonymous sources who were not in the room at the time Trump supposedly said this. Multiple people who were in the room, including the secretary of state and the national security advisor, went on the record subsequently to say the news report was false in every regard including the other anonymous allegation that Trump had divulged classified information.

    I believe I’ve already told you this.

    You did. It is referenced in the Mueller report, so I think you are wrong. 

    • #37
  8. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):
    as are pictures of cheerleaders.

    YES!

    • #38
  9. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    @ekentgolding

    Here are your cheerleaders

     

    Image result for male cheerleaders

    • #39
  10. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    @ekentgolding

    Here are your cheerleaders

     

    Image result for male cheerleaders

    Always be careful of what one wishes. I knew that already, but just got reminded.

    • #40
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    @ekentgolding

    Here are your cheerleaders

     

    Image result for male cheerleaders

     

    You are supposed to flag @mikelaroche when you  post cheerleader pics.

     

    • #41
  12. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    @ekentgolding

    Here are your cheerleaders

     

    Image result for male cheerleaders

    I stand corrected.  Brutally and Effectively.  Cheerleaders are not always appropriate.   This is worse than a picture of Sean Hannity.

    • #42
  13. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    Does it seem curious that among members of the political class, it’s only the people who have been lampooned by President Trump who are now calling for his impeachment?

    I’m really enjoying the whole meltdown of this unhinged clique of insiders as they try to summon the simulacra of moral indignation from deep within, but succeed only to reveal the base desire for revenge. They’re the bitter-enders of American politics.

    They don’t have the votes to remove him. Pelosi has said that she’s against it, and the Senate can ignore the House vote. It’s an empty partisan gesture.

    • #43
  14. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    A-Squared (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation

    There is zero evidence that Trump said any such thing to the Russians. Your assertion is based on anonymous sources who were not in the room at the time Trump supposedly said this. Multiple people who were in the room, including the secretary of state and the national security advisor, went on the record subsequently to say the news report was false in every regard including the other anonymous allegation that Trump had divulged classified information.

    I believe I’ve already told you this.

    You did. It is referenced in the Mueller report, so I think you are wrong.

    Mueller quoted the New York Times story, which was attributed to anonymous sources who were not in the room. That Mueller cited the Times story means nothing about its veracity. Mueller also claimed that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Clinton’s emails. If he had evidence that Papa D did in fact say that, why didn’t he charge Papa D with lying? Papa D repeatedly denied during interviews with the FBI and the special counsel that he had said anything of the sort to Downer. 

    Just because Mueller put something in his report doesn’t mean it’s true. He has filled his report with innuendo and half truths, I believe because his real goal was to damage Trump. 

    If he could have put in anything real, like actual crimes, he would have. But he couldn’t, so instead he opted for state-sanctioned libel.

    • #44
  15. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    If Rosenstein believed Trump acted on his advice, then Rosenstein may have concluded Trump telling the Russians that he fired Comey to help with the Russia investigation

    There is zero evidence that Trump said any such thing to the Russians. Your assertion is based on anonymous sources who were not in the room at the time Trump supposedly said this. Multiple people who were in the room, including the secretary of state and the national security advisor, went on the record subsequently to say the news report was false in every regard including the other anonymous allegation that Trump had divulged classified information.

    I believe I’ve already told you this.

    You did. It is referenced in the Mueller report, so I think you are wrong.

    Mueller quoted the New York Times story, which was attributed to anonymous sources who were not in the room. That Mueller cited the Times story means nothing about its veracity. Mueller also claimed that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Clinton’s emails. If he had evidence that Papa D did in fact say that, why didn’t he charge Papa D with lying? Papa D repeatedly denied during interviews with the FBI and the special counsel that he had said anything of the sort to Downer.

    Just because Mueller put something in his report doesn’t mean it’s true. He has filled his report with innuendo and half truths, I believe because his real goal was to damage Trump.

    If he could have put in anything real, like actual crimes, he would have. But he couldn’t, so instead he opted for state-sanctioned libel.

    Mueller also said no one from the administration had denied the story. 

    • #45
  16. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Reading all 448 pages of the Mueller Report can be quite daunting.  Thankfully, there is an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume I: Collusion, and an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.  They are 3, 7, 2 and 6 pages respectively for a total of 18 pages.  I have converted the PDF into Word at http://ricochet.com/615718/the-mueller-report-in-four-summaries/

    If you can’t read the entire 448 pages, I urge you to read the 18 page of summaries.  If you don’t have the time to read the 18 pages of summaries, here are the bottom lines:

    “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  (Executive Summary for Volume I: Collusion.)

    [I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ‘s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Introduction for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)

    “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ‘s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Executive Summary for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)

     

    • #46
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

    This is a political scam that The Founders would abhor.

    @garyrobbins what was the impetus? John Brennon? MI6? The FBI?

    Discuss. 

    • #47
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This was a counter intelligence operation. Run by…

    • #48
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    This was a counter intelligence operation. Run by…

    … and predicated on …

    • #49
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Percival (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    This was a counter intelligence operation. Run by…

    … and predicated on …

    God Bless The Republic. 

    • #50
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Who are counter intelligence operations run for? 

    • #51
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    What was the crime prosecutor Muller was investigating?

    • #52
  23. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Reading all 448 pages of the Mueller Report can be quite daunting. Thankfully, there is an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume I: Collusion, and an Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume II: Obstruction of Justice. They are 3, 7, 2 and 6 pages respectively for a total of 18 pages. I have converted the PDF into Word at http://ricochet.com/615718/the-mueller-report-in-four-summaries/

    If you can’t read the entire 448 pages, I urge you to read the 18 page of summaries. If you don’t have the time to read the 18 pages of summaries, here are the bottom lines:

    “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” (Executive Summary for Volume I: Collusion.)

    [I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ‘s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Introduction for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)

    “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ‘s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Executive Summary for Volume II: Obstruction of Justice.)

    Why do you continue to post this (or something similar) without responding on substance.to the several posts I’ve made on the topic?  I’m tempted to link to them, but that’s more work than I’m willing to do.  I certainly get that you’re entitled to ignore inconvenient opposition, but I sort of thought discussion was the point of Ricochet.

    • #53
  24. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    In the interview with Byron York this week, Papadopoulos (I call him “Papa D”) categorically denied that what’s described in the above paragraph from the Mueller Report ever happened. He said he told Mueller it never happened. If Mueller had evidence that it did happen, and therefore Papa D was lying, why was Papa D not charged with lying about that? Instead they charged him with lying about when he met with Josef Mifsud, who told Papa D that the Russians had Clintons emails.

    Papadopoulos was arrested and charged in October of 2017. His meeting with the Australian diplomat was only revealed by the press in December of 2017. Prior to it being revealed to the public, the FBI’s knowledge that the meeting took place was classified information (footnote 465 of the report), which is why they picked other lies to be the ones presented in court in furtherance of his overall lying-to-the-FBI conviction (footnote 394 of the report uses the phrase “inter alia” for that reason). Adding his lies about the Australian meeting to the charge sheet would not have made a difference to the ultimate sentence. After you’re already proven to have lied many many times throughout your testimony, your fate is already sealed – so why would Mueller want to introduce classified-information-related complications into the trial? Charge him with lies they can demonstrate based on publicly available information and be done with it.

    In general, this desperate belief that it’s all an evil, deep-state action with no justification is absurd. Footnote 465 makes it clear that Papadopoulos’s meeting with the ambassador triggered the investigation. And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Finally, why would you trust anything Papadopoulos says, if he’s a proven and repeat liar?

    • #54
  25. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses? Also, if the FBI thought there might be a few problematic characters in the Trump campaign, why didn’t they tell Trump so he could get rid of them? 

    • #55
  26. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    cdor (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses? Also, if the FBI thought there might be a few problematic characters in the Trump campaign, why didn’t they tell Trump so he could get rid of them?

    You mean like they told Dianne Feinstein that a member of her staff was a Chinese spy? Ah, well … she was only head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.

    • #56
  27. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Percival (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses? Also, if the FBI thought there might be a few problematic characters in the Trump campaign, why didn’t they tell Trump so he could get rid of them?

    You mean like they told Dianne Feinstein that a member of her staff was a Chinese spy? Ah, well … she was only head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.

    Yes , @percival that is exactly what I mean.

    • #57
  28. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    cdor (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses? 

    The FBI was not investigating “the Trump campaign” at this point in time. They were investigating Papadopoulos personally and the people he was connected to. And they were only investigating him because they had a specific reason to investigate him. Unless there’s somebody in the Clinton campaign that was being assisted in clandestine and potentially illegal ways (and the Mueller report says pretty explicitly that the Russian government was supporting Trump, so it would make no sense for that to be the case), there’s nobody there to investigate.

    Also, if the FBI thought there might be a few problematic characters in the Trump campaign, why didn’t they tell Trump so he could get rid of them?

    The FBI doesn’t tend to go around telling people who they’re investigating, regardless of the circumstances. That would just be idiotic. If they’re innocent, you run the risk of smearing somebody’s name for no good reason; if they’re guilty, you run the risk of them hearing about it and destroying evidence/fleeing.

    • #58
  29. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses?

    The FBI was not investigating “the Trump campaign” at this point in time. They were investigating Papadopoulos personally and the people he was connected to. And they were only investigating him because they had a specific reason to investigate him. Unless there’s somebody in the Clinton campaign that was being assisted in clandestine and potentially illegal ways (and the Mueller report says pretty explicitly that the Russian government was supporting Trump, so it would make no sense for that to be the case), there’s nobody there to investigate.

     

    There is no allegation anyone was offering to sell Papadopoulos information.  However, we do not know if Christopher Steele’s contacts were paying their sources in Russian intelligence for the information included in his dossier used to obtain the Carter Page FISA Warrant.  Would you like to know the answer to that question?

    • #59
  30. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):
    And rightly so – if the FBI finds out that the Russian government is digging up opposition research on a political candidate and offering to sell it to the opposing candidate, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to investigate.

    Agreed…I think. So why didn’t the FBI investigate the Clinton campaign? Do you have any guesses?

    The FBI was not investigating “the Trump campaign” at this point in time. They were investigating Papadopoulos personally and the people he was connected to. And they were only investigating him because they had a specific reason to investigate him. Unless there’s somebody in the Clinton campaign that was being assisted in clandestine and potentially illegal ways (and the Mueller report says pretty explicitly that the Russian government was supporting Trump, so it would make no sense for that to be the case), there’s nobody there to investigate.

     

    The question is whether what you assert about Papadopolous is true.  The Mueller report claims the FBI investigation began in late July 2016 after receiving information on statements by P in his meeting with the Australians.  P, whose expertise was in energy issues in the Mediterranean and Middle East, not Russia, becomes a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign in late March.  Shortly thereafter he is contacted by Joseph Mifsud, agrees to meet him and Mifsud tells him the Russians have damaging info on Hillary.  Then, according to P (who was in London), on May 6  he was contacted out of the blue by two US DIA agents stationed there who suggested it would be useful for him to meet with an Australian contact, Erika Thompson, which he did and then as a followup an Australian diplomat (Downer) contacted him to set up a meeting which occurred on May 10. On those same dates, Bill Preistap, a senior FBI official, and boss of Peter Strzok, also happened to be in London.

    Questions:

    Was Mifsud working for the Russians, a Western intelligence service, or a freelancer?

    Is P’s story about being contacted by the DIA agents (whom he names) correct?  If so, why did they reach out to him? 

    Are there tapes or transcripts of P’s conversation with Thompson or Downer?

    Why was Bill Preistap in London on those days?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.