Write Me a Letter, Just Send it by Mail

DOJ Alumni Letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz

DOJ Alumni Statement

Dear Mr. Horowitz:

We write to you as alumni of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”). Collectively, we have served in both career and high-ranking politically-appointed positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Some of us had careers that spanned decades and multiple administrations.

We are deeply concerned about the Department’s actions, and those of Attorney General William Barr himself, in response to the nationwide lawful gatherings to protest the systemic racism that has plagued this country throughout its history, recently exemplified by the brutal killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by sworn law enforcement officers acting under the color of law. These unjustified killings are anathema to the fair administration of justice, and have rightly outraged Americans of all races and political persuasions, many of whom have chosen to exercise their First Amendment rights through public protest. In particular, we are disturbed by Attorney General Barr’s possible role in ordering law enforcement personnel to suppress a peaceful domestic protest in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, for the purpose of enabling President Trump to walk across the street from the White House and stage a photo op at St. John’s Church, a politically motivated event in which Attorney General Barr participated.

While the full scope of the Attorney General’s role is not yet clear, he has admitted that he was present in front of the White House before law enforcement personnel took action to disperse the crowd. Department of Justice and White House personnel initially said that the Attorney General gave an order to law enforcement personnel to “get going” or “get it done.” A day later, the Attorney General told the Associated Press that he was “not involved in giving tactical commands.” If the Attorney General issued orders to officers of a variety of federal agencies, including U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. National Guard, and U.S. Military Police, it is unclear under what purported authority he did so. After the order was given, and before the start of a city-imposed curfew, federal law enforcement officers in riot gear reportedly fired rubber bullets, chemical gassmoke canisters, and stun grenades at peaceful protesters, and otherwise used excessive force, physically injuring many people, including journalists and an Episcopal priest who had come to give food and water to the protestors. Based on what we now know, these actions violated both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press, and the right to assemble; and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures, to include objectively unreasonable uses of force by law enforcement officers. None of us would ever have considered directing or engaging in such actions to be consistent with our oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

We are also disturbed by the Attorney General’s deployment of federal law enforcement officers throughout the country, and especially within the District of Columbia, to participate in quelling lawful First Amendment activity. According to a Department press release, participating personnel include officers and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Marshals Service. We have profound doubts that the personnel deployed from these agencies are adequately trained in policing mass protests or protecting the constitutional rights of individuals who are not subject to arrest or have not been convicted of a crime. Moreover, reports from witnesses indicate that federal officers were blocking streets, guarding buildings, and interacting with civilians without displaying or otherwise providing identification, even when asked to do so by peaceful protestors. Accountability requires law enforcement personnel to identify themselves and be identifiable. Especially in view of the events in Lafayette Square, we have no assurance that these officers are lawfully deployed, that they will respect the rights of the civilians they encounter, or that there are proper mechanisms in place to identify and investigate possible law enforcement misconduct

For all of these reasons, we are asking you to immediately open and conduct an investigation of the full scope of the Attorney General’s and the DOJ’s role in these events. The rule of law, the maintenance of the Department’s integrity, and the very safety of our citizens demand nothing less. The Office of the Inspector General has the authority and the independence to conduct this investigation in a manner that will credibly probe the actions of the Attorney General and other DOJ employees. If the Attorney General or any other DOJ employee has directly participated in actions that have deprived Americans of their constitutional rights or that physically injured Americans lawfully exercising their rights, that would be misconduct of the utmost seriousness, the details of which must be shared with the American people.

Thank you for your consideration.

(If you are a former DOJ employee and would like to add your name to this statement, please complete this formProtect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories until June 24th.)

Attorney General Barr Would Like You to Know that His Rear End is Covered in a Triple Layer of that Proverbial Metallic Substance

protect your ass

New York Times, Trump Offered Ukrainian president Justice Dept. help for Biden investigation, memo shows:

In a statement, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the Justice Department’s criminal division “reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.”

“All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion, and the Department has concluded the matter,” Kupec said.

Kupec also said Trump had never spoken with Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything related to former Vice President Biden or his son,” nor had Barr talked about “anything related to Ukraine” with Giuliani.

Bizarre Barr

it would be nice

The best way to find out what is in a document is to read it. I will probably try to read the whole Mueller report, but I haven’t yet had the time to do so. (Writing this blog is a hobby of mine, not a job, so I didn’t “pull an all-nighter.”)

If you want to read it for yourself, you can download it here. Or you can buy it on Amazon, inasmuch as there is no copyright in works of the United States government.

Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours an ocean of ink has been spilled by commentators commenting on Barr’s bizarre performance yesterday morning. I recommend, for example, the generally reliable Jonathan Chait, who nicely described the differences between the truth and what Barr said, in his post titled Congress Should Impeach William Barr.

But Chait thinks Barr’s toadyism is straightforward. By contrast, over at The Bulwark (Bill Kristol’s hideout) a post headlined No Honorable Middle Ground for Barr comes closer to the truth as I see it. Barr has learned from people like Jim Mattis and John Kelly that you cannot work for Trump while trying to preserve your personal integrity. If you try to do that, he will fire your ass on twitter.

That leaves the choice: either don’t work for Trump in the first place, or work for Trump and go full toady. OR AT LEAST PRETEND TO GO FULL TOADY.

So what happened yesterday? What happened was that in the morning Barr gave a news conference where he told lie after lie, see Chait, supra, and then, two hours later, released a redacted but still very meaty Mueller report that clearly revealed the mendacious nature of the morning news conference.

And just who was Barr trying to fool? I submit that he was trying to fool the one person in the country most likely to be taken in by this charade, to wit, one Donald J. Trump.

If Barr were an actual compeat today, then I think he would have redacted a lot more than he did react.

But you don’t have to take it from me. If Barr is an actual Trump toady, then he will shut down or obstruct the 14 still on-going investigations of Trump and his world, notably the federal investigation in the Manhattan district attorney’s office. That way, he can have the honor of occupying the same jail cell occupied by his illustrious predecessor John Mitchell.

But if Barr is only a pretend toady, he will let the investigations go forward while continuing to hop up and down yelling “no collusion”—until such time as Trump’s lizard brainf inally gets the message that he is being taken for a ride.

Barely Plausible


Plainly, William Barr lobbied to become attorney general for the second time in his career. I can think of four at-least-barely-plausible hypotheses about why Barr might have sought his current position:

  1. the customary mixture of resume enhancement, personal ambition, public service, and intellectual interest in the issues within the purview of the office
  2. because he had drunk the Trump Kool-Aid, had joined the Cult of Trump, and wanted, above all else, to be Trump’s toady
  3. because he wanted to protect the interests of the monied establishment by keeping Trump in office, by hook or by crook, and then getting him reelected in 2020, or
  4. because he wanted to protect the interests of the monied establishment by easing Trump from office—probably through a deal to get him to resign in exchange for immunity from criminal liability—and inaugurate the more pliable and predictable President Pence.

When he became attorney general, Barr was at the end of a long, prestigious, and highly lucrative career. He had no need to enhance his resume. His personal ambition had long since been satisfied. Hypothesis one is barely plausible but highly unlikely.

In the wake of the four-page Mueller report “summary,” many are leaping to hypothesis two. They may be right.

But Barr’s confirmation testimony was not what would expect from a Trump cultist. Nor, in my view, is the June 2018 Barr memo or the March 2019 Barr letter the work of a Trump cultist. Rather, each is the work of a very careful legal draftsman who seemed to seek the approval of a Trump cultists and highly superficial readers—such as Trump himself.

That disposes of hypothesis two. We are left to choose between three and four.

By the application of logic to the known facts, I’m still going with four.

In fact, I think it’s entirely possible that Barr wrote the four-page “summary” in a way that was intended to bring on a Trump “vindication” overreach that will backfire when the Mueller report is released.

That’s Machiavellian thinking.

Barr made a great deal of money in his career. And, to make that money, he did a whole heap ‘o Machiavellian thinking.

The Plot Thickens

plot thickens

The Postulated Plot

I have previously argued these interrelated points. First, William P. Barr did not come to Washington to fall on his sword for Donald Trump—or to occupy the same jail cell where Nixon’s attorney general severed 19 months.

I have also argued that, in the current situation, and given his economic and professional circumstances, William P. Barr likewise did not come to Washington to serve for a second time as attorney general, out of a mere abstract interest in doing good and serving justice.

I have argued that William P. Barr is a man with a plan; that that plan is, most probably, to get Donald Trump out of office with a Spiro Agnew style immunity agreement; and that this postulated plot was most probably organized at Barr’s law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.

The Postulated Plot Progresses

Today’s news is that William P. Barr has persuaded The Donald to nominate, as his deputy, to succeed Rod Rosenstein, one Jeffry Rosen, who is currently the Deputy Secretary of Transportation—serving, by the way, under the Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao, wife of Mitch McConnell.

And what was Mr. Rosen doing prior to his service in the Transportation Department?

Mr. Rosen was senior partner at, you guessed it, Kirkland & Ellis.

The boys and girls at Kirland have a tendency to be too clever by half. But, even so, they are damn fine lawyers. And not about to have a prolonged stay in the hoosegaw for obstructing justice.

Watch this channel for further developments. I think The Donald is being thoroughly snookered and that his goose is about to be well and truly cooked.


Happy National Emergency Day

word meaning

Will the courts—and, in particular, the Supreme Court—uphold Trump’s purported use of his powers under the National Emergencies Act of 1976? Like many legal questions, the issue is, at one and the same time, both complex and simple. And, if you wish to gain a basic understanding of the relevant legal reasoning—as opposed to emoting and bloviating about it—then you need to grasp both the complexity and the simplicity of the matter.

Here, the complexities involve constitutional law, identification of all the relevant statutes, interpretation of the pertinent statutes (including a fair amount of case law), and a lot of theological reasoning about who would, and who would not, have “standing” to appear in court as a plaintiff to challenge Trump’s actions. For a quick summary, I recommend yesterday’s post from the Journal of the American Bar Association, Can Trump legally use emergency powers to build a border wall? Experts weigh in.

My sense is that the good folks at the ABA Journal have gone a little bit out of their way to find Trump-friendly legal experts to pontificate on all these legal complexities. But, if you actually want to understand a legal issue, then you need to begin by wrapping your mind around your adversary’s best arguments (or his least bad arguments, as the case may be).

Now for the fundamental, simple issues.

The Humpty Dumpty Rule of Statutory Interpretation

In 1976, Congress made a considered decision not to include language defining “emergency” in the National Emergencies Act. Trump appears to reason that Congress thus made him a presidential Humpty Dumpty, with the power to define the term any way he wants to define the term.

Trump did not go to law school. If he had done so, then he would have learned that if you want to know what a word in a statute means, then—absent a specific statutory definition—you look to the dictionary, and then you consider what the dictionary says in light of public policy. In other words, your legal analysis must be informed by an understanding of what problem Congress thought it was addressing when it enacted the statute.

Merriam-Webster says “emergency” means “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action” or “an urgent need for assistance or relief.”

In context, the argument is that a national emergency justifying extraordinary presidential action means a situation demanding immediate action, that Congress did not foresee and provide for, or that Congress does not have time to consider and provide for.

A Rational Relation Between the Perceived Emergency and the Presidential Action

Reports this morning are that Trump intends to divert $2.5 billion from current drug interdiction problems, in order to build a wall that will not stop drugs from entering the country.

Does the President not only possess Humpty-Dumpty-like powers to define words, but also the power to act irrationally in addressing the perceived problem that he chooses to call a “national emergency”? That would be surprising.

The Legal Significance of Congressional Consideration and Action

Here, the country has debated, and Congress has considered. the question of a border wall at great length. Having duly considered the matter, both houses of Congress have enacted legislation addressing the topic.

Even if the President might be deemed to possess the powers of Humpty Dumpty in other circumstances, does his power extend to a situation where Congress has fully considered and resolved the matter, and he is unhappy with the result?

Trump Loyalty Versus Logic, Precedent, and Public Policy

A Trump loyalist would find a way to rule for Trump. But that would create a precedent for a fundamental change in our constitutional order.

I have no idea what Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas will say on this topic. I do not believe that John Roberts will render a decision favoring the Cult of Trump.

Be we shall see what we shall see.

Legal Sabotage, Anyone?

And one more thing.

It will also be interesting to see how our new attorney general will handle the matter. Perhaps he, too, has joined the Cult of Trump. But, as I have said before, I doubt it.

One option for him in supervising the legal defense of the national emergency declaration would be to ensure that the legal briefs supporting Trump are so badly written as to sabotage the case. And, by the way, that could easily be done by employing language that Trump himself would love!

We shall see what we shall see.

Trump’s Pecker in Trouble Again

Bezos Pecker

The headline pretty much sums up the situation, I think.

Meanwhile, permit my indulgence this afternoon in some confirmation bias.

For some time my intuition has been that Matthew Whitaker—lightweight, amoral, opportunistic, bottom feeder though he may be—is also a terrified, self-preserving bottom feeder

As I predicted, his terror and minimal sense of self=preservation seem to have stopped him from interfering with the Mueller investigation. Based on today’s hearing’s, Paul Waldman shares my view, and concludes, Whitaker hearing confirms it: On Mueller probe, Democrats have already won.

And, by the way, Mr. Whitaker’s days of public service are soon coming to an end, permitting him to retire into that deep obscurity that he so richly merits. Soon, William Barr will replace him as attorney general. Please let the record reflect my continued view that Mr. Barr—who is also an opportunist, though surely not a bottom feeder—is a Man with a Plan. And that plan is not to save Donald J. Trump.

Theodore Roosevelt Steering a Ship

What is Barr’s Game?

William Barr

We have had the hearings, we have read the July Barr memo, we have digested the information. Here is my quick take, for what it is worth. I wish I had time to develop these thoughts more fully, but life intervenes. So please let me just make some shorthand points.

One. It is obvious even to those of the meanest intelligence that Barr sought the job of Attorney General. When he says that the job sought him, he is fibbin’.

Two. There are many, highly persuasive reasons why someone of his ilk would not have wanted the job—at this time, in these circumstances.

Three. If follows ineluctably from points one and two that Barr is coming to Washington with a mission. I am sure that he cares about issues that normal attorney generals in normal times care about: mass incarceration, immigration enforcement, the finer points of antitrust theory. But common sense would tell us that his concern about such matters is not a motivating factor.

Four. So what might that mission be?

Conceivably, it might be to protect Donald J. Trump at all costs. But there are multiple reasons to reject that supposition.

Conceivably, his secret mission might be to ensure that Donald J. Trump is screwed, blued, and tattooed, in the impeachment process.

But, in my view, it remains much more likely that William Barr, Esquire, has come to Washington to get Donald J. Trump offstage, through a Spiro Agnew-type agreement to resign from office in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

William Barr, Esquire, is the kind of person whose overarching mission in life is to do the bidding of the plutocracy. And the plutocracy—for its own amoral, financially motivated reasons—is sick and tired of the horseshit.


I am gestating a post to be entitled, “I Read the Barr Memo, So You Don’t Have To.” Hope to get it done early next week.

The Cat That Ate the Canary

the cat that ate the canary

The Mother of All Straw Men

Speaking of William Barr’s infamous legal memo on presidential power, Jennifer Rubin—who is beginning to get a corner of the puzzle—writes,

Barr set up the mother of all strawmen. If you wanted to preen and audition for the AG job, you’d write a memo based on a narrow set of hypothetical facts that bore no resemblance to the facts at issue and could be distinguished from the actual fact pattern. If the investigation was not premised on Comey’s firing alone but on an entire fact pattern, including witness-tampering and lying to investigators, hypothetically, Mueller wouldn’t be relying on the facts and theory Barr set out. Barr could grandstand and audition for the job, without actually tying his hands.

William P. Barr, Esquire, along with his handlers and confederates think they are being very clever. Indeed, they are. Too clever by half.

As I said before, just exactly the sort of thing you would expect from the folks at Kirkland & Ellis, who are convinced they are cuter than Bambi.

I believe Ms. Rubin has accurately reverse engineered Barr’s Machiavellian strategy for attaining the office of Attorney General. She does not address why Barr might want to occupy that office, at this perilous time. But, as I have said, I believe I have figured it out.

Where, O Where, Has Matt Whitaker Gone?

Feds Investigating Trump Inauguration for Alleged Bribery and Embezzlement

President Trump is facing so many criminal investigations it’s difficult to keep track of them all. The latest, revealed late Thursday by The Wall Street Journal, is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan is probing Trump’s Inauguration. The investigation reportedly centers on two alleged crimes: embezzlement and trading money for favors.

If the Acting Attorney General wants to protect Trump from the investigators, he’s really doing a piss-poor job of it, isn’t he?

The Spiro Agnew Solution

Spiro Agnew, facing deep legal doodoo, made a deal in 1973 to resign from office in exchange for no prosecution for bribery and related offenses.

The new House may or may not impeach Trump. Even if they do impeach him, at this point it looks as the Senate would not convict him and remove him from office.

Prosecutors may or may not try to indict Trump while he is in office. If they do try, then whoever is running the Justice Department may not let them bring an indictment.

These are risks, but the biggest risk of all is that Trump loses reelection in 2020, and that on January 21, 2021, he’s hit with sixty-‘leven criminal indictments.

If my name were Donald J. Trump, the Spiro Agnew option would begin to be looking mighty good right about now.

Implementing the Spiro Agnew Solution

Continuing the speculation laid out in prior posts, I think that William P. Barr, Esquire, is coming to Washington to get that deal done.

A Mystery Barr None

William Barr

Trump has blasted Mueller’s team for political donations. But attorney general nominee William P. Barr has given more than $500,000.

How Trump’s Next Attorney General Could Derail the Mueller Probe: In 1992, William Barr recommended pardons that some saw as a cover-up to protect the president. Critics fear more of the same if he’s confirmed.

No one wants to be Trump’s chief of staff. For much the same reason, logically, no one—especially, no one qualified for the job—should want to be Trump’s next Attorney General. Yet William P. Barr, Esquire, himself a former Attorney General, aspires to the position.

In a previous post, I argued that there is something wrong with this picture. I argued that William P. Barr, Esquire, has something up his sleeve.

As to what he has up his sleeve: logic would tell us that it’s either a plan to protect Trump, or a plan to ease him out of the way in favor of President Pence. So which is it?

The Politico article, cited above, has lots of interesting information and makes the case, sort of, that Barr, who helped George H.W. Bush pardon his way out of the Iran-Contra scandal, is here now to reprise his act and get Donald Trump off the hook.

All that might be true. And if it is true, then I will have been proven wrong in my suspicions. But I don’t think so.

Unlike a senatorial empty suit—take John Kyle as a good example—Barr is not a modestly affluent spokesman for the rich and powerful, i.e., a well-paid towel boy in the brothel. No, William P. Barr, Esquire, has risen to become part of the rich and powerful, the kind of people who get the John Kyle’s of the world to do their bidding.

Together, Mr. Barr and his wife, a homemaker, have given about three quarters of a million dollars to Republican candidates. Clearly, they have lots of money. They do not need the Attorney General’s salary, which turns out to be $205,700 per annum.

In 2016, Barr gave the Trump campaign $2,700. Chump change to buy a seat at the table, if needed. But before that, he had given $55,000 to Jeb Bush’s political action committee.

On the evidence, Barr is an establishment guy, not a Trump guy.

And what about the fact, emphasized in the Politico article, that Barr has had negative things to say about the Mueller investigation?

Well, you could take that information at face value.

Or you could speculate that was all part of a long simmering plot to inveigle Trump into embracing someone whose mission in life would be to consign Trump to the dustbin of history.

Plutocratic Puppeteers Probably Plot

William Barr

Who is this man, and why does he have that shit-eating grin on his face?

His name is William P. Barr, and I do not know the source of his shit-eating grin, but this will not prevent me from engaging in some rank speculation.

Mr. Barr, whom Trump recently nominated to be Attorney General, has worked for the CIA, was a Republican political operative, and served as Attorney General from 1991 to 1993. During his time at the Justice Department he was known for his management skill and for his dexterity in dealing with scandals.

After Bush the Elder lost to Clinton, Barr served as Vice President and General Counsel of GTE Corporation, and subsequently held the same positions at Verizon. Following his retirement from Verizon in 2008, at the age of 58, he was briefly Of Counsel to Kirkland & Ellis.[1] After that brief stent in big firm practice—K&E’s current home page modestly advises us, “The American Lawyer Honors Kirkland as Best Law Firm of the Year”—Barr apparently spent the next nine years advising corporations as a solo practitioner, serving on corporate boards, doing charitable works, and generally enjoying his wealth and position.

In 2017, at the age of 67, Barr returned to K&E, again in an Of Counsel capacity.[2] And there he remains, awaiting his confirmation as the once and future Attorney General.

Now let us pose some questions.

Why didn’t K&E make him a partner in 2009, and why did he leave K&E?

These are mildly interesting questions. And of course I don’t know the answers. As to the first, though one would think he would have had all the credentials for a partnership, maybe he only wanted to work part time and worked out a lucrative deal that would allow him to do what he wanted to do, from a perch at Kirkland & Ellis.

And why did he leave after a short time? Maybe because they wouldn’t make him a partner.

And/or maybe because being a Kirkland & Ellis lawyer is just more fun than a human being can stand. If so, I feel his pain.

Why did Barr return to K&E in 2017, again as Of Counsel?

This, I think, is a much more interesting question. Surely, it was not for the prestige, because his new position added not one whit to his stature. Possibly, for the money, though I very much doubt it. Possibly because he was bored at home, and wanted to be able to eat lunch with a bunch of lawyers every day in the big dining room.

These are possibilities, but none of them seems persuasive. I think there must have been something else afoot.

Five Distinguishing Characteristics

Let us consider the distinguishing characteristics of William P. Bar, Esquire. I wish to draw your attention to five of them.

(1) He is as well connected in high level corporate, legal, and Republican political circles as any other person in these United States.

He is, in short, very much in with the in crowd: the plutocratic puppeteers who exercise lordship over us.

(2) He has a demonstrated track record as Mr. Fixit.

(3) He has, in the past, said things about expansive presidential power, and about Donald Trump, that Donald Trump would like to hear said.

(4) He has unquestioned credentials to be Attorney General of the United States, and everyone thinks he could easily be confirmed.

(5) And most importantly of all, unlike others, he appears willing and even eager to serve as Attorney General under Donald J. Trump.

And, be it said, he wants the job when others are skedaddling away as fast as their legs can carry them—despite any discernible reason why his thinking on that score would be different from others.

I do not believe there is any other human being who has all five of these characteristics.

An Inferred Plot

Right now, the plutocratic puppeteers have their tits in a ringer. Donald Trump, whom they thought was a useful idiot, has shown that his idiocy far outweighs his utility. The traditional Republican coalition is splitting apart. Progressive ideas are on the march. The plutocrats are essentially without a political home. Their agenda is in grave peril.

Their one hope is somehow, by hook or by crook, to get The Donald out of the White House, to insert Pious Pence in his place, and to reassemble the pieces of the coalition in time for 2020.

I have no knowledge of any plot to achieve these ends.

I infer such a plot.

I think it has to be there.

And since it has to be there, I infer that it is there.

The Linchpin of the Inferred Plot

One figure above all others would be key to my inferred plot to get rid of Donald Trump.

You guessed it.

That would be the Attorney General.

In short, I think that, in selecting William Barr as his next Attorney General, Donald Trump has been played, bigly.

And that, my children, is why I think William P. Barr, Esq., has that shit-eating grin on his face.

[1] An “Of Counsel” to a law firm is a high level legal employee of the firm, but not a partner of the firm. Sometimes, the title is given to an employee who has special skills and whom the firm wishes to retain on a permanent basis, but who would not cut the mustard as a partner. Sometimes, a person of the highest credentials who only wants to work part time might be named “Of Counsel.” Or, the title might be given to one who would be qualified for partner but for his advanced age. Other circumstances could apply.

[2] Info from Barr’s Wikipedia page and his K&E bio page.