Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
To Readers in Colorado: Congratulations on the Denver Nuggets' first-ever NBA championship.
To All Readers: We've had numerous reports that the site isn't properly viewable on phones anymore. We didn't change anything, but we've done some testing, and the problem appears to be with Android phones running Chrome. Since it's not our coding, there isn't much we can do to fix it. However, we do have a mobile version of the site (see the phone icon just to the right of Florida, immediately above this text). Alternatively, it appears to still work correctly in Firefox for Android.
Here Comes the Arraigned Again
Feel free to channel Eurythmics as you read today's headline. As everyone knows at this point, Donald Trump will be in court today to be arraigned in the documents case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Naturally, this story is dominating the news. So, we're going to run down the main storylines from Monday.
To start, Aileen Cannon may already be the most famous trial judge in America since Lance Ito. The New York Times has learned that she was randomly assigned to the case, and that there are currently no plans to replace her with someone else. Given her standing-on-her-head, Trump friendly rulings earlier in this case, there is now a cottage industry in thought pieces about how she could wreck the whole case if that is what she is determined to do (see here here, here, and here, for examples).
That said, we've already observed that it's too soon to reach conclusions. Cannon may well recuse herself, either at the "suggestion" of Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga, or of her own volition. If she keeps the case, she may work to keep her nose clean, knowing that the eyes of the world and of the judicial establishment are upon her. After all, as someone in her early 40s, she undoubtedly aspires to climb the rungs of the federal judicial ladder. And if she's got a reputation as the most lawless judge in the federal system, that won't be so easy to do. Unless, of course, she helps Trump dodge the bullet and he wins the election and appoints her to the Eleventh Circuit Court. That's a big gamble, though.
Alternatively, as Norman L. Eisen, Richard W. Painter, and Fred Wertheimer, writing for Slate, point out, there are ways Cannon could be removed from the case involuntarily. Altonaga could reassign the case, or federal prosecutors could ask the Eleventh Circuit to step in and remove her, either before the case or after she makes a dubious ruling. In the end, there are significant reasons Cannon should not be on the case. Further, nearly all judges are worried about maintaining the courts' reputation for fairness, and as many have pointed out this weekend, there is literally no outcome in this case that doesn't have tens of millions of people questioning Cannon's integrity.
One other thing worth pointing out is that Cannon sits in Ft. Pierce, FL. It is possible that Altonaga, federal prosecutors, or the U.S.S.S. could move that the trial be moved to Miami (about 120 miles south), either due to ease of access (there are far more flights to Miami than to Ft. Pierce) or for security reasons. Such a request might be legitimate, or it might be a means of giving Cannon an "out" wherein the storyline isn't "Cannon is too untrustworthy to handle this case."
Moving along, David Aaron is a former federal prosecutor. Writing for Just Security, he decided to have some fun (?) and try to figure out how many years in prison Donald Trump is actually facing. Naturally, there are a lot of X-factors here, including how many charges Trump might be convicted on, which of those charges he's convicted on, whether he's deemed to have had a "leadership role" in the scheme, whether he engaged in obstruction, and whether he takes responsibility for his behavior. There's also the rather large question of whether any penalties would be served concurrently or consecutively.
You can read the whole analysis for yourself, if you wish, but the executive summary is that if he gets popped on the 31 most serious counts, and every aggravating factor goes against him, he's looking at something like 22 years per count. If he gets popped on the least serious counts, and every mitigating factor goes for him, he's looking at something like 3 years per count. In other words, even at the lower end, he's playing with fire. And at the higher end, well, it basically doesn't matter if the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, as either alternative would produce the same basic outcome.
In addition to the mechanics of the case, there were also developments on the political front. As you will recall, nearly the entire GOP primary field greeted the news of the indictments with some variant of "I'm disgusted that the DoJ is being weaponized in order to persecute an innocent man." That includes Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). It would seem that duo has had a (partial) change of heart.
Haley, for her part, is basically trying to have it both ways. She appeared on Fox (naturally), and reiterated that the FBI and the DoJ have "lost all credibility with the American people." Then she immediately turned around and decreed: "If this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case, President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security." We are confused. If the indictment is the work of the DoJ, and the DoJ no longer has any credibility, then how could the indictment possibly be true?
Scott is also trying to have it both ways, although he's ever so slightly less clumsy about it than Haley. His view, expressed at campaign events over the weekend, is that there's a "double standard" when it comes to Republicans/Democrats and the justice system, but that "this case is a serious case with serious allegations." Again, we are confused. Either the case is serious and Trump is rightly being held to account, or it's not and he's being treated unfairly. We suspect that Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), all of whom have been convicted of crimes in the last decade, would be able to give some insight as to whether or not the DoJ only goes after Republicans.
What is behind Haley's and Scott's mealy-mouthed flip-floppery? Maybe it's something in the water in South Carolina. After all, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the king of this sort of chameleonry—changing one's colors on a dime, and in such an obvious and ham-fisted manner. However, we suspect the explanation is that the wannabe presidents have seen some of the polls that came out this weekend. For example, this one from CBS News that reveals that just 38% of Republican primary voters think Trump's keeping the documents was a national security risk, whereas 80% of the rest of the country feels that way. Obviously, you need the Republican primary voters to get the nomination if you're Haley/Scott, and you need some meaningful portion of the rest of the country to win the presidency, which leaves these would-be GOP presidents trying to accommodate two radically different points of view on this issue. We do not think they will be successful.
And that's the way it is. Trump will be in court today at 3:00 p.m. ET; undoubtedly, whatever happens, that story will be our lead item tomorrow. (Z)
The Florida Case against Trump Is Not a Slam Dunk
The federal case against Donald Trump is ironclad. He took secret defense documents belonging to the U.S. government to an insecure location and when asked to return them, hid them and lied about it. Repeatedly. Then when the FBI got a judge to issue a search warrant, the FBI found 300 documents Trump denied having. Open-and-shut case, no?
Maybe not. What matters is not whether Trump committed 37 crimes. What matters is what a Florida jury wants to do about it. There is a bit of history about Florida trials that might be relevant here. Last month, a Florida federal jury acquitted former Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum of lying to the FBI and deadlocked on other charges, despite plenty of evidence. Eventually, the feds gave up on nailing Gillum.
Florida criminal defense attorney Rob Mandell said: "When you're talking about elected officials in Florida, your jury pool is made up of the people who voted for those people." Then he added: "We're a red state and you're getting red jurors. And they can't see past red." That doesn't mean the feds always lose in Florida. Joel Greenberg, the former buddy of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), was sentenced to 11 years behind bars for a whole list of crimes, including sex trafficking a minor. But Greenberg was a small fish and even Republican jurors don't like people guilty of sex trafficking minors. In fact, Republican jurors especially don't like people guilty of sex trafficking minors.
Here are some examples of medium-sized fish who got away. Former Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina (R) and his wife were accused of not paying taxes on $2 million in income. Despite evidence of the crime, they were acquitted. Three months later, former Miami Lakes Mayor Michael Pizzi (R) was tried for accepting thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for helping the bribers (undercover federal agents) get federal grants. Not only was Pizzi acquitted, but the judge said that Miami Lakes had to pay Pizzi's legal fees of $3.5 million. An earlier Hialeah mayor, Raúl L. Martínez (D), was indicted for conspiracy. He was acquitted. The jury also deadlocked on five racketeering charges.
A somewhat different case is that of former representative Corrine Brown (making her second appearance in today's posting). She served in the U.S. House from 1993 to 2017. Then she served in the big house. An appeals court ruled that she was entitled to a new trial because the judge made a mistake and incorrectly removed one juror. The DoJ dropped all charges but one, and she pleaded guilty to that one charge.
Finally, in state court, former Hialeah Gardens Mayor Gilda Oliveros (R) was convicted of plotting to murder her husband and also forcing city workers to change their address so they could vote for her. An appeals court overturned the murder-for-hire charge due to inadmissible evidence being admitted. The other charge conviction was not overturned.
We do not know exactly what is going on in Hialeah, and what it is that makes so many mayors there turn to the dark side. We do know that Hialeah mayors do not have the kind of rabid supporters that Donald Trump has and yet, despite solid evidence against them, juries refused to convict them. In the case of Donald Trump, everything depends on how well the voir dire process works and whether any Trump-or-bust people secretly make it onto the jury. Here, a lot depends on the judge and what kinds of questions the judge allows. Also, what matters is whether the questions are given to the potential jurors in writing and they respond in writing or whether they have to answer live in front of the lawyers. Experienced lawyers can tell a lot about a potential juror just by looking at him or her and seeing how that person reacts to questions. That information is missing in a written voir dire.
All of this said, it is also worth noting that 23 randomly chosen residents of South Florida on the grand jury, undoubtedly including a least a few Trump supporters, charged him with 37 felonies. So maybe when the evidence is overwhelming, even Trump supporters will turn on him. (V)
I, The Jury, Part I: Overqualified!
On Saturday, we asked readers who have served on juries, and who think their experience might be instructive, to share their stories. We got quite a lot of good responses. And many of those responses are too long to really fit in the context of the Saturday reader question of the week.
So, we have read through the responses, selected a bunch of them, and organized them in a manner that we think will highlight some useful things about the process. Up today, some letters that remind us that the courts don't like jurors who know too much:
D.B. in Winston-Salem, NC, writes: I was called to jury duty twice.
During the questioning, I was asked about advanced degrees. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics.
I was rejected.
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I was called to serve on a jury in Boston when I was on the faculty of a college there. The case dealt with a person on trial for drunk driving, and the defendant's attorney had me dismissed from the jury. Based on what I was told at the time, I was dismissed from the jury because I had earned a Ph.D. and/or because my advanced degree was in biology. The implication was that the defense did not want someone on the jury who had a demonstrated ability to think analytically and/or someone on the jury who might understand the effect of alcohol on a person's physiology or mental faculties. That was the only time in my 72 years that I have been called to perform that particular public service. I wish I had actually had the full experience so that I could give you a better answer.
A.G. in Bensalem, PA, writes: This year was the first time I received a summons to serve on a jury. I answered the questions honestly, but one I think disqualified me. I don't read books and articles as much as I should. I answered that I hadn't read much since I read Supreme Court opinions last June. I can name all nine justices by seniority, which is easy because I had all the presidents down by fifth grade. In 1987, I served as a graduate teaching assistant in a prelaw course, and I wanted to keep up with the Supreme Court. I usually try to abstract the arguments before I spout an opinion online.
D.H. in Eugene, OR, writes: Shortly after graduating from law school, I was selected to be on a grand jury. It was an unpleasant experience because the prosecutors were clearly not interested in somebody who was unwilling to rubber stamp their indictments. To be clear, I was not anti-police or anti-prosecutor. I just expected a legit grand jury process. But just asking for a copy of the statute book or asking questions about the elements of the crime got me dirty looks. They really did not like when I pushed back on their efforts to charge a more serious crime to give the prosecutors negotiating leverage for plea deals. Rumors of trouble on the grand jury got back to my wife, who was serving as a judicial clerk in the same courthouse. I ended up leaving the grand jury early.
J.S. in Durham, NC, writes: I have never been on a jury. However, the one time that I was in a jury pool and got to the point of being questioned by the attorneys, as soon as they found out that I was a clinical social worker, they excused me from the jury pool.
What I assumed this meant is that, since clinical social workers or therapists help people reframe issues in their lives, attorneys do not want people who know how to think of things from a different perspective. Not really a surprise. But I found it interesting nonetheless.
Up tomorrow will be some reader thoughts on voir dire. We still have thoughts on abortion and on foreign leaders to run, but the jury content is more timely, so we'll hold the other material a bit. (Z)
Freedom Caucus Ends Rebellion... for Now
As we noted a couple of times, the House Freedom Caucusers (FCers) pitched a fit last week and kept the House from conducting any real business. The only thing scheduled was votes on a bunch of show bills, so it's not like the country missed out on some great legislative achievement. Nonetheless, it was embarrassing for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), as everyone and their brother (including us) noted that a speaker hadn't had something like this happen in more than 20 years, and it once again raised questions about how well McCarthy is actually going to be able to herd his cats.
Yesterday, the Speaker and the FCers had a sit down and allegedly hashed their differences out. Well, they hashed things out to the point that the House will be able to once again resume voting on show bills. After the meeting, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said: "Here's what everyone understood: the power sharing agreement that we entered into in January with Speaker McCarthy must be renegotiated and he understood that we understood that." The Representative also said that if these "renegotiations" are not successful, "then perhaps we'll be back here next week."
If we said we had any idea what this all means, we would be lying. McCarthy and the FCers don't especially trust each other, and it's somewhat unlikely that "well, we'll figure it out eventually" would be enough to resolve the current "crisis." At the same time, the two sides already have an established tradition of reaching secret agreements, which may or may not be written down, and which may or may not be revealed to the other members of the Republican conference. We therefore assume that some specific concession was granted at that meeting yesterday. Maybe multiple concessions. Perhaps we'll learn in the next few weeks if we are right, and if so, what McCarthy gave up. (Z)
Blumenthal Has Some Questions for the PGA
This is our second golf item in as many weeks. That's roughly two more than we'd really prefer to write, but we go where the news takes us.
As we noted in the previous item about the LIV Golf-PGA merger, the Saudis have very clearly purchased themselves an "in" into American culture. Men's golf does not reach all Americans, or even most of them, but it does reach a demographic that is overwhelmingly white, conservative, male and well-to-do. How the Saudis might leverage that demo, we don't know, but there must be a plan there.
It turns out we are not the only ones who think this way. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) took a sniff, sniff of the deal, and he definitely does not like the odor emanating from the whole thing. So, he has written a letter to the PGA and a letter to LIV Golf demanding some answers. The Senator, for example, declares:
[Public Investment Fund] is an investment fund of more than $700 billion created by the Saudi government and run by a board that makes investment decisions under "the chairmanship and guidance" of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the effective Saudi leader. PGA Tour's agreement with PIF regarding LIV Golf raises concerns about the Saudi government's role in influencing this effort and the risks posed by a foreign government entity assuming control over a cherished American institution. PIF has announced that it intends to use investments in sports to further the Saudi government's strategic objectives. It established LIV Golf Investments in 2021 to serve this goal. Critics have cast such Saudi investments in sports as a means of "sportswashing"—an attempt to soften the country's image around the world—given Saudi Arabia's deeply disturbing human rights record at home and abroad. In fact, prior to this agreement, PGA Tour was one of the loudest critics of LIV Golf's affiliation with Saudi Arabia.
The letters are only three pages, but they have, respectively 12 and 10 footnotes. Blumenthal has clearly done his homework.
There is talk that the federal government might step in and prohibit the merger. Time will tell if that happens. Meanwhile, the Senator is clearly ready to train a pretty big microscope on the Saudis, and exactly what they are up to. If it really is just "sportswashing," well, it's not going well. Every story about the merger has contained references to Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudis' undemocratic regime, and the history of their human rights abuses. That's not exactly the kind of PR that sportswashing is supposed to produce. (Z)
Soros Passes the Torch to His Son
George Soros is 92 years old, which means it's either time for him to think carefully about passing the torch to the next generation or else to give strong consideration to running for the U.S. Senate. He has chosen the former, and announced he is handing control of his business empire over to his 37-year-old son Alex.
Although the elder Soros' philanthropic outlays are massive—his Open Society Foundations (OSF) gives out $1.5 billion per year—his remaining wealth is considerably more massive. OSF's endowment is more than $25 billion, and Soros' personal wealth is reportedly still in excess of $8 billion. With funds like that, it's not too hard to replenish that $1.5 billion every year, putting OSF and the younger Soros on track to stay on the same financial footing in perpetuity.
This, of course, is exactly how the Jews do it. It's also, of course, how the non-Jews do it, though you would not have any awareness of that if you'd been following all the right-wing dog whistles, as well as outright antisemitism, over the weekend. This was mostly on right-wing talk radio, and in comment sections on right-wing websites, but there were also a few media outlets willing to run pretty overtly antisemitic pieces in response to the news. For example, this item from The Washington Examiner warns that the younger Soros has already established the Bend the Arc Jewish Action PAC as a front for his activities. "If you thought George Soros had a negative influence on politics," the author warns, "just wait until Alex takes charge."
Is this hand-wringing from right wingers justified? Did the U.S. and the world just replace a well-heeled 92-year-old lefty with a well-heeled 37-year-old lefty? It certainly looks that way. In remarks to the press, both Soroses said that while they "think alike," the younger Soros is "further left" and "more political." Alex Soros says he wants to focus on gender equity, voting access, abortion access, and reducing racial bias in the justice system.
You can never know for sure what will happen when a politically active billionaire hands off their fortune to a successor. When Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson died, it was presumed by nearly everyone (including us) that his wife and beneficiary Miriam would continue to spend in the same way her husband had. After all, she was right alongside him as he lavished money on Republican politicians, and she took many meetings with politicians prior to the 2022 cycle. But, in fact, she has largely kept her checkbook closed since she became a widow.
That said, Alex Soros was much more clear and direct than Miriam Adelson when it comes to his intent to keep spending. If he sticks to that, the Democrats (and other left-leaning organizations) will be very happy to see this particular money spigot keep flowing for additional decades. Of course, that also means additional decades of anti-Soros antisemitism from right-wing politicians. (Z)
Year 20 Begins: The Answers
A couple of weeks ago, we ran a quiz in honor of the site's 19th birthday. We got more responses to that than to any survey we've ever run, which tells us that there is definitely an appetite among readers for game-type stuff, at least on occasion. We'll keep that in mind going forward.
We intended to run this post 5-10 days ago, but other events—like, say, a former president being indicted on 37 counts of violating federal law—intervened. Another issue is that the post ended up being on the long side. But we have time and space this week, and we're going to solve the second issue by splitting it into two parts. Today, we will give the answers to the 10 questions, as well as the percentages of readers who chose each. Tomorrow we will give the answer to the tiebreaker question and we will announce the winners.
And without further ado:
- When this site went live on May 24, 2004, who was the Speaker of the House?
- Newt Gingrich (13.6% of respondents)
- Dennis Hastert (62.9%)
- Nancy Pelosi (4%)
- John Boehner (19.4%)
The Answer: Dennis Hastert. Of the two "leaders of Congress" questions, this was the easier one, since Hastert served for so long. Gingrich's tenure ended in 1999, while Pelosi's first tenure began in 2007, and Boehner's in 2011. - When this site went live on May 24, 2004, who was the Senate Majority Leader?
- Harry Reid (37.2% of respondents)
- Tom Daschle (27.7%)
- Bill Frist (26.5%)
- Mitch McConnell (8.5%)
The Answer: Bill Frist. This one was obviously trickier; Frist served 2003-07. Daschle's term ended in 2003, Reid's began in 2007, and McConnell did not get the gavel until 2015. - Which of these people was the leader of their nation when this site went live on May 24, 2004?
- Angela Merkel (19.8% of respondents)
- Gordon Brown (12.4%)
- Vladimir Putin (49.2%)
- Benjamin Netanyahu (18.5%)
The Answer: Vladimir Putin. Merkel did not become chancellor of Germany until 2005 and Brown did not become PM until 2007. Netanyahu, in 2004, was in an interregnum between a term that ended in 1999 and one that started in 2009. - Which of these notable political figures died just weeks after this site went live?
- Ronald Reagan (43% of respondents)
- Gerald Ford (17.4%)
- Margaret Thatcher (20.7%)
- Ted Kennedy (18.9%)
The Answer: Ronald Reagan. He died on June 5, 2004. Ford passed in 2006, Thatcher in 2013 and Kennedy in 2009. - Which of these statements accurately describes the state of the U.S. economy when this site went live on May 24, 2004?
- Bread cost about $2/loaf, an undeveloped acre of land on Long Island cost about $200,000, and the Dow Jones was at 20,000. (8.5% of respondents)
- A dozen eggs cost about $2, $10,000 invested in Google at its IPO would have grown to $200,000, and the average worker earned $20,000 annually. (10.3%)
- Gas cost about $2/gallon, the average house cost about $200,000, and the average new car cost about $20,000. (56%)
- A gallon of milk cost about $2, the salary of President George W. Bush was $200,000, and a pound of gold was worth $20,000. (25.2%)
The Answer: "Gas cost about $2/gallon..." The others contain multiple numbers that are way off. For example, the Dow was below 10,000 in May 2004; Google's IPO didn't even happen until August 2004 (and it would have taken about four years to turn that sort of profit); and Bush's salary was $400,000. - What did North Korea ban on the same day this site went live, undoubtedly an attempt to protect their citizens against the subversive ideas they knew were coming?
- Cell phones (55.7% of respondents)
- iPads (7.6%)
- Google's Chrome web browser (23.2%)
- All websites containing the name "George W. Bush" (13.5%)
The Answer: Cell phones. The ban was lifted in 2008, however. - All of these movies were #1 at the box office on May 24 during one of the years of the 2000s. Which one was #1 at the box office on May 24, 2004?
- Shrek 2 (28.1% of respondents)
- Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones (23.9%)
- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (9.1%)
- The Da Vinci Code (38.9%)
The Answer: Shrek 2. This was pretty hard, unless you're a serious early-21st-century gamer, and you remember there was a Shrek 2 video game that was meant to tie in with the Athens Olympics. The other three films came out in 2002, 2008 and 2006, respectively. - Which of these notable sports-related events did NOT happen in 2004?
- Janet Jackson's breast exposed on national TV during the Super Bowl halftime show (22.5% of respondents)
- Boston Red Sox win first World Series since 1918 (23.2%)
- Olympics return to Athens, Greece (11.7%)
- Brazil becomes first nation to win five World Cups in football (soccer) (42.6%)
The Answer: Brazil becomes first nation to win five World Cups in football (soccer). We put this in there for European readers, figuring they were likeliest to know that World Cups are on an opposite 4-year cycle of the Olympics, and so there could not have been one in 2004. - At its outset, the site was just the map, with no written content. Which of these was the first
bit of analysis written for the site?
- People may think well of the Coors name when they reach for a beer, but will they feel the same way in the voting booth? The G.O.P. is so excited about the prospect of Peter Coors' running for the Senate that Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens leaked the news to the press even before the brewing baron's expected announcement this week. (7.4% of respondents)
- A new poll in Louisiana confirms a trend that has been building for a while now. Bush's lead in the south is weakening. He is still ahead in LA, KY, and NC, but only in the single digits, while in AR, SC, and TN Bush's lead is within the polls' margin of error, somewhat surprising for an incumbent Republican. Bush's lead in AL, GA, MS, and VA is substantial and not in any danger now. Florida is a tossup; Kerry's lead there is meaningless. (51.7%)
- Yesterday, George Bush gave the first in a series of addresses on Iraq he plans to give during the weeks leading up to the transition there. But with that pivotal date fast approaching, Iraq is far from the stable, Western-style democracy that the Bush Administration forecast before the American-led invasion of 2003. (22.8%)
- More than half of the respondents to a new survey say the media haven't been tough enough on President Bush. Nearly half say reporting is increasingly sloppy and filled with errors. And almost half say journalists often let their ideological views color their work. Media bashers? Disaffected Democrats? No, these negative views are being expressed by journalists and executives at national media outlets. And local journalists aren't far behind in their criticism. (18.1%)
The Answer: "A new poll in Louisiana confirms..." That was the first bit of analysis in E-V.com history, published on June 7, 2004. The others are from real articles published by other outlets in May/June 2004; Time, The New York Times and The Washington Post, respectively.
As noted, the winners will be announced tomorrow. For now, we will tell you the mean score was 4.14/9, the geometric mean was 3.76/9 and the median was 4/9. (Z)
Note: In the map legend box (to the right of the map itself) is a line: "This date in 2019 2015 2011." Those take you back to the current date in previous election cycles. Also interesting historical information. However, we didn't post every day in 2015 and 2011 until later in the cycle.
Also, near the bottom of the "Data galore" page there is a link to the archive page that makes it easy to jump to any date after May 24, 2004. We didn't adopt the current URL naming scheme until 2012. As an aside, if you have suggestions for additions to the Data galore page, please let us know.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers