I guess we knew both of those things -- Reille Hunter sought the tape through a protective order, and we could imagine it was shot during Edwards' presidential run. (When wasn't he running for president?)

Still:

The Daily Beast can now describe the video in detail, based on accounts from multiple people who have viewed it. One source who has a medical background and has worked with pregnant patients says Hunter appears four or five months pregnant based on the swollen state of her belly and nipples. This would would place the tapeÂ’s filming somewhere around September or October of 2007, smack in the middle of Edwards campaign for the presidency.

On the video, both participants are naked. Hunter is propped up against the hotel bed headboard, with John Edwards belly-down on the bed between her legs. As Hunter, the campaign’s official videographer, holds the camera, a smiling Edwards performs oral sex. Because of the camera angle, Hunter’s face is not visible, but her distinctive jewelry is. Not only does candidate Edwards know he’s being filmed, one source says, he’s also clowning around and “graphically performing for the camera.”

Judgment.

Meanwhile, Reille Hunter speaks to GQ. She wants you to know that "Johnny" really loves her, and "Johnny" is so hot:

Well, what Johnny later told me was, he went to dinner and could not stop thinking about me, like, "Who was that woman, and why didn't I go over and talk to her?" Because it was the oddest connection he had ever felt. And so, when he was coming back to the Regency, he looked in the window at the Library, which you can see from the street, and I was gone. And he was so disappointed. Kicking himself. So when he walked around the corner and saw me standing there, he lit up like a Christmas tree. And I thought his reaction when he saw me was just so cute. I mean, he looked like a little kid at Christmas. And I just uttered to him, "You're so hot." And he said, "Why, thank you!" And he almost jumped into my arms. Literally. And um, that's how we met. On the corner of 61st and Park Avenue.

The "You're so hot" line was one of those things, when Elizabeth did her book tour, that she seemed very appalled by.

Look, I could have said A, B, C, D, and E. [laughs] It didn't matter. And it's funny, because the only reason I said, "You're so hot" is because Tony said, "Oh, he would love to have heard that." And he did love it. Without a doubt. And by the way, he is hot. He is not the two-dimensional geek that I thought he was, by any stretch of the imagination. He is hot.

This guy could have been President, and then all it would have taken was a video from Osama bin Ladin proclaiming "You, President Edwards, are so hot" for him to declare a truce.

But seriously:

Okay, so I know this might be a chick question, but did you know that very first night that you were something special to him?

I did know, yes. I did know the first night. We had an extraordinary night, and I did know that this was unlike anything either of us had ever experienced. And as we have all learned, that was accurate! [laughs] He in fact did say to me the first night, "Falling in love with you could really fuck up my plans for becoming President." And of course I said, "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

Not a lot of self-control on display here.

The most important part of this concerns the hush money paid to her from two big Edwards donors, through Andrew Young. She claims she had no idea it was hush money, of course:

Let's talk about the money. There are reports now of a huge amount—over a million dollars—coming from two donors, Bunny Mellon and the late Fred Baron, to support you and the Youngs [while they kept up the ruse that Young was the father]. What exactly were you aware of?

I was not aware of how much money Andrew was receiving. When I became aware, in May '08, of how much Fred was sending him, I wanted to have nothing to do with Andrew anymore. Because I felt that I was being used [by the Youngs] for them to pocket money. And I wanted no part of it. And I believe when Johnny became aware of that is when he wanted no part of Andrew as well.

But back up. How did this work exactly?

For about six months, starting in May '07, Andrew would put $5,000 a month into my bank account. One month it was $6,000. And he told me it was on the up-and-up and it was a gift. I had no idea where it was coming from.

But in May '07, you didn't even know you were pregnant yet. What did you think the money was for?

Andrew gave me money because he felt I shouldn't be using my own money to travel to see Johnny. Andrew always wanted to "take care of everything." And at that point, I trusted him. He was seductive in how he took care of things and insisted that you have things. And a lot of times, Johnny had no idea what he was up to, nor did he ask him to do it. The dynamic was: Andrew always taking care of things without telling Johnny or anyone else what he was doing, and claiming he was doing it "On the senator's behalf." But at the same time, he was so helpful and kind. And took care of everything. Every little detail he was always offering: "Let me do this. Get a massage, you need a massage, you deserve it," or "Pick out whatever car you want. I'll take care of it, you deserve it, please."

That would be the BMW.

Yes. A used BMW. Now he says I'm the big diva. When it was all upon his insistence, almost to the point of fights over and over again.

Uh huh. Andrew forced a BMW on her. It was the kissing-cousin of rape.

In December '07, Andrew claims to be the father, and all of you move to Santa Barbara. What did you know about the funding at that point?

I knew Fred was helping with the hotels and the living arrangements. I had no clue about the money coming from Bunny.

When did you learn about the Bunny money?

When I watched Lisa Myers on NBC [in late January] and heard that it was $700,000. My jaw dropped. I never had any idea the kind of money that Andrew received from Bunny Mellon. He told me he received two checks from her, small checks totaling about $50,000, and that he never deposited them.

Then you hear on TV that it's $700,000?

I was shocked.

So after your split from the Youngs [three months after Quinn was born], how did the money system work?
Fred paid my rent and gave me money for Quinn and I to live on.

And this wasn't hush money?

It was never hush money. Ever. Fred gave me the money as a gift with no strings attached. And Johnny always said to me I could talk to the media whenever I wanted, and whatever I did would never affect his relationship with Quinn. Me not talking to the press was my own personal choice based on what I felt was best for me and my daughter and based upon my feelings for how the media operates.

If it wasn't hush money, what was it?
Fred was a very kind and generous man. He even paid for a security guard when he was concerned about our safety. And in May '08, Fred and Lisa [Blue, his wife] came to visit me in Santa Barbara and to meet Quinn, and Fred just flat out asked me, "How can I help you, and what do you need?" because Fred knew I needed to get away from the Youngs. I'd just given birth to a baby, the tabloids were stalking me, and he wanted to help.

Thanks to StarChamberMaid and DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 1392 words, total size 8 kb.

Folks are asking where the whip count is right now. Here's what we know:

Nancy needs 216 votes. She has 191 Democrats definitely on board, so she's 25 short. Here's where she can get them.

No Pretty Much Means No:
These were twenty-one "No" Democrats in November who still make noises that sound like "no". Nancy is trying to get a few of these to change their votes and the President is prepared now to offer bribes like the Louisiana Purchase:

Dan Boren (OK-2), Bobby Bright (AL-2), Ben Chandler (KY-6), Artur Davis (AL-7), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Tim Holden (PA-17), Larry Kissell (NC-8 ), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Frank Kratovil (MD-1), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), Jim Marshall (GA-8 ), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Mike McMahon (NY-13), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Mike Ross (AR-7), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-All) Heath Shuler (NC-11), Ike Skelton (MO-4), Gene Taylor (MS-4).

A few of these folks, like Kucinich, voted no because it wasn't socialist enough. I'm not confident they won't "feel the call of history" if final passage comes down to one vote, notwithstanding their current protestations. However, most of this group goes in the Definitely Not, Not No Way, Not No How category, having already announced that they will stand by their earlier votes. Notice how many come from Red states.

Wont Vote For A Bill That Kills Babies:
Then there's the Stupak Dozen. These are "yes" votes in November that are now "no" votes. The confirmed members are: Bart Stupak (MI-1), Marion Berry (AR-1), Joe Cao (LA-2, Republican), Jerry Costello (IL-12), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Joe Donnelly (IN-2), Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Brad Ellsworth (IN-8 ), Dan Lipinski (IL-3). The conjectured final members include Henry Cuellar (TX-28 ), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9).

It's An Election Year:
Then there's the other "yes" votes who have publicly switched: Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Chris Carney (PA-10), and Luis Guterrez (IL-4). I wouldn't count on Gutierrez to stand by his "no" threat, though. He looks like he's trying to wring some concessions out of the leadership on the proposed comprehensive immigration piece of shit. Carney is a lock; he wants to get re-elected. Arcuri sounded pretty sure of himself, but we'll see.

Maybe:
That leaves the maybes. There are thirteen who voted "yes" the first time, but have refused to commit to voting the same way this time:

Tim Bishop (NY-1), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8 ), Baron Hill (IN-9), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Dan Maffei (NY-25), Alan Mollohan (WV-1), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Bill Owens (NY-23), Earl Pomeroy (ND-All), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Zack Space (OH-18 ).

And there are sixteen who voted "no" the first time who could be victims of Rahm-in-the-lockerroom-with-the-lead-pipe bullying or Cornhusker Compromise bribery because they haven't declared yet what they plan to do:

John Adler (NJ-3), Jason Altmire (PA-4), Brian Baird (WA-3), John Barrow (GA-12), John Boccieri (OH-16), Rick Boucher (VA-9), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Travis Childers (MS-1), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Bart Gordon (TN-6), Betsy Markey (CO-4), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Scott Murphy (NY-20), Glenn Nye (VA-2), John Tanner (TN-8 ), Harry Teague (NM-2).

So Pelosi needs 25 out of 29 maybes to break her way, 16 of whom voted "no" on the House bill once before.

NOTE: If you think I've got one of these guys in the wrong group and have a statement from the Congresscritter demonstrating it email me at [gabriel.malor at gmail] and I will update the count.

Also, if you're keeping an eye on the whip count, you definitely want to be checking back with Jay Cost.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:51 AM | Comments (116)
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.

Drew writes to say he's lost track, and I have too. I'm in the middle of a whip count update, but for now chew on this:

.S. Rep. Jerry Costello says he opposes the health care overhaul bill in its current form and is unsure if the proposal will pass the House if a vote comes this week.

The Democrat from Belleville tells The (Alton) Telegraph that he's concerned the Senate bill would allow public funding for abortions and cost hasn't been fully determined.

Costello was also one of the Stupak Dozen that Democrats spent the weekend saying doesn't exist. Oops.

What It Means [ace]: We were already sort of counting on Stupak's Dozen to flip. If they don't flip, we can imagine that Nancy Pelosi could get a the few votes from hardcore progressives needed to pass this.

But the Democrats have been proclaiming -- hoping, really -- that even though they're giving the Stupak Dozen the finger, they'd come home in the end and vote for the bill anyway. Most of them, anyway. This undermines that. Each of these on-the-fence guys keeps seeming to declare "No."

Stupak says his guys will vote no, Pelosi and Waxman say that ultimately they'll vote yes. Stupak seems better at prognosticating.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:15 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

Mkay, go with that.

In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

So we have no reason to fear China.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 10:10 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess.

In a sense it's sorta a metaphor for an all-consuming, bloated, ever-expanding federal program gobbling up all of America's disposable income.

But that's pretty literary, and I'm in a hurry, so I'll just hit the basics:

Drudge has a link to a story about a woman in New Jersey who is eagerly trying to put on weight to reach her target "ideal" weight of.....1,000 pounds.

And no, it isn't LauraW. She's from Connecticut.

Apparently, to reach her goal, she has to consume 12,000 calories a day, meaning that she has a weekly grocery bill of $815.

And she just keeps getting bigger and bigger, as her boyfriend, Phillippe, a "belly man" who she met on a "plus-size" dating site, is "encouraging" her to continue on her quest for four digits.

But you know the truly weird part about this whole sordid tale?

The way she funds her copious caloric intake: she raises crazy blog money from "running a website where men pay to watch her consume fast food."

First, I'm disappointed in your morons. How long have you known about this site without telling me???? When I think of all the crazy co-blogger cash you could have been sending our way going to this cow, it makes me crazy. And aroused. But mainly crazy.

Just joking. That's actually may be the first fetish that is actually too disgusting to qualify as a legitimate part of the AoS Lifestyle.

Second, do you think Slu oughta shop the word "Obamacare" onto this woman's picture to score an ugly, cheap and tawdry political point?

I kinda do. After all, Alinsky preached to "personalize", "polarize" and "freeze", right?

And there is an awful lot of woman here to personalize, polarize and freeze. That's all I'm sayin'.

Third, we should fill out a tournament style bracket as to which one of you moron's will be the first to "hit it". I've got my money on Palin Steele.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:50 AM | Comments (136)
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

As Obama has said, the time for talk about health care reform is over (even as he is giving another speech about it).

Okay, let's vote!

"As I said publicly, I can't vote for a bill that will publicly fund abortion," Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) told the Scranton Times-Shamrock.

Carney, who voted for the House bill in November, is regarded as a key vote for the Democratic leadership on the upcoming Senate bill.

Two other Democrats facing tough races -- Reps. Steve Driehaus (Ohio) and Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) -- made similar statements in recent days. The two of them and Carney are thought to be potential members of the bloc of Democrats standing with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) over the abortion issue.

Glenn Nye (D-VA) is looking like he sticking with his no vote.

Related: Howie Kurtz tweets that FNC bailed on covering Obama's latest while MSNBC and CNN stuck with it.

This is part of the reason why FNC seen as tilting against WH.

And there's the liberal bias of assumptions in action. Perhaps the issue is CNN and MSNBC tilting towards the White House by giving Obama's pitch the umpteenth free airing.

Obama says the time for talk is over, FNC just took him at his word.

More [Gabe]: Two things that don't looks so good for Nancy:

Driehaus and Ellsworth were originally believed to be part of the Stupak bloc, but Democrats spent the weekend saying it had shrunk to six, instead of a baker's dozen. The six were Bart Stupak, Marion Berry, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, and Joe Cao. But if Driehaus and Ellsworth are still on board, I guess rumors of the group's demise were greatly exaggerated.

The other interesting thing is that Carney wasn't thought to be part of Stupak's group at all. He was a solid vote for healtcare reform in the fall. This means that he just reached out of nowhere to seize on the abortion issue...perhaps as an excuse?

Carney stated repeatedly in the fall that his constituents supported a healthcare overhaul. But recent polls have shown collapsing support and Carney, among others, has been the target of television and radio ads urging him to "Start Over" on healthcare reform. I guess the ads worked.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:26 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

As Ed at Hot Air says "The wheels have begun to fly off the entitlement juggernaut."

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.

Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.

Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.

Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.

Yeah about that borrowing? Follow the link to Hot Air to see what is about to happen to the nation's credit rating.

As I wrote just about a year ago, this Ponzi scheme along with Medicare is about to burst. But hey, the liberals mean well!

Obviously, this is the perfect to time to begin a vast new health care entitlement system that will pretty much dwarf everything that's come before when all is said and done.

We're in the very best of hands.

UPDATE: China's President Hu Jintao emails to say "Obama is about to do sex to me, isn't he?"

Posted by: DrewM at 08:56 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Consider this a follow up to the earlier post about Gitmo lawyers breaking the rules to help detainees, all in the name of John Adams of course.

As I've laid out several times, I simply don't see the analogy between lawyers who volunteer to represent enemy combatants who are captured and held outside the United States with what John Adams did in defending the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Simply put, the soldiers were British subjects and charged in civilian court on British soil (Adams wasn't exactly a volunteer either, he received a nominal fee). Adams' action was not popular but it wasn't unprecedented either.

More to the point, let's consider John Adams in a little fuller light. As President he signed into law bills that are commonly known as The Alien and Sedition Acts.

The "Alien" portion of the laws included...

-The Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.

-The Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21–24. At the time, war was considered likely between the U.S. and France.

I think it's fair to say that a President who signed those two laws would be astounded to find out he is being held up as a model of a man who would abuse the laws of the United States and put Americans in danger in order to defend avowed enemies of this country.

Are Democrats and members of the Gitmo Bar signing on for the sort of action allowed by the Alien acts? Sure it won't happen under Obama but I can't imagine they would be on board for it. The legal left wasn't thrilled when Bush tried far less reaching tactics. Perhaps if W. had packaged his War on Terror policies in the soothing and traditional warmth of the suddenly worshiped John Adams, the left wouldn't have spent 7+ years demonizing him.

Related to this is news that the DoJ and CIA are now fighting over an investigation into how Gitmo detainees came into possession of photos of CIA interrogators. Guess who tracked down the CIA officers and photographed them?

According to U.S. officials familiar with the issue, the current dispute involves Justice Department officials who support an effort led by the American Civil Liberties Union to provide legal aid to military lawyers for the Guantanamo inmates. CIA counterintelligence officials oppose the effort and say giving terrorists photographs of interrogators has exposed CIA personnel and their families to possible terrorist attacks.

As part of the disagreement, a senior Justice Department national security official removed himself from the counterintelligence probe last week after opposing CIA security worries.

...The officials said the photographs of the CIA officers found recently at Guantanamo were obtained by a joint program of the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers called the John Adams Project.

The project, according to a Washington Post report in August, hired contractors to photograph CIA officers who were thought to have carried out terrorist interrogations. Those photographs were then to be provided to defense lawyers representing some of the Guantanamo detainees as part of an effort to identify the interrogators, for possible use as witnesses in military or civilian trials.

The "John Adams Project"? They use this name but I do not think it means what they think.

As for the people who commissioned, took and disseminated these photos, I don't care if they are military or civilian...people need to go to jail. Of course that's not going to happen with this administration. No, they are far more likely to be hired or promoted.

It's funny but I seem to remember the left used to get all worked up about 'outing' CIA agents, I guess that's more of the Change! we've all come to know and loathe.

Oh and just curious, but have any of these defenders of the faith ever bothered to donate their time and talents to helping US servicemen and women charged with crimes? I seem to recall most them having to rely on military defense attorneys, foundations,, donations or some combination. I bet some of those guys would have loved to have had a high priced law firm at their disposal.

But don't you dare judge these lawyers and who they elect to defend for free! If you don't support defending America's enemies, it's you who are anti-American. Strange times, very strange times.

H/T to the meanies at Keep America Safe for the Gitmo/CIA photo story.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:16 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 841 words, total size 6 kb.

Desperation.

WASHINGTON — Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.

Increasingly eager to finish work on his top domestic priority, Obama was set to head to northeast Ohio on Monday with a final sales pitch for health care legislation that the top Democratic vote-counter in the House said lacked support to pass. Obama's top political adviser, David Axelrod, said he was "absolutely confident" the measure would pass during a make-or-break week that already saw the president delay his trip to Indonesia, Australia and Guam.

"This is the week where we will have this important vote," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I do think this is the climactic week for health care reform."

Clinching support, though, might require Obama to back away from his insistence that senators purge the legislation of a number of lawmakers' special deals.

Taking a new position, Axelrod said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the "Cornhusker Kickback." That's being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.

Just when I think the Obama administration and Congress have reached a new low, they prove me wrong and keep digging. This is a remarkably cynical move by an increasingly arrogant president. (h/t: Allahpundit) more...

Posted by: Slublog at 06:18 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

Much of the media and the protectors of the legal priesthood decided to focus on the real evil of the Gitmo lawyers matter...the people at Keep America Safe who dared to question the legal high priesthood. Meanwhile, Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn decided to do real reporting on what some of the Gitmo lawyers were up to.

I could be wrong but I'm reasonably sure abusing the privileged legal mail system to provide anti-American propaganda to terrorists isn't in the tradition of John Adams.

In a sworn affidavit submitted to the D.C. District Court and obtained by the writers of this article in a Freedom of Information Act request, Maj. Gen. Hood did not equivocate when it came to the Amnesty International pamphlet. "The very nature of this document gives tremendous moral support to those who would strike out against our country," he stated. "It is not a factual report. Instead it is filled with second and third hand accounts, photos of protests that were staged, inflammatory photos from Iraq and provocative story captions."

(Major General Jay W. Hood, then the commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo) noted that many of the captured al Qaeda terrorists held at the camp had been "specifically trained on the Manchester Manual [an al Qaeda training manual discovered at a safe house in Britain]," which "encourages detainees to claim torture and abuse." He warned that "[e]xamples and vignettes of alleged abuse of other detainees" could be used "to fabricate their own claims of abuse and torture."

In fact, from al Qaeda's perspective, the Amnesty International brochure was better than the Manchester Manual. It cued detainees that the abuses at Abu Ghraib "were not an aberration." The brochure told them that images from the Iraqi prison were consistent with "numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment reported from detention centres in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay."

The message to the detainees was clear: If you want to claim you are being tortured, here is a vast menu of examples from which to choose.

...We obtained Justice Department accounts of some of those incidents under a Freedom of Information Act request. Examples included an incident in which a lawyer sent his detainee client the transcript of a virulently anti-American speech that compared military physicians to Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor of Auschwitz, called DOJ lawyers "desk torturers" and suggested that the "abuses carried out by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib . . . could involve the President in the commission of war crimes."

Other incidents listed in the FOIA material included: a lawyer who was caught in the act of making a hand-drawn map of a detention camp's layout, including guard towers; a lawyer who sent a letter to his detainee client telling him that "we cannot depend on the military to do the right thing" and conveying his message of support to other detainees who were not his clients; lawyers who posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet; lawyers who provided news outlets with "interviews" of their clients using questions provided in advance by the news organization; and a lawyer who gave his client a list of all the detainees.

When the Departments of Justice and Defense tried to exclude attorneys from firms who engaged in such behavior the attorneys simply sued the government for continued access to their terrorist clients. And won.

I'm reasonably familiar with the whole John Adams defends British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre story. I don't quite recall him breaking the rules to do it or providing the soldiers with anti-American propaganda. Then again, I'm not a lawyer so who am I to criticize the High Priests of the Bar?

Posted by: DrewM at 05:50 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.