General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden adviser: Hillary "either out of touch, or lying" about US protections for whistleblowers
Hillary Clinton said that Edward Snowden should not have fled to China because "we have all these protections for whistleblowers. Link
Jesselyn Radack, human rights attorney of the Government Accountability Project said, ""As for her ignorance about the problem with the lack of 'channels' for national security whistleblowers, she's either out of touch or lying,"
More:
Snowden supporters and advisers say Clinton's remarks were unrealistic and reflect several factual misunderstandings about his predicament. They say he could not have availed himself of whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee (he worked for contractor Booz Allen) and his claims would not have been viewed as exposing any impropriety because authorities in all three branches of government had blessed the NSA telephone program as legal. A federal judge not privy to the program before the leaks later ruled it unconstitutional, but that decision is on appeal.
"Was he supposed to call the Senate Intelligence Committee and say, 'I'd like to report to you a program you approved in secret...'?" Snowden legal adviser Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union said in an interview Friday. "Snowden is not a person who stumbled upon this ltitle secret pocket of misconduct....This wasn’t a situation where it's a question of how to tell the boss and tell Congress—his bosses and Congress were the problem."
Wizner also noted that Clinton never squarely said whether Snowden's disclosures were a net positive or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Enrique
(27,461 posts)she needs to be pressed on the issue and make clear exactly what her views are.
Of course that would require a candidate who had an opposing view on the issue from Hillary's.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Where the hell was this "adviser" when Snowden decided to become Putin's propaganda tool on Russian state TV?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So where the hell was he? Snowden really fawked himself with that stunt.
What a joke.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)such hatred for an individual like Snowden. We have important issues at hand but Snowden is being used as a distraction.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)
emulatorloo
(46,151 posts)Like that idiotic Strawman DU'er depicted above in ROR's rant.
treestar
(82,383 posts)"Liberal" doesn't mean you think anyone gets to decide whether or not to follow the law in every situation.
elias7
(4,229 posts)Can you please stop it with the Snowden bashing? You hate him. You hate what he did. You hate everything he does. The only thing that would you happy is if he were in a jail cell for 30 years aside Chelsea manning.
Why would a democrat be against anything that he has done so far?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)wants to avoid reality. Authority brings them comfort and they strongly oppose anyone that dares to challenge the authority.
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche
vlakitti
(401 posts)and thank you.
Great Nietzsche quote, too.
Obnoxious_One
(97 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)your house......but steals your TV. Do you let him get away with stealing the TV for letting you know about the wiring problem?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Typical of Eddie support. He should face the charges and quit dodging with claims the rule of law won't apply to him. Even after he decided he was above the law, it still applies to him. He claims he won't get a fair trial, or his supporters keep claiming that, and it's ridiculous. All to attempt to defend his indefensible choice to stay in a country like Russia and call it the capital of freedom.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If the American government has proof that Putin was lying, the US can now reveal their evidence and show Putin to be the liar that he is (in my opinion).
Snowden's question was quite reasonable. In his response, Putin used wording that really did not say that Russia does not do mass surveillance. He, like his American counterparts, just suggested that yes, Russia does mass surveillance but they get a kangaroo court to OK it first.
The Russian people are used to that kind of double-talk. That's virtually all they heard in the Soviet era. They got the message I would bet.
Cha
(317,775 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Of course he has Civil Liberties advisers. We still do have people in this country who actually care about our Civil Liberties, is that surprising to you?
Snowden did what all future Whistle Blowers will be doing from now on, sought Political Asylum due to the persecution of Whistle Blowers in this country.
Someone needs to tell Hillary about Drake. He believed he had Whistle Blower protections because he thought his Govt. actually believed in the oaths they took regarding 'defending and protecting the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic'.
Drake followed the rules for Whistle Blowers to the nth degree. He had a long, honorable Military Career and continued in service to this country which he was doing when he, like Snowden, witnessed crimes against the Constitution within the US Govt.
No doubt, being he was so loyal to his country, so convinced he lived in the best country in the world, he was shocked to find himself, rather than the Perps, persecuted, his long honorable career destroyed, serious charges filed against him, his family and finances destroyed. He was persecuted for over a decade, labeled a traitor, until finally, right before the trial, after more than a decade of horror for him and his family, the bogus charges were finally dropped, because THEY WERE PHONY.
Drake fully supports Snowden's decision. So does Ellsberg, so does Binney.
For Hillary to even suggest that this country, with apparently so much to hide, 'protects Whistle Blowers' confirms that she is not qualified for the position of President.
She has now lost all those who know the facts.
I challenge her to have a debate on this issue with Drake and Binney, in public. But that will never happen.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)neither one has bothered to insert themselves on the federal docket as his actual criminal attorneys.
You see, if they were actually his criminal attorneys, they'd have responsibilities neither one seems capable of handling.
N
randome
(34,845 posts)If so, I wanna be one, too!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)retained criminal attorney, because neither seems to be handling the federal charges.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Was he supposed to call the Senate Intelligence Committee and say, 'I'd like to report to you a program you approved in secret...'?" Snowden legal adviser Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union said in an interview Friday. "Snowden is not a person who stumbled upon this ltitle secret pocket of misconduct....This wasn’t a situation where it's a question of how to tell the boss and tell Congress—his bosses and Congress were the problem."
Snowden's allies are running around in circles trying to defend him. Recently, Snowden has been trying to claim that he tried to go through the proper channels, but here is his lawyer reiterating that he couldn't go to his "bosses."
Snowden recently changed his story because he's still desperate for clemency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825
These are the same Snowden allies who tried to claim that playing Putin's tool was a "brave" and "brilliant" before acknowledging that it was "screw-up."
Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1) I certainly don't think Snowden's question to Putin was a screw-up. He asked Putin the most pertinent question. Putin did not give an honest or direct answer. This opens the way for the US to put Putin on the spot and show that Putin is a liar by producing evidence that the Russian people, all these years after the end of the Cold War are still under surveillance. Either the US has the evidence that Putin lied or used vague language intended to cover up the truth or the US should admit that the Soviet Union is not spying on its people to the extent that the US is.
"Snowden's Camp"? Who speaks for Snowden's Camp? How did that person or those people get the authority to claim they are speaking for Snowden's Camp?
2) Hillary is wrong about protections for whistle-blowers. Look at Kiriakou for one.
Here is an interesting cut from the new film, "Silenced" and a discussion about it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/24/silenced_film_explores_the_human_toll
That is a must-see for those who think that Snowden should have stayed in the US and made his revelations here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Snowden's Camp"? Who speaks for Snowden's Camp? How did that person or those people get the authority to claim they are speaking for Snowden's Camp?
His lawyer...
Snowden's lawyers screw up his NSA challenge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024871696
1) His own lawyer suggested that he was naive, that people in "reasonable corridors" (read: Snowden friendly) saw it as the opposite means that it was an epic FAIL.
Again, they tried to spin it as "brave" and "brilliant," makes it even more embarrassing.
At the same time, they were pushing the argument that he can't freely criticize Putin because he is a "guest" in Russia.
He can't be trapped in a country that silences dissent and claim that he's attempting to hold Putin accountable, but must also be careful not to jeopardize his asylum.
2) As for the rest, I don't care about Hillary.
Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And if you do a little more research, you will see why I disagree with your interpretation.
Here is an article from the Guardian on the subject:
Edward Snowden has defended his decision to appear on live Russian television, insisting his question to Vladimir Putin on mass surveillance was designed to hold the Russian president accountable and not, as critics have suggested, an act of compliant propaganda.
(I agree with him and heard in his voice and understood from his words that Snowden was challenging and testing Putin not flattering him, not giving him an easy question.)
Writing for the Guardian, the whistleblower behind the National Security Agency leaks suggests he carefully framed the question to Putin, which he asked via video link in an annual televised call-in with the president on Thursday. Putin, Snowden writes, “denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter”.
(And it was very clear to me and would be to any objective listener to the exchange that Putin did deny the first par and dodge the latter. Like Snowden, I believe that Putin lied and dodged -- by using weasel words.)
. . . .
“I expected that some would object to my participation in an annual forum that is largely comprised of softball questions to a leader unaccustomed to being challenged. But to me, the rare opportunity to lift a taboo on discussion of state surveillance before an audience that primarily views state media outweighed that risk.”
Snowden says that before state officials in any country can be held accountable, “we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims”. He said he was motivated by a belief that mass surveillance was a threat to people everywhere, not just in the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/edward-snowden-defends-decision-question-vladimir-putin-on-surveillance
A few Snowden supporters (presumably poor listeners and poor readers) did not understand what Snowden was doing. No wonder people complain about American education. I got what he was doing right away. The fault is in the ears of the listeners and the eyes of the readers, not in what Snowden said to Putin.
And now, I am waiting for the next shoe to drop. I expect that very soon, some highly embarrassing information will be released that proves that Putin was covering up the spying that Russia is doing. I am quite certain that Russia is spying, albeit more clumsily than the NSA and on a tighter budget, on everyone in Russia. They been doing it since the time of the tsars I suspect.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...you're still apparently going with "brilliant" to define this staged and embarrassing event. Again, he can't be trapped in a country that silences dissent and claim that he's attempting to hold Putin accountable, but must also be careful not to jeopardize his asylum.
"And now, I am waiting for the next shoe to drop. I expect that very soon, some highly embarrassing information will be released that proves that Putin was covering up the spying that Russia is doing. I am quite certain that Russia is spying, albeit more clumsily than the NSA and on a tighter budget, on everyone in Russia. They been doing it since the time of the tsars I suspect. "
Huh? Everyone knows Russia is spying (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843557).
That "next shoe" is always going to be his lawyers trying to bat down his being used as a pawn for Putin's propaganda.
Is there a Russian journalism award named after Edward Snowden?
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/249456/is-there-a-russian-journalism-award-named-after-edward-snowden/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)To me, to my mind, Snowden's question put Putin in the uncomfortable position of having to figure out how to lie.
Listen to the video of Snowden's question and Putin's response again. Putin pauses and stammers and mutters before he answers. He says that he does not understand the question because Snowden's English is not what he is used to. Putin was shocked by the question and completely thrown off balance. He is not used to being asked such embarrassing questions.
Snowden's question was a trap for Putin. It just takes a person who has asked a lot of questions of others to recognize what was happening. I used to ask a lot of questions in my work. I know how the wording of questions works. Snowden set a trap for Putin. No question in my mind. Just like a good lawyer does in a deposition or at a trial.
In my view, Snowden's question was on point and brilliant. Sorry you can't see that.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Maybe the "Advisor" should have advised him to not shit on his girlfriend, crap on his family and drop some turds on his work mates (as in weaseling their login info out of them individually).
And now Mr. ACLU is his advisor?
Good luck with your Russian client!
R...O...F...L
Otelo
(62 posts)Once again we see how a comment made by someone (Hillary Clinton) about a subject such (NSA, whistleblower protections, etc.) is ignored by some who instead choose to talk about Snowden, the man.
Ignoring the issue at hand may be the result of not being able to back up the argument that Hillary is correct in her assertion about whistleblower protections.
savalez
(3,517 posts)You know, being here for only 51 posts and all.
Otelo
(62 posts)Case in point. By the way, are you suggesting that many ad-hominem attacks on Snowden of the nature I mentioned cannot be noticed in 5 days?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)A top adviser to President Obama, who reused to be identified for fear of torture in a secret Bulgaria prison in rented by the CIA, indicated that "we are going to keep taking amendments away until we have no more insolence from the working class."
"You have to understand the delicate sensitivity of the President's fanbase. Having an Obama sponsored spy program exposed after he campaigning against spy programs is politically damaging to the President. They have a lot of hate in their hearts for Snowden." he added.
savalez
(3,517 posts)Ron Paul, who, naturally, refused to be identified for fear of torture in a secret bulgaria prison (gawd! I couldn't type that without laughing) told Paulites to infiltrate Democratic websites and peddle paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)savalez
(3,517 posts)you make no sense.
Take your own advice pal.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Whistleblower protection thing-ee plays out:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-usa-security-nsa-drake-idUSBRE95A12X20130611
From the Reuters article above:
Thomas Drake is one of the few people who understands from personal experience what the future may hold for Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who exposed the U.S. government's top secret phone and Internet surveillance programs.
His advice for Snowden: "Be lawyered up to the max and find a place where it's going to be that much more difficult for the United States to make arrangements for his return," Drake said. "And always check six, as we said when I used to be a flyer in the Air Force. Always make sure you know what's behind you."
Drake, a 56-year-old former intelligence official at the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act in 2010 for allegedly revealing classified information about the agency's sweeping warrantless wire-tapping program. The government later dropped all but a misdemeanor charge. "For me this is a déjà vu," Drake said, adding that Snowden's previous comfortable life was over.
"When you offer up information about the dark side of the surveillance state, they don't take too kindly to it," he said. "They want to stay in the shadows."
######
Mr Drake was one American who has been indicted for leaking secrets, and then investigated, re-investigated and re-re-investigated because the FBI thought that he was the source of a leak that resulted in a newspaper article.
Although it turned out that Drake was not the source of that leak, the way he finally was allowed to make the matter go away was to plead guilty to some lesser charge, and then and only then did he get his life back.
Of course, by the time that his life was "his" again, his career was pretty much destroyed.
You would think that Ms Clinton, who watched the Powers that Be go after her husband when he wouldn't give them their dirty little war in Iraq, you think she would be wiser as to what can be done, and what is actually done, to individuals in the name of taking down individuals who overstep their supposed boundaries.
(Her husband Bill Clinton brushed off the neo cons when they asked for a war against the people of Iraq, and less than six weeks later, his affair with Lewinsky was Number One Story on the airwaves 24/7.)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)His lawyer needn't reveal his identity, he could have quit his job for personal reasons, flew to Ecuador, etc.
Wyden is the most liberal senator and would have viewed his actions as whistle blowing, once the courts ruled it unconstitutional, you come forward.
Otelo
(62 posts)But didn't, for years. How did you expect that to encourage Snowden to go to Wyden?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He literally said he was playing Wyden's role when he talked to Putin.
Also, if he used a lawyer things would be in limbo to go the route he took. Even if Wyden ratted him out, nothing would have change, fugitive, on the run, etc.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The NSA could easily have listened in on the phone calls to Wyden. I cannot blame Snowden for not taking the chance.
Did you see this Democracy Now program on the film "Silenced." I think it pretty much puts to rest the speculation that Snowden could have blown the whistle in the US without a prison sentence and extreme harassment of everyone associated with him.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And anyway you don't do it without a lawyer in between you and Wyden. Because Wyden has senate immunity he doesn't have anything to worry about.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is so niave...
This is not a game armatures play...they can find kiddie porn on your computer anytime they want, or reveal embarrassing things about you when they have that much power...and they have that much power...that is how J Edgar Hover stayed in power all those years.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Kiriakou spoke to members of Congress and still is in jail. So that is no solution.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I suppose we're OK now with Valerie Plame's outing?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)used to get us into war in Iraq.
Kiriakou pointed to criminals who had tortured prisoners.
Kiriakou did a public service in pointing to criminals.
Valerie Plame's outing was an entirely different kind of matter. There was no claim that she was a criminal.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Yes, the charges for Deuce Martinez were dropped, but as part of Kiriakou's plea deal.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He actually came out against torturing when he left the military because he found his "be friendly with them" methods to be far superior.
randome
(34,845 posts)Care to post some evidence of that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And even if they did not listen in, they would collect phone records. They would easily be able to trace the information on the calls. It isn't that difficult.
The NSA does listen in to certain calls. That's speculation on my part, but educated speculation.
You cannot disprove it because everything the NSA does is secret and because the NSA has lied to us so much that, frankly, there is no reason to believe or trust a denial from the NSA about anything. Bunch of liars. At least Snowden so far has not lied to us.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And Snowden got a hold of GG after a bit of effort (mainly because GG didn't believe he was real).
Note: this was long before he left to go to Hong Kong, GG was working with Snowden as early as Feb, when he fled in late May.
Either the NSA is incompetent to hell and back or it was LIHOP. Given the fallout has been minimal I can't rule out the latter.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)But it would have been ruled unconstitutional.
Wyden already got that ball rolling.
There wouldn't have been much talk about it. Some obscure program reigned in, etc. Tabloid profiteering media wouldn't have got to effectively subdue the masses by declaring a crisis every week. Worse, the face of the dump could've been kept secret, thus separating the person from the data, preventing personal attacks which have been very successful.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
Cha
(317,775 posts)have dumped on al Qaeda and leaked to China when he went the Wyden route?
More Snowden leaks - and this time Al Qaeda is the surveillance target (+video)
".. But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator – Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."
The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests – Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.."
snip//
"..But his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know that). But knowing the precise method is another thing altogether."
MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video
Snowden’s Leaks on China Could Affect Its Role in His Fate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101666112
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Once again, Hillary took a STAND on the WRONG side of History and Democracy.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It was the most non-committal answer ever. A can kicked down the road.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Now run along.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)She'll wait to see the polls before deciding where she stands. She will likely note her vote against telecom immunity, unlike Obama who voted for it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)see this Democracy Now video which discusses the film "Silenced." Silenced describes how blowing he whistle on the NSA and government spying on the American people changed the lives of those who did try to blow the whistle.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/24/silenced_film_explores_the_human_toll
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)i just "liked" the facebook page for this documentary. it will be a must see for me!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And just bout as absurd.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Rand Paul Man..... you know equal footing and such!
Otelo
(62 posts)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/
You may now proceed changing the topic to Rand Paul.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's like complaining that Obama has prosecuted more tax cheats than in times past.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
n2doc
(47,953 posts)The only crime this administration punishes with gusto is whistle blowing.
But then, all politicians lie. Some lie more than others, and pick different things to lie about. But they all do it.
Cha
(317,775 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bless her little DLC soul.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)when it would have been much more appropriate, timely (and caustic) had they chosen instead to make mention of Clinton's order to wiretap pretty much everyone at the U.N. back when she was SoS (This is from Manning's documents, for those of you who may have forgotten -- And there was precious little discussion on DU at the time about it, too)...
It's like shielding Snowden from outside criticism has been Wizner's full-time job lately...Is he an attorney or a PR flak?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks!
randome
(34,845 posts)* Snowden could spy on the President if he wanted.
* PRISM was a method for the NSA to download the Internet on a daily basis.
* The NSA is watching our thoughts form as we type.
* He said he "saw things" but won't ever say what that means.
* Apparently he didn't know what a secure FTP server is.
So yeah, I'd say it's likely that Snowden does not know what he's talking about. One does not need to take a 'side' on this issue to judge on the merits of what's been said.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and their inner circle.
JI7
(93,375 posts)post 5 shows him changing his story.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... US protections for whistleblowers are? Oh no, she's quite aware of what a bad joke they are. Hillary is just doing exactly what she ALWAYS does, doing and saying what's best for her and her rich corporate buds.
840high
(17,196 posts)
G_j
(40,559 posts)she is aware of this.
She is quite bright, and certainly not "out of touch".
treestar
(82,383 posts)We have a system for a reason - we'd rather live by our law than the Laws of Eddie.
Even flawed, it's better than some one person's ideas about when it should be followed or not.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)saved your house from burning down, you don't bicker because he left muddy foot prints on your rug.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)to know that an immoral act has been "deemed" legal.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I don't understand why congress and the WH cant get this done.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The government doesnt want the public to know about the dirty stuff it does.
Progressive dog
(7,588 posts)to not flee to Russia or kiss up to Putin.