Court Time for Gonzo: Why the Harman Story is Really a Gonzales Story

[McCamy Taylor]

I. I Told You So

Yes, I did. Early last year. In a DU Journal titled “Warrantless Wiretap is a Great Big Blackmail Scam: Why Do We Tolerate It?”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2858703

Pardon me while I pull a Corsi.

I have been waiting for someone to say what we all know. Warrantless wiretap---domestic spying---is a great big blackmail scam. One of the very first things that Dick Cheney did when he began to recreate Dick Nixon’s attempts to found a totalitarian regime was institute domestic spying. By now, we all know that this plan did not start after 9/11. The administration went to the telecoms early in 2001 and told them it wanted to be able to intercept phone calls, emails, faxes. We know that Verizon and AT&T went along with the plan and Qwest refused on the grounds that it was illegal. Verizon and AT&T have been well rewarded by the FCC. Qwest has been punished with criminal prosecutions. From a whistle blower, we know that every communication within the United States was funneled through a single room, where they could be analyzed.

snip

Obviously, when Dick Cheney, who considers himself the heir to Dick Nixon, institutes a massive domestic spying program, it is for one purpose. He plans to gather blackmail information to use to keep his political enemies, members of the press and businessmen in line, the same way that Nixon gathered blackmail information that he used to keep his many perceived enemies in check. Karl Rove is also a specialist in the use of blackmail. The AT&T program would have been invaluable for both men. With it, they could monitor the political strategies of the Democrats. They could discover secrets of Democratic politicians, their families and friends. They could discover secrets of journalists, their families and friends. Even foreign politicians could be targeted. Community and religious leaders, business leaders---anyone whom the Bush administration needed in their pocket could be monitored.

I had my suspicions even before the Democratic Congress began rolling over for the administration on warrantless wiretaps back in 2007. Here is toon I created for my webpage, Grand Theft Election Ohio. I called it “Party Like Its 1984”



II. No One Is Safe

Who was spied upon? Better to ask who was not spied upon.

They spied on the lawyers.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/88862

The request for staying enforcement concerns Judge Walker's decision to admit as evidence a classified document showing that two American lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity were electronically eavesdropped on without warrants by the Bush administration in 2004.

When the U.S. Treasury Department accidently released the Top Secret memo to the lawyers --- Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoo --- they sued the Bush administration. At one point, the courts ordered the document, which has never been made public, returned and removed from the case.

So much for your right to a fair trial in this country. The federal government giveth and the federal government taketh away.

They spied on the journalists

Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst appeared with Countdown host Keith Olbermann two days in a row this past week. Tice revealed that the NSA's warrantless surveillance program targeted U.S. journalists, and vacuumed up all domestic communications of Americans, including faxes, phone calls and internet traffic.

Snip

Tice was told to monitor certain groups in order to eliminate them as suspects. Those groups were U.S. journalists and news agencies, along with 'tens of thousands of other Americans.' But rather than excluding the organizations from monitoring, he found out that the NSA was collecting the organizations' communications 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, meaning there was never any intent of eliminating anyone from the surveillance. Tice has not identified the reporters or the organizations that were allegedly targeted.

What was it our Founders said? Oh yeah.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

Bye bye, liberty.

The spied on members of Congress

http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html

What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.
And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

Now we know why Congress would not impeach. Now we know why they voted to give the telecoms immunity for spying. Now we know why torture was sacrosanct. Congress reacted to Bush administration blackmail threats like a bunch of kindergarteners being shaken down for their milk money. Bad Congress. Weak Congress. Spineless Congress.

However, the real villain here is former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

III. Blame the Villain

That Jane Harman is sooo bad. She ought to be booted from the Democratic Party. She ought to be kicked out of Congress for---

What exactly? Promising to intervene in a criminal case in exchange for political support? No, that can’t be it. Congressmen step in to defend their constituents and supporters all the time. This case is different, because the political supporters represented the interests of another country. However, plenty of Congressional leaders have tossed their ethics into the toilet when it comes to Israel. How many? Virtually all of them, as when they voted to give Israel their support when Lebanon was invaded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801415.html

Sovereign borders do not count when the country manning the tanks happens to be Israel. And they did it again, when Israel launched its anti-civilian military operations in Gaza.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/congressional-support-for_b_167197.html

Last month's decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, backed by an overwhelming majority of her Democratic colleagues, to go on record in support of Israel's war on the Gaza Strip does not give much hope that the expanded Democratic majority will be much more sensitive to human rights than we have seen after years of Republican rule.
In a direct challenge to the credibility of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross and other reputable humanitarian organizations, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress went on record in a January 9 vote that the Israeli armed forces bear no responsibility for the large numbers of civilian casualties from their assault on the Gaza Strip.

Rep. Jane Harman’s real crime is that she allowed herself to be blackmailed. And she is almost certainly not alone. Just review a list of people who initially opposed warrantless wiretap immunity and then changed their minds---starting with our current president, Obama---and you will have a pretty good idea whom the Bush administration targeted in its domestic spying/blackmail program.

Cheney’s blackmail ops was supposed to be foolproof. Since the people being targeted all had something to hide, there was less than zero chance that they would come forward to level accusations of blackmail against the Bush administration.

That is why we need a general amnesty for those who were the victims. Their testimony is needed to bring to justice the arch-villains in this case----starting with the man who was circumventing the law when he was supposed to be enforcing it, Alberto Gonzales. It is reprehensible for a Congressman to change his position on an issue, because he is being threatened. It is criminal if you are the one doing the threatening.

Unless those responsible for spying and extortion are brought to justice, agencies like the NSA, CIA and FBI, corporations like the telecoms and every presidential administration from now until the end of time will have every incentive to continue illegal domestic surveillance. Need a bigger budget for your agency? Put the thumb screws to members of Congress. Want to suppress a New York Times report about accounting irregularities at your telecom? Find out whom the reporters are sleeping with. Need to get the support of a couple of more Congressional members for your pet legislation? Sic the attorney general on them.

This madness has got to stop. And we now know that the Obama administration has no will to stop it. For all we know, certain people within the executive branch are counting upon the expanded powers of the presidential office to help them keep their political enemies in check. That is why the victims of the blackmail, the Congressmen and the reporters and everyone else needs to come forward en masse and tell their stories----

But to whom? With Congress compromised, with the press cowed, with the Department of Justice implicated, who is left to dig for the truth? No one, unless the current administration is pressured to appoint an Independent Prosecutor assigned the task of preparing a criminal case against Alberto Gonzales and all the others who spied on us for eight long years.

IV. Eric Holder MUST Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Alberto Gonzales and His Misuse of (Illegal) Domestic Spying

Period.

[madrchsod]

1. i must say this...although i`ve disagreed with you over some issues...

you were spot on with this issue. the depth of the corruption in the last 8yrs historic. the refusal of the obama government to do anything about this corruption is sickening.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. K&R for all the DU ers who got laughed at, ridiculed,flamed or locked out,

for saying part or all of this over the past few years.
Many of us suspected blackmail had to be the key.
( whatever happened to Kucinich's Impeachment movement???)

[global1]

3. There's Power In Numbers - If Pols, Journalists, etc - Got Together And.......

all got together and blew the whistle on this and said that they were being blackmailed by BushCo - wouldn't that end things?

BushCo needs to be exposed that they were doing this. One person coming out and pointing fingers - won't be effective and would be termed a crackpot. But if everybody effected would say - Yeah - I was being blackmailed - wouldn't that have the power to put these treasonous bastards away forever.

Do we have to wait 40 years from now when someone writes a book exposing all of this. Who was it J.Edgar Hoover that did similar things - and this didn't come out until he was dead.

Come-on if this blackmailing is going on to the proportions you suggest it is - than - pols, journalists, talking heads, etc banding together - have a lot to gain by outing this activity. If all of them came out at once - do you think BushCo or Cheney now could blackmail them all without outing himself?

[bertman]

4. You told us so!! Absolutely. You did. You nailed it.

Your suggestion that Holder appoint a Special Prosecutor is really the only way to go if we want justice--or at least some semblance of justice--or some illusion that there might still possibly, somewhere deep in the bowels of the Justice Department, be some justice.

The problem could become "how many Special Prosecutors can we have at once?" Where to start is the question, but I'd be satisfied with one for this ticking time bomb of an allegation.

They've got something on almost everyone in Congress. Otherwise, we wouldn't have this massive epidemic of political scoliosis running rampant in the Democratic party. I can't decide if folks like Kucinich and Feingold and Boxer are clean-living all-Americans or they just don't give a fuck. But, Dog Bless Them All for standing tall for America!!

The problem with Cobalt's idea that everyone come clean about being blackmailed is that some of these folks probably have some REALLY NASTY secrets that they do not want anyone to know about. Can you say S & M??

Oh well, it's just another validation of what many of us have been thinking and what you've been saying. But what will come out of it? After all, this does fall under the category of Looking Back. And nowadays we're only Looking Forward.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. BRA-VO!!! k+r, n/t

[arthritisR_US]

6. I'm sure they'll get right on this and investigate just like they are with torture,

lying to get the US into a war, outing a CIA operative..... I'm not going to hold my breath on this one.x(

[pberq]

7. Kick and nominated

[beac]

8. Marked to read later. (thanks for putting this together) n/t

[malaise]

9. Great post

Looks like you will get that Special Prosecutor

[caseymoz]

10. I've disagreed with you before, but I suspect your exactly right.

Problem is, it can be done the easy way, it can be done the hard way, or it might not be done at all.

The easy way is the special prosecutor. The hard way is an eventual uprising. I'm afraid the latter might be influenced most by antisemitism.

[Supersedeas]

11. A Nation of Cowards waits for Eric Holder to take some action

[Kablooie]

12. We should tolerate all of the Bush team's illegal activities and look the other way.

I'm saying this only because I like being right and I see no evidence that anything will ever be done to bring the criminals to justice.

So I stand by my statement and I can happily say that I am right! Whoopee!

[pleah]

13. K&R

[Demeter]

14. I've Got to Think That If the Democrats Had Ever Had Any Leadership

since the death of LBJ, that Leader would have gotten all the blackmailed into a room, given them lessons in pronouncing "Publish and be damned" and spilled the whole can of beans all over Cheney and Bush, then impeached their BushCo asses, thrown them into jail, ended the fucking wars and investigated the banks. The CIA would be screaming for mercy in their own torture chambers, and a lot more people would be alive and productive and employed while still living in their own homes.

These multiple acts of cowardice (and refusing to lead is an especially bad act of cowardice for a putative bunch of Leaders) have cost the whole world dearly, and will for probably decades.

The ONLY good that came out of this fiasco is that South America threw off the yoke of American Imperialism--political, economic, and cultural.



PS: Loved this post! Thanks!

[polmaven]

16. The biggest problem with your "theory"

is that the Democrats were in the minority for the first 6 years of this corruption, and did not have a large enough majority during the last 2 years to be able to accomplish ANY of what you are saying they would have done if they had any "Leadership since the death of LBJ".

Oh yeah....and....I don't remember that BushCo were in power before 2001. Not much Carter and Clinton could have done to impeach and/or prosecute an administration that had not yet taken office and crimes that had not yet taken place.

[glitch]

23. The biggest problem with your "rebuttal" Bushco were in power during Reagan/Bush

Many of the same actors, including a young GW. That's why we call it BuschCO. And they committed many crimes for which they were never punished.

[polmaven]

24. So you are convinced that

the behavior prompting

spilled the whole can of beans all over Cheney and Bush, then impeached their BushCo asses, thrown them into jail, ended the fucking wars and investigated the banks.

occurred during the Raygun/Poppy Bush years.....interesting.....let's just rewrite history to suit the argument.

and yeah...Why didn't President Carter take care of that pre-emptively? The world wants to know!

[glitch]

28. You should learn history before you accuse others of rewriting it. nt

[polmaven]

31. Cheney/Bush!

Can you read? The poster to whom I was responding was cearly referring to the last administration....not Reagan/Bush. And, as I said....How is anything done even by Reagan/Bush or Bush Cheney the responsibility of President CARTER?????

[kenfrequed]

29. Oh?

What behavoir is it that you think Didn't happen During Reagan/Bush I?

Iran Contra?

BCCI/Savings and loans?

October surprise?


Had Reagan been impeached and the guilty parties imprisoned for Iran/Contra we wouldn't really be having many of the problems we are experiencing with the republican scum.

[polmaven]

30. Even if I thought

the poster meant Reagan/Bush rather than Cheney/Bush, who, by the way, were the people MENTIONED, how could that POSSIBLY have been Carter's fault???????

And, you do know that it takes 70 votes to convict in an impeachment trial, right? When was the last time the Democrats might have been able to do that?

As much as some would like to think so, impeachmemt is not such an easy answer. Neither is putting "the guilty parties" in prison.

[kenfrequed]

33. What?

Skip the sci fi version of your strawman-sarchasm.

I said nothing about Carter. You did. I decided to respond seriously to the substantive point about accountability. I will restate it for the benefit of discussion.

Had congress shown courage and impeached Reagan (and Bush) for their involvement in the Iran Contra Scandal we would probably be living in a much different world.

[polmaven]

37. Read the post

to which I was originally referring....If that is too difficult, or if it is blacked out on your computer, or something:

I've Got to Think That If the Democrats Had Ever Had Any Leadership

since the death of LBJ, that Leader would have gotten all the blackmailed into a room, given them lessons in pronouncing "Publish and be damned" and spilled the whole can of beans all over Cheney and Bush, then impeached their BushCo asses, thrown them into jail, ended the fucking wars and investigated the banks.

See the part that says "since the death of LBJ"? LBJ died in 1973. Last time I checked, that would make Carter one of the Democratic leaders since the death of LBJ.

As for Congress showing "courage" to impeach Reagan and/or Bush, there would not have been 67 votes in the Senate to remove them from office, so just how would we be living in a much different world? Do you think they would not have felt exonerated and even more emboldened by an acquittal?

[Demeter]

38. Sorry, But As the Original Poster, I Agree--Bush I and Reagan Also Needed To Be Impeached

and going even further back, Nixon's Merry Men could all have been thrown into jail, and they wouldn't have been available for Reagan, Poopy or Shrub.

But no, we had to "heal", to reconcile, to cover up the crimes...

Sorry, but you lose.

[polmaven]

41. I see...

So you are another who apparently believes impeachment is enough. Check your facts....impeachment is done by the House of Representatives. Removal from office requires 67 votes in the US Senate...From where do you think those 67 votes were going to come? A responsible Congress would not use a knee jerk reaction to impeach without any chance to remove the impeached president or vice president from office.

Now, Nixon was pardoned by Ford....not exactly a Democrat. Several of the Watergate crew did go to jail. No connection to the "Democratic leadership" there.

Again, going to my question.....all of that has WHAT to do with President Carter? He was, after all, the "leader" of the Democratic Party from 1977 to 1981. That was after the death of LBJ in 1973, wasn't it?

Your own post, by the way, talked about Cheney/Bush, and the Democratic leadership since the death of LBJ.....so, I guess you didn't really mean it, right?

[kenfrequed]

40. Right...

So rather than risk a triumphant aquittal with guns blazing and banners flying as everyone cries out how wonderful it was that the republi-crooks got away with being crooks. That they got away with supporting the contras (a vile bunch of thugs that murdered nuns, priests, teachers, and union leaders) and violating the Boland act (among other crimes). And somehow they would win?

But no, you are right, clearly the correct thing to do was nothing. Sure can't lose doing nothing. How has that worked anyhow? Who recalls the facts behind Iran Contra? Surely this unpunished crime hung on the republican party's neck like an albatross preventing the spawn of Reagan from getting the highest office in the land. Oh wait no, thats right, Papa Bush did actually get elected.

I'm sorry but you are missing the bloody point. Because the author suggests the Dems had no leadership after Johnson does not automatically mean that the poster was suggesting Iran Contra was somehow Carters fault. I checked. The poster never suggested that. you merely took a general argument he made about leadership and applied it, deceptively I might add, to a statement he made about impeachment.

The point is justice and accountability and the consequence of just 'trying to get past it' or 'healing' or 'looking forward.' Fail to seek justice and all these bastards have proven is that they will commit the same high crimes again and again.

[polmaven]

42. OK, so Jinny Carter was not

part of the "Democratic Leadership" since the death of LBJ?


And no....I do NOT think it is at ALL responsible to embolden the crooks by justifying their actions with an acquittal of charges. There is no way in the WORLD that Republicans would have voted to remove St. Ronnie from the presidency. If you think there was, your are dreaming.

And if you think that they could have scared up 67 votes to remove Bush and/or Cheney, you are more than dreaming! The Dems had 49 votes....From where would the the other 18 votes have come? Did you really want them to be told they were right by an aquittal? Because you just KNOW that is whow they would have seen it.

[Enthusiast]

36. You got it, brother

Bush/Cheney is only Act II. They did the very same sort of illegal stuff Reagan/Bush did. Now we can clearly see why they were so desperate to get rid of Clinton. They simply wanted to resume their traitorous activity.

[davekriss]

15. K&R

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. In order to be blackmailed, one has to have done something blackmailable.

An often overlooked point.

That being said, the wiretapping and torture are prima facie crimes.

[LeftishBrit]

20. I don't entirely agree...

That sounds just a little too much like the frequent assertion that only people who have 'something to hide' should fear government surveillance.

Sometimes blackmail is because there are allegations, and the person can't *dis*prove them. Also, this argument can become an excuse for discrimination - a classic example has been gays being excluded or sacked from certain military or govenrnment posts because they could be susceptible to blackmail, when in fact the only *reason* they were vulnerable to blackmail (once homosexuality was legal) was *because* they could be excluded or sacked from the posts, for being 'vulnerable to blackmail'.

'That being said, the wiretapping and torture are prima facie crimes.'

I definitely agree on that; and Gonzalez should be prosecuted IMO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. We're on the same wavelength.

I almost put a disclaimer eliminating the "something to hide" rationale. I didn't(thereby losing clarity). Your response is expected. I thought stating that the wiretapping was a prima facie crime covered that. I was just trying to round out the "blackmail" argument.

Another thing I was thinking of mentioning was that wiretapping is often more of a strategic tool rather than a blackmail tool. Your noting the power of the "ALLEGATION!!!!" speaks perfectly to that issue.

[Demeter]

39. Not Necessarily

People's lives and characters have been destroyed by lies (frequently) throughout history. Or their closest ones.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. However, you don't need a wiretap to lie about someone. nt

[Demeter]

44. No, But It's So Much More Credible!

:rofl:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Touché.

[TorchTheWitch]

18. HARMAN was NOT wiretapped!

Does no one READ anymore??? There was no wiretap on Harman legal or illegal. She had a conversation with a suspected Israeli agent who was the one being tapped. It was a court-ordered NSA tap, so it wasn't illegal. Because of what she said in that conversation there was to be an investigation of her which included a FISA wiretap for her, but it never happened because even though Goss approved the FISA application Gonzo intervened and stopped the investigation of Harman, which also prevented her from being wiretapped. Harman was not wiretapped AT ALL but should have been due to the conversation she had with the agent who was being tapped. The four page article by Jeff Stein at cqpolitics.com clearly explained all this.

The portion of the article you cite in your OP clearly says that the tap was on the suspected Israeli agent, NOT Harman...

"What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington."
http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html?docID=hsnews-000003098436

Stein did an online Q&A about the article and further pointed out that Harman was not the one being wiretapped when the conversation with the Israeli agent took place...

http://innovation.cq.com/liveonline/54/landing

Q Mark Regan from Fairbanks:
If it's a gross invasion of privacy for the Government to wiretap Rep. Harman, isn't it an even grosser invasion of privacy for you to publicize the results, even if the results have news value?

A Jeff Stein:
She was not the object of the tap.

And AGAIN...

Q bob from Carefeee, Arizona:
Why doesn't someone tell the public ALL about this issue?

Spying on the US, from whomever, should be among the most serious crimes which we pursue. It is time the nation knows the power and the abuse of AIPAC and its operatives.

It is already disgraceful that the case against Rosen and Wiseman has not yet come to trial. The charade must stop.

A Jeff Stein:
In this particular case, the NSA was not "spying on the U.S." It was a court-approved tap directed at foreign agents.


While I completely agree that the entire purpose for the NSA wiretapping program (warrantless wiretapping) was so that the Bush gang could spy on Congress persons or who ever else they wanted to spy on for the purpose of blackmail and other dispicable reasons freely, this issue with Harman is NOT an example of this as SHE was NOT who was being spied on... she was caught out in a conversation with someone ELSE (the suspected Israeli agent) who was being legally spied on with the court-approved NSA tap.

The scandal in THIS case is that Gonzo stopped the investigation into Harman due to what she said in her conversation with the suspected Israeli agent as a quid pro quo (read: blackmail... *I'll drop the investigation into you if you do XYZ*). Harman didn't NEED to be wiretapped to blackmail her because she was so stupid as to have that conversation with the agent who was being legally tapped... she, herself, walked right into a situation that enabled Gonzo to blackmail her.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. You miss the point, which is blackmail by Gonzo. How the phone call was intercepted in this one

documented case of Bush administration blackmail does not matter. Blackmail is illegal regardless of how you obtain your information. Also, we know that every communication in the US was intercepted by the NSA, which means that the same Gonzo/Bush who blackmailed Harmon could have blackmailed anyone else.

I am bemused by people who try to shift the issue to whether or not the wiretap on Harmon was legal. Are they attempting to protect the whistle blower?The folks at intelligence and/or Justice who leaked this story to complain that they were not allowed to investigate the Congresswoman have an interest in making the public believe that they listened in on the phone call legally. Otherwise, they have no case to argue.

The issue here is blackmail plus generalized eavesdropping equals the last eight years the country was run by criminals who were capable of anything. Also, how do we know that the "Israeli agent" phone call to Harmon was not a set up by the Bush administration to get her on record making compromising statements which could then be used to blackmail her? Israel is a staunch ally of Bush. I am sure that they would have helped out in whatever way they could---particularly if it would buy them leniency for two of their own under indictment.

When we are dealing with an administration as corrupt as Bush/Cheney, we must question everything. Cheney had a death squad, if Sy Hersch is to be believed (and I have never seen him wrong). People capable of murder will not hesitate to break any other law.

[grantcart]

35. excellent clarification - should be its own OP

[Tarc]

19. I think it should be a "why this is really an undue Israeli influence" story

Gonzalez the briber, Harmon the corrupted, yes. But the elephant in the room is a so-called "ally" who has been caught numerous times prying into our government where they shouldn't be.

[MasonJar]

21. I have been calling for a Special Prosecutor since Inauguration Day.

It takes the onus off of Obama and he can continue his agenda while the SP investigates and convenes a Grand Jury and brings charges. You are right that those being blackmailed need to step up also...and asap.

[JackRiddler]

25. Kand R for excellent stuff, except...

That Jane Harman IS sooooooo bad!

And in this case it wasn't blackmail, it was happy collusion with a key ally in the one big Total Homeland pot.

At any rate, you're right on the main point: This is about Gonzales. And the warrantless wiretap program. And the absolutist executive imposing its will on the other branches through blackmail.

[Octafish]

26. Ashcan and KKKarl Rove, too.

Yet, they and the rest of the BFEE are mere tools of those who rule the political class.

Go get 'em, McCamy Taylor! Thank you for being on the case from way back.

[wizstars]

27. a new hit movie: "Gonzo Goes to Jail"

it should be a documentary.

[Soylent Brice]

34. absolutely amazing!

K&R

and yes, you told us so indeed.