Julian Assange: "I`m a big admirer of Ron Paul"

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
There was absolutely nothing wrong with revealing corruption. That worked great. Now when Snowden shared enough with Russia to see their people in Moscow literally go to typewriters in some of their security service offices and China, start changing hardware switches and routers throughout their network? That isn't corruption. Frankly, it's espionage and treason. They don't have to be declared enemies for that to apply.

If only...he'd kept to releasing what the US was doing IN the US and TO Americans. Now THAT was illegal. THAT had laws the world recognizes to prohibit it. The rest he's blown? He's blown ONE side's capability while actually HELPING the other side defend and build more against it. That does direct harm to the United States.

We disagree here. First of all there's no evidence that what Snowden had was shared with either the Russians or the Chinese. We can suspect it all we want (and I'll throw out that the idea was put forth and pushed by those most opposed to him), it has been denied by both Russia, China, Snowden, Wikileaks, and Greenwald. Next I'm going to show why it's unlikely.

First of all a Chinese leak is unlikely because Taiwan isn't mainland China, they do things different. Letting Snowden flee rather than apprehend him for example is something Taiwan would do but not China. China is after China's own interests, Taiwan very much wants to be part of the mainstream western world and that means standing up for those values.

Next comes Russia, they've had the most opportunity to capture documents, but again both China and Russia are struggling with the issue of human rights globally. All it takes is one mention from Snowden that they seized documents and both China and Russia look bad to those seeking asylum. It's in a nations interest to treat those seeking asylum well, usually better than the average citizen in order to encourage more to flee which long term provides them with more secrets, prestige, and diplomatic leverage than an act of confiscation would.

Last comes the fact that everything Snowden has with the possible exception of an insurance file (which is no doubt encrypted) is going public anyways. If Russia is willing to wait they get all the information. They worded their asylum agreement with Snowden very specifically and knew full well that he had given everything to the press already. It essentially said, everything you've given can be freely shared by the press but if you're holding anything back for later you're being returned to the US. All Russia has to do is play the waiting game and they learn everything. One thing Putin has shown is that he can play waiting games well.

So now we come to the idea of disseminating the information to the American public without letting other countries know. In an age of global media this quite frankly isn't possible. If we are to know, then so is everyone else, through those same sources. This can hardly be held against Snowden, it's simply a matter of the global nature of communications these days. What matters is the intent, and Snowdens intent was to inform the American public which is why he did it in a public manner. If his intent was simply to harm our foreign intelligence he would have secretly gone to governments like Russia, China, and Iran and given them documents without ever telling the public.

reply to post by Aazadan

We certainly do disagree but with respect, indeed. To take the points one at a time for what caught my eye?

First of all there's no evidence that what Snowden had was shared with either the Russians or the Chinese. We can suspect it all we want (and I'll throw out that the idea was put forth and pushed by those most opposed to him), it has been denied by both Russia, China, Snowden, Wikileaks, and Greenwald. Next I'm going to show why it's unlikely.

If my son is standing in front of one of our walls with a hammer in his hand and on that wall is a new hole about the size of the hammer's head? I have no feeling of need to have seen him make the hole personally to know he whacked the wall with a hammer and it's the one he's still holding.

Snowden sat in Moscow, initially telling the world about how the NSA, in detail, violates the security of other nations. At about this same time, reports out of Russia indicated their Security services went stone age on everyone and threw out their word processors for type writers. I see a man holding a hammer. I see a hole. The hole wasn't there before the man with the hammer came to stand there. I'm also no serving in a Jury and under the rules of courtroom evidence.

First of all a Chinese leak is unlikely because Taiwan isn't mainland China, they do things different. Letting Snowden flee rather than apprehend him for example is something Taiwan would do but not China. China is after China's own interests, Taiwan very much wants to be part of the mainstream western world and that means standing up for those values.

Okay, he wasn't in Taiwan. He was in Hong Kong. Hong Kong IS a direct possession of Mainland China since the handoff from the British at the turn of the century. They keep it loose so as not to kill the golden goose aspect in a "Special Administrative Zone"...but make NO mistake. Hong Kong is Chinese soil if there are any questions to ask authority on the matter. Again.... While he HAPPENED to be there, explaining across headlines about how Chinese private sector had been hacked (and the Chinese Government was PUBLICLY upset about that very leak from him) the routers and networking hardware was seen to change across areas of China...as if by magic.

How much would you like to bet the NSA's access to Chinese intelligence ended in many ways when that hardware got swapped and switched? Man standing with a hammer. New hole in wall. It doesn't take a pic to prove that one.

As far as sharing more? It's not happening...Russia has said in public, at least, it won't happen and personally? I'll believe it when I see it.

If Snowden has shared all he knew or even GOOD stuff? I sure missed it and I'd call the NSA one of the lesser and more boring areas of Government. The hacking center was interesting, but already known without a specific name after the Stuxnet leaks by the White House indicated who did that dirty deed. Maybe scale was a new bt to learn...but the fact it happened wasn't. The overall monitoring? Read echelon articles from the 90's. He could have been reading one, word for word in some of what he "leaked".

However, he WAS a payrolled employee of the CIA for multiple years. He worked for the NSA and did contract work for them under multiple private companies. He sure has to have more than this....because he was in the position to see MUCH MUCH more..yet, we get scraps from B grade Hollywood movie speculation, confirmed.


I'm starting to seriously wonder if Snowden REALLY had an attack of conscience or if Russia didn't just pull one of the greatest intelligence coups in history. Run a sleeper agent and then extract them so skillfully, even the nation the agent worked against has no clue it got played all along. It's reading like DEFECTION...not asylum. This reeks of the regular games the two nations played before the wall came down. It's just new for modern audiences.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Do me a favor and please link or cite these protocols they have to follow? What restrictions are the media under by order of the executive or legislative branches?

The national security act of 1947 along with a bunch of executive orders from the president since then.

Then DHS took national security to a whole new fraudulent level if we accept 9-11 was an inside job to go to war and create a police state which kept getting bigger and bigger till now.

There are also many unwritten rules/laws that you find out the tough way.

To say they are pressured is one thing. To suggest they have formal protocols to follow moves it from encroachment of Government by undue pressure on a free press to outright, black and white 1st amendment violation that is so court actionable, the ACLU must have a half dozen cases in the pipeline as we speak.

meaningless semantics. You can't disclose classified material by law in the public regardless of anything. If the media shares such information by interviewing a whistleblower trying to expose corruption then the media outlet is just as vunerable as the whistleblower getting interviewed.

I've just not seen these formal protocols the free press is required to adhere to? Justice did show them there were unwritten ones....but even that wasn't discovered until recent months. Bush knew better than to directly go to war with the media. For all the slamming, hate and general Bush bashing like it's baseball or something...he wasn't a total idiot as some are today. Today, Holder and others are at open war with the 4th Estate ..yet still.. formal protocols outside the basic federal law EVERY citizen is held to on dissemination of classified material?

frankly i dont think bush got bashed more than obama is getting bashed today. in fact it seems obama is getting bashed more than bush did. i am not going to judge which president was worse because both were lousy. and I mean really lousy!

* if anyone doubts that 'EVERY" citizen part and figures those laws we've always had are just media? Go deep web digging some day and come back up here with a classified bone to be the first to share openly ... See if it takes 1 day or 2 for the knock-knock to come and it ain't a joke being delivered.

there is no way to access classified information without the proper clearance and need to know. that means we need insiders to whistleblow stuff. some times they might leave doors open but they are traps and I caution people to not take the bait.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Snowden sat in Moscow, initially telling the world about how the NSA, in detail, violates the security of other nations. At about this same time, reports out of Russia indicated their Security services went stone age on everyone and threw out their word processors for type writers. I see a man holding a hammer. I see a hole. The hole wasn't there before the man with the hammer came to stand there. I'm also no serving in a Jury and under the rules of courtroom evidence.

This happened in more than just Russia, it happened worldwide. Pretty much everyone other than the US's partners started changing the way they do things to try and become less vulnerable to spying programs. The information which would suggest making this change was also released publicly. We've had plenty of discussions on this board even about ways to circumvent the NSA. Any responsible government the world over has had the same discussions and likely come up with the same answers.

Okay, he wasn't in Taiwan. He was in Hong Kong. Hong Kong IS a direct possession of Mainland China since the handoff from the British at the turn of the century. They keep it loose so as not to kill the golden goose aspect in a "Special Administrative Zone"...but make NO mistake. Hong Kong is Chinese soil if there are any questions to ask authority on the matter. Again.... While he HAPPENED to be there, explaining across headlines about how Chinese private sector had been hacked (and the Chinese Government was PUBLICLY upset about that very leak from him) the routers and networking hardware was seen to change across areas of China...as if by magic.

Sorry, I meant Hong Kong for some reason I was thinking he was in Taiwan. Regardless, Hong Kong is another hands off area (actually, it's pretty similar for all areas of China). Change changed hardware as an initial response to what was written. This was before we knew what we know now of just how invasive all this technology is. If they had advanced knowledge they would have gone back to typewriters, pen, and paper at that time rather than trying new computer hardware. In other words their response would have been more like Russias if they knew everything. It's pretty unlikely the hardware switching actually impacted the NSA programs given what we know of them now. Infact, it may have even made them more vulnerable by opening China up to new hardware based exploits that weren't widespread enough to take advantage of before.

If Snowden has shared all he knew or even GOOD stuff? I sure missed it and I'd call the NSA one of the lesser and more boring areas of Government. The hacking center was interesting, but already known without a specific name after the Stuxnet leaks by the White House indicated who did that dirty deed. Maybe scale was a new bt to learn...but the fact it happened wasn't. The overall monitoring? Reach echelon articles from the 90's. He could have been reading one, word for word in some of what he "leaked".

Here's the thing, what Snowden did was reveal documents proving peoples suspicions true. There's been conspiracy theories out there about how much information the government has access to, that they're spying, and so on. Prior to Snowden though there were allegations from a couple of whistleblowers and that was it. Snowden released documents showing who's doing it, what they're doing, where they're doing it, when they're doing it, why they're doing it, and how they're doing it. He took it from theory to fact, and when it's fact it's something reputable organizations can report on and bring mainstream.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Okay, I really really would like links TO them. Not just references that somewhere in the few thousand executive orders signed since Truman came to power is something specifically directing journalists in their conduct of reporting stories.

Given that I DO much of the same stuff a citizen journalist is said to do? This really isn't just academic to be asking. If there are protocols, the folks at the college aren't aware of them to have mentioned in related discussions and I've sure not seen them. If there are lines that I, as a citizen journalist (or say I open a small paper to drop the citizen part from the title), where are these to be found..specifically, so I may know what restrictions I'm legally under to report things?

I'm not suggesting your making this up...not at all. Short of reading the source though, there is nothing to this for meaning. Journalists aren't like cops or soldiers with some special access things only they get told or know. (even if they'd love to convey that impression sometimes) We all ought to be aware of these protocols if they are something enforced or held to in any way at all?

reply to post by Aazadan

Well, you are right. We do disagree. I believe there is the Mt Everest of circumstantial evidence to show Snowden really did talk to more than just Guardian staff...and unbelievably for how people seem to think Russia is full of good humor men, looking to give Snowden big warm hugs? They are absolutely no different or better than we are. Never have been. So...assuming Russia is doing all this for him..for what? Just to be friendly and amicable? Thats an assumption of such size, I won't even touch. I see nothing but wishful speculation to support the Snowden Hero image that suggests he DID NOT share additional information.

He was, by profession, a liar and a deceiver for his entire adult life, by his own words. He spent that whole time as a loyal and hard working member of the system everyone seems to hate with a passion ....and a man we do not know, know absolutely nothing about in any REAL sense, breaks from that world and dedicated career of US intelligence work to bust butt for China, then Moscow, and we automatically give him heroic attributes to the absolute EXCLUSION of any other consideration?

I'm sorry, but this is idolizing the man. It's hero worship and little different than a sports figure or movie star we fall in love with the public image of..before often learning they are real pieces of crap in real life. I'm just not buying into the hero worship when the evidence is not supporting it. It really doesn't confirm EITHER way at the moment....but he's living in Russia and that gives the nudge over center line for my thinking.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


USC Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37
www.law.cornell.edu...

You also have to sign a non-disclosure agreement after getting vetted for a clearance to perform the job you apply for. A thorough background check that depends on the level of security clearance you need. The higher the clearance the more they dig.

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third parties. It's a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement. An NDA creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of confidential and proprietary information or trade secrets. As such, an NDA protects nonpublic business information.

NDAs are commonly signed when two companies, individuals, or other entities (such as partnerships, societies, etc.) are considering doing business and need to understand the processes used in each other's business for the purpose of evaluating the potential business relationship. NDAs can be "mutual", meaning both parties are restricted in their use of the materials provided, or they can restrict the use of material by a single party.

It is also possible for an employee to sign an NDA or NDA-like agreement with an employer. In fact, some employment agreements will include a clause restricting employees' use and dissemination of company-owned "confidential information."

en.wikipedia.org...

The media is not breaking any non disclosure agreements, the person being interviewed is. The media however is disseminating classified information by agreeing to host an illegal interview.

As for the executive orders frankly its too much of a hassle to dig through them.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


He would have broke the law regardless if he gave disclosure in the USA or Hong Kong, because a)violated non disclosure agreement and b)disseminating classified information.

Since he took that information to hong kong now he is also guilty of c)espionage, because he is sharing that information with foreign powers that technically are not friendly with the usa. BUT the big positive is that he received immunity from prosecution in the USA because foreign powers are not obligated to turn him over.

So he spilled the beans about project echelon, which violates both the first and fourth amendment of the USA constitution, and he also spilled the beans about the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc spying on behalf of one another and that information stored at some mainframe illegally possibly to be used as extortion by government beauracrats whenever they wish. In other words the british commonwealth nations are spying on one another which sounds like treason to me.

Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The governmentS have abnormal leverage with project echelon and frankly its no different than my neighbor stalking me on a daily basis reading my emails, my post, listening to my phone calls, reading my faxes.

What edward snowden did was honorable and necessary. Most people would not do the same thing. Very few would. I congragulate him for being brave enough to make such a sacrifice to lay the groundwork for a better america.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Aazadan

 

.

Okay, he wasn't in Taiwan. He was in Hong Kong. Hong Kong IS a direct possession of Mainland China since the handoff from the British at the turn of the century. They keep it loose so as not to kill the golden goose aspect in a "Special Administrative Zone"...but make NO mistake. Hong Kong is Chinese soil if there are any questions to ask authority on the matter. Again.... While he HAPPENED to be there, explaining across headlines about how Chinese private sector had been hacked (and the Chinese Government was PUBLICLY upset about that very leak from him) the routers and networking hardware was seen to change across areas of China...as if by magic.

How much would you like to bet the NSA's access to Chinese intelligence ended in many ways when that hardware got swapped and switched? Man standing with a hammer. New hole in wall. It doesn't take a pic to prove that one.

As far as sharing more? It's not happening...Russia has said in public, at least, it won't happen and personally? I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm starting to seriously wonder if Snowden REALLY had an attack of conscience or if Russia didn't just pull one of the greatest intelligence coups in history. Run a sleeper agent and then extract them so skillfully, even the nation the agent worked against has no clue it got played all along. It's reading like DEFECTION...not asylum. This reeks of the regular games the two nations played before the wall came down. It's just new for modern audiences.

edit on 20-8-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Wrab, Snowden was safe in Hong Kong, there was no way that he would be touched by anyone. Same pretty much goes for the Moscow airport transit lounge. You're in international waters in most respects in both places.
Now what is known to us, is the ability by the NSA/NCTC to track the internet activity of all of us, by doing that Snowden is propounding the obvious. That other great powers can also do this is not out of the question either.
Our Home Secretary Theresa May is in the matrix over Miranda's detention, what was her day job before she became a ruling cabinet politician? she is a fecking banker, (Bank of England) no less. So what's going on there?
Snowden is our man, us wee feckups not in the big picture, that needs to be understood.
A parting shot, a quote from the UK's Foreign Minister, The Rt Hon William Hague MP over the Snowden revelations, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" Tell that to Miranda, the only person ever to be detained for the full 9 hours using 'Section 7' detention 'law'

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


(sigh) I wonder how much we're even on the same page here for background knowledge. Did Snowden even mention Echelon? I'm not sure he did at all. If he did say the word, it would have been peripheral and secondary to the other programs he talks about now.

I mentioned Echelon because I was reading magazine articles about it in the 90's where it was claiming to have the hoover capability Snowden is dazzling people with modern tales of tech for ...over 15 years ago. So..If his top drawer stuff to leak is basically re-hash and re-run of tech that was openly talked about a decade and a half ago? Where is the stuff that actually required his TS clearance and special access stuff? It couldn't have been things like PRISM.

Yeah..that sure has been embarrassing..but the whole reason it's been so embarrassing is because SO MANY people have been using it for so many things. Hardly the sanctum sanctorum of US secrets.

I had really held out hope that he was sharing valuable stuff...but alas, nothing we hadn't at least seen public versions of presented in media or elsewhere. Not much at all. NSA USED to have a Windows backdoor into any machine running the right version of it, anywhere in the world. Plenty of media covered that back when it came out. What replaced it? He was a network tech and working right in with that stuff,. NSA HAS been almost violently opposed to PGP at one time...then, overnight, dropped all opposition. They cracked or backdoored it is my suspicion. So where is THAT info?

See what I mean? He leaked absolutely nothing to the public which really means anything or changes anything aside from souring relations with allied nations of course. That wouldn't support him as having America's interesting as his motivation. Our HARM would be more in line with that...

Also... It seems he's not entirely hiding. He and his father talked recently but had to go over the legal defense teams in both the U.S. and Russia to have even that small chat. I don't think we've heard the last of this or the hunt to get him by almost any means within the U.S. power. I think we've heard the last leaks of value though..and what we got wasn't squat in the end.

Sticking your hands in peoples pants to check for explosives at public events is as American as apple pie.

Originally posted by Malynn
As much as I wanted to support Rand Paul I watched him defend for-profit healthcare with a straight face on Jon Stewart, er, the Daily Show (with John Oliver at the moment) the other day. I got so nauseous. I know Ron would defend for-profit healthcare as well but it somehow seems more annoying coming from Rand. It's this giant Elephant in the room. The US is literally the only western nation in the world with barbarism disguised as healthcare and no one talks about it, unless they're telling you to keep your pinko commie socialist ideas to yourself and to keep your hands off the money of big pharma. Because god knows the world won't revolve unless people are getting mega rich off the misfortune of others.

edit on 8/19/13 by Malynn because: (no reason given)

Profits creates incentives for better pricing through competition. I saw the interview on Daily Show too and I was not bothered with it, in fact he took some of Olivers' comedy covered statist attacks and turned it around in a casual yet educational manner.

I think you may just have to read more about the fundamental ideas of free markets and voluntary exchanges and relationships...and sort of just sit on it and let it marinate for a bit. But then again, you don't mind when Ron Paul says it so its more of a personal thing than an idealogical thing?

Originally posted by thoughtfuldeliquent
I'm curious, how does Hillary Clinton have support? Everything I've seen of her scares the # out of me. Good luck America. Here in Australia we have our election coming up, and there's a choice between big gov or big gov (given the liberals last 4-5 years in power, which was Howard, who raised public sector revenue and added many public jobs). I guess we could vote wikileaks into senate and hope they blocked anything stupid that the house comes out with. Other then that, it's just a massive gamble.

She has extremely good name recognition, the type that most politicians would sell their souls for. Most of it came from Bill's popularity from 8 years as president, a MAJOR scandal, and whatever he did after. She may not be nice and is certainly not getting a gift from Santa...EVERY YEAR but she is well known and when it comes to elections, name recognition is one of your most powerful assets.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Ron [and Rand Paul] seem like traditional conservatives that are against the globalist agenda, not really libertarians.

Did you really just say that? Ron Paul is the godfather of the modern libertarian movement, how the hell is he not really a libertarian? He believes in MINIMALIST government, only enough to protect life, liberty, and property...he believes in abolishing most of government entities outside of the few main constitutional functions. He believes in states rights, he believes in personal and economic freedom. Rand labels himself a libertarian conservative, small l big C...that much we already know although I personally believe he is closer to his father than he leads everybody to believe. The only reason why he is so popular today is because he has worded the message in such a way that mainstream conservatives can accept it without getting defensive.

It reminds me of gary johnson talking about legalising "soft drugs" and people just staring at him in disbelief. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and financially conservative. Traditional conservatives dont want to hear anything liberal at all.

Ron Paul is for a relatively small government but I dont view him as libertarian as such. I dont think he is socially liberal like gary johnson. BTW gary johnson was the republican governor of new mexico and then decided to run with the libertarian party and got .99% of the total vote.

We are arguing semantics but at this point its important imo.

edit on 20/8/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

You see when it comes to Ron Paul there is no fiscally conservative or socially liberal, he believes in individual rights, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not harming others, it has a very "golden rule" and/or "common law" theme to it.

Take from it what you will but that is a fact, if that is not libertarian...I really don't know what is.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
[there is no way to access classified information without the proper clearance and need to know. that means we need insiders to whistleblow stuff. some times they might leave doors open but they are traps and I caution people to not take the bait.

If the doors are open, they are open by virtue of the internet, and in the public domain. But we stray too far from the OP. Ron Paul is a man with ethics and intelligent ones with that, real ethics not the virtual world, you need not agree with all of those ethics, not to be confused with dogma.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


It doesn't matter what you or I knew, it matters what the majority knew. The majority did not know that the american government spied on its own citizens prior to the revelations of snowden. Just because it was unclassifed doesn't mean anything if the publicity was lacking.

The procedures and details were classified, not the projects themselves.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
[there is no way to access classified information without the proper clearance and need to know. that means we need insiders to whistleblow stuff. some times they might leave doors open but they are traps and I caution people to not take the bait.

If the doors are open, they are open by virtue of the internet, and in the public domain. But we stray too far from the OP. Ron Paul is a man with ethics and intelligent ones with that, real ethics not the virtual world, you need not agree with all of those ethics, not to be confused with dogma.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

These networks and others are secure government channels of communication. You need the appropriate clearance to enter them and need to know as well.

The "open doors" dont happen too often but I do recall gary mckinnon getting to see "naval warships" in space.

rense.com...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well, I would have thought what the public knew or didn't know wasn't the point either. I have absolutely no idea what the NSA serves on it's cafeteria menu at Ft Meade, either. I don't care to know and it won't change a thing to say...although somewhere, for some reason, there is probably a regulation saying they can't release that too. lol...

Maybe I'm proven entirely wrong here...Maybe Snowden does someday leave Russia and go to a third nation to show his stated intentions have actually BEEN his intentions all along. Perhaps then, rather than just saying things to amuse a public that didn't know...he can release information that may bring and force change. He'd started to...the process had seemed to begin and especially the way his actions were encouraging others.

Now? Well.. the wells of others are drying up faster than the Sahara desert and what we're left with is enough to make a rousing game of NSA Trivial Pursuit....but precious little else.

In reality? ..and I don't know how much people have thought about this.... What Snowden has done was give the excuse to lock down and put the screws to every employee handling anything sensitive, anywhere in the US Government. It's allowed the addition of systems and regulations which, in the absence of him as a cause, couldn't have realistically been done for looking clinically paranoid within their OWN house. Now, they have everything they may have wanted......and we got nothing for the lock down it caused.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I am not sure exactly what your point even is. What did you expect him to release? Sure some people have released much more and got even less of a thank you than snowden did. It seems like you just don't like whistleblowing in general and like making up excuses.

(not much more to add really)

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I don't like Russian agents...and have begun to suspect for awhile, that's all he's ever actually been. All show. No Substance.

That's the point...but we'll disagree and that's fine. Time will tell what the truth here is.