Clinton says she relied on State aides for classification decisions

[tk2kewl]

Source: Reuters

Hillary Clinton responded on Friday to a scathing assessment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she was "extremely careless" with classified government secrets by saying she relied on the judgment of her subordinates at the U.S. State Department.

After maintaining for more than a year that she did not send or receive classified information through her unauthorized private email server, she acknowledged on Friday she may have at least unwittingly done so, three days after the FBI concluded this happened at least 110 times.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said she "certainly did not believe" that she was handling classified information on her server at the time, but emphasized that she followed the lead of her subordinates on whether information was classified.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email-idUSKCN0ZO2FB

[Travis_0004]

1. Instead of "the buck stops here"

"its this guys fault"

[lapucelle]

6. I think she was referring to emails that were forwarded or sent to her

that didn't have classified headings.

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."


If Clinton were prosecuted for receiving and then forwarding a communication in an email chain that was not (but should have been) marked classified, then everyone else in that chain would have to be prosecuted as well.

[pnwmom]

8. Right. If Intelligence had succeeded, then hundreds of people in and out of State

would also have to be indicted.

[lapucelle]

10. "if Intelligence had succeeded"

What does that mean?

I wonder if the White House was part of any of those chains.

[pnwmom]

17. I mean if the Department of Intelligence had succeeded in getting

the FBI to indict the former Head of the State Department because of the Intelligence Dept's views that some of those non-classified emails SHOULD have been classified (but weren't), then all of the other State department employees who had been passing the same info around in the non-classified .gov accounts would also have to be indicted. Unless there was supposed to be a special Hillary double-standard.

And the WH certainly could have been part of those chains. I don't recall whether I've read that or not.

[Cosmocat]

59. Let's be clear about this B U L L S H I T

This whole situation is blatant, trumped up political farce.

She said for all this time that she did not send or receive classified e-mails because THAT IS WHAT SHE THOUGHT.

She did not at any time BY HER KNOWING send or receive any classified materials.

Then, in a bold faced partisan move, the FBI director KNOWINGLY crafted a public announcement that purposefully muddled facts in a way to FALSELY paint SOS Clinton in a manner completely inconsistent with the facts in order to set up the republican party and meida to engage in a full out false and extraordinarily negative manner.

To be clear, James Comey INTENTIONALLY and PURPOSEFULLY conducted an act of political sabotage on Hillary Clinton.

He worded things in his unchallenged public statements to make it out that Hillary Clinton knowingly sent or received over 100 classified e-mails on her private server.

Only when questioned by congress, under oath, did he relay that this was not true, that there were only three e-mails that were classfied, and again, only after being directly confronted, did he admit that they had been incorrectly headlined and that minus the headline there was no reasonable way to know they were classified.

Christ fuck alive, this shit has been so insanely misreprented to the public at large, we don't need this shit here.

[SusanLarson]

2. Classification

The Secretary of State is the Classification authority at the state department

(a) National security information (hereinafter 'classified information') shall be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) 'Top Secret' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

(2) 'Secret' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

(3) 'Confidential' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security. (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify classified information.

(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.

If there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.

Sec. 1.2 Classification Authority.

(a) Top Secret. The authority to classify information originally as Top Secret may be exercised only by:

(1) the President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and (3) officials delegated this authority pursuant to Section 1.2(d).

(b) Secret. The authority to classify information originally as Secret may be exercised only by:

(1) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; (2) officials with original Top Secret classification authority; and (3) officials delegated such authority pursuant to Section 1.2(d).

(c) Confidential. The authority to classify information originally as Confidential may be exercised only by:

(1) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; (2) officials with original Top Secret or Secret classification authority; and (3) officials delegated such authority pursuant to Section 1.2(d).

(d) Delegation of Original Classification Authority. (1) Delegations of original classification authority shall
be limited to the minimum required to administer this Order.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. 1d ... Looks like she was compliant ...

Not that it would/will matter.

[NWCorona]

34. Hillary would be compliant if spillage reports were filled out for

the non marked classified emails that were sent to her.

I do agree with your last assessment tho.

[pnwmom]

7. Right. And this is why the FBI was never going to be able to make any charges stick.

Intelligence and State are in a turf war and Hillary was caught in the middle. Intelligence, which sent the complaint to the FBI, is much more likely to over-classify, according to Tom Blanton, the head of the National Archives. They think information needs to be classified that State doesn't view as needing to be kept secret.

But each Agency Head has the ultimate authority for deciding whether their agency-created documents are classified; and the only persons who can overturn the authority of any agency head are Obama and Biden -- who have always supported Hillary.

So Intelligence doesn't get to overrule the judgment of State, no matter how much it wants to do so, and they can't even use the FBI to do that.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Non-IT Executives

rely on IT all the time, and do what they advise

This is not surprising to me.

[RiverNoord]

11. Well, I'm very much an 'IT' guy,

'executives' sometimes do what I advise and sometimes don't (which has led to a few people with major problems over the years), and, to be perfectly clear about why I'm writing this...

where is it, anywhere, indicated in this article or any other, that Hillary Clinton relied on 'IT' concerning her use of the private email server?

Actual working IT people don't classify or declassify documents. Officials working in other capacities do that. Such as... the Secretary of State, within the State Department.

Nothing in this whole business indicates that any advice provided by State Department IT staff was followed by Hillary Clinton. However, she did skip at least two seminars that did involve IT staff on the subject of information security.

I wouldn't have bothered to write anything on the subject if I hadn't seen your post.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. "I wouldn't have bothered to write anything on the subject if I hadn't seen your post.""

And you're telling me this because ....?????

You post is ....????? punishment?

Did I ask for your opinion on my opinion?

[RiverNoord]

24. Writing posts on a largely public political web site forum

is pretty much guaranteeing that you are going to see 'opinions on your opinions.' If that's a source of umbrage for you, perhaps you should conclude your posts with something like 'what I just wrote is not necessarily the opinion of me or any official representative of me.'

And I told you what I did because I'm in IT, and your post strongly suggested that 'IT' people were the basis for Hillary Clinton's decisions on handling sensitive, possibly classified information. But nothing in the article, nor anything I've read on the subject, suggests this at all.

If someone incorrectly asserted that members of a line of work you happened to be in were to blame for something, and you took that line of work seriously, would you say nothing?

[elleng]

29. Thanks. I'm glad you did.

[snooper2]

60. LOL,

Would you like me to answer those questions for you

[pnwmom]

5. All the different agencies have different standards for what should be classified

and Intelligence classifies much more than State does, according to Tom Blanton of the National Archives, who says over-classification is the real problem.

Of course Hillary, as the newcomer, relied on the judgement of the professional staff there who were sending her emails from the non-classified .gov system.

[RiverNoord]

14. Um... Hillary Clinton was the spouse of a United States President

for 8 years, during which time she was very actively engaged in political activities involving sensitive information. And then a United States Senator, where, for 6 years, she served, among other things, on the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Seriously, she knew more than just about any American politician alive about proper handling of sensitive information. If the 'professional staff' was lax with respect to 'sending her emails' containing highly sensitive information, she should have been an ideal person to seriously address the subject, given her background.

[pnwmom]

16. So what? Each agency has its OWN standards and practices; and, as I said,

there is an ongoing disagreement between the Intelligence and State Departments about what info needs to be classified. It's a subjective -- not scientific -- process.

Intelligence wants to be able to tell State how State should handle State's business. This is part of a larger turf war.

And the President, who was her sole supervisor, has always stood behind Hillary's decisions for State.

[RiverNoord]

19. The key element of what you just wrote is

'It's a subjective -- not scientific -- process.'

If that's the case, why on earth err on the completely opposite side of caution and run potentially classified, and certainly highly sensitive information, through a personally owned private email server?

The subjective nature of whether something may or may not 'need to be' classified suggests that a prudent person, with some knowledge of this, should have carefully followed standard processes for email usage.

[pnwmom]

20. State's .gov server was no safer than her private server. We know, for a fact,

that the .gov system suffered repeated, massive hacks. And yet the FBI, even though they looked, could find no evidence that Hillary's system had been hacked. They just assume that it probably was, based on no evidence but their suspicions.

The State department says that it couldn't get its work done if it operated the way Intelligence wants it to. Intelligence -- which asked the FBI to investigate Hillary's emails -- is notoriously conservative in this regard. That doesn't make it right.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-hell-up/

The FBI, and other security agencies within the government, are not partners with the State Department, they’re antagonists. Anyone who has done even a little bit of national security reporting will tell you that these agencies are absolute in their belief in secrecy, and would classify the menu board on their favorite lunch truck if they could, but this tendency is especially onerous to diplomats, who require a much greater level of flexibility in what they can discuss than other government officials. When Comey slams State as having a “lax culture” around secrecy, he’s delivering his opinion as a rival, not the unbiased assessment of an objective observer.

If James Comey had wanted to present a case against Hillary Clinton, he should have indicted her. Instead, he failed to charge her because he had no case, yet was still permitted to present a case against her. It is the media’s duty to correct that injustice, to rebut Comey’s misleading speculation with facts. Let’s see how that goes.

[RiverNoord]

22. Huh. I didn't know that. I still don't think I know that.

The .gov 'system' isn't, like, a single server farm all running together. It's a domain that's used by a vast number of agencies and institutions. There are numerous email servers operating within that framework.

Now, I don't know how you know so much about the intrigues between 'Intelligence' (which agency or agencies, exactly, do you mean?) and the Department of State, but I do know a fair amount about email servers. And data security (well, I'm not an expert but a practitioner.)

I agree that when a government official responsible for investigating possible crimes declines to recommend prosecution, the official should not, when making this decision public, also make prejudicial statements to the effect that the crime or crimes under investigation may have been committed. Certainly not the Director of the FBI.

But all that intrigue you seem to represent yourself as knowing a lot about is not a basis for what Hillary Clinton did. She's still not said why she did it - was it because of a poorly functioning or inadequate State Department email system? She's never said that. If that was the case, it would mean that she, as Secretary, had recognized problems, and therefore should have acted on them. That didn't happen. Or was it because she believed that the standards for classification of documents and information in one agency shouldn't have been the standards for the agency she headed? Again, she never said that. All of the arguments like those are after-the-fact examinations of circumstances which were never cited by Clinton as a basis for her decision to run all her official email out of a single private server (and I'm quite certain that 'clintonemail.com' was successfully targeted by foreign intelligence agents - it would have been easy pickings.)

[pnwmom]

31. Hillary was the head of State but the problems with the pathetic non-classified

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:21 AM - Edit history (2)

email system affected all the parts of the government, and there have been numerous detailed reports about it. She wasn't authorized and didn't have the budget for fixing the problems, even if they could have somehow just been fixed at State (and nowhere else.)

For one thing, were you aware that she couldn't even use the non-classified system when she was traveling? It could only be used when you were in the office. And yet when she requested a secure Blackberry like Obama had, she was told there was no budget for it.

Also, to give you another example of how bad the State dept system was -- the one they wanted her to use -- there was an OIG analysis in March 2015 that said that the non-classified system at State wasn't even preserving emails. In 2011 only 61,000 emails out of a billion were saved. In 2013 even fewer were saved. So when the FOIA request came through, if she had been using her .gov account exclusively, the State Dept. would have had almost nothing to had over.

Yet the Republicans had been fighting budget requests to upgrade the systems. They'd much rather criticize Hillary for going outside of it in order to have workable email, while ignoring the fact that Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice did the same thing.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/03/state-department-has-rebuild-its-classified-networks-after-2014-hack/107205/

That might not be the case. Zero percent of State’s email was sent via systems configured to encrypt messages — or code the contents so they are unreadable if intercepted, according the White House’s annual report to Congress on agency information security. The messages were all sent in clear text.

SNIP

One weakness in all department systems is the absence of two-step identity verification, according to the cyber score-sheet. Under a 2004 presidential directive, all agency login screens must require users to enter passwords and a second credential, like a smart card, for access. The 2016 budget states State is aiming to establish the two-step process by 2018.

SNIP

Right now, State is incapable of “digitally signing” outgoing email to citizens and colleagues, the cyber score sheet found.

This means anyone might be able to ”spoof,” or copy, an official “@state.gov” email address to fool people into thinking they are being contacted by a legitimate high-ranking official.

In theory, an email purportedly from Kerry at “[e-mail]” that asks a staffer to send him an internal PowerPoint presentation on Iran actually might be from a foreign cyberspy.

“Clinton’s own staff had been targeted with such highly targeted ‘spear phishing’ emails as early as 2009, the year she took office,” Shane Harris writes in the Daily Beast.

Some reformed black hat hackers say it goes without saying that any system — government or personal — is vulnerable without multistep ID checks.

[RiverNoord]

48. And if you had leadership under a concerned Secretary of State,

resolving the problems, for example, with the absence of a strong digital signature system and the necessary accompanying protocols to shift to strongly encrypted digital-signature authenticated emails would take about 3 months and not a whole lot of money (Linux is pretty cheap and so is hardware, and they were in 2008).

Seriously, the NSA is at the leading edge of encryption-breaking and signals intelligence, and the United States State Department doesn't have digital signature-authentication on its sensitive email with extremely hardened defenses? It doesn't take millions and millions to make that happen...

The thing is, Clinton never cited any of that as a basis for what she did. And the 'clintonemail.com' encryption and firewall systems were really, really bad. So, if State has a major problem with email security, it needs to be aggressively resolved, monitored, and updated rigorously. Here's how a Secretary of State with serious concerns about information security fixes that:

Mister President, if the concerns that I have raised are not addressed fully within one year, I will have no choice but to resign and make a public statement concerning my reasons for doing so.

[pnwmom]

49. The government's .gov systems were not her responsibility, and she wasn't

even allowed the budget for a secure phone, much less to revamp the computer security of the whole State Department.

And there is no evidence that her systems were any worse than the .gov system. It was proven to be hacked numerous times. Her system wasn't. There is only conjecture that it might have been.

[RiverNoord]

52. Wait - you just said 'Her system wasn't' (hacked)?

Seems like a slip of true intent to me. If you have even the most rudimentary understanding of TCP/IP and the Internet, you'll recognize at face value that 'clintonemail.com' traffic was being scooped up by at least two foreign cyberintelligence agencies, and at least on domestic one.

I don't know what is true and what isn't about your arguments. And it doesn't matter, with respect to the subject of how Hillary Clinton handled her email as SoS. If she had ever just said 'I was concerned that the State Department email system might be too easy to compromise,' then it might be. But she didn't. People have been interviewed by the FBI to find out why she did it. They haven't talked. The paltry 'IT' guy who maintained the system received an immunity from prosecution deal and he still won't say.

That means that, if the motives behind what Clinton did were publicized, it would go even worse for her than it has thus far. Which means that there was something really wrong with what she did and why she did it. It's that simple. All of the other stuff you cite certainly is relevant with respect to whether the State Department and other entities that may have data exposed via the .gov domain suffix have information technology in place that satisfies modern standards of data security. That's important. But it doesn't address the question at hand.

[pnwmom]

53. Director Comey himself said that he found no evidence that her system was hacked.

But he DID have evidence that the .gov system was hacked, and that the private commercial accounts of some other people were. So he assumed hers probably was, too -- but he explicitly said he found no evidence of that.

[Laser102]

33. Maddow showed what was involved with retaining emails at the State Dept. When an email was

received or sent they had to be copied, printed and then placed in a box on the floor. All emails including classified. In a box on the floor. That was their system. If she sent or received 500 emails a day, and that's a conservative estimate, it would take hours to copy and retain all of them. Hardly an efficient system. As far as this IT stuff goes, she and most people her age would rely on others for help with what a lot of older people consider challenging. Not all of us are IT. Right?

[elleng]

30. He did not want to present a case against her,

his job was to evaluate the available evidence. He failed at nothing.

[pnwmom]

32. There was no case to present against her because she broke no actual law.

He succeeded in smearing her, however, which apparently was his aim.

[yeoman6987]

51. He said nothing that the president said or she said herself

[pnwmom]

54. He smeared her by saying she was "extremely careless." The President never said that

and neither did Hillary.

I agree she made a mistake using the private server -- a political mistake because it left her open to these attacks.

[yeoman6987]

55. Ok. The president left out extremely and just said careless.

[pnwmom]

56. Where? Link please. n/

[NWCorona]

35. Being a newcomer is irrelevant

Besides she had a security clearance as first lady and as a senator from NY. This isn't new stuff.

[pnwmom]

37. As I said, each agency has different standards and practices, so her previous

experience was irrelevant.

[NWCorona]

39. What does that matter tho?

As a senator, Hillary was on the Armed Services committee and would have been well versed in multiple agencies work.

[pnwmom]

40. And she would have known the reputation that State had for being

less likely to classify than the Department of Intelligence.

This was a longstanding practice, dating back decades, and has to do with the different functions of the agencies. And the regulations made each Agency Head the ultimate authority for the classification decisions of its OWN agency. Only the President and Biden had authority over Hillary -- not other agency heads.

[NWCorona]

41. The issue is the fact that Hillary wasn't the owning authority on some of the info.

[pnwmom]

42. I hope you don't have a security clearance because you could lose it by reading this:

Sometimes info that is "owned" by one agency is in reality well into the public domain.

For example: the topic of drones. Better stop reading if you've got a clearance.

Intelligence can claim to "own" all info about drones, but they can't stop people in Pakistan from looking up in the sky and seeing them. They can't stop newspapers in Pakistan from reporting them. They can't stop news media in Europe and elsewhere from spreading the story -- and millions of people from reading about it and forwarding it in their emails.

And that is how info "owned" by Intelligence can end up in non-classified accounts all over the government -- from people like Blumenthal forwarding newspaper stories about drones on .gov and other non-classified servers.

[NWCorona]

43. I'm not gonna argue over, over classification as I agree with you

But when the OIG had to have investigators read in to be able to do their jobs I think it's more than what's in the public domain.

[pnwmom]

44. And I think the reason they didn't even try to make charges is because all this supposedly

sensitive info was just a great big nothingburger, like the drone stories.

[NWCorona]

45. I honestly can't say and certainly can be true

But if there is satellite imaging, SIGINT/HUMINT data that would change things.

The agency who referred this to the FBI said they never seen anything like this before.

[pnwmom]

46. If there WAS, don't you think Comey, who has been after her ever since Whitewater,

would have pressed charges?

[NWCorona]

47. I don't think so as he said there wasn't intent.

There was gamma level intelligence on that server as it is.

But we both are guessing what is actually in there and will probably never really know for sure.

[RiverNoord]

50. Exactly. The 'different practices' argument is utterly irrelevant.

After all that experience, she became head of the entire United States diplomatic machine. And... she promptly decided that she and a few of her most trusted staff would send and receive all their official email via a server she personally owned, stored on property she owned, using email addresses with her last name in the domain.

There's absolutely no 'ignorance' basis for that. I have described the essentials of public-private key encryption successfully to at least a dozen decision makers over the past 5 years or so, who hadn't the slightest idea what encryption was.

Here motives weren't based on keeping email content secure from hostile actors.

But, whatever - I guess we have no choice but to try elect her to the Presidency now. The only standards we can hold our officials accountable to is that they should be better than the other guy.

[riversedge]

9. Short video here of her words for the interview......

I think she gave 3 interviews today -that I know of. She talks about the FBI findings in the first 3 minutes or so of this video.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141513168

[boomer55]

12. All things considered the hosts today repeatedly called hrc a "brazen liar"

That in any normal election would be in deep trouble. Not Fox News, npr.

[pnwmom]

21. NPR is no longer the neutral site that it used to be, in case you haven't noticed. n/t

[Jopin Klobe]

13. Then, what should we expect form this? ...

...“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel” : Hillary Clinton ...

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger-come-back-to-haunt-her/|

[RiverNoord]

15. There are people who simply have a temperament for

taking credit for things they didn't do and blaming others for things they did.

Donald Trump is one of them...

[MichMan]

23. She never sent any classified information?

I gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt from the beginning and wanted to believe when she said that no classified information was ever sent from her own server. I was more concerned about the failure to comply with FOIA more than anything as I think government transparency is very important.

Happy that there were no charges as that would have almost ensured the election of Drumpf.

How is it that in 4 years of being SOS, that there was never one instance when she would have sent or received anything that was classified?

[former9thward]

25. There was.

You simply what to turn a blind eye to the FBI report.

[geek tragedy]

27. They use cables instead of email. nt

[pnwmom]

57. There was a whole separate system, called a SCIF, used to send classified documents.

She had a SCIF system set up at her home and at the State department.

There are lots of articles that mention it but this is the first one I ran across. In Hillary's case, her SCIF was guarded by the Secret Service who were already in her home.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack respected Republicans first.) Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation . For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping. A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted.

Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance. There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power lines or signal lines.





------------------------

And if you really care more about transparency than anything else, you should applaud Hillary for saving her emails on her private server. During the same period of time, almost nothing was preserved on the State Dept's .gov system. A March 2015 OIG report stated that in 2011, only 61K emails were preserved out of a billion. That means .0006% were saved. Hillary, by contrast, saved almost all of hers.

[Firebrand Gary]

26. For heaven's sake, give it a rest!

[Zambero]

28. Don't you just love it when...

stuff gets regurgitated to the point where matters that are of actual consequence get overlooked?

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. That is not what she was saying...

she was saying what Cummings was saying: that thousands of people within the state department who sent e-mails did not believe these were classified--not just her.

And that these are career state department employees who ALSO know that there was nothing wrong with what she did...indeed it was the common practice for SOS for years.

[bobthedrummer]

38. I, for one, don't believe that at all. I signed the DU GE thing. This is HRC bullshit.

[bobthedrummer]

58. Does anyone truly think this is over, despite chanting your mantras? kick n/t

[tk2kewl]

61. not me

[bobthedrummer]

62. There's a lot more than just the two of US in the "free world" that are questioning this.