Please fucking listen to me. I'm an expert at this and reddit ignores the shit out of this.Four questions that determine Hillary's exposure in her email scandal.

358

367

Archived Please fucking listen to me. I'm an expert at this and reddit ignores the shit out of this.Four questions that determine Hillary's exposure in her email scandal. (politics)

submitted 1.7 years ago by zmb64

IRC Freenode #HillarySoQualified, make it happen

Lets take this thing to the moon, new live thread parellelled on reddit/r/self: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/980912

Was she reimbursed for the cost of her email server and support services by the State Department.
Was her server included in the Federal Information Systems Inventory (Required by OMB A-130, among others places.)
Was her server included in the State Department's annual audits and reviews for compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, and were there any findings relevant to her server.
Did she withhold information about her server to prevent it from being included in these audits or discussions with auditors and the Inspector General.

From an interested, outside observer that happens to be an auditor with specializations in infosec.

For additional information look into the following topics:

Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

State Department Financial Management Reports 2009-2013, which Hillary signed, which provides assurances around internal controls to comply with laws and regulations, at least one for each year she was SoS.

Various State Department FISMA audits, compliance reviews, communications with the auditors, and analysis of the Inspector General.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800 series, particularly NIST SP800-45.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/FY09_FISMA.pdf

2011 Evaluation of Department of State Information Security Program - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/182933.pdf

2009 - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/213359.pdf

2013 - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/aud-it-15-17.pdf

2012 FISMA Audit Report: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/202261.pdf

From the 2009 oig.state.gov report above:

In response to four FY 2008 FISMA report recommendations relating to inventory systems management and oversight of contractor systems, IRM/IA modified its procedures for collecting, analyzing, and managing inventory systems. The review team found that IRM/IA had implemented several controls procedures that were reviewed and verified during the team’s analysis of 3rd and 4th quarter inventory records. Specifically, the following controls were implemented:

• The inventory toolkits were updated to provide guidance on inventory identification, analysis, and recording. The FY 2009 inventory data call provided increased focus on defining and identifying “contractor systems” and “system connections” that were missing in FY 2008.

• The FY 2009 inventory data call was initiated in early November 2008.

• Routine quarterly inventory data calls were made, and they reminded bureau and post systems owners to report new systems and significant changes to systems to ensure the accuracy of their FISMA-reportable inventory.

FISMA requires the Department to keep an inventory of information systems. OMB Circulars A-123, A-127 ( Financial Management Systems), and A-130 (Management of Federal Information Resources) require agencies too develop and maintain an information systems inventory, document the types of information systems required to be reported, and detail how and how often those reports must be submitted to OMB. FIPS Publication 199 requires that agencies categorize their information systems as low-, moderate-, or high-impact. Systems with privacy-related information automatically raise the systems to the level of “Major Information Systems,” thereby needing to be reported in the information system inventory.

From the 2012 Report:

Recommendation 17. We recommend that the Chief Information Office, in coordination with Information Resource Management/Information Assurance, continue to review the security authorization and annual assessments to ensure that Information System Owner, Information System Security Officer, and Security Control Assessor for all Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems use the published Certification & Accreditation Toolkit templates during the annual controls assessment to assess the required National Institute of Standard s and Technology Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations,”controls applicable and update the System Security Plan accordingly.

Management Response: The Department did not concur with the recommendation, stating that it “asserts that the referenced practices and controls are being fully implemented.

EDIT: Misleading auditors and misrepresenting management responses are no fucking joke, especially when done by executives.

EDIT2: NIST has been working on new guidance in relation to FISMA since around last October titled Trustworthy Email: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/800-177/sp800-177_draft.pdf

EDIT3: This document is critical in understanding the tone and nature of discussions around cybersecurity during her tenure as SoS. Page 39 is illustrative, and this section is relevant to the topics raised to executive level for financial management. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy11_fisma.pdf

Page 45

"Email Gateway Security - The purpose of the Mail Gateway Reference Architecture is to improve and standardize the Electronic Mail Gateways currently in use by the Federal Civilian Government, help departments/agencies (D/As) comply with FISMA mail security requirements and to improve the Federal Government’s overall security posture by reducing electronic mail vulnerabilities.

Telework - The main objective of this document is to help agencies to securely implement a Telework infrastructure and ensure that those infrastructures comply with Federal cybersecurity requirements. This document presents a framework for planning, procuring, deploying, and maintaining Telework infrastructures with a focus on cybersecurity."

Reposted to reddit with updates, we'll see if it sticks this time: https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/4edwt8/my_analysis_of_hillary_clintons_email_server/

IRC Freenode #HillarySoQualified, make it happen

Lets take this thing to the moon, new live thread parellelled on reddit/r/self: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/980912

1.    Was she reimbursed for the cost of her email server and support services by the State Department.
2.    Was her server included in the Federal Information Systems Inventory (Required by OMB A-130, among others places.)
3.    Was her server included in the State Department's annual audits and reviews for compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, and were there any findings relevant to her server.
4.    Did she withhold information about her server to prevent it from being included in these audits or discussions with auditors and the Inspector General.

From an interested, outside observer that happens to be an auditor with specializations in infosec.

For additional information look into the following topics:

Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

State Department Financial Management Reports 2009-2013, which Hillary signed, which provides assurances around internal controls to comply with laws and regulations, at least one for each year she was SoS.

Various State Department FISMA audits, compliance reviews, communications with the auditors, and analysis of the Inspector General.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800 series, particularly NIST SP800-45.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/FY09_FISMA.pdf

2011 Evaluation of Department of State Information Security Program - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/182933.pdf

2009 - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/213359.pdf

2013 - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/aud-it-15-17.pdf

2012 FISMA Audit Report: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/202261.pdf

From the 2009 oig.state.gov report above:

>

>    In response to four FY 2008 FISMA report recommendations relating to inventory systems management and oversight of contractor systems, IRM/IA modified its procedures for collecting, analyzing, and managing inventory systems. The review team found that IRM/IA had implemented several controls procedures that were reviewed and verified during the team’s analysis of 3rd and 4th quarter inventory records. Specifically, the following controls were implemented:

>    • The inventory toolkits were updated to provide guidance on inventory identification, analysis, and recording. The FY 2009 inventory data call provided increased focus on defining and identifying “contractor systems” and “system connections” that were missing in FY 2008.

>    • The FY 2009 inventory data call was initiated in early November 2008.

>    • Routine quarterly inventory data calls were made, and they reminded bureau and post systems owners to report new systems and significant changes to systems to ensure the accuracy of their FISMA-reportable inventory.

>    FISMA requires the Department to keep an inventory of information systems. OMB Circulars A-123, A-127 ( Financial Management Systems), and A-130 (Management of Federal Information Resources) require agencies too develop and maintain an information systems inventory, document the types of information systems required to be reported, and detail how and how often those reports must be submitted to OMB. FIPS Publication 199 requires that agencies categorize their information systems as low-, moderate-, or high-impact. Systems with privacy-related information automatically raise the systems to the level of “Major Information Systems,” thereby needing to be reported in the information system inventory.

From the 2012 Report:

>Recommendation 17. We recommend that the Chief Information Office, in coordination with Information Resource Management/Information Assurance, continue to review the security authorization and annual assessments to ensure that Information System Owner, Information System Security Officer, and Security Control Assessor for all Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems use the published Certification & Accreditation Toolkit templates during the annual controls assessment to assess the required National Institute of Standard s and Technology Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations,”controls applicable and update the System Security Plan accordingly.

>**Management Response**: The Department did not concur with the recommendation, **stating that it “asserts that the referenced practices and controls are being fully implemented**.

EDIT: Misleading auditors and misrepresenting management responses are no fucking joke, especially when done by executives.

EDIT2: NIST has been working on new guidance in relation to FISMA since around last October titled Trustworthy Email: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/800-177/sp800-177_draft.pdf

EDIT3: This document is critical in understanding the tone and nature of discussions around cybersecurity during her tenure as SoS. Page 39 is illustrative, and this section is relevant to the topics raised to executive level for financial management. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy11_fisma.pdf

Page 45

>"Email Gateway Security - The purpose of the Mail Gateway Reference Architecture is to improve and standardize the Electronic Mail Gateways currently in use by the Federal 
Civilian Government, help departments/agencies (D/As) comply with FISMA mail security requirements and to improve the Federal Government’s overall security posture by reducing electronic mail vulnerabilities.

>Telework - The main objective of this document is to help agencies to securely implement a Telework infrastructure and ensure that those infrastructures comply with Federal cybersecurity requirements. This document presents a framework for planning, procuring, deploying, and maintaining Telework infrastructures with a focus on cybersecurity."

Reposted to reddit with updates, we'll see if it sticks this time: https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/4edwt8/my_analysis_of_hillary_clintons_email_server/

57 comments

want to join the discussion? or register in seconds.

Sort: Top

[–] ahab_with_piggyback 1 points 55 points 56 points (+56|-1) 1.7 years ago

This is an underrated post, you are (at the very least) incredibly well researched on this topic. So what is your opinion?

This is an underrated post, you are (at the very least) incredibly well researched on this topic. So what is your opinion?

permalink

[–] zmb64 [S] 1 points 26 points 27 points (+27|-1) 1.7 years ago (edited 1.7 years ago)

https://twitter.com/64Zmb/status/720086038203334661

My opinion:

What she did was blatantly illegal.
There is no need to prove intent.
The documentation involved in setting up, supporting, auditing, communicating with auditors, and formulating responses to auditor findings will be insurmountable.
There are more people than just her and her IT guy that would have been aware of her server, and they are all involved in the aforementioned process.

I am not alone in my belief that this was illegal: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-scrutinizes-security-of-clinton-email-server

“Understanding these companies’ roles in providing software and services to maintain former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server is critical to improving government cybersecurity standards. A high profile government official deviating from established information security requirements raises significant concerns. The sensitive nature of the information stored on Sec. Clinton’s private server created a unique challenge to ensure all of the information was properly safeguarded. The Committee takes seriously its duty to ensure the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is properly equipped to safeguard our nation’s information.”

"Earlier this month, the Committee held a hearing where a private sector cybersecurity expert told the Committee his company would not set up a private server for a government official because such an arrangement is “illegal” and because it would expose classified data."

Edit: Also, it is very important to understand what it means for there to be an assertion in management's response, and the requirements around having a reasonable basis for that assertion.

Edit2: Also, I've discussed many of these points with a cybersecurity attorney, and a defense industry FISMA expert, neither of which disagreed.

https://twitter.com/64Zmb/status/720086038203334661

My opinion:

1. What she did was blatantly illegal.
2. There is no need to prove intent.
3. The documentation involved in setting up, supporting, auditing, communicating with auditors, and formulating responses to auditor findings will be insurmountable.
4. There are more people than just her and her IT guy that would have been aware of her server, and they are all involved in the aforementioned process.

I am not alone in my belief that this was illegal: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-scrutinizes-security-of-clinton-email-server

“Understanding these companies’ roles in providing software and services to maintain former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server is critical to improving government cybersecurity standards. A high profile government official deviating from established information security requirements raises significant concerns.  The sensitive nature of the information stored on Sec. Clinton’s private server created a unique challenge to ensure all of the information was properly safeguarded. The Committee takes seriously its duty to ensure the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is properly equipped to safeguard our nation’s information.”

"Earlier this month, the Committee held a hearing where a private sector cybersecurity expert told the Committee his company would not set up a private server for a government official because such an arrangement is  “illegal” and because it would expose classified data."

Edit: Also, it is very important to understand what it means for there to be an assertion in management's response, and the requirements around having a reasonable basis for that assertion.

Edit2: Also, I've discussed many of these points with a cybersecurity attorney, and a defense industry FISMA expert, neither of which disagreed.

https://twitter.com/64Zmb/status/720086038203334661

My opinion:

1. What she did was blatantly illegal.
2. There is no need to prove intent.
3. The documentation involved in setting up, supporting, auditing, communicating with auditors, and formulating responses to auditor findings will be insurmountable.
4. There are more people than just her and her IT guy that would have been aware of her server, and they are all involved in the aforementioned process.

I am not alone in my belief that this was illegal: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-scrutinizes-security-of-clinton-email-server

 “Understanding these companies’ roles in providing software and services to maintain former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server is critical to improving government cybersecurity standards. A high profile government official deviating from established information security requirements raises significant concerns.  The sensitive nature of the information stored on Sec. Clinton’s private server created a unique challenge to ensure all of the information was properly safeguarded. The Committee takes seriously its duty to ensure the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is properly equipped to safeguard our nation’s information.”

"Earlier this month, the Committee held a hearing where a private sector cybersecurity expert told the Committee his company would not set up a private server for a government official because such an arrangement is  “illegal” and because it would expose classified data."

Edit: Also, it is very important to understand what it means for there to be an assertion in management's response, and the requirements around having a reasonable basis for that assertion.

Edit2: Also, I've discussed many of these points with a cybersecurity attorney, and a defense industry FISMA expert, neither of which disagreed.

[–] ahab_with_piggyback 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 1.7 years ago

Thank you for all your work in this topic... sadly I don't have a twitter but I will certainly do my best to inform others as to the full nature of the Clinton email scandal.

Thank you for all your work in this topic... sadly I don't have a twitter but I will certainly do my best to inform others as to the full nature of the Clinton email scandal.

[–] Aqua7 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) 1.7 years ago

And Lois Lerner?

And Lois Lerner?

-1

[–] wellingstonthehurf 2 points -1 points 1 points (+1|-2) 1.7 years ago

You assert that you're not alone in your belief that this was illegal by quoting the republican running an investigation into her emails that his own party won't even back, in turn quoting an unnamed private sector cybersecurity expert invited by the committe Smith chairs.

Whatever the case may be wrt Clinton, you are deluded if you think you, random internet person, somehow have a better capacity at investigating her than the committees fully, erm, committed, to going after her with everything they've got?

At least try to structure your info dump a bit, this is so shoddy it makes my head hurt. You will not get any journalists interested, and your tweet won't gather any momentum whatsoever, not because of bias but because you are doing a terrible job at... whatever it is you're trying to do. You seem quite wound up by this scandal so one would think you'd at least give it your best. My apologies if this is, in fact, your best.

You assert that you're not alone in your belief that this was illegal by quoting the republican running an investigation into her emails [*that his own party won't even back*](http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/02/gop-leadership-wont-back-lamar-smiths-investigation-of-clinton-emails/), in turn quoting an unnamed private sector cybersecurity expert **invited by the committe Smith chairs**.

Whatever the case may be wrt Clinton, you are deluded if you think you, random internet person, somehow have a better capacity at investigating her than the committees fully, erm, committed, to going after her with everything they've got?

At least try to structure your info dump a bit, this is so shoddy it makes my head hurt. You will not get any journalists interested, and your tweet won't gather any momentum whatsoever, not because of bias but because you are doing a terrible job at... whatever it is you're trying to do. You seem quite wound up by this scandal so one would think you'd at least give it your best. My apologies if this is, in fact, your best.

You assert that you're not alone in your belief that this was illegal by quoting the republican running an investigation into her emails [*that his own party won't even back*](http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/02/gop-leadership-wont-back-lamar-smiths-investigation-of-clinton-emails/), in turn quoting an unnamed private sector cybersecurity expert **invited by the committe Smith chairs**.

Whatever the case may be wrt Clinton, you are deluded if you think you, random internet person, somehow have a better capacity at investigating her than the committees fully, erm, committed, to going after her with everything they've got?

At least try to structure your info dump a bit, this is so shoddy it makes my head hurt. You will not get any journalists interested, and your tweet won't gather any momentum whatsoever, not because of bias but because you are doing a terrible job at... whatever it is you're trying to do. You seem quite wound up by this scandal so one would think you'd at least give it your best. My apologies if this is, in fact, your best.

1 reply

[–] nistauditor 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.7 years ago

https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/994650#submissionTop

Please join back into the discussion if you can, I've honed my message.

https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/994650#submissionTop

Please join back into the discussion if you can, I've honed my message.

[–] pcdude 3 points 37 points 40 points (+40|-3) 1.7 years ago

You are probably getting downvoats because you looked sorta like Amalek spam at first.

You are probably getting downvoats because you looked sorta like Amalek spam at first.

permalink

[–] [deleted] 1 points 20 points 21 points (+21|-1) 1.7 years ago

[Deleted]

Deleted

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) 1.7 years ago

Standby.

Stand By....

Standby.

Stand By....

[–] nistauditor 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.7 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4f4dfv/discussion_the_federal_information_security/

https://twitter.com/64Zmb

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4f4dfv/discussion_the_federal_information_security/

https://twitter.com/64Zmb

[–] variable 0 points 17 points 17 points (+17|-0) 1.7 years ago

Considering how surprised they behaved after the public discovery of the server and its connection with the Clinton Foundation, I have a suspicion that it was not under proper review or scrutiny that official state sanctioned stuff would be. I mean, they immediately demanded the forfeiture of the server and then painstakingly recovered what was deleted from it. They then granted immunity to the man who set the server up so he could discuss it without being charged with a crime, seeing as he plead the fifth beforehand.

I feel like these actions would not be taken if the server was something they knew about and approved. I'm obviously no expert or anything, but I feel confidently that what Hillary did was not endorsed by the feds and potentially (almost certainly) broke some national security law.

Considering how surprised they behaved after the public discovery of the server and its connection with the Clinton Foundation, I have a suspicion that it was not under proper review or scrutiny that official state sanctioned stuff would be. I mean, they immediately demanded the forfeiture of the server and then painstakingly recovered what was deleted from it. They then granted immunity to the man who set the server up so he could discuss it without being charged with a crime, seeing as he plead the fifth beforehand.

I feel like these actions would not be taken if the server was something they knew about and approved. I'm obviously no expert or anything, but I feel confidently that what Hillary did was not endorsed by the feds and potentially (almost certainly) broke some national security law.

permalink

[–] Hey_Sunshine 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) 1.7 years ago

"wipe? like with a cloth?"

"wipe? like with a cloth?"

[–] Dereliction 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) 1.7 years ago

Inappropriate.

[Inappropriate.](https://i.sli.mg/baaNZ4.jpg)

[–] ShowMeThePunny 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) 1.7 years ago

IIRC, there were several Freedom of Information Act requests that came back empty as though they were unaware the server even existed.

IIRC, there were several Freedom of Information Act requests that came back empty as though they were unaware the server even existed.

[–] buttermouth 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) 1.7 years ago

Hillary is a master of defensive arguments. None of what you wrote matters if you cannot prove she willfully did any of that.

She can say "My IT team handled all the specifics to setting up my server". We need proof that she ordered her staff to disobey security protocols and organizational audits.

I hate Hillary, but he ability to deflect criticisms and accusations is probably the best I've ever seen. You are gonna need actual paper or audio proof she ordered those things to happen.

Hillary is a master of defensive arguments. None of what you wrote matters if you cannot prove she willfully did any of that.

She can say "My IT team handled all the specifics to setting up my server". We need proof that she ordered her staff to disobey security protocols and organizational audits.

I hate Hillary, but he ability to deflect criticisms and accusations is probably the best I've ever seen. You are gonna need actual paper or audio proof she ordered those things to happen.

permalink

[–] variable 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) 1.7 years ago

The thing with this stuff though is that when it comes to mishandling classified material, there is no middle ground where you can plead ignorance about storing it. It's a "you did or you didn't" situation, not a "you knowingly did or didn't". If stored classified material is not reported and logged in the federal systems as a function of general scrutiny or personal discovery, then it's a very big problem. Seeing as they discovered 2000+ classified documents and 22 deemed so classified that they can't be released even in part, I think Hillary's in some deep shit.

The thing with this stuff though is that when it comes to mishandling classified material, there is no middle ground where you can plead ignorance about storing it. It's a "you did or you didn't" situation, not a "you knowingly did or didn't". If stored classified material is not reported and logged in the federal systems as a function of general scrutiny or personal discovery, then it's a very big problem. Seeing as they discovered 2000+ classified documents and 22 deemed so classified that they can't be released even in part, I think Hillary's in some deep shit.

[–] maxoverdrive 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) 1.7 years ago

Exactly this. When it comes to these sorts of crimes, ignorance isn't a legal defense. You're required - REQUIRED - to know the law governing how secret and top secret documents are handled, and there's a very lengthy, involved process for setting things up like Hilary's server. Under no circumstances would such a thing ever be allowed had it gone through proper channels, which means she did all of it improperly. Regardless of how stupid and ignorant the woman is, even if she managed to convince everyone involved that she "didn't know", she could still be prosecuted and sent to jail - and would already be serving time if she were anyone but a Clinton.

Exactly this.  When it comes to these sorts of crimes, ignorance isn't a legal defense.  You're required - REQUIRED - to know the law governing how secret and top secret documents are handled, and there's a very lengthy, involved process for setting things up like Hilary's server.  Under no circumstances would such a thing ever be allowed had it gone through proper channels, which means she did all of it improperly.  Regardless of how stupid and ignorant the woman is, even if she managed to convince everyone involved that she "didn't know", she could still be prosecuted and sent to jail - and would already be serving time if she were anyone but a Clinton.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) 1.7 years ago (edited 1.7 years ago)

[Deleted]

Deleted

parent

3 replies

[–] zmb64 [S] 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) 1.7 years ago

That's the beauty of it, due to her obligations in the process she can't claim ignorance. To claim ignorance would itself be damning. There is tons of paper documentation required to be there, the lack of that documentation is itself damning.

That's the beauty of it, due to her obligations in the process she can't claim ignorance. To claim ignorance would itself be damning. There is tons of paper documentation required to be there, the lack of that documentation is itself damning.

[–] AOU 1 points 6 points 7 points (+7|-1) 1.7 years ago

That fat cow should be tried and jailed.

That fat cow should be tried and jailed.

permalink

[–] ECHEMYTHIA 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) 1.7 years ago (edited 1.7 years ago)

SO INFORMATIVE. OP is based. OP please give us your personal opinion.

I look forward to the results of the investigation.

SO INFORMATIVE. OP is based.
OP please give us your personal opinion.

I look forward to the results of the investigation.

permalink

[–] zmb64 [S] 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.7 years ago

You have no idea how big and powerful this idea is. Lets take this thing to the moon, new live thread parellelled on reddit/r/self: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/980912

You have no idea how big and powerful this idea is. Lets take this thing to the moon, new live thread parellelled on reddit/r/self: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/980912

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) 1.7 years ago

That is some great information. Thank you for this.

That is some great information. Thank you for this.

permalink

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)

Menu

Sets

Subverses

politics

Advertisement

MODERATORS

MODERATION LOGS

Preview

Sort: Top

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

share a link

politics

Advertisement

MODERATORS

MODERATION LOGS

Preview

Sort: Top

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview