I did. Snowden exposed a massive crime against the American people, and one of the things that flows from that crime is the security breach you accuse him of causing, which he no more did cause than a DA's star witness causes the mafia to commit more crimes in order to silence them. You ignore the major crime against that population, and by doing so ignore that aside from hacking encrypted emails of a head of government, having access to their and everyone else's private-but-not-top-secret emails is at least as massive a security risk. If Trump was blackmailed -- I don't know that he was, but you seem to think it at least plausible, and I don't disagree -- it very likely wasn't a government secret, but a private one that exposed him. Which is how I took it, and made the point that "the US" was not reading Merkel's emails, and the people who were don't deserve the "the US" trust, since they committed major crimes against that population. I stand by that. Sure, which is what I said. Actually, I think it's even more likely that he was mostly just bribed, and then through that also became exposed to blackmail later on. As for Snowden: Yeah, but "that is known" is kind of a skewed argument for secret intelligence. Which is why I asked whether you think what he did was extremely difficult to do, or whether he was part of an extremely tiny circle of confidence. My understanding is that neither was true, which means that this exposure to Putin or Xi -- though not to the public -- should have been entirely imaginable, and ultimately almost unavoidable. What sets Snowden apart is that he at least also helped protect the American people against at least some of the crimes their government was committing against them. Incidentally, you and I seem to agree that in addition to what Snowden told the world, he also very, very likely told Putin a whole lot more. Would you guess that that happened before or after he got to Hongkong?