Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul: "I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell"

During a recent interview with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed his thoughts on Edward Snowden and how a Paul presidency would handle the NSA whistleblower's return.

Go here for the full interview.

Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic updates.

Approx. 2.30 minutes.

Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg.

This is a rush transcript. All quotes should be checked against the audio for accuracy.

Reason: If on the day after inauguration, you get a phone call and it's Edward Snowden saying, "Alright, I'm ready to come back," what are you going to do?

Rand Paul: You know, I think justice is about making punishment proportional to the crime. And I think his intentions were to reveal something that he felt like the people in government were lying about. And it turns out they were lying.  

The director of national intelligence committed perjury in front of the Senate committee. My understanding is it's about a five-year sentence, but instead of getting any kind of sentence, instead of getting a slap on the wrist, or instead of even being fired, he's been rewarded, and he's still in charge of intelligence. And I think he's done a great deal to damage trust. 

On the other side of the coin, can you let people who have sensitive data just make the decision to reveal it to the world? I think you have to have laws against that. So I think there have to be laws against what Snowden did. Did he do it for a higher purpose? Does he have a high moral ground? All of that I think history will judge. But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security.

Reason: I guess the question is, would you put a microphone in there?

Rand Paul: No, but they probably could have a reality jail-cell show and that'd probably be a best seller. 

No, I think that there has to be some punishment, but I think the other side's been crazy over the top with people who say they want to shoot Snowden, or they want to hang him....I think that one of the things we've tried to promote is a reform that would make things different. Snowden has said he would have tried official channels to reveal this to someone officially, but that the whistleblower statute doesn't apply to contractors. So I actually have an amendment that would try to make that so. So if you're a contractor doing business with an intelligence agency and you find that they're breaking the law—and interestingly, the courts have now said the NSA is breaking the law. It's my other pet peeve with the president on this whole thing. The president accuses me of getting in the way of reform, and it's like, "You could've stopped the program any time you wanted. You did it through executive order, and you're doing it through executive action. We never told you to do this program. In fact, even the authors of the Patriot Act say they never intended to give you this power, and yet you won't stop it until we actually affirmatively tell you to stop it." So I think the president's not quite sincere wanting real reform.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Snowdon can share a cell with Clapper as long as he's armed with a pillowcase full of oranges.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    How bout a sack of doorknobs. I want to see the bruises on Clapper.

  • ||

    Where are you gonna find door knobs in prison? Am I the only one who's seen Full Metal Jacket?

  • ||


  • ||

    Oh, doorknobs are all over the place in prison, there's a whole black market for them in there. You don't wanna know how they get smuggled in, though.

  • Will Nonya||

    Soap is prevalent and there is always the classic chain made of padlocks...

  • space junk||

    Bar soap in a sock tied at the end. That is how it is done.

  • HeteroPatriarch||


  • dudemeister||

    I've never agreed more whole-heartedly with any other politician in my life.

  • Will Nonya||

    I can't imagine the grounds for pardoning Snowden. I dont imagine a serious punishment is warranted and maybe living in Russia counts as time served but he still knowingly broke the law and evaded the consequences.

    I think the bigger point being made is that those who perpetrate the things Snowden exposed and worked to actively deceive congress and the public are facing no consequences.

  • ||

    Yes Snowden deserves somw punishment and then be let out to the adoration of a greatful public.

    The fact is is that Snowden isn't living in Russia for free. Putin accepted possible geo-political repercussions at first by letting him stay. Does anyone think that Putin didn't get something from Snowden in exchange for free harbor ? I don't.

    If a person robs a bank and gives some of the money (does a good thing ) to an orphanage but then finances other crimes with the rest, he is still a bank robber.

  • ace_m82||

    Does anyone think that Putin didn't get something from Snowden in exchange for free harbor?

    Snowden actually sounds like an intelligent and moral man. So yes, I do. Putin gets to make the US government look bad in comparison and so get's all he needs from the deal.

    Also, Snowden has none of the info he "stole" (from whom?). Who is harmed by this? I don't think I've found a harmed party, unless you count politicians. So really, a parade is in order.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I can't imagine the grounds for prosecuting Snowden. You don't have a duty to protect illegal activity. Prosecuting Snowden is like prosecuting an undercover cop.

  • morganovich||


    well, i would bet you that there is actually a contract law issue here. if there isn't, then our government is incredibly stupid.

    do you really think they hired a contractor to deal in sensitive intelligence without getting him to sign a confidentiality agreement?

    that sort of thing is common to the point of being SOP in most sensitive government work. with the NSA, you need to sign stuff that Mephistopheles would have been to ashamed to give to faust and then back it up with polygraphs.

    generally, a confidentiality agreement is a civil issue, but with the feds, it can be seriously criminal.

    i don't think that analogy to an undercover cop is all that apt.

    snowden was a contractor under NDA.

  • Suicidy||

    No. It isn't like prosecuting an undercover cop. What a massive non-sequitur.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "but I think the other side's been crazy over the top with people who say they want to shoot Snowden, or they want to hang him"

    I could get behind Clapper being prosecuted and hung. Let's Clap Off the Clapper.

  • bassjoe||

    Ah, a less painful version of the Stannis Baratheon treatment.

  • Win Bear||

    Glib answers like that don't cut it for a presidential candidate. Really, try to give a well reasoned answer. For example, a guilty plea plus a presidential pardon might be a solution.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Pardon them both on condition they share with Congress what they know about intelligence abuses.

  • rudehost||

    Hang Clapper. Pardon Snowden.


    ^This, only the boats for Clapper, instead of hanging. Hanging's too good for that prevaricating scumbag.

    I know! I'm sorry, we shouldn't talk about The Boats before lunch, blah, blah, blah...

  • rudehost||

    +1 scaphism

  • ||

    Yes. Remember when that guy said "read my lips: no new taxes" and wasn't elected?

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Really, what Goldwater needed to win the election was more philosophy in his speeches. That would've put him over the top for sure!

  • Invisible Finger||

    WTF? Glib answers are what the 99% of voters want.

  • Win Bear||

    Isn't "the clapper" some sort of STD?

  • PigeonCider||

    Snowden is an American hero and should be pardoned from his crime.

    First off, Snowden is a treasonist who contravened his security clearance by divulging top secret materials improperly. That can't be ignored.

    However, on the other side of the coin, every agent of the government receives training on "immoral orders." Further, every agent of the government takes an oath to defend the constitution, first and foremost. When an agent believes he is given an immoral order, the protocol is to first report the situation to the superior who issued the order. If that fails to effect a resolution, then it is that agent's duty to take the situation up the chain of command.

    But when the order originates from the top of the chain, and the agent has no reasonable expectation for a proper resolution, then good judgement demands that the situation be dealt with outside of protocol. The fact that this situation was so utterly egregious lends weight to Snowden's actions and warrants a pardon.

    The supreme court has issued that the actions of the NSA brought to light by Snowden's leaks were indeed unconstitutional, thus we can say without doubt that any order to further those acts was immoral, thus Snowden acted in good faith towards his oath.

  • Vapourwear||

    I think we found a bureaucrat.

  • PigeonCider||

    Bureaucrats would never reach this conclusion. I'm just familiar with their ways, which is a good strategy to use in dealing with them.

  • Will Nonya||

    Snowden was not an agent or officer of the government and the "immoral order" and "oath to the constitution" arguments dont apply.

    People like Clapper are and have violated those oaths. These type of people expect to avoid consequences and accountability.

    What Snowden did while necessary was criminal and he should have the integrity to face those actions. I only wish he could be assured of a fair environment in which to do so.

    Criminal justice shouldn't be decided based on popularity or who you work for. That it is is one of the issues with our society.

  • PigeonCider||

    Yes, I got ahead of my self. Snowdon was a contactor, not an agent. Nevertheless, as Snowdon is a citizen of the US, entitled to and vigilant of the 4th amendment protections, the spirit of my argument stands. I will need to shift from the procedural to the ethical, but same point in the end.

  • morganovich||


    but what of the contract issue?

    can one invalidate an NDA in this fashion?

    it seems that a lot of the issue here is that he was a contractor and therefore unable to avail himself of whistleblower protections.

    it's also worth noting that he did not try to go up the chain, he went public. this is a bit of a different kettle of fish if you have willingly signed a contract.

    if we add "unless my conscience tells me otherwise" to all contracts, haven't we essentially done away with contract law entirely?

    this idea that no good could have come from trying is presumptive. it might be true, but then, it might not. what if he had managed to get in front of the senate intel committee?

    could this have been handled better/quietly/with less damage to the US?

    (of course, there is an interesting question there about just what IS good for the US and if this sort of sunlight is actually a benefit, but let's leave that aside for now)

    my point is that assuming it could not have worked and therefore excusing him from even trying is speculative. you are introducing facts not in evidence with that line of argument.

    having not tried it, we really do not know what would have happened.

  • PigeonCider||

    No illegal provision of a contact is enforceable. No legal provision of a contact which compels one party to commit an illegal action is enforceable. This does not invalidate the NDA. The NSA spying is illegal; whistleblower protection applies.

    I do not contend to know that no good would have come from reporting the issue within the chain of command, only that Snowdon's judgement led him to that conclusion. Certainly he knew more about the situation than I ever will. That said, whistleblowing to the media is as much a traditionally acceptable method of addressing corruption as civil disobedience or jury nullification.

    Further, any argument regarding the harm to national security that Snowdon caused must begin by citing what harm he actually caused. You can't harm the country by defending the constitution from government corruption.

    Also, "unless my conscious tells me otherwise"is a perfectly legitimate article of contact law. Again, no illegal proviso is enforceable. For instance, we train our soldiers to fire their weapons "unless their conscious tells them otherwise" (unarmed civilians.)

  • morganovich||


    but none of that is at issue. confidentiality is not illegal. he was not forced to commit illegal acts. he promised not to speak.

    whistleblower protection did not apply. that was the whole issue. it only applies to employees.

    it ought have applied, but it did not. but even if it had, it does not cover what he did. whitleblower protection applies to those who move up the preoscribed chain, not those who go to the media.

    it also does not permit the exposure of classified documents.

    look, we may not like it, but he signed a contract and that contract was absolutely legal and enforceable. you seem to be circling the issue here but not addressing it.

    there was an nda. it was valid. he was not forced to do anything illegal. he could have walked away. but he did not have the right to break his contract.

    if your lawyer drops your case then goes to the media with all the details you shared in your defense preparation, it would be the same thing.

    "You can't harm the country by defending the constitution from government corruption"

    you can harm the country by leaking piles and piles of its secrets to its enemies. snowden leaked an awful lot of stuff, not just nsa wiretaps.

  • morganovich||

    "I do not contend to know that no good would have come from reporting the issue within the chain of command, only that Snowdon's judgement led him to that conclusion. Certainly he knew more about the situation than I ever will"

    this is an appeal to authority fallacy and largely irrelevant. failure to follow your contractual promise is not excused by saying "they would not have kept their end" or "i did not like it". consider the lawyer example again. further, if you do not try, you do not know. if you hire me and i fail to show up saying "he would not have paid me" that does not get me out of contractual responsibility. i cannot prove that. law is about proof, not feelings.

    i can't repossess your house because i think you will not pay next month's mortgage.

    "Also, "unless my conscious tells me otherwise"is a perfectly legitimate article of contact law."

    no, it's not. it's very rare and exists only in unusual situations. you keep speaking of illegal provisos, but snowden's NDA did not contain any. it's standard confidentiality.

    even if you tell your lawyer you committed a crime, it is illegal for him to disclose that to others. they are separate issues. even if you broke the law, he/she still must follow the confidentiality law even if he/she now despises you.

    that's contract law.

    snowden is no different just because you like what he did.

  • morganovich||

    further, even your example is inaccurate in this context. a solider can refuse an order they feel to be immoral or unconstitutional, but they do that within a chain of command.

    if they do it and run to the media, they have committed a new crime in many cases, particularly if they disclose secret information.

    again, they are 2 separate issues.

  • wwhorton||

    What's a "treasonist"?

  • PigeonCider||

    One who commits treason? That's the beauty of the English language: take any root word, add any prefix and/or suffix and you have a legitimate word.

  • Pinky||

    Confirmation that you are an idiotist.

  • PigeonCider||

    That's speculation. Your assertion is unsubstantiatable.

  • SimonJester||

    Well shit. Look at the big brain on PC...

  • PigeonCider||

    *uncapps skull, displays brain*

  • ||

    *grumbles unintelligibly while hand washing a spork*

  • Loki||

    There's only one small problem. Snowden was a contractor, not a government agent. Contractors don't take an oath to uphold the constitution, or recieve training on immoral orders. I've worked as a government contractor myself, and had a security clearance (probably at least as high of a clearance as Snowden). That said, I agree he should be pardoned.

  • Loki||

    Should have read the full thread before posting.

  • Bob_in_Amherst_NH||

    I agree with you 100%. If Snowden had tried to go up the chain of command, there was definitely a non-zero chance he would have ended up "disappeared" or killed. There was NO way he could do the RIGHT thing (which was to call attention to the governments 100% illegal activities) *without* taking and releasing some amount of evidence of the wrongdoing.

    If he reported it to the media without releasing some of the criminal evidence, then the government would have just discredited him, either through propaganda (Wikipedia Operation Mockingbird) or through using illegal surveillance to manufacture compromising information. So going through "proper channels" was never really an option.
    As for people saying "but but he released classified information!?!?!?", I have yet to see a SINGLE instance where he shared something that would realistically put anyone in danger or compromise a legal operation. Given that our government over classifies stuff to a ridiculous extent, it would be trivial to release information that was technically "classified", but would be harmless to release. I think he has done a great job at releasing the right information at the right time to make sure the government can't directly attack his credibility, since everything he released has proven to be true, yet the only people "harmed" were people engaging in illegal activities.

  • Aloysious||

    Clapper: he is what a domestic enemy of the Constitution looks like.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    "Misleading Headlines" for $200.

    And the proper response, Rand, is that there is a higher law than a bunch of bureaucratic codes and that you'd pardon the young man who behaved morally when he witnessed immoral conduct on an unbelievable scale. It's still fashionable enough to invoke morality and justice, and you might even confuse some neo and socons if you phrase it well. If you're really slippery, you can say that society electing a president who would pardon Snowden would be an act of great social justice.

    And it would be nice if Clapper spent the rest of his life in a prison cell (for that dastardly crime of lying to Congress rather than the trivial conspiracy to violate the rights of every individual on the planet), but he's already had to spend 70+ years as the giant piece of shit he is, so perhaps that's the best we can hope for realistically.

  • wwhorton||

    Yeah, shitty headline. Reason's getting downright tabloid-esque these days.

  • Homple||

    Paul was a bit of an ungrateful jerk there. Without Snowden's revelations, Paul's big heroic filibuster against data snooping, had he done it at all, would have provoked a "WTF is he going on about" reaction instead of being listened to.

  • DoubleC||

    Rand plays the game. That's as good as you're going to get from a mainstream candidate. Cut Randal a break. If you want him to be President, he's not going to come out and say stuff like "Yeah, on Day One Snowden gets pardoned and a Medal of Freedom."

  • Homple||

    I agree the game is necessary, but it's the shits to equate Snowden with Clapper.

  • Will Nonya||

    You're not the target audience for that comment. In those indoctrinated by the mainstream media Snowden is a criminal (which he is) but clapper is " just doing his job" ( which he wasn't).

    By linking the two he's making the argument that Clapper is a criminal. Something that no one else is saying.

  • wwhorton||

    That's not what he was doing. If you read between the lines a little bit, he's saying he'd put them in the same cell essentially to give Snowden a chance to school Clapper's ass on ethics. Basically, to give Clapper a little opportunity for moral instruction where he can't escape and is forced to hear Snowden call him to account.

    Rand's problem is that he's too smart by half. He says things presuming foreknowledge in his audience that isn't necessarily there. Like telling inside jokes to people on the outside.

  • Will Nonya||

    Problem with that line of thought is that Clapper would kick Snowden's ass...all Snowden would get is another lesson in oppression.

  • ||

    I'll take Snowden for a hundred.

    Clapper's too old and been at too many expense account dinners to use any kinda spook training he may have once had.

  • Bryan C||

    Snowden is both a traitor and a useful source of intelligence data. That's the whole point of spying.

    He did what he did for his own reasons. I'm glad he did it, but I'm not naive enough to think he did it for me. I don't need to be "grateful" to someone for acting in their own self-interest in a way that tangentially benefited me. That's the sort of sloppy thinking that leads Democrats to think of certain politicians as their own personal saviors.


    How was this in Snowden's best interests, considering that he is living in exile, and literally cannot travel to any other place on the planet without being rendered to a dark hole where they pump in sunshine on alternate Tuesdays?

  • PigeonCider||



    Your best friend's mother-in-law should be sharing a cell with Clapper.

  • american socialist||

    God, he's totally disingenuous and, what's worse, his cultish followers don't give a shit because he once said that he's a libertarian--whatever that means.

    Here's an article from bernie sanders recommending leniency for snowden. Unlike Paul supporters, who profess to be libertarian, I don't have to apologize for him or excuse the actions of the person I'm voting for.

  • PM||

    I don't have to apologize for him or excuse the actions of the person I'm voting for.

    You do the same with mass murderers who share your ideology. Being an abjectly immoral piece of subhuman shit means never having to say you're say.

  • PM||




  • rudehost||

    So Sanders wants to send him to prison just not for a really long time. This differs from Paul's position how? It seems like they both have a similar idea here only Paul will let us pick our own deodorant.

  • thom||

    Bernie Sanders dreams of turning America into a prison and giving us all life sentences. I don't know why he is getting so much airtime.

  • Daily Beatings||

    ... and Bernie Sanders has as much of a chance to be the Democratic nominee as John Duggar. Once the Hildebeast coronation is complete you'll be face deep in that wriggly old snatch.

  • american socialist||

    I'm not voting for her nor do I support her so maybe you should ask your question of someone who does.

  • Loki||

    Instead you make excuses for guys like Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. Go eat a bag of dicks, you commie fuckwit.

  • EV||

    Go buy your one brand of deodorant and shut the fuck up.

  • EV||

    Do you lack reading comprehension?

    "No, I think that there has to be some punishment, but I think the other side's been crazy over the top with people who say they want to shoot Snowden, or they want to hang him"

    He is being lenient you shitface. He is wants to reform the system so that contractors have whistleblower rights.

    I tell you what. We can have your socialist state, but you have to promise that the eventual dictator will only wipe out about 10 million people. Deal?

  • Vampire||

    Calling them cultish followers.......that's rich coming from someone that calls themself a socialist. Your violent ideology has impoverished and/or led to the deaths of many. Again, you don't have to worry because you are shielded from consequences and wouldn't have the balls enough to implement what you believe in locally.

  • american socialist||

    I've noticed a Pavlovian tendency of the part of Paul followers to resort to talking about pol pot once someone starts talking about how their candidate is full of shit. As someone who supports libertarianism and who supports sanders I don't have to cringe or indulge in cognitive dissonance to support him.

  • JPyrate||

    Oh Hi AMSOC. =) I see you are still wasting your time here trying to convince Libertarians that they should convert to Stalinism. Knock Knock.

  • JPyrate||

    oh and do not think that anyone has noticed that you changed you link from

  • JPyrate||

  • american socialist||

    I'm glad at least someone was paying attention. You know that first one was just me giving right-wingers,who called me a fascist for supporting social democracy, the finger, right?

  • ace_m82||

    who called me a fascist for supporting social democracy...

    They are the same thing, in the long run. Road to Serfdom. If you want A, then you must do B. If you do B, you must do C... etc. End of the road is Stalin/Mao.

  • EV||

    Exactly. They don't get that though.

    This video explains it. Anything, but a republic, will result in an oligarchy.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You can't support libertarianism and Sanders, the two are mutually exclusive.

    As you know.

  • JPyrate||

    So. Cage Match ?

  • Vapourwear||

    Disappointing, but not surprising. Paul is already fighting a negative image in the Republican Party, and is probably trying to not alienate the party base, who already think Snowden is a traitor.

    Unfortunately, this interview gives no real insight into policy, and only shows a willingness to play politics.

  • Will Nonya||

    They only think Snowden's a traitor because he is...but so is Clapper and that's the point.

  • ace_m82||

    Traitor to what? Or, more disturbingly if answered in this way, to whom?

  • Will Nonya||

    So many people seem to be blinded by their hero worship of Snowden and miss the point of this because their guy didn't get blown publicly by a politician running a campaign.

    The public isn't ready to accept the idea that Snowden isn't a criminal. To many just saying that he deserves a short sentence which doesn't end in death is a radical idea.

    Further linking the person performing and actively concealing the actions Snowden revealed to a figure the public sees as criminal is a first step towards accountability.

    This is the part that people should be making noise about. Change the perception of Clapper and his actions to that of a criminal and you set the stage for a much bigger impact on our country and open the door for leniency for Snowden.

  • SimonJester||

    Put Clapper in jail. Preferably, like, a Wayne County jail, or Jackson State. Something to make him rely heavily on the not-always-benificent authority that claims to protect him.

    Don't pardon Snowden. Don't take that stand, because it won't go well.

    But communicate, quietly, that he will not be presued by any American agent or agency. It isn't a pardon, but no different than the executive order to not prosecute certain laws that are broken. Then, on the last day of the presidency, pardon him, again quietly, and ask him to help build the presidential library.

  • Christophe||

    Yeah, If I was going to pardon Snowden, I'd tell him to stick it out in Russia until right before my successor is sworn in and I pull a last minute pardon.

  • Loki||

    I think the president's not quite sincere wanting real reform.

    That's the understatement of the century.

    I'm a little disappointed that Paul didn't say something more along the lines of "Well, Snowden did break the law by revealing classified information, but because he did it for a higher purpose (letting the American people know what their lawless governmen was doing to them) and because he holds the moral high ground against the government, as president I would offer him a full pardon... on my last day in office (for obvious political reasons)." I can understand why he wouldn't say that though - the neocons and the establishment are already pissed off at him enough that he's probably torpedoed any chance he had at the nomination. Oh well, at least he's willing to say that Clapper needs to be in a jail cell.

  • EV||

    Paul is actually trying to get legislation through to make what Snowden did a common thing and you guys are lambasting him.

    I don't think Snowden should be in jail, but I can handle Paul thinking he should get a punish. Some minimum security place not fuck-you-in-the-ass prison.

    Clapper should definitely be in jail or at the very least working in a 7/11 by now.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Two men enter, one man leaves.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Come to think of it, Clapper could be played by JK Simmons.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Snowden's biggest crime was being a government contractor. That's almost as treasonous as being a government employee.

  • macsnafu||

    I'd expect better from Rand Paul. Don't break the law because it's a law? Surely he has a better reason than that for saying that Snowden should be prosecuted.

  • jjjjj||

    Snowden should go to jail for releasing information about foreign collections. Who cares what else he released. The fact is that there was genuine legal classified information he released. The DoJ may determine that he shouldn't be prosecuted for information on domestic programs, but you won't see him get him immunity for releasing information that legitimately falls under the scope of the NSA and other spy agencies.

  • deutschtorrie||

    I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,


  • james30239||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

  • mvq28753||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹

  • reneerenee150||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

  • beatricebeatrice||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

  • Don_in_Odessa||

    Thank you so much for letting me know about Mr Paul's stand on Snowden. I will now strike him off my list for support.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online