David Draper

@DefiantBaptist So many women like this in Christian circles and recovery rooms. No searching moral inventory, no inner work as in fruit commensurate with real repentance. Can’t get their story straight. God can redeem anyone but the ambition and attention seeking impedes grace.

There was just one moment of the interview where Allie Beth Stuckey gently pushed back on Brittni De La Mora’s “conversion” story. Brittni made it very clear that the verbal abuse she received at home is what drove her to seek validation from men in the sex industry. She takes almost no accountability throughout, which is unsurprising. But she also makes multiple statements that indicate her parents actually did care about her wellbeing. They would not let Brittni go to Mexican bars with her friends (where she was first exposed to strip clubs). Also, her mom noticed she was getting into anorexia and got her help. And finally, Brittni’s mom took her in when she had no place to go, close to when De La Mora was getting out of the industry. None of this indicates an ultra-abusive environment. Allie Beth picks up on that, describing her upbringing as “complex.” De La Mora very quickly acknowledges (but does not explain) this and pivots to the healing that has taken place, so that the interview can move on to other topics. It’s not impossible that Brittni grew up in difficult household, but it seems far more likely that she viewed her parents as too controlling. In her mind, she has filed this under “abuse” because they wouldn’t let her do what she wanted. Parents that are extremely verbally abusive do not also take an active role in protecting their children from harm.

@BonifaceOption She’s not playing with a full deck and I see this way too often overwhelmingly with women in churches and in recovery rooms. No inner work, no searching moral inventory, blaming others, ambitious for attention, no fruit commensurate with real repentance.

If she is claiming the office that God has reserved for men, the verb in the headline remains present tense. Nevertheless, gynovangelicalism eats this stuff up.

@BrandonLansdown The substance of the interview was of course not an endorsement of socialism but rather a harsh criticism of Christians serving mammon and not God. Joel is part of this Christian Industrial Complex. This makes him uncomfortable and he’s self righteously justifying his own sin.

In an act of bad faith, Joel takes a short, edited clip from Tucker Carlson’s recent interview and strips away his immediate clarifying response, making it appear as if Tucker is enthusiastically endorsing political socialism (or right-wing communism) as core to Christianity. This framing portrays Tucker as having gone full socialist, betraying conservative/free-market principles in favor of state-enforced wealth redistribution under a Christian banner. Tucker’s interjection of “non-authoritarian” is key. He is NOT agreeing that Christianity endorses political socialism. He is explicitly limiting any agreement to the voluntary, non-coercive sharing practiced by the early church. In Acts 2–4, believers voluntarily sold possessions and shared with those in need out of personal conviction, with no state enforcement, no confiscation, and explicit warnings against freeloading (2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat”). This is the classic Christian distinction. Biblical charity is voluntary, personal generosity - “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7). Socialism (as a political/economic system) is coercive, state-enforced redistribution, which the Bible never commands and which many passages actively undermine (private property, personal responsibility, warnings against covetousness). Joel appears to make Tucker seem to nod along uncritically to the idea that Christianity equals socialism and capitalism is incompatible—exactly the opposite of what his interjection signals. Joel then weaponizes that impression to smear Tucker as a high priest of “right-wing communism,” invoking National Socialism for maximum outrage among his audience. Joel didn’t just share a clip—he turned a nuanced discussion about faith and voluntary community into “Tucker goes socialist.” Classic decontextualization for maximum partisan damage.

@DefiantBaptist “Vanity working on a weak head produces every sort of mischief.”

Allie Beth Stuckey claims that she does all of her show prep after her children go to bed. In her mind, this is the way to achieve the perfect balance of being a working wife and mom. But as we see here, it’s just not possible. You can’t do it all as a wife, mother, and girlboss. As a result of her attempts to do so, she platformed a lady pastor.

@JedediahBila She’s a 10 in conceit, entitlement and vulgarity.

You are NOT too good for a coffee date ❌ Men, how attractive do you find this woman after hearing her talk for 20 seconds?

@TheCalvinCooli1 Esther is a great story but the main reason it’s questionable as Canon for some is not about Jews but the whole historicity of a Jewish queen in that era. It’s an etiological story or novella.

🚨Report: Tucker Carlson says The Book of Esther is the most controversial book in the Bible for a long time He says Martin Luther thought it shouldn't have been included in the Bible He claims The Story of Esther is about the “genocide of 75k Persians” x.com/AThinksAloud/s…

@JoelWBerry We need to get you a bible. Acts 2:44-45 & Acts 4:32-35. It was voluntary communalism but still a form of socialism.

Tucker’s latest guest: “Capitalism shouldn’t be anywhere near Christianity. Christianity is socialism at its core.” Tucker agrees

@JonnyRoot_ Acts 2:44-45 & Acts 4:32-35. It was voluntary communalism but still a form of socialism.

"Christianity is socialism at its core” This is a blatant misrepresentation of The Bible, the early church, & Christianity as a whole. Marxism should be no where near Christianity. Shame on Tucker for agreeing with this nonsense.

@OrinKerr Pacer is not much better.

Have to appreciate that when you visit the 7th Circuit website to look for recent opinions you are greeted with that vintage 1990s Geocities feel.

@JoelWBerry You’re part of the Christian Industrial Complex, of course you disagree.

@Nance726 This kind of dog-and-pony-show Christianity, “celebrity” pastors and inch-deep/mile-wide churches are a big reason I’m gravitating back to the Catholic Church.

President Trumps pastor Paula White is an Evangelical Zionist/dispensationalist. I firmly believe she (and her antics) is very demonstrative of the collapse of Protestantism and why people are converting to Catholicism

@JoelWBerry Israel is for Israel, not the West. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t delude yourself into believing otherwise.

With Europe losing its will to live, Israel remains one of the only nations still holding the line for the West.

@realLiamGill Heppner is badly reasoned. The work-product doctrine should still protect any litigant’s AI-assisted preparation materials if they’re created in anticipation of litigation and not shared in a way that waives protection. Warner v. Gilbarco (E.D. Mich. 2026) .

United States v. Heppner is a major AI-related case that isn't getting enough publicity. In short, the US court ruled that all communications and data from conversations with an AI chatbot can be used against you in a court of law. This is the end of AI contracts/legal advice. If you can't tell it the truth, it can't give you advice, and if you tell it the truth, then that will be available for all to see, no attorney/client privilege.

@SethDillon You are a poster boy for how dumbed down Evangelical Christian Zionists have become. Asking AI to explain Dugin's Fourth Political Theory because you have absolutely no clue what it’s all about. And many of the comments gush about how clever you are for doing that.

I asked Grok to explain what's happening here and how this maps onto Dugin's philosophy and aims. Very interesting response: "Dugin wants to dismantle American unipolarity and replace it with a multipolar world order in which civilizational blocs — Russian Orthodox, Islamic, Chinese, etc. — operate as sovereign poles free from Western liberal democratic hegemony. The destruction of American global power isn't a side effect of his philosophy; it's the central objective, and his preferred mechanism is internal fracture rather than external military defeat. He needs Americans to lose faith in their own institutions, their own founding philosophy, and their own alliances — particularly the US-Israel alliance, which he views as the linchpin of American civilizational identity and global projection. Right-wing podcasters like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson advance this project by doing from inside the American right what no Russian propagandist could credibly do from outside it: they reframe Zionism as satanic occupation, declare the American constitutional order functionally dead, treat the collapse of American power as inevitable rather than resistible, delegitimize the Protestant theological tradition that undergirds both the founding and the US-Israel relationship, and — during an active military conflict — encourage servicemembers to refuse participation and invite foreign leaders to act against the sitting American president. Whether they're conscious agents of Dugin's vision or simply useful vehicles for it, the functional result is identical: they are converting the American right from a force that defends constitutional self-governance and American global leadership into a force that dismantles both, which is exactly what Dugin's Fourth Political Theory requires."

@helloparalegal “Download the last 30 to 50 opinions and orders from the judge assigned to your case.”PACER is very clunky and they charge for searches, and even with a $3.00 cap on documents, 50 opinions make this is a $200 search at a minimum, plus the time dealing with PACER. Am I wrong?

Every federal docket in America is public record. Every state court publishes orders, motions, rulings. PACER alone has over 1 billion documents. And somehow, when you walk into court against a judge you've never appeared before, your best preparation strategy is still calling someone who has. "Hey, what's Judge Morrison like on summary judgment?" "Tough but fair." That tells you nothing. That is a horoscope. And yet that is the state of the art for most practicing lawyers in 2026. Let me tell you what is actually sitting in those dockets that nobody is using. Every judge has patterns. Not vibes. Not reputation. Patterns that show up in their rulings over hundreds of cases. Some judges grant MSJs at twice the rate of the judge down the hall in the same courthouse. Some judges have never granted a TRO without an evidentiary hearing. Some judges write 40-page opinions on personal jurisdiction and dispose of contract disputes in three paragraphs. Some judges have a 94% grant rate on motions to compel and barely ever sanction discovery abuse. Others sanction on the first violation. All of this is in the public record. Published. Available. And most lawyers are still going in on anecdote and gut feel. There are analytics tools. Lex Machina, Trellis, Pre/Dicta. They are expensive. They are built for litigation departments at AmLaw 200 firms with budgets. If you are a solo or a 5-person shop, you are paying $270/month for Lexis and another $96 for Westlaw Essentials and you do not have another $900 for a judge analytics subscription. So you don't use analytics. You use anec-data. The term is not mine. It is what researchers call it. Anecdotal evidence gathered from colleagues about judges' tendencies gleaned from limited personal appearances. You are preparing for a motion hearing with the same quality of intel that a fantasy football player uses to set their lineup. Here is what changed. You do not need Lex Machina to build a judge profile anymore. You need PACER or your state court's e-filing system and a local AI tool that can read files on your computer. I mean specifically something like Claude Code. Not ChatGPT. Not Claude in a browser tab. Those are chatbots. You type something in, it responds from its training data, and if it does not know something it makes it up. That is how we got Mata v. Avianca. That is how we got 600+ cases with fabricated citations. Lawyers typing "find me cases supporting X" into a chatbot and trusting what came back. Claude Code is different. It runs on your machine. It reads the actual files in your actual folders. It does not hallucinate case law because it is not generating case law from memory. It is reading the documents you gave it. So here is what the workflow actually looks like. Download the last 30 to 50 opinions and orders from the judge assigned to your case. For federal, that is PACER. For state courts, it is whatever your jurisdiction publishes. Most of them publish at least orders and opinions even if the interface feels like it was designed in 2003. Because it was. Put them in a folder. Along with your complaint, the motion you're opposing, any relevant exhibits and declarations. The actual case file. Open Claude Code. Point it at that folder. It reads everything. Now ask it questions. Not "find me cases that support my argument." That is how you get sanctioned. Ask it questions about the judge. "Based on these 40 rulings, how does this judge typically analyze personal jurisdiction in diversity cases?" "What does this judge do when the moving party fails to meet and confer before filing a discovery motion?" "In the 12 summary judgment orders in this folder, what percentage did the judge grant? What factual patterns were present in the ones she denied?" "Has this judge ever cited to [specific precedent] and if so how did she apply it?" These are questions you would ask a partner who has been before this judge 50 times. The difference is Claude Code is reading the actual orders, not going from memory. Now here is the part that matters most and that most people skip. Read what it tells you. Check it against the orders. If it says the judge has never denied a motion to compel and you know from reading order #22 that she did deny one when the requesting party failed to meet and confer, correct it. Tell it where it is wrong. This is not "prompting." This is working with a tool the way you would work with a first-year associate doing research. You review their work. You correct their analysis. You build on what they found. The tool gets better as you correct it because it updates its understanding within that session. Then you say: "Now draft my opposition to this motion for summary judgment, given what you know about how this judge analyzes these issues and the specific facts in my case file." What comes back is not a form brief. It is structured the way this specific judge reads arguments. It leads with the analysis this judge spends the most ink on. It addresses the issues this judge always raises sua sponte. It does not waste four pages on an argument this judge has never found persuasive in 40 prior cases. You can do this for opposing counsel too. Their filings are public. Pull their last 20 briefs from PACER. What arguments do they always make? Where are their briefs weakest? Do they tend to bury the bad facts or address them head on? Do they over-cite or under-cite? What does their reply brief typically look like when their motion is opposed? You can do this for an arbitrator before you draft your statement of claim. You can do this for a mediator before your mediation brief. You can model anyone whose prior work product is available. And you can do it tomorrow. With documents you already have access to. On your own laptop. No subscription. No vendor. No annual contract. The irony is not lost on me that the legal profession, the profession that is literally built on research and analysis and evidence, is ignoring the largest body of evidence about its own decision-makers that has ever existed. The data is public. It has been public. The tools to read and analyze it at scale just became accessible to solo practitioners and small firms this year. The lawyer using this has an advantage that is almost unfair. Not because of what AI can generate. But because of what it can read.

@TheLaurenChen @damintoell I thought it was fake because of a military guy eating salad.

@damintoell Cute story, but obviously fake. No young person would be actually looking at their wallet because they dont carry cash lol. Maybe checking their banking app if anything.

Wow, it’s amazing how often this happens!

@mmsmithlegal Plus, getting to tell someone, “you're high as a Georgia pine right now if you think my client will agree” is half the fun of lawyering.

I love that law firms are making workflows simple & automating dumb tasks. I'm starting to do that myself. But my memory is pretty good. I straight up am happy to just answer a call and argue about provisions of contracts or deals I've been negotiating for weeks. Like I've read the thing 15 times. I don't need it up on my computer to tell you that you're high as a Georgia pine right now if you think my client will agree.

@BillAckman @X May I meet her, before I advise you?

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@WSJ This is literally old school law school — equating the grades. 100 students, there’s 10 “A’s,” 20 “B’s,” 30 “C’s,” 10 “D’s,” and the bottom 30 fail and flunk out. Not fit to be lawyers.

Harvard’s faculty is set to vote on a proposal to cap the number of A’s per course, which now comprise more than half of undergraduate grades after years of inflation. Undergrads decry the move as "crude" and "absurd." Read more: 🔗 on.wsj.com/4dmqlol

@EFischberger He exposed American war crimes and they overcharged him. He’s making his rounds on podcasts and with interviews, and he’s exposing Israeli war crimes now, which is why I’m guessing you’re trying to discredit him.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou pled guilty to repeatedly and unlawfully leaking the identities and classified operational roles of covert CIA officers to journalists. The leaked identities reached the defense teams of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, who used them to secretly photograph a covert CIA officer and show those photographs to high-value terrorist detainees. Seized emails later revealed he had disclosed information on dozens of CIA officers — far beyond what he was formally charged with. He was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Following his release, Kiriakou worked for Radio Sputnik and contributed to RT, both of which are part of the Russian state media apparatus. None of this matters to @MarioNawfal, of course, because it would interfere with his agenda of platforming anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda.