Q. & A.: Edward Snowden Speaks to Peter Maass: First question NYT asks: Why didn't you leak to us?

[Catherina]

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

People hold masks with the face of Edward J. Snowden at a hearing in Brazil on the N.S.A.'s surveillance programs.

Interview by PETER MAASS
Published: August 13, 2013

In the course of reporting his profile of Laura Poitras, Peter Maass conducted an encrypted question-and-answer session, for which Poitras served as intermediary, with Edward J. Snowden. Below is a full transcript of that conversation.

Peter Maass: Why did you seek out Laura and Glenn, rather than journalists from major American news outlets (N.Y.T., W.P., W.S.J. etc.)? In particular, why Laura, a documentary filmmaker?

Edward Snowden: After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America abdicated their role as a check to power — the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government — for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism. From a business perspective, this was the obvious strategy, but what benefited the institutions ended up costing the public dearly. The major outlets are still only beginning to recover from this cold period.

Laura and Glenn are among the few who reported fearlessly on controversial topics throughout this period, even in the faceof withering personal criticism, and resulted in Laura specifically becoming targeted by the very programs involved in the recent disclosures. She had demonstrated the courage, personal experience and skill needed to handle what is probably the most dangerous assignment any journalist can be given — reporting on the secret misdeeds of the most powerful government in the world — making her an obvious choice.

....

MORE here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html

EDIT: MUST READ, MUST READ: How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets posted by Morningfog. It's the article by Peter Maass that goes with these quotes

[JaneyVee]

1. More stuff that anyone paying attention already knew.

Add Snowden mask for creepiness factor.

[Fumesucker]

3. So like a good lawyer the NYT asked a question to which they already knew the answer

The answer they already knew sure didn't make them look all that good though.

Somewhere Judy Miller is laughing her ass off.

[Demeter]

93. I used to believe that there were no stupid questions

but my belief in the stupidity of (some) people is unshaken, especially the 1%ers and their loyal lackeys.

If the NYT had to ask the question for their own curiosity, I suppose there's hope for them yet. If they listen and understand the answer as the rebuke it is...

[deurbano]

25. I've been paying attention, but this provided a fuller picture of some aspects of the situation.

Interesting.

[Th1onein]

28. Yeah, it's all old news......

And besides, it's LEGAL, right?

Oh, and one more thing: Snowden is creepy. That oughta put this to rest, once and for all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. You forgot the boxes in the garage

They are very important.

[sabrina 1]

51. What did you know? Please share this information with us, thank you.

[JaneyVee]

90. Bush spied on journalists, military officers, and Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

62. Apparently the Cult of Personality is OK

as long as you're hero-worshipping the correct 'personality'.

[one_voice]

81. +1

[ProSense]

2. Well, the NYT did expose Bush's illegal spying in 2005.

Snowden had other plans: fleeing the country and revealing U.S. state secrets to other countries.

[cascadiance]

5. Well thanks to corporatist Jane Harman and Bushco, this NYT story didn't come out in 2004!

... when it might have informed the readers of the duplicity of what was going on behind the scenes and perhaps we might have had president Kerry elected then instead of another term of Bush... It instead came out in 2005... I'm sure that Snowden had knowledge of that BS that New York Times succumbed to to avoid the same trap as well!

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/7135-did-the-nyt-help-bush-win-the-2004-election-by-sitting-on-the-illegal-nsa-wiretapping-story-at-the-request-of-jane-harman

[deurbano]

27. +1000

[ProSense]

45. True, but they still revealed it in 2005.

I was reminded of that during the NYT's defense of the Fox Noise hack.

Also, the irony of attacking the NYT for the question is that they got the interview with Snowden.

WaPo was another source for some of the leaked information.

[cascadiance]

57. Well, Jane Harman who worked with Bushco to MANIPULATE the news from the NYT then was a DEMOCRAT!

So even then, there were corporatist Democrats that were willing to throw American's civil liberties under the bus to protect the powerful elites of the "shadow government" that uses the security state to control things. The bottom line is, even if the NYT later sought to make money from this article being released after the election, it was shown to be an entity that could be manipulated by the PTB to prevent the news doing what it is supposed to do (not just make money)! And that is inform the public in a TIMELY fashion, that would have provided the American voting populace to have important information they should have known about before the election when their voice could be a part of the equation to tell our government where they wanted it to go the coming four years in terms of what kid of security state they wanted. The NYT FAILED the American people in that regard, and we paid a price in perhaps not having choices made in that election that might have put a stop to the unconstitutional civil liberty violations that had started before then that I think most Americans are against.

I'm sure that Snowden noticed that the NYT sacrificed the American people's right to know at a critical time even if ultimately they published their story at a time when it could have less impact. It probably served as a warning to him that the NYT might this time around sacrifice Snowden's well being in exchange for them making money off of publishing a story he provided info for at a time that would avoid government accountability that the NYT could coordinate with the PTB like they did before in 2004 at the behest of Bushco and Democrat Jane Harman. I'm sure that Snowden, though he was prepared to make many sacrifices, didn't want to replicate the experiences of Bradley Manning himself if he could avoid it, especially if by avoiding this, he would be empowered to have more opportunity to get his message out in an effective way.

[sabrina 1]

52. And then we elected Democrats to make sure it never happened again. Because the general consensus

when Bush was caught doing, on the Dem side at least, was that the Government using Corps to spy on Americans was not a good thing.

So when did SOME Democrats changer their minds about this?

[ProSense]

4. More on the interview:

Snowden: NSA targeted journalists critical of government after 9/11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455773

Snowden: Greenwald Was ‘Annoyed That I Was Younger’ Than He Expected
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455662

[ronnie624]

35. Lol. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Let it be a lesson to all American papers.

Everyone knows they never would have published it.

[HardTimes99]

13. Or they would have sat on the story until after November of 2016 - nt

[Baitball Blogger]

19. I have no doubt that the demise of the paper medium was accelerated by their reluctance

to provide good investigative reporting.

[HardTimes99]

22. I used to be a paid subscriber to the Fri-Sun weekend special. Cancelled due to their

coverage of the run-up to Operation Shocking and Awful and will never give them another penny as long as I live. They have the blood of a lot of innocent people on their hands and I refuse to pay for it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. I'm tired of hearing about yellow-bellied Snowden

What in the world did you post about before Snowden came into your life and swept you off of your feet?

[L0oniX]

12. Are you also as tired of the massive amount of anti Snowden posts by ...you know who? n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Yes. The Snowden topic is boring. Let's talk about what had ALREADY

Been disclosed even prior to Snowden--NSA overreach. A lot of good investigative reporters aren't getting their due because Snowden/Greenwald are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. You got the tools on this site

If you are so tired...use them

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. I refuse to take refuge in "ignore" and "hide". Very lame.

I don't want to wall myself from opposing views. Where is the growth and learning in that? Where is the hope for compromise if we are talking past each other into our own echo chambers? Not a very enlightened path.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. You obviously do not know of just not seeing

What bothers you. It's not lame...it's what adults do when they simply no longer want to see a subject...you can trash a thread, or you can filter threads with the subjects you no longer care to see.

Otherwise, you are tired, you refuse to avail yourself of the tools, I will assume you doth protest too much.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

63. no....it is just to point out that DU could be used for so much more than rehashing details about

Snowden both for the positive and the negative.

It seems clear to me most all at DU and in the country at large want curbs on NSA. The points that are forgotten is members of the media were already cracking the secrecy of these programs prior to Snowden and reporting on them. It is unfair to all of their hard work with informants, etc. to merely heap praise on an attention whore like Greenwald and a criminal like Snowden.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. It is clear to me that is your opinion

It is clear many of us are indeed still interested in the subject at hand. Filter Snowden and the NSA from your DU experience. A few people did that on week one. Or just do not open the threads.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. or I can just comment on how old it is getting as one way of expressing myself

I won't verbally berate people and call them names if they do keep posting, but I think it's a waste. Continue enjoying this topic, then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. And the comment will now be ignored for it is worthless and IMO

Just one more attempt to silence people.



Yes, that is my opinion on this. I almost expect it to become a new meme on DU.

[L0oniX]

61. Yes ...let's talk about that...

http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2013/06/07/2005-obama-slammed-patriot-act-fishing-expedition-through-phone-calls-emails-gives-people-no-rights/

2005 Obama Slammed Patriot Act; “Fishing Expedition Through Phone Calls, Emails…Gives People No Rights”
June 7, 2013 at 12:18 pm

As “just plain wrong“.

“…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books that you read the phone calls you’ve made, the emails that you’ve sent – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.”

[Th1onein]

30. No, of course not.

Doncha know this is old news? They've been spying on us for decades, and therefore, it's all fine and good.

Oh, and it's LEGAL, too.

[L0oniX]

33. Well DU wouldn't be DU without the everyday usual massive amount of anti-Snowden posts. n/t

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

[dkf]

18. If you are tired of reading about Snowden, learn how they re treating journalists...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?smid=tw-nytmedia&seid=auto&

Start from here:

Attempting to tell the story of the war’s effect on Iraqi citizens made Poitras the target of serious — and apparently false — accusations. On Nov. 19, 2004, Iraqi troops, supported by American forces, raided a mosque in the doctor’s neighborhood of Adhamiya, killing several people inside. The next day, the neighborhood erupted in violence. Poitras was with the doctor’s family, and occasionally they would go to the roof of the home to get a sense of what was going on. On one of those rooftop visits, she was seen by soldiers from an Oregon National Guard battalion. Shortly after, a group of insurgents launched an attack that killed one of the Americans. Some soldiers speculated that Poitras was on the roof because she had advance notice of the attack and wanted to film it. Their battalion commander, Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson, retired, told me last month that he filed a report about her to brigade headquarters.

Too much to post.

[George II]

53. Probably Julian Assange

[Mojorabbit]

72. No one made you click on this thread. There are lots of options to hide threads. nt

[morningfog]

96. Autotrash by keyword. Glad I could help.

[L0oniX]

8. Uhmmm ...because they would sit on it for a year? Like they have in the past? n/t

[nashville_brook]

9. they have access to Snowden, and THAT's what the NYTs wants to know?

I think you have your answer right there.

[Catherina]

17. See my edit. Peter Maas also wrote an excellent article that goes along with this

I just saw the article. It's really a must read

[nashville_brook]

70. got it -- thanks! definitely a more substantial read!

[proverbialwisdom]

99. It's Peter Maass, the news is fake that the news was fake award-winning writer, not Peter Maas.

Confusing, no?

http://www.petermaass.com/the_toppling/the_psychological_operations_myth/

JANUARY 05, 2011 | PERMALINK

The Psychological Operations Myth

In 2004 the Army published a report that credited a psychological operations team with playing a crucial role at Firdos Square. A Los Angeles Times story about the report, headlined “Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue,” circulated widely on the web, fueling the notion that the toppling was a psyop trick. But the Army was wrong, and the L.A. Times was wrong. I interviewed the psyop team leader, Staff Sgt. Brian Plesich, and he acknowledged that his team arrived at the square well after the toppling began; video from Firdos shows Plesich’s distinctive Humvee, with loudspeakers on its roof, arriving an hour-and-half after the first tanks. The Army report credited Plesich with getting an Iraqi flag on the statue, but this was wrong, too; a Marine, Casey Kuhlman, did it. Click “Continue Reading” to see the section of my story that clears up the psyop myth.

<>

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/aug/25/guardianobituaries.books

[Th1onein]

31. BINGO!

[Arctic Dave]

10. LOL.

The NYT had the balls to ask that!?

[KittyWampus]

11. So will anyone question Catherina's obsession as they did Prosense?

[dkf]

21. This isn't about Snowden, it's what we are learning about our government and the state of journalism

Snowden is the means by which we learn. Beyond the leaks, the entire saga has been hugely informative.

[ProSense]

29. It's not about Snowden!!! n/t

[msanthrope]

32. An interview of Snowden isn't about Snowden? nt

[dkf]

40. Prior to this I didn't realize how the paper of record keeps the governments secrets.

They can't function as a check on the government in this fashion.

Thank goodness McClatchy has rejected that attitude. Even the Guardian sounded hesitant at first. Greenwald and Poitras set up other means to disseminate Snowden's info if necessary.

[grasswire]

38. Catherina - 32,500 posts. ProSense 101,000 + posts

The obsessed is obvious.

[ProSense]

41. LOL!

[ProSense]

42. Let me fill you in on the humor:

You've been here since 2002 and the other poster has more posts than you.

I've been here since 2005 and have more posts than the other poster.

Using someone's post count as an argument is hilarious.

[grasswire]

44. knock yourself out

The fact that you've been here so much less time and you have three times the posts simply proves my point. Obsessed.

[ProSense]

50. LOL! The attempt was a massive FAIL. n/t

[KittyWampus]

54. Prosense has been here for a very long time. She also posts on a wide range of topics.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I don't think post count is how you measure obsession...

After all, people can post on a wide variety of topics and build up a big post count at DU. A more accurate way of trying to measure obsession on an issue (not that I think even that proves obsession) is to go to Advanced search, then search for posts by those posters that contain the word Snowden. Just taking a guess, it'd be neck and neck at this stage

[Mojorabbit]

73. Wow is that ever lame. nt

[KittyWampus]

77. What? Observing the gross hypocrisy when it comes to someone in your little clique?

[Mojorabbit]

84. I don't have a clique dear

I am old enough to remember the CIA spying on citizens. I remember the days when we were supposed to be special and a beacon to the world because we did not treat our citizens like the USSR and East Germany,because we had a constitution that protected us and also because it was morally wrong to do so. I am not stupid enough to think any of the alphabet agencies will operate in the manner they are supposed to. Historically they have not. I think defending the spying goes against everything this country stands for and I will speak out against it every chance I get. I have nothing but contempt for those here who were against the spying when Bush was President but are now fine with it and I am not including you in that description.

[burnodo]

88. No

[morningfog]

97. They already have upthread.

[KoKo]

14. Recommend!

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. k&r

[Autumn]

20. Maybe Snowden understands how the aspens are connected at the roots?

And how they turn in clusters? Recommended.

[Catherina]

26. His wisdom and entire manner astound me n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. A good question and a good answer. K&R

[uponit7771]

24. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!! Every male of color has the SAME EXACT EXCUSE in another context

...and it cant be used.

Bullshit on all this

[bemildred]

37. Well, thanks for clearing all that up. nt

[marions ghost]

39. ---

[backscatter712]

34. The NYT's butthurt because they got scooped by someone that won't just sit on his ass.

We all know the NYT would have simply sat on the information. Greenwald didn't. We know that, Snowden knew that, so the NYT got scooped.

[bemildred]

36. "Why would I want to?" nt

[ProSense]

43. Snowden, "famously paranoid"

Snowden, "famously paranoid"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023456236

[WillyT]

46. K & R !!!

[marions ghost]

49. K&R

just read the long article by Peter Maass you linked to....ditto, a MUST READ>

Edit to say-- we may never be able to determine what is real and what is illusion again in this country if we don't address this surveillance issue in a big way.

[Rex]

58. After watching the NYT ensure a second term for GWB

And all the CYA the M$M does for the government, I can see why in some ways BUT STILL. He could have gone to a few choice mags outside the traditional M$M loop imo.

He wanted to run off to China and spill the beans from there. Not smart.

[Catherina]

64. How would you have suggested? (Hong Kong, not China) n/t

[Rex]

66. Give the information to a publication like Wired or Rolling Stones magazine.

The Village Voice! SO many alt communications in America that he disappointed me in running off to our traditional enemies. He is dealing with the exact same people the GOP tends to like. The GOP. If he ran to Hong Kong for a distinction between it and the mainland, then it was lost when he fled to Russia imo.

Sorry Cat, but this is one area you and I are going to disagree on.

I KNOW a lot of people are happy he exposed a huge festering Police State in the making, but that could have been done from America.

Sorry, if it was me I would have gone the Manning route.

[Catherina]

71. Wired has collaborated with the government before and distorted things

In Snowden's case, I don't think he was as interested in the publication as he was in the integrity of the reporter. Can you name a more honest, principled and courageous reporter to have covered this than Greenwald? There was Hastings but a site like BuzzFeed doesn't have a big enough audience and Hastings lived in the US where he would have been in our clutches.

The Village Voice? Seriously, who reads the Village Voice anymore unless they live in NY? They changed a lot after New Times Media bought them and it doesn't reach a global audience for this very global matter.

I really don't see how he could have done this differently. Hong Kong is an ally, not an enemy and where could he have gone but Russia? Anywhere else, we would have scooped him up, shackled and muzzled him. None of the European countries were trustworthy.

I'm sure if Snowden had to do it over again, he'd have hopped on a flight to Mexico and then to Venezuela or Ecuador but he's seemed a bit naive about how deep the international complicity of the 1% is.

It's ok if we disagree lol. If you were in his shoes, where would you have gone?

[Rex]

75. Yes actually I was surprised he did not head South.

Smart money would have been Mexico or Venezuela just like you said. I was shocked when they said he was in China. Personally, I would have stayed and fought the system. If that included jail and torture then so be it.

[Catherina]

79. Haha lol, I would not have stayed, not in a million years

but I agree heading to Venezuela would have been a better choice but then you have to deal with logistics. There are no direct flights from Honolulu to Venezuela that don't stop on the mainland, not even from Honolulu to Mexico.

But lol, Hong Kong, not China. I could see your point if he went to mainland China but he didn't. And not for a million, million years would I have stayed in the US to fight the system- you can't fight very effectively from solitary and we would have gagged him totally. People who get National Security Letters aren't even allowed to talk about them. Sibel Edmonds was gagged and people like Aaron Shwartz kind of mysteriously suicided. Barrett Brown and his lawyers are prohibited from talking to the media. Not for a million years would I have stayed.

Edit: Sorry I took so long. I just got a new 'guest'.

[Rex]

80. But running off automatically allows the govt to play the traitor card

and there is no way to refute it really, unless you stay and take it. I agree, it is a hard decision to make, but since the NSA already is back to working with his former employeer...like nothing happened...I take their word as less credible then his at the moment.

If only Congress would have stayed on script, we would have not noticed how badly the NSA is controlling major institutions like Congress and not the other way around.

I called this Kabuki theater before Clapper got up and lied before Congress. We've seen this act played out before. I think the difference is that Snowden is still a wildcard and the NSA is running around like their hair is on fire. Even if I don't agree with everything he has done, only a fool would pretend Snowden has not made a huge impact.

I dunno, if you find the right person in alt news you can achieve the same results. It just has to be preemptive in nature as to the release of data imo.

[Catherina]

82. But who's falling for the traitor card anymore?

If people were, Snowden wouldn't have the kind of support he has. Congress as a whole already screwed us over and even though so many of them look like they want to rectify things now, I wish them luck.

The Guardian really went out on a limb for this one. They promised Greenwald they wouldn't back off no matter what. When you look at the pressure governments put on the Washington Post, the BBC and outlets like CNN (without even factoring in the complicity of their boards/shareholders), who could he have picked in the alternate media? And it had to be someone with an audience, with an honest journalist, who wouldn't be subject to US laws. I'm just asking you "who"?

[Rex]

83. It is not that people are falling for it, it is the govt gets to use it as justification.

Even if true or not, you know how America works. Greg Palast would be a good start.

[Catherina]

86. I think Greenwald, as a consitutional lawyer activist with a principled audience, is a better start

no disrespect meant to Greg Palast. I like Greg Palast but journalistically speaking, he's more easily dismissed. And he's too easily (wrongly) tied to alleged conspiracy theories. Plus, where does Palast publish that gets a global audience?

[Rex]

89. He knows the right people to get things done.

You need a fixer. And I bet he would be your person to go to. Just one example. I think the information would be all over the WWW before the NSA could clamp down on it. They don't have a closed system yet like China does. It would be front page news all over the world.

[arely staircase]

59. wow, not one tough question

just a handful of softballs.

[BlueStreak]

69. What should Snowden have done?

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The answer to the NYT question cited in the OP reveals a man who give this whole thing extremely serious thought. He was well aware of the risks and consequences. The easy thing would be to simply to ignore the corruption and illegality that is taking over our country. The only plausible explanation for why he didn't just ignore it is conscience.

Once he made the decision to bring this information into the public eye, he had to plan a course of action. He concluded that there was absolutely no way to work this through the NSA internally. After all, they were the ones breaking all the laws.

And sadly, he also concluded that there was no viable means for a whistle-blower to work through some other part of government to get the issues exposed. And saddest of all, he concluded that there is absolutely not a shred of a viable free press remaining, at least at the major media level, in the US.

Knowing everything we now know, seeing everything that has happened since he made his move, is there anybody who can honestly argue there was any other way to get this information into the public eye? He couldn't work through Congress. We see how tightly they have Wyden locked down, for example.

So I ask the anti-Snowden people this. If the goal was to subject these illegal operations to scrutiny that would get them stopped, what other alternative was there? Please be specific.

I submit Snowden picked the only possible scenario, and therefore anybody arguing he did the wrong thing is actually arguing for the continuation of the illegality in our security apparatus. If that is what you believe, you are entitled to that opinion. But at least have the integrity to say that is really where you stand.

[marions ghost]

74. Agree totally--

this is how I see it also. He had no choices to be heard within the US. We have no major media free press and his reference to the post-9-11 media complicity certainly is a prime example.

You summed it up.

[bvar22]

76. The more this guy talks, the more I like him.

"After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America abdicated their role as a check to power — the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government — for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism."

Could NOT have been better or more truthfully stated!

Those attacking Snowden today said the SAME thing about the MSM
during the run up to the Iraq Invasion when Bush sat in the Oval Office.

I will never understand how can someone turn 180 degrees on MAJOR ISSUES just because someone else sits in the Oval office.

[Catherina]

85. Well... you know I'm on record as having called him a hero since day 1

what this kid is up against is simply unimaginable. "Those" lol.

ChunkyMark "Wow!!!!! Edward Snowden...just stunning"

[liberal_at_heart]

78. ouch. The truth hurts.

[blackspade]

91. Excellent article.

Pretty informative.
I have a better sense about Snowden at this point.
I don't like everything I'm reading, but I feel much more confidant about the vetting that Poitras and Greenwald put him through.
I'm curious about the overall timeline. Did he even have the leaked documents when the Chinese swept him up? Is there a possibility that the reason why he didn't disappear is that he no longer had any of the material?
If I were him I would have jettisoned all of it with Greenwald and Poitras. That may be why he is not actively leaking anything at this point. Rather Greenwald appears to be analyzing and reporting as he goes through things.

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. knr

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I wish there was an unrec button, coz the article was pretty weak...

An article that's all about why and how talked to one journalist and not others is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I've got no more time for this stuff when it's posted by the 'OMG! Snowden's sooo awesome and wise!' brigade than I do for the articles ripping him to shreds posted by the opposite camp. I wish people would be more interested in talking about the NSA and what was uncovered, rather than continuing to make it about the messenger of the message...

[idwiyo]

98. kick