John and Deborah exaggerate sometimes and do sound like &quot;conspiracy theorists&quot; but before Snowden, how much of what he documented would be considered such? So their claims should be taken with a reasonable grain of salt, but the facts they mention are apparently facts and deserve to be discussed, like, who finances Tor is apparently clearly visible in the tax reports? Or what are the intersts of Omidyar.<p>And if they claim something that&#x27;s not true, it should be provable that they are wrong.