Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 06, 2017

Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source

Yesterday The Intercept published a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.

Intercepted source - R.L. Winner

FBI search (pdf) and arrest warrant (pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept's reporters and editors which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the source. It leaves one scratching one's head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either way - the incident confirms what skeptics had long determined: The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking state secrets of public interests.

The Intercept was created to privatize the National Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept. Only some 5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no idea what the unpublished pages would provide.

The Intercept, a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and "philanthropist" who's (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation is "investing" for "returns". Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people from the fascists RSS party, ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely implicate Omidyar's PayPal.

The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. Its first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras - all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way.  The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream "liberal" to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda. The website seems to have no regular publishing schedule at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only a few of them make public waves. Some of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is begging for reader donations.

Yesterday's published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters) begins:

Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept publishes alongside the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations" - i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a "cyberattack" like Stuxnet which are intended to create large damage,

The "attack" by someone was standard spearfishing and some visual basic scripts to gain access to accounts of local election officials. Thee is no proof that any account was compromised. Any minor criminal hacker uses similar means. No damage is mentioned in the NSA analysis. The elections were not compromised by this operation. The document notes explicitly (p.5) that the operation used some techniques that distinguish it from other known Russian military intelligence operations. It was probably -if at all- done by someone else.

The reporters note that the document does not provide any raw intelligence. It is an analysis based on totally unknown material. It does not include any evidence for the claims it makes. The Intercept piece describes how the document was received and "verified":

The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, ...
The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were both contacted for this article. Officials requested that we not publish or report on the top secret document and declined to comment on it. When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions. The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests.

The piece quotes at length the well known cyber security expert Bruce Schneier. It neglects to reveal that Schneier is a major partisan for Clinton who very early on, in July 2016, jumped on her "Russia hacked the Democratic National Council" claim for which there is still no evidence whatsoever.

The Intercept story was published on June 5. On June 3 the FBI already received a search warrant (pdf) by the U.S. District court of southern Georgia for the home, car and computers of one Reality Leigh Winner, a 25 year old former military language specialist (Pashto, Dari, Farsi) who worked for a government contractor. In its application for the warrant the FBI asserted:

19. On or about May 24, 2017, a reporter for the News Outlet (the "Reporter") contacted another U.S. Government Agency affiliate with whom he has a prior relationship. This individual works for a contractor for the U.S. Government (the "Contractor"). The Reporter contacted the Contractor via text message and asked him to review certain documents. The Reporter told the Contractor that the Reporter had received the documents through the mail, and they were postmarked "Augusta. Georgia." WINNER resides in Augusta, Georgia. The Reporter believed that the documents were sent to him from someone working at the location where WINNER works. The Reporter took pictures of the documents and sent them to the Contractor. The Reporter asked the Contractor to determine the veracity of the documents. The Contractor informed the Reporter that he thought that the documents were fake. Nonetheless, the Contractor contacted the U.S. Government Agency on or about June 1, 2017, to inform the U.S. Government Agency of his interaction with the Reporter. Also on June I. 2017, the Reporter texted the Contractor and said that a U.S Government Agency official had verified that the document was real. ...

To verify the leaked document the reporter contacted a person working for the government. He used insecure communication channels (SMS) that are known to be tapped. He provided additional meta-information about the leaker that was not necessary at all for the person asked to verify the documents.

It got worse:

13. On June I, 2017, the FBI was notified by the U.S. Government Agency that the U.S. Government Agency had been contacted by the News Outlet on May 30, 2017, regarding an upcoming story. The News Outlet informed the U.S Government Agency that it was in possession of what it believed to be a classified document authored by the U.S Government Agency. The News Outlet provided the U.S. Government Agency with a copy of this document. Subsequent analysis by the U.S. Government Agency confirmed that the document in the News Outlet's possession is intelligence reporting dated on or about May 5. 2017 (the "intelligence reporting"). This intelligence reporting is classified at the Top Secret level, ...
14. The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased,suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.

15. The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.

The source that provided the document had no operational security at all. She printed the document on a government printer. All (color) printers and photo copiers print nearly invisible (yellow) patters on each page that allow to identify the printer used by its serial number. The source used email from her workplace to communicate. Ms. Winner is young, inexperienced and probably not very bright. (She is also said to be Clinton partisan.) She may not have known better.

But a reporter at The Intercept should know a bit or two about operational security. Sending (and publishing) the leaked documents as finely scanned PDF's (which include (de) the printer code) to the NSA to let the NSA verify them was incredibly stupid. Typically one only summarize these or at least converts them into a neutral, none traceable form. Instead the reporters provided at several points and without any need the evidence that led to the unmasking of their source. Wikileaks is offering $10,000 for the exposure and firing of the person responsible for this.

It is also highly questionable why the Intercept contacted the NSA seven days(!) before publishing its piece. Giving the government such a long reaction time may lead to preemptive selective leaks by the government to other news outlets to defuse the not yet published damaging one. It may give the government time to delete evidence or to unveil leakers. The Intercept certainly knows this. It had been burned by such behavior when the National Counterterrorism Center spoiled an Intercept scoop by giving a polished version to the Associate Press. Back then the Intercept editor John Cook promised to give government agencies no longer than 30 minutes for future replies. In this case it gave the NSA seven days!

Besides the failure(?) of The Intercept there are other concerns to note.

  • Why has a 25 year old language specialist for Afghanistan access to Top Secret NSA analysis of espionage in the U.S. election? Where was the "need to know"?
  • Could this espionage -if it happened- have been part of a different plan by whomever? Consider:
Simple way to hack elections: Compromise some county offices & systems. Do nothing. If election doesn’t go your way, reveal that you hacked.
10:52 PM - 5 Jun 2017

More additional question are asked in this thread.

The lessons learned from this catastrophic -for the source- leak:

  • Start thinking of good op-sec before you think of leaking.
  • Computer access gets logged. Do not leave any suspicious (log) trace at your workplace (or anywhere else).
  • Do not provide any trace from your immediate workplace or any personal metadata with the leaked material.

And last but certainly not least:

  • Do not trust The Intercept.

Posted by b on June 6, 2017 at 10:09 UTC | Permalink

next page »

First Deep State Arrest?

That girl's social media accounts is filled with neocon propaganda and anti-Trump posts.

Intercept is really really stupid for spreading this deepstate pro-war desinformation.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 10:32 utc | 1

Wikileaks twitter account has good comment on it.

It is clear that The Intercept is a way to coopt hackers and leakers. She possibly would not have been arrested with Democrats in power.

The New York Times and the Intercept have a campaign to leak to US sources so that whistleblowing is not treason.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 10:40 utc | 2

I take it that there's not even the slightest or far reaching bit of evidence at all in the leaked documents that implicates Russia (or the US government) of any mischief.

So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits?

Posted by: never mind | Jun 6 2017 10:53 utc | 3

never mind

Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 11:01 utc | 4

She looks like a dual citizen of the Rotscheild colony in Palestine.

Posted by: nobody | Jun 6 2017 11:04 utc | 5

Thanks for this. Even before reading this account, I was inclined to think "fake news" because the Deep State is such a prolific and relentless generator of propaganda. And also, I think we're pretty much screwed regardless of who is in power. My only hope is that it all doesn't end up in mushroom-clouds.

Posted by: Mister Roboto | Jun 6 2017 11:07 utc | 6

This sort of activity wouldn't have helped Russian intelligence, but it might have been useful to US intelligence. DHS already got caught red handed.

Posted by: Miller | Jun 6 2017 11:10 utc | 7

It was obvious that The Intercept became a US Inteligence Industry pawn the minute it started to denounce Al Assad on 2016. It was to good to be true from the beginning. Snowden should say something about "his friends" Greenwald and Poitras !! As far as it is descrived in the above article, the R J Winner affaire could be just another Psy Op by the Langley People

Posted by: opereta | Jun 6 2017 11:16 utc | 8

Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 11:20 utc | 9

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9

Because one person's freedom is everybody's freedom or in a quotation "Freedom
is always the freedom of the person that thinks differently from you".

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 11:40 utc | 10

I see many signs of a useful idiot.

Posted by: Anonyst | Jun 6 2017 11:41 utc | 11

Posted by: nobody | Jun 6, 2017 7:04:47 AM | 5

And you sound like a Nazi.

Posted by: Anonyst | Jun 6, 2017 7:41:49 AM | 11

Naive, in other words. The intercept seems to have put an intern on the case.
They would not uncover her deliberately as they are practically out of business now.

The document she seems to have leaked just does not mean much.
There is still the possibility that she copied the document and somebody else posted it. Or/and that the Intercept got more stuff which they chose not to publish.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 11:49 utc | 12

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9

Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?

Assange supports all leakers, regardless of what they leak or to whom. Any other stance would amount to shooting himself in the foot.

On another note, what is extraordinary is to see a Deep State leaker busted by the Deep State. How batty is that? I mean, she was only trying to help them against "big bad Russia", wasn't she? So?

Posted by: Lea | Jun 6 2017 11:49 utc | 13

Yes the intercept gave them self away when Greenwald wrote a piece denouncing the Syrian government and the SAA back in 2015. He occasionally has sane and progressive expressions like when he speaks against the fascist state of Israel. He gave himself away again on the propaganda outlet Democracy now. He was eluding to the fact of Russian collusion with the recent POTUS elections and the Flyn fiasco. Here again he gave himself away. He is bought and paid for by the elite like most journo's in our deluded western countries.
P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo who is unfortunately dead states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it.

Posted by: falcemartello | Jun 6 2017 11:51 utc | 14

although a fan of the intercept at first, i soured when they announced they were spying on their readership. never trust a billionaire. betrayal is the only route to billionaire status.

greenwald and poitras at the oscars turned my stomach. not a word about chelsea manning or any of the others ... greenwald and poitras were the 'stars'.

now, no matter this winner is a loser or no, they've betrayed another one of the people who've put them where they are. they're cannibals.

since i stopped reading the intercept i was unaware of their support for al-cia-duh and the jihadists in syria. that just stinks.

snowden cast his pearls before swine.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 6 2017 11:52 utc | 15

Maybe someone at The Intercept thought this was an attempt by the NSA (not the "deep state, there isn't one") to burn them, so they toss the document back at the NSA to see what happens.
Why The Intercept? If you read most Clintonist blogs, you'll quickly realise that Greenwald is up there with Assange and Putin as satanic (Trumpist) agents, so an Internet-aware Clintonist sending documents to The Intercept or Wikileaks suggests some other purpose than simply leaking information adverse to Trump. Most Clintonists have jumped on this NSA "document" as further solid proof of Putin's culpability which just happened to be "leaked" at about the same time a favourable interview with Putin was being broadcast on the MSM.
If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot.

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6 2017 11:55 utc | 16

somebody / Lea

Actually Wikileaks/Assange have no idea if this info is even true.

Who leaks this? Well obviously the same propagandists we heard past 6 months that want the world to think Russia and Trump won the election/the pathetic accusation that Russia somehow ruled the election to Trump. As far as we know the leaks could not only lack evidence but it could also be pure fake.

So no, I dont see why Wikileaks and Assange would support this. But thats me.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 12:00 utc | 17

Posted by: falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14

That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell.

Of course everybody the US, Russia, Qatar, companies have a PR greyzone trying to influence public opinion.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 12:05 utc | 18

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff.

The solution is obvious but I don't hear anybody calling for it: Paper ballots. It is simple, works and is fast if you have a good counting system in place. Lots of countries still use it.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 12:08 utc | 19

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:00:37 AM | 17

Accepting that leakers could be fake would destroy the business model.

But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 12:11 utc | 20

Reality Winner charged leaking classified material

“Exceptional law enforcement efforts allowed us quickly to identify and arrest the defendant,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

rod rosenstein ... Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team, mike whitney has this guy's number, if you ask me.

Who “owns” the NSA secrets leaked by Edward Snowden to reporters Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras?

Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay.

Whistleblowing has traditionally served the public interest. In this case, it is about to serve the interests of a billionaire starting a for-profit media business venture. This is truly unprecedented. Never before has such a vast trove of public secrets been sold wholesale to a single billionaire as the foundation of a for-profit company.

and who sold them? not edward snowden ... he gave them away ... to the two 'operators' who sold them to omidyar.

after death, devastation, and destruction outright ... deceit it the usofa's main growth industry. and hey, 'progressives' can do it too! and still huff and puff themselves up - among their temporary, transactional 'friends' anyway - with righteousness indignation.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 6 2017 12:13 utc | 21


Thats whats called desinformation or psyops., you already for example seems claim that this is true facts that have been leaked, but we dont know that.

Or do you actually believe the whole Russia-Trump-hacking-claims we heard past months?

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 12:19 utc | 22

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

It is a document about what someone in the NSA believes, it is completely meaningless.

Greenwald and Scahill are kind of distancing themselves from the article.

The document is just enough to cause headlines that convince trusting people that Russia hacked the election. Arresting the leaker makes sure everybody heard about it.

Who wrote it by the way

Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim

They need 4 people to publish a document and burn a source?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 12:41 utc | 23

CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites

I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make.

Carry on...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2017 12:49 utc | 24

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

I assume Russia has a cyber capacitiy in its defense portfolio, like everybody else.

The most likely scenario is Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange having a very personal private war after the state department leaks.

I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that.

What do politicians in the US think - that they can attack without anybody trying to hit back?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 12:52 utc | 25

Also, Assange has been dead since October, but what do I know...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2017 12:52 utc | 26


"... document about what someone in the NSA believes,..."

...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 12:55 utc | 27

No facts, so Reality loser.

Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 6 2017 13:01 utc | 28

>>>>> Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff.

Well that's a big fat F in Black Ops 101 for you.

The Intercept just returns the document to the NSA - end of.

The Intercept asks the NSA to review and redact the document - it keeps going. Returning the received document rather than a re-typed one might raise questions within the NSA but could be put down to operator error at The Intercept but re-typed documents would get The Intercept no further in working out what's actually happening.

I'm not sure if this is what is happening but the whole thing is weird.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20

But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up.

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6 2017 13:11 utc | 29

27) if so, there are unintended consequences

From the memory whole - wired

But that’s not what’s really important here. WikiLeaks and Assange say they have no responsibility for the content they leak, and that no one has evidence that the sources of the DNC leak are Russian. But these leaks and tweets damage WikiLeaks’ credibility. If they’re not scrutinizing their own leaks on the base level of their content, it’s not hard to imagine that WikiLeaks could unwittingly become part of someone else’s agenda (like, say, a Russian one). “If you are a legitimate leaker, why go with WikiLeaks? You go with The Intercept or the New York Times, like they did with the Panama Papers” says Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley who studies the organization. “Wikileaks is a pastebin for spooks, and they’re happy to be used that way.”

All this effort to discredit Wikileaks - poof.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 13:15 utc | 30

>>>>>Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 7:49:09 AM | 12

Posted by: nobody | Jun 6, 2017 7:04:47 AM | 5

(She looks like a dual citizen of the Rotscheild colony in Palestine.)

And you sound like a Nazi.

That's insulting to Nazis. At least they were open and honest about their racism and antisemitism.

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6 2017 13:21 utc | 31

One would think that all parties would be interested in this news. The Dems, of course, want to make Russian links. But doesn't Trump want to use this to prove his theory that the popular vote was wrong? Let's not turn this into a game where everyone interprets things based on ideology. The whole dang point is that someone was trying to infiltrate our voting system. Maybe they failed, maybe it was just a reconnaissance mission, but it happened. That is news.

Moon is obviously showing extreme bias. Instead of trying to figure out and analyze the implications he uses this as a way to score points. Points against the Intercept. Points against the Dems, and so on. How tiring.

Posted by: Kronos | Jun 6 2017 13:22 utc | 32


Sigh here we go again:
" Maybe they failed, maybe it was just a reconnaissance mission, but it happened. That is news. "
No! There is no news because there is no facts to begin with.

If even people here swallow this as "facts" world is really doomed.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 13:30 utc | 33

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 9:21:37 AM | 31

Not really. You underestimate the propaganda effort that went into the effort to convince people that it is ok to get rid of Jews.

Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt - The leader gives a city to the Jews

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 13:39 utc | 34

This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves.

Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater?

Posted by: SlapHappy | Jun 6 2017 13:54 utc | 35

Anon re: Assange and WIkilieaks -- I don't know enough to judge your attitude toward Wikileaks, but, since Wikileaks operates on a strong promise to never reveal sources, I can understand why Assange would make clear his and his group's stand that Reality Winner was treated very badly indeed,

If whistleblowers and leakers cannot feel any sense of that their identity will be kept secret, there will be fewer and fewer leakers and whistleblowers.

Seems obvious to me that Assange would be concerned about such lousy treatment of a source. Is there something you know which I haven't thought about or come across?


Posted by: jawbone | Jun 6 2017 14:03 utc | 36

unR̶A̶D̶A̶C̶K̶ted @JesselynRadack

Winner case is 2nd time Matt Cole was involved in a story where the source ended up prosecuted for Espionage
1st was my client @JohnKiriakou

Posted by: b | Jun 6 2017 14:09 utc | 37

More diversion folks. The real elephant in the room is the U$A electoral system. It's rotten to it's core. Regardless of ANY information coming from ANY source, the corporate
overlords OWN the voting systems at the national level here in the U$A. SO, we here in the U$A, can believe whoever we want to, but, our votes, at least at national level, are

P.S- Read around folks, but, watch what people do, not what the say.

Posted by: ben | Jun 6 2017 14:15 utc | 38

Don't worry about the Intercept or some gal who's going to do time for leaking. That's already gone out the back end of the news cycle. The big stories are yet to come.

People aren't paying any attention to alt-news blogs. They're paying attention to the upcoming grilling different players are going to get from the senate and the justice folks in the coming days, weeks and months. It starts Thursday with Comey's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee. But that's only a tease. The biggest reveals will come later on when Flynn, Manafort, Page, Kushner and all and sundry other players who held meetings and conducted business with the Russians prior to and during the election are asked very pointed questions under oath.

People are curious why there was such a full-court press on so many different levels to engage the Russians. It's been said that it's normal operating procedure during government transitions. That's bullshit. Normal transitions are dealt with through established diplomatic channels, not secret meetings looking to open back channels outside the purview of a country's security apparatus. People wonder why this issue garnered the undivided attention of so many of Trump's people when it was the least important of all the election issues.

People are also curious as to why after calling down China, Germany, France, the Pope, the Mayor of London, Canada, Mexico and a host of other countries and leaders that Trump has been utterly silent about Russia or Putin. Not one negative word. Do you suppose it's because he's a renaissance man who sees the benefits for all people in a new relationship with Russia? While trash talking everybody else? Really? Better stick with the blogs then because that's where you'll find validation.

Posted by: peter | Jun 6 2017 14:27 utc | 39


Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months.
She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 14:34 utc | 40

The article even says that NO EVIDENCE has been presented: "While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."

The information is a lie, just like the original report from the Director of National Intelligence, as I detail here:

Posted by: Bob Bows | Jun 6 2017 14:46 utc | 41

peter #39 that Trump has been utterly silent about Russia or Putin. Not one negative word.

Everybody not complying with "Russia/Putin is bad" must be paid or blackmailed.

Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 6 2017 14:49 utc | 42

Sorry ot, but what the hell happened to all the old moon bats, such as but not limited to:

annie, a swedish kind of death, dan of steele, ralphieboy, b real, Juannie, Monolycus, anna missed, Hannah K. O'Luthon, Citizen, Tantalus, Cloned Poster, remembereringgiap, Copeland, Dr. Wellington Yueh, small coke, beq, Hamburger, Alamet, CluelessJoe, ran, Debs is dead, Peris Troika, Dick Durata, Chuck Cliff, VietnamVet, jonku, Tangerine, Sam, mistah charley, ph.d., biklett, DeAnander, Magoola, Allen/Vancouver, Lysander??? Where are all you guys?? just TO NAME A FEW...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2017 15:02 utc | 43

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 10:34:10 AM | 40

she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state

Three points:

1. She is not a neo-con, she's a neo-lib/liberal interventionist/R2P liberal/Clintonist. There is a big difference between neo-cons and neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists. The neo-cons do it because they can, the latter, who are far more dangerous, do it "for the greater good" although they rarely ask the people who it's being done for what they think and they have a far greater degree of "religious"certainty about what they're doing.
To paraphrase Putin in his recent interview, "why would he interfere in American elections as he gets the same foreign policy crap regardless of which side wins?"

2. The neo-cons lost big time in Iraq and as a result have little real power in Washington beyond being disruptive.

3. There is no deep state in the United States now because it's totally visible, and since both the neo-cons and the neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists have the same objective there is no need for secrecy or conspiracies. If anyone needs to revive the "deep state" it's the Trumpists.

All these conspiracy theories are a waste of time and energy because there is so much real dangerous crap going on that needs to be attended to first.

Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6 2017 15:24 utc | 44

I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard.

Posted by: William Rood | Jun 6 2017 15:31 utc | 45

Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money.

Posted by: financial matters | Jun 6 2017 15:37 utc | 46


"Why of course the people don't want war.Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 6 2017 15:43 utc | 47

Assuming the neocons and neolibs represent different interests is the same as assuming the democrats and republicans represent different masters. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and until we can come together and agree on who the real enemy is, they'll continue eating our lunch with impunity.

Posted by: SlapHappy | Jun 6 2017 15:46 utc | 48

Thanks for the very valuable information. I wonder what Snowdon is thinking and maybe doing about The Intercept. Being him I would be fourious.

Posted by: Pnyx | Jun 6 2017 15:57 utc | 49


She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies".

Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups?

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 15:57 utc | 50

Houthis ready to cooperate with Qatar

Posted by: Les | Jun 6 2017 16:11 utc | 51

@24 uncle $cam

This is easy to tell but difficult to snuff out in the end. Once Hillary and co. started railing against paid Kremlin-trolls on alt-right and various forum sites, you knew that it was something that they had been doing for quite sometime and, indeed, had been losing the battle. At that point, it was best to throw up their hands and concoct the victim-story, even though we TPTB probably pioneered the tactics (color revolutions, ngos, etc.).

Perhaps there were Kremlin agents on our boards. Perhaps there are some here. But truth, or a slightly biased truth, still stands in their corner, so I refuse to complain about Russia agents. The CIA OTOH. They can GTFO.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jun 6 2017 16:38 utc | 52

thanks b..

i used to like greenwald long before his time at the intercept... the intercept smelt funny right from the beginning.. i haven't followed it, in spite of having enjoyed reading greenwald when he was more independent..

this whole story stinks to high heaven.. something is weird about the whole thing.. can't put my finger on it.. seems like more bs basically.. the usa is bonkers at this point..

@8 opereta... i see it similar to you..

@43 uncle scam... some of those folks are still around, but more of them are not..

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2017 16:39 utc | 53

How on Earth do these kids (Snowden, Winner, etc) manage to get that kind of jobs?

Posted by: hopehely | Jun 6 2017 16:48 utc | 54

@54 2 yrs of college, a couple of years in 'the field' (Air Force in this case)

Posted by: crone | Jun 6 2017 16:52 utc | 55

@54 The US military seems to be pretty good at either getting people with drive, or instilling drive within recruits. She learned her languages in the military I would imagine. Somebody on 4chan mentioned that they use the Mormon method for language learning, which entails total immersion in the language for the entire workday.

She probably got security clearances and had sufficient language skills to fill a position needed with whatever contractor she worked for. Unfortunately for her, she had a great dislike of Trump and couldn't resist leaking what she came across.

Somebody else on 4chan mentioned that she used a copier at work, which probably takes images of all copied material and even OCRs keywords for flagging. AParently printers also put a dot pattern somewhere on the paper that identifies itself.. anyway she got busted, and the Intercept, once again, is the source of controversial journalistic practices

Posted by: aaaa | Jun 6 2017 17:00 utc | 56

As you say, appalling tradecraft by both the leaker and the recipient. I would have thought even a cursory security check before giving her any security clearance would have unearthed her extreme views on social media.

Some general thoughts on the subject of leaks from the Trump administration -


Posted by: Pointman | Jun 6 2017 17:13 utc | 57

Excellent article. A warning to heed and I hope it gets out far and wide. Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement.

Posted by: Brooklin Bridge | Jun 6 2017 17:17 utc | 58

What a circus of distraction that grabs for public attention; its chief element is distraction,-- and its goal is distraction. In the end, Trump will probably go farther to accommodate the deep state, since what it aims to destroy is any chance for improvement of relations with Russia. This a PSYOPS extravaganza. The moronic level of political debate is not going to improve with the introduction of Reality Winner ( whose name sounds a bit silly, in this context).

The confirmed partisans will wolf down such farce without even tasting it. These absurd pratfalls will stop abruptly when the risk to our survival becomes obvious; but something on the order of a miracle would need to happen soon, to avert disaster. Trump's base will loudly congratulate him, whatever concessions he makes to survive politically; and the rationally unmoored Dems will sign on to any confidence game if it gets the results they are after.

Certainly, a closer observation of the details can help. Thanks to the author of this article, our host, and those who have commented. The alternative is for life to become a work of fiction.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 6 2017 17:20 utc | 59

My guess is "Reality Winner" is actually very bright, experienced and goes by another name.

Posted by: WGary | Jun 6 2017 17:44 utc | 60

I use to read him when he was a blogger but stopped when he joined the intercept.

Thanks b

Posted by: jo6pac | Jun 6 2017 17:47 utc | 61


Outstanding reporting, b. I saw a report on the microlending "phenomenon" in India on PBS a long time ago. It was heralded then. I'll have to dive into your link to survey the damage. Thx again.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jun 6 2017 18:03 utc | 62

Hey b, John Kiriakou chimed in saying "@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy"

And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept?

Posted by: h | Jun 6 2017 18:06 utc | 63

Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat.

Posted by: WorldBLee | Jun 6 2017 18:06 utc | 64

There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. But now we have a leaker who's social media bills her as part of the resistance. And in this environment, how are the optics going to look like prosecuting someone who is being passed off as having leaked evidence of malfeasance? I think they rushed too quickly to publish.

Posted by: 4mas | Jun 6 2017 18:15 utc | 65

Nice to see so many finally coming to the realisation that Greenwald, Poitras and the Intercept are disinfo operatives....
Waiting for the rest of you to begin questioning The Snowjob too.

Posted by: BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6 2017 18:28 utc | 66

pence smells blood in the water ...

Russia, Iran and terrorism are top global threats - Pence

"From the Russian attempts to redraw international borders by force, to Iran destabilizing the Middle East, and to the global threat of terrorism, which affects people everywhere. It seems that the world has become much more dangerous today than ever since the fall of communism, about a quarter of a century ago,"- he said at a meeting of vice-president.

... pence is running for president ... in 2017?

Posted by: jfl | Jun 6 2017 18:34 utc | 67

Actually, it is a good question how Winner got the access to the file. "Top Secret" is actually a low level of secrecy, without specific restriction who "needs to know" it. Practical problem for the wanna be leaker is to find "a needle in the haystack". Probably the chain of folders had self-explanatory names, which is like posting in on the billboard for all and sundry working for NSA. That in itself can be "leaking with a borrowed hand".

The content does not seem to be secret in the sense of revealing "sources and methods", just a scrubbed analysis with conclusions. A major part of the mission of intelligence agency to to careful draw conclusions from the gathered data so they are useful to the decision makers: access to informations allows to engage in disinformation. But what to do with the obsolete analysis, prepared for the PDM, previous decision maker? Post it on a billboard, if you still like PDM.

Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop.

Poor girl. But those Intercept people, why they did not at least re-type the document before showing it to anyone?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 6 2017 18:37 utc | 68

=>> Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 11:24:33 AM | 44

This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same.

And speaking of psyops and propaganda, the Deep State (of course there is a deep state (the neolords) whom common selves cannot comprehend) is now in the business of producing psyoperative YouTube videos. See if you can spot the subliminal propaganda in this one (hint -- it is not at all about how Russians perceive Americans):


Posted by: blues | Jun 6 2017 18:41 utc | 69

Breaking News!

RT just reported:

"US-led coalition destroys Syrian government forces within de-confliction zone" - Pentagon. Published time: 6 Jun, 2017 18:35. Edited time: 6 Jun, 2017 18:43

You just cannot trust the US.

Posted by: OJS | Jun 6 2017 18:46 utc | 70

Posted by: BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6, 2017 2:28:40 PM | 66

How to Identify a CIA Limited Hangout Operation

Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 6 2017 18:57 utc | 71

Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda.

Posted by: Peter AU | Jun 6 2017 19:02 utc | 72


"How on Earth do these kids ( Winner) manage to get that kind of jobs?"

Exactly! I thought you had to be very special, bright and so on to get this kind of jobs
here we have a 25 year old girl, that is named...Reality Winner and she has social media where
she posts alot of selfies of herself and have a twitter feed like high school student. She seems quite dorky to me. That she has already been in and out of the air force is even more bizarre. This is the kind of morons ruling this world.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 19:04 utc | 73

The Intercept article is as inept as the NSA document! it's mostly a cartoon, and things like guessing corporate emails are hardly espionage - they are normal ways of figuring out how to contact people in the professional world, NOT a security threat. Phishing them ought to be illegal, but clearly the FBI doesn't give a crap until it happens to Clinton's campaign chair. At least it is SO common that normal people KNOW not to fall for it. what a bunch of drivel! If the NSA had any actual intelligence that the origin of the emails was Russia, you would think that might be part of the explanation, but the cartoon only says "probably within"...

Then the Intercept spends pages (and pages) arguing for more $$ for the NSA (!) and to centralize control of US elections to the federal level where all this 'insecurity' can be properly controlled by responsible people (like the NSA, or the POTUS).

Topping that off was Amy Goodman showing an interview with a Clinton mouthpiece trumpeting propaganda that this whole "Russian" scheme is a way to get contact info of registered voters to aim "fake news" at them....... anybody here who is a registered voter knows that the minute you sign up you are permanently on the list for daily piles of glossy lies from PACS and nightly phone surveys about what crafted message would work 'if the election were held today'. Where I live, the Dems have so much money that they poll the crap out of us during city-level campaigns. (and after the election they can't be bothered with what their voters care about.)

this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data.

Posted by: anon | Jun 6 2017 19:10 utc | 74

Glenn Greenwald is a puppet

The Intercept consistently strongly campaigned for globalist Macron by repeatedly disparaging Le Pen as “Holocaust denier”, see

Glenn Greenwald is a gay Jew

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 19:16 utc | 75

I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss.

really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing?

Posted by: anon | Jun 6 2017 19:20 utc | 76

People - please stop the insanity.


The firewall set up by (or at least 'persuaded' by) the U.S. intelligence to toss out a few useless Snowden scraps to the peons? Why would the Intercept NOT report report this to their intel masters? Does anyone here really think 1) the Intercept has NOT been compromised since day one, 2) everybody and and everything at the Intercept is NOT closely monitored by the intel community? They probably have a department just for the Intercept. So whether the Intercept actually ratted out Winner is irrelevant - the NSA probably knows what flavor of coffee the mail guy at the Intercept was holding when he picked up the previously examined mail. The only way any Top Secret document is making its way to the Intercept is if the NSA or FBI created and mailed the document themselves. And if the alleged journalist did not report receipt of the document to the FBI, then THEY would face jail time if the FBI found it during a raid.

How did Winner come about this information?

Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there).

Why on earth would someone in that position have ANY Top Secret memos on Russian hackers or the election. Do people really think there is (at her workplace) a network-accessible folder labeled 'Top Secret' that anyone with a Top Secret clearance can browse through? No - that's not how it works. Does anyone think they have a 'Top Secret' mailing list to distribute memos? Nope. In fact, can ANYONE give me the least plausible reason why some nobody Arabic-language translator would ever even be able to SEE a Top Secret memo regarding a subject she has absolutely no involvement with?

Computers at Intel Agencies

If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day.


I won't belabor the point, but everything from all the security, monitoring and logging items above apply moreso for printing anything. Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. Presuming she did the impossible and get a Top Secret document printed out (which would all be logged), how did she get it out of her controlled-access area and the building itself? Hide it in her purse? Tell the guard, "I'm taking this folder of top secret stuff home to work on, but it's OK - I have a top secret clearance..."

All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT.

Impossible Conclusion

Now given all the above and her knowledge of how all that works, does anyone think she's STILL going to naively print out and mail a hard copy of Top Secret information to a known compromised, well-monitored news site... because she doesn't like Trump??

Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way.

Why would she do this then? Well, if she knew she wasn't really going to be tried to go to prison and the NSA is 'in' on it, then I'm sure there's a large check waiting for her somewhere. How much do you think it would take to buy out a translator from her crappy .gov job? Plus, she gets to stick it to Trump and those evil Russians. It's a win-win!

Maybe I'm too cynical nowadays, but this whole thing is preposterous beyond belief. Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing stinks to high heaven? I'm amazed the bar is so low for these fabrications.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jun 6 2017 19:37 utc | 77

For james #53 and all who want to be amused: it's all so poetic!

I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp.

Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end.

Why her? the name, of course - sends a nice message. And her youth - get a little sympathy going. from a gullible public (not any of us though).

Posted by: Merlin2 | Jun 6 2017 19:47 utc | 78

Meant Matt Cole, of course. See b.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Jun 6 2017 19:52 utc | 79

The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jun 6 2017 20:09 utc | 80

thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). the thought that a macro in a word file (who lets those run by default anyway?) could pivot into some elaborate firmware/hardware exploit is just dumb. even the article mentions that machines and procedures vary from state to state and even city to city. seems like a lot of work to put into changing votes for a few thousand people.

as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's.

i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality

and he makes a lot of the points you do here regarding the intercept. as much as i respect greenwald, he and the other top tier hires don't need that site. they've got enough leverage to start their own site or even just stick to facebook and/or twitter and then "third party" out to big sites. this would give them exposure without tying them down to one billionaire with his own agendas and biases.

glenn used to have some oddly toxic opinions (anti-chavez whining and supposed initial support for the iraq war) and came around. he's not a dummy. i also doubt he has any malevolent intentions given his charitable work in brazil and what seems like genuine concern for "the law" and privacy and etc.

the documents were trusted to him and a few others. there was a reason for that. every non-journalist (and i include many intercept writers in that group) since is just a parasite using him and the documents as a host. time to swat them away and be truly indie. (not holding my breath).

side note: "reality winner"? wow. when i first saw the headlines i thought she was a former contestant on "big brother" or something. we'll see how much vocal support she gets from the democrats. again - not holding breath.

Posted by: the pair | Jun 6 2017 20:14 utc | 81

@54 as someone who lived and worked in DC for many years, i can assure you anyone with a pulse (and especially a college degree - even a 2 year one) can find a job within the military apparatus. after all, the US economy at this point is based on war and financial fraud. before 2008 someone with a GED could make $25/hr or more making copies for a hedge fund. i only have a high school diploma and was offered jobs everywhere from the DoE to the state department. i found them roughly the way snowden did; start out as a contractor (he was at booz allen before the NSA) and get headhunted (which has now become somewhat literal in his case).

Posted by: the pair | Jun 6 2017 20:22 utc | 82

It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? Just like the dossier a few months ago, generated some smoke but in the end its a weak petard. Did Sessions tamp it down?

Posted by: stumpy | Jun 6 2017 20:34 utc | 83

Coincidence that this just happened?

Posted by: Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6 2017 20:38 utc | 84

Thank you 'Moon of Alabama' for publishing this solid piece and warning future whistleblowers. Kudos to you!

Sibel Edmonds (FBI Whistleblower; Founder & Editor of Newsbud)

Posted by: Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6 2017 20:51 utc | 85

Posted by: Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM | 84

No, wikileaks kind of recommends it.

@wikileaks 24

Michael Moore's #Trumpileaks is not secure enough to protect sources with classified information but it is better than many newspapers.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2017 21:03 utc | 86

Paveway IV @77--

It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, with uncensored one here, which includes transcript,

I strongly urge bar patrons to read transcript or watch uncensored vid and cease wasting time on all the related "nonsense."

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 6 2017 21:12 utc | 87

=>> Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6, 2017 4:51:45 PM | 85

No comment.

Corbett & Edmonds Call Out Nauseating Russia Worship in Alt Media

Posted by: blues | Jun 6 2017 21:25 utc | 88

blues 88

Like watching desperate housewife talking about foreign policy, but I guess one shouldnt be surprised about her views coming being a fmr. FBI agent.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6 2017 21:32 utc | 89

@77 paveway... thanks.. you are preaching to the choir here.. none of the story adds up, but the intercept is one bs outfit plain and simple..

@78/79 merlin.. thanks.. we see it much the same!

this ''russia did it memo'' is so friggin' boring... the usa has lost it's creative imagination if it ever had one to begin with... hollywood is over and one with.. give it up hollywash..

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2017 21:39 utc | 90

@88, thanks. My estimation of C & E just took a big hit.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 6 2017 21:40 utc | 91

@82 I remember reading that some crazy number, like 6 million people have security clearances. That's a lot of people that signed up to keep quiet. I guess a lot of it relates to basic military stuff, or controlled technology like aircraft parts or whatever.

Posted by: aaaa | Jun 6 2017 21:50 utc | 92

PavewayIV @ 77

Farsi, it's Afghan version Dari, and Pashto are Indo-European > Indo-Iranian, languages, not Arabic languages, though they use the Arabic script.

Posted by: Marym | Jun 6 2017 22:00 utc | 93

who are these Intercept guys? the billionaire seems to hire anyone

'Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim'

Posted by: brian | Jun 6 2017 22:05 utc | 94

She speaks Farsi and Pashto, I bet she's CIA who's been promised a lot of $$$ after she serves a short prison term. It's my guess that what she provided to The Intercept was given to her after it was manufactured or "doctored". The info published by The Intercept should be considered as suspicious.

Posted by: DC | Jun 6 2017 22:15 utc | 95

@94 there was some recent expose on the intercept that was quite damning, but I can't remember the content

Posted by: aaaa | Jun 6 2017 22:20 utc | 96

Marym@93 - Thanks. I hesitated to just say 'Iranian' because that didn't seem quite right, but 'Arabic' is obviously wrong. Hey, I'm American. I couldn't even tell you where Farsiland or Pastonia are on a map. I think... somewhere by Italy? No, wait...

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jun 6 2017 22:35 utc | 97

@95 Sounds right. She won't get the full Chelsea Manning treatment. Just a naive patriotic young American girl who did the right thing. Obviously she was tricked into using that copier. Couple of months and she''ll get a job at Fox.

Posted by: dh | Jun 6 2017 22:48 utc | 98

@98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.

Posted by: dh | Jun 6 2017 22:55 utc | 99

Remember when Greenwald's Brazilian boyfriend was being held by the authorities and accused of smuggling information from Snowden? Then he got released. Hmm.

Wonder if there was some sort of agreement to the effect that if Greenwald played ball, possible prosecution against said boyfriend would be held in abeyance. This is a tactic employed by government lawyers in some cases when they want something. Like a slow-walking of releases from Snowden's revelations, for instance. And maybe some other dirty business when wanted by the powers that be, like this "leak" that the NSA thought something could be true, but with the leak not containing any proof or any supporting raw intelligence.

Holding a sword over the head of the boyfriend might be just the ticket. And couple that with speculation that Snowden's documents contained revelations about Greenwald's boss, Pierre Omidyar. Maybe an offer that Greenwald and company could not refuse.

Speculation on my part, of course. But not the first time that such tactics have been deployed.

Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Jun 6 2017 23:12 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.