GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

They arrested a leaker

by

…for a very recent offense. I would expect a more arrests to come. But for now, and via Breitbart, this one leaker:

Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year old contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, was charged in federal court Monday for allegedly leaking a National Security Agency (NSA) report on Russian Election hacking to left-wing news site The Intercept…

She was caught only when [The Intercept] asked the [NSA] to comment on the document last Tuesday. Upon realizing the document was, in fact, classified material, the agency quickly enlisted the FBI for an internal investigation that pointed to Reality Winner…

Each count of 18 U.S.C. §793, the crime with which Ms. Winner is charged, carries a penalty of up to ten years in federal prison.

By the way, The Intercept is into Fake News, such as fake hate crimes:

Intercept writer Juan Thompson was fired last year for fabricating stories about the racially-charged tragedy at South Carolina’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, apparently to play up stereotypes of racist white southerners and smear Donald Trump supporters. This March, Thompson was the first person arrested for calling in threats to Jewish community centers as part of a nationwide intimidation campaign that was also widely [ed: falsely] blamed by the media on Trump supporters.

Getting back to Reality Winner: Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. I have mixed feelings. I do think that leaks can be in the public interest. Example: the DNC and Podesta emails that came out in 2016, via WikiLeaks.

Another example: Edward Snowden, who has said that he would be willing to return to the U.S. and stand trial, provided that he will be allowed to mount a public-interest defense (which a jury could then accept or reject).

Should Reality Winner be tried on similar terms – that is, should she be allowed to mount a public-interest defense? Why? Or, lock her up and throw away the key? Again why?

UPDATE: I missed this last week, but it seems relevant. DOJ has gotten a FISA warrant to surveil journalists who have been receiving leaks.

The journalists are not the target…Instead, the Trump administration is looking for the leaker. Who could it be?

Some in the administration are focusing on a retired, high-ranking military officer who held important posts in the intelligence service, according to the source.

The possibly high-ranking leaker was getting some of his information from people inside the White House who were holdovers from the Obama administration, the source said.

Cernovich claims that the retired officer is former CIA Director Petraeus, passing along information from his alleged ally, current NSA McMaster. If true, that would be some messed-up stuff. Game of Thrones-level intrigue.

Comments

  1. My patience is over with the Left. My answer even if they sneeze is to lock them up and throw away the key. Everytime I start to get over it some group on the Left just does something awful and nasty.

  3. The DNC and Podesta e-mail leaks weren’t secret material. They were embarrassing, but had nothing to do with defense or national security. Classified material is a different animal altogether. We can’t have everyone entrusted with its handling free to decide if classified material should indeed be classified. That would reduce all our military and strategic security to the lowest common denominator, which would be pretty low indeed. If you once accept that some things really are secret – like, say, the stuff the Communists were after in the 1950s, like details of atomic bomb design, jet engines, guidance systems, etc – then we can’t allow just any fruitcake to release such material at whim.

  4. If they let the “big fish” who REGULARLY feed classified and privileged info to the MSM continue to do so with impunity, but prosecute the “little fish” it’s just political theater.

    Classified material from the Brits on the Manchester Bomber was promptly-passed along to the NY Times and other outlets like it was off the old UPI wire. And the Deep State doesn’t just leak, it flows…

    From Yes Minister; “I brief, you leak, he gets prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.”

  7. We conservatives cannot be hypocritical about this. We cannot cheer Julius Assange on one hand and then ask to throw the book ato this woman. However, if her intent, at the risk of sounding like Comey, was to hurt the US then she needs to be hit with full extent of law. I believe she will plead the wiki leaks defense although I don’t see any evidence of that here. Wiki was shining a light on the stuff our politicians are pulling in the name of patriotism, while this lady is saying look the Russians really did hack our system. But we can’t forget that the CIA can make it look like the Russians did it. A lot to to think about here. Watch the ACLU come running to defend her.

  8. I want to know who hired this anti-American woman to work for the American government. it is the same government that is going to vet the muslim colonists?

  9. Tweet sent from Reality Snowflake Winner to the Foreign Minister of Iran.

    There are many Americans protesting US govt aggression towards
    Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you!

  10. It is perfectly cromulent to accept the “public service” some leaks provide, but still recognize that the leakers (with a possible exception for “whistle blowers”, whoever they are) need to be held accountable to the law and prosecuted.

    The meaning of “hero” (and I certainly am not suggesting that any of the people mentioned qualify, though some of them may disagree) is the one who throws himself on the grenade to save the squad. The hero is not expected to survive the process.

  11. The progressives posting comments on the local newspaper are calling this woman a hero. They don’t understand the true meaning of “hacking”. They are viewing this as proof positive that the Russians “stole” the election from the robot with a vagina.

    More proof that most progressives are morons.

    Most likely this document is a result of the US forging this hacking ATTEMPT to look like it came from Russia. The progressives completely miss the fact this happened under the Obama administration.

  12. “Reality Winner” sounds like she should be racing at the Kentucky Derby.

    And from the pic I’ve seen of her, she’d be listed at 3-2 odds.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  15. I’m looking forward to her trial. For sure she will play the whistleblower defense and if she has a good lawyer we might see a lot of the Trump campaign officials with Russian Contacts be compelled to testify.
    It’s will be interesting

  20. I don’t have a problem with leaks that reveal serious wrong-doing. Government keeps too many secrets.

    The problem is that most of these people don’t have the background to decide what’s wrong-doing or the context of what they’re looking at.

    “Chelsea” Manning is a good example: wholesale leaking with no idea of the consequences of the leaks.

    From what I’ve heard about Reality, her connection to reality is somewhat tenuous. It doesn’t sound like she has a whistle-blower defense; she’s just an anti-Trump loon.

    When people sign the documents granting access to secret materials, they’re promising to keep the material secret.

    Perhaps Reality can use the Hillary defense.

  22. Thanks guys.

    Alright, after thinking it over, my position is: Let the legal system work like it is supposed to work. If the leakers seriously broke laws, let them be indicted. (As Hillary should have been.) Let them be innocent until proven guilty. Let them mount the defense that they want to (like, whistleblower / public interest). Let a jury decide their guilt.

    This would apply to Reality Winner, Edward Snowden or whomever.

    And, as is traditional under the First Amendment, let journalists NOT be prosecuted – although we, the public, should hold journalists to standards of objectivity and fairness. For example, hypothetically, if NYT pushes evidence-free Trumprussia innuendo and not evidence-backed Susan Rice Unmasking stories, something is wrong.

    P.S. you might be interested in the Update I just added.

  23. let journalists NOT be prosecuted – although we, the public, should hold journalists to standards of objectivity and fairness.

    You, ILC, as a blogger are as much a “journalist” as Rachel Madcow.

    It is not clear how WikiLeaks differs from the NY Times in the internet age. “Journalists” are public disclosers who differ very little from barstool gossips.

    The old scenario involved the editorial board weighing “the right for the people to know” against the security risks involved in disclosing classified documents. Now we are locked into agenda “journalism” and the standard is whether trashing Trump outweighs any possible risk in making classified information public.

    Intent is normally a hard issue to prove. But in politically charged times, the rule of law is often one of the first casualties.

    I can see us reaching the point in which “knowingly” abetting in revealing classified information is a crime, per se.