Follow-up to NSA Leak: Leaker Reality Winner Arrested; NSA Report Provides No Evidence of Russian Involvement
After posting posting about the leaked NSA document published by The Intercept last night, I woke up this morning to discover that the person who likely leaked this five page document has been arrested by the FBI.
Indeed, as the blog Moon of Alabama indicates, both Ms. Winner and The Intercept did little to protect her identity when The Intercept contacted sources and the NSA to authenticate the leaked document. I recommend reading it if you are curious about the details that led to her being outed as The Intercept's source.
So, what do we know about Ms. Winner, the alleged leaker, and when and how did she obtain the five page NSA Top Secret document entitled, RUSSIA/CYBERSECURITY: MAIN INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORATE CYBER ACTORS [REDACTED] TARGET U.S. COMPANIES AND LOCAL U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS USING VOTER REGISTRATION-THEMED EMAILS, SPOOF ELECTION-RELATED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, RESEARCH ABSENTEE BALLOT EMAILS; AUGUST TO NOVEMBER, 2016?
1. Ms. Winner's original name may have been Sara Leigh Winner. She had a twitter account under the handle "Sara Winners," and some have suggested this is evidence of her having changed her name.
2. She worked for an NSA contractor, Pluribus International Corporation, out of a US government facility based in Georgia. Her employment began on February 17, 2017. She had a Top Secret clearance.
3. She formerly served in the Air Force as a linguist who speaks Pashto, Farsi & Dari.
4. Ms. Winner frequently posted anti-Trump sentiments on social media and had a signed Anderson Copper (CNN anchor and TV personality) photograph.
5. The leaked NSA document was dated May 5, 2017.
6. Ms. Winner printed out a copy of this Top Secret NSA document on May 9, 2017. A few days later she mailed it via USPS to the Intercept.
7. Winner allegedly printed the NSA document provided to The Intercept on a government printer. It remains unknown how Winner received a copy of this document.
8. Ms. Winner has been alleged by various sources to be either alternatively a Clinton or a Sanders supporter.
9. The Intercept reporter contacted the NSA about the leaked report on May, 30, 2017. The NSA informed the FBI of this contact on June 1, 2017. Information provided by the Intercept to the NSA allowed the FBI to identify Winner as one of six persons who printed the document.
10. Winner emailed The Intercept from her work computer according to an NSA audit of all the persons who copied the document. However, Winner's email had nothing to do with the leak, but merely requested a podcast transcript. According to The Intercept's director of communications, Vivian Siu, they did not know the identity of the source for the document.
11. The Intercept published its article about the leak on June 5, 2017, six days after its initial contact with the NSA.
12. Winner confessed to FBI investigators that she copied and leaked the document. She was arrested at her home on June 3rd, two days prior to publication by The Intercept.
My sources for the information presented above regarding Ms. Winner.
FBI Search Warrant Application - Reality Leigh Winner
FBI Arrest Warrant Affidavit
Reality Winner Facebook page
John Swaine's tweet after talking to Ms. Winner's mother. Swaine is a reporter for the Guardian.
NY Magazine article: What We Know About Alleged Russia-Hacking-Report Leaker Reality Winner
Mediate: Who is Reality Winner?
Zero Hedge: NSA Leaker 'Reality Winner' Already Feels Like A Ham-Handed PsyOp
WikiLeals Twitter feed - various tweets posts about Ms. Winner and leaked NSA document
The Daily Beast:
The Washington Times: Federal contractor charged with leaking classified materials to the media.
Mashable: Everything we know about Reality Winner, the 25-year-old charged with leaking NSA files
Regarding the NSA document itself, it should be emphasized again that the leaked report contains no information that proves or provides any evidence that Russia's Military Intelligence agency, the GRU, was responsible for these alleged cyberattack/spearfishing/spoofing incidents which are described therein. The report merely makes the unsupported claim that the GRU is the source for this cyber-campaign in a color-coded graphic that lists the events described in the report and the NSA's analysis of said events.
Indeed, the leaked NSA report states, in the graphic on page five, the following qualification about this alleged Russian hacking program:
It is unknown if the GRU was able to successfully compromise any of the entities targeted as part of this campaign. While this [redacted] cyber espionage program utilized some techniques that were similar to other Russian GRU cyber operations, this activity demonstrated several characteristics that distinguish it from another major GRU spear-fishing program known as [redacted].
In short, the document simply states as fact that Russia, through the GRU, was behind this hacking activity without providing any proof to support that claim. Indeed, the above quoted statement is some indication that Russia may not be involved at all, as it specifically says this "GRU campaign" included "characteristics" that differentiated it from other spearfishing cyber-attacks attributed to the GRU. That the NSA admits this is the case is telling.
We also know (from WikiLeaks March 7th release of a cache of CIA docs) that the CIA uses "the techniques of other nation-state hackers to trick forensic investigators into falsely attributing CIA attacks to those actors ..." including Russia. Thus, the claim that the events described in the NSA report, which Ms. Winners leaked, can be definitively attributed to Russia is flimsy at best. At worst, one cannot rule out the possibility that the leak and Winner's subsequent arrest may be part of a disinformation operation by our government's intelligence agencies, and Ms. Winners was set up to play the role of patsy.
Comments
Something about this story stinks.
Just skimming the details, why would someone involved with investigating alleged hacks be so careless about leaking the info? Was she intending to get caught? This just doesn't pass the smell test (but it does provide a nice diversion from the fact that there's no actual proof to the allegations.)
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
To high heaven
Okay, just for giggles, let's assume for a moment that this is legit.
Then Ms. Winner is either very stupid about protecting her identity, like second-grader stupid.
Or she craves attention and wanted to get caught.
Moment's up. Why would any sentient being give the Intelligence Community the benefit of the doubt? Their job is to lie.
And that leaves Door #3: She was supposed to get caught. 'Cuz we can't have supposed leakers leaking stuff we want leaked -- disinformation -- running around free while we say lock up the leakers leaking stuff we don't want leaked and throw away the key.
This episode only reinforces my skepticism. Sorry, spooks!
@dance you monster Totally in agreement.
Totally in agreement.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Is it possible that this is just an elaborate leak?
Ms. Winner may well be a member of the IC just playing out a role. Does anyone know if she's actually in jail? Maybe she'll be at a safehouse in the Bahamas for the next ten years, at triple pay.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
It certainly looks like an elaborate leak to me
This is information (or pseudo-information) that the NSA and other elements of the deep state wanted to get out. It takes attention away from the fact that there is no evidence that the Russian government hacked the DNC, or spear fished Podesta, and moves the narrative onto another unsubstantiated "Russia did it" story. The deep state hopes that the corporate and pseudoleft media will focus on this story for a while and then move on to something else before people begin to notice that there is no substance. From the NSA's point of view, the attraction is that it will not be seen as a leak and will be viewed with greater credulity by the "left" than it would have if had been leaked to the NY Times of Washington Post. The real question is whether Ms Winner and the Intercept are accomplices of the NSA or dupes.
@dervish That's my best guess.
That's my best guess.
"Reality Winner" FFS.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Somebody went to school with this woman
or lived next to her. It would be interesting to find out if she's even real, and shouldn't be too hard to prove. Anybody got a high school yearbook from Augusta, GA from 2010?
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
She's not in the Richmond County jail
in Augusta. As far as I know, even federal prisoners are usually housed on a "hold" in the county jail if they were awaiting a court appearance. They never had her.
Note that the court she appeared in is in Augusta, so they couldn't have sent her far. Where did they hold her? And where is she now?
Probably more Sooper Double Top Secret stuff that peons don't need to worry their heads about.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
It turns out that she's not in
the federal prisoner database either, not that she should be, as I said above they usually use county jails at first.
I can't find Reality, where is Reality?
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish A lovely safe house
A lovely safe house in the Bahamas at triple pay, as someone suggested.
Or--much less likely--a detention center somewhere.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
At the Army base?
Fort Gordon is located right by Augusta, GA. It's where I went for Signal Corps training when I was in the Army in the 1970s. There was also some ASA training (Army Security Agency, brother of civilian NSA) done there, although I think most was in NJ. It's possible she was working at an NSA facility on the base or at least is being held in the base jail.
It strikes me as weird though
because she is a civilian now, working for a private contractor, and she was arrested by the FBI. There should be no reason for her to be held in a military facility.
Good thought.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
She's in the Lincoln county jail
a small county one over from Richmond.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
This was my thought too
This definitely appears to be some sort of set up with Ms. Winner playing a role in it. This particular charade accomplishes at least two and possibly three purposes. First and foremost, it is being used to reinforce the Russia did it narrative for which there is absolutely zero evidence provided as of yet. Second, by allowing Ms. Winner to be caught, it fires a warning shot at any and all would be leakers. And possibly third, by using the Intercept, the powers that be are showing their muscle in control of the narrative even in supposedly independent on line journalism.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
It has become dreadfully and painfully obvious
that the US Deep State is in collusion with most "Western" major news networks, engaging jointly (one might almost say communally) in a massive disinformation campaign, intended (1) to demonize Russia at every opportunity, and (2) to simultaneously inhibit or prevent any overtures Trump might make toward bilateral US/Russia cooperation. A multi-polar vision of the future global order is existentially and philosophically incompatible with the US-centric vision of neoconservatives and neoliberals alike. It seems to me that this underlying confliction of desired outcomes is the essential dynamic in play now.
It has also become clear that the official Democratic Party establishment is fully on board with a coordinated anti-Russia project. Mainstream Democrats are by and large, far more averse to, and terrified of, the perceived (and perhaps very real) latent fascism of Trump's "base" than they are of any threat from our immensely influential National Security State. They fail to perceive how their disgust with Trump (which is rational) has been manipulated and transposed into a fear of, and hostility toward Russia... and Iran...and China to a lesser degree... none of which is rational at all. It is not only irrational, it also plays directly into the hands of the same neoconservative cabal of militarists that brought us the very worst American FP disasters of the past quarter-century -- or more.
The degree to which left-leaning Americans are buying into the lies and distortions of their favorite teevee celebrities is truly disconcerting, and bloody dangerous too. The fact that so many of America's most prominent liberals fail to understand, or even to objectively address the underlying economic and geostrategic forces that determine US foreign policy, does not bode well for the future of American liberalism. What mainstream Democrats espouse instead, is a shallow, parochial (as opposed to global), somewhat corrupted, and largely self-serving version of liberal ideals. They want to preserve and expand the "exceptional" US Empire, without paying too much attention to the details of how the job gets done.
The intellectual vacuity of most high-level domestic political discourse, especially that within our fabled, ivy league "think-tanks" is appalling. Failure after failure after failure has been rewarded by promotion and "success" within the (thoroughly bi-partisan) US foreign policy establishment.
native
Awesome statement.
You are such a vital contributor to this forum.
Thank you kindly Linda Wood.
It is my opinion that national politics can no longer be profitably considered in isolation from global rivalries that are far more economic than ideological in origin. I suspect that the possible demise of the petro-dollar may be playing a much larger role in determining US foreign policy than is ever publicly admitted or recognized.
In any case, America's two oceans are no longer able to effectively isolate Des Moines Iowa from Shanghai or Moscow or Tokyo or Taiwan or Durban. The operative politics of the 21st century is primarily global -- it is not national.
native
I agree and native has touched on something
that we rarely talk about, but is exactly why the neoliberal meritocracy has taken over our government.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Why is the Intercept
using a headline that does not say "allegedly"?
Looks like the billionaire owned Intercept psy-op has been caught red handed. Reminds me of VICE.
One thing to keep in mind is that the CIA
is not a homogeneous agency and is highly compartmentalized. In theory, some CIA operatives could be arrested by other operatives or agencies for what they are doing. This requires collusion from the very top to ensure it doesn't happen.
Remember the Iran-Contra affair?
We are living in a hall of mirrors,
where not much can be taken at face value, or trusted implicitly. Where illusion and reality and opinion have become interchangeable commodities, bought and sold on the global marketplace.
Ethical navigation of this thoroughly mediated landscape, full of false hopes and maze-like byways, is not at all easy. In fact it's fucking difficult to do. We should try to be tolerant with one another in this shared difficulty, if in nothing else.
native
@native and yet, the lies
and yet, the lies trafficked in by the Deep State seem so bloody obvious to me. It's like they're not even trying. They should hire Karl Rove, he could show them how to do it properly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
IMHO, they do not need
to hide their lies any more now that they are in full control. The coup happened without the majority of the people knowing it was happening until it was over. Now we are trying to cope with it and find ways to neutralize it and take our government back. Once net neutrality is gone, we will have a much more difficult time doing so. Just my humble (and jaded) opinion.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Patsy hell. I'm betting she's an operative.
She got hired at the end of Feb... and by May was printing out classified documents at work? and mailing them to The Intercept?
That's somebody who went there to do that job, whether she went in as a well-meaning person wanting to get the inside scoop on behalf of the public--or whether she was sent there by our own IC to create a drama which would make the Russia narrative look more plausible.
I'm betting on the latter.
FFS, printing it out on a copier? Anybody would use a portable drive.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Unfortunately, the PTB are shifting again...
As expected the "whistleblower" train had to be derailed before it got any farther down the track.
We already know that they were planning on disseminating false documents to "fool hackers". This is just one further step on that particular road to hell.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub5RtAu-j0I]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Nobody leak anything to the Intercept! Pass it on.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
LOL!
NT.
I agree that this story is
I agree that this story is very fishy. There are definitely writers at the Intercept who have been playing pretty hard for the Hillary team with Robert Mackey one of the most patently obvious, but one of the main clues for the wary person is that Glenn Greenwald is not associated with the story other than to remark on twitter that skepticism is warranted for all such information.
The story itself is a true nothingburger, to use that horrible expression, because the leaked material is one page (of two) that seems like a pretty generic description of the concept of spear-phishing and is even described within the document as one analysis without the underlying data. In other words, it's salacious, vacuous, worthless bull-shit.
The fact that the Intercept story itself doesn't bother to remind the readers of the recent revelation by WikiLeaks of the CIA being able to spoof the attribution of such "hacks" is pretty damn hacky of them.
If this young woman isn't part of an NSA exploit to leak information and then be relocated after a show trial, then this is all-around a pretty sad affair. I'm waiting for more information while I waft a hanky saturated with cologne under my nose to ward off the nausea associated with the smell here, but it doesn't work as well when the thing stinks all the way to high heaven.
I'm sure the NSA is wetting itself with glee that The Intercept is the publisher because they are surely hoping it will taint Greenwald by association, which they would love because he is one of few pointing out the lack of evidence for this whole Russia did it! debacle, but the Intercept story has not changed his position, which again, is to be skeptical when no proof is provided other than surface analysis from the lying liars who lie for a living, AKA politicians and Intelligence flacks.
Also, WikiLeaks has put out a $10,000 reward for anyone who helps get the Intercept reporter who outed Ms. Winner exposed and fired, and Julian Assange urges that she be supported. Others, including Kiriakou himself on Twitter today, have noted that one of the reporters listed on The Intercept story, Matthew Cole, had previously outed Kiriakou. Coincidence? Are Clinton/NeoLib World trying to destroy The Intercept from the inside, or do they just want to flog their agenda no matter what.
What a cluster*uck.
Edited for spelling error.
It's already over.
You're right,
How do we know? Because it says so. It says so in its text. For those of us who read the texts of articles or documents, the nothingness of it is self-evident. It was meant to be a headline, aimed for the many who never read articles or documents and only read headlines. It was meant to last 6 hours, just enough time to fog a period in which Debbie Wasserman Schultz's IT specialists are becoming the new Wikileaks DNC leaker suspects.
Blackmail is becoming a new motive for outing the DNC, and it has substance, whereas Putin's pouting has none.
Whatever the source or wherewithal of this daily prank, it is meant to place the picture of Russia over the face of IT specialists, and each time Russia is hauled out, its worthiness as a disruptor of world elections is worn thinner, especially because, in the United States, we don't need any help destroying our own elections!
@Linda Wood Yes, it's always
Yes, it's always important to remember the misdirection factor. What is the "big story" meant to distract us from while we "look over here" at it rather than whatever they're hoping we won't pay attention to instead. The whole apparent amateur hourness of the leaker is important too if she is a dupe because she didn't use The Intercept's listed instructions on how to send them information but instead sent it to them anonymously via USPS. Then, she was caught so quickly. This can be seen as a warning directed at prospective whistleblowers.
Somebody may have a sick sense of humor too because it Trump tries to squeal about catching a leaker, it just calls attention to the contents of the leak, no matter how worthless we may see it to be.
Anyway, whatever we do, let's not pay any attention to the ongoing court case against the DNC for taking money from Bernie supporters while trying to squash him like a very hard-shelled (and thus hard to squash) bug.
@Linda Wood Why would the Awan
Why would the Awan brothers leak that stuff to Wikileaks. They don't sound like the kind of people who would care about the principle of the thing.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good question.
I don't think anyone is stating that the brothers are the Wikileaks DNC leakers. But because reporters are saying that they are financially strapped and have received millions over the years for their services to members of Congress, and because they have had access to members' email communications, including members of the Intelligence and other secret-bearing committees, there has been speculation that they were in a position to blackmail members of Congress. That thought raises the possibility that they were in a position to blackmail DWS or other DNC insiders as well.
I think this speculation changes the narrative in a significant way. It just raises our consciousness to other frames of reference for the Wikileaks DNC leak. Their motive wouldn't be principled, it would be vengeful. Acting to hurt the DNC by revealing how corrupt and venal they are doesn't necessarily have to be based on a desire to help the American people. It could be based on getting back at the Podesta brothers, or others, or the whole Party. They could be working for the Republican Party, or the Deep State, or some client of Clinton and her cronies.
@Linda Wood I'd buy most of
I'd buy most of those. Not the Deep State, though. They're genuinely annoyed by Wikileaks.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Linda Wood And not the
And not the Republican party, either, which at this point is merged indistinguishably with the Clintons, really. The Clinton/Bush alliance has made party distinctions a little passe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Agreed.
On both your points. But I think people who are looking at this IT controversy are beginning to see the Party may have more enemies than we cared to think about before.
I tend to see the Awans
as possibly stealing state secrets when you look at the committees they had access to. The blackmail part may be mostly to keep DWS from blowing their cover. She is still paying Imran Awan even though he has fled the country.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@NCExile The fact that Assange
The fact that Assange supports her makes it somewhat less likely that she's an operative, but then again--what would the PR be if Assange suddenly didn't support this leaker?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Julian probably doesn't know anymore
about this than we do. If I were in his position (I'm not), I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish He kind of has to,
He kind of has to, doesn't he? Because if he didn't support her and then he were wrong that would be devastating, not only to his reputation, but to Wikileaks'. And he can't have that.
Still, I'd be surprised if he privately didn't see all the same problems we do. They're pretty obvious.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Doesn't Assange have to
support nearly all alleged leakers? If he doesn't, people are likely to assume the ones he does support have supplied some information.
Wait.
Why would Assange support a leaker who planted a false story about Russia hacking the election? The premise of Russia hacking the election is built on the falsehood that they are the Wikileaks DNC leaker. Assange has said they are not.
He knows this is a false narrative. Isn't he trying to identify who named her and exposed her as an NSA operative or dupe in order to shed light on the shenanigans of this stuff?
@Linda Wood Because he can't
Because he can't know for sure if Ms. Winner is a plant or a dupe. She might have meant well in passing along a classified doc to The Intercept. Just in case she is a dupe, in which case she'd currently be in some horrific detention center or military prison somewhere, and her life is essentially ruined, he can't afford to throw her to the wolves.
Also, he has to do whatever he can to reassure all potential leakers worldwide that he will have their back, and not say "I think you're working for the other side, so I'm gonna throw you to the wolves." Imagine if you were a leaker, a genuine one, and that happened--you'd be screwed.
Leaking is such an incredibly dangerous thing to do nowadays that someone engaged in Assange's business has to do everything he can to get the trust of people who are contemplating leaking data.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
She didn't plant a false story
She released a document that actually proves the NSA has no evidence of Russian hacking. Scott Ritter's careful reading of the document shows that all the links to Russia that they have are purely speculative, and ultimately based on the unverified claims of the discredited DNC vendor Crowdstrike. While theMSM is screaming that this is further proof of their pet Russia propaganda piece, it is actually the exact opposite.
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Yes, it creates a
Yes, it creates a conundrum, doesn't it? I seem to recall that Assange has an issue with some staff, not sure if Greenwald is included or not, of The Intercept because of different philosophies about the methodology of releasing information. I could look it up, but the point is that they aren't perfectly aligned. As you say, unless it comes out that Ms. Winner is a plant / operative, then the ethical thing to do would be to support her no matter how poorly she appears to have managed her efforts. If the NSA can sow further discord among the advocates for whistleblowing and whistleblowers in general, then they would call that a good day's work.
If this woman has been set up, then who knows how long they spent cultivating and influencing her? We know that our IC tricks people into doing their dirty work for them and surely throws many of them to the wolves for whatever criminal, dubiously or otherwise, activity results. Some of them also surely end up dead.
The only bright side is that people have such short attention spans these days, that this specific story may fall off the radar pretty quickly. However, the layers of innuendo and lies continue to build to all of our detriment.
If she's an operative, we're likely to never find that out.
@NCExile Check out my OT
Check out my OT tomorrow, I talk about it there.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This may be really old school
but I for one would think there would be some type of control on any printer used for classified. And mailing it? Again, would that not be tracked or checked? I just can't imagine that printing or mailing would be just ordinary in an NSA site, but maybe I'm just being naïve.
And since she was a new hire, she may not have known enough to see how easy they could track her? But my God, you'd think that would be briefed to someone working in a facility with classified as a first training. Maybe I just assume our government agencies use good sense?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Re: printers
I work in IT at what is essentially a utility co-op. I could tell you who printed what where and when because we are dealing with customer's financial information and we have a responsibility to keep that information from being misappropriated. Based on what little I know about this situation, I find it extremely hard to believe they have less secure printers than we do.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
@lizzyh7 She had Top
She had Top Secret clearance, and her job previously had been to advise the Air Force as a linguist proficient in, among other things, Farsi. Which means she'd been working on and probably translating data from Iran (which is where they speak Farsi).
If she got through all that without understanding the basic security that *I* understand, as an out-of-work English professor/schlump, then we don't have to worry about Russian intelligence taking down our country. We can just wait for our own incompetence to do it.
I'm not saying that level of incompetence is impossible, but I think it's far more likely that Ms. Winner was handed over to her real employers who have now sent her on a lovely vacation in a safe house, all expenses paid.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
She had Top Secret clearance,
and she worked for a private contractor. That's the state of affairs we're in with the NSA.
The most important thing Edward Snowden revealed to my mind is that he didn't work for the NSA, he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a private security company that should have been under surveillance by the NSA because of its work for Saudi Arabia. The NSA has been privatized. Who knows who this private company is who employed the so-called leaker of this so-called Top Secret document? These sleazoids have zero credibility.
@Linda Wood Sure. But you
Sure. But you'll notice, Ed Snowden didn't print out a copy of a classified document, stuff it in an envelope, and send it through USPS to Glenn Greenwald.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
True!
I find this very plausible
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
The deep state
has never had a compunction about throwing innocent people under the bus. In fact, that is probably safer than having an insider play a role.
@gustogirl I'm saying that Ms.
I'm saying that Ms. Reality Winner does not strike me as being, well, real.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As noted by others, it's bristling with bizarreness.
My Fakedar™ is flashing orange.
But apart from the strange details in the document, it begs the question: To whom or what is Ms. Winner connected? In the olden days, if a leaker emerged and contacted a journalist with something worthwhile, the journalist began investigating to see if there was a story there, and if it was newsworthy and worth the risk.
It is the NSA's job to find wannabe whistleblowers and utterly ruin their lives, not Mr. Greenwald's. If he couldn't use the info, he should have shredded it and moved on with his life. His profound character flaws are starting to show.
Thank.You.Agent.Greenwald.
Meanwhile, if any pro involved in this mess had two neurons to rub together, they would have immediately seen that the info is a hand-in-glove fit with the code that Seth Rich wrote during his brief time at the DNC. So impressed was the Clinton Campaign with Seth's "attitude" that they hired him on the spot to join Her campaign. He was just three days away from his new office when he was murdered. I wonder whatever happened to Seth's app?
On the other hand, I could easily believe this was concocted on the inside. They printed enough copies for six patsies, at least.
Thanks for posting this tidbit, Steve.
This article wasn't actually by Greenwald
It was by Ryan Grim, Matt Cole, and others. Those two have been problematic before.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
By all accounts Greenwald
was not responsible for this story.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Got you.
It was my understanding that she reached out to Greenwald. Is that so? Perhaps Greenwald simply redirected her elsewhere, or she never made contact.
From all I know she simply sent it in the mail
with her GA zip code stamped on it to the Intercept. Have seen no reports that it was addressed to anyone in particular.
The more I think about it the more I suspect she was a plant. I mean she did everything possible for someone to find out it was her. Sent an email to Intercept that she did not need to send after mailing it from her postal code area. Is anyone that stupid? She was hired by a federal contractor whose only mission is to work for the intelligence services and the military. It sounds like a CIA psyop with someone at the NSA participating. Either they have some leverage over her to make her do this or she was already working for the CIA.
And the report looks like it was ginned up. A five page report with so little analysis? This just stinks of maskirova by our team.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Pluto's Republic Nope. Sent it in the
Nope. Sent it in the mail to The Intercept, apparently.
I am still inclined to the opinion that she's an operative. I suppose the NSA might have gone on a fishing expedition and pulled up an idiot that the Intercept helpfully served up to them with complete lack of concern for the fact that nobody will ever leak anything to them again....but I'm still putting my money on the lady being a professional.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Pluto's Republic Greenwald has nothing to
Greenwald has nothing to do with it except that he works for the same outfit that published this sack of shit. He neither authored it nor endorsed it. In fact, he's on social media encouraging skepticism about the whole thing.
However, he does still work for The Intercept (though he doesn't run it), so make of that what you will.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Just wanted to point out that
Just wanted to point out that Greenwald continues to advise skepticism of this and similar stories and points out the he is not the editor of The Intercept and can not control what other reporters write. His name is not listed as one of the four authors of this story.
I believe that this is an attempt by the NSA, either by a duped "whistleblower" or by faking the leak with a plant, to hit more than one target. If so, it's brilliant in a completely sick way:
1) Trump supporters won't believe it and will blame the publisher as leftist fake news because it's The Intercept and will further include Glenn Greenwald in this, thinking that because he writes for The Intercept that he must agree with every story in it, a shallow reading from shallow thinkers.
2) Neolibs / Hillary supporters will read it as more proof that Russia ruined her coronation, another shallow reading from shallow thinkers, and will further think that The Intercept, and by association, Glenn Greenwald now agrees with them. If Greenwald continues to say otherwise, then they’ll think it’s evidence that he’s a leftie loony commie who can’t “face the truth” and admit when he’s wrong even when reporters at the same publication he writes for are the “source” of the “evidence”. Barf.
3) Bernie supporters and others skeptical of the Russia saga may also blame Glenn Greenwald, inferring from the story’s appearance in The Intercept that he is now bowing to pressure when he had previously called for skepticism on the entire matter barring actual proof and not just analysis and boilerplate baloney, but again, he didn’t write this story and does still advise skepticism on all such stories without data-based proof.
Greenwald hasn't directly disavowed the four writers listed on The Intercept's story for their apparent (some evidence but not yet conclusive) outing of their source, but he also may not have proof that any or some or all of them did it either, whether by carelessness or deliberately. Thus, the NSA attempts to undermine him with more discerning readers.
(It’s reported that Ms. Winner printed the document at work and had an unrelated email to The Intercept on her work computer, while none of the other five people who printed the information had any correspondence with The Intercept on their work computers, but who knows exactly how they found her or even if she wasn’t just an NSA plant herself?)
4) The completely disgusted and despairing will think it's more proof that nobody can be trusted and will subside even further into ennui and disgust and further tune out the noise.
The comments on the story at The Intercept bear me out. The opinions are all over the place even if obvious trolls are ignored.
So, the NSA got a lot of bang for their buck.
Edited because typing iz harrde.
@NCExile I'll be surprised if
I'll be surprised if there's a mass exodus from the general group "people who trust Glenn Greenwald"--including the right wing, among whom he has many supporters, because he refused to use a different standard for Barack Obama than for George W. Bush. But he should sever ties from The Intercept.
Really what this is doing--as with most of the bullshit psy-ops perpetrated lately--is separate out the people who actually use their minds with some rigor, and with some standards for what constitutes evidence, what constitutes proof, and what constitutes logic from everybody else.
Frankly, guys, that's our party. Those people. Those are our people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
So actually, we are the 1% n/t
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish It's a lot more than
It's a lot more than that.
59% of Americans don't believe the Russia hacking story. 64% of indies, which is more important than the over 80% of Repubs--because some of the Repubs doubtless disbelieve the story because it's attacking a Republican administration.
The poll results are reported at The Hill, but note the weasel-way they present it: that Americans believe Russian hacking didn't sway the election--not that the Russians didn't try.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310510-poll-majority-of...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Among the statistics you quote
I recall one that says over 40 percent of those polled actually think that the Russians physically manipulated individual voting machines so they returned "fake totsls" that changed the outcome of the US election.
Ugh.
Thanks for correcting the record on Greenwald. The fur must be flying in the back room at the Intercept. This might not be enough to take it down, but it's definitely a Judith-Miller-level event.
@Pluto's Republic Yes, but compare
Yes, but compare the effect of this propaganda to that used to start the Iraq War. There was roughly 70% compliance back then--70% of Americans believed Iraq had attacked us on 9/11.
Now, it's more like 37% of the people who believe Russia "hacked our election." And the propaganda is relentless, and at saturation point.
I think part of their problem is that most people know Hillary didn't need the Russians to help her lose. And she's not the best delivery mechanism for propaganda herself; she does it very badly.
They really shouldn't have her talking to the little people at all, ever, and I'm not sure why they do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Further proof that they aren't
as smart as they think they are. They've made a lot of stupid moves lately.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Yes, if people actually
Yes, if people actually support Greenwald's reporting, then they may, no matter their political ideologies, continue to do so because, as you say, he has been willing to take hits from "both sides" from holding them to the same standards. Still, if the NSA targeted The Intercept knowing that some of the writers have neoliberal leanings and thus couldn't resist this stinky fish-bait of a story because it supports the narrative they want to push, even if they acknowledge that the leaked content isn't by any means conclusive, then that could definitely be seen to further isolate Greenwald at The Intercept, especially if any or all of the four writers contributed to the leaker getting caught.
If they [EDIT: to clarify that this "they" is back to the NSA, not the other writers at The Intercept, which I think might have been unclear] are trying to put pressure on him to stop writing there, then they probably hope that wherever he goes next would have a smaller audience. Plus, again, it would highlight a fracture within the body of people who support whistleblowing. It's all pretty insidious.
You're right, bing bang for their buck.
I'll still believe in Greenwald until I see him actually write this type of trash. And I'd bet there is some infighting going on at the Intercept.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
@lizzyh7 As CSTMS has been
As CSTMS has been pointing out here, among others, The Intercept itself is being smeared as a vessel for leaked information. Those of the writers there who are neoliberal flacks are easy to spot as they tend to reveal themselves by either directly supporting Clinton-world or by parroting the same views as neoliberal establishment DNC crap, so I read some of those stories just to find out what the current company line is: "Today's specials are Russia tartare with a side of chitterlings au natural (that is without the poop cleaned out)."
Even though I still read carefully and watch for issues, Glenn Greenwald is one that I normally consider trustworthy even if I don't always agree with every word written, sometimes from personal lack of expertise so that I would postpone a decision until I did my own research.
Anyway, what makes this story different to the copious, sadly near-daily, neoliberal point-of-view articles published on The Intercept is that this one is based on a verified, leaked NSA document the leaking of which has led to the arrest of the leaker. Since The Intercept's reputation is built on publishing important leaks and helping maintain the anonymity of leakers, generally speaking (not to discount the value of the remaining good old-fashioned investigative journalism still to be found there as well), the fact that this leaker, Ms. Winner, was some combination of utterly and pathetically inept / a duped victim of the IC or an IC operative will not alter the fact that she was swiftly caught with some level of complicity by the writers of the story based on her leaked material.
To many it truly won't matter that she left several loaves of bread crumbs behind her: the fact that in verifying the leaked material The Intercept writers also revealed / helped reveal her identity will have its effect. Even prospective whistleblowers who still trust Glenn Greenwald might justifiably fear that others at The Intercept with access to their information might not be equally trustworthy.
I'm certain that WikiLeaks has also been targeted by our IC repeatedly, but as far as I know they haven't been compromised. The Intercept should have assessed the vulnerability of this leaker and held off publishing until she got caught on her own if they couldn't resist publishing it at all. It is a pure click-bait story with no substance and even with the disclaimer within the story itself about the probative quality of the "evidence" (that it’s more of the same-old, same-old with no there there), the end result is to at least somewhat discredit The Intercept as a safe place to leak.
I guess now the neoliberals on the writing staff will just go back to making stuff up out of whole cloth as if nothing happened. *sigh* I guess we'll have to wait and see.
@NCExile It is a pure
It is a pure click-bait story with no substance and even with the disclaimer within the story itself about the probative quality of the "evidence" (that it’s more of the same-old, same-old with no there there), the end result is to at least somewhat discredit The Intercept as a safe place to leak.
This, above all, shows the bad faith of The Intercept as an organization, and is the reason Greenwald should leave them ASAP. They went through all this, for what? To recycle the same bullshit establishment story, with the only addition being that we're now supposed to take the government's word for the fact that the Russians hacked our voting machines as well as the DNC?
This is a load of crap; no actual journalist would bother getting up from his mid-morning cigarette break to write about it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I'm not caught
I'm not caught up on the DNC lawsuit, and I see that there's a post up from today with new information that I look forward to reading, but I couldn't help but notice that some of The Intercept story seemed to point to the kind of thing it's been suggested that the DNC or some entity or person acting on it's behalf could have done to flip people's voter registration so that they'd have to use provisional ballots that are so often not counted with each state a part of the hodgepodge of different rules and ways to even find out (or not to be able to find out) if your provisional ballot did or didn't get counted.
I've gotten so cynical that I wondered when I read that section of The Intercept article if the DNC is planning on saying The Dread Pirate Russians did whatever computer stuff they may (probably?) have had done to defraud likely Bernie voters.
@NCExile I think you
I think you're spot on; this seems like classic Lee Atwater/Karl Rove "accuse your enemy of what you did" stuff.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes,
and this is exactly why the purpose of this substanceless document could be to distract us from the Pakistani IT specialists and/or Seth Rich, who was Voter Expansion Data Director for the DNC. The lawsuit filed the day after his death was reported to involve him and was about exit polling, which is also part of the many concerns about the 2016 primaries.
Interesting about the Winner's email to the Intercept
The defense of The Intercept is along the lines that Winner outed herself by careless practices including emailing The Intercept directly. And now other stuff like Cole one of the reporters outted another leaker. What The Intercept reporter gave to the NSA about the leaker seems to have been enough to lead the NSA to Winner. Grim another reporter bashed Bernie Sander supporters over leaks.
Yah, the deep state scored here. Denigrated the Russians. Denigrated The Intercept (will nay leakers trust them?). In some senses denigrated Glen Greenwald as he has urged caution and facts concerning the Russians, and the website he is associated with publishes a WaPo/NYTimes worthy bullshit piece.
@MrWebster No. No future leakers
No. No future leakers will trust them, apart from government-planted leakers. And nobody will trust leaks published by the Intercept anymore, either.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver