@BradMossEsq Not at all. But reason the info was DECLASS was bc Snowden leaked more of it. @Paulmd199 @ashk4n
@BradMossEsq And again, that's NOT to take away from your client. Now people will finally read what was in public domain bc of Snowden leaks
-
-
@emptywheel Which brings it back to my original point, that this is what can be done lawfully. -
@BradMossEsq Yes, there is a whistleblowing process. Yes, in this case that was made easier bc Snowden leaked the info first. -
@emptywheel And, FWIW, do you think that justifies the leak? No judgment, curious. -
@BradMossEsq Justifies? That your client was able to say things he almost certainly wouldn't have before? That's your question? -
@emptywheel You don't know what the classification determination would have been. Or how a 1st amdt suit would have gone. -
@BradMossEsq I don't. Know only what Clapper said, which is info declassified in response to Snowden. I'm not one inventing other reality. -
@emptywheel "almost certainly wouldn't have been before" Sounds like "other reality" to me -
@BradMossEsq@emptywheel it's not plausible that we'd have had all that's been declassed declassed this last year if Snowden hadn't leaked. - 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.