@armandodkos No. They want him to confirm he had confidential source(s). When he says he had more than one Sterling will say, "who?"
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel unless Sterlings lawyer is an idiot, that ain't happening.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @armandodkos
@armandodkos Risen: "I refuse to answer." Brinkema: "Sterling has 6h A right to have that answered."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel govt can't raise Sterlings rights and Sterling would be crazy to.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @armandodkos
@armandodkos Why? What if he knows he was a minor source for Risen and his boss was a major one?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel he's still guilty in that scenario. That would be malpractice.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @armandodkos
@armandodkos We'll see. I think you underestimate Sterling's exposure as compared to if he can prove Risen's other sources.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel r u saying he's gonna argue his leak was authorized? If that's all he has he better deal.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @armandodkos
@armandodkos@emptywheel You are way overestimating the quality and quantity of direct evidence against Sterling, it is not that good.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@emptywheel Your argument supports my point - unless you think Risen can testify abt everybody BUT Sterling.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@armandodkos First, you're ignoring point I made earlier. Charges are time delimited. Sterling could be source for later not earlier. @bmaz
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.