yeah. whether or not the intention is to inject more poison into the system, there certainly seems to be a level of willful ignorance to what's going on here.
-
As
@benjaminwittes himself has written, that descriptive is more often than not a defense attorney. And particularly given Toensing's known "legal" tactics, I'd suggest defense attorney should remain default assumption.
Particularly given that she's got one client who demonstrably can be charged w/1001, at a minimum, and another, Clovis, in unknown amounts of jeopardy, plus visibility on a third.
-
-
sure. whoever it was, they knew enough to say that the "name popped up on investigators’ radar." but as you say, there are a range of possibilities here, some more likely than others.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is not a criticism of your piece. Just my nagging thought as I read it.
-
of course. appreciate it!
-
Far too often, our LE and intel wail about exposing secrets when what they're really complaining about is their opsec is bad enough to make reverse engineering possible if not easy. My gut feel is that's what went on here.
-
This is really insightful analysis. I wasn't familiar enough with Ross' reporting to assume how he came about this info, and many are defaulting to "must be a leak".
-
Bc we're sure they're all guilty (in Pap's case, of far more than lying), it's hard for us to remember they're entitled to due process and to speak to the press and to mount a defense. In same way anti-war activists are allowed to talk abt infomants, so are they.
- 1 more reply
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.