The date of that document and its subject matter corresponded with a Jan. 31, 2017 story on The Intercept.
Idiot amateurs at the Intercept strike again.
I don’t know anything about this case, but that sounds like a VERY stiff sentence. How damaging were the leaks? How much basis did the agent have for believing that the policy expressed in the documents reflected discriminatory attitudes or policies? And what about leaks of documents that policy-makers approve in advance? What’s the sentence for that?
Sessions said last year that the Justice Department had more than tripled the number of active leak investigations since President Barack Obama left office
IIRC, the Obama administration also prosecuted whistleblowers with unprecedented zeal.
So, “more than triple” likely represents a truly extreme crackdown.
I’m not so sure about that. Think about how many more people in the government now feel the need to let the public know what’s going on. There are probably ten times more leakers under Trump than there were under Obama, simply because this administration is pulling so much more crap. So tripling the leak investigations might actually represent a reduction, if you get my drift.
They’re neither idiots nor amateurs. They’re journalists doing their jobs.
Wow. Have you been paying attention in the last 5-6 years? Document leak after document leak. Assange, Snowden, Chelsea Manning - all of these in the last 5-6 years.
Anyone leaking is going to have a shitload of time dropped on them
Who the fuck cares how damaging? That’s like determining how serious a murder was. It was a document leak. It doesn’t matter how serious it was. The message is “Leak document, do a shitload of time”.
They dropped the ball on Reality Winner and now on this guy. Shocking incompetence. If you’re going to hold yourself out as an outlet specializing in whistleblowers–which I’m 100% in favor of–you have an extra responsibility. And of course their Assange coverage has hardly been the epitome of journalistic ethics.
Fair enough.
I should have said it better. Prosecution for leaks is SO selective that harsh sentences are political, not criminal.
Yeah, just skimming the article this seem like he is main trying to expose racial profiling. Was there really any damaging info security wise on the docs he leaked? Seems like they always error on the side of caution, which is how it should be, but still. A big difference reveling that they are checking people with middle eastern or islamic sounding names a thousand time more than white christian sounding names, vs. nuclear code.Granted you also don’t want folks making personal judgements, but some things are obvious.