The unspeakable arrogance that the outlet which didn't vet its "FBI sources" that found "no" Russia connections to Trump can vet a whistleblower's credibility is beyond comprehension.
Newsflash for @deanbaquet - no self-respecting, loyal, patriotic member of the intelligence community would source sensitive information to a paper with your track record.
Only seditious co-conspirators would. And I suspect that's the only sources the Times gets - or wants.
After publishing data stolen by hostile foreign intelligence agencies to impact a presidential election, what decent intelligence professional would tell the Times anything?
In fact, the question must be asked - after the Times' obsequious, gauzy treatment of traitors like Snowden and his partner Assange, is the paper trying to damage the whistleblower system to cover its tracks?
Compromise anonymity so that the only leaks come from Snowden-types?
Which self-respecting, reliable intelligence community sources would trust any news outlet that gave Vladimir Putin OpEd space while its intelligence services were in full attack mode?
Not one. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html …
You can follow @ericgarland.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Since you’re here...
... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.