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.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.