The Justice Department is seeking to impose extreme secrecy rules in the trial of alleged Intercept source and whistleblower Reality Winner that could prevent her defense team from citing countless publicly available news articles in appearances before the court — and even prevent Winner herself from seeing evidence relevant to her defense.
On July 20, Winner’s defense lawyers moved to challenge those arguments, accusing the government in a court filing of attempting to use the pre-trial discovery process to unfairly gag them from discussing issues both vital to the case and the public at large.
Winner was accused last month of leaking a classified National Security Agency document to The Intercept that describes attempts by alleged Russian hackers to gain access to election infrastructure in the United States. She faces charges under the Espionage Act, a 100-year-old law meant for spies and saboteurs, which the government has warped into an anti-leaking statute used to go after sources of journalists attempting to inform the American public. Winner’s trial is set for the end of October.
Under the rules established under the Classified Information Procedures Act, the defense has the right to access certain classified documents from the government that may be relevant to Winner’s case. In response, the government filed for a protective order that will prevent the defense team from revealing the classified information in those documents in its legal filings or to the public.
A protective order surrounding discovery material, by itself, is fairly standard procedure. However, the government is going a step further: They are arguing that the defense would be barred from discussing any information that has appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times, or any other newspaper if the defense “knows or have reason to know” any of that information is also contained in classified discovery documents they will receive.
The protective order would restrict “our right to cite and quote information in the public domain, such as articles in newspapers, broadcast journalism and online publications,” the defense wrote in their brief. “The order proposed by the Government imposes upon Defense Counsel the duty to question the source of reports in the New York Times or matters discussed on Morning Joe and then to confer with the security officer before repeating or citing these facts even though the information is clearly in the public domain.”
Essentially, the government is trying to bar Winner’s lawyers from discussing large swaths of journalism done around the election, cybersecurity, the Trump administration, and Russia in court, unless each time, they go back and scour thousands of pages of documents to make sure none of their references are also cited in the documents that were handed over.
This is a critical point given that the trial may hinge on whether the prosecution can prove the document Winner is alleged to have leaked could have “damaged” national security. Winner’s team may want to use these stories to provide the jury with much-needed context around the document at issue — to show, for example, that the public interest in election security is extremely high, or that leaking the material in question couldn’t possibly have damaged national security given the mountains of stories about Russian hacking that came before it.
Think about it: Literally everyone in the country has been talking about alleged Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. It has not only been the subject of front page stories in the nation’s leading newspapers on an almost daily basis, but it has been publicly discussed by virtually every member of Congress, all the intelligence chiefs, and Presidents Obama and Trump. Yet much of this discussion could be barred from the public courtroom if the government has its way.
What’s more, the government argues that Winner herself isn’t allowed to see any of the classified documents handed over to her lawyers at all. As the defense writes in their brief: “The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to confer with counsel.” What the government is essentially doing here is cutting Winner out from her own defense team, which may have to make key arguments in the case without being able to consult with her about the relevant facts. As her lawyers make clear, “Her telephone calls are taped, and all of her outgoing mail is being reviewed by Government agents. There is no risk to national security that could flow from her being allowed to view the evidence that may be used against her.”
These tactics are likely just the beginning of the government’s attempts to cut off virtually every avenue of defense for Reality Winner. The Justice Department has been cruelly effective in all of the Espionage Act cases aimed at the sources of journalists in recent memory.
Since Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg’s days, sources charged under the Espionage Act have been prohibited from explaining their motive to their jury — e.g., informing the public — for leaking information to journalists. Or take the example of Thomas Drake, the NSA executive who was indicted for allegedly giving information on NSA waste, fraud, and abuse to the Baltimore Sun in the mid-2000s. The Justice Department filed briefs in his case demanding that Drake not even be allowed to say the word “whistleblowing” or make any arguments related to the government’s rampant overclassification epidemic in front of the jury. In other cases, prosecutors have convinced judges they don’t have to show actual harm to national security, only the potential for such harm — a much lower bar.
Time will tell exactly what Winner will and won’t be able to tell her jury. But whatever one’s views on Russia’s influence on the 2016 election, everyone can agree that the American public has a strong interest in seeing the evidence the U.S. government has on Russian hacking, and that the woman accused of leaking material on the subject should not be muzzled from using information already in the public domain to defend herself.
Top photo: Reality Winner exits the Augusta Courthouse in in Augusta, GA on June 8, 2017.
Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is also the co-founder of the Stand With Reality campaign, which is raising money for Winner’s legal defense and awareness about the Espionage Act’s use against the sources of journalists. First Look Media, The Intercept’s parent company, has provided legal support for Winner’s defense through the Press Freedom Defense Fund, and contributed $50,000 in matching funds to the Stand With Reality campaign. You can donate to the campaign here.
I can confirm there was no wilful retention and transmission of national defense information.
[email protected] @CIA @NSAGov @uriminzok @theintercept ?? #RealityWinner #Kryptos ??
https://twitter.com/BerlinTheme/status/892469639208415234
RW is going to jail, and deserved it.
For what?
Would Reality Lee have had a better chance attemting to represent herself? In other words, could they still have attempted to prevent public record as part of her defense? Also, how is this not obstructing justice? It is very evident that on literal terms, “justice” here has two roads:One for the prosecution, one for Reality. As her road to justice thins, their road to their form of justice thickens…
Hmm……. The first witnesses to interview and put on the stand would be the IT administrator from the NSA and the IT guy serving Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ka-boom…..!!
So….what were the back channels to Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden….. And Russian AK 47s….?
Think of the billions on the flip side of the frontrunning bet…?
No wonder the “Flashboys” villain squealed…. ?
“The Justice Department has been cruelly effective in all of the Espionage Act cases aimed at the sources of journalists in recent memory.”
Another reason for you loyal Trumpians to thank Barack Obama for paving the way for the Big Fat Orange to lay (further) waste to democracy. Give the Donald a Peace Prize!
Will Donald Rumsfeld soon be wearing such a nice orange overall as well… for the war-crimes he committed………..
Now a nation of apathetic straw gatherers ? Ancient Egypt forced their slaves to gather their own straw for making Egyptian mud bricks in the building of their empire. NSA slides reveal that citizens are mocked for paying hundreds of dollars to have the newest tracking/surveillance devices (cellphones)…hence, we are gathering the straw ourselves, apathetically, with our only concern being our own personal peace and affluence. Meanwhile our peers are informing on us, ppl who speak out are blacklisted or labeled as mentally ill or potential “terrorists” and in the name of national security, human and civil rights violations are systemically and secretly brought upon us under the ruse of protecting us from nations or groups who would do the same. This will only cease when we no longer gather straw.
Nicely put.
I pray for her
The government is not only seeking imposition of a gag order, but depriving Reality Winner of her constitutional right to defend herself — in the name of what? Preserving our form of constitutional government?
I don’t think the charges in this case even make sense.
But you know, let’s just take a broader view for an instant. The wholesale gutting of our rights is supposedly possible because the dangers are SO grave that the public is petrified, and rightfully so. Except that nowhere do you see common sense precautions against any actual risk.
People who walk around the downtowns of major cities and major airports in flip flops aren’t afraid of anything. They don’t even think to put on shoes they could run down a few fights of stairs in, or down the block. They are not prepared for an ordinary fire drill.
Corporations that want to end all landline service are not afraid of making communications more fragile and vulnerable. Ordinary power outages cause some phone systems to go down already. How is that not vulnerable to attack?
Private and public entities that all use the very same OS are not afraid, either. Everyone knows the risk is built-in. They accept it, in exchange for trivial convenience.
The government itself takes shabby precautions to protect classified information.
Yet fear-mongering is trotted out as justification for a loss of liberty so pervasive that terrorists would have a hard time harming us to the extent that the surveillance state and the militarization of police forces have already harmed us. This country is no longer recognizable. The government did the terrorists’ job for them.
I was wondering if their is a legal restriction that applies once you choose not to represent yourself, ie, you technically “abandon” defending yourself to your legal defense. Is this the case?
I don’t usually comment to critique poor writing, but your use of “literally” is atrocious.
Your article in The Intercept, Trevor, reminds me I’m overdue.
Thank you for what you do.
Whistleblowers are not treated well by the Department of Justice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynl4PA0jwE0
Will George W. Bush get such an overall to wear too for the war-crimes he committed….
For most of its existence, the Espionage Act was very seldom used. We were told that government lawyers were concerned about its constitutionality. For example, Bush administration leaker “Scooter” Libby was not charged under the Espionage Act. But the Obama administration revived the Act to use against whistleblowers.
Obama was a MAJOR disappointment
His loyalty was the NWO and their TPP
this should explain a lot of stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmkTuH8nxG4
As a reminder Hermann Goering said at the Nuremberg Trials .
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
As is said in the law, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. (“False in one thing, false in all things” is an instruction given to jurors: if they find that a witness lied about an important matter, they are entitled to ignore everything else that witness said.)
Time to start removing the corporate Congress from office & defunding the NSA to force them to comply with the law & impose jail time for non compliance under USC Title 18 Sec. 241 & 242 (Google it) .
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini
Disclaimer: Be advised it is possible, that this communication is being monitored by the
National Security Agency or GCHQ. I neither condone or support any such policy, by any Government authority that does not comply, as stipulated by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
the cia (most likely) murdered Seth Rich.
big reward + no leads + media silence = COLLUSION.
And will Obama and his ilk be held to account?
No surprise here.
The US are the good guys, so we only interfere in elections of bad guys, right? The hypocrisy here stinks and literally makes me nauseous. Oh my god, the Russians tried to influence our elections. Really? Are people that ignorant of their own history?
Can anyone say”scape goat”?
I hope for a favorable outcome for R.W.. I hold some hope that this could be won by a series of revelation’s that Wikileaks has provided that would put half of the Double secret CIA/NSA on trial for all of it’s unsecured communications in full view for the most average of hackers. Here is the entire case: If you say it was a stupid mistake, [Clinton, Double Secret CIA staffer] no problem. If you intentionally leak for public good & our country’s good, you will be persecuted or, if they want no trial, you will be killed.
https://heatst.com/life/new-batch-of-dnc-conspiracy-theories-emerge-after-prosecutor-found-dead-on-florida-beach/
The least I can hope for, is that a legal precedent is found somewhere within the trials suppressive nature , and that in a few years, the Supreme Court can rule on the unconstitutional abuse of power of the Espionage Act by our government.
Will Donald, his family and campaign cronies be wearing one of these overalls too very soon …..
we the people allowed “our” government take a very dangerous position when the bushies rammed the “patriot act” down the throats of a frightened nation. imo Edward snowden should be immortalized as an American hero for exposing the extent that our constitutional rights have been violated by rogue government actors. Chelsea manning,kiriakou, sterling, drake, binney and no doubt many others we haven’t heard much about made monumental personal sacrifices to expose the illegal actions of our surveillance community. we taxpayers are spending 60-70 billion dollars per year to pay for this outrage.
and the programs expand at the whim of the alphabet agencies.
when the senate attempted to “investigate” their computers were “hacked”. and the “great murkn” patriots tune in their favorite “reality” tv show (like the apprentice) and swallow the b/s from the corporate news agencies that these guys are/were “traitors”.
as far as I can tell the Russians, Chinese, north Koreans, Iranians, Syrian, yemens, Iraq, Afghanistan and half of Africa haven’t invaded the “homeland”. the only thing that has changed is that the American people are under surveillance 24/7 at the whim of the nsa. “land of the free”.
i’m pretty sure this was not what the patriots at Lexington and concord had in mind. something has gone horribly wrong since technology has invaded our lives. the irony here is that 4 of the 5 wealthiest men in America have made this all possible.
Here Here
Now that’s well said.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
“Big Brother is Watching You.”
We’ve been marching there since before George Orwell wrote these words.
I do feel Reality was a stooge for much more powerful players that wanted to gin up a McCarthyite scare with Russia and run Trump from office — for daring to defeat the racketeering war-criminal Hillary. Yet having said this, Reality should simply receive probation and not have to pay for the crimes of her neoliberal handlers and war-criminals. Maybe a short psychiatric stay would also be helpful. Does she even know the document she stole is even more fake than Bush’s WMD report?
The real story here, Tim, is that if you are charged under the Espionage Act there IS NO defense, and that’s built into the Act, which is why the US government likes to do so.
It’s still a CHARGE, not a conviction.
I’d love to be charged under the Espionage Act. I already shared my boarding pass here: https://twitter.com/berlintheme
In 1989 I allowed the US Air Force to violate my airspace for several years with F-117 Nighthawk stealth planes and several helicopters trying to evade radar, in order to build psychological pressure on the former Soviet Union until its demise, and this with the help of a few friends.
http://gmh.chez-alice.fr/RLT/BUW-RLT-10-2008.pdf
I’m now getting so tired of CIA’s motto “The Truth Shall Set You Free”. I inserted this motto into CIA’s Kryptos section 4, in the form of metadata:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6jMZZcWoAA50rK.jpg:large
I really would like to free all of these whistleblowers and have them compensated for what they’ve been through. I’d like Reality to win.
It surely would be difficult for Americans to assimilate all of its implications, but their country could be rebuild again.
Is there a form that I should complete to do so?
Respectfully,
Nabucco
Speculation entirely: What if the “leaked documents” were misinformation planted by the CIA ‘intended’ to be leaked and this trial is an attempt to cover up their devious ways? One wonders anytime the intelligence community is involved in leaks and whistleblowing. Troubling times indeed.
This is the sort of stuff I used to hear about the KGB and Soviet Russia while growing up in the UK during the 1950s and 60s. The western media criticised its standard of justice while the Soviet press toed the party line.
How the wheels of time turn. I never thought I’d live to see this day. My Norwegian mother told me similar tales about Nazi-occupied Norway.
My husband, a naturalized citizen who emigrated from the Czech Republic, says it has strong echoes of what his native country when it was under Soviet control.
I guess he was born in Czechoslovakia so he quit his homeland after the split of his country. He still has this Soviet trauma as do many former Eastern Europeans of his age. MSM and politicians tend to exploit this psychological instability, good fortune to you as he needs your help and support very much.
Actually, he defected at the age of 19 before the split. He’s a pretty talented natural athlete and was playing on a traveling baseball team that was touring Europe. When they stopped in Vienna on the homeward leg he got off the bus and just didn’t get back on. Spent two years in an Austrian refugee camp before emigrating to the US.
He doesn’t suffer from any noticeable trauma as a result of his childhood/young adulthood. He’s pretty grounded but we saw that in his parents though. He knew from a very young age that he couldn’t live his life under those conditions. His family refused to join the party so there was lots of low-grade harassment aimed at them. Once he was denied entry to the Prague Conservatory of Music (due to party non-membership, not lack of talent) the writing was on the wall as he was facing two years of mandatory military service since they weren’t going to let him pursue any form of higher education.
His experience just makes him acutely aware of similar tactics happening here now. And, ironically, when he points these things out to his co-workers it’s almost inevitable that someone (half joking for the most part) tells him to “go back home”. He has a good sense of humor though, so he messes with those guys by beating them to the punch now, grumping at them about “Damn furriners!” from time to time. They don’t know what to do with him. LOL! :-)
Sounds like you have a talented and interesting man there.
The government only wants a show trial. I believe the military did that to Chelsea Manning.
I’m posting this again, since the first post has not yet appeared.
I hope Mr. Timm is not part of Ms. Winner’s defense team, as this strategy is guaranteed to fail.
While it’s evident to commenters on the internet that the US government doesn’t have a clue about national security, it will not be evident to the court. Courts do not recognize internet commenters as expert witnesses, and will simply accept the government’s word that when it classifies something as Top Secret, it contains sensitive national security material. This may seem absurd, but we must remember that it is Reality that is on trial here, not the US government. Arguing that the document was over-classified, or not really significant will gain no traction.
The best hope for the defense, is to argue that the US public is not defined as the Enemy under the Espionage Act. On its face, this may seem absurd. The prosecution can argue that the actions of the US government clearly demonstrate that it considers the US public to be the enemy. And they can bring forward dozens of examples to prove it – from starting pointless wars that kill thousands of Americans to taking away people’s health care. But legally, technicalities can be very important and technically, the US Congress has not officially declared war on the American people. It is true that Congress hasn’t formally declared war since WWII and that therefore they have abdicated this official responsibility. But the law is not based on reality, and if you read the Constitution, Congress does indeed officially possess this power. Since there is no formal declaration of war, US citizens are not officially the enemy, and giving them information is therefore not a violation of the Espionage Act.
One could also argue the alleged leak is legal as it is a form of propaganda. Propaganda on the U.S. people was legalised by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I really wonder why.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
This is just silly. These prohibitions on the defense aren’t designed to protect our govt; they are designed to protect the russian govt and Donald Trump. A guest on NPR stated the other day that many of the states whose election registries were infiltrated by the Russians have not even been informed yet that this occurred. Still, you have a bogus election fraud commission out to prove that 4 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton, thereby depriving Trump of his popular vote majority.
Something is alarmingly wrong in this country and unless people pay attention, their votes may soon be a useless enterprise once vote manipulation techniques become fine tuned. And that’s not even the worst thing I can imagine.
When you live in a country where a man can be killed by police for allegedly selling a cigarette for a dollar but not one person is arrested at Wells Fargo for widespread identity theft and opening credit accounts in the names of clients, something is out of whack. Not to mention electing a con man to the presidency.
As someone who watched the manipulation of the vote in Ohio during the 2004 election of Bush, I find this statement…mildly and ironically humorous, at best.
Something is alarmingly wrong in this country and unless people pay attention, their votes may soon be a useless enterprise once vote manipulation techniques become fine tuned.
And, since the democrats had their chances to do something about all of this when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009-2010, I find their whingeing now…less than convincing.
As this list of reading shows, electoral fraud is not a new concept in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#United_States
I am glad that people are becoming aware of this longstanding issue. I hope they persist in their demands for accountability no matter which part of our political duopoly is in control of legislative bodies. Those demands largely need to be made at the state level, and folks will need a lot of luck because most state legislative bodies have been gerrymandered to ensure republican control for the foreseeable future. That’s what happens when you neglect down-ticket races for decades.
America has a Facsist Government
Dr. Lawrence Britt “Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism”
(Just in case someone asks you to back up your accurate assessment)
All European countries fall into the same category…
The DEEP STATE con job to rob Americans of their rights.
The US gov wrongfully commited a war and under false WMD pretenses that got thousands of Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of other killed in what may be called a campaign of GENOCIDE. What the thieves running the gov dont want is
1] for the public to know how they violate your privacy
2] what they are up to that costs so much money
3] what their real objective is contrary to the public will
So what does the US gov do? MAKE UP LIES ABOUT THE MEANING OF THEIR GARBAGE.
And what is the cost to the Citizens of America besides precious lives and earned money? RIGHTS!
The DEEP STATE IS A LARGE SCALE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.
One of the regs within “classification” laws States that TS classification can not be used for purposes of covering crimes or saving someone from embarrassment.
A nation is comprised of people, hence “national security” is to secure the rights, privileges, privacy, property and liberty of the people. This in turn means that many who whistleblower are securing our national security and those who remove our rights and privacy via Orwellian surveillance and targeting are the real threats to our society and nation of people.
Just so.
Yes, truly, a kangaroo court.
This sheds some light on why other such cases have been defended by lawyers without even a clearance to read top secret documents. I mean, why should they bother when it only reduces what *public* data they can cite in a defense? But that still leaves the mystery of why they participate in the charade at all. Might as well send the lawyer home, refuse to dignify the court with so much as a plea, and say she’s waiting for the People’s Liberation Army … which is fairly likely to take over jurisdiction before her sentence is over…
I hope Mr. Timm is not part of Ms. Winner’s defense team, as this strategy is guaranteed to fail.
While it’s evident to commenters on the internet that the US government doesn’t have a clue about national security, it will not be evident to the court. Courts do not recognize internet commenters as expert witnesses, and will simply accept the government’s word that when it classifies something as Top Secret, it contains sensitive national security material. This may seem absurd, but we must remember that it is Reality that is on trial here, not the US government. Arguing that the document was over-classified, or not really significant will gain no traction.
The best hope for the defense, is to argue that the US public is not defined as the Enemy under the Espionage Act. On its face, this may seem absurd. The prosecution can argue that the actions of the US government clearly demonstrate that it considers the US public to be the enemy. And they can bring forward dozens of examples to prove it – from starting pointless wars that kill thousands of Americans to taking away people’s health care. But legally, technicalities can be very important and technically, the US Congress has not officially declared war on the American people. It is true that Congress hasn’t formally declared war since WWII and that therefore they have abdicated this official responsibility. But the law is not based on reality, and if you read the Constitution, Congress does indeed officially possess this power. Since there is no formal declaration of war, US citizens are not officially the enemy, and giving them information is therefore not a violation of the Espionage Act.
Classic definition of a kangaroo court.
Thanks for the update, Trevor. Ms. Winner is indeed up to her nose in a crap hole, and she did a lot of the digging. However…
The idea that the court can remove key elements from her defense’s discovery seemingly to advance a particular narrative and outcome is morally and philosophically repugnant. The crux of the biscuit: She did something wrong. And that something has ZERO adverse impact on the standing of, leading of, etc. of the country.
The defense can show that what she released can be had elsewhere, independent of what she released. Then it becomes question of why the prosecution is only going after her (an individual), not the news agencies that also have “offending” material, independent of her actions. At that point there is indeed no harm and the jury will not play along with the prosecution. Team POTUS simply can not let happen.
I hope people on the jury are familiar with the concept of Jury Nullification…
EXTREME? SECRECY?
what a load of gobmint crap.
the US is so far off the rails that it has devolved into a death squad ruled egyptian styled court ruled bureaucrazy of multiple dictators gone mad.
of by and for the people? i kinda effin doubt it.
PresObama tried this with Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
Agreed, with an exception. Assange is not within the USA and is not a USA citizen. He is an international journalist outside the natural jurisdiction of the USA. If Assange is not an enemy combatant, and I hold that simply disseminating true information not pertaining to war cannot morally be equivalent to being an enemy combatant, then our government under Obama or any other leader has no right to touch him. This holds true for Assange in the case of Democrat leaks, but may not hold true for the Manning releases which may actually have gotten American troops targeted and killed. Yes, I am referring to the Manning that Obama pardoned just before leaving office.
Also recall that Obama’s Dept of State was caught collecting DNA and blackmailable information on foreign diplomats and heads of state, was caught spying on Merckel’s phone calls (like the current deep state spies on Trump’s phone calls), and Obama’s team was caught trying to make Netanyahu lose the election – election meddling. Unlike allegations against Russians for election meddling in the USA, of which of course there has been zero evidence of collusion or vote flipping actually presented, Obama is clearly documented to have meddled in the Israeli election. Obama also meddled in the drug cartels in Mexico by enabling gun shipments to the cartels under the BATF Fast and Furious program.
All, to quote Gore, inconvenient truths. Can any morally balanced person explain how those sins escape punishment or even attribution, but mere innuendo against the current administration is cause for impeachment and revolution? Just saying, evenly applied thinking would lead to a much more meaningful dialogue. I will assume that if you want to go straight to guns, you really do not want to persuade anyone of anything.
Reference the Greenwald article recently in this publication concerning false media stories on these topics.
Summing, it bothers many of us that the USA government is guilty of massive global overreach no matter whether progressives or right wingers are in power. Obama no less so. He directed the the FBI to raid in New Zealand for file hosting and in Ireland against the TOR Freedom servers, and under what auspices a mystery to me. I can’t prove it, but I feel he also engineered false charges against Assange to force him to hole up at the embassy in London, based on comments from the leadership in Iceland. All this is offensive overreach which I as a USA citizen cannot condone.
In the meantime, the twenty somethings with TS clearances need to keep their politics out of it and do their jobs IAW the law as they have agreed to do, or face the consequences. It does not say “SECRET, if you don’t mind”. The information is marked SECRET for a reason, usually a reason above your pay grade. And at 26 years of age, you are likely clueless on the big picture.
Do you still wash behind your ears after putting on your footy-jammies, just like Mommy and Daddy always told you to do?
the “no evidence” of tampering or collusion refrain is pathetic, at this point.
Try keeping up, nat.
At this point open source is assessing “love it” and “especially later in the summer” as later in the sumer was what occurred.
O/T
With Sean Spicer resigning, my guess is that he’ll be a hot ticket for interviews on the “Fake News Media”. Should be a blast to hear an insider’s scoop on the inner circle chaos going on.
“Somebody” will probably pay Spicer to NOT write a book!
If I were on the jury I would try to challenge the court. I would submit written questions to the judge and see how the questions were answered. I would try to get other members of the jury to write questions. I bet we would have either a hung jury, or an acquittal.
This is not justice.
For the record. When you get a TS clearance, you do not swear an oath, you sign a non-disclosure agreement.
You have a TS? I think not. If you did, you would know that the written document IS an oath. Oaths do not all incur raising your hand and putting the other hand on the bible. They come in many forms. And the document you sign makes it plain as day that if you illegally disclose secret information, you are subject to jail time and fines.
Do I think politicians, such as for example Hillary Clinton, classify information to cover their misdeeds? Yes. And that should also be prosecuted. It happens on both sides, but I get a sense that you can only see misdeeds committed by those who do not agree with your viewpoints.
“Justice” means many things to different people. Such as, some of the jihadi dicks claim they are doing justice by killing innocent bystanders on purpose. They make bizarre statements like, there is nobody that is innocent, not even a baby in a stroller.
I won’t engage you in that slippery slope of the oft misused word “justice”. But, the law and the rules of getting secret and TS clearances are a lot firmer and clearer. Both Snowden and Reality chick intentionally and knowingly broke those rules. Whether you agree with their motives or not is immaterial. The are both wanted by the law. What is material is that if YOU work for the government and have access to classified material, and you mightfor all we know, if you disclose that data in violation of clearance and need-to-know and other guidelines, you will be subject to prosecution.
Get used to it – the laws about secret data do not grant exceptions just because you are an offended socialist. Back in the day, a journalist was known for protecting the troops with the statement “loose lips sink ships.” How far has journalism fallen when it instead publishes secret data just to hurt a politician they disagree with?
FOAH
There are ways to accommodate clearances, requiring time. The documents could be listed as doc A, doc B, doc C, etc. Clearances ARE tight, and are also adaptable. The defence attorney could be required to sign a TS document, meaning big trouble if he messed up.
That COULD be done.
How far has journalism fallen when it instead publishes secret data just to
hurt a politician they disagree with?
How about to expose and possibly save a compromised electronic voting
system/ infrastructure? No matter who your “enemies” are in the Republican and Democratic parties, the press has a duty to let the public know if vender’s and thus our VOTING SYSTEM could be exploited? Do you think that the houses of government would let the people know of such vulnerabilities? Try correct them? laughable! I think the political climate is stinking with bad practices and monetary enrichment for “loyalty”. Loyalty to their fraudulent ways, certainly!
Journalism is at it’s HIGHEST calling when it intervenes in such tyrannical times! The fourth estate IS the check, to compel the public’s interest…which in turn compel’s the VERY partisan court’s.. judges…& juries, to demand justice when there is gov’t overreach in these ways.
GAG, FEAR, IMPRISONMENT: These are Abuses of power. Gov’t’s use the legal system to destroy the WHISTLEBLOWER: Death by legal means ..eat away their bank accounts with constant legal fees..intimidation. They don’t even HAVE to be imprisoned, like Aaron Swartz.
Your argument needs work. Non-disclosure agreement sounds exactly like a misnomer a Corporatocracy would make.
Public interest has nothing to do with espionage. They have not profitted or given secrets to enemies of the United States.
The “loose lips..” quote is world war II reference. I can understand why you might feel that we are in a world war right now, though, just perpetual conflicts lasting…well continuously really.
“But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal- there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States or the humblest JP court in the land, or this honourable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal” ”
Atticus Finch–To Kill A Mockingbird–Harper Lee
You have a TS? I think not. If you did, you would know that the written document IS an oath. […] And the document you sign makes it plain as day that if you illegally disclose secret information, you are subject to jail time and fines.
Are you familiar with Barry Eisler? Here’s a little blurb on his career,
I think that probably qualifies him to comment on your statement. Here’s what he has to say on the business of oaths in the intelligence field,
The rest can be read here and comes highly recommended:
https://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2013/06/memo-to-authoritarians-oath-is-to.html
Thank you, Pedinska. I had a NATO TS clearance (the NAME of the classification was classified) while serving in an Army spy unit in Germany and a TS Crypto clearance while in a covert unit in Vietnam. Barry Eisler is spot-on with his comments regarding an “oath”. It’s no secret that documents are classified not only for national security, but for less legitimate reasons. That we have at least one commenter on here defending the 1917 Espionage Act boggles my mind.
One can always hope for jury nullification.
JURY? WHAT JURY?
eh, the one you dont see, wont see, never did, and only exists in the fantasies of the pimped out media whores for the DEEP STATE.
…And she’s a whistle-blower how? In what way did she expose any information for the public good? Not that I’m in favor of harsh prosecution and punishment nor the clearly unconstitutional abridgment of habeas corpus, secrecy, and all the accompanying due process rights in cases like these, but can we stop acting like she’s the second coming of Snowden or Manning already?
Ms. Winner “allegedly” provided (a) document(s) to an online journalistic outlet for them to decide if it the public has a right to know. If she is the person whom shared said document(s) with the press then she is a whistleblower just like Snowden, Manning & others. The information that allegedly was shared to the outlet is understood to deal with alleged tampering of the 2016 election process in the United States by a foreign state actor. Every American has the right to know when there democracy is under attack. The only national security threat is the USG withholding said information to the American people. Ms. Winner is a patriot, served with distinction in the Air Force. You can read the air Force’s remarks about her meritorious service here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB3bdfTUwAE0s2W.jpg:large
Since when do US IC findings of tampering with the election by any actor not belong to the public. Marking such a document is more likely to be a felony than allegedly sharing it.
I believe in Ms. Winner her innocence.
Sorry but you’re dead wrong here. If Reality Winner was a federal contractor with a top secret security clearance. If she were a reporter like you, and did not steal the document, there would be no “reasonable prosecutor” to bring charges. However, she stole it and leaked it, in an attempt to harm the POTUS, and thus, the national security of the United States of America. Like Comey and all other govt employees/contractors, they are not at liberty to discuss new articles with classified details – even while under oath. Your team F’d her over but thank you for doing that because partisan, conspiracy theorist leakers like her should be barred from having Top Secret Security Clearances.
Reality thought this was an undetectable crime. Now, unfortunately for her it was not.
You play and you pay. She is not Hillary after all
To be a criminal one must first be convicted of a crime, not tried in the comment section. Unfortunate for you.
Two main issues here:
1. The government should not be allowed to prosecute people if it’s not willing to allow the defense all of the information to which it would normally be legally entitled. Allowing these prosecutions produces nothing but sham convictions that Americans like criticize other countries for. This is police state crap, not democracy. If national security, the modern version of the last refuge of the scoundrel, is so important, than the government should just have to forego the prosecution. Government choice, but they should not be allowed to have it both ways.
2. Every defendant should be allowed to present their full defense. This disgusting court practice of precluding defenses because they’re not “relevant” is complete bullshit. That aspect of the rule of evidence called “relevance” needs to be completely eliminated. Otherwise, these are, again, just sham trials. The jury can decide what’s relevant, it’s not for the judge, who’s just another arm of the government, to decide.
If you have never seen the documentary regarding the trial of Sybil Edmonds and the ACLU defending her and the “State Secrets Privilege” implementation, please go to YouTube and pull up “Killing the Messenger”.
Incredible! She, nor her attorneys, were even allowed in the court room at one point!
Be afraid…..be very afraid!
Reality Winner is guilty, she has admitted her crime and this trial is a formality. She will be convicted and with some luck spend a short time in prison.
The defense activists know this fact but see this as a platform for a good old dog and pony show. It’s an opportunity to air old grievances and stage some drama possibly to the detriment of their client.
The DOJ seems to be trying to get ahead of this drama train and shut them down before their show balloon gets inflated.
Reality is not guilty. I am.
Nab, Yes you are. And if you had a brain, you would be dangerous.
I had two programs named “Bernie” and “Have Trump” in 1985.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/12/us/defense-department-seeks-more-money-for-secret-weapons-analyst-says.html
The Have Program because Trump is the short tactic.
Bernie because that is the strategy in the long term.
Reality is not guilty. I am. And no, I’m not Donald Trump.
Respectfully,
Nabucco
nat, you are dangerous, brain or no brain.
I am not dangerous. I believe I even had my handler reschedule the NORAD exercise to 9/11, seven years in advance…
What can we do?
Is there anything we can do?
This infuriates me.
Thank you for the update, Trevor Timm.
Here’s some action to take ;)
https://standwithreality.org/action-to-take/
A judge will decide …..all the rest is speculation.
Wondering if Doug and Mona will reappear ?
After Mona’s last fiasco on Greenwald’s thread, she’d have lots of nerve posting at the Intercept.
She’s a crackpot.
Same hand, different socks.
The thing about Sock Puppet Theatre is that the stage is set, there are many acts, and many protagonist/antagonists.
I speak from experience as a former TS cleared person. If this woman with the strange name wants to use her position in government to push her political views by breaking her oath and leaking secret information, she needs to be ready to pay for it. I differentiate her from Snowden on the basis that Snowden acted apolitically, with concern for constitutional principles. This woman, a kid really at 26 years old, arrogantly acted on her ill informed super-partisan views.
My advice to anyone in the deep state is to get behind the president or tender it. If I were in the oval office with punk kids leaking secret info, I would be aggressively prosecuting those super-partisan “resist” participants within the bureaucracy. No president, democrat or republican, should have to put up with this.
Sorry, I usually agree with the Intercept, especially Glenn Greenwald, but I draw the line when people just out of diapers are using dirty tricks to rule over the rest of us. No 26 year old has the experience and historical perspective and necessary knowledge to militantly assert her will over people who are much more qualified. I see this in Portland, with kids running around ready for war on matters they fully do not understand.
Trump is president for better or worse. Accept it.
Whether Trump is president or not is of little to no concern for the matter at hand.
I’m surprised you rate your TS clearance seemingly so much higher than the integrity of the vote for the democracy you swore to defend. Interesting vacuum.
You nailed it!
What democracy?????
I have yet to meet a person in my life who is “apolitical.” Also, don’t pretend you know what motivated these individuals. You are criticizing Winner for her political social media posts. Well, it may be news to you but Snowden had a lot of partisan-sounding posts on forums. Therefore, your standard for differentiating Snowden from Winner fails.
Laughably bad advice. There is no U.S. deep state; it’s an ill defined term used as an excuse to turn Trump into a victim. Nobody should “get behind” this piece of shit President. However, they should think twice before reflexively leaking, and should consider other internal channels first.
Edward Snowden was around 30 years old when he took the NSA records. Apparently 4 years separated him from being just out of diapers and morphed into a grown person!?
Says the guy telling us to “get behind” a septuagenarian imbecile with no governing experience, no historical perspective, and no military knowledge. I can tell that you’re one of the voters than Trump really , I mean really got behind.
An appropriate ending to this post…
You fail to quote any personal experience or knowledge of this topic. Have you been cleared secret or TS? Are you at all aware that upon being cleared, it is made crystal clear that documents marked secret, if you release them even unintentionally through bad practice, will be cause for breach and put you in danger of jail term?
I did not say anyone was apolitical. Nor do I pretend anything, those are your words. I go by peoples stated words, and their demonstrated intent. I said the motives for what Snowden or Reality DID were either apolitical or political, but you are right: the implication is that the information available supports that.
I followed Snowden closely and he never overtly or covertly claimed any motivation beyond privacy issues. You may call that political if you want to think it supports a free America , which might oppose the view that a hammer and sickle should prevail here, but it will remain in the realm of principle for me.
Concerning Reality, everything that is publicly known about her and her acts demonstrates that she is in the super-partisan uber progressive slant, an extreme ideology.
I intersect with the likes of Greenwald on matters of individual liberty and rights to privacy, as enshrined in the US constitution.
I do not intersect with your apparent progressive ideology that destroys property rights and aspires to militantly initiate a socialist state at any scorched earth cost. Notice served: ain’t gonna happen on my watch. You dance around this ideology but never justify it because you know it does not stand up to reason.
Snowden was 30, but he did not try to lecture the rest of us in how an elected president should be beheaded and other sick crap like that. The militant progressives are without honor, even targeting the 10 year old children of the president. This Reality girl decided she was so much smarter than all the rest of us that she was going to reveal classified data to simply embarrass the president. She is paying the price for it, and I hope she gets max jail term. There is NO gray area – she intentionally disclosed secret data. She knew it was secret. The rest of the deep state better keep an eye on this one.
If this “reality” resist movement would try reasoned persuasion every now and then, two things would happen. One, you would win over people to your argument rather than using lame resist militant burn-down-cityhall tactics. Two, you might see the slack in your own arguments and come around to a more logical and sound perspective, were you at all open to other points of view.
There is a deep state, and some authors on The Intercept have already written about it. The progressives like to call them the “military industrial complex”, which I admit exists. But the flip side of that is the entrenched progressive socialist movement that dominates the US government bureaucracy and the mainstream media.
Which is why I like The Intercept – there is room for reasoned argument here, which does not exist in most other media outlets.
What I shared with TI is more damaging to national security than what Reality Winner ‘allegedly’ shared to an online outlet.
See it for yourself:
In a nutshell:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/?comments=1#comment-415687
The story:
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/the-new-yorkers-big-cover-story-reveals-five-uncomfortable-truths-about-u-s-and-russia/?comments=1#comment-364729
and
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/19/for-donald-trump-a-terror-attack-will-be-an-opportunity-not-a-curse/?comments=1#comment-374234
Maybe both stories are true, REALITY always WINS so we will find out.
Oh, and I accomplished all of this between age 13 & 24.
Can someone let me know if the NSA/CIA already cracked Kryptos? The clock is ticking!
Respectfully,
Nabucco.
With such self proclaimed pre-pubescent genius, I can see there is no room for you to learn any more. You already know it all.
There are different dimensions. Yours is apparently the geek one about whether encryptions are broken. It is a very limited view.
How about the principles that this nation is founded on, assuming with a name like Nabucco you really are in the USA… Do you have any notion about the constitution, the founders, the federalist papers, the bill of rights, or anything else?
The convenient view of the twenty something “genius” is that history does not matter. Keep holding that view, and you are damned sure to repeat it. And your mention about encryption is irrelevant. Try starting a company distributing uncrackable encryption to tewwowists and see how quick your front door gets taken out with a battering ram – you will be read the riot act and given one chance to provide a backdoor to it. Next stop is the dungeon.
Check Juniper Pulse VPN situation and think it over.
The solution to the Kryptos “riddle in a riddle” is:
PEOPLE TO CREATE A SAFER FREER WORLD AND SURELY THERE IS NO BETTER PLACE THAN BERLIN THE MEETING PLACE OF EAST AND WEST
Kryptos’ section K4 “BERLINCLOCK” equals Kryptos K5 “BERLINTHEME”.
We will find out whether I am right or wrong :)
And that is the difference between one side claiming National Security and the other side claiming the Right To Know.
If this “26-year old” kid has been studying history and security for at least ten years, she may very well be an expert. She certainly didn’t endanger anybody.
Considering the language of the EA: designed to prohibit “interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime.”
Prove that she did this and that she is deserving of a lengthy prison sentence for whistleblowing.
Not accepting Trump – whatever he has to do with this (except exerting massive power over a woman).
Josh, a 26 year old linguist has zero idea of all the many complex reasons that information may be made secret. If each player in the system insists to use their own judgment about the validity of secret markings, then what is the point? Mark it “Secret.. as long as you agree.” ??
You are a fool. It is obvious that Reality released the information to harm the president. That is enough right there to get her jail time. If she is a whistleblower, that is one thing, and should be protected. But if she just wants to arbitrarily overrule the person who marked the info Secret because you and her get a rush out of harming the president, that is 1)sick and 2)cause for prosecution. It was frivolous piling on to a duly elected president.
I don’t care if you accept Trump. It changes nothing. He is duly elected, and if you break the law to harm him, you will do jail time and will make me feel better about the portion of my taxes that keep you behind bars. You want a fight with half of the voting public, think long and hard about it – you may get what you wish for and it may not be as romantic as you imagine.
All government secrecy is inimical to freedom! And frankly, “The People” have put up for far too long with this corrupt and secretive political System! It’s not the Trump presidency but the entire System which produced that presidency (and-Bush-Clinton-Reagan-Nixon-Johnson-Kennedy-etc.-etc.) which is in question. Now were I to paraphrase your “erudite insight,” (Trump is president for better or worse. Accept it) I would no doubt arrive at something like: “America is our country for better or worse. Accept it.” To which I would reply, “But it continually becomes worse and never better and I will not accept it!” To which you would no doubt respond, “Love it or leave it.” And thus, having come full-circle, we would be right back at the source; that of a right-winger extolling the politics of Vietnam.
Yes, you sound like Lenin in 1917. Or Mao in 1948. But you are not surrounded by peasants willing to lay down their pitchforks and follow you. You are running on ideology. Where is your supporting data?
Where is your supporting data that Reality leaked info to hurt Trump? If anything the leak supported the fact that there was nothing there. Your running on empty.
I refuse to get behind a president and his minions who are implementing Fascism in the U.S. by the text book. Your TS clearing doesn’t automatically make you a politically aware person.
Yesterday’s developments:
“Russian attempts to interfere with our elections are despicable, but whether information about these Russian efforts falls within the scope of information about the secret activities of our army and navy that the Espionage Act was enacted to protect is doubtful”
Winner defense challenging proposed protective order in Espionage Act case:
http://bit.ly/2tO3Qiv
Ex-U.S. Attorney, Homeland Security Counsel Joins Defense Team in Winner Leak Case:
http://bit.ly/2uiFdOJ
What can we do to support Reality?
https://standwithreality.org/action-to-take/
Absolutely!
Otherwise the entire democratic process becomes adversarial. Citizans vote, the State counts those votes in an opaque way and then the State informs the voters who got the most votes.
The State thereby disallows dispute, dissent, and — especially — empirical evidence.
This is not democracy. This is dictatorship.
Furthermore, when a citizen acts to provide empirical evidence (at least a State report based on supposedly empirical evidence) that citizen challenges the supremacy of the State — which the State claims will harm its interests.
Again, this is not democracy.
According to this totalitarian view of “democracy,” a foreign agent could be installed as a State official and could then use the authority of the State to selectively criminalize possession of any and all empirical evidence of illegitimacy.
At this point, only the State can effectively challenge itself.
The main aspect of this case which no one seems to focus on
is that what Reality Winner is alleged to have leaked is secretive material
which is supposed to reinforce the claims made by the intelligence
agencies of which she is/was a part.
The fact that these claims of “high confidence” are not backed up by
real evidence is further buried by this case.
Perhaps that was part of the purpose.
Winner’s supposed crime is that she was making an
Unauthorized contribution (to help the accusations against Russia
appear as if they are more substantial than they are). She did not
follow the rules of secretive-ness and thus she is deemed a danger
to the agencies whose mission she was trying to promote.
That so many people need to ignore the fact that she was helping
promote the so-far baseless accusations is the most troubling aspect
of this case. There is still no “there” there as far as the accusations
against Russia are concerned, but we are supposed to believe there is
something heroic about someone who tried to promote the unproven
idea in a reckless manner.
I do feel sorry for her, but it is largely because of the fact that
on multiple levels,
Reality winner seems to be an example of poor judgement and she certainly
is not any more deserving of being punished than are the the majority
of people who are promoting this unproven accusation, including
some at the Intercept.
So, the message of this case is that NO independent actions are allowed,
not even if you are trying to promote what the agencies want because
“security” has NO tolerance for anything which is not authorized in
and reinforcing of secretive-ness.
The last sentence is how “democracy” is defined in the faking U$A.
Reality Winner ‘allegedly’ shared classified information. This has not yet been proven, there was no trial and she has pleaded not guilty. If she disseminated the document(s) to this outlet she is a whistleblower. She should not be judged in the public arena and has the right to a fair trial. It is a shame that she is has been denied bail whilst someone accused of SELLING secrets to China was granted bond:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mallory-charged-federal-espionage-act-selling-secrets-china-free-on-bond/
I remember reading that article and posting it as something worthy of the Espionage Act.
This is not.
Thank you for updating us – I forgot about this case.
Neither of these cases look to be something much less than
espionage to me.
Mallory sold some information to China. It is highly unlikely
that the information was related to “national security.” The FBI
is known to make innocent people’s lives a hellish experience
based upon supposition and suspicion. I suspect there is less to
that story than CBS makes it out to be. The corporate media depends
upon sensationalism and has little regard for facts.
I must sincerely apologize.
I was distracted as I wrote the above and I have now returned to find
that my first sentence is NOT what I meant to write.
My “editing” was interrupted and that sentence is wrong because I
did not finish re-doing it.
I should have removed the “Neither of” and started with “These.”
Again, I am sorry.
Explain why the one selling secrets to an adversarial country gets bond whilst an ‘alleged whistleblower’ supposed to have engaged a journalistic outlet to determine for themselves what the American public should know about interference by an adversarial superpower in the election process should be denied bail?!
Respectfully.
You are assuming that what was sold was some kind of state secret.
Where is your proof?
If your read about the case, It is clear that Mallory hasn’t had
security clearance for years.
The FBI has tried to frame numerous people over the years.
If you DO NOT KNOW what information he sold, then you are in no position
to pass judgment. Of course, it does mean that you are a typical,
hysterical, easily manipulated, “american” who would condemn
others without real evidence.
In short, Reality Winner should never have been denied bail.
I read the Mallory complaint & affidavit,
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3872932-17-06-22-Mallory-Criminal-Complaint.html
specifically item 38.
It is beyond belief that someone like this individual is granted bond AND someone whom allegedly has informed the public about an attack on democracy, is not granted bail. Obviously Reality Winner was not a flight risk, and is a patriot when you read this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB3bdfTUwAE0s2W.jpg:large
Respectfully.
Yet, the government was very anxious to make public the FBI affidavit and arrest warrant. Will the affidavit also be barred from the jury?
Sounds hypocritical and manipulative to me. On the one hand, bar the defendant from anything in the public domain and at the same time, release information related to her arrest and discovery of how the evidence was obtained.
This is a astutely funny response to ‘Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service’ by Jonathan Marks:
“Recent news items posted on Monitoring’s BBCM News From Elsewhere blog may point to a different future for the 76-year-old service.
They include (October-December 2016) priceless gems, such as: ‘Denmark develops ‘super grass’ to cut cow burp emissions; social network for Russian pets; Flying squirrel numbers soar in Helsinki; Kyrgyz concerns about donkey exports to China; Canadians warned about car-licking moose; Giant lobster bought by Canadian vegan is set free; or Japan’s elderly drivers swap licences for noodle discount.’
Let’s hope that these do not point to the future news priorities set out by BBC Monitoring management.”