I'm going to post the QRD first, as best I understand it, then I'm going to post the entire article, which makes very little sense to me and seems to be missing a ton of context.
>blogger of HuffPo >super critical of the DOJ/FBI your entire career >have super sekret source >tells you things in confidence >Hillary loses >source says something something about Flynn talking to Syrians >ITS RUSSIA >Rat out source to FBI >claim the source was a bad guy who tried to hack your computerz and other bad things >this will finally bring down drumpf! >it's not about drumpf though, I swear!
and to top it off the Washington Compost is practically calling her a hero in this shoddy, confusing article. I have no idea what to make of this.
stop paying attention to them. they belong in a prison, or dead.
Logan Hernandez
archive didn't work sorry, here's the text:
>It's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect your sources.
>Reporters have gone to jail to keep that covenant.
>But Marcy Wheeler, who writes a well-regarded national security blog, not only revealed a source - she did so to the FBI, eventually becoming a witness in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump's possible connections to Russia.
>"On its face, I broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism, but what he was doing should cause a source to lose protection," Wheeler told me in a lengthy phone interview.
>"It's not a decision I regret," she added.
>That she did so, as detailed in a post last week on her Empty Wheel blog, stunned those who have followed her work because she has so frequently criticized American intelligence agencies and their penchant for surveilling U.S. citizens.
>"For her to go to the FBI, that made my jaw drop," said Daniel Drezner, a Tufts University professor of international politics. (He doesn't know her personally but has followed her work.)
>"It's like Glenn Greenwald calling up the CIA and saying I've discovered a mole," Drezner said. (He was referring to the Pulitzer-winning, anti-surveillance, civil liberties lawyer who is co-founder of the Intercept, which focuses on national security news.)
Kevin Johnson
>Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation.
>But her dealings with him have brought her around to believing something she initially questioned: that Russian interference in the 2016 election was a very real thing, and that Trump associates played a part.
>What exactly did the source do to deserve outing to the FBI, in her view? Wheeler is circumspect in describing that.
>Her blog post centers on a text message she says she got from the source on Nov. 9, 2016 - about 14 hours after the polls closed - predicting that Michael Flynn, who would be Trump's appointee for national security adviser, would be meeting with "Team Al-Assad" within 48 hours.Russia has been perhaps the Assad regime's staunchest ally.
>As she noted: "The substance of the text - that the Trump team started focusing on Syria right after the election - has been corroborated and tied to their discussions with Russia at least twice since then."
>Wheeler won't say when she went to the FBI other than that it was in 2017. In December 2017, Flynn flipped, pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian government during the presidential transition; Trump had fired him in February.
Jack Collins
>In addition to the knowledge of her source's inside information, Wheeler said, she had reason to believe that the source was involved with efforts to compromise her website and other communications. And perhaps most important, that he was involved in cyberattacks - past and future - that had done and could do real harm to innocent people.
>Wheeler, who has written blog posts about national security for almost 15 years, is clear that she wasn't motivated to talk to the FBI because she is out to get Trump. She certainly doesn't like him, but she is also not at all a Hillary Clinton fan.
>But what motivated her recent revelation that she went to the FBI has plenty to do with politics: She is disgusted by the way House Republicans are, in her view, weaponizing their oversight responsibilities and making it all too likely that FBI informants will have their names revealed - and their safety threatened.
">It infuriates me," she wrote, to observe the "months-long charade by the House GOP to demand more and more details about those who have shared information with the government . . . all in an attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation."
Alexander Clark
>But as a public figure, she has a measure of protection that others who have come forward don't have.
>"If something happens to me - if someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow - everyone will now know why and who likely did it," she wrote.
>Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people they find threatening.
>Both decisions - to talk to the FBI and to write about it - required her wrestling with three main issues; concerns about journalistic ethics, the possibility of unintended national-security consequences, and the growing certainty that her suspicions about the source were true.
>As a writer working without a newsroom, she had no editor with whom to talk but did consult with a number of lawyers before making her initial decision.
>A priest or minister who hears a confession about a serious crime that has already happened, she said, can offer forgiveness. But one who hears of a serious crime in the making is morally required to inform police. She saw herself in that latter category.
James Phillips
>Wheeler told me she believed herself to be "uniquely informed" about something that mattered a great deal.
>In their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time and don't turn them in.
>Reporters aren't an arm of law enforcement.
>They properly resist subpoenas and fight like hell not to share their notes or what they know because doing so would compromise their independence and their ability to do their work in the future.
>Wheeler knows all that - and believes in it. But she still came forward, not because of a subpoena but because of a conscience.
>As Drezner told me, "She would not do this on a whim."
>And as Wheeler put it, "I believe this is one of those cases where it's important to hold a source accountable for his actions."
>Without knowing all the details, it's hard to judge whether she was right.
>But it's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and principled one.
Carter Gutierrez
bump
Isaiah Jones
Gradually, normies will feel they cannot trust these charlatans. Secret Societies are also booming. "Mainstream" content is so plagued by gamesmanship and money that it's no longer reliable. It's just red kike vs blue kike.
Jace Ward
>huffpost >journalism the most annoying part of all this is the MSM keeps calling themselves journalists (They're not).
Noah Edwards
isn't this a little strange though? her source was some criminal that tried to rob her, but she kept taking the information and writing articles about it to get paid, then when he says something about DRUMPF! she immediately runs to the fbi. Something is missing from this story and the fact that the compost has tried to defend her in this ridiculous puff piece is even more interesting.
btw, the article says CT, but they just reposted it from "Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post"
The article positively portrays Wheeler while negatively portraying her source. Sounds like she may have made a deal to claim this source told her something else salacious but ultimately non verifiable so they're pre covering a few bases. perhaps?
Dylan Hill
all of her vague justifications surrounding her ratting her own source out don't seem to have anything to do with DRUMPF!, rather it's for some nebulous morals, although the article hints that she turned him in because of some Russia conspiracy connections, not for hacking her or whatever.
If that's true, i can't believe some foul nigger at the compost would go to bat for her. this is the last line of the article:
>But it's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and principled one. >principled when the fuck is outing a source "principled?" that doesn't even make sense.
William Campbell
i'm fkin tired af, just reading about this >be me >start reading about this >then ... >tired af I'm slippy. I just need a nap tho
guaranteed she was an unofficial aid to the CIA. pay attention to any journalist who is linked to powerful think tanks and NGOs. Some of these groups they are connected to pretty much prove being an asset to intelligence agencies.
also it is very fishy that she has interesting connections to the ukraine
Jaxon Collins
look at this language, these snakes always do this, >in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump's possible connections to Russia
Mueller was originally not investigating anything to do with Trump or his campaign, it was supposed to be an open ended investigation into what Russia actually did, if anything, during the election and how it may have effected the outcome. the only real tie to Trump came when they started going after his associates for bullshit reasons and then dropped the bomb that Mueller was looking into obstruction of justice (which they fucking know full well is bullshit).
>In December 2017, Flynn flipped, pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian government
Flynn never "flipped" he took the lying to FBI charges, even though internally they admitted he never lied. Since that bombshell came out during Senate hearings, Mueller keeps postponing his arraignment hearing...i wonder why.
David Taylor
actually i think i should have paid more attention to this part of the article:
>But what motivated her recent revelation that she went to the FBI has plenty to do with politics: She is disgusted by the way House Republicans are, in her view, weaponizing their oversight responsibilities and making it all too likely that FBI informants will have their names revealed - and their safety threatened.
>"It infuriates me," she wrote, to observe the "months-long charade by the House GOP to demand more and more details about those who have shared information with the government . . . all in an attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation."
seems she might be scared that her source is going to get outed by the House intel committee, so she's trying to get out in front of it. if true, that makes it all the more strange why the compost would defend her. maybe they ratted out some of their sources too?
Ian Allen
or that maybe she's going to get outed...
Cooper Johnson
Good eye user i had the same reaction as you when i read the flipped Flynn BS straight off the latest #Resistance talking point tipsheet. Also a good take. I think its likely she knows her source is going to be outed now after likely finding the source was giving this chick bullshit to push more Russia garbage. IE she was used as a Louise Mensch tier gossip news slut and wants to maintain viability going forward after whatever other spy infiltrating Trump gets revealed next
Jayden Sullivan
why are all these niggers still walking talking and breathing.
This is what all Jow Forums threads should be. analyzing articles or academic works paragraph by paragraph
Angel Jones
Jews jewing jews and Jew's Jews
Adam Richardson
>isn't this a little strange though? her source was some criminal that tried to rob her, but she kept taking the information and writing articles about it to get paid, then when he says something about DRUMPF! she immediately runs to the fbi. Something is missing from this story and the fact that the compost has tried to defend her in this ridiculous puff piece is even more interesting.
It doesn't make sense to you that she was willing to do anything for a story, then changed her personal policy on sources because of how much she hates Trump and his people? You know millions of people hate him and would do all kinds of out-of-character shit to fuck with him just like any other politician right?
Dylan Peterson
first 3 sentences of the article: >It's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect your sources.
>Reporters have gone to jail to keep that covenant.
>But Marcy Wheeler,...
when i saw this on Drudge I almost didn't click it because i didn't understand why this was important. why write an article defending a person who broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism? sure I understand her Trump Derangement Syndrome, despite claims in the article, but why say you ratted out a source and then why is WaPo defending this decision? seems like they would excoriate her. and not to mention the article itself reads like some intern wrote it while she was taking a shit in between bouts of angry birds.
Grayson Perry
kek it is pretty amateurish. high school newspaper tier basically
Levi Baker
This is the only relevant thing here. No one is safe from a leftist, they will sell you out to give Weinstein a rimjob.
