4 ms·
You're probably not going to see any additional details. If you have an intelligence asset on the inside, revealing the source can jeopardize that asset. For ex
by spiderxxxx 10y ago
You're probably not going to see any additional details. If you have an intelligence asset on the inside, revealing the source can jeopardize that asset. For example, if they say that the CIA is funding a vpn provider in Moldova that revealed in its logs that the source is Russia, well that wouldn't be appropriate to the continued monitoring effort. You've burned your asset.
- grandalf 10y agoOk, I don't dispute that, but why would the following happen: - The campaign led by a former secretary of state decides to essentially go rogue and start accusing a foreign government of election tampering. - The USG stays silent for a while and then rather than simply having a direct communication with Russia decides to issue an extremely vague public statement about the alleged cyber attacks.