That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right whe

That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.