3 ms·

Right. The Flynn leak is unfortunately just a rumor, and some partisans are trying to amplify it while others are trying to diminish it. Since a full transcrip

Right. The Flynn leak is unfortunately just a rumor, and some partisans are trying to amplify it while others are trying to diminish it. Since a full transcript/recording obviously exists, the leaker seemingly felt that his/her political aims would not be strengthened if he/she released the actual source material.

matt4077 10y ago
There are many less sinister explanations, and one should generally go for them before resorting to conspiracies: – The leaker had listened to discussions, but did not see/have the actual transcripts – Leaking documents carries much stiffer penalties – Leaking documents feels worse than talking about them in general terms – Copies are strictly limited and can only be seen in a guarded document room - Documents may contain hidden markers to identify leakers ...
- shard972 10y ago
  If the journalists reporting this aren't even seeing snippets of the conversations that's even worse. Intel agencies for decades have been known to manipulate the press.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Right. If there is a deep Russian conspiracy to undermine government and Trump and many on his team are compromised, surely a leaker would feel confident that he/she would be vindicated for having helped inform the public about it (especially due to the strongly partisan support for anything that would harm Trump's presidency).
    - shard972 10y ago
      > (especially due to the strongly partisan support for anything that would harm Trump's presidency). If they had the evidence that trump was "being blackmailed by putin" or actively working with Russia to undermine the DNC, how would his presidency survive impeachment? Snowden did what he did knowing he wasn't going to topple Obama, if you had such explosive information that would protect the republic it just seems a bit much that they would only just relay bits and pieces of information via verbal communication.

matt4077 10y ago

There are many less sinister explanations, and one should generally go for them before resorting to conspiracies: – The leaker had listened to discussions, but did not see/have the actual transcripts – Leaking documents carries much stiffer penalties – Leaking documents feels worse than talking about them in general terms – Copies are strictly limited and can only be seen in a guarded document room - Documents may contain hidden markers to identify leakers ...

shard972 10y ago
If the journalists reporting this aren't even seeing snippets of the conversations that's even worse. Intel agencies for decades have been known to manipulate the press.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Right. If there is a deep Russian conspiracy to undermine government and Trump and many on his team are compromised, surely a leaker would feel confident that he/she would be vindicated for having helped inform the public about it (especially due to the strongly partisan support for anything that would harm Trump's presidency).
  - shard972 10y ago
    > (especially due to the strongly partisan support for anything that would harm Trump's presidency). If they had the evidence that trump was "being blackmailed by putin" or actively working with Russia to undermine the DNC, how would his presidency survive impeachment? Snowden did what he did knowing he wasn't going to topple Obama, if you had such explosive information that would protect the republic it just seems a bit much that they would only just relay bits and pieces of information via verbal communication.