3 ms·

The source coming from and trusting the lawyer doesn't change the fact that the lawyer was informing to the FBI and was an associate to this journalist. > Even

The source coming from and trusting the lawyer doesn't change the fact that the lawyer was informing to the FBI and was an associate to this journalist. > Eventually, he confessed to me that the FBI had been waiting in Bruges to trap my source. He said that the FBI knew about the meeting because he had told them about it, and that he had also told the FBI that the source wanted to provide me with NSA documents. He admitted that he had been informing on me. The journalist has spooks all over him. Whatever you think of the journalist's intentions, you'd have to be a complete fool to get near him. At least he's been honest about this much, so future leakers will be forewarned.

lapcat 4y ago
> The journalist has spooks all over him. Not sure what this is supposed to mean exactly. It's pretty much a given that if you're reporting on national security, the government has its eyes on you. "In January 2014 — just as the FBI was planning its ambush operation — the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear arguments over my subpoena in the leak case involving the mismanaged CIA program. At the time, I was facing the possibility of going to prison for refusing to reveal my sources if the Supreme Court did not rule in my favor."