3 ms·

> if Poitras really lawyered up when asked, chances are that there's something else as well). Or it is in her (and Snowden's) interest to not say exactly what

> if Poitras really lawyered up when asked, chances are that there's something else as well). Or it is in her (and Snowden's) interest to not say exactly what came from where. If there is a second leaker, confirming it could create or increase the intensity of a witch hunt. If there is not, it would confirm that Snowden may have took more material than he claims. Either way, there is no benefit to her answering either in the affirmative or negative. There is also no benefit to answering herself, as she's likely already retained the lawyer because of handling this sensitive material.

toyg 12y ago
> If there is not, it would confirm that Snowden may have took more material than he claims. That's not really in their interest -- they have been very good at making the most out of the story, both from a political and personal point of view, so it would be in their interest to claim ownership of anything actually related to the leaked documents. The only reason I can see for covering the fact that there might not be another leaker, is if they (accidentally?) passed on the documents to somebody else and don't want to be legally accountable for that particular transaction. As long as Snowden was the only one moving stuff around, Greenwald and Poitras are mostly in the clear from a legal point of view, they are just reporters; the moment they provide them to third parties, they lose that protected status. However, this would not matter if their aim was just to involve another journalistic outfit like Der Spiegel (unless German law does not provide the same cover to journalism activities as US law), so I can't see why they'd want to have such a charade going on. I personally find much more likely that there is a second (or even third) leaker but they don't want to put him/her under pressure, as you say.

toyg 12y ago

> If there is not, it would confirm that Snowden may have took more material than he claims. That's not really in their interest -- they have been very good at making the most out of the story, both from a political and personal point of view, so it would be in their interest to claim ownership of anything actually related to the leaked documents. The only reason I can see for covering the fact that there might not be another leaker, is if they (accidentally?) passed on the documents to somebody else and don't want to be legally accountable for that particular transaction. As long as Snowden was the only one moving stuff around, Greenwald and Poitras are mostly in the clear from a legal point of view, they are just reporters; the moment they provide them to third parties, they lose that protected status. However, this would not matter if their aim was just to involve another journalistic outfit like Der Spiegel (unless German law does not provide the same cover to journalism activities as US law), so I can't see why they'd want to have such a charade going on. I personally find much more likely that there is a second (or even third) leaker but they don't want to put him/her under pressure, as you say.