Reality Leigh Winner, a 25 yr old NSA contractor, was arrested by the FBI for leaking a top-secret document detailing Russian hacking of software aimed at US voting. According to her social media accounts, she is a Sanders supporter and strong progressive who called Trump "a piece of sh*t."
The intelligence community is, according to businessinsider, reeling, and this confirmation that Russia DID hack the 2016 election is a bombshell, which the deniers will in many cases, dismiss as insignificant.'This is huge': National security experts were floored by the leaked NSA document on Russian election hack
What will those who have claimed that the allegation of Russian hacking was a hoax and who attacked those who gave it credibility say. I suggest that we will get a strong clue in the comments to this bombshell news and this article.
Will deniers have the integrity to admit they were wrong, or will they claim this ""huge" news proofing Russian hacking is unimportant? This bombshell will, I suggest, separate the progressive wheat from the chaff.
Those who have been applauding whistleblowers and leakers like Edward Snowden and attacking claims of Russian hacking as a Democratic hoax are now caught between defending the young lady who leaked the classified material to the Intercept and denying the reality of what she leaked: proof in detail of Russian hacking.
This document, which was published by Intercept on Monday goes beyond claims of hacking, which had previously been in the news going back months, to a detailed description of one particular hacking, including the Russian military intelligence agency that did the hacking, and how the operation occurred.
This development raises certain questions: how will those claiming there was no hacking, only a leaking, often attributed to the murdered Seth Rich, whom the alt-right and even some on the left have claimed was murdered by Clinton for leaking the information that went to Wikileaks. Now there is evidence of Russian hacking, and the whole fight over hacking/leaking is settled. "As for e hacking,
I think Russia did it," Trump said after he had been shown the evidence.
What is the significance that the NSA contractor did not, like Snowden, send her top secret documents to Wikileaks?
Could it be because Wikileaks has denied that they have obtained material from the Russian government and would therefore be in an awkward position?
At any rate, this is the Reality Check those of us who have been attacked those taking the claims of Russia hacking seriously.pointig to how all who have seen the evidence, including Trump, have stated publicly that "As for the hacking, I think Russia did it."
It is not known whether this top secret document is part of the evidence shown to Trump and key members of his foreign policy team, all of whom say the evidence shows that Russia did the hacking "without a doubt." Nor is it known if this the same hacking, which often refers to hacked DNC emails. The details have yet to emerge, but a young contractor for the NSA now sits in jail while this bombshell hits the media.
How will those such as Jesse Ventura, Ray McGovern, detialsPaul Craig Roberts, and Robert Parry respond to the fact that a leaker has been arrested by the FBI for providing details of Russian hacking to the Intercept? Will they claim the document is fake? Will the admit to being wrong? And how will this go down a public increasingly disapproving of a President who came to power not only with viewer votes than his rival but who denied that any Russian activity influenced the electoral outcome?
And will those who have been under siege for refusing to toe the party line that the Russian hacking narrative was fake news designed to excuse the fact that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump be honored for their dissenting view?