It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ Charges Federal Contractor For Leaking Classified Materials

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

Is this new info?

NYT made a correction today:

www.nytimes.com...


Correction: June 6, 2017
The headline on an earlier version of this article incorrectly described the charge that Reality Leigh Winner is facing. It is for leaking, not espionage.




Oh perfect !!

The word "Espionage" is a little too close to HRC & Co.

NYT must have gotten a "letter" from a lawyer !!





posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

There was also that Intercept reporter that was arrested,
A few months ago over making bomb threats.

Reporter Journalist Juan Thompson was arrested
For 8 bomb threats to Jewish organizations.

Strange!



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Meanwhile, The Intercept denies they have
knowledge of the source of the paper they
Published!



On June 5 The Intercept published a story about a top-secret NSA document that was provided to us completely anonymously. Shortly after the article was posted, the Justice Department announced the arrest of Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old government contractor in Augusta, Georgia, for transmitting defense information under the Espionage Act.

Although we have no knowledge of the identity of the person who provided us with the document, the U.S. government has told news organizations that Winner was that individual. While the FBI’s allegations against Winner have been made public through the release of an affidavit and search warrant, which were unsealed at the government’s request, it is important to keep in mind that these documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism. Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner. We take this matter with the utmost seriousness. However, because of the continued investigation, we will make no further comment on it at this time.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well...it is the NYT. They could be making sh*t up as they go along, for all we know.

(I'm just putting this note in so I will be able to refer back to it: Valerie Jarrett's daughter, Laura, is now working for CNN covering the Trump administration's DOJ. www.powerlineblog.com... )



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

The arrest warrant specifically states:


Your affiant submits that the facts set forth in this affidavit establish probable cause to believe WINNER committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 793 (e). Therefore, your affiant respectfully requests this Court issue an arrest warrant for WINNER.


18 U.S. Code § 793 (e)


(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or


This is the same code, albeit a different subsection, under which Hillary could have been charged; espionage.
edit on 6-6-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)


 



originally posted by: burntheships
Meanwhile, The Intercept denies they have
knowledge of the source of the paper they
Published!


Wait, wait, wait, wait a second.

Hasn't everyone been howling about the credibility and vetting of anonymous source?

If that's the case, how in the hell can this be acceptable?
edit on 6-6-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: no frickin way



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Maybe they feel pressured by Wikileaks
offer of a reward for naming the reporter?

Or... Maybe this is not the same document?

I still have a few questions lingering...

The document Winner printed was actually
just published by the NSA that very day!

Like somehow she knew it was brand new.

That is a major point in this story that is
getting overlooked.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships


The document Winner printed was actually
just published by the NSA that very day!


Which kind of makes me think the doc was created just so as to entice any potential leakers.


But what I don't get is that, "The Intercept published a story about a top-secret NSA document that was provided to us completely anonymously."

Which means they got the document and had no way to vet the source. So then when they tried to vet the document they were told it looked like a fake and yet ran with the story anyway.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Does that mean reality is the fall girl and the NSA conspired with her to push the russia narrative?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Her Public Defender just pulled out of the case.
Citing that Winner has too much money for a PD.

I'd say her job at the listening post paid well.
Not to mention she could have been paid for the leaks.

edit on 6-6-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Exactly.

The "report" basically is a recap of several old news articles
from about Sept-Oct. hardly anything in it.

It could have been a set up too.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
oops
edit on 6-6-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Alternatively, the NSA report could have been
along the lines of the Muh Russia trappings.

She got a tip about it, not knowing
there was FBI surviellance.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Looks like the traitor Reality Winner is going to get a long jail term.

www.theguardian.com...




edit on 6/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Smells like COINTELPRO now !!




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Now she'll become Reality Bites.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I hope she clears her head and turns in her handler.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: UKTruth

I hope she clears her head and turns in her handler.



Now you are talking - the 10 year term is for only one count. I am hoping the prosecution can put together a case that involves multiple counts and can push for what would amount to life in prison. Not because I think she should go to jail for life, but because playing hardball with her will more likely result in a deal where she starts naming co-conspirators.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
IF she is part of the possible psyops, she will be sentenced to jail but released "Incognito".

The prison system can shift "I.D.s" at will.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Let's hope this happens!

List of things taken from her home include
an Iran Country Handbook.

Other items of interest: 2 spiral bound
notebooks. If this is a one off, I'd be shocked.

edit on 6-6-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
So the Intercept claims they didn't know who sent the info?

It was determined that the Intercept email was sent from her desk top at work.

Haven't seen the email address used but I would think the IP would show a government network. I get the impression she was in a government building. They should have at least know these things.




top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join