
Attention Federal Employees: If You See Something, Leak Something - saycheese
https://theintercept.com/leak/
======
kbutler
The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are
Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations,
except the NSA surveillance scandal.

Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when
Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they
are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."

~~~
pharrlax
Have a casual look at Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed and then come back and
tell me his news organization is partisan.

~~~
tossacct444
Their last line is fully ironic considering the Obama admin's war on
whistleblowers.

"Becoming a whistleblower is not an easy decision, but sometimes it is the
right thing to do."

[https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistle...](https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistleblowers_forced_edward)

[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-
obam...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obamas-war-
on-whistleblowers/)

Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over
the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of
the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a
PO Box.

Who funds the Intercept anyway?

I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out
other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin.

[http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-
obama-...](http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-vowed-
protect-whistleblowers)

~~~
maxerickson
The Intercept launched in 2014, partly as a way to publish material from the
Snowden leaks.

So the answer to your question is "No, but...".

Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept. He got wealthy as the founder of eBay.

------
elmerfud
Asking people to uphold their sworn oath is one thing, but equating unlawful
government abuses with getting a lawful tax write off.... Wow

Is this going to be the "birther movement" equivalent against trump?

~~~
tmuir
Equating means to show how two things are equal. Listing examples of various
leaks is not equating them as equally damning or criminal.

Stop extrapolating from singular data points to a preconceived conclusion.

Put forth a falsefiable hypothesis, and weigh all available evidence. Dont
allow prejudice to select the sources of that data.

~~~
elmerfud
The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of
government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful
activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the
writers bias in equating them.

There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.

~~~
tmuir
You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or
against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the
opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion.
Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are
false.

Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be
similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature
of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in
every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be
identical.

In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful"
to grab women by their genitalia without their consent?

What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article?

How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?

~~~
elmerfud
"Because they let you"

That is consent.

Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the
one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made
a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then
they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks.
If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it
again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle
blowers.

~~~
tmuir
Your top post shows that you can't see shades of gray. Every list of examples
is proof that the examples are all equal. You follow it up with equating a
smear campaign based on sensationalism and spearheaded by a charlatan, with
journalism demonstrating the value of whistleblowing. Just like our president,
you are allergic to blame, even when it's spelled out in plain English. I have
no illusions that you will deny the wetness of water, if it stands between you
and being "right".

------
adgfadgdfsa545
Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet"
who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal
regarding a story where the parent company of this newspaper has sent my
startup an injunction and this journalist was sent to harass me (no other
papers, media printed the story because there was none)

f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the
story and lie lie lie

/posting from throwaway account

~~~
noobermin
If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the
publication. Will that yield too much info?

There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be
fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.

------
tossacct444
There's definitely an agenda in place on HN. Every comment even remotely pro
Trump has been downvoted to grey text.

~~~
sctb
I don't think see that as a particularly strong correlation here. I see
comments on both sides that are grey or dead, many of which have clearly
violated the guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
losteverything
This is a great resource for people who make fake news

------
deadalus
This article would not have been posted if Hillary had won.

The entire site reads like an anti-trump ad :
[https://theintercept.com/](https://theintercept.com/)

~~~
apozem
You need to learn more about The Intercept. Glenn Greenwald and his crowd
spent the election cycle relentlessly attacking Clinton over her emails and
Obama over his drone strikes.

~~~
belorn
Had you preferred he joined the relentlessly attacking of Trump over the
leaked video recording?

What is more important, the content of a private conversation between two
people off-camera, or drone strikes? Or is the content of such private
conversation more important than say, keeping a private server for government
business and outside of official records?

~~~
tmuir
Why is only the most important topic worthy of discussion? Why can you only
see the other side's extremities?

Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he
assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed
would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the
subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of
acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any
modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the
method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered.

Por que no las dos?

