The Intercept Leaks

Five reactions to the leak and charges against Reality Winner, based on the doubtless incomplete information that is publicly available right now, and hence open to revision and pushback as more emerges.

#1. It looks as if Winner (who has reportedly confessed) would have gotten caught no matter what – she doesn’t appear to have had much idea of the basic tradecraft needed to avoid attention and culpability. Nonetheless, the Intercept’s apparent sharing of the original leaked document and revealing of the address that the material was posted from, is a colossal fuck-up. “We completely screwed up but she would have been caught anyway” is not a good look for an investigative website that wants people to send it risky material. We’ll likely hear some of the story as to how that happened eventually, although the Intercept should presumably keep clear of public statements that might hurt Winner’s legal prospects.

#2. The story gives the lie to people (nutters like Louise Mensch, but also other people whom one might have expected better of) who claim that the Intercept is a cutout for Russia, Trump, or both. The leaking of the material is quite damaging for Trump and for Russia. It casts further doubt on Trump’s election – while there is no positive evidence that voting machines were hacked so as to throw the election (and I doubt very much that they were), it provides reasonably compelling evidence Russian hackers were at least very seriously considering that option. The leak also makes it much harder for the Trump administration to withdraw sanctions, and more likely that Democrats (perhaps with some support from Republicans in the Senate) will push for more extensive sanctions.

#3. Extending #2, the leak is politically awkward for many people who were viscerally hostile to the Snowden revelations. It has the same form as the Snowden leaks, albeit at a much smaller scale – the leaking of highly sensitive intelligence information to a left-leaning anti-establishment crowd that is closely associated with Glenn Greenwald. However, the substance is very similar to the ‘official’ leaks that have been happening incessantly over the last several weeks, where people who are presumably senior intelligence officials with high security clearances have been giving damaging information about Trump to friendly journalists. Anti-Trumpers associated with the intelligence and security establishment, who have been enjoying and making use of the flood of juicy revelations, should be defending Winner on the substance, and re-evaluating their priors accordingly. We’ll see if this happens.

#4. Extending #3 in turn, there is a good prima facie case that Winner served the public interest in leaking the document. People do actually deserve to know whether their voting system was under serious threat of compromise (and if it was compromised, they deserve to know that too). It’s hard to see a democratically principled case for hiding the fact that the most fundamental practices of democracy may have been subverted. However, as I understand the law, Winner is not going to be able to raise that defense in court, any more than Snowden could, were he to surrender. The US needs legal change (and agitation for legal change) to provide a public interest defense, or, at the least, mitigation, for leakers, immediately.

#5. This will be an important case. On the face of it, I think that Winner deserves a lot of support (when there is a defense fund, I will be contributing to it). This is not only because of what she did (which is plausibly, and perhaps compellingly in the public interest), but because its outcome will set an important precedent for the Trump administration and beyond. It may also help cement a tacit tactical alliance between anti-establishment and establishment people who are united in their desire to limit the damage that a Trump presidency can do to civil liberties, and see this case as a way to do that. If that alliance is possible, it would be extremely worthwhile in my opinion for the people on both sides who can be assholes to each other (and casual empiricism suggests no shortage of such assholes) to restrain their tendencies as best as they can. The stakes are very real (most obviously for Winner herself).