top | item 35557698 (no title) KarlKemp | 2 years ago The New York Times figuring this out faster than the FBI is quite impressive. discuss order hn newest BryantD|2 years ago Not proven by facts in evidence! The FBI prioritizes (in theory) successful prosecution. It’s entirely possible that there are agents watching the guy while a judge processes a warrant. BryantD|2 years ago Follow up for posterity: the arrest affidavit is public. The FBI had the guy’s name and location on the 12th, one day before The NY Times article.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255... ratg13|2 years ago It's also entirely possible that it's a coincidence and they just want to talk to him to see if he may know who may have leaked the documents.They should be able to track his e-mail and his access and already know whether or not he accessed the documents directly. AnimalMuppet|2 years ago In a case like this, wouldn't the FBI prioritize stopping further leaking? load replies (2)
BryantD|2 years ago Not proven by facts in evidence! The FBI prioritizes (in theory) successful prosecution. It’s entirely possible that there are agents watching the guy while a judge processes a warrant. BryantD|2 years ago Follow up for posterity: the arrest affidavit is public. The FBI had the guy’s name and location on the 12th, one day before The NY Times article.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255... ratg13|2 years ago It's also entirely possible that it's a coincidence and they just want to talk to him to see if he may know who may have leaked the documents.They should be able to track his e-mail and his access and already know whether or not he accessed the documents directly. AnimalMuppet|2 years ago In a case like this, wouldn't the FBI prioritize stopping further leaking? load replies (2)
BryantD|2 years ago Follow up for posterity: the arrest affidavit is public. The FBI had the guy’s name and location on the 12th, one day before The NY Times article.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255...
ratg13|2 years ago It's also entirely possible that it's a coincidence and they just want to talk to him to see if he may know who may have leaked the documents.They should be able to track his e-mail and his access and already know whether or not he accessed the documents directly.
AnimalMuppet|2 years ago In a case like this, wouldn't the FBI prioritize stopping further leaking? load replies (2)
BryantD|2 years ago
BryantD|2 years ago
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255...
ratg13|2 years ago
They should be able to track his e-mail and his access and already know whether or not he accessed the documents directly.
AnimalMuppet|2 years ago