[taraharris]

I remember reading about this case a few years ago (so I don't have a link). The article said the CSAM was the result of many of the employees in the CIA pranking each other. I am inclined to see this as a selective prosecution that benefits the CIA at the expense of the public interest.

The secrecy they operate under inherently shields them from accountability. We have allowed our constitutional system to be usurped, to have a watcher free from the oversight of an effective watcher (i.e., the public or even its representatives).

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Yeah. Taking the CSAM charges at face value is frankly like believing that Epstein killed himself. I have strong doubts about the likelihood of someone knowingly getting themselves into such hot water, with the technical competency to understand their digital fingerprint and what’ll happen if / when the government catches on, let alone his literal insider’s perspective into the US surveillance state, behaving as alleged.

I’m not saying that it’s not possible. I’m not saying that someone behaves logically all the time just because they work with computers, but “oh, and CSAM!” is such an American government t ‘icing on the cake’ ploy that it feels a bit too good to be true.

[hpenvy]

I still don't understand the belief that Epstein must not have killed himself. I can understand feeling like he might have been killed but I don't know what gives people the conviction that he must have been.

I feel similarly about this case. Is it really that bizarre to think that a person who decides to work for the CIA and then decides to leak information would also have CSAM?