5 ms·

The New York Times figuring this out faster than the FBI is quite impressive.

BryantD 3y 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.
- ratg13 3y 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 3y ago
  In a case like this, wouldn't the FBI prioritize stopping further leaking?
  - jjulius 3y ago
    I'd assume they're not concerned about further leaks from this individual A.) if they've already identified him and have been monitoring him, and B.) he realizes the gravity of his situation and is spooked, resulting in him not leaking anything else since this story blew up. It would be on other bodies (correct me if I'm wrong) to review and adjust the internal practices around the handling of confidential documents, and how this can be prevented moving forward. Edit: Aaaaaaand he's in custody.
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    So once the suspect is identified, do you: 1. Swoop in and arrest them immediately Or 2. Do comprehensive physical and electronic surveillance for say 24-72 hours to see if they try to get in contact with foreign nationals, and investigate whether they have a "dead man's switch" to release more documents? Option 2 makes more sense to me. When cleaning this situation up it will be essential to know what he leaked and who he leaked it to. Unfortunately the NYT and Bellingcat may have forced law enforcement to move prematurely. That or friendly media got a tipoff to establish the desired narrative while the government does the "no comment during an active investigation" line.
- BryantD 3y 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.255930/gov.uscourts.mad.255930.3.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255...

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.

ratg13 3y 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 3y ago
In a case like this, wouldn't the FBI prioritize stopping further leaking?
- jjulius 3y ago
  I'd assume they're not concerned about further leaks from this individual A.) if they've already identified him and have been monitoring him, and B.) he realizes the gravity of his situation and is spooked, resulting in him not leaking anything else since this story blew up. It would be on other bodies (correct me if I'm wrong) to review and adjust the internal practices around the handling of confidential documents, and how this can be prevented moving forward. Edit: Aaaaaaand he's in custody.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  So once the suspect is identified, do you: 1. Swoop in and arrest them immediately Or 2. Do comprehensive physical and electronic surveillance for say 24-72 hours to see if they try to get in contact with foreign nationals, and investigate whether they have a "dead man's switch" to release more documents? Option 2 makes more sense to me. When cleaning this situation up it will be essential to know what he leaked and who he leaked it to. Unfortunately the NYT and Bellingcat may have forced law enforcement to move prematurely. That or friendly media got a tipoff to establish the desired narrative while the government does the "no comment during an active investigation" line.
BryantD 3y 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.255930/gov.uscourts.mad.255930.3.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255...