[mistermann]

> If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?

Considering the circumstances, if you received information from Epstein, what would you do with it? Even if you were brave enough to risk your life in the service of justice, what authority would you even send it to?

[larrywright]

Honestly, Glenn Greenwald would probably be where I’d turn to. I’d trust him as a journalist, for sure. There aren’t a ton of them who’ve publicly demonstrated how they handle something of this importance (Woodward and Bernstein are the only other two I can come up with off the top of my head).

[harry8]

Assange - for which I will get hate. He will publish, in full at considerable personal cost. I don't think there are any credible accusations about him doing anything else, ever. You can still hate him for whatever reasons you have and expect him to do just that.

Have you seen Greenwalds thoughts on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

I'm not sure they should still be on that list... Maybe, but there's some doubt. More about them than say Assange, for this purpose which is pretty weird and unexpected to think about.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-wo...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/bob-woodward-sl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrSeiG5mJQ

[harry8]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/mannin...

Wherin Greenwald describes Woodward as follows:

"Bob Woodward is a servant-journalist for US government officials."

That's not pulling punches. Is it fair?

[spiralx]

I mean I could make the claim

"Glenn Greenwald is a servant-journalist for Russian government officials."

with at least as much evidence:

https://arcdigital.media/why-are-internet-radicals-helping-p...

https://www.towleroad.com/2019/05/glenn-greenwald-russia/

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...

Is it fair? I mean calling a journalist an agent of the deep state for publishing leaks given to them is quite a leap... especially given that Greenwald is famous in large part for the same.

[harry8]

I don't think there's any evidence of Greenwald publishing leaks provided by russian officials. Unless you go with the "Snowden is a russian asset" line which I find lacks credibility. Especially given how often it's been used. Lately Hilary is accusing Deomcrat candidates of it, which is, well, exactly in keeping with her character. An observation that is less controversial now than it used to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/22/hillar...

Never heard of towerload before, but wow, that article is comically terrible. Don't believe me? Here's a tweet from nobody making the same claim without evidence.

The arc digitial article (deliberately?) conflates all those idiots running around yelling "The President is a Russian spy!" and saying that is idiotic with not wanting Mueller's report at all as if those idiots were necessary for Mueller to perform his investigation and write a report.

So yeah, making the claim against Greewald. I'm going with "Not Fair" if that's the best evidence there is.

I've seen no credible evidence that Assange worked with russia fwiw (but the NYT article making the accusation had the silliest diagram I've ever seen in lieu of evidence - so silly it looked deliberately so - as a covert protest perhaps..? ymmv incompetence is the usual go to). If I saw some evidence I might well change my mind on that but I'm just not willing to see russians pulling strings without evidence. I believed WMD claims and I hope I learned /something/ from that error.

Quoting the actual content of Mueller's report. Yeah, I'm ok with that when reporting on it myself. Pointing out that Trump can be a horrible person and awful president without being a russian spy and that constant accusations of it are silly, counterproductive, a massive distraction from the duty of the fourth estate and just need to stop now so we can analyse reality is from the competent journalist playbook rather than a russian conspiracy IMHO.

The claim against Woodward has more legs because he gets top secret leaks and there's no investigation, there's no prosecution, there's no outrage and the stories he writes based on the leaks are anything but embarassing to the government. So I guess all that is at least consistent with what Greenwald is saying. I mean an article that embarasses the government based on leaks with woodward as author - that would be inconsistent and you'd have to address that to keep making the case at least. (well it's 1 this way and 5 the other or something - but I haven't seen the 1).

If I wanted to make a criticism of Glenn in the original context it is that he will use whatever you give him for maximum political impact in support of his political views (but will do so with integrity, eg Snowden is a republican and went to Glenn because of his integrity, also Barton Gelmann and deliberately avoided the NYT for burying stories which should have sent alarm bells ringing loud there, I wonder if it did). Is that political impact according to Glenn what you want? But I guess if what you want released embarasses the government, Woodward hasn't got much form since Watergate..?

[InterimNew]

I believe most of the major (and some of the minor) newspapers offer a SecureDrop instance to transfer confidential information.

So I would send the entirety of the information to every newsroom that could receive it, then pray that I: A) was not the only initial recipient of the Epstein drop and B) that the information I received doesn't contain any content that could be uniquely identified to me.

Afterwards I would sit down and have a long think about how my life got to the point where Epstein is communicating with me personally.

[magduf]

>what authority would you even send it to?

Well, you could send it to various foreign news outlets. I'm sure RT would love it.

[camjohnson26]

Newspaper?