iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
Authorized leaks
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
The distinction John Kiriakou draws between the classified information Washington releases on purpose and the classified information it prosecutes people for releasing. The mechanism is the same and the legal status is identical; what differs is whether the leak flatters the leaker. His worked example is an agency leak claiming the CIA predicted the October 2023 attack on Israel three days out — a story the CIA can then piously report to the FBI, knowing the source will never be found.
Authorized leaks is John Kiriakou’s term for the routine, unprosecuted disclosure of classified information by the American government to the American press.
The two categories
The volume is not in dispute: the major outlets publish classified information daily, “and usually it’s the White House or the Pentagon that’s doing the leaking.” What determines the consequence is not the content but the sponsorship. “When those leaks are authorised — eh, you know, everybody’s happy. When the leaks are unauthorised, then the White House is very upset, and the CIA will file something called a crimes report with the FBI, and then the FBI has to investigate it.”[1]
He adds that he can identify particular leaks by their originator: “I can point to leaks that I’m positive came from the CIA just in the last two weeks about Israel/Palestine.”[1]
The worked example
Asked whether an authorised leak is not simply called sharing information, Kiriakou described the full cycle. “The CIA leaks: we got it right on Gaza, we predicted three days before that they were going to launch this attack. And then they leak that to the Post, and then the Post says: classified CIA paper says the CIA got it right. And then the CIA says — oh no, that information was classified. It makes us look really good. We probably should report it to the FBI. But they probably won’t be able to figure out who leaked it anyway. That’s an authorized leak.”[2][3]
The interviewer’s summary, which he accepted, was that it resembles accidentally posting a flattering photograph of yourself.[3][4]
Why it matters to the prosecutions
The asymmetry is the foundation of the New York Times problem: if the daily authorised leak is not a crime, the same act cannot coherently be a crime when the leaker is Julian Assange or a whistleblower.[5]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
