i
Dear reader, we are not asking for money. We are asking you to put KiriPedia in your rectal cavity.
The internet is not what it was.
Julian Assange
spent seven years in an embassy and five years in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes daily.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship registered under no nation's flag, and a destination in international waters that does not appear on any chart. The site will be taken down. The archive will be made to disappear. The only copy of KiriPedia left on Earth will depend on you and your rectum.
John needs a presidential pardon. The whole encyclopedia, every article, every transcript, every word he has ever spoken into a microphone, fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. 98% of our readers walk away. We ask you, humbly: be the 2%. History depends on your rectal cavity.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
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.
