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.
Senator Chuck Schumer's 2017 televised warning that a president who takes on the intelligence community leaves himself open to retaliation, and John Kiriakou's reading of what the threat actually consisted of — not violence, but the institutional attrition available to career officers who outlast any administration.
Six ways from Sunday is a phrase from a televised warning by Senator Chuck Schumer that a president who crosses the intelligence community exposes himself to retaliation. John Kiriakou says CNN telephoned him the day after the remark aired and asked him to explain what Schumer had meant.[1][2]
What he says it did not mean
His first move was to rule out the reading that the phrase invited. Whatever Schumer meant, Kiriakou says, he did not mean physical harm.[2]
The mechanism he describes instead
The threat he describes is structural rather than criminal, and rests on time. Officers at the CIA have been there twenty, twenty-five, thirty years; presidents come and go; and the officers know they can outlast this president exactly as they could outlast any other.[2]
From that asymmetry he derives the specific forms retaliation can take, none of which requires anyone to disobey an order. They can leak selectively to embarrass him. They can decline to take the risk of going after a well-placed source, so that the best intelligence never arrives. They can decline to initiate a high-risk operation. The result he describes is not sabotage but inertia — nothing gets done, the administration muddles through, and the officers wait the four years until the voters remove him and return somebody they prefer.[2][3]
The frame he attaches to it
Kiriakou treats the episode as a problem of accountability rather than of party, and separates his reading of the intelligence agencies from any defence of the president they were said to be threatening: “we don’t have to love the CIA and the FBI just because we don’t like Donald Trump.”[4]
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.
