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
Six ways from Sunday
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
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.
