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
The sources and methods red herring
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
John Kiriakou's argument that the federal government invokes the exposure of sources and methods in every leak prosecution as a matter of routine, has never produced proof in any of them — not against Julian Assange, Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning — and that American claims of damage to national security should therefore not be taken seriously.
The sources and methods red herring is John Kiriakou’s name for what he presents as a standard and empty allegation in American leak prosecutions.
The pattern
Asked whether Julian Assange was a political prisoner or a criminal, Kiriakou began by denying the substance of the charge. “i don’t think that julian assange revealed any sources and methods i think that julian’s crime was embarrassing the powers that be in washington.”[1]
He then generalises the point into a procedural observation. “one of the red herrings that the federal government uses in every one of these cases is they say that sources and methods were revealed and that the lives of either american diplomats or our war fighters serving overseas were placed in danger.”[1]
The absence of proof
The test he applies is whether the allegation was ever substantiated, and his answer is that it never has been. “they did say that with julian but could never offer any proof just like they couldn’t offer proof with ed snowden or with chelsea manning.”[2]
From the repeated failure he draws a general rule about credibility rather than a case-by-case finding. “so i don’t believe that there was any damage to the national security uh i don’t think that we should take seriously american accusations that there was damage to the national security.”[2]
What he sets against the unproved damage is the specific, documented material recorded at the Stratfor cables on Venezuela — disclosures whose contents, on his reading, explain the prosecution better than any claim of endangerment does.[3]
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.
