[–] 19620893? ago (edited ago)
There's no harm done but also no good
People leak info because they want it out there. What point is there to leaking someone is about to be arrested? None unless it's time sensitive or you think they'll try to keep it under wraps. In both cases you'd need to provide at least somewhat specific info to counteract that.
Someone just saying "someone big will be arrested soon" is just distracting and trying to blow up their own importance. If they're wrong nobody will be able to prove someone big wasn't arrested and if they're right they've done Jack shit.
It's essentially hopefagging, but white-hat style. In addition, it lends credibility to future information if correct, via validation of sources, encourages people to pay attention, allows people to reference back to it post-hoc as validation, things like that.
Your third paragraph is almost entirely correct though - there are issues with lots of these things. But very small leaks that reveal next to nothing can still be highly useful. This one, I agree, is not so much, but they're still useful. I'd rather minute crumbs were delivered than nothing at all, if i had to choose.
it lends credibility to future information if correct
It DOESN'T though, that's the problem. It's such a vague prediction and is already out there in the media. No shit that when a rich/powerful man is arrested for the crime of SEX TRAFFICKING that there's a good chance someone "big" will get busted in the same sweep.
If you're right, you've managed to "predict" something that was reasonably likely and already speculated in the media, and if you're wrong nobody will be able to prove it - you can say the indictment is "sealed" or it got moved or any other number of excuses. The reality is if anybody "big" gets arrested for anything in the relatively near future this person will probably take credit for it.
I'm a journalist, I know how it works. And it's degrees of separation. the juicier the info, the closer to the action one is; 40Head is not close to the inner circle. I have no doubt he knows who the 2nd person is. I just disagree with him suggesting he can't divulge anything due "operational security" as it suggests he's closer than he is or even part of the team.
This much I agree with, in general. I think the conclusion is wrong though, for the reasons I mentioned : he's allowed (or at least, not disallowed) to know, but him telling anyone would compromise the security of his source, or their organisation, or their operation. Now it may not be a huge breach : "we don't tell anyone before this date", broken < 24 hours beforehand is unlikely to fuck things up. But if its a big deal and you want to play the media? It could still be stunningly important.
It may come across to normies like he's close/part of the team, but people who know a little more understand the reasoning behind it, even if they disagree about the importance. You can't always provide things at the level of the lowest common denominator.
[–] 19618487? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Ummm. This was pretty fucking specific. High prrifile arrest since Epstein. Big enough to VINDICATE q. Pretty specific. Nobody is gonna give a shit if juicy smellit is rearrested at this point. But if it was a clinton or a bush, now thats vindication. Thats pretty fuckin specific.
Yes, but if you have inside information that you are worried will be traced back to someone and place them in danger, what do you do?
Your source is going to see you blabbed, amd not trust you again out of fear, and you did no real service to anyone because you shared no real information.
[–] 19625866? ago
Then why "leak" at all? Something this vague accomplishes nothing.