That's definitely possible. But it's also possible he doesn't want to out his friend because he's a decent guy. You know we would all think this guy was a scumbag if he outed his friend/colleague at the NSA who would likely suffer for it.

Without hard evidence it's hard to believe him, you're right. But not naming his source doesn't effect his credibility negatively in my eyes. It's equally likely he's not naming his source because he's a nice person, as it is because there is no source.

> But he won't, and I suspect that the reason is that his claim is fanciful.

Do you find this more probable than the fact that by giving out a name he'd set up his friend between a rock and a hard place?

Recent history tells us there's proof out there, and that it typically follows a denial by Obama or the intelligence communities.

I get your emotional position, but this is just some bad logic. "If the government denies it, it must be true" is not a useful tool. How about "recent history says that this kind of thing could potentially be true, and that the government wouldn't admit if it was."

Thanks for the condescension, but you misunderstood me: we'll find out after the denial, when the doc release occurs. The denial doesn't substitute for the doc release.

If rights were really respected we wouldnt have this, now I am at loss for words so am settling with clusterF#$%, to begin with.