Anonymous Sources Are Critical To Our Democracy

 The latest revelation about Donald Trump is his opinion of the brave men and women who serve in our military. He doesn't respect them -- calling those captured or killed "losers", and anyone joining the military "suckers". 

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. Trump only cares about himself. He doesn't have the capacity to understand others doing something for their country and fellow citizens -- being selfless. He only understands doing things that help himself.

He has denied the accusation -- calling it a hoax because several anonymous sources were used to learn the truth. But the journalist reporting the story in The Atlantic is known to be credible, and other known sources also back up what was reported (like Mary Trump and Michael Cohen). 

But anonymous sources are necessary. They help us to understand what is happening in our democracy (and the knowledge they provide helps us to act to save that democracy). This is especially true during an administration as dishonest as the Trump administration.

The following is a discussion of using anonymous sources by Tom DeFrank in the National Journal:

The Atlantic’s blockbuster exposé of President Trump’s well-documented private antipathy towards the military culture is undoubtedly controversial. But it’s no hoax. Trump’s insistence the article is “totally made up” is, quite simply, bogus.

Being hammered for relying on anonymous sources is the price that reporters are often willing to pay to obtain vital information that otherwise would never be printed.

As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the piece, has noted, “these are people who are not anonymous to me.” On the other side of the ledger, even some of the most ardent Trump defenders furiously insisting that Goldberg's anecdotes "never happened” frequently play the very same game when it suits their interests.

A personal example: In the spring of 1987, I interviewed Texas businessman George W. Bush in Dallas for Newsweek’s 1988 special election project, to be published only 36 hours after the presidential victor had been determined.

Our ground rules for the interview—the first of many over the next 18 months, and again in 1992—were that I could use everything he told me but couldn’t identify him as the source. In other words, we were on background, a staple of the journalistic trade.

The man formerly known as "Junior," who later became "Bush 43," was amazingly helpful, dishing the sort of inside-baseball detail and real-time dialogue that reporters dream about. He was totally fearless in analyzing the campaign; after all, he answered to only one official, his father, who’d recently introduced us at a White House reception and encouraged him to cooperate. And none of the anonymous reporting would be public until after the polls had closed.

After an unusually productive interview, I gratefully thanked him for his candor. “Now, let me ask YOU a question,” he said with a smirk. “When this thing comes out I’ll probably be asked about some of this stuff. I’ll have to say it’s total bullshit. Are you gonna have a problem with that?”

I assured him that wouldn’t be bothersome. Sources often deny inconvenient truths on the record that they’ve leaked on background.

In more than a half-century as a Washington correspondent, in fact, the very people who gave me my information often later tried to debunk my reporting publicly. Among them were presidents, vice presidents, Cabinet officers, high-ranking government officials, and four-star generals. I’ve sat in briefings, trying to suppress a smile, as my very source denounced my story.

That's the way it works. As a White House chief of staff once told me, "I’m not talking about this story, but if you run it on Monday you won't look stupid." But when asked about the article, he was able to tell associates he hadn’t commented.

Much as the president’s media-loathing base is encouraged to believe that Goldberg’s article is a whole-cloth fake, Goldberg is a highly-respected journalist, meticulous and careful in his newsgathering. The same is true for Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin, who has confirmed most of Goldberg’s reporting.

Furthermore, the days of one-source stories are fortunately pretty much over. The media is so under siege by a president who calls us “the enemy of the American people” that reporters and their editors are exceedingly careful to be certain that their scoops are as airtight as possible—and that readers are aware of how deeply they're sourced. Goldberg relied on four anonymous sources. A recent Washington Post story on Trump's "lost summer" spent trying to contain the coronavirus notes that it's based on "interviews with 41 senior administration officials and other people directly involved."

Finally, Trump has a way of unwittingly confirming such stories. His usual modus operandi is launching preemptive strikes against individuals he thinks are behind stories he doesn’t like. Last week, he trashed retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, saying he was in over his head as White House chief of staff. Discrediting one of the military’s most capable and honorable warriors doesn't exactly undercut the idea that Trump doesn't respect the military.

The truth is, leaks—by definition from anonymous sources—are the mother’s milk not only of journalism, but of politics, governance, and diplomacy. The White House response to this story has been so turbocharged not because of anonymous sources, but because it rings true, and they know it could damage a key component of his base.

A Note To "Anonymous" Commenters

I have tried to make it clear to anyone wanting to comment on this blog (and I do love comments, whether you agree or disagree with me) that I will delete all comments that come from "anonymous". I say that both on this page, and on the comments page. But every now and then I still get comments from "anonymous", and I delete them.

Recently I got a comment from one of these anonymous commenters that called me a coward for not posting anonymous comments. I found that to be very humorous. I give readers my honest opinion, and I always attach my real name to anything I have to say. You may not agree with what I have to say (and that is OK), but you know exactly who is saying it. To me, a person who is too ashamed or too afraid to put their name (or at least an internet pseudonym) to their comment is the real coward. After all, how hard is it to create and use an internet pseudonym?

Why do I not have a problem with a pseudonym? I understand that some people might wish to keep their real name off the internet. Using a pseudonym though allows me to distinguish a valid comment from spam (most of which is sent as "anonymous"). It also lets other readers (and me) know where the person is coming from -- by connecting that pseudonym to other comments made using it on this blog, or similar blogs.

Why do I moderate comments and delete those from "anonymous"? The main reason is to give me an easy way to eliminate spam. As I said, most spammers comment as "anonymous", and I don't have the time or desire to wade through all comments to figure out which are spam and which are not. And I admit that I don't feel too bad that this also eliminates the comments of a few people too afraid to even use a pseudonym -- people who cannot follow simple instructions (and are usually trolls anyway).

Anonymous commenters may not like my guidelines for commenting -- but this is my blog, and that's the way it is, both now and in the future.

NOTE -- This post is only meant to pertain to people wishing to comment anonymously on this blog -- and should not be construed to include the organization called ANONYMOUS (which I have a great deal of respect for).

(The image above is from the website screened.com.)

Anonymous Attacks NAMBLA Website

I like to think I am a big supporter of the First Amendment, even when the speech being protected is obnoxious speech. But even First Amendment supporters must have limits, and for me, promoting pedophilia is over the line. That's why I was actually happy to see the internet hacker group, Anonymous, take on NAMBLA.

For those of you who haven't heard about NAMBLA, it's full name is the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- and it is an organization that supports the "rights" of pedophiles (portraying pedophilia as a natural love between adults and children, including those who have been convicted of this sick crime).

A few days ago (April 25), pedophiles celebrated their own "pride" day -- called Alice Day. Here's some of what Anonymous wrote about the day:

On numerous unnameable forums, where adult men chat publicly about their love and affection for young girls and boys, users post about how they plan to celebrate Alice Day—often by wearing pink and spending time in parks to "LG (little girl) watch." Some might hand out pamphlets about CL, or "childlove," in an attempt to decrease stigma against and raise awareness of what to them is a significant social movement: pedophile pride.

These men claim they would never physically abuse or rape a child; it would be anathema to the childlove philosophy. They want to cuddle, kiss, hold, and otherwise express their affection for children—and if they can't in person, they'll do it from a distance, emboldened by Alice Day.

Like Anonymous, I don't for a minute believe that many of these sick bastards confine themselves to "cuddling" children. They believe there is nothing wrong with having sex with children, and sites like NAMBLA promote this kind of perversion.

So Anonymous chose April 25th to cause these perverts a few problems. They attacked the NAMBLA site and several other pedophilia internet sites -- shutting them down for the day, defacing their web pages, and exposing the personal information of suspects. And from what I hear, they were pretty successful (as they normally are).

I don't know about you, but I support Anonymous in this action. I just wish they could shut down all the pedophilia websites for good. Thank you Anonymous!

Theft Of Election Foiled By Anonymous ?

On October 27th, I posted about alleged election rigging that has possibly been going on for several elections (that would flip 10% of votes from one candidate to his opponent -- enough to swing a close election). Supposedly, this was even done in the Republican primary to help Romney win, and it was done only in very large counties with lots of votes (because the manipulation of votes would be less obvious in a large county).

Evidently some people believed this was happening, or at least could be happening -- the hacker group known as Anonymous. On November 1st, I wrote that Anonymous had published a public letter warning Karl Rove not to try and steal the election through any kind of digital manipulation. They told him they would be watching, and he would be caught if he tried anything nefarious.

Did Rove try to steal the election? Possibly. The letter above is purportedly from Anonymous (and was sent to the website Wonkette). We know the Republicans had a computer system called ORCA, which they claimed was to help them get out the vote (and which failed miserably on election day). The letter claims that ORCA had a dark side, which would allow it to tap into computers in at least three states to change votes -- and that Anonymous blocked the computer portals to those states by hacking in to the GOP computer system and erecting a firewall to prevent access on election day, insuring an honest election.

Did this really happen? Did Rove and his minions set up a system to steal votes, only to have it blocked by Anonymous? I honestly don't know (being barely computer literate myself). But I believe it is possible, and if it did happen, I hope they go ahead and release the information to the world. Here is an interesting take on the situation by Nathaniel Downes over at Addicting Info:

While some might consider this a random letter, or a jump to claim responsibility, if you step back and study the letter carefully a very clear message comes out.

They cite specific numbers. They state precisely how many tunnels are there. They cite how many passwords were attempted. But, there are key words which look innocent but, to a computer engineer, are very much a trigger.

These phrases are (our emphasis):

We noticed these tunnels were strategically placed to allow for tunnel rats to race to the sewer servers from three different states.

Now, to a normal person a rat is just that: a furry animal or a slang term for a scoundrel. But to a computer person, a rat is something radically different, a r.a.t. hack. The Remote Administration Tool hack is a method of remotely accessing a machine as if it were local. Using such a hack, you would have full access to the machine, at a level someone physically at the machine may not have. A “sewer server” is a term used to denote a hack over a secured tunnel, known as a Secured SHell (SSH), using a form of encryption designed to make it appear to be innocent background traffic.

This is not some general discussion, making claims in order to claim. They have released clear and specific details on what exactly was done, information which the people behind Orca can verify. Even more telling, however, is the name the group used for their denial of service attack:

The Great Oz

“Oz” refers to the land in the classic movie, The Wizard of Oz; more currently, it refers to the television show Oz,which is about a prison. And the actions the group took was to attempt to hack the election into jail, locking it away. It broke, absolutely. We reported on the failures of Orca and its public face earlier. What Anonymous is claiming is that Orca’s public face was a farce, a lie. It was not to coordinate poll challengers so much as to steal the election.

The little cherry on top, however, is the hint that Anonymous not only blocked the operation, but kept copies of the code and data from Orca and are planning on leaking it to wikilinks. If and when this happens, you know AI will be there.

Anonymous Warns GOP Not To Cheat

A few days ago I posted about a study that showed it is possible, even likely that the Republicans have been stealing votes for several years (through the use of electronic voting machines). It looks like the hacker group known as Anonymous has heard about that also, because they have issued a warning to Karl Rove and his Republican cohorts that they will not sit still for anyone stealing the upcoming election.

My friend and fellow blogger, Shaun at A Sane Break From The Insanity, has written an excellent post about this. Here is what he had to say:

I saw this today and knew that I just had to write about it.  On October 22nd, the legendary internet group "Anonymous" has put out a video claiming that the Republicans, specifically Karl Rove and his cronies, are going to try to rig the 2012 election. Here's the transcript:

"Karl Rove.  American Crossroads.  We are Anonymous.  We are watching you.  We know that you will attempt to rig the election of Mitt Romney to your favor.  We will watch as your merry band of conspirators try to achieve this overthrow of the United States government.  

"We see that you have taken steps to ensure that this election race is a close race, so you can step in and rig the numbers to elect your candidate, and then claim because it was a tight race, that your candidate was able to narrowly squeak ahead and win.  

"We want you to know that we are watching you, waiting for you to make the mistake of thinking you can rig this election to your favor.  We want you to know that if we catch you, we will turn over all of this data to the appropriate officials in the hopes that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  We are watching and monitoring all of your servers.  We are watching traffic on each of them for anything suspicious.  You will not get away with any fraud without consequences.  

"We are Anonymous.  We are Legion.  We do not forgive.  We do not forget.  Expect us."

Here's a little bit of information about Anonymous for those of you that aren't familiar, courtesy of Nathaniel Downes, a fellow writer at Addicting Info:

Anonymous members, well-known for their dismantling of pedophile rings, botnets and other illegal activities, operate as electronic vigilantes. They can and do break into systems and whisk away key evidence which has put criminals behind bars. And now, the antics of the GOP party bosses, such as Karl Rove and his American Crossroads organization, are in their sights.

Something people do not grasp about Anonymous is that it is not an organization in the traditional sense. In fact, it is not organized at all. Instead it is a case of applied anarchy, a conglomerate of similarly focused ideologies which cooperate when they have conforming interest. By the time a video like this appears, there is already a large pool of people with a common interest with their focus aligned.

There is no head, there are no leaders, there is no organization to dismantle. You cannot reason with them, bribe them, manipulate them, or threaten them. They are legion, their numbers incalculable. 

Many people are even part of Anonymous without ever realizing it, helping out a friend at the office with a tricky piece of code or an online friend who wants to know how to plug a hole in their firewall. This non-existence makes it impossible to address in a traditional manner.

They are, quite literally, anonymous.

Let me shoot some of your thoughts down right now.  If you're thinking that Anonymous can't possibly know that Karl Rove plans to rig the election, you're wrong.  It is possible that they are lying, yes. But it's also very likely that they have this information.

If you're thinking that there is no way to rig the elections then, again, you are wrong.  Very wrong.  Read this article about how retired NSA analyst Michael Duniho discovered actual proof of GOP election rigging thanks to what can be called an "electronic fingerprint."

And if you are thinking that GOP is going to get away with this, well, you're wrong there too.  Here's what you can do.  Spread awareness of this rigging, either by sharing this article (or finding others like it) on Facebook and Twitter (again, I make no money from this site so there's nothing in it for me).

You can also share the Anonymous video.

Aside from raising awareness, you can beat the GOP rigging machine by getting out to vote six days from now, on November 6th.  This is extremely important.  Do not let the Republican Party take our right to vote - our right to be heard! - away.  We have a voice, and we cannot let it be silenced.

Comment Policy

Some of the right-wing trolls that drop by every now and then may be wondering why their comments were never published on this blog. That's because I've had to put up with stupidity all my fairly long life and I just don't care to do it anymore. If your comment involved nothing more than some name-calling, it didn't get published. If it was racist, misogynistic, homophobic or contained another form of bigotry, it didn't get published.

Now that doesn't mean you can't disagree with me. I have a conservative commenter (yes, that's you Curious Texan) who comments here regularly and almost always disagrees with what I have said. But he is never guilty of the sins listed above, and always at least tries to make a sensible and coherent argument. I have no problem with that and always post his comments (even though he's usually wrong). In fact, I look forward to his comments.

But there is something else I have been thinking about for a while now. I don't get a lot of anonymous commenters, but I have to admit I don't like them. It makes me wonder why a person is even bothering to comment if they are so ashamed of what they're saying that they want to hide their identity. A commenter could at the very least have the courtesy to invent an internet pseudonym and use it when commenting.

So, starting today, I am no longer going to publish any comments from anyone identified as anonymous. You don't have to use your real name -- go to blogger and create an internet identity for yourself. It's easy. And it allows me and the readers to identify your comments and put them in the context of previous comments you have made.

You may not think that's fair. But it's my blog and that's the way it's going to be.