Once you go down that rabbit hole of self-referential accusations and 'proofs' you might as well ask which strand of "the spider's web" 40hz represents for merely posting such a link? (Since there's every chance he didn't "merely" post it.)
You can't really believe that think tanks sponsor organisations with no agenda. That's what they do.
And a think tank like Brookings?
While it may sound paranoid, when you start looking in closer detail, there are clear connections.
The same names of the same people keep coming up again and again. (Which is why I mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski as he keeps popping up all over.)
There are clear connections between Brookings and other organisations and individuals. Denying that is just silly as they are established facts. Asking about what Brookings expects from its investment in Lawfare is a legitimate question.
Asking about consumers though... that's a bit of a stretch. What I can see there is:
A) 40hz reads Lawfare
B) 40hz reads Popehat
C) Both Lawfare & Popehat are legal blogs/web sites
D) 40hz probably enjoys reading legal blogs/web sites
And, as a bonus:
E) 40hz probably enjoys SCOTUS blog
& Courthouse News
(or would if he doesn't already)
D & E are reasonable assumptions, but certainly not guaranteed.
What would be a stretch there is to assume that you like BCND
or Cop Block
because the nature of those deviates significantly from Popehat & Lawfare.
However, with established relationships like with Brookings & Lawfare, it's certainly reasonable to assume that Lawfare gets people aligned with its vision (which is supported by Brookings) to post articles. There *IS* a relationship there.
Now, whether the article is significant there, I don't know, as I pointed out above.
I'm not dividing by zero. I'm simply looking at the obvious relationships and wondering what is going on and what the motivations are.
What would be silly is asking what established relationships Mark Potok has to Brookings in this context. I wouldn't rule out that there is a relationship because there are a lot of incestuous relationships between think tanks & organisations like that which Mark Potok speaks for. But in this context, it makes no sense.
There are some interesting questions raised by other whistle blowers and geo-political analysts about Edward Snowden. (I'm relatively certain that very few people here have heard any of their questions. I know there is at least 1 person here who might have heard their line of questions.) I raise some of the questions I have above because this is indeed a very complicated spider's web of treachery, deceit, and treason. There is a conspiracy going on here. It's not a theory. We have facts & documentation of it now.
Many whistle blowers in the past have brought up exactly what Snowden has proved so far. So, is this new information? No. Not at all. The only difference now is our confidence in that information.
We have yet to see any really big revelations come out of the Snowden leaks. That's going to piss off some people, but that's how it is.
William (Bill) Binney - worth looking into.
Sibel Edmonds - worth looking into.
Snowden is just one piece on the board. Pawn? Knight? Bishop? He had a blistering hot girl friend
, so we know he wasn't a Queen.
But no matter what, he's rooked!