You earlier spoke of proving a negative; by easy to prove, I meant that this is a positive, and an existence proof is sufficient.
If something was leaked, but noone can point to it, or the consequences of it, is it really leaked?
The way you phrase your sentence about Glenn Greenwald, you seem to imply that I should know something about him. What are you imputing?
It also seems an ad hominem attack. I cited the article as reason to doubt the Wired story; but the article should be attacked on its own merits. And the reason to doubt the leak of TS cables is because I haven't seen evidence that they've been leaked. The video certainly was leaked - I saw it - but I've seen not a peep of these alleged cables.
It doesn't make any sense. Why would a 22-year old kid have access to thousands of top-secret cables? Why should we trust an attention-seeking ex-convict who says he had an IM with a leaker who spontaneously contacted him for the first time ever (randomly choosing him from twitter #wikileaks, of all things), and boasted to him that he leaked such cables? When Wikileaks denies that they have such cables?
When these stories come up in the news, who benefits?
