Because she so clearly wants attention. It’s an impression from the video and the bullet points. Go back and watch how she argues. It’s very much driven by emotion (her motives and my reaction). I wish I could snapily prove my point, but… well, I don’t trust the feds and my gut still went sour on this story. I don’t like that woman. Have you watched that video?
The first bullet point was about “wheels up; rings off”, which is not about anything illegal. If that’s the strongest point in the list, it’s a waste of time. It’s gossip, not hard-hitting journalism. It’s a vague accusation with no evidence. She talks about experiencing bad things in her “search for the truth” without providing a concrete example. There are no specifics in the whole piece.
Look at this:
"Why this matters
One word here: blackmail.
Misbehaving agents are put at risk, and to protect their careers they could be blackmailed, putting those they protect in an unforeseen vulnerability."
Garbage. Star Trek: Into Darkness had a more plausible plot about compromising trusted officials. Should we fire an agent for having a sick daughter?
Of course the question of why this matters had to be addressed, because it wasn’t self-evident. “Why I wrote this - because I needed 1,000 words for Monday morning” would probably be more accurate.
