Here is my take; speculative but I think worth considering. The US (((structure))) are masters at owning all the players in play. If they don't own 'em, then their names are barely spoken. So, sadly Daniel Elsberg is likely owned despite his universal appeal. Which is why it's interesting when the media compares the two. Snowden? Keep this in mind.

Whatever the case, hero or agent of the state, Wikileaks is a repository for documents of scandal and even criminal acts. Which means, submit your really hot docs to Wikileaks and risk tipping off the deep state as they clearly would be scanning submissions and taking action accordingly. Consider this. Maybe an earth shattering leak WAS submitted and both the evidence and the submitter were eliminated?! Very possible and must be considered.

Enter Pam Anderson. I was as much or more disturbed by her entrance. My mind turned twice and just cut out. Decided it was best forgotten, which seems to be what most people did. That very dismissal now gives me pause. Someone pondered whether Pam was CIA. Whether the CIA overseas or many agencies in the US, you will become an unofficial employee if they want you for some reason. I'm totally divided on what role Pam is playing.

Lastly, in defense of Wikileaks; I've seen no proof they or Assange is authentic like I know I am. I have been very impressed with both their practices and the content of Assange's tweets, and that goes a long way. Ultimately, from personal experience the most successful way I've found to operate a Wikileaks type operation involves a well formulated operational and security plan and liberal attempts at creative tactics, which the deep state frustratingly fails at. Ultimately then, were Pam the messenger for positive groups working to make big moves, it doesn't surprise me that there's no evidence of it.

The only thing I feel almost sure of is that Pam isn't in play to bring Assange lunch and the box set of Bay Watch.

Pam? Was up, gurl?