in just prosecutions. in the past, we have all supported whistleblowers and sources. we raised over $100,000 for chelsea manning's legal defense and supported, straight and edward snowden and others. we will do everything we can in this case to support reality winner, even aware of no idea whether she is the source for this story. obviously, we are constrained because we are involved in the story because we are the ones who the government accuses of having leaked to us. it is difficult for us to say anything beyond what betsy read

said, which is that we made mistakes on our handling of the story, but are constrained to say more. the one thing i would suggest is everything known publicly about this story, about what she did, what we did, comes from the trump justice department and from the fbi. the claims they made in the context of a criminal case. i would just urge everybody not to treat those claims as though they are the unvarnished truth. notity winner has pleaded guilty. there will be a trial. there are things in the fbi's affidavit that are unproven or untrue. so while we certainly may mistakes as betsy reed said, it is important to apply skepticism to the claims of the trump justice department, of all people. nermeen: can you comment on your recent piece on rachel maddow about a fake nsa document you which raises several

key questions for study article dealt with this episode on the show last week. >> this is what i mean by an inside-out scoop. , for some reason, appears to be shopping a fairly convincing fake nsa document that purports to directly implicate somebody from the trump campaign in working with the russians on their attack on the election. it is a forgery. it is either a forgery or everything will national security official we consulted about this story is wrong about it. nermeen: can you talk about what you discussed in your piece and what mistakes -- how they believe this i loosely forged document -- how they believed this obviously forged document? rachel spent 21 minutes of her show touting this extraordinarily fascinating story that she called and exclusive. and in the introduction that you just played and many times the

other segment, she depicted this forced document that she received as being this masterfully crafted highly sophisticated fake because she strongly implied over and over that the person who forged this document came from the trump administration in an attempt to trick her into running a story that ended up being fake. the reality is, we have spoken with the person who actually did the forgery. he sent that same document to buzzfeed. does feed went online and said, we got the same document as maddow. there was one small difference. it they said, we got the same document and instantly realized it was a joke, it was in obvious fake that nobody ever would've taken seriously. to the extent that rachel was making the point that media outlets should be careful when 70 anonymously sent them a document that is -- somebody anonymously sent them a document that might be fake, that is a

perfectly fine point to make, i guess, but i think all news outlet already know they have to be careful with documents that they get sent to them in the mail when authenticating them. i don't we needed 21 minutes of rachel saying that. i think the concern we had about the story is she strongly implied whoever got this document and forged it got it before we actually published it online. she was saying the metadata of the document shows whoever created the forgery based on the document we published got it prior to our publication of it, which went have meant only summit in the trump government or the intercept could have been the one to have forged it and sent it to her. that was a misreading of the metadata. the metadata shows whoever sent it to her got interactive the from our site once we published it. in fact, the person who forged it, he said he took it from our site, put it into a photoshop program and it took him all of 10 minutes to erase our text and enter the text he erased. we published the documents are

everyone can see it. it is a valid warning from rachel maddow to make sure we authenticate document as journalists we get in the mail, but i don't to get merited the strong any wonder that this is some highly sophisticated operation on the part of some high-level trump official to publishingedia into false stories. amy: just to be clear, because it is hard to follow this when you talk about metadata, you are talking about the document you posted online from an anonymous source, which many are saying was reality winner talking about voter information that was leaked, that that piece of paper that showed where it came from -- this is the whole controversy around the intercept posting the original online -- this forger took and then replaced the words on the document with some he wanted to see if he could get out there and and you said, did in all of 10 minutes. >> right.

he took the intercept document once we published it, erased the text but kept the format so it would look like a top-secret nsa document, and entered some cartoonish text about how the nsa heard the campaign manager talking to the russians about how to distribute emails hacked from podesta to wikileaks, basically, what would be nsausion, and having the purport to of her the trump campaign manager say that the videotape from the steele dossier was authentic. it would be the biggest story ever, but it was so i loosely fabricated. -- obviously fabricated. stamp was a few hours before we publish. that made her think that they got it before we published. the confusion was the date and time on the document is not the date and time we published it, but the date and time we

uploaded it to the internet, which matched perfectly the date and time on the document we published. it was clear the person who sent it to her did not get a before we published and did not have special access, but got it when we put it online. that was the primary point of the article. said in betsy reed internal review has been conducted at the intercept to see how the identity of the alleged leaker was revealed. so what did the internal review show about what mistakes the intercept made? anything were than could take that internal review and put it online. the problem is, lawyers, our lawyers and others, have warned if we disclose information about the internal processes of our reporting, there is a risk the government could use some of that information or try to use it to bolster their prosecution of reality winner. the last thing we want to do or should do is say anything or do anything that further jeopardizes this person, who is

the accusations against her are correct, was simply acting as a person of conscience trying to disclose to the public information that she felt was newsworthy. so we're not going to do that. amy: glenn greenwald, they are being with >> organizing in a trump and

amaz world. new concentrations of power are bringing forth new models of resistance. this week on the show, cathy milianand sabino discuss the targeting of activists and immigration sweeps . we will hear how low-wage warehouse workers are raising the floor, coming up on the laura flanders s