I don't see it. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that US intelligence agencies fabricate news for their own ends, but does the government really need to make an example of what happens to whistleblowers in this way? Is this the most logical way to do it if that were the case? Wolf's evidence is very weak. Basically, her strongest argument is that it could happen. Sounding prepared in your first interview to leak classified information doesn't seem suspicious to me. Maybe Wolf is the plant. :)
Potential whistleblowers are more than aware of what happens to them. This doesn't pass the smell test to me. Under Naomi's hypotheses, the intended audience for this government sponsored charade isn't yet adequately aware of the message they are trying to send. In reality, they are the ones tying to educate everybody else on the very message imo. There is a long history of this, but if you're not familiar and/or you lack the ability to soak in the obvious, you still don't have to look any further than Assange.but does the government really need to make an example of what happens to whistleblowers in this way?