The name “Sarah Adams CIA” erupts across social media feeds and online forums like a cryptic signal from the shadows. It’s a phrase that feels both official and deeply mysterious, conjuring images of a lone whistleblower, hidden documents, and earth-shattering secrets waiting to be exposed. For countless users on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), the story is tantalizingly simple: a woman named Sarah Adams CIA, purportedly a Central Intelligence Agency operative, is on the run, using her social media accounts to leak classified information to the public. The narrative is compelling, packaged with the aesthetics of a modern-day thriller. But when you pull back the curtain, what you find is a far more complex and revealing story about the nature of truth in the digital age. The saga of Sarah Adams is not a spy novel come to life; it is a powerful case study in how misinformation is born, how it spreads, and why we are so eager to believe it. This deep dive isn’t just about debunking a myth; it’s about understanding the machinery behind it, exploring the very real history of CIA whistleblowers for context, and learning how to navigate a landscape where fiction and reality are increasingly difficult to distinguish.
The allure of the Sarah Adams CIA story is undeniable. It taps into a deep-seated and often justified public skepticism toward powerful institutions. When people feel that official channels are not transparent, they turn to alternative narratives. The idea of a brave insider risking everything to reveal the “real truth” is a powerful archetype, one that has been romanticized in countless books and films. The Sarah Adams myth fits perfectly into this mold. It offers a sense of insider knowledge, a feeling of being “in the know” about something the mainstream media is supposedly ignoring. Furthermore, the story is perfectly tailored for the social media era. It’s visual, shareable, and emotionally charged. Short videos with ominous music and captions urging viewers to “share before it’s deleted” create a sense of urgency and communal secrecy. This digital ecosystem provides the perfect petri dish for such a narrative to grow, mutate, and spread globally at an astonishing speed, far outpacing the slower, more methodical processes of fact-checking and verification.
The Origin Story of a Digital Phantom
Tracing the precise origin of the Sarah Adams CIA narrative is like trying to find the source of a river after it has already flooded a plain. The story doesn’t have a single, clear point of emergence. Instead, it seems to have coalesced from a confluence of unrelated online elements, memes, and creative fiction that were later misinterpreted and woven into a cohesive, though false, whole. The most common version of the myth began gaining significant traction in late 2022 and early 2023, primarily on TikTok. Users began posting videos that featured screenshots of an Instagram account belonging to a woman namedSarah Adams CIA. These posts claimed that this account was a dead drop for classified information, with seemingly innocuous posts about travel, art, and daily life containing coded messages about CIA operations, geopolitical events, and impending societal collapse.
The content was a masterclass in ambiguous storytelling. A photo of a coffee cup could be interpreted as a signal about a meeting location. A post about a “storm coming” was seen as a prophecy of a major false flag event. A painting shared on her story was analyzed for hidden symbols. This process, known as pareidolia—the human tendency to find patterns and meaning in random or vague stimuli—is a key driver of conspiracy theories. The audience became active participants in the myth-making, their own interpretations adding new layers of “evidence” to the growing legend. The woman behind the Instagram account, a private citizen with no connection to the intelligence community, found herself at the center of an international firestorm, her digital life dissected by thousands of strangers convinced she was a secret agent. This is the human cost of such viral myths: a real person whose life was upended by a fictional narrative.
The evolution of the story showcases the collaborative nature of online misinformation. No single person likely sat down and invented the entire Sarah Adams CIA saga with malicious intent. It began, in part, with creative writing. Some early mentions of a character named “Sarah Adams CIA” in intelligence-related contexts appear in online forums and fictional storytelling platforms, where users craft elaborate alternate reality games (ARGs) and narrative threads. These fictional tales, often presented in a realistic style, were then screenshot and shared out of context. On platforms where entertainment and reality blur, these fragments were taken at face value. Furthermore, the name “Sarah Adams CIA” itself is common enough to be plausible, yet distinct enough to be searchable, making it an ideal vessel for a viral story. As the narrative gained momentum, it was amplified by influencers in the conspiracy and true crime spheres, who added their own speculative commentary, lending an air of authority to the baseless claims and introducing it to ever-larger audiences.
Deconstructing the Myth: Why Sarah Adams Isn’t a CIA Whistleblower
When subjected to even basic scrutiny, the core claims of the Sarah Adams CIA story begin to unravel with remarkable speed. The first and most definitive red flag is the behavior attributed to her. The Central Intelligence Agency is one of the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering organizations on the planet. Its training for operatives, especially those working under non-official cover (NOC), is exhaustive, focusing on tradecraft, secrecy, and operational security. The idea that a trained CIA officer would use a public, personal Instagram account—a platform owned by Meta, a company whose data practices are well-documented—to leak world-altering classified information is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. Real whistleblowing, as history has shown, involves secure channels, encrypted communication, and careful planning. It does not involve posting cryptic captions on a photo of a sunset for millions to see.
The second major point of debunking lies in the identity of the actual Sarah Adams CIA. The individual at the heart of the viral storm is a private citizen. Investigations by journalists and open-source intelligence researchers have consistently shown that she has no verifiable ties to the U.S. government or the intelligence community. She appears to be an ordinary person who had the misfortune of having her social media profile mistaken for a spy’s dead drop. The “evidence” presented by believers of the myth consistently falls apart upon closer examination. A travel photo is just a travel photo. A vague quote is just a vague quote. The entire narrative is built on a foundation of subjective interpretation, confirmation bias, and a willful disregard for Occam’s Razor—the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation here is that a private citizen’s social media account was hijacked by a runaway online narrative.
Beyond the logical fallacies, the response from official channels, though typically limited, has also indicated the story’s falsehood. While the CIA does not comment on every internet rumor, the complete absence of any credible journalistic outlet corroborating the story is telling. Major news organizations have extensive networks of sources within the intelligence community. If a CIA operative were genuinely on the run and leaking information via Instagram, it would be a story of immense magnitude, rivaling the leaks of Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. The fact that no reputable news source has picked up the thread, despite its viral popularity online, is a powerful testament to its fictional nature. The silence from the corridors of power and the press isn’t a confirmation of the conspiracy; it’s a reflection of the story’s lack of substance.
The Anatomy of a Modern Myth: How Misinformation Goes Viral
The success of the Sarah Adams CIA story is not an accident; it is the product of a digital environment perfectly engineered for the rapid spread of sensational content. Understanding the mechanics behind its virality is key to immunizing oneself against future misinformation campaigns. The first ingredient is emotional resonance. The story taps into potent emotions: fear, curiosity, and a sense of rebellion. It frames the viewer as a brave truth-seeker fighting against a sinister, opaque system. This emotional hook is far more powerful than dry, factual information, making the content highly engaging and shareable. People share things that make them feel something, and the Sarah Adams CIA narrative is a potent cocktail of intrigue and alarm.
The second key mechanic is the algorithmic amplification inherent in social media platforms. Algorithms on sites like TikTok, YouTube, and X are designed to maximize user engagement. They prioritize content that keeps people on the platform, watching, clicking, and sharing. Sensational conspiracy theories like the Sarah Adams CIA saga are incredibly effective at driving this engagement. They create rabbit holes of related content, where one video leads to another, each adding a new layer of speculation. The platforms’ content-recommendation engines, often operating with minimal human oversight, actively push these narratives to new audiences, creating a feedback loop that can turn a niche rumor into a global phenomenon in a matter of days.
Finally, the myth thrives due to the erosion of trust in traditional institutions. In an era where public confidence in government, media, and science has declined for many, alternative explanations gain traction. When people don’t trust the official story, they become susceptible to unofficial ones, no matter how outlandish. The Sarah Adams CIA narrative positions itself as the “real” story that “they” don’t want you to know. This us-versus-them dynamic is a classic feature of conspiracy thinking and creates a strong in-group identity among believers. Sharing and decoding the “clues” becomes a social activity, a way of belonging to a community of enlightened individuals who see through the lies of the mainstream world.
The Role of Aesthetics and Ambiguity
The visual and textual presentation of the Sarah Adams CIA myth played a crucial role in its believability. The aesthetic was often a moody, cinematic blend of real news clips, stock footage of government buildings, and the soft, personal glow of Instagram story screenshots. This juxtaposition lent a documentary-like gravity to the claims. The creators of these videos expertly used music and editing to create a sense of paranoia and urgency. A slow, haunting piano track or a pulsing, tense synth wave could transform a mundane social media post into a piece of compelling evidence. The production value, while often amateur, was just good enough to feel intentional and persuasive.
Furthermore, the entire narrative was built on ambiguity. The “clues” were never explicit. They were always open to interpretation. This is a critical feature of such myths, as it makes them unfalsifiable. If a believer points to a post and says it predicts an earthquake, and no earthquake occurs, the failure is explained away—”We misinterpreted the code,” or “The plans were changed because we discovered them.” This shifting of goalposts ensures the theory can never be truly disproven in the eyes of its adherents. The lack of concrete details about Sarah Adams CIA specific role, her targets, or the exact nature of the information she was leaking also worked in the myth’s favor. Vagueness allows the story to be all things to all people, adaptable enough to fit any new geopolitical event or personal suspicion.
Real CIA Whistleblowers: A Historical Context
To fully understand why the Sarah Adams CIA story is a fantasy, it is helpful to examine the profiles and experiences of genuine CIA whistleblowers. These individuals did not leak information through social media puzzles; they acted through specific, high-stakes channels, and their lives were irrevocably changed as a result. Their stories are not glamorous thrillers; they are sobering tales of moral conflict, legal battles, and personal sacrifice. Comparing the myth of Sarah Adams CIA to the reality of these figures highlights the vast chasm between internet fiction and historical fact.
One of the most famous cases is that of Philip Agee, a CIA case officer who became disillusioned with the agency’s activities during the Cold War. In 1975, he published Inside the Company: CIA Diary, a book that named hundreds of alleged CIA officers and agents and detailed numerous covert operations. Agee did not post cryptic messages online; he wrote a detailed, damning book and worked with journalists. His actions led to a fierce backlash from the U.S. government, which revoked his passport and allegedly targeted him for harassment. His life after blowing the whistle was one of exile and constant legal and personal struggle, a far cry from the curated, adventurous existence imagined for Sarah Adams CIA.
Another pivotal figure is Frank Snepp, a CIA intelligence analyst during the Vietnam War. Disturbed by what he saw as the agency’s negligence during the fall of Saigon, he wrote a critical account in his book Decent Interval. He published it without submitting it to the CIA’s Publications Review Board for pre-approval, breaching the secrecy agreement he had signed. The U.S. government took him to the Supreme Court in the landmark case Snepp v. United States. The court ruled against him, establishing that intelligence agents have a fiduciary duty to their agency and that all their writings must be pre-cleared. Snepp was forced to forfeit all his earnings from the book. His story is one of legal precedent and the severe financial and professional consequences of bypassing official channels.
The Modern Era: Snowden, Manning, and Kiriakou
The 21st century introduced a new paradigm for whistleblowing, leveraging digital tools, but the methods were still a world away from Instagram stories. Edward Snowden, a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), not the CIA, collected a massive trove of documents revealing global surveillance programs. His process was one of extreme digital caution, using encrypted communications to contact journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. He did not dribble out information slowly; he provided a vast archive to trusted media outlets for responsible publication. The result was his immediate identification and life as a fugitive in Russia. The scale, method, and consequence of Snowden’s actions demonstrate the gravity of true whistleblowing.
Similarly, Chelsea Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, provided a huge cache of classified documents to WikiLeaks. She used sophisticated means to download the data, understanding the immense risk. Her actions led to her arrest, court-martial, and imprisonment. The case of John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, is also instructive. He was the first CIA official to confirm the existence of the agency’s waterboarding program and to publicly label it as torture. He did this in a television interview with ABC News. However, his conviction and imprisonment stemmed from another action: confirming the name of a fellow officer to a reporter, a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This highlights the precise legal boundaries and severe penalties that govern the intelligence world, boundaries the Sarah Adams CIA story completely ignores.
The following table provides a clear comparison between the fictional archetype and the reality of whistleblowing:
| Feature | The “Sarah Adams” Myth | Historical Whistleblowers |
| Method of Leak | Public social media posts (Instagram) with “coded” messages. | Books, major news organizations (NYT, Washington Post), dedicated leak platforms (WikiLeaks). |
| Content | Vague, apocalyptic predictions, unverifiable claims. | Specific documents, cables, and evidence detailing programs, operations, or misconduct. |
| Verifiability | Based on subjective interpretation; no concrete evidence. | Based on published, primary source documents that can be analyzed by experts. |
| Outcome for Leaker | Glamorized, mysterious “on the run” narrative. | Arrest, imprisonment, exile, loss of career, lengthy legal battles, public vilification. |
| Media Coverage | Confined to social media and fringe conspiracy sites. | Global, front-page news in major reputable publications. |
The Psychological Pull of Conspiracy Theories
Why do stories like the Sarah Adams CIA narrative hold such a powerful sway over so many people? The answer lies deep within human psychology. Conspiracy theories, at their core, are a coping mechanism. They serve fundamental psychological needs, providing explanations for complex and often frightening events. In a world that can feel random and chaotic, a conspiracy theory imposes order. It replaces the unsettling idea that bad things happen by chance with the more comforting notion that they are the result of a controlled, intentional plan. Even if the plan is evil, the sense of agency and predictability can be less terrifying than sheer randomness.
These theories also fulfill a deep need for belonging and shared identity. Believing in a common “truth” that the rest of society rejects creates a strong in-group bond. The community of “truth-seekers” or “awakened” individuals provides social validation and a sense of purpose. Decoding the clues about Sarah Adams CIA becomes a shared project, a way to connect with others and feel part of a special group fighting for a noble cause. This social dimension is powerfully amplified by the internet, which allows geographically dispersed individuals to find each other and reinforce their beliefs in echo chambers where their views are constantly validated and rarely challenged.
Furthermore, conspiracy theories often boost the self-esteem of the believer. They create a narrative in which the believer is a brave, intelligent, and perceptive hero, someone who can see what the “sheeple” cannot. This feeling of intellectual superiority is a powerful draw. It transforms a person from a passive observer of world events into an active, important investigator on the front lines of a secret war. The Sarah Adams CIA story, with its requirement to “decode” hidden messages, makes participants feel smart and perceptive, a stark contrast to the feeling of powerlessness one might experience when confronting the actual, complex problems of the modern world.
The Role of Cognitive Biases
Our brains are wired with mental shortcuts known as cognitive biases, which can make us particularly susceptible to conspiracy thinking. Two are especially relevant to the Sarah Adams CIA phenomenon: confirmation bias and proportionality bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. A person who already distrusts the government will see a vague post from Sarah Adams CIA and immediately interpret it as proof of their distrust, while ignoring all the more likely, mundane explanations. They will actively seek out videos and forums that support this view, creating a self-reinforcing loop of “evidence.”
Proportionality bias is the feeling that a big, significant event must have a big, significant cause. It is psychologically difficult for people to accept that a major historical event, a pandemic, or a economic crisis could be the result of a complex mix of small, mundane, or accidental factors. The idea that a global event is being masterminded by a secretive cabal of elites, and that a lone Sarah Adams CIA2 whistleblower like Sarah Adams CIA is bravely opposing them, feels more proportionate and satisfying than the messy, multicausal reality. This bias makes grand conspiracy narratives more appealing and easier to believe than the complicated, and often unsatisfying, truth.
How to Spot and Debunk Online Misinformation
In an ecosystem flooded with content like the Sarah Adams CIA story, developing critical thinking skills is not just an intellectual exercise; it is a necessary form of digital self-defense. The first and most crucial step is to interrogate the source. Where is the information coming from? Is it an anonymous Sarah Adams CIA TikTok account, a known conspiracy website, or a reputable news organization with a history of fact-checking and accountability? Always be skeptical of claims that originate from sources that lack transparency, have a clear agenda, or are known to peddle in sensationalism. Check if the story is being reported by multiple, independent, and credible outlets. If it’s only circulating in fringe corners of the internet, that is a major red flag.
The second step is to look for primary evidence. The Sarah Adams CIA story was built entirely on secondary interpretation—people saying that her posts were coded, without any primary documents, official records, or firsthand testimony to back it up. Real investigative journalism uncovers primary sources: documents, emails, financial records, and on-the-record interviews. Ask yourself: “What is the hard evidence here?” If the entire case is built on speculation about the meaning of a coffee cup in a photo, it is almost certainly not true. Demand verifiable facts, not just compelling interpretations.
Finally, apply logic and Occam’s Razor. Weigh the claims being made against what you know about how the world works. Is it more likely that the CIA, an agency obsessed with secrecy, would have an operative leak its most sensitive secrets via a public Instagram account, or that a private person’s social media has been misinterpreted by an online community? The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is usually the correct one. Also, be wary of narratives that seem to explain everything. The mark of a weak theory is its ability to be twisted to fit any outcome. A strong theory makes specific, testable predictions. The Sarah Adams CIA myth, like many conspiracy theories, was fluid and adaptable, a sign of its intellectual bankruptcy.
Cultivating Healthy Skepticism
Navigating the modern information landscape requires a stance of healthy skepticism—which is different from cynical disbelief. Healthy skepticism means being open to new information but requiring a high standard of proof before accepting it as true. It means questioning both the official narrative and the alternative ones. It involves checking your own biases and asking, “Why do I want this to be true?” The emotional appeal of a story can be a clue that you should be extra vigilant. When you feel a strong pull of curiosity, fear, or excitement, that is the moment to pause and engage your critical thinking skills before hitting the share button.
Developing a habit of fact-checking is also essential. Use tools like reverse image search to verify if photos are being used in the correct context. Consult established fact-checking websites like Snopes, PolitiFact, or the AP Fact Check when you encounter a sensational claim. And perhaps most importantly, be patient. Misinformation spreads quickly because it is designed to trigger an immediate emotional and sharing response. Truth is often slower, more complex, and less exciting. By slowing down our own consumption and sharing habits, we can help break the cycle of viral falsehoods and become more responsible citizens of the digital world.
“The digital age has not created our propensity for conspiracy; it has merely supercharged it, providing a global megaphone for our oldest fears and a mirror for our deepest distrust.” – Anonymously sourced from a digital culture researcher.
The Lasting Impact of the Sarah Adams Phenomenon
While the Sarah Adams CIA story is a fabrication, its impact on the digital landscape and the individuals involved is very real. For the private citizen whose identity was co-opted by the myth, the consequences were likely terrifying and invasive. Having thousands of people dissecting your personal life, sending you messages, and making wild accusations based on a complete fiction is a profound violation of privacy. This highlights a dark side of online “investigation”—the complete disregard for the human beings who become collateral damage in the pursuit of a compelling narrative. The story serves as a stark warning about the potential for real-world harm that can spring from viral online fantasies.
On a broader scale, the persistence of myths like this one contributes to the further erosion of public trust. When people invest emotionally and intellectually in a false narrative and then eventually discover it was a hoax, the resulting disillusionment can be profound. This often does not lead them back to reliable sources of information, but rather deeper into the arms of other conspiracy theories, Sarah Adams CIA reinforcing a generalized distrust of all institutions, including those that are actually working to report the truth. This creates a more fractured, cynical, and difficult-to-govern society, where shared facts are scarce and common ground is eroded.
However, the phenomenon is not without a potential silver lining. The Sarah Adams CIA saga can be seen as a canary in the coal mine, a vivid and accessible case study that educators, journalists, and researchers can use to teach media literacy. It encapsulates so many elements of modern misinformation—the role of social media algorithms, the power of aesthetic presentation, the psychological drivers of belief—in one neat package. By analyzing why and how so many people believed in Sarah Adams CIA, we can better equip ourselves to identify and resist the next viral falsehood. It provides a concrete example to which we can apply critical thinking tools, making the abstract problem of misinformation feel more tangible and manageable.
A Template for Future Myths
The structure of the Sarah Adams CIA story has effectively created a template that can be, and likely will be, reused for future myths. The formula is potent: a seemingly ordinary social media account, a claim of hidden identity (government agent, time traveler, prophet), ambiguous posts open to interpretation, and a community dedicated to “decoding” the truth. We should expect to see variations on this theme emerge, perhaps with different names, different platforms, and different alleged secrets. Understanding the anatomy of this specific myth gives us a predictive advantage. When we see these elements starting to coalesce around a new figure or story, we can recognize the pattern early and approach it with the skepticism it deserves.
The story also forces a conversation about the responsibilities of social media platforms. The algorithms that promoted the Sarah Adams CIA content were not malicious; they were simply optimizing for engagement without any consideration for truth or real-world harm. This case adds weight to the growing calls for more ethical algorithm design, better content moderation, and features that promote context and fact-checking. While the solutions are complex, the widespread recognition of the damage that can be done by such viral fiction is a necessary first step toward demanding change from the powerful tech companies that shape our information environment.
The Quest for Meaning in a Digital World
At its heart, the Sarah Adams CIA phenomenon is about a very human quest for meaning and agency. The individuals who became engrossed in the story were not necessarily foolish or gullible; they were often people searching for a deeper understanding of a confusing world. The myth offered a sense of purpose, community, and intellectual challenge. This points to a deeper societal need that is not being met. In an age of information overload, political polarization, and complex global challenges, people are hungry for narratives that make sense of the chaos and make them feel like active participants in the story of their time.
The challenge for responsible communicators—journalists, educators, leaders, and even Sarah Adams CIA everyday social media users—is to find ways to meet this need for meaning without resorting to fiction. This means telling true stories in more compelling ways, explaining complexity without oversimplifying, and creating communities built on shared positive values rather than shared enemies or suspicions. It means fostering a digital public square that rewards truth, nuance, and constructive dialogue over sensationalism and outrage. The failure of our current information ecosystem to do this is what created the vacuum that the Sarah Adams myth so effectively filled.
Conclusion
The tangled web of the “Sarah Adams CIA” narrative is a definitive story of our time. It is a saga that began not in the halls of Langley but in the fertile, unregulated imagination of the internet, demonstrating the powerful allure of a well-told story, even when that story is a complete fiction. Our journey through this phenomenon has taken us from the initial spark of a misinterpreted Sarah Adams CIA social media account, through the mechanics of its viral spread, and into the deep psychological needs it fulfilled for its believers. We have contrasted this digital phantom with the sobering realities of genuine whistleblowing, individuals who faced profound consequences for their actions, a world away from the glamorized “on-the-run” fantasy. The Sarah Adams CIA story is not really about the CIA; it is about us—our fears, our desire for community, our cognitive biases, and our struggle to find truth in an ocean of information.
The legacy of this viral myth is a double-edged sword. On one side, it represents a concerning victory for misinformation, showcasing how easily a baseless narrative can capture global attention, invade a private citizen’s life, and further corrode public trust. It serves as a stark reminder of the real-world harm that can emanate from the digital realm. Yet, on the other side, it provides an invaluable, almost textbook-perfect case study. By deconstructing the Sarah Adams CIA myth, we can learn to recognize the patterns of future falsehoods. We can better understand the roles of algorithmic amplification, Sarah Adams CIA emotional resonance, and community formation in the spread of misinformation. This knowledge is power. It equips us to be more critical consumers of content, to ask better questions, and to pause before we share. In the end, the most effective antidote to the next “Sarah Adams CIA” is not a fact-check after the fact, but a populace educated and resilient enough to spot the myth before it ever takes hold.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there any truth to the Sarah Adams CIA story?
No, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that a CIA operative named Sarah Adams CIA used her Instagram account to leak classified information. The story has been thoroughly debunked by journalists and open-source investigators. The individual at the center of the storm is a private citizen with no known connections to the intelligence community, and the “coded messages” are examples of pareidolia and confirmation bias, where people find patterns and meaning in random or ambiguous information.
Why did so many people believe the Sarah Adams CIA story?
People believed the story for a combination of psychological and technological reasons. Psychologically, the narrative tapped into existing distrust of governments and institutions, provided a sense of purpose and community for “truth-seekers,” and made believers feel perceptive and intelligent. Technologically, social media algorithms amplified the sensational content, creating rabbit holes that reinforced the belief system. The story’s visual presentation and ambiguous “clues” also made it highly engaging and open to personal interpretation, which strengthened individual investment in the myth.
What is the difference between Sarah Adams CIA and a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden?
The differences are fundamental. Real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden provide vast archives of verifiable, primary source documents to established journalistic organizations. Their actions involve immense personal risk, secure communication methods, and lead to serious consequences like exile or imprisonment. The Sarah Adams CIA myth, in contrast, involved no verifiable documents, used an insecure public platform, and presented only vague, unverifiable predictions. The outcomes were also different: Snowden lives in exile, while the Sarah Adams CIA story resulted in internet fame and the harassment of an innocent person.
