Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 600 posts

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#501

Post by drak0n1c »

root_axis wrote: post #410
mieseratte wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years of investigation and nothing. Yet you insist we're willfully blind? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?

Claiming that the investigations yielded nothing is frustratingly dishonest. The conclusion of the Mueller report was that the president would have been indicted if it weren't for a standing policy that the president cannot be indicted.

Mueller clarified in his final hearing that he misspoke when answering Lieu's earlier question and stated that the OLC policy you describe was not a deciding factor. Video is embedded in the below PBS link.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifie...

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#502

Post by drak0n1c »

rapind wrote: post #404
mieseratte wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years of investigation and nothing. Yet you insist we're willfully blind? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?

Not sure I would call it "nothing". If Trump could have been indicted (OLC opinion to blame here), it's likely he would have been for obstruction of justice. https://youtu.be/1G9cB4vk7Go?t=31 Also keep in mind how many associates have been indicted. Is it possible that they acted alone without direction or influence from Trump? Sure. Plausible? Not to me. Also, a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure it was 2 years not 3 year…

Mueller clarified in his final hearing that he misspoke when answering Lieu's earlier question and stated that the OLC policy you describe was not a deciding factor. Video is embedded in the below PBS link.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifie...

Regarding indictments -- staff indictments were for unrelated crimes, and the indicted foreign entities were found to be unconnected to the campaign. The legal system cares about deductive logic, not inductive.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#503

Post by lern_too_spel »

drak0n1c wrote: post #496
lern_too_spel wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report. > Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign…

Conservatives are not offered the opportunity to review or edit articles about them beforehand by these same outlets. The standard is to reach out for comment, not for permission or editorial review.

> Conservatives are not offered the opportunity to review or edit articles about them beforehand by these same outlets.

Clinton's team was not offered the opportunity to edit or review the articles either. They were sent articles about the costs of policy proposals to respond with their own numbers. If you think this is out of the ordinary or that conservatives don't get the same consideration, what do you think " did not immediately respond to requests for comment" means at the end of news articles?

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#504

Post by jessaustin »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #495
jessaustin wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every corrupt organization keeps two sets of books.

There remains no evidence that the NSA is deliberately flouting the law. If there were, Snowden would have leaked that instead of lists of hacked Chinese computer systems.

I don't understand the timeline you're implying. Snowden did blow the whistle on this program, in 2013. Your link was from 2015, and now it's 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Snowden has lost the access he had before his whistleblowing. It will take another whistleblower to reveal the scale of current unsupervised malfeasance.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#505

Post by yahnu »

biztos wrote: post #415
Lendal wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

Current POTUS has recently threatened a legally protected whistleblower with removal of protection, it wouldn't be crazy to call it a death threat. Previous POTUS wasn't any better disposed to Snowden. I'm not necessarily a fan, but I think it was a very rational choice on Snowden's part to choose "permanent exile and fear of assassination" over "trust the system."

Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Mannings. So may be there was a better scenario for Snowden? But we can only speculate at this point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commute...

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#506

Post by westoncb »

Lendal wrote: post #386
xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

> no matter how right he believed himself to be.

Does it change anything for you if it wasn't just his opinion, but some sort of majority consensus instead—even if that only arrives in the history books? (Only asking in principle, as a hypothetical—not making the claim that Snowden in fact was right.)

There seems to be a fundamental problem with what you're proposing here—of course the vigilante approach is riddled with obvious issues too, but I just want to point out that what you're describing isn't clearly an effective way of dealing with things either.

You're basically saying the system works and we should trust it to evaluate and handle Snowden correctly: we have Congress, and they'll make the right choices if not the president.

But, the giant government programs exposed by Snowden are already a striking example of how we can't rely on Congress, at least to handle this matter correctly. Why would we assume the same entity which created the problems that were exposed is going to then handle the exposer fairly?

(I don't know the precise link between the exposed programs and Congress—so maybe they are separate/unrelated enough that my suggestion is inaccurate.)

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#507

Post by rapind »

drak0n1c wrote: post #502
rapind wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I would call it "nothing". If Trump could have been indicted (OLC opinion to blame here), it's likely he would have been for obstruction of justice. https://youtu.be/1G9cB4vk7Go?t=31 Also keep in mind how many associates have been indicted. Is it possible that they acted alone without direction or influence from Trump? Sure. Plausible? Not to me. Also, a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure it was 2 years not 3 year…

Mueller clarified in his final hearing that he misspoke when answering Lieu's earlier question and stated that the OLC policy you describe was not a deciding factor. Video is embedded in the below PBS link. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifie... Regarding indictments -- staff indictments were for unrelated crimes, and the indicted foreign entities were found to be unconnected to the campaign.…

Interesting, I wasn't aware he corrected himself. Just to be clear though, what he said in the video you linked was slightly different than you describe, and nuance matters.

The specific section is here: https://youtu.be/mk4KR02iF5M?t=280

Mueller: "That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

Fair enough. He doesn't mention whether it was a deciding factor unless I'm missing some earlier quote? The OLC opinion (assuming he abided by it, which seems to be the case) means he has no business even making a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. It's very frustrating that the OLC opinion prevents us from really learning more, but I'll grant you we have to live with it, and shouldn't legally assume any more than what was presented.

We'll see what history decides. I'm pretty sure he's a crook, but I'm pretty sure OJ is guilty too. Hope I'm wrong.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#508

Post by tssva »

jessaustin wrote: post #451
tssva wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you refer to as "fake whistleblower" still has their job because they followed the legal procedure for reporting abuse and therefore enjoy whistleblower protection. The others sited didn't follow the legal procedure which would have allowed them to also enjoy whistleblower protection.

Thomas Drake followed procedure, and he got burned. John Crane was one of the bureaucrats involved with that procedure, and he didn't think the burning was proper. So he followed procedure in order to blow the whistle on the burning, so then he got burned. Unsurprisingly, no one stepped forward for Crane.

Drake got burned because in addition to following the procedure he leaked information to the press which is not part of the procedure.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#509

Post by soraminazuki »

Lendal wrote: post #386
xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

> I think he should be given a fair trial and judged.

That’s his whole point. But if you truly care about the law, shouldn’t government officials also be put on trial for breaking the law on a much more massive scale?

> Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule absolutely.

The reason he went public is precisely because the system of checks and balances didn’t work in the first place. In case you’ve forgotten, government officials actively kept members of congress in the dark and even lied under oath.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#510

Post by sjwright »

jessaustin wrote: post #327
sjwright wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misrepresenting what was said. "Heavily covered in the media" wasn’t cited as a criterion for a whistleblower. Actually to be more precise, it was cited as a criterion—by you—when you claimed that as a hallmark of “fake” whistleblowers.

Parent claimed that media coverage was a sufficient criterion; I disagree. You've interpreted the discussion as concerned with a necessary criterion. That abuse of the idiom will come later, after the war media has moved the Overton window a bit further.

I don't understand the point of repeatedly misrepresenting what was said, since it's right here in this thread.
Post reply on HN