Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#11

Post by throwaway5752 » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

This article is total garbage and will make you stupider for reading it.

1. Flawed warrant applications were made

2. Those flawed warrants revealed a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of a presidential campaign, that has sent many people to prison. It is documented very well in the Mueller report. Further good background is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.

This is gaslighting of the worst kind. The procedural errors made by the FBI while investigating the crime pale in comparison to the crime itself and this is a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. I have read Greenwald for the better part of two decades when he was writing independently on a Wordpress site and I have no idea what has happened to him.

Re: undefined

#12

Post by ABeeSea » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #9

davidw wrote: post #3

Both things can be true: * There are some rotten things at the FBI that should be fixed. * Russians interfered with our elections in 2016, and will keep attempting to do so. I don't get why he's so in the tank for Russia.

Is the supposed evidence of Russian interference at all dependent on these false FBI claims?

No, all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

Re: undefined

#13

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

black6 wrote: post #10

sasasassy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason whatsoever to think Russia interfered? I mean outside the bull of "Russian person or company bought ads on Facebook", because if that counts I think half the world interfered in the election.

From a nation-state perspective I would hope they attempt to interfere in the elections of their national rivals in order to eke out an advantage on the global playing field, just as I expect my own government to be doing the same.

I can't reconcile that with America's stated goal of promoting democracy in those same countries.

Re: undefined

#14

Post by lph » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

uncoder0 wrote: post #2

I agree. To think that those kind of actions were so mishandled on the most high profile FBI investigation in decades is completely horrifying. Not to even mention the falsifying of evidence. If they do that to someone as high profile as Trump how much chicanery happens with cases involving everyday people. As an aside, Glen Greenwald is in my opinion one of the last remaining true journalists that hasn't been overco…

[flagged]

Re: undefined

#15

Post by 867567838694 » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

ABeeSea wrote: post #12

yters wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the supposed evidence of Russian interference at all dependent on these false FBI claims?

No, all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

There is a lot of bunk in that number considering the fact that only 4 of them are intelligence agencies and the context of the answer. That said, of course, Russia meddled in our election. The support Hillary and Trump not to get one elected but to promote a split in this country and we fell for it like morons!

Re: undefined

#16

Post by dmix » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

ABeeSea wrote: post #12

yters wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the supposed evidence of Russian interference at all dependent on these false FBI claims?

No, all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

I don't see the strategic value in denying it happened. It's pretty obvious. I think most people on the right who aren't in the hyper-partisan bandwagon would agree with that.

We should be concerned if it did happened regardless of political ideology.

It'd be much easier to focus efforts on simply discrediting how much it really mattered. Most reports said the Russians spent around $20M on ads which considering both sides campaigns had about a billion each, not to mention the invaluable endless free media coverage over two years most presidential elections take... you can draw your own conclusions.

Re: undefined

#17

Post by the_gastropod » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

sasasassy wrote: post #4

davidw wrote: post #3

Both things can be true: * There are some rotten things at the FBI that should be fixed. * Russians interfered with our elections in 2016, and will keep attempting to do so. I don't get why he's so in the tank for Russia.

Is there any reason whatsoever to think Russia interfered? I mean outside the bull of "Russian person or company bought ads on Facebook", because if that counts I think half the world interfered in the election.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're asking this in good faith. The answer is a resounding "yes".

1. On social media, the IRA (Russia's Internet Research Agency) posed as Americans on Twitter and Facebook, and was ordered to amplify and provoke political and social discord in the United States. They organized political rallies (including "Blue Lives Matter") and fake Facebook groups, complete with convenient memes, unwittingly shared by people like Donald Trump Jr., Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, etc.

2. The GRU hacked into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton campaign. They also hacked into the DNC and DCCC and released the stolen emails and documents to Wikileaks.

3. There were 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials around the 2016 election.

I suggest you read the Mueller report if you're actually curious about this.

Re: undefined

#18

Post by FisDugthop » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

History repeats itself. LBJ knew that Nixon and Kissinger had sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks, and almost certainly ensured LBJ would lose to Nixon at the voting booths, but couldn't do anything because he came to know about the sabotage by questionable FBI techniques.

We can both blame the FBI for domestic misbehavior, and simultaneously recognize that, as LBJ put it, "Dammit, it's treason!" when Nixon and Kissinger interfered in foreign policy in order to sway an election. Or when Trump and Giuliani do it.

Re: undefined

#19

Post by 867567838694 » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

zzzeek wrote: post #8

sasasassy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason whatsoever to think Russia interfered? I mean outside the bull of "Russian person or company bought ads on Facebook", because if that counts I think half the world interfered in the election.

how about they hacked into private servers, stole private emails, carefully curated the most embarrassing segments, then released them throughout the internet? does that count? There are many reasons and they are nicely documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

You mean the DNC hack where they wouldn't let the FBI investigate and their own investigate company blamed it on the Russians but they wouldn't share the evidence? These were all leaks from inside.

Re: undefined

#20

Post by doublement » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #3

Both things can be true: * There are some rotten things at the FBI that should be fixed. * Russians interfered with our elections in 2016, and will keep attempting to do so. I don't get why he's so in the tank for Russia.

Indeed. I generally agree with Greenwald in who he targets for attack, but what he chooses to defend is too broad, to the point where I wonder if some self-deception is involved.

If I recall correctly he was also defending Wikileaks against the charge that it timed its releases to hurt Hillary Clinton. Even if you agree with Wikileaks' general agenda, it's obvious they were timing things for maximum impact.

It's the same with Russian interference. It's actually their job to interfere, and it would be easy for him to acknowledge that and still maintain his criticism of targets.