FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#231

Post by RetpolineDrama » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #225

kodyo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gen. Flynn was prosecuted for something the FBI claimed he said in an FBI investigation that he didn't say, and the FBI slow-walked producing the exculpatory evidence.

Then again, Gen. Flynn is a threat to civilization. Is there any way they can both lose?

Sure, they use this shady and clearly unconstitutional tactic to nab someone you don't like once or twice.

But how many times do they use it to control/ruin/subjugate people you and I have never heard of? Who speaks up for them?

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#232

Post by themitigating » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #134

themitigating wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a problem with the Italian Mafia can you take them to court or have your elected representatives do something about it? What a ridiculous comparison

The average person can do more to influence a local mafia boss than they can to influence the federal government. Hell if you have a few dozen friends with guns you can actually stop the mafia from fucking with you for as long as they stick around. * Edit since I'm spent on replies : Sure you can name that one favela somewhere where a few dozen were beheaded by the mob. The idea isn't that you'll win 100% of the time…

Yet in areas where the mob is in control does that happen. Look at Mexican drug lords

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#233

Post by waboremo » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #116

waboremo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone should look at government the same way, then government has failed tremendously and we should stop pushing this farce of "democracy".

And what is your alternative? Because if you don't want to push democracy what are you pushing?

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If we view our governments the same way we do HR as the above comment suggests, as in they have another group controlling their interests over our own, then democracy does not exist within this structure.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#234

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

techwizrd wrote: post #138

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue . This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly". Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neigh…

I don't believe this is the case, but I am also not a lawyer. The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements." The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact…

Martha Stewart was investigated for securities fraud, but only was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements. It is entirely possible that if she had just refused to talk to the feds she would have not been charged with anything.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#235

Post by RetpolineDrama » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

firmnoodle wrote: post #155

hericium wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, but is unelected and unaccountable to them This kinda reads like a description of the CIA. How many of these have you got there?

I think he's talking about the domestic operations. I would agree that the CIA and their sister organizations who operate internationally fit the description as well. Can't torture someone, well, take them to a friendly place where your buddy can torture them. Need to plant some FUD on a person? "an anonymous source in the intelligence community said that X did Y in Z." Unelected, Unaccountable and unchecked in every…

>Can't torture someone, well, take them to a friendly place where your buddy can torture them.

That reminds me of the technical equivalent with five eyes, and I've never managed to figure out how that is _not_ treason.

Oh, domestic organization X can't spy on you because of that pesky constitution, but they can "allow" a hostile agency from another country to do all the spying (and vice-versa) then "share" information.

Seems pretty clearcut, our domestic agencies are conspiring with a foreign power to defraud US citizens of their constitutional rights. People should go to jail for that, but somehow it's all considered legal

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#236

Post by micromacrofoot » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

prange wrote: post #202

micromacrofoot wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be more relevant if he were actually president, I suppose. This is just speculation about something that would be nearly 3 years away at best. I similary don't care about what the president in 2029 thinks.

If you think being concerned about Trump, who is widely agreed to still be in control of one of the two US Political Parties, is just far off ‘speculation’ to you, then I’m very surprised you care about an old FBI dossier on Aretha Franklin.

I guess to put it another way: I care about what has happened, but don't care to speculate about what hasn't happened yet.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#237

Post by Banyonite » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:22 PM UTC

myko wrote: post #176

Banyonite wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be wrong, and not about to get into a back and forth about the politics involved, but I thought that Deputy Assistant Director Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation and eventually canned from the FBI, and FBI attorney Lisa Page was let go because of the content of the messages between them regarding Trump and Flynn that surfaced during the course of some hearings. If memory serves, another FBI lawye…

> Edit: Wasn't it Zuckerberg himself that said the FBI reached out to him about limiting the visibility of certain news? No. The FBI reached out to Facebook to let them know how Russia tended to try to influence US citizens with fake news or by amplifying fake aspects of real news using social networks, including Facebook. A lot of folks thought this was bad because it led to Facebook not amplifying (not removing, no…

>> It still does.

Out of curiosity (honestly), how does it?

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#238

Post by Eupraxias » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #164

pclmulqdq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are basically the mob, except that they figured out that they can exert more control over a longer period of time if they have documents that "constrain" their powers and they offer you a say in some matters. Every year, I pay the US government protection money at a higher rate than the mob demanded (~35% vs ~15%). They mark their territory, control who enters and exits, and demand compliance with their r…

> Governments are basically the mob, except that they figured out that they can exert more control over a longer period of time if they have documents that "constrain" their powers and they offer you a say in some matters. God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God.

Thank you, Hegel.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#239

Post by notch656a » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #147

notch656a wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person can do more to influence a local mafia boss than they can to influence the federal government. Hell if you have a few dozen friends with guns you can actually stop the mafia from fucking with you for as long as they stick around. * Edit since I'm spent on replies : Sure you can name that one favela somewhere where a few dozen were beheaded by the mob. The idea isn't that you'll win 100% of the time…

> Hell if you have a few dozen friends with guns you can actually stop the mafia from fucking with you for as long as they stick around. Go try this in the favela near me and report back. The last group of locals that tried that were beheaded. I'm beginning to think there's a time limit on relatively fair and effective states, as citizens slowly begin to become almost unbelievably blind to what actual criminal states…

The institution of the federal government has grown ever more powerful and consuming of peace-time GDP compared to non-war times of ~100+ years ago. Far from dismantling, the consolidation and growth of power of the 'effective state' has created criminals of the common populace in an ever growing compendium of laws.

In no way has the federal government been 'dismantled' as time goes on. Although arguably the constitution has been dismantled, in no small part through ever expanding interpretation of the commerce clause.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#240

Post by Banyonite » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

prange wrote: post #208

Banyonite wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right wing, left wing, meh. To me (i.e. Opinion ), it's difficult at times to distinguish between the two when looking at the highest echelon on each side. I think my slide into cynicism regarding humans who achieve power, regardless of their stated political philosophies and alignments, started after finishing "The Dictator's Handbook". I read here some posts advocating getting rid of this or that, or saying we shou…

> it seems to take only the inevitable one or two odd instances of corruption to start the rot that will bring it down This seems to be based on the premise that there could ever be a system that was somehow perfectly free or corruption to begin with. I think that’s far fetched. I think all human systems are messy and are going to contain some instances of corruption. The question is simply whether the level of corru…

>> I think that’s far fetched.

I like to think of it as wishful thinking. I fantasize about winning the lottery, too.

>> The question is simply whether the level of corruption reaches the level...

Yeah, agreed. I couldn't point to a single instance where an attempt to eliminate corruption did not eventually spawn unintended (bad) consequences. Working to manage it seems to be the best alternative.