FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#351

Post by rkagerer » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

pcaharrier wrote: post #241

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

>So in this case the government is raiding the home of someone who did not commit any crime, in the hopes of getting at people who might have. I looked at a lot of search warrant affidavits in a previous job and there's really nothing all that unusual about this aspect (doing it to a member of the press or doing it on a pretext are separate issues that I'm not commenting on). Police execute search warrants at other l…

...they don't get paid to help you clean up afterwards.

Could you litigate to recover the costs and repair any damage done? Is there case law around what is a reasonable level of dishevelment?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#352

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #119

eunoia wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re fundamentally right. Trump is obviously the worst we’ve seen yet, but power has been accumulating unchecked in the executive branch’s hands for decades now. Trump is merely a symptom of the problem that is the Imperial Presidency. If we can’t tackle the problem itself we’ll get another politician doing the exact same shit after Trump.

Most of which is downstream of 9/11 and the War on Terror. That provided lots of bipartisan support for state sponsored killings.

[deleted]

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#353

Post by api » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:23 PM UTC

eunoia wrote: post #23

webdoodle wrote: post #7

Not really surprised at this point. After Bush allowed, and Obama pardoned the collateral murder pilots, whistleblowers and journalists in the U.S. have been continually threatened, hazed, jailed and killed at the pleasure of whomever the current president is. This isn't party politics, Bush through Trump, are guilty. This is fascism at its finest...

I think you’re fundamentally right. Trump is obviously the worst we’ve seen yet, but power has been accumulating unchecked in the executive branch’s hands for decades now. Trump is merely a symptom of the problem that is the Imperial Presidency. If we can’t tackle the problem itself we’ll get another politician doing the exact same shit after Trump.

Not sure why this is being downvoted when it's quite an obvious trend in American politics. The executive has been getting stronger and Congress has been getting weaker and more dysfunctional for many years.

We have been setting the stage and preparing the throne for an American dictator or emperor for at least 50 years, just waiting for one to decide to sit in the chair and wield the power we've laid at their feet. The only thing that stopped this from happening sooner is that none of the prior administrations truly wanted to do this.

Bush, in particular, could have become dictator easily after 9/11. I dislike George W. pretty strongly but I do give him a little credit here.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#354

Post by anon84873628 » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

pksebben wrote: post #147

embedding-shape wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, don't blame the individual (all thought the individual has plenty of individual blame going their way, rightfully so), blame the system. Unless the system changes, it'll continue to let people misuse it to their own gain. Trump was hardly the first one, and depending on how things will go, he might be the last, but "last" in a good way or in a bad way remains to be seen.

I have an ongoing debate (argument? fight?) with my father about this. He recalls a time when it felt as if there were 'good guys' in politics, and can't understand why it is that I'm so hard on the democrats (this has begun to shift in recent months as Chucklefuck and Aipac Shakur have consistently disappointed him). Besides the obvious issue of republicans being a lost cause, it's policies like too big to fail and…

Government is of course the quintessential multi-agent coordination problem.

It has big problems when the people running it don't embody the values that it depends on.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#355

Post by bitexploder » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

While you do not have a legal duty to secure classified information it is illegal for you to possess it. It is illegal for a reporter to have and discuss classified information under strict interpretation of the espionage act, however the supreme court ruled that they can as long as they didn't participate in acquiring it or induce someone to acquire it. They will prosecute a reporter if they have a clear indication they participated in the theft of the classified information.

Regarding Gellman, he could have been prosecuted. Under strict interpretation he admitted to retaining classified information. The government is then in a catch 22 situation where they have to verify, publicly, the information he held creating a Snowden like situation where it is no longer secret. It is a very messy area of law and a zealous DOJ can exert tremendous pressure on individual journalists even though they are better shielded than non-journalists. Essentially, by prosecuting someone they have to prove it is national defense information and in so doing they will end up disclosing the information themselves making it dubious a jury would ever convict.

It is the same reason we can freely discuss Snowden-leaked information now. It is not a secret. Even if it is classified it has lost its legal protection.

In short, if this journalist even vaguely induced anyone to leak information to her she can be prosecuted and the precedent there is much less in her favor.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#356

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #275

an0malous wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a good fraction of people, especially on this forum, who are actively encouraging this. Posts that criticize the administration consistently get flagged off the front page even when they’re related to tech

It's pretty shocking how many people on HN are ok with government officials killing citizens in the streets, but writing diversity statements is just too far.

[deleted]

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#357

Post by Tadpole9181 » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

irishcoffee wrote: post #210

kasey_junk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal. This government brought sham charges against the Fed president, what are they going to do to a run of the mill federal employee?

> It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal. It is not illegal to talk to a reporter, it is illegal to share classified intel with someone who doesn't have a clearance and a need-to-know. Do I think they should have raided this persons house? Absolutely not. Is it…

You've misunderstood the parent. They're saying watch out what happens to anyone in the Journalist's book who did not share classified information.

You seriously think this administration is going to get a list of 1,200 government employees who are (legally) informing reporters of the goings-on and just... Let it go? Those people are about to get punished.

And since we're at the point of an unaccountable, unidentifiable Gestapo going door-to-door and arresting / murdering citizens openly in the streets...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#358

Post by mikkupikku » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

perihelions wrote: post #328

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

> "So in this case the government is raiding the home of someone who did not commit any crime, in the hopes of getting at people who might have." That's unequivocally a lawful basis for a court-ordered search warrant. They must have probable cause that the person being searched has evidence of a crime; not necessarily that the search target and the criminal suspect are one and the same. Search is investigative; not p…

> Search is investigative; not punitive.

Let's be real, it can be both. A legal, valid and justified search can be done in a manner calculated to inflict maximum pain. Raiding in the middle of the night instead of when they step out their door in the morning, ripping open walls when all they're really looking for is a laptop, flipping and trashing the place in a excessive manner, breaking things in the process, pointing guns at children, shooting the family retriever, etc. I don't know if they took this raid too far in any of these ways, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#359

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

GJim wrote: post #309

imzadi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were over 1000 protests over the weekend. The one I went to in Surprise, AZ had almost 1000 people, in a fairly conservative area with mostly older, white demographics. I think the tide is turning.

> There were over 1000 protests OVER THE WEEKEND At the risk of sounding sarky, you are going to have to do more than protest at the weekend (!) to stop what is happening to you.

It's worth noting that Renee Good was shot because she was protesting after she happened upon ICE operating in her city. More than just weekend protests are happening. Few people in any of the blue sanctuary cities ICE is terrorizing actually want ICE to be there and those who don't frequently make themselves heard, sometimes resulting in their tragic end.

Yes, some protests happen when it's convenient for the protesters. That does not invalidate their protests, nor any others with a similar message. It does not weaken the message nor the movement.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#360

Post by mywittyname » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

dabluecaboose wrote: post #56

alsetmusic wrote: post #31

It'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press). "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens. But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.

[flagged]

> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.

No we didn't. Promoting safe and conscientious gun ownership is a good thing, and it's the right thing for society. It's actually a pretty common feeling among gun owners. But gun lobbies has polluted people's minds into believing that the "left hates guns." Which isn't really true.

For sure, there are people whose opinion is colored by the frequency of mass shootings and having their kids deal with active shooter drills, etc. But this isn't always a political issue - my hard right-wing grandma hated guns and forbade their ownership in her house.

I frequent a gun club with a bunch of the leftest, gayest, socialistest, DEIest people you could meet, and we always find like-minded people to chat with. We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.

> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.

And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now. They will disappear people to gulags or just shoot them in the face for practically no reason. Imagine what they do to people they genuinely believe are threats.