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

We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#121

Post by busymom0 »

mc32 wrote: post #117
busymom0 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out. In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he…

What happens to FBI agents who tamper with evidence like that when they are caught?

So far nothing has happened but we shall see.

Lisa Page manipulated Flynn's transcripts.

Kevin Clinesmith altered CIA's email to say "Carter Page was not a CIA source" when the opposite was true.

I believe Clinesmith was referred for criminal case by the IG but I don't know if anything happened to Lisa Page.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#122

Post by raincom »

snowwrestler wrote: post #72
davidwitt415 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, it's also a crime to lie to the FISA court and to lie under oath to Congress. The FBI did both, as did other members of the security state, most notably John Brennan and Jim Clapper. If we are a nation of laws not men then those in power need to be held accountable for their crimes too.

I agree that people in power should be held to the standards of the law.

The powerful people(prosecutors, for instance) use prosecutorial discretion to NOT prosecute those who are in the power. It is the revolving door, and collusion between powerful classes.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#123

Post by danenania »

mikhailt wrote: post #71
mdorazio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as…

No, it isn't, it is the only sane advice you will get. We are turning into a country where your first action should always be, stay quiet and call a lawyer first. 1. Police and prosecutor will pull your records anyway, they generally look at spouse and people close to you first regardless of your innocence. 2. If this is the only evidence they have on your guilt, then you're likely to win on appeal if the jury is ins…

While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one.

I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps foolishly) only be thinking about finding my spouse, not the legal implications for myself. It seems like this would be the case for the vast majority of people in that situation.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#124

Post by AcerbicZero »

danenania wrote: post #123
mikhailt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't, it is the only sane advice you will get. We are turning into a country where your first action should always be, stay quiet and call a lawyer first. 1. Police and prosecutor will pull your records anyway, they generally look at spouse and people close to you first regardless of your innocence. 2. If this is the only evidence they have on your guilt, then you're likely to win on appeal if the jury is ins…

While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one. I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps fooli…

If the police are actively investigating anything that involves them speaking to you, you need a lawyer, as you're well past the point of being concerned about "drawing extra attention".

I'm not saying be that guy at the DUI checkpoint screaming about being a sovereign citizen (Although I do have a fair bit of sympathy for them) but you can talk yourself into way more trouble than you're going to be able to talk yourself out of.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#125

Post by danenania »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #124
danenania wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one. I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps fooli…

If the police are actively investigating anything that involves them speaking to you, you need a lawyer, as you're well past the point of being concerned about "drawing extra attention". I'm not saying be that guy at the DUI checkpoint screaming about being a sovereign citizen (Although I do have a fair bit of sympathy for them) but you can talk yourself into way more trouble than you're going to be able to talk your…

If I’m understanding correctly, we’re just talking about the initial call to the police when your spouse is missing. I totally agree with you if they ask to interview you after that point, but making the first call (when time may be critical) to a lawyer seems extreme. That’s not to say it’s necessarily wrong of course, but I think the average person would likely see that as strange/suspicious (including cops and jury members).

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#126

Post by colejohnson66 »

busymom0 wrote: post #119

One important thing to note for people reading media sources on this topic - "Consensually recorded" in IG-speak means the CHS (confidential human source) agreed to wear a wire--not that the target agreed to be recorded. This is why AG Barr call this spying. The same with sending FBI into "briefing" to collect info on General Flynn. Media is spinning this "consensually recorded" as if both parties agreed to be record…

So when the media gets a one party consent recording on Barr, it’s spying, but when they do it to me, it’s about not “going dark”

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#127

Post by chmod775 »

zdragnar wrote: post #39
chmod775 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.

You don't have to lie, but a judge and /or jury need to be convinced that, when you said something that conflicted with some other evidence, you were lying. What you actually believe to be true doesn't matter.

That's almost literally what I said?

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#128

Post by greenyoda »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #48
thanksgiving wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something t…

> It's my best piece of advice — and the advice most consistently ignored. If you're dealing with the government, and you are in any doubt, why won't you just shut up? https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostl...

Note that the author of this article is a former federal prosecutor, so he's an expert on this subject.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#129

Post by Terr_ »

drak0n1c wrote: post #93
thanksgiving wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something t…

Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident. To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned…

> Roger stone as well

Hold up, "boisterous storytelling"? Is that the new "boys will be boys"? You make it sound as if Stone was just caught lying about his weight.

Roger Stone was convicted of Witness Tampering, Obstruction of Justice, and lying about the actual subject of the investigation.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#130

Post by rapind »

busymom0 wrote: post #119

One important thing to note for people reading media sources on this topic - "Consensually recorded" in IG-speak means the CHS (confidential human source) agreed to wear a wire--not that the target agreed to be recorded. This is why AG Barr call this spying. The same with sending FBI into "briefing" to collect info on General Flynn. Media is spinning this "consensually recorded" as if both parties agreed to be record…

In a just alternate universe we spy on the government (oversight) and they can't spy on us (people).

I'm utterly devoid of sympathy when the government spies on itself.

Post reply on HN