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

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#241

Post by pcaharrier »

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 locations all the time because the relevant question is whether there is probable cause to believe that there is evidence of the commission of the crime they are investigating at that location, not whether the person who lives or works there is guilty of that particular crime. Given that fact, of course, it's all the more reason that judicial officers should subject search warrant affidavits to careful scrutiny because when they come to look through your stuff they will just turn your house or business upside down and they don't get paid to help you clean up afterwards.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#243

Post by wasabi991011 »

pjc50 wrote: post #159
codezero wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me 15 minutes to buy an AR-15 and a pistol in 2025, how did the left do this?

OK, now what happens when you show up in front of an ICE agent while carrying an AR-15? How, specifically, do you use the gun to effect political change?

Sure, but this has nothing to do with gun ownership policy or the political left.

Edit: oh, you were responding to the second half of their comment, not the first. I see.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#244

Post by sneak »

mikeweiss wrote: post #34
lawn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they'll have ICE take them and they'll be deported or made to disappear. Some might even end up dying. That's how the US is right now.

That only works if they aren't U.S citizens... Which if they're working for the gov means they are. This administration is creative they will find other more 'legal' ways for retribution so the punishment sticks.

Nah, ICE is snatching and robbing US citizens too, even when they have ID on them. My (US citizen) friend got taken last month and driven hundreds of miles to another state simply for speaking spanish in public.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#246

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

pjc50 wrote: post #116
SubiculumCode wrote: post #83

Keep your eyes on protecting the midterms from interference... re ICE / militias etc. I encourage governors to call up their State's National Guards to protect their State's electoral systems from Federal intrusion and extremist militia groups. This move is founded in the most republican of urges: State Sovereignty. (btw, I'd even consider that as a move in Minneapolis, right now).

Do you think the Minneapolis National Guard are willing to fire on ICE if ordered to do so? What do you expect the legal fallout of that situation to be?

I think the Minnesota National Guard might be willing to fire on masked goons trying to abduct voters from polling stations, regardless of what agency they claim to be from. Even if they're not, their presence might deter the goons from showing up, which I think is a significant risk in the status quo.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#247

Post by actionfromafar »

eunoia wrote: post #50
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.

The “don’t tread on me” folks converted to “comply or die” shockingly quickly.

"Don't tread on me, tread on them"

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#248

Post by simgoh »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #150
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

You are severely misreading why people flag posts about that discuss the administration (whether for or against): they are tiresome to read about, and it doesn't lead to productive interesting discussion (which is supposed to be what the vote buttons are for here). Politics isn't 100% off topic for HN but mostly I come here to get away from it and I'm sure others do too.

> Politics isn't 100% off topic for HN but mostly I come here to get away from it and I'm sure others do too.

I sympathize, relate, and I'm not about to lecture you like some corners of the internet about "the privilege" to try and ignore stuff like this, but it is important to keep stuff like this at the forefront. We continue to experience unprecedented life events.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#249

Post by throwworhtthrow »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #150
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

You are severely misreading why people flag posts about that discuss the administration (whether for or against): they are tiresome to read about, and it doesn't lead to productive interesting discussion (which is supposed to be what the vote buttons are for here). Politics isn't 100% off topic for HN but mostly I come here to get away from it and I'm sure others do too.

There are many topics discussed on HN that I find tiresome to read about. For example, diet and fitness topics. You could swap the comments from one article to another and not even notice.

That's why I stopped reading them.

It's never once occurred to me that I should rather open them up, dive into the comments section, and tell the participants that I'm trying to get away from boring discussions about diet and fitness.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#250

Post by eli »

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…

Sure, though the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect.

The issue here is the American tradition of a free press and the legitimate role of leaks in a free country. The PBS article is a bit better on context:

> The Justice Department over the years has developed, and revised, internal guidelines governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

> In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidelines saying prosecutors would again have the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make "unauthorized disclosures" to journalists.

> The moves rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fbi-searched-home-of-w...

My understanding is that searches of journalists still must be signed off on by the AG personally.

Post reply on HN