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

FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–276 of 276 posts

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#271

Post by bigbacaloa »

jstarfish wrote: post #205
bigbacaloa wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no routine bribe paying in Spain. What occurs is similar to what occurs in the US - bribes to get government contracts. Day to day bribes are unheard of and Spain is no more corrupt than the US in that sense (in fact, probably less so - I know of people having to pay small "fees" at a county sheriff's office to get some routine document processed).

Fees paid for document processing are annoying and regressive but are not bribes. They are there to stop you from wasting department resources with requests for 500,000,000 copies of an incident report whose content you disagree with.

I said "fee" not fee ... This was a cut and dried under the table twenty dollars to get someonw to do something ...

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#272

Post by techwizrd »

incahoots wrote: post #180
techwizrd wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a risk not worth taking, by what measure can one gain by speaking with any LEO? The folks who have do not carry a fear of prosecution because they can afford to remove themselves from any danger. However; those who do not, suffer under the obfuscated rules of law.

I did not make any claims that one should speak with LEOs. I was merely pointing out that the parent's claim was at best a misunderstanding of the law.

Beyond identifying yourself to LEOs, Don't Talk To The Police [0] without your lawyer present.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#273

Post by Tozen »

scarface74 wrote: post #174
fsociety999 wrote: post #62

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 article is from 2013, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this behavior has changed: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-in... The important part to consider: > The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single…

> The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, How is this any different than local law enforcement? I’m not saying you are implying this. But it’s strange that the same people who “back the blue” locally, want to “defund the FBI”.

I guess it depends on who is the one getting F'd over. If it's "them", then support. If it's "us", defund.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#274

Post by dd36 »

Banyonite wrote: post #158
dd36 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two FBI agents conspired against him? According to who? Trump? Investigating leads is conspiring against you? I don’t know the veracity of the claim that the FBI told the media to censor negative news. The media was definitely on guard for being manipulated following the DNC/Podesta email hacking and use of media by Russia in 2016. And so were our counterintelligence agencies. It’s literally their job.

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…

Trump fired people that investigated him for any weak reason he could. He fired multiple FBI directors. Investigations aren’t a conspiracy as you get a day in court and Trump had many of his team go to jail after being convicted in a court.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#275

Post by dd36 »

Banyonite wrote: post #237
myko wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

From what I’ve read, it seems to be cloud hacked data placed in a laptop and deliberately turned into a partisan repair shop in an attempt to wash that it was hacked just like DNC/Podesta stuff.

Thus the media treated it as hacked attempted manipulation.

That said, everyone knew about it and it’s not exactly news that Hunter Biden, like many in that world, was trading off his father’s position and had a drug problem. Indeed, it wouldn’t be surprising if he was targeted by our enemies to be compromised. Any high level executive’s kid with a drug problem is low hanging fruit for kompromat.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#276

Post by dd36 »

Banyonite wrote: post #237
myko wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I strongly agree with this comment.

“Even if we assume the crazy sounding laptop repair shop story were 100% true, we had partisan political operatives shopping a story to journalists about the supposedly scandalous revelations cribbed from the contents of someone's stolen email communications and electronic data in the midst of a presidential election campaign homestretch. The fact that some of the information has since been authenticated by the nYT or WaPO as belonging to Hunter Biden doesn't change anything. The Clinton emails that were dumped by Wikileaks in 2016 were also authentic. Didn't make them any less stolen or render their release combined with the gross misrepresentation of their contents to feed unsupported narratives less problematic, nor did their authenticity make it any less a part of a Russian influence operation.”

Post reply on HN