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

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#371

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #78

CodingJeebus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is absolutely not normal as the article clearly states. Reporters are very rarely raided in the US under circumstances like these. The problem is that "classified materials" means whatever the government wants it to mean in this context. Is there a journalist you want to target for a particular reason? Just accuse them of handling classified information, which they don't ever have to produce to the public be…

Here’s a less sensational article. The journalist is not even a target of the investigation, the target is a contractor leaking documents. “ Natanson was told that she is not a target of the investigation, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. Instead, it appears to be related to an ongoing probe of a government contractor in Maryland.” https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/media/fbi-hannah-natanson-was...

[deleted]

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#372

Post by profsummergig » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:46 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…

To my naive brain, the rules seem to be:

- it's okay when Side A goes after Assange (a journalist) for possessing classified material. Also, Side A encourages journalists in certain countries to do exactly what Assange did.

- it's not okay when Side B goes after journalists aligned with Side A

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#373

Post by jandrese » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:46 PM UTC

rkagerer wrote: post #351

pcaharrier wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

You can file a civil suit against the police department, but results are far from certain. Unless it was a case of the cops raiding the wrong home entirely and you managed to make the news the success rate is not great.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#374

Post by GolfPopper » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:47 PM UTC

beej71 wrote: post #322

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…

How does this apply to Trump and mar-a-lago, then? Genuine question.

It doesn't. Different rules de facto for the ruling class and the peons. That's one of the failures in American society Trump has been exploiting his whole life.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#375

Post by thedrexster » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

Integrape wrote: post #303

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, wait, the administration cares about people illegally retaining classified information now?

When you're a star, they let you do it

Ooooph, brother :(

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#376

Post by 1123581321 » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

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).

I don’t think National Guard around polling places would be good for turnout. Voting in advance, from home, is a solution already in place for most.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#377

Post by aa_is_op » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

mesk wrote: post #225

Or as some 'uknown' VP would say: We will protect freedom of speech until the last journalist is behind the bars. That is the price we are willing to pay.

This country is turning into a meme

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#378

Post by potato3732842 » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #233

pjc50 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a lot of room before that. Rather that the Guard would intervene illegal searches etc, and the inevitable tense ICE - National Guard interaction would change the dynamic, temper ICE's behavior. Moreover, the expected outcome would actually be Trump trying to nationalize that guard, then a constitutional crisis/emergency supreme Court intervention. The most power move that Democrats could make right now is th…

I think your assessment is accurate and realistic.

But ICE is behaving pretty sloppy. I'm not sure it could get to that point without (just due to risk multiplied by sheer number of interactions) ICE accidentally escalating something via sloppiness, crossing something that they don't value but is a hard line to their local PD security detail, refusing to stop and getting smoked that way, either by their own security or by a passer by while their security shrugs.

A fed might not care about literally doing a George Floyd, but your security force might just walk off rather than be party to that.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#379

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #358

perihelions wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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, point…

What recourse would an American have against a punitive search? And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#380

Post by watwut » Wed, Jan 14, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

anon84873628 wrote: post #361

watwut wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Message that "yes these are thugs and it is ok to kill them". Police can kill you if they feel fear or pretend to feel fear. And having a gun was already ruled valid legal reasom for police to kill people. If protesters carried guns, ICE could legally murder them. Not just J.D.Vance legaly, but legaly per how courts interpret such situations.

Well then that will be something for the courts to sort out, especially in the open carry states. But I think you are underestimating the effect it will have on individual federal agents, who might decide the pay isn't good enough anymore. These scenes are also put on for the benefit of the politicians watching.

> Well then that will be something for the courts to sort out, especially in the open carry states.

They already sorted it out - in open carry states. In the above situation, the court in open carry state sides with cops.

It is really simple. Sentencing cop for on duty murder is extraordinary hard even in clear cut cases. Guns presence means a cop can say he was afraid. And afraid cop is entitled to kill.

> But I think you are underestimating the effect it will have on individual federal agents, who might decide the pay isn't good enough anymore.

You are over estimating it. They would just shoot and feel good about it.

Even if they left, the state would send better trained troop the next time.