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

391–400 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#391

Post by reducesuffering »

parineum wrote: post #368
reducesuffering wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking age, the US just had a 60 year old run in the last election and the party that complained to no end about the elderly running for office still voted for the 80 year old. Next election, the other frontrunner is currently 58. We had a strong 38 year old candidate in 2020 but the South collectively still doesn't like gay people enough to have him win the primary.

> We had a strong 38 year old candidate in 2020 but the South collectively still doesn't like gay people enough to have him win the primary. That 38 year old, along with the rest of the center left candidates, all dropped out to ensure the 70 year old candidate could beat the other 70 year old candidate. "The South" had nothing to do with it.

Incorrect. Buttigieg won #1 and #2 delegates in the first two primaries of Iowa and New Hampshire. It was only at the fourth primary, South Carolina, when Biden won 6x the votes, that the Buttigieg campaign dropped realizing they had no chance because of underperformance in only the South.

Only 54% in SC say homosexuality should be accepted by society. 42% in Arkansas. In 2025! https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1lxzznb/acceptance...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#392

Post by lux-lux-lux »

potato3732842 wrote: post #45
rockskon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all bad things are the same. Raiding a reporter's house is very much an abnormal act to have taken place.

>Not all bad things are the same. Who said they were? >Raiding a reporter's house is very much an abnormal act to have taken place. Only by invoking the most numerical slight of hand sort of "a DV is abnormal because we hand out a thousand traffic tickets a day and make only one or two DV arrests" logic is it abnormal. For the past 5+yr the FBI has raided the home of about one journalist per year. Every time the alle…

> Time Burke and the Kanye thing, Project Veritas in 2022 and 2023 and the ABC news guy the year before are recent ones that come to mind

Those were for computer fraud, possession of stolen property, and possession of child pornography, respectively. The first amendment allows journalists to publish classified material, it does not give them free license to commit crimes.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#394

Post by perihelions »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #379
mikkupikku wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> "And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?"

US constitutional law prohibits the introduction of evidence obtained illegally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule ("Exclusionary rule")

There's no "retroactive" exception. The core point of this rule is to deter police from intentionally violating people's rights, under the expectation that what they find will, "retroactively", vindicate them. Won't work.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#395

Post by tracker1 »

belorn wrote: post #299
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…

This is not a comment about if journalists homes should be more sacred than other people. Some countries do give journalists extra legal protection against this, but I do not know US law in this regard. To my understanding, a US search warrant authorize law enforcement officers to search a particular location and seize specific items. The requirements are: 1# filled in good faith by a law enforcement officer 2# Have…

Most likely securing information/evidence about the leaker, who likely did break the law or connected to someone who did... the first party leaking classified materials broke the law, while other intermediaries may not have. In an investigative process, this isn't at all inappropriate... Journalists aren't sacrosanct, though policies may have varied as to the level investigations will go.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#396

Post by g947o »

> “The Trump administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country.”

That's what the government said when Pentagon Papers were released. Guess what happened.

But I guess time is different now, and today's supreme court isn't the same as the one in those days.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#397

Post by KaiserPro »

mingus88 wrote: post #81
everdrive wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note, that the law is not written such that it's only illegal to share classified information when you have a good president. I think a lot of us are very sympathetic when classified information is released to the public due to public interest, concern regarding government action, etc. But it's still illegal. I'm not making a moral claim here. Rather, people who release classified information withou…

Soap box > ballot box > jury box > ammo box We are on step 3

I think you (the country, not you the writer) has been on the ammo box for a good number of years.

The number of police and public based killing is much higher than comparable countries elsewhere.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#398

Post by KaiserPro »

kilroy123 wrote: post #237
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

Sadly, a lot of people in Silicon Valley now subscribe to this "dark enlightenment" nonsense.

I fear the answer, but what the fuck is "dark enlightenment" ?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#399

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

testing22321 wrote: post #388
riotnrrd wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes an act of Congress to change the name. Trump just made one of his dictatorial proclamations.

It was originally named the department of war, and changing it to defence was just newspeak anyway. Of all the things trump has done, I actually like this one. At least he’s being honest about his intentions for what this department does.

I'm of two minds on this. As you say, renaming from War to Defense was a lie to tell Americans a more palatable story. However, renaming from Defense to War is actually the same thing in the current political context but for populace with different values. It is honest in a way but that was not the intention, nor is it the effective result. It's just a different lie.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#400

Post by alsetmusic »

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]

> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?

We may have the most armed citizenry in the world. If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this. All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.

Post reply on HN