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

511–520 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#511

Post by beej71 »

estearum wrote: post #342
beej71 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Trump was requested to return the classified documents several times. He said he returned them all, then said he didn't need to return them all, then said he actually declassified them with his mind. And yeah, it's not a great situation with terrible optics. It would've been better for everyone if he just didn't steal the classified documents to begin with or, once requested, he returned them.

I guess my question, given the GP's assertion that private citizens holding classified information isn't a crime, how does the law apply to Trump here?

Is there another law saying that government officials need to return all classified documents that would apply to him and not to the reporter?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#512

Post by estearum »

beej71 wrote: post #511
estearum wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was requested to return the classified documents several times. He said he returned them all, then said he didn't need to return them all, then said he actually declassified them with his mind. And yeah, it's not a great situation with terrible optics. It would've been better for everyone if he just didn't steal the classified documents to begin with or, once requested, he returned them.

I guess my question, given the GP's assertion that private citizens holding classified information isn't a crime, how does the law apply to Trump here? Is there another law saying that government officials need to return all classified documents that would apply to him and not to the reporter?

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-ac...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#513

Post by FrustratedMonky »

anon84873628 wrote: post #282
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was one of the main plot points in Andor. The rebellion had to raise the temperature faster, more dramatically, in order to wake people up. To make the frogs realize it was hot and jump out. Lonni Jung: "You realize what you've set in motion? People will suffer." Luthen Rael: "That's the plan." Luthen believes that to succeed, they need to anger the Empire and make them come down hard on the citizens, which in t…

We have left wing accelerationists in the US too.

Perhaps that is the real problem.

The Rebels were 'accelerationists', but the Empire was also wanting it to escalate. They played into each others hands.

Both sides wanted escalation, so it is positive feedback loop.

When societies get to the point where everyone is escalating, there isn't much to stop it. The cool heads are drowned out.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#514

Post by nobody9999 »

IAmBroom wrote: post #496
scoofy wrote: post #447

This shit needs to stop. If you have any Republican representatives right now, you might consider writing them every day. We can disagree on tax policy, immigration policy, even very strong issues, and I'm happy to fight about those issues and respect disagreement. But in the last month, the president has invaded a foreign country without even notifying congress, has used literal thug tactics to try to get lower inte…

Strongly worded letters to one's Congressperson are the equivalent to "thoughts and prayers". It doesn't matter how just (you think) your cause is; it will never achieve anything.

>Strongly worded letters to one's Congressperson are the equivalent to "thoughts and prayers". It doesn't matter how just (you think) your cause is; it will never achieve anything.

Your assertion isn't supported by, well, anything. The problem is that constituents think they can't affect their representatives' positions. They can.[0][1] Especially if there's a concerted effort to do so.

For every constituent who writes/calls/emails, there are at least a half-dozen more who feel the same way.

The problem isn't that contacting your representatives isn't effective, it's that by not doing so, you're ceding power to those that do.

[0] https://act.represent.us/sign/does-calling-congress-really-w...

[1] https://americansofconscience.com/calling-congress-still-mat...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#515

Post by tdeck »

Teever wrote: post #406
afavour wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the instinct to remove "politics" from HN but it's fuzzier than that. There were great HN-related conversations to be had around DOGE and what it was (purportedly) trying to achieve with automation, AI, replacing old code bases etc. There was a fascinating discussion about COBOL and what DOGE didn't understand and it immediately got flagged off the front page. Same thing recently with Grok and non-consen…

The no politics rule on HN is the equivalent of "the suspect smelled like marijuana so I had probable cause to search his car." -- it gives the moderators a plausible reason to remove content they don't want on here while maintaining an air of legitimacy around the removable because thems the rules. Donald Trump has threatened to annex my country. Are posts about that political? Sure doesn't seem like it to me. From…

Sorry, your country potentially being annexed just doesn't spark curious discussion. We've seen this with the other 5 countries that were annexed: just a lot of tiresome complaints and people flagging each other in the comments.

When I'm hiding in my basement from the Patriot Press Gangs, I want to read about the difference between TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe, not about some boring politics.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#516

Post by nobody9999 »

avensec wrote: post #465
mickle00 wrote: post #449

fuck this -- how is this not on the front page of HN?

It is the most commented on and has the highest points today. See: https://hckrnews.com/ . Another user pointed me to it in the past when I was also frustrated that an obviously engaged story was somehow being buried for reasons I didn't understand.

>It is the most commented on and has the highest points today. See: https://hckrnews.com/

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/active

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#517

Post by t-3 »

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?

You can attempt to sue for damages, but the suit is likely to be dismissed because law enforcement and legal adjudication are tightly coupled and very friendly in ways that subvert the proper functioning of justice. More likely you'd just invite more harassment for daring to attempt recourse at all.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#518

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Levitz wrote: post #440
simgoh wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really resonate with me because you could make that argument about anything, _especially since_ most of the items that are posted here are links to other websites. There's no need to talk about it here - you could just talk about it at the relevant site(s) comment section.

No. I'm not saying "There's is some other place", I'm saying "This is everywhere already", and for that reason there is no need for it to be explicitly here. There is by no means whatsoever any shortage of places in which those discussions could take place. The argument is that it should be everywhere , and I staunchly disagree.

> The argument is that it should be everywhere, and I staunchly disagree.

The argument is that it should be here, and that is a very reasonable stance. There is no shortage of places where anything can be discussed; that's not the point. "Here", there is a certain expectation around how to comment which makes this place a more interesting discussion forum, no matter the topic. That some topics bring out the worst in some people is not a good reason to make the topic verboten, but instead a reason to be more critical of the commentary under those topics.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

That doesn't say "no divisive topics" for a reason. The topics are not what make this place interesting, but instead the rules of engagement are.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#519

Post by thunderfork »

xdennis wrote: post #499
k2enemy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of ironic that there's a big overlap in the venn diagram between 2nd amendment enthusiasts and the crowd that is cheering on the government's authoritarian actions.

[flagged]

>vigilantism (what Renee Good was doing)

Good luck defining vigilanteism in a coherent way that includes "operating a motor vehicle near ICE agents".

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#520

Post by t-3 »

dugidugout wrote: post #504
pcaharrier wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as there's probable cause for some crime, the subjective motivations of the officer are almost never going to enter the legal analysis. Whren v. United States[1] was a case about a pretextual traffic stop, but the core reasoning (unanimously) was about what the Fourth Amendment requires/allow. For example, if police have a "hunch" you're selling drugs but not probable cause, they can just wait for you to run…

> For example, if police have a "hunch" you're selling drugs but not probable cause, they can just wait for you to ... Whren doesn't seem to track in this case or am I missing something? In the example provided, the hunch directly ties the target to the crime ("drug selling"), which matches the stop's pretext. Natanson isn't accused of any crime, she's essentially writing about the "selling of drugs", not organizing…

> Adjusting your example, if I'm simply friends (implying history of contact) with a known drug dealer, am I really at risk of my home being raided and communications seized solely because I might have evidence leading to their conviction?

If the police can convince a judge to give them a warrant for it, sure, but if they were targeting you specifically they probably wouldn't bother with the indirect route of your drug-dealing friend and would just harass you for j walking and not using your blinkers properly until you raised your voice at a cop and charge you with assaulting an officer.

Post reply on HN