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

531–540 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#531

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

vablings wrote: post #264
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think James O’Keeffe was the Project Veritas guy. He had a legally obtained the original of Ashley Biden’s diary. Joe Biden’s daughter. Where in it a page she wrote while in therapy said she had inappropriate showers with her father.

Legally obtained is dubious in this context. He likely knew it was stolen

No one, including the FBI has ever made a statement that it was stolen and then charged O’Keefe for that. It was a raid to further “investigation” to determine for stolen.

But don’t you think it’s more interesting you care less about a journalist being raided, then you do the outcome of a diary that explains that Biden according to his daughter sexually abused her?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#532

Post by codezero »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #507
codezero wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t suggesting that. The post I responded to basically said the left alienated people by restricting 2a, and it’s really not at all restricted. Some states are more restrictive than others but that’s not an overall “The Left” problem to be called out.

> The post I responded to basically said the left alienated people by restricting 2a, Incorrect, but judging by the responses here I conveyed my point poorly. I wasn't trying to say that the Left alienated existing gun owners. I was trying to say that their actions and positions prevented the formation of a grassroots population of responsible gun owners in their ranks. Specifically, a population that might be more r…

I apologize if I came off smug. Definitely wasn’t my intention, and I did misinterpret yours.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#533

Post by rmah »

nobody9999 wrote: post #500
rmah wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively. Immigration enforcement is required. Illegal immigration should be discouraged. ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically. But immigration laws should still be enforced. I imagine you'd agree that if ICE agents/supervisors act beyond the scope of their duties or with excessive force, th…

>It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively. Despite the ridiculous narrative that Obama and Biden were "bringing in illegals en masse to vote for Democrats," if you look at the actual numbers, it's not surprising that folks are down-voting that comment. Mostly because those previous administrations (Obama and Biden) managed to deport many more undocumented folks than either…

It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#534

Post by TitaRusell »

skrebbel wrote: post #170
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One final resolution is the guillotine Did you miss the lesson from the actual guillotine? It’s just another escalation in the cycle. The parties switch from raiding to guillotining each other. The guillotine doesn’t solve the problem, it just raises the stakes.

Just to add to this, it still blows my mind how quickly this happened. The French went from overthrowing the royals to guillotining their neighbours within 5 years, and in the same short timespan Robespierre went madder than any Sun King had ever been. "La Terreur" was total madness.

My country went from 1000 years of Christian hegemony to atheist in a span of approximately 20 years. Don't underestimate the capacity for humans to change.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#535

Post by dugidugout »

t-3 wrote: post #520
dugidugout wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dr…

I believe you have the hypothetical confused.

> if they were targeting you specifically

They are not targeting Natanson at all from what I can tell. They're targeting a source she's writing from (to what extent isn't clear to me). This is precisely why I'm positing Whren doesn't apply here.

I get the idea of being 'papered' out of a system, but I'm trying to distinguish a pretext that can be justified (objective probable cause) from one that can't (abuse of process). My boss can easily provide reason relating me to fire me, however fantastic the reality, but those would be refused, for good reason, if they surfaced them through private channels outside the organization.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#536

Post by Tadpole9181 »

Nicook wrote: post #422
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've misunderstood the parent. They're saying watch out what happens to anyone in the Journalist's book who did not share classified information . You seriously think this administration is going to get a list of 1,200 government employees who are (legally) informing reporters of the goings-on and just... Let it go? Those people are about to get punished. And since we're at the point of an unaccountable, unidentifi…

its pretty clear, even from the journalist's quote, that some of the things they informed her about was not done legally (classified information). Now is overclassification a problem too, yes but that's bureaucracy.

You are responding to a thread with the exact quotes:

> But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well.

...

> so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.

So we, in this thread, are talking about what happens to the majority of her sources that are NOT sharing confidential information or committing any crime.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#537

Post by pxc »

cdrnsf wrote: post #297
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.

They also lie to local police. There was a case here where they drove erratically to try and make it look like a legal observer rammed their vehicle. They hit him twice, called the local police, lied to the police and then said observer provided his dash cam footage and was released. Will ICE face any repercussions? Nope.

Link?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#538

Post by DiscourseFan »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #479
DiscourseFan wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human society is prone to convulsions, though. Just like the often body requires a shock to become stronger, healthier, societies need to be a push to avoid stagnation and decay. Though its true that you risk permanent injury, if you go too far.

> its true that you risk permanent injury, if you go too far Guillotining–and violence as a tool of politics more broadly–is pretty much a one-way signal in the historical record (outside civil wars). More concentration of wealth and power. Or anarchy. Either way, the poor and middle class end up worse. As for my civil-war caveat, even that's starting to look one way in the age of information and globally-mobilised p…

Hitler did not come to power out of a Jacobin movement, he came to power during a time just like our own, when a moderate government was convinced that there was no better alternative to their style of rule. It is dangerous to argue in favor of a stable middle class when history would prove that such forms of society are often fleeting when they do occur. Waves inevitably crash along the shore, which doesn’t mean they aren’t beautiful while they roll along it.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#540

Post by vablings »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #531
vablings wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally obtained is dubious in this context. He likely knew it was stolen

No one, including the FBI has ever made a statement that it was stolen and then charged O’Keefe for that. It was a raid to further “investigation” to determine for stolen. But don’t you think it’s more interesting you care less about a journalist being raided, then you do the outcome of a diary that explains that Biden according to his daughter sexually abused her?

> No one, including the FBI has ever made a statement that it was stolen and then charged O’Keefe for that

This is blatantly false two people were charged in connection with interstate transport of stolen goods, and the raid was part of the investigation. The diary was taken because it was the stolen good in question and important for the FBI's case on prosecuting the individuals charged.

>then you do the outcome of a diary that explains that Biden according to his daughter sexually abused her?

The diary was never published, verified or entered into evidence VS the current POTUS has had multiple credible allegations with affidavits and testimony

Post reply on HN