The Twitter Files, Part Six

>Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.

You keep referring to a "narrative," but you don't provide any details WRT to the ideas presented in such a "narrative."

As such, I have to reject your claims for lack of detail, facts or evidence. Feel free to change my mind by providing such things.

>Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion. Government law enforcement agencies shouldn’t be “asking” for anything unless it’s done under due process of law. Sorry but I 100% disagree.

By that logic, if there's a loud party in your apartment building, the police shouldn't be able to knock on the door where the party is going on to ask them to keep it down unless they already have an arrest warrant for disturbing the peace.

Does that sound about right? Because police should never be involved in anything unless there's a court order. Is that correct?

> Which is substantially less problematic that the sitting President threatening Twitter.

No, in fact quite the reverse. It is quite problematic. Active cooperation between the FBI and Twitter is a threat to the institutions of democratic governance. That is why it is a scandal and there are things like the 1st amendment that basically say "government shouldn't do this, it is illegal".

Part of the draw of Trump was his ongoing battles with every reporting institution on the face of the earth. His Fake News routine was entertaining. And, critically, all happening publicly and with extensive documentation of every act and insult. Compare that to the FBI here where it is almost coincidence that we even have firm evidence of what is going on despite the fact they were handing out names to be blocked.

> The Mueller report extensively documented Russia's attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.

Which aspects of the Russian interference do you think are a bigger deal than the FBI interference in the political process that are being documented in the linked twitter thread?

You can refer to the Muller report if you like. I ask people to cite which bits of it they are worried about and usually their turn out to be bluffing about there being anything defensible in it. There is a lot of bark and no bite, it looks like to maintain credibility they were relying on the report being so think that nobody reads it.

To take the Muller report seriously requires someone to believe in devious Russian plans to reveal the truth to Americans. And that the Chinese are all angels and have no influence operations of note whatsoever. The whole scenario that Muller tried to paint is an insult to the intelligence, which casts a poor light on Wray because he had presumably read and understood the report.

> It didn't exonerate the Trump campaign either.

I'm going to be polite and listen to your opinion despite you likely not being exonerated for any horrible crimes.

That was always political weasel language, and goes a long way to discrediting Muller as purposefully adding spin to the situation. He was looking very hard for a problem and couldn't find anything. When the politicians are forced back to insinuation that means they don't have any actual evidence - because if they have it they lead with it.

> Active cooperation between the FBI and Twitter

It's virtually impossible for the government to do its job without the private individuals and institutions "actively cooperating" with them. Nearly all interactions between the government and private institutions can be described that way.

> That is why it is a scandal and there are things like the 1st amendment that basically say "government shouldn't do this, it is illegal".

This is completely incoherent - the first amendment of course does not say that the government shouldn't cooperate with private individuals or institutions. Like how is it even possible to interpret the first amendment that way? I mean, it's very obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and your motivation here is entirely political, but how is it possible to get things so wrong?

I mean there are so many things wrong here, but one additional thing is that the Constitution enumerates and limits the power of the federal government. The Constitution does not grant the FBI any power whatsoever, except indirectly through the President.

What you're saying (rather extremely incoherently) amounts to saying President Trump was unconstitutionally abusing his powers to hurt his own campaign.

Also, this is how you started:

> the Muller report came out around the time he said that and basically debunked the issue as a serious problem

And this is where you ended:

> To take the Muller report seriously requires someone to believe in devious Russian plans to reveal the truth to Americans

> That was always political weasel language, and goes a long way to discrediting Muller as purposefully adding spin to the situation

And no the Mueller report doesn't insinuate - it extensively documents criminal ways in which Trump obstructed the investigation. He simply felt it was the job of Congress to act on the evidence he found.

Could you please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it (regardless of what they're battling for or against).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html