[untitled]
51 comments
My guess is: They never seriously considered the possibility that they'd get caught.
Nobody thought Trump was going to win, the Senate was expected to go blue, and House Republican control notwithstanding, that probably drove a lot of their internal, err, can I call it optimism? And if everyone involved believed there was something there to find, it's easy to understand why they'd just keep pushing, figuring that once they found something concrete, the methods used to get there would get lost in the noise.
I'm just speculating, but this may have played out rather differently had Trump had a two-digit lead for most of the run-up to the election.
Anyway, if I'm right that they justified their actions because they were never expected to see daylight, that's particularly scary because it suggests that maybe this behavior is standard operating procedure. Invent fake dirt on your perp and hand it to the FISA court, use the FISA warrant to get the real dirt on your perp, do some parallel construction, and you're golden! They've got carte blanche, as long as (a) they get their guy or (b) their guy doesn't have any power to come back at them. Yuck. That sort of thing can be dangerous to a democracy.
Nobody thought Trump was going to win, the Senate was expected to go blue, and House Republican control notwithstanding, that probably drove a lot of their internal, err, can I call it optimism? And if everyone involved believed there was something there to find, it's easy to understand why they'd just keep pushing, figuring that once they found something concrete, the methods used to get there would get lost in the noise.
I'm just speculating, but this may have played out rather differently had Trump had a two-digit lead for most of the run-up to the election.
Anyway, if I'm right that they justified their actions because they were never expected to see daylight, that's particularly scary because it suggests that maybe this behavior is standard operating procedure. Invent fake dirt on your perp and hand it to the FISA court, use the FISA warrant to get the real dirt on your perp, do some parallel construction, and you're golden! They've got carte blanche, as long as (a) they get their guy or (b) their guy doesn't have any power to come back at them. Yuck. That sort of thing can be dangerous to a democracy.
Maybe I'm wrong but it does appear there was an attempt to meddle in the peaceful transition of power and I personally believe that is more dangerous that any crazy and dangerous President. The Roman Republic started its path to destruction when the politic process of peaceful transition was interfered with.
Both things can be true:
* There are some rotten things at the FBI that should be fixed.
* Russians interfered with our elections in 2016, and will keep attempting to do so.
I don't get why he's so in the tank for Russia.
* There are some rotten things at the FBI that should be fixed.
* Russians interfered with our elections in 2016, and will keep attempting to do so.
I don't get why he's so in the tank for Russia.
Indeed. I generally agree with Greenwald in who he targets for attack, but what he chooses to defend is too broad, to the point where I wonder if some self-deception is involved.
If I recall correctly he was also defending Wikileaks against the charge that it timed its releases to hurt Hillary Clinton. Even if you agree with Wikileaks' general agenda, it's obvious they were timing things for maximum impact.
It's the same with Russian interference. It's actually their job to interfere, and it would be easy for him to acknowledge that and still maintain his criticism of targets.
If I recall correctly he was also defending Wikileaks against the charge that it timed its releases to hurt Hillary Clinton. Even if you agree with Wikileaks' general agenda, it's obvious they were timing things for maximum impact.
It's the same with Russian interference. It's actually their job to interfere, and it would be easy for him to acknowledge that and still maintain his criticism of targets.
What's the point of bringing Russia here at all? Yes Russia interfered. So did Israel and China. What's your point?
Is the supposed evidence of Russian interference at all dependent on these false FBI claims?
No, all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
The Republican minority report from the House intelligence committee also agrees Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
I don't see the strategic value in denying it happened. It's pretty obvious. I think most people on the right who aren't in the hyper-partisan bandwagon would agree with that.
We should be concerned if it did happened regardless of political ideology.
It'd be much easier to focus efforts on simply discrediting how much it really mattered. Most reports said the Russians spent around $20M on ads which considering both sides campaigns had about a billion each, not to mention the invaluable endless free media coverage over two years most presidential elections take... you can draw your own conclusions.
We should be concerned if it did happened regardless of political ideology.
It'd be much easier to focus efforts on simply discrediting how much it really mattered. Most reports said the Russians spent around $20M on ads which considering both sides campaigns had about a billion each, not to mention the invaluable endless free media coverage over two years most presidential elections take... you can draw your own conclusions.
> I don't see the strategic value in denying it happened. I
It's about sowing doubt and creating a world where there are no 'facts', because then those who lie are on a level playing field with those who deal with the truth.
It's about sowing doubt and creating a world where there are no 'facts', because then those who lie are on a level playing field with those who deal with the truth.
I don't understand why anyone who was on the Internet in 2016 couldn't see this. The troll farming was obvious and clearly different from the norm. In some cases the Russian origin was overt, e.g. RT all over alt-news sites.
My understanding, and I confess I haven't followed things very closely, is that the Russia meddling claim is somehow connected with the current impeachment of Trump. True? If so, does this report on the FBI at all relate to said impeachment?
As an aside, I have absolutely no idea why Trump is being impeached. Every time I open Google News all the top headlines are "Impeach Trump!". But I never see anything about why exactly he is being impeached. Granted, I haven't really read any of these articles, more than just skimming, but I'd expect at least something in the title or summary that I see in Google News. Very bizarre thing going on. When Clinton was impeached it was very clear it was related to Monica Lewinsky and lying under oath. But regarding Trump, I mostly just see articles about who wants him impeached. Nothing about why. Anyone know the particular reason Trump is being impeached? What law he violated?
UPDATE: I googled it, and someone claims he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden's son. Perhaps impeachable, but not obviously so. I guess that's why the reason is not more widely promoted, since on the face of it does not sound particularly egregious, compared to what other presidents have done.
As an aside, I have absolutely no idea why Trump is being impeached. Every time I open Google News all the top headlines are "Impeach Trump!". But I never see anything about why exactly he is being impeached. Granted, I haven't really read any of these articles, more than just skimming, but I'd expect at least something in the title or summary that I see in Google News. Very bizarre thing going on. When Clinton was impeached it was very clear it was related to Monica Lewinsky and lying under oath. But regarding Trump, I mostly just see articles about who wants him impeached. Nothing about why. Anyone know the particular reason Trump is being impeached? What law he violated?
UPDATE: I googled it, and someone claims he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden's son. Perhaps impeachable, but not obviously so. I guess that's why the reason is not more widely promoted, since on the face of it does not sound particularly egregious, compared to what other presidents have done.
> I haven't followed things very closely, is that the Russia meddling claim is somehow connected with the current impeachment of Trump.
No.
You could read the articles of impeachment themselves if you want to inform yourself: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeach...
"It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States."
No.
You could read the articles of impeachment themselves if you want to inform yourself: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeach...
"It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States."
According to your link, there is a connection:
"he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee."
And the document further continues the narrative that Trump is having outside powers interfere with the US election,
"These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections."
So, it is definitely related to the overall narrative of Trump colluding with foreign powers to have them interfere.
Also weird, dems been pushing to impeach Trump for quite awhile, but this is a recent event. It looks like the Dems have been on an impeachment hunt in search of a reason. Which also makes this allegation weird. Searching for reasons to impeach also sounds contrary to law and order, which is the reason given for impeaching Trump in this document.
"he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee."
And the document further continues the narrative that Trump is having outside powers interfere with the US election,
"These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections."
So, it is definitely related to the overall narrative of Trump colluding with foreign powers to have them interfere.
Also weird, dems been pushing to impeach Trump for quite awhile, but this is a recent event. It looks like the Dems have been on an impeachment hunt in search of a reason. Which also makes this allegation weird. Searching for reasons to impeach also sounds contrary to law and order, which is the reason given for impeaching Trump in this document.
Yes, it is related, there's a common theme, but the 2016 election is not why he was impeached.
The current allegations seem shaky, based on claims of some insider, so my impression is the impeachment uproar is riding on the 'collusion' updraft and moral fervor rather than hard data. Seems very different than say Watergate or with Clinton where the allegations could be unequivocally substantiated with objective evidence such as recordings.
None of this to say I like the guy or even believe the allegations to be false. However, the impeachment does not seem to be carefully following due process, which is much more undermining of rule by law than whatever Trump may have done.
None of this to say I like the guy or even believe the allegations to be false. However, the impeachment does not seem to be carefully following due process, which is much more undermining of rule by law than whatever Trump may have done.
It's based on the sworn testimony of numerous witnesses, including his own ambassador to the EU. The aid was delayed, and he even asked on live TV for them to open an investigation.
And the obstruction charge is quite verifiable as well.
This is very thorough, and not credibly rebutted anywhehere: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt34...
And the obstruction charge is quite verifiable as well.
This is very thorough, and not credibly rebutted anywhehere: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt34...
I hope it is as solid as you say, because an overturned conviction will pretty much guarantee Trump 2020.
A bunch of testimonies sounds convincing, but that depends on whom the people are and what they exactly observed. E.g. why would the ambassador to the UK know what Trump said to Ukraine? I personally am still not getting a solid feeling from all this.
A bunch of testimonies sounds convincing, but that depends on whom the people are and what they exactly observed. E.g. why would the ambassador to the UK know what Trump said to Ukraine? I personally am still not getting a solid feeling from all this.
Sorry, I edited it. Ambassador to the EU, Sondland. He was on various phone calls.
You'd really want to go read and review some of this. There are some decent summaries like
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...
This is no 'conviction'. He has been impeached, and that's forever, as with Clinton. More likely than not, he will not be removed from office.
No one really knows what the political consequences are, but the people running the investigation felt compelled to act since what he was doing represents a clear and present threat to free and fair elections.
You'd really want to go read and review some of this. There are some decent summaries like
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...
This is no 'conviction'. He has been impeached, and that's forever, as with Clinton. More likely than not, he will not be removed from office.
No one really knows what the political consequences are, but the people running the investigation felt compelled to act since what he was doing represents a clear and present threat to free and fair elections.
Hmm, reading your linked article makes it seem even weirder. The whole point of impeachment is to convict and imprison. The best way to do that is to get a really solid case. Even more so if the Dems really think Trump is a threat to our country, and shouldn't run again, they should build a rock solid case against Trump that ensures he ends up in jail. Trump cannot be president from a jail cell.
However, as the article says, the Dems are rushing the impeachment process, which as you say will most likely not remove Trump from office (nor imprison). So, I really don't understand what is the point of this whole thing. How does Trump's behavior present a threat to free and fair elections, and how does this impeachment stop the threat?
Trump may find out Biden's son is doing illegal activities, or that Russia wasn't as meddlesome as supposed, and while that may influence the election, it is unclear to me how learning such information is in itself a bad thing for our system of government, i.e. a threat to free and fair elections.
And the very implication of the articles of impeachment, that Trump could gain something of value from Ukraine, has the implication that what Trump is seeking may actually be correct. In which case, Trump's requests certainly should be followed through by the Ukraine minister.
This whole thing makes less and less sense the more I dig into it, and I understand even more why all the news articles are so light on details.
However, as the article says, the Dems are rushing the impeachment process, which as you say will most likely not remove Trump from office (nor imprison). So, I really don't understand what is the point of this whole thing. How does Trump's behavior present a threat to free and fair elections, and how does this impeachment stop the threat?
Trump may find out Biden's son is doing illegal activities, or that Russia wasn't as meddlesome as supposed, and while that may influence the election, it is unclear to me how learning such information is in itself a bad thing for our system of government, i.e. a threat to free and fair elections.
And the very implication of the articles of impeachment, that Trump could gain something of value from Ukraine, has the implication that what Trump is seeking may actually be correct. In which case, Trump's requests certainly should be followed through by the Ukraine minister.
This whole thing makes less and less sense the more I dig into it, and I understand even more why all the news articles are so light on details.
There is a lot of bunk in that number considering the fact that only 4 of them are intelligence agencies and the context of the answer. That said, of course, Russia meddled in our election. The support Hillary and Trump not to get one elected but to promote a split in this country and we fell for it like morons!
ABeeSea says>"all 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russia meddled in the 2016 election."
No. : "New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding '17 Intel Agencies' Lie About Russian Hacking":
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-for...
Ann Coulter addresses details and history of the "17 intelligence agencies" claims in her book "Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind":
https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Futile-Trump-Hating-Left-C...
The sole sources of the claims were found to be only John Brennan and James Clapper.
No. : "New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding '17 Intel Agencies' Lie About Russian Hacking":
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-for...
Ann Coulter addresses details and history of the "17 intelligence agencies" claims in her book "Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind":
https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Futile-Trump-Hating-Left-C...
The sole sources of the claims were found to be only John Brennan and James Clapper.
> Russians interfered with our elections in 2016
This line implies two totally different things and has been used by politicians and biased medias to mislead the public.
One thing is Russians interfered the elections in 2016 by buying ads and spreading misinformation, which did happen.
The other thing is Russians interfered the elections in 2016 by working with the Trump campaign. There is no evidence for this even after FBI violated many protocols in their investigation.
One example of media spreading misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIkgWdAq3Q
This line implies two totally different things and has been used by politicians and biased medias to mislead the public.
One thing is Russians interfered the elections in 2016 by buying ads and spreading misinformation, which did happen.
The other thing is Russians interfered the elections in 2016 by working with the Trump campaign. There is no evidence for this even after FBI violated many protocols in their investigation.
One example of media spreading misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIkgWdAq3Q
the Trump campaign took the information from the DNC leak and ran with it at top speed. they benefited massively from it.
"not working" with them would instead have meant they reported the efforts by Russian agents to meet with them to the FBI immediately, rather than actually meeting with them and asking for what illegally acquired dirt they had.
Is there any reason whatsoever to think Russia interfered? I mean outside the bull of "Russian person or company bought ads on Facebook", because if that counts I think half the world interfered in the election.
Because it has been thoroughly documented?
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-govern...
Here's another one about something much smaller and more local than the election:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelli...
They were trying to get Americans to fight in the streets, and organized a protest and counter protest!
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-govern...
Here's another one about something much smaller and more local than the election:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelli...
They were trying to get Americans to fight in the streets, and organized a protest and counter protest!
how about they hacked into private servers, stole private emails, carefully curated the most embarrassing segments, then released them throughout the internet? does that count?
There are many reasons and they are nicely documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
There are many reasons and they are nicely documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
867567838694(1)
From a nation-state perspective I would hope they attempt to interfere in the elections of their national rivals in order to eke out an advantage on the global playing field, just as I expect my own government to be doing the same.
I can't reconcile that with America's stated goal of promoting democracy in those same countries.
Can you reconcile this with our history of meddling in other country's elections?
From 2017, we influenced the French election: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/obama-meddles-french-electi...
American involvement in other other countries's leadership is so prevalent that there is a Wikipedia page for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
From 2017, we influenced the French election: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/obama-meddles-french-electi...
American involvement in other other countries's leadership is so prevalent that there is a Wikipedia page for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Endorsing a candidate is not "meddling in elections". Anyone trying to sell that line is not on the level.
There certainly have been plenty of instances of the US doing very bad things globally (your second link is very much legit), but I guess the stated goal of spreading democracy is better than whatever straight up authoritarian states like Russia are peddling, even if it can be frustrating when things fail to live up to the ideal.
I think you can certainly argue for less US involvement abroad and still view Russia's actions in a very, very poor light.
There certainly have been plenty of instances of the US doing very bad things globally (your second link is very much legit), but I guess the stated goal of spreading democracy is better than whatever straight up authoritarian states like Russia are peddling, even if it can be frustrating when things fail to live up to the ideal.
I think you can certainly argue for less US involvement abroad and still view Russia's actions in a very, very poor light.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're asking this in good faith. The answer is a resounding "yes".
1. On social media, the IRA (Russia's Internet Research Agency) posed as Americans on Twitter and Facebook, and was ordered to amplify and provoke political and social discord in the United States. They organized political rallies (including "Blue Lives Matter") and fake Facebook groups, complete with convenient memes, unwittingly shared by people like Donald Trump Jr., Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, etc.
2. The GRU hacked into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton campaign. They also hacked into the DNC and DCCC and released the stolen emails and documents to Wikileaks.
3. There were 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials around the 2016 election.
I suggest you read the Mueller report if you're actually curious about this.
1. On social media, the IRA (Russia's Internet Research Agency) posed as Americans on Twitter and Facebook, and was ordered to amplify and provoke political and social discord in the United States. They organized political rallies (including "Blue Lives Matter") and fake Facebook groups, complete with convenient memes, unwittingly shared by people like Donald Trump Jr., Kellyanne Conway, Michael Flynn, etc.
2. The GRU hacked into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton campaign. They also hacked into the DNC and DCCC and released the stolen emails and documents to Wikileaks.
3. There were 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials around the 2016 election.
I suggest you read the Mueller report if you're actually curious about this.
History repeats itself. LBJ knew that Nixon and Kissinger had sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks, and almost certainly ensured LBJ would lose to Nixon at the voting booths, but couldn't do anything because he came to know about the sabotage by questionable FBI techniques.
We can both blame the FBI for domestic misbehavior, and simultaneously recognize that, as LBJ put it, "Dammit, it's treason!" when Nixon and Kissinger interfered in foreign policy in order to sway an election. Or when Trump and Giuliani do it.
We can both blame the FBI for domestic misbehavior, and simultaneously recognize that, as LBJ put it, "Dammit, it's treason!" when Nixon and Kissinger interfered in foreign policy in order to sway an election. Or when Trump and Giuliani do it.
[deleted]
This article is total garbage and will make you stupider for reading it.
1. Flawed warrant applications were made
2. Those flawed warrants revealed a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of a presidential campaign, that has sent many people to prison. It is documented very well in the Mueller report. Further good background is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.
This is gaslighting of the worst kind. The procedural errors made by the FBI while investigating the crime pale in comparison to the crime itself and this is a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. I have read Greenwald for the better part of two decades when he was writing independently on a Wordpress site and I have no idea what has happened to him.
1. Flawed warrant applications were made
2. Those flawed warrants revealed a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of a presidential campaign, that has sent many people to prison. It is documented very well in the Mueller report. Further good background is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.
This is gaslighting of the worst kind. The procedural errors made by the FBI while investigating the crime pale in comparison to the crime itself and this is a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. I have read Greenwald for the better part of two decades when he was writing independently on a Wordpress site and I have no idea what has happened to him.
Greenwald has at least been consistent in his antagonism toward the state intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's unfortunate that that aligns him, now, with the gross political opportunism of a group of people who generally DO support an invasive government intelligence and law enforcement--as long as it is working in their favor.
Now that it is in their interest to publicly attack this apparatus, they happily do so. As soon as it's working for them again, they'll wrap themselves in FBI hats and American flags again.
One wants to say to Greenwald: "Read the room, man! You're supporting people who oppose your beliefs and would happily throw you in jail!"
But of course a big part of being Greenwald being Greenwald is he sticks to his guns no matter how the room reads.
It's unfortunate that that aligns him, now, with the gross political opportunism of a group of people who generally DO support an invasive government intelligence and law enforcement--as long as it is working in their favor.
Now that it is in their interest to publicly attack this apparatus, they happily do so. As soon as it's working for them again, they'll wrap themselves in FBI hats and American flags again.
One wants to say to Greenwald: "Read the room, man! You're supporting people who oppose your beliefs and would happily throw you in jail!"
But of course a big part of being Greenwald being Greenwald is he sticks to his guns no matter how the room reads.
The criminal conspiracy was very well documented in the Mueller report? As Greenwald says in the first sentence, no American was charged with conspiracy/collusion/coordination with Russia. All the people sent to prison are for process crimes or unrelated matters (Manafort). Hell, Roger Stone is going to prison for lying that he was part of a conspiracy with Wikileaks, when in fact he was making that up!
Check your wording.
There was no "criminal conspiracy".
These were all criminal individuals acting criminally, and not in concert to achieve anything together.
Their crimes indeed indicate this.
There was no "criminal conspiracy".
These were all criminal individuals acting criminally, and not in concert to achieve anything together.
Their crimes indeed indicate this.
Come on people, are we really still this blind to everything that has been going on? And "that has sent many people to prison"... Really???? No it hasn't and there hasn't been a criminal act, much less a criminal conspiracy uncovered.
I get it you hate Trump, but this shit should scare you.
I get it you hate Trump, but this shit should scare you.
So all the juries who sent folks to jail got it wrong?
What do you mean by "No it hasn't"? I believe the parent is talking about: Manfort, Cohen, Papadopoulos, Gates, Flynn, and Stone. Are you saying they weren't sent to prison, or that the FBI investigation wasn't responsible for them going?
Re, for example: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/trump-associates-con...
Re, for example: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/trump-associates-con...
Greenwald is a criminal. He is paying a former representative in the Brazilian House to give way for his lover; he used a criminal organization to invade several people’s instant messaging accounts, and has been using the messages out of context to try to stop corruption investigations; and he uses his adopted sons as human shields against criticism.
"Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I agree. To think that those kind of actions were so mishandled on the most high profile FBI investigation in decades is completely horrifying. Not to even mention the falsifying of evidence. If they do that to someone as high profile as Trump how much chicanery happens with cases involving everyday people.
As an aside, Glen Greenwald is in my opinion one of the last remaining true journalists that hasn't been overcome with partisan slant.
As an aside, Glen Greenwald is in my opinion one of the last remaining true journalists that hasn't been overcome with partisan slant.
Before the election the Republican's held the house and were likely to hold it again. If it became public that there was FISA surveillance related to Republican campaign you would have to expect a House investigation. There was also a chance that Trump would be elected. You would assume if he was elected there would also be an executive investigation into the FISA surveillance which is what we see from the OIG and now the DOJ via Durham.
There are going to be very strong incentives for these investigations to try and dig up anything that would look like foul play. Even if you try and do everything by the book you risk burning what is presumably a useful investigative tool. I can't see how the next best option which would be try and get sealed warrants from a normal court is so much poorer that this loss would offset all the political risk.