8 ms·

The NSA kept a real, meaningful scandal--and not a blowjob scandal, but one material to how the President will govern and look out for American interests--burie

• joshuaheard 10y ago
  Bill Clinton was not impeached for a blow job. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by a former employee, and trying to convince other witnesses to commit perjury as well, obstructing justice. In addition to the House of Representatives impeaching him, he was found in contempt of court by the judge presiding over the lawsuit and had his license to practice law suspended for violating ethics rules.
  • scarmig 10y ago
    That's all well and good, but the scandal part of it that captured the public's interest was certainly because of the blowjob/where'd the cigar go aspect of it. And I wasn't even referencing Clinton in particular--I'd put things like Anthony Weiner's sexts and Larry Craig's foot tapping in the same category. In the sense, they're on the trivial side of things and mostly get the public attention because of prurience, not salience for good governance.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      The public was so interested in the "blowjob/cigar" aspect of the story that the Republican party suffered a historic defeat in the midterms that were seen as a rebuke to the GOP's attempt to make hay out of the story, and ended Newt Gingrich's career.
      • zevyoura 10y ago
        > ended Newt Gingrich's career Apparently not.
        • tptacek 10y ago
          He resigned in disgrace.
          • TallGuyShort 10y ago
            That ended his job, not his career. He's been relatively politically active since then, being one of the top contenders for the presidential nomination from the exact same party despite other scandals of a sexual and moral nature. Definitely not a career-ender, apparently.
            • tptacek 10y ago
              At no point has Gingrich ever been a contender in any Presidential race. Getting on TV doesn't make you a contender. Even Herman Cain managed to do that.
              • scott_s 10y ago
                There is a non-zero chance Gingrich gets a substantial appointment.
                • mason240 10y ago
                  There is a non-zero chance you get a substantial appointment.
              • TallGuyShort 10y ago
                Okay, then, the almost $500k/yr he was making a year in speeches and his active involvement and relative success in politically oriented consultancies. Take your pick. He's still being pretty damn successful in political spaces. edit: ha - misspoke, it was actually almost $5M / year
    • woofyman 10y ago
      The Larry Craig story had legs because he's a member of an anti-gay political party.
      • JackFr 10y ago
        > The Larry Craig story had legs ...or at least feet.
      • scarmig 10y ago
        My point is that, his hypocrisy notwithstanding, it has maybe one millionth the importance of the fact that a foreign strategic competitor has significantly influenced American democratic processes in order to extract more favorable policies from the USA.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    Republicans use state powers, law enforcement and the judiciary, to criminalize and oppress their opposition and to promote their own interests. I don't see Democrats doing the equivalent of any of the following. I'm not saying that to be partisan, but to point out a very serious situation that has become normalized - I would say the same if the Democrats were doing it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it is semi-authoritarian. * Bill Clinton was impeached. As you point out, he did commit perjury. However, the legal standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors; it was one of only two impeachments in 240 years (EDIT: Plus a third, Nixon, who IIRC would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned). Those are very high standards; obviously if Bill Clinton's wrongdoing was the standard far more would have been impeached. In fact, perjury is very rarely prosecuted for anyone. For example, GW Bush ran an illegal surveillance program - a far more serious crime - and there were no consequences. * The 2000 Presidential election was decided by Republicans on the Supreme Court. Arguably it may also be a legally legitimate decision, but it was apparently a political one, as the vote was party-line. * Democratic voters are accused of criminal fraud, with no evidence, and the GOP uses the government to suppress their voting. * Organizations that register Democrats to vote are criminalized and shut down. Acorn is one prominent example of many. * Organizations that promote Democrat-favored causes are criminalized. Planned Parenthood is one. * The GOP used state powers to investigate Hillary Clinton endlessly, on Benghazi and her email server (note that nothing was found for either). Trump is still leaving open the possibility of continuing to investigate her. It cost her the election. Compare that to Trump, for whom there are no known investigations despite brazen sexual harassment, sexual harassment of minors, tax fraud, and much more. * The FBI openly took actions, contrary to its rules and traditions, that undermined Clinton and probably cost her the election. The list goes on and I think the pattern is clear.
    • euyyn 10y ago
      Didn't the Democrats use the IRS to target Republican politicians?
      • hackuser 10y ago
        A good point and I'd forgotten about that allegation; thanks. My thoughts: My memory is that the IRS was legitimately investigating illegal campaign finance, which happened to be among some Republican groups. GOP members of Congress used their power to shut down a legitimate law-enforcement investigation. (Note that the GOP has a history of this: They also have effectively disabled the Federal Election Commission by appointing members who veto almost every enforcement action against Republicans.) If my memory is accurate, it's further abuse of state power for the party's interests. As a result, the U.S. has no campaign finance enforcement AFAIK. The IRS won't get near it, fearing Congressional Republicans, and the FEC has been hobbled. Finally, even if my memory is false, it doesn't match up to the GOP pattern of behavior.
  • jmde 10y ago
    ... but later the whole line of inquiry and interview of him was ruled in court to be immaterial to the case. So there's some disagreement with the perspective you're outlining.
• helthanatos 10y ago
  The government needs to shrink so it can't be bought. It's ridiculous that the party which should be anti government hasn't reduced the federal agencies.
  • Frondo 10y ago
    What? Seems like a smaller government would be that much cheaper to buy off.
    • GuiA 10y ago
      Oversight and accountability are easier in smaller organizations.
    • refurb 10y ago
      I would argue the opposite. A smaller gov't implies a gov't with less power. Less power means less incentive for lobbyists to influence decisions.
      • mywittyname 10y ago
        No need to buy them off at that point because they won't be in the way. The only reason to lobby government officials is to dismantle laws that protect others at your company's expense or to put in place laws that protect your company at others' expense.
    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      When the government has less power, it's less worthwhile to buy it off.
  • helthanatos 10y ago
    Because people seem to misunderstand this: a government that isn't all-powerful may be easier to buy off but not really. There would be no point in buying off a government that couldn't do any favors, so even if someone does buy it, it won't do them any good. Government growth has created the monster we have today. The US government used to only be worth a few terrifs and some influence on who it fought. Today, buying into government not only influences the wrong type of people to be politicians, it also gives huge amounts of power to the investors. To be a big business and succeed in today's world, you pretty much have to either have some people invested in your company in the government or you have to do some bribes. This isn't a view that the government should have no power, rather power that companies don't care about. The US monopoly policy, tax policies, hiring requirements, and other government-imposed burdens on companies are comparatively easier to buy around instead of following if the company is large enough. Why is wanting a small government bad?
• fusiongyro 10y ago
  When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—appropriately so.
  • Jweb_Guru 10y ago
    There was nothing there, so that seems unlikely.
    • fixxer 10y ago
      Luckily, we still have months of investigation on the Clinton Foundation to entertain us well into 2017.
    • leeleelee 10y ago
      You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.
      • GVIrish 10y ago
        The right certainly would've complained about a coverup if Comey hadn't said anything about the additional emails before the election. It was still a gross breach in protocol and wholly inappropriate. As a rule the FBI simply does not announce they're investigating someone because it can damage the investigation, and because it could unfairly tarnish someone who has done nothing wrong. The encroachment of political calculus into the Justice Department is not a good thing. Let Democrats or Republicans howl about whatever, the DoJ and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to do their job the right way, regardless of partisan complaining.
      • hackuser 10y ago
        > risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations That has no significance when weighed against the risk undermining democracy and effectively choosing the next President, which is what happened.
• spraak 10y ago
  > but one material to how the President will govern and look out for American interests--buried until after the election Can you explain the story? I'm not familiar Edit: er.. down vote? I don't live in the US..
  • scarmig 10y ago
    There are various interpretations, but the most generous version of it has that Russia and Trump had a coincidence of interest in seeing Clinton defeated, and played off each other to maximize the chances of Trump's victory. The least generous is the Trump is controlled by the Kremlin, and Putin has installed a toadie he has under his thumb to the US Presidency.
    • throwaway420 10y ago
      (Just for the sake of argument, assuming Russia is involved exactly as stated...) I don't think Russia had any particular leverage over Trump. Rather, Russia is desperate to avert war between 2 nuclear armed powers. Most US citizens have no idea how tense relations have gotten between Russia and the US in the last year. Hillary's stated policy of implementing a no fly zone over Syria would have almost certainly led to armed conflict between the US and Russia. As for Trump, it remains to be seen what happens, but he has said he wants to work with Russia to take down ISIS, which is a mutual problem both countries face, and to me that cooperation sounds better than WW3.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    Also, there is evidence of Russian government collaboration with Trump's organization, and the Russian ambassador said his government had talks with Trump's people during the election.
• misja111 10y ago
  What did the NSA keep burried? The article mentions that the NSA immediately pointed out Russia for the Wikileaks hacks, already on October 15th: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hacks-1475870371 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hac... I don't really read anything new in the article except what was already mentioned in October.
  • scarmig 10y ago
    That is a great point. I'm updating my post to reflect this information.
    • mmmpop 10y ago
      No, it's not a "great point", it's just the facts.
  • MichaelBurge 10y ago
    The NSA's statement had a lot of weasel-words in it, and Julian Assange explicitly denied that the emails came from a Russian source. Do most HN commenters believe that Assange is outright lying?
    • cypherpunks01 10y ago
      Wikileaks staff have generally responded- "We receive information anonymously, through an anonymous submission platform. We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.", most recently in the AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wik... If correct (and I'm inclined to believe them here as it's a key component of their process), then they would have no knowledge one way or another as to who the true submitter really was. I think Assange is bending the truth by denying the source of the submission—if his staff's statement is true then he would have no way of knowing. Under Occam's Razor I'd conclude that they got played in the exact way that was intended.
    • JohnStrange 10y ago
• JackFr 10y ago
  This is not a scandal. If true, but embarrassing leaked emails had been obtained by a non-state actor, news outlets would do what news outlets do, and they would publish it. There would by cries to investigate and prosecute from the embarrassed party but typically at the end of the day little would come of it. The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any difference if it were an unknown US hacker? Further, Hillary Clinton truly has no one to blame but herself for her FBI problems. Four years of dissembling and foot dragging caused this. Additionally, what the Wikileaks hack shows is that her carelessness almost certainly meant that top secret emails were hacked by an adversarial state actor as well.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    Not only do they not show that, but emails using the official State Department mail servers were in fact hacked by Russia during the same time period. Her mails were very possibly safer on her own server. Further, Wikileaks didn't leak her State Department emails. The State Department emails we saw were published by the US Government. Wikileaks published hacked emails from the DNC and from John Podesta.
  • bradford 10y ago
    > The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any difference if it were an unknown US hacker? I think it makes a huge difference. The specific parties involved and their intent matters. Suppose this were a shooting instead of hack. If an unknown US citizen shoots up a mall, it's a headline. If a member of a Foreign military shoots up a US mall, it's an international incident.
    • kodablah 10y ago
      Inaccurate analogy. There are several analogies one can come up with to emphasize the "who" over the "what" and there are several analogies that can do the opposite. In this case, even if the "who" matters in some other context, it shouldn't matter with regards to the "what" which is the same regardless. So while the who does matter, that's a different question and a different discussion and arguably shifts the discussion away from the what.
• api 10y ago
  Isn't it illegal for Federal employees to attempt in any way to influence an election? Couldn't such a thing be considered "attempting to influence" and expose them to losing their jobs or worse? That and much of what the NSA and CIA does is classified, so they may not be able to release much of what they know without first declassifying it. From what I hear it's easy to stamp secret or top secret on something but bureaucratic hell to undo classification, giving classification kind of a roach motel effect.
  • Terr_ 10y ago
    > Isn't it illegal for Federal employees to attempt in any way to influence an election? If it is, how does any incumbent (and their cabinet or staff) ever campaign for election to another term?
    • woofyman 10y ago
      The Hatch act forbids federal employees from influencing an election. With the exception of elected officials obviously.
  • paulmd 10y ago
    > Couldn't such a thing be considered "attempting to influence" and expose them to losing their jobs or worse? The maximum penalty under the Hatch Act is removal from office, so no "or worse" here. In hindsight that's rather a major fault with the Hatch Act, since it means there's little downside to influencing the election for someone who doesn't care about losing their job, or who expects to lose it anyway if the opposition party wins.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    > Isn't it illegal for Federal employees to attempt in any way to influence an election? It is, but law enforcement and Congress only investigate Democrats at high levels, not Republicans. Trump did many things that may be illegal, but there were no FBI investigations. See this post for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12969225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12969225