6 ms·

Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call

Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call it gaining influence or blackmail, it's usually the technique of authoritarians or the corrupt and not a path we want to advocate or even tolerate.

malvosenior 8y ago
> Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.
- matthewdgreen 8y ago
  Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hints that he wants it to happen and expresses happiness that it has. That's the era we're living in, and it's dangerous as hell.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever and many, many people cheer. That is dangerous as hell. I'm happy to be proven wrong but to also be clear: there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with this.
    - abrahamepton 8y ago
      Zero evidence, sure. But a pattern of behavior that is deeply, deeply troubling and suspicious. As others have pointed out, he tweet-taunted Bezos a few weeks ago in a way that seems rather connected to this recent revelation. Joe Scarborough and Mike Brzezinski wrote an op-ed (in the Post!!) about having been threatened with blackmail by AMI, seemingly in direct connection to the White House's desires. Ronan Farrow came forward yesterday to say that AMI tried something similar with him. Sure, Trump may have nothing to do with it. But you and I aren't courts of law; we're people, and we're allowed to look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions. If your conclusion is that this is an "era ... which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever" then you're just doing a bad job of evaluating evidence.
      - wahern 8y ago
        A pattern of behavior is evidence. All evidence is circumstantial. That realization is actually foundational to our system of criminal Due Process. It's why nearly every piece of evidence entered into trial, even simple documents and scientific analyses, requires a witness to vouchsafe. Facts cannot be divorced from their human origin, and any fact can be challenged by challenging the credibility of its origin. All facts are messy things, and while some are messier than others there's no avoiding careful consideration in light of the available context. It follows that the distinction between fact and conjecture is one of opinion.
    - everdev 8y ago
      > Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever Before a crime is proven, there's usually speculation. Just like people suspected Nixon of being involved in Watergate before there was actual proof. The truth can come slowly. I agree that we need to follow due process, but it's just as dangerous to categorize any suspicion of criminal activity as "blaming Trump for everything". You're just on the opposite end of the spectrum as people who thinks he's guilty before we have proof. Evidence takes time, especially with plea bargains where there's incentive to hold out until the evidence against you is overwhelming. It's best to be somewhere in the middle where you're equally skeptical and open to whatever news and evidence comes out.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        You're right, there's obviously a spectrum. I feel it's gone too far in one direction. There's literally no proof on this particular issue that Trump had anything to do with the NE story on Bezos so it seems like quite a leap to start creating conspiracy theories that he used national intelligence agencies to dig up the dirt.
        jandrese 8y ago
        I would have written it off as conspiracy theory nonsense myself, were it not for Trumps attack tweets a few weeks ago. While I don't think any US intelligence agencies are involved, it's absolutely possible that some foreign partners are providing "voluntary assistance" in the matter.
      - YUMad 8y ago
        Yup, just like people suspected Hillary to be involved in Seth Rich's murder?
  - _pmf_ 8y ago
    The Fusion GPS/FBI collusion comes very close to what you describe.
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      Collusion? What do you mean by that term? You mean the FBI hired Fusion GPS for official business? I believe the term you are looking for is "contracting".
      - jfnixon 8y ago
        I think the reference is to the DNC funding Fusion GPS through a cutout (to evade campaign finance laws) and then providing the Steele dossier to the FBI. Which proceeded to lie about it to the FISA court in order to spy on Americans. That sort of thing.
  - dpweb 8y ago
    Espionage is nothing new. Trump or US govt. ordering this is an attractive idea to Trump haters. Self serving for Bezos btw. But I think unlikely. No need. Like other smear attempts for instance Wikileaks on the Clinton campaign and also why its unlikely Mueller will EVER get the smoking gun on Trump. You don’t need to order these things, your allies will do it without your knowledge. Deniability.
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      Very optismistic POV considering the indictments in the works.
      - jfnixon 8y ago
        Please, tell us about the indictment in the works.
squozzer 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
- njarboe 8y ago
  Head of the FBI and its predecessor from 1924 till 1972. So, for the US, we had a department "obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them" for at least that time period.
  - wahern 8y ago
    Right, and Hoover's techniques were those of an authoritarian which few in Washington wished to support or tolerate. The problem was that Hoover's enemies included those very same Washington leaders, whom he'd quietly threaten. By contrast, we've arrived at a point where those very same techniques, practiced openly and brazenly, are considered legitimate in the eyes of a significant plurality of both Washington leaders and the national electorate. Corruption has always existed, but unless it's normalized you at least have a fighting change of containing it. When its normalized it will consume the whole system. Pervasive cynicism is sufficient to normalize it, and that's often how it metastasizes.

malvosenior 8y ago

> Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.

matthewdgreen 8y ago
Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hints that he wants it to happen and expresses happiness that it has. That's the era we're living in, and it's dangerous as hell.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever and many, many people cheer. That is dangerous as hell. I'm happy to be proven wrong but to also be clear: there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with this.
  - abrahamepton 8y ago
    Zero evidence, sure. But a pattern of behavior that is deeply, deeply troubling and suspicious. As others have pointed out, he tweet-taunted Bezos a few weeks ago in a way that seems rather connected to this recent revelation. Joe Scarborough and Mike Brzezinski wrote an op-ed (in the Post!!) about having been threatened with blackmail by AMI, seemingly in direct connection to the White House's desires. Ronan Farrow came forward yesterday to say that AMI tried something similar with him. Sure, Trump may have nothing to do with it. But you and I aren't courts of law; we're people, and we're allowed to look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions. If your conclusion is that this is an "era ... which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever" then you're just doing a bad job of evaluating evidence.
    - wahern 8y ago
      A pattern of behavior is evidence. All evidence is circumstantial. That realization is actually foundational to our system of criminal Due Process. It's why nearly every piece of evidence entered into trial, even simple documents and scientific analyses, requires a witness to vouchsafe. Facts cannot be divorced from their human origin, and any fact can be challenged by challenging the credibility of its origin. All facts are messy things, and while some are messier than others there's no avoiding careful consideration in light of the available context. It follows that the distinction between fact and conjecture is one of opinion.
  - everdev 8y ago
    > Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever Before a crime is proven, there's usually speculation. Just like people suspected Nixon of being involved in Watergate before there was actual proof. The truth can come slowly. I agree that we need to follow due process, but it's just as dangerous to categorize any suspicion of criminal activity as "blaming Trump for everything". You're just on the opposite end of the spectrum as people who thinks he's guilty before we have proof. Evidence takes time, especially with plea bargains where there's incentive to hold out until the evidence against you is overwhelming. It's best to be somewhere in the middle where you're equally skeptical and open to whatever news and evidence comes out.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      You're right, there's obviously a spectrum. I feel it's gone too far in one direction. There's literally no proof on this particular issue that Trump had anything to do with the NE story on Bezos so it seems like quite a leap to start creating conspiracy theories that he used national intelligence agencies to dig up the dirt.
      - jandrese 8y ago
        I would have written it off as conspiracy theory nonsense myself, were it not for Trumps attack tweets a few weeks ago. While I don't think any US intelligence agencies are involved, it's absolutely possible that some foreign partners are providing "voluntary assistance" in the matter.
    - YUMad 8y ago
      Yup, just like people suspected Hillary to be involved in Seth Rich's murder?
- _pmf_ 8y ago
  The Fusion GPS/FBI collusion comes very close to what you describe.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    Collusion? What do you mean by that term? You mean the FBI hired Fusion GPS for official business? I believe the term you are looking for is "contracting".
    - jfnixon 8y ago
      I think the reference is to the DNC funding Fusion GPS through a cutout (to evade campaign finance laws) and then providing the Steele dossier to the FBI. Which proceeded to lie about it to the FISA court in order to spy on Americans. That sort of thing.
- dpweb 8y ago
  Espionage is nothing new. Trump or US govt. ordering this is an attractive idea to Trump haters. Self serving for Bezos btw. But I think unlikely. No need. Like other smear attempts for instance Wikileaks on the Clinton campaign and also why its unlikely Mueller will EVER get the smoking gun on Trump. You don’t need to order these things, your allies will do it without your knowledge. Deniability.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    Very optismistic POV considering the indictments in the works.
    - jfnixon 8y ago
      Please, tell us about the indictment in the works.

squozzer 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

njarboe 8y ago
Head of the FBI and its predecessor from 1924 till 1972. So, for the US, we had a department "obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them" for at least that time period.
- wahern 8y ago
  Right, and Hoover's techniques were those of an authoritarian which few in Washington wished to support or tolerate. The problem was that Hoover's enemies included those very same Washington leaders, whom he'd quietly threaten. By contrast, we've arrived at a point where those very same techniques, practiced openly and brazenly, are considered legitimate in the eyes of a significant plurality of both Washington leaders and the national electorate. Corruption has always existed, but unless it's normalized you at least have a fighting change of containing it. When its normalized it will consume the whole system. Pervasive cynicism is sufficient to normalize it, and that's often how it metastasizes.