4 ms·

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff

by deogeo 7y ago

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-fooled-again-claims-nsa-spying-legality-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

JPKab 7y ago
Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions and the deaths of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Obama, who I voted for twice, not counting my primary votes for him, kept us in Afghanistan, and didn't pardon Snowden, but did pardon Chelsea Manning. I don't care if this helps orange man a little bit, because he will be gone in a few years, worst case scenario, a few months best case. But the smooth talking, non offensive marketing figurehead for the other party will hopefully not have so much power to abuse when they take office.
- frockington1 7y ago
  Democrats need to realize that if this is pushed under the rug it will give evil orange man even more credibility and fire power about the "Deep State". If they push this under the rug this will be a huge rally cry (literally in the case of orange man) for 2020.
  - guelo 7y ago
    I realize we live in an upside down world nowadays, but I'd like to point out that FISA reauthorization votes in the past have been unanimously supported by Republicans while half of Democrats would vote against them.
- davidw 7y ago
  They're planning for his children to be his successors on the throne. He doesn't seem interested in the constitutional term limits, either, and it's hard to see how you lose an election if you are free to cheat in it. I think the threat is real, and I've been around for a while. This isn't just the latest partisan spat. That said, yes, you're correct about the FBI and surveillance stuff and all that. Also: the NYT is part and parcel of the "shit show". Endless reporting about Her Emails. We've already forgotten that the orange man regularly uses unsecured personal cell phones to conduct business free from oversight, since that came out ... let's see... last week.
  - RandomTisk 7y ago
    By cheating, you're referring to the 17 'unbiased' errors, 100% of which somehow simultaneously helped the Hillary campaign and pushed a sham special council investigation and impeachment on the people, all the while the media was pinky swearing there was more evidence than there actually was, right?
    - davidw 7y ago
      The orange man got caught attempting to use the powers of his office to cheat in the upcoming election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impeachment/?arc404=true&fbclid=IwAR3411RED6OzBYy9q5qJyDECYX7KJPuX7VXYbJ-p-c6cj_Ydhal-J8M7pbs https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...
      - boatswain 7y ago
        Ukraine really was about 2016 not 2020.
      - cheeseomlit 7y ago
        Biden engaged in blatant corruption. Investigating him is not "cheating".
        davidw 7y ago
- deogeo 7y ago
  I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is. Compare this with their coverage of a different revelation of state secrets: the US pressuring the UK to sell out their healthcare in the UK-US trade negotiations. They focus entirely on how it's "associated with a Russian disinformation campaign", with a tiny little addendum that "the leaks seem accurate". They like to present themselves as trustworthy and neutral, and indeed their coverage is very accurate. But their selection of stories to cover, and angles to cover them from, hides a tremendous bias (which doesn't neatly map to US party lines, as the examples I gave illustrate).
  - ryanackley 7y ago
    The media outlet that a person finds unbiased completely gives away their politics. FOX news = Trump base, MSNBC, CNN = Trump opposition base. NYT = moderate liberal, WSJ = moderate conservative. That is because every media outlet is biased. I have yet to find a news source that doesn't seem to lean in one direction or the other.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. It's not as big of a problemas abuse of power by a federal institution that directed genocide and, incidentally, which that other federal institution answers to, which makes it strange that that's exactly what you are using it to minimize. > Orange man didn't create this system. The manner in which Donald Trump has corrupted the administration of the executive branch and for which is defenders—includig those who can't bring themselves to a direct defense by only engage in the kind do distraction you are engaging in now—are desperate to set the precedent of total absence of accountability is one of greatest dangers to democratic-republican government in the history of the nation. Certainly, it builds on a history tracing back at least through the Nixon pardon, the relative lack of accountability in Iran-Contra, the Republican Congress so burnt out from a failed attempt to impeach Clinton for lying about sex that it couldn't muster up accountability for a war waged not only without Congressional action, but against direct Congressional denial of authority, and scores of abuses, including bad faith in making determinations Congress required in the Iraq AUMF, war crimes, torture, etc., directed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, etc. But we're running out of opportunities to draw a line in executive abuses of power before there is no more capacity to restrain. > Obama [...] did pardon Chelsea Manning. In fact, he did not. He commuted Manning's sentence, which is a very different thing. Not that I see how the issue would be relevant to the rest of the discussion either way.
  - frickinLasers 7y ago
    > a federal institution that directed genocide What are you referring to?
  - adolph 7y ago
    Clinton was impeached by the house. He was not convicted and removed from office by the senate. While "lying about sex" may have sounded innocuous at the time, in a post #metoo and Epstein world the behavior has different cultural meaning. In addition, Clinton's impeachable behavior went beyond lying about his own behavior, but witness tampering. In of itself Clinton's behavior might have been a personal matter or an HR issue, but the lies and witness tampering were related to his defence against an previously filed workplace sexual harassment lawsuit. On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868)[a] when the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
tegfdsc 7y ago
"Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece?" No. "They used to know better" Wrong again: 1. They should have published it. 2. That article from the Bush era revealed something. The article posted here today is an editorial that doesn't reveal anything new. Instead it discusses a report from a government agency.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
The election isn't for another year. What's the horizon that you're going to make us wait for? This question has nothing to do with Trump and the election. It's about the misbehavior of our law enforcement and courts. That's a present danger, and important to address ASAP.
ailideex 7y ago
> Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? Why?

by deogeo 7y ago

JPKab 7y ago

Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions and the deaths of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Obama, who I voted for twice, not counting my primary votes for him, kept us in Afghanistan, and didn't pardon Snowden, but did pardon Chelsea Manning. I don't care if this helps orange man a little bit, because he will be gone in a few years, worst case scenario, a few months best case. But the smooth talking, non offensive marketing figurehead for the other party will hopefully not have so much power to abuse when they take office.

frockington1 7y ago
Democrats need to realize that if this is pushed under the rug it will give evil orange man even more credibility and fire power about the "Deep State". If they push this under the rug this will be a huge rally cry (literally in the case of orange man) for 2020.
- guelo 7y ago
  I realize we live in an upside down world nowadays, but I'd like to point out that FISA reauthorization votes in the past have been unanimously supported by Republicans while half of Democrats would vote against them.
davidw 7y ago
They're planning for his children to be his successors on the throne. He doesn't seem interested in the constitutional term limits, either, and it's hard to see how you lose an election if you are free to cheat in it. I think the threat is real, and I've been around for a while. This isn't just the latest partisan spat. That said, yes, you're correct about the FBI and surveillance stuff and all that. Also: the NYT is part and parcel of the "shit show". Endless reporting about Her Emails. We've already forgotten that the orange man regularly uses unsecured personal cell phones to conduct business free from oversight, since that came out ... let's see... last week.
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  By cheating, you're referring to the 17 'unbiased' errors, 100% of which somehow simultaneously helped the Hillary campaign and pushed a sham special council investigation and impeachment on the people, all the while the media was pinky swearing there was more evidence than there actually was, right?
  - davidw 7y ago
    The orange man got caught attempting to use the powers of his office to cheat in the upcoming election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impeachment/?arc404=true&fbclid=IwAR3411RED6OzBYy9q5qJyDECYX7KJPuX7VXYbJ-p-c6cj_Ydhal-J8M7pbs https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...
    - boatswain 7y ago
      Ukraine really was about 2016 not 2020.
    - cheeseomlit 7y ago
      Biden engaged in blatant corruption. Investigating him is not "cheating".
      - davidw 7y ago
deogeo 7y ago
I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is. Compare this with their coverage of a different revelation of state secrets: the US pressuring the UK to sell out their healthcare in the UK-US trade negotiations. They focus entirely on how it's "associated with a Russian disinformation campaign", with a tiny little addendum that "the leaks seem accurate". They like to present themselves as trustworthy and neutral, and indeed their coverage is very accurate. But their selection of stories to cover, and angles to cover them from, hides a tremendous bias (which doesn't neatly map to US party lines, as the examples I gave illustrate).
- ryanackley 7y ago
  The media outlet that a person finds unbiased completely gives away their politics. FOX news = Trump base, MSNBC, CNN = Trump opposition base. NYT = moderate liberal, WSJ = moderate conservative. That is because every media outlet is biased. I have yet to find a news source that doesn't seem to lean in one direction or the other.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. It's not as big of a problemas abuse of power by a federal institution that directed genocide and, incidentally, which that other federal institution answers to, which makes it strange that that's exactly what you are using it to minimize. > Orange man didn't create this system. The manner in which Donald Trump has corrupted the administration of the executive branch and for which is defenders—includig those who can't bring themselves to a direct defense by only engage in the kind do distraction you are engaging in now—are desperate to set the precedent of total absence of accountability is one of greatest dangers to democratic-republican government in the history of the nation. Certainly, it builds on a history tracing back at least through the Nixon pardon, the relative lack of accountability in Iran-Contra, the Republican Congress so burnt out from a failed attempt to impeach Clinton for lying about sex that it couldn't muster up accountability for a war waged not only without Congressional action, but against direct Congressional denial of authority, and scores of abuses, including bad faith in making determinations Congress required in the Iraq AUMF, war crimes, torture, etc., directed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, etc. But we're running out of opportunities to draw a line in executive abuses of power before there is no more capacity to restrain. > Obama [...] did pardon Chelsea Manning. In fact, he did not. He commuted Manning's sentence, which is a very different thing. Not that I see how the issue would be relevant to the rest of the discussion either way.
- frickinLasers 7y ago
  > a federal institution that directed genocide What are you referring to?
- adolph 7y ago
  Clinton was impeached by the house. He was not convicted and removed from office by the senate. While "lying about sex" may have sounded innocuous at the time, in a post #metoo and Epstein world the behavior has different cultural meaning. In addition, Clinton's impeachable behavior went beyond lying about his own behavior, but witness tampering. In of itself Clinton's behavior might have been a personal matter or an HR issue, but the lies and witness tampering were related to his defence against an previously filed workplace sexual harassment lawsuit. On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868)[a] when the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

tegfdsc 7y ago

"Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece?" No. "They used to know better" Wrong again: 1. They should have published it. 2. That article from the Bush era revealed something. The article posted here today is an editorial that doesn't reveal anything new. Instead it discusses a report from a government agency.

CWuestefeld 7y ago

The election isn't for another year. What's the horizon that you're going to make us wait for? This question has nothing to do with Trump and the election. It's about the misbehavior of our law enforcement and courts. That's a present danger, and important to address ASAP.

ailideex 7y ago

> Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? Why?