8 ms·

You may not mind it because you're side won. But that is incredibly short-sided. What if the FBI decides to sway an election to a candidate you don't support

by starkd 4y ago

You may not mind it because you're side won. But that is incredibly short-sided. What if the FBI decides to sway an election to a candidate you don't support sometime in the future? See where this is going?

hairofadog 4y ago
Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI issued a press release about how they were urgently reopening an investigation not into the hack but into possible wrongdoing by the hacked candidate? And then later acknowledged there was no wrongdoing? You're right; I really hate to think about what the fallout would be if the FBI inappropriately swayed an election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#October_2016_–_Additional_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...
- starkd 4y ago
  But the FBI was not actively hacking the emails. You are really just proving my point about the FBI unnecessarily involving itself in these issues. They are supposed to be impartial. That's this story should be taken seriously from a bipartisan perspective.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929
    - starkd 4y ago
      Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        The point is you alleged that the apathy in this was due to partisan selfishness. It’s clearly not if even the “winning side” is ambivalent about the feds cracking down on their partisans.
        starkd 4y ago
        That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?
        starkd 4y ago
        No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Clinton’s loss can be blamed on a multitude of reasons, not least a failure to campaign in the relevant Rust Belt and Midwest states where she lost. Be that as it may, there is a running narrative in her party that the FBI’s actions under Comey, when it comes to the timing of the investigation and how the announcements regarding it were delivered, contributed to her loss. At any rate, I am just pointing out the humorous irony involved in appealing to that party to watch the FBI lest “they might lose a future election”… they already believe themselves the losers of one because of FBI involvement!
- kodyo 4y ago
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > They were leaked not hacked. "According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[101]" The above quote is really just a runabout way of saying that the Russians hacked the emails.
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    they were leaked BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')
    - kodyo 4y ago
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        Those who say they were leaked with absolutely no evidence: Trump Campaign, Wikileaks Those who say they were hacked and who have provided evidence of such: FBI, CIA, NSA Crowdstrike, Mandiant, Secureworks, Mueller Report, Republican Senate Report, Democratic Senate Report, Dutch Security Services, UK Security Services, the Russians themselves, Donald Trump himself. Your inability to be persuaded isn’t an asset here. Seriously, read the Muller report and Crowdstrikes attribution. It’s persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re moderately technical.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > That's what the intelligence agencies who were simultaneously infiltrating the opposing political campaign claim, yes. It’s actually what SecureWorks and other private companies said, SecureWorks is a private company that is a subsidiary of Dell but I’m sure you’ll find some other reason not to believe it.
nkozyra 4y ago
So far the only claim made that the government directly interfaced was that the Trump admin made requests for content deletion.
- starkd 4y ago
  That's false. Matt Taibbi never said that. Read the whole thread. He claimed the Twitter was effectively operating as a subdiary to the FBI. You can claim that was perhaps hyperbole, and that the Trump admin did make some requests. But the FBI was having regular meetings with Twitter staff, most of which had nothing to do with the Trump administration.
russdill 4y ago
I fully support such communications from the government entities being made public to the full extent possible, just as with DMCA requests. But just take a step back for a second. Are you arguing that the FBI headed by a Trump appointee strong armed a very liberal silicon valley tech company into rigging the election for Biden? What?
- starkd 4y ago
  Just because Wray was appointed by Trump does not mean the FBI operated at the whims of Trump. For one, these positions are merely nominated by the president. They still have to be confirmed by the senate. The president is effectively given a list of people from whom he can nominate. There is also strong institutional inertia here. A lot of people get strong armed by the FBI. They hold a lot of power. This is not conspiracy territory either. There are congressional oversight committees, but their ability to use classified information gives them a lot of leverage.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by starkd 4y ago

hairofadog 4y ago

Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI issued a press release about how they were urgently reopening an investigation not into the hack but into possible wrongdoing by the hacked candidate? And then later acknowledged there was no wrongdoing? You're right; I really hate to think about what the fallout would be if the FBI inappropriately swayed an election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#October_2016_–_Additional_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...

starkd 4y ago
But the FBI was not actively hacking the emails. You are really just proving my point about the FBI unnecessarily involving itself in these issues. They are supposed to be impartial. That's this story should be taken seriously from a bipartisan perspective.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The point is you alleged that the apathy in this was due to partisan selfishness. It’s clearly not if even the “winning side” is ambivalent about the feds cracking down on their partisans.
      - starkd 4y ago
        That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?
        starkd 4y ago
        No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Clinton’s loss can be blamed on a multitude of reasons, not least a failure to campaign in the relevant Rust Belt and Midwest states where she lost. Be that as it may, there is a running narrative in her party that the FBI’s actions under Comey, when it comes to the timing of the investigation and how the announcements regarding it were delivered, contributed to her loss. At any rate, I am just pointing out the humorous irony involved in appealing to that party to watch the FBI lest “they might lose a future election”… they already believe themselves the losers of one because of FBI involvement!
kodyo 4y ago
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > They were leaked not hacked. "According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[101]" The above quote is really just a runabout way of saying that the Russians hacked the emails.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  they were leaked BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')
  - kodyo 4y ago
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Those who say they were leaked with absolutely no evidence: Trump Campaign, Wikileaks Those who say they were hacked and who have provided evidence of such: FBI, CIA, NSA Crowdstrike, Mandiant, Secureworks, Mueller Report, Republican Senate Report, Democratic Senate Report, Dutch Security Services, UK Security Services, the Russians themselves, Donald Trump himself. Your inability to be persuaded isn’t an asset here. Seriously, read the Muller report and Crowdstrikes attribution. It’s persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt if you’re moderately technical.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > That's what the intelligence agencies who were simultaneously infiltrating the opposing political campaign claim, yes. It’s actually what SecureWorks and other private companies said, SecureWorks is a private company that is a subsidiary of Dell but I’m sure you’ll find some other reason not to believe it.

nkozyra 4y ago

So far the only claim made that the government directly interfaced was that the Trump admin made requests for content deletion.

starkd 4y ago
That's false. Matt Taibbi never said that. Read the whole thread. He claimed the Twitter was effectively operating as a subdiary to the FBI. You can claim that was perhaps hyperbole, and that the Trump admin did make some requests. But the FBI was having regular meetings with Twitter staff, most of which had nothing to do with the Trump administration.

russdill 4y ago

I fully support such communications from the government entities being made public to the full extent possible, just as with DMCA requests. But just take a step back for a second. Are you arguing that the FBI headed by a Trump appointee strong armed a very liberal silicon valley tech company into rigging the election for Biden? What?

starkd 4y ago
Just because Wray was appointed by Trump does not mean the FBI operated at the whims of Trump. For one, these positions are merely nominated by the president. They still have to be confirmed by the senate. The president is effectively given a list of people from whom he can nominate. There is also strong institutional inertia here. A lot of people get strong armed by the FBI. They hold a lot of power. This is not conspiracy territory either. There are congressional oversight committees, but their ability to use classified information gives them a lot of leverage.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]