3 ms·

This line of reasoning is measured and sensible (and rest assured, this is appreciated). But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligenc

This line of reasoning is measured and sensible (and rest assured, this is appreciated). But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligence agencies themselves are -not- subject to directions of powerful actors in the establishment. “Yale” and all that, but then we’re back to conspiracies, alas. I am genuinely interested in your views on ‘how’ would we ever obtain “clear evidence” regarding matters that involve intelligence agencies acting well outside of the law. “14,342 JFK assassination records still contain redactions in 2022” according to a cursory search.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligence agencies themselves are -not- subject to directions of powerful actors in the establishment. I’m not sure how that inference is drawn, but that is absolultely not part of my world-view, in general or as it pertains to this case; intelligence agencies could either be a source of influence in pursuit of their legal mission, or vehicles of informal influence for other parties. > I am genuinely interested in your views on ‘how’ would we ever obtain “clear evidence” regarding matters that involve intelligence agencies acting well outside of the law. Often, we wouldn’t, short of someone inside who knows where evidence is to be found preserving and revealing it, and even then validating that it is genuine might be difficult.