5 ms·

The NSA very likely have secret information to blackmail President Obama and other important political figures. Daniel Ellsberg agrees with this sentiment (whic

by kdragon 13y ago

The NSA very likely have secret information to blackmail President Obama and other important political figures. Daniel Ellsberg agrees with this sentiment (which he mentions in his recent reddit AMA), and Russell Tice confirmed this possibility when becoming an NSA whistleblower in 2006: "On June 19, 2013, Tice claimed while being interviewed that the NSA had spied on Barack Obama while he was a senator, along with monitoring federal judges, ranking military officials, and other members of Congress, saying he himself had seen and held papers ordering such actions.[12][13] He went on to say, "This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves—in my opinion—into a rogue agency that has J. Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids"." Remember, this has already happened very recently in our nation's history, during J. Edgar Hoover's direction of the FBI: "Hoover became a controversial figure, as evidence of his secretive actions became known. His critics have accused him of exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting Presidents.[4]" This part of american history needs to be shouted from the mountain tops. "The Burglary" and COINTELPRO need to be mandatory teaching subjects in our schools. It's not a conspiracy theory to suspect NSA of controlling politics and activism through blackmail and coercion. This is exactly what has happened before with Hoover's FBI, and there's every reason to believe this is happening again with the NSA.

RankingMember 13y ago
Interesting. I knew a bit about Hoover, but not to that extent. Can you edit in your numbered sources?
- valarauca1 13y ago
  The numbers are citations on the J Edgar Hoover's wikipedia page. The comment (you speak of) is copied verbatim. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
ihsw 13y ago
> there's every reason to believe this is happening again with the NSA No, there isn't -- there is no such evidence that our elected officials are being coerced by the NSA. Let me say it again, if such proof is revealed then it would be absolutely terrifying for everybody involved and all over the news (be it MSM or social or whatever). As it stands now there are only claims, and there is a distinct lack of evidence and facts surrounding such claims. Now, with regards to blackmailing our elected officials, I think we can put it simply as such: the fear of just the possibility that we might be blackmailed is enough to cause self-censorship. This is a historical truth and accepted as self-evident. That said, our elected officials are no less victims than we are. They are spied on as much as -- if not more than -- us. Please acknowledge this one thing, if you will acknowledge anything in my post: our elected officials are no less victims than we are.
- daeken 13y ago
  > Please acknowledge this one thing, if you will acknowledge anything in my post: our elected officials are no less victims than we are. If I hire someone to walk around a room punching everyone in the face, my nose may be broken, but I'm not a victim in any real sense. These officials made their choice and it came back to bite them in the ass.
  - sp332 13y ago
    ihsw meant the other elected officials.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  The OP knows there is no evidence, hence the use of the phrase "every reason to believe". It is believed to be true using reason, not evidence. Its a best deduction. Your demand for evidence and facts is bogus, since there cant really be any. What we are talking about is what goes on in the mind of an individual. We cant prove that. But we do know that, for want of a better term, implied pressure to conform works. Its the same reason belief in a god works. God knows all and will punish us if we don't follow his rules. So, if we believe in the god/NSA, we do what is wanted because we don't want to be punished. We know people act like this. We know it is possible that the NSA has information that might damage us, or ones we love. We know what the NSA wants. Therefor we have reason to believe someone who might want to control the NSA won't out of personal fear. A reasonable deduction, based on what is known and history. No, sorry, no evidence. That one of the nice things about blackmail, there usually isn't because the victim obviously doesn't want to be outed. Yes, of course the elected officials are victims in this, potentially. But as elected officials, with the power of democracy, they are, IMHO, duty bound to put that aside. Not doing so is selfish cowardice. Some one has to be as brave as Snowden, and I don't see that in our elected officials.
cpher 13y ago
I'm not convinced that blackmail is even effective today. You're assuming that politicians have a sense of shame. Maybe they did in the 1950s, but it's clear they don't today.
- hga 13y ago
  There's also the changing of what's shameful. Smoking marijuana, using cocaine a bit? Admitted in an autobiography, there are even pictures of the former. There are the usual rumors he's homosexual, although his daughters would indicate he's at "worse" bisexual. After getting reelected, this would result in exactly what??? To paraphrase Edwin Edwards, he'd only be in danger if "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy".
  - kdragon 13y ago
    It's not just about shame, but political assassination and public ridicule. The right kind of narrative could destroy, not only Obama's personal prospects after his presidency, but everything else he worked on during his presidency, including healthcare reform. The political fallout of a large enough scandal could damage the perception of the entire political party, and the balance of power to shift. The political fallout from Clinton's scandals happened during his second term, affected leadership in the House of Representatives, and the outcome of the 2000 Presidential campaign.
    - hga 13y ago
      "The right kind of narrative could destroy, not only Obama's personal prospects after his presidency, but everything else he worked on during his presidency" Bullshit. A guy who the MSM regularly photographs with a halo, or publishes such pictures as supplied by the White House (there's a bit of a tiff right now about all that). Who's described as "sort of a god" by Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Etc. etc. ad nauseam. The scandals for which we have firm evidence, and actual bodies (dead boys, as it were, but a number of dead girls in Mexico too) are so numerous that we can be very sure the dominate culture that makes or ignores scandals will continue to do the latter. As for future prospects, you really believe Obama could have done something that only the NSA knows that will keep him off the speech circuit, unlike Clinton??? He's set for life ... or perhaps only until the Federal government runs out of money, but that's a very different thing. The scandal of "trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see" is not in the least hidden. Your Clinton example again fails to impress, plus moves the goalposts (considerably less damage; heck, Hillary! becoming Secretary of State did more damage to his opportunities and income than anything else, Obama's low cunning WRT to that was much remarked on at the time). I'm not aware of any damage that did to what Clinton worked on during his presidency (although I could have forgotten), you're going to need to expand on "affected leadership in the House of Representatives" since as I remember the Republicans captured it in 1994, halfway through the 1st term (although, yes, scandals were a part of that, e.g. Waco), and I suppose the razor thin margin of 2000 means that any single thing like that could have flipped it to Gore. Joining a crime family does have its downsides.... Now a case can be made that all this will harm Hillary! ... but that's complicated by the palpable desire of a lot of Democrats to avoid having her on the ticket, e.g. she doesn't have a fraction of Bill's political skills. But I think all this still falls substantially short of the impact you claim is possible, I still maintain he's in Edwin Edwards territory.

by kdragon 13y ago

RankingMember 13y ago

Interesting. I knew a bit about Hoover, but not to that extent. Can you edit in your numbered sources?

valarauca1 13y ago
The numbers are citations on the J Edgar Hoover's wikipedia page. The comment (you speak of) is copied verbatim. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

ihsw 13y ago

> there's every reason to believe this is happening again with the NSA No, there isn't -- there is no such evidence that our elected officials are being coerced by the NSA. Let me say it again, if such proof is revealed then it would be absolutely terrifying for everybody involved and all over the news (be it MSM or social or whatever). As it stands now there are only claims, and there is a distinct lack of evidence and facts surrounding such claims. Now, with regards to blackmailing our elected officials, I think we can put it simply as such: the fear of just the possibility that we might be blackmailed is enough to cause self-censorship. This is a historical truth and accepted as self-evident. That said, our elected officials are no less victims than we are. They are spied on as much as -- if not more than -- us. Please acknowledge this one thing, if you will acknowledge anything in my post: our elected officials are no less victims than we are.

daeken 13y ago
> Please acknowledge this one thing, if you will acknowledge anything in my post: our elected officials are no less victims than we are. If I hire someone to walk around a room punching everyone in the face, my nose may be broken, but I'm not a victim in any real sense. These officials made their choice and it came back to bite them in the ass.
- sp332 13y ago
  ihsw meant the other elected officials.
alan_cx 13y ago
The OP knows there is no evidence, hence the use of the phrase "every reason to believe". It is believed to be true using reason, not evidence. Its a best deduction. Your demand for evidence and facts is bogus, since there cant really be any. What we are talking about is what goes on in the mind of an individual. We cant prove that. But we do know that, for want of a better term, implied pressure to conform works. Its the same reason belief in a god works. God knows all and will punish us if we don't follow his rules. So, if we believe in the god/NSA, we do what is wanted because we don't want to be punished. We know people act like this. We know it is possible that the NSA has information that might damage us, or ones we love. We know what the NSA wants. Therefor we have reason to believe someone who might want to control the NSA won't out of personal fear. A reasonable deduction, based on what is known and history. No, sorry, no evidence. That one of the nice things about blackmail, there usually isn't because the victim obviously doesn't want to be outed. Yes, of course the elected officials are victims in this, potentially. But as elected officials, with the power of democracy, they are, IMHO, duty bound to put that aside. Not doing so is selfish cowardice. Some one has to be as brave as Snowden, and I don't see that in our elected officials.

cpher 13y ago

I'm not convinced that blackmail is even effective today. You're assuming that politicians have a sense of shame. Maybe they did in the 1950s, but it's clear they don't today.

hga 13y ago
There's also the changing of what's shameful. Smoking marijuana, using cocaine a bit? Admitted in an autobiography, there are even pictures of the former. There are the usual rumors he's homosexual, although his daughters would indicate he's at "worse" bisexual. After getting reelected, this would result in exactly what??? To paraphrase Edwin Edwards, he'd only be in danger if "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy".
- kdragon 13y ago
  It's not just about shame, but political assassination and public ridicule. The right kind of narrative could destroy, not only Obama's personal prospects after his presidency, but everything else he worked on during his presidency, including healthcare reform. The political fallout of a large enough scandal could damage the perception of the entire political party, and the balance of power to shift. The political fallout from Clinton's scandals happened during his second term, affected leadership in the House of Representatives, and the outcome of the 2000 Presidential campaign.
  - hga 13y ago
    "The right kind of narrative could destroy, not only Obama's personal prospects after his presidency, but everything else he worked on during his presidency" Bullshit. A guy who the MSM regularly photographs with a halo, or publishes such pictures as supplied by the White House (there's a bit of a tiff right now about all that). Who's described as "sort of a god" by Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Etc. etc. ad nauseam. The scandals for which we have firm evidence, and actual bodies (dead boys, as it were, but a number of dead girls in Mexico too) are so numerous that we can be very sure the dominate culture that makes or ignores scandals will continue to do the latter. As for future prospects, you really believe Obama could have done something that only the NSA knows that will keep him off the speech circuit, unlike Clinton??? He's set for life ... or perhaps only until the Federal government runs out of money, but that's a very different thing. The scandal of "trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see" is not in the least hidden. Your Clinton example again fails to impress, plus moves the goalposts (considerably less damage; heck, Hillary! becoming Secretary of State did more damage to his opportunities and income than anything else, Obama's low cunning WRT to that was much remarked on at the time). I'm not aware of any damage that did to what Clinton worked on during his presidency (although I could have forgotten), you're going to need to expand on "affected leadership in the House of Representatives" since as I remember the Republicans captured it in 1994, halfway through the 1st term (although, yes, scandals were a part of that, e.g. Waco), and I suppose the razor thin margin of 2000 means that any single thing like that could have flipped it to Gore. Joining a crime family does have its downsides.... Now a case can be made that all this will harm Hillary! ... but that's complicated by the palpable desire of a lot of Democrats to avoid having her on the ticket, e.g. she doesn't have a fraction of Bill's political skills. But I think all this still falls substantially short of the impact you claim is possible, I still maintain he's in Edwin Edwards territory.