In the wake of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the FBI assumes an importance and influence it has not wielded since J. Edgar Hoover’s death in 1972. That is what makes today’s batch of stories from The Intercept, The FBI’s Secret Rules, based on a trove of long-sought confidential FBI documents, so critical: It shines a bright light on the vast powers of this law enforcement agency, particularly when it comes to its ability to monitor dissent and carry out a domestic war on terror, at the beginning of an era highly likely to be marked by vociferous protest and reactionary state repression.
In order to understand how the FBI makes decisions about matters such as infiltrating religious or political organizations, civil liberties advocates have sued the government for access to crucial FBI manuals — but thanks to a federal judiciary highly subservient to government interests, those attempts have been largely unsuccessful. Because their disclosure is squarely in the public interest, The Intercept is publishing this series of reports along with annotated versions of the documents we obtained.
Trump values loyalty to himself above all other traits, so it is surely not lost on him that few entities were as devoted to his victory, or played as critical a role in helping to achieve it, as the FBI. One of the more unusual aspects of the 2016 election, perhaps the one that will prove to be most consequential, was the covert political war waged between the CIA and FBI. While the top echelon of the CIA community was vehemently pro-Clinton, certain factions within the FBI were aggressively supportive of Trump. Hillary Clinton herself blames James Comey and his election-week letter for her defeat. Elements within the powerful New York field office were furious that Comey refused to indict Clinton, and embittered agents reportedly shoveled anti-Clinton leaks to Rudy Giuliani. The FBI’s 35,000 employees across the country are therefore likely to be protected and empowered. Trump’s decision to retain Comey — while jettisoning all other top government officials — suggests that this has already begun to happen.
When married to Trump’s clear disdain for domestic dissent — he venerates strongman authoritarians, called for a crackdown on free press protections, and suggested citizenship-stripping for flag-burning — the authorities vested in the FBI with regard to domestic political activism are among the most menacing threats Americans face. Trump is also poised to expand the powers of law enforcement to surveil populations deemed suspicious and deny their rights in the name of fighting terrorism, as he has already done with his odious restrictions on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Understanding how the federal government’s law enforcement agency interprets the legal limits on its own powers is, in this context, more essential than ever. Until now, however, the rules governing the FBI have largely been kept secret.
Today’s publication is the result of months of investigation by our staff, and we planned to publish these articles and documents regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election. The public has an interest in understanding the FBI’s practices no matter who occupies the White House. But in the wake of Trump’s victory, and the unique circumstances that follow from it, these revelations take on even more urgency.
After Congress’s 1976 Church Committee investigated the excesses of Hoover’s FBI, in particular the infamous COINTELPRO program — in which agents targeted and subverted any political groups the government deemed threatening, including anti-war protesters, black nationalists, and civil rights activists — a series of reforms were enacted to rein in the FBI’s domestic powers. As The Intercept and other news outlets have amply documented, in the guise of the war on terror the FBI has engaged in a variety of tactics that are redolent of the COINTELPRO abuses — including, for example, repeatedly enticing innocent Muslims into fake terror schemes concocted by the bureau’s own informants. What The Intercept’s reporting on this new trove of documents shows is how the FBI has quietly transformed the system of rules and restraints put in place after the scandals of the ’70s, opening the door for a new wave of civil liberties violations. When asked to respond to this critique, the FBI provided the following statement:
All FBI policies are written to ensure that the FBI consistently and appropriately applies the lawful tools we use to assess and investigate criminal and national security threats to our nation. All of our authorities and techniques are founded in the Constitution, U.S. law, and Attorney General Guidelines. FBI policies and rules are audited and enforced through a rigorous internal compliance mechanism, as well as robust oversight from the Inspector General and Congress. FBI assessments and investigations are subject to responsible review and are designed to protect the rights of all Americans and the safety of our agents and sources, acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
Absent these documents and the facts of how the bureau actually operates, this may sound reassuring. But to judge how well the bureau is living up to these abstract commitments, it is necessary to read the fine print of its byzantine rules and regulations — which the FBI’s secrecy has heretofore made it impossible for outsiders to do. Now, thanks to our access to these documents — which include the FBI’s governing rulebook, known as the DIOG, and classified policy guides for counterterrorism cases and handling confidential informants — The Intercept is able to share a vital glimpse of how the FBI understands and wields its enormous power.
For example, the bureau’s agents can decide that a campus organization is not “legitimate” and therefore not entitled to robust protections for free speech; dig for derogatory information on potential informants without any basis for believing they are implicated in unlawful activity; use a person’s immigration status to pressure them to collaborate and then help deport them when they are no longer useful; conduct invasive “assessments” without any reason for suspecting the targets of wrongdoing; demand that companies provide the bureau with personal data about their users in broadly worded national security letters without actual legal authority to do so; fan out across the internet along with a vast army of informants, infiltrating countless online chat rooms; peer through the walls of private homes; and more. The FBI offered various justifications of these tactics to our reporters. But the documents and our reporting on them ultimately reveal a bureaucracy in dire need of greater transparency and accountability.
One of the documents contains an alarming observation about the nation’s police forces, even as perceived by the FBI. Officials of the bureau were so concerned that many of these police forces are linked to, at times even populated by, overt white nationalists and white supremacists, that they have deemed it necessary to take that into account in crafting policies for sharing information with them. This news arrives in an ominous context, as the nation’s law enforcement agencies are among the few institutional factions in the U.S. that supported Trump, and they did so with virtual unanimity. Trump ran on a platform of unleashing an already out-of-control police — “I will restore law and order to our country,” he thundered when accepting the Republican nomination — and now the groups most loyal to Trump are those that possess a state monopoly over the use of force, many of which are infused with racial animus.
The Church Committee reforms were publicly debated and democratically enacted, based on the widespread fears of sustained intelligence community overreach brought to light by journalists like Seymour Hersh and Betty Medsger, who covered the shocking files revealing Hoover’s activities that were seized by the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI in 1971. It is simply inexcusable to erode those protections in the dark, with no democratic debate.
As we enter the Trump era, with a nominated attorney general who has not hidden his contempt for press freedoms and a president who has made the news media the primary target of his vitriol, one of the most vital weapons for safeguarding basic liberties and imposing indispensable transparency is journalism that exposes information the government wants to keep suppressed. For exactly that reason, it is certain to be under even more concerted assault than it has been during the last 15 years. The revealing, once-secret FBI documents The Intercept is today reporting on, and publishing, demonstrate why protecting press freedom is more critical than ever.
Update: February 1, 2017
This article has been updated to include the role of Betty Medsger and the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI in exposing Hoover’s overreach.
Glenn Greenwald writes some very thought provoking articles, however, you can always tell he fully supported Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t seem to notice the irony of writing about the Deep State, while supporting the very embodiment of the Deep State.
I’ve been told: The “BLM Occupiers” at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were acquitted when the jury found 9 of the 15 occupying the place were undercover from various government agencies. I wonder if this is true? I wonder if the whole Oregon thing was planned by the FBI in response to the Nevada thing at the Bundy Ranch?
I do a “WTC7 Awareness” table at our Sat. Farmers Market, Salem, OR. Very nice dressed 6’4″, athletic, 40ish guy comes up and takes a “3rd Tower – ReThink 9/11″ brochure. Comes back a few minutes later and takes a more in-depth brochure, sits down across the fairway with a coffee and reads it, comes back in 20 minutes, as he’s taking a CD and a few more brochures he says to me: “You’d think I’d know about this building, I’m FBI.”
Law-abiding citizens (non-Muslim) are being stalked and harassed on U.S. soil. Standard COINTELPRO tactics are the norm, with a Stasi-like apparatus from coast to coast. It’s a program that’s slowly eating away at the fabric of whatever’s left of civil society. Perhaps someone will have the courage to try to expose it.
Zersetzung / COINTELPRO is not confined to God’s Banana Republic.
Stasi Vermin have annoyed me in Mexico, Brazil, UK, and China, and there are no norms. Anything goes, including violence in the workplace, just out of sight of the office surveillance cameras, and physical torture with sharp objects in medical labs and barber shops.
And so much more….
There is no such thing as a a fucking civil society. Anyone who claims there is has been self-lobotomized.
Your anger is misdirected, pal. And your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, as well.
Ridiculously “Anonymous” cowards attempting to manage perceptions about what is going on above their precious “US soil” are not pals, and deserve contempt.
“Standard COINTELPRO tactics are the norm.” What a load of bullshit.
Your public facing perception to reality alignment needs some adjustment, American.
Whatever you say, pal.
Booger County Mafia Practices Zersetzung With Impunity
Speaking of Zersetzung Torture — Words That Shall Not Be Spoken By Journalists, or Lawyers, or “Law Enforcement” — committed by evil Patriots with too much time on their hands, check out this blog entry about a Booger County Mafia operation in Calvert, Texas.
This blog entry concerns a certain Mr. Paschal, a lawyer who stole money from the estate of a wealthy Jewish woman named Ms. Oscar — before and after her death. Despite compelling evidence provided by the blogger who represented the Calvert Historical Foundation (CHF), the case was stonewalled by a corrupt judge and the case has been, in my layman’s terms, dissapeared.
The details of the case are well documented in this and other lawflog.com blog entries (2014), but the Zersetzung related bits concern my sister.
Here is an excerpt: “The more you dig, the more things look suspicious. The new foundation president, [J. C., my sister], told me that she filed a police report against former president [R. J.] because he “sexually assaulted” her. Click here [see July-1.pdf URI below] to see the letter that Mr. [J.] wrote to District Attorney [C. S.] in response to her allegations. It sounds like Ms. [C.] tried to extort Mr. [J.] into resigning as president, then filed the police report when he refused to resign.”
The accused, [R. J.], former president of the Calvert Historical Foundation (CHF), claims she “began sending the e-mails warning that something bad was going to happen if I did not go along with her plans”. Below is a URI to his letter requesting “a criminal investigation of [J. C.] because I believe she violated Section 37.08 of the Texas Penal Code by making a false report to the Robertson County Sheriff’s Office.
lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/July-1.pdf
In it, he alleges “she sent e-mails to me and my girlfriend suggesting that something very bad was going to happen if I did not give her what she wanted.”
…
The URI below is to a letter from the attorney (blogger) who was fired as representative of the Calvert Historical Foundation (during R. J.’s term).
lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014.07.01-Letter-to-Judge-Black.pdf
It reveals J. C. posed as an attorney to file various documents on behalf of the Calvert Historical Foundation in the district clerk’s office. The letter also states J. C. wrote statements which “claim that the membership of CHF was unaware that CHF was a plaintiff in Cause No. 11-09-18,927-CV”.
The document concludes: “To be perfectly clear, Ms. [C.] is not telling the truth.”
…
I have recently spoken to R. J. about his life since being replaced as president of the Calvert Historical Foundation and he told me of being stalked, threatened, and not even allowed enter the town of Calvert, Texas, where he has a house. He has no idea what is happening to him yet.
…
J.C. threatened “bad things will happen” to Mr. J., and they did.
J.C. posed as an attorney while filing documents she does not have the intelligence to write herself. (I know her; she’s as dumb as a door knob. Her husband used to be an F-111 and F-15 pilot and she didn’t even know what “collateral damage” meant when she and her mother were delivering death threats.)
The explicit death threats were delivered during my visit to Georgetown, TX in late November 2008, by our mother. In techie terms, the threats were ‘demultiplexed’ from my older brother, J.C., and her husband. The death threats were very well planned; it was obvious a Stasi coaching staff prepared her for this critically important patriotic service to her country.
The threats were:
1) If you show up on [my older brother’s] door step he will shoot you.
2) If [J. C.’s husband] sees you, he will shoot you.
3) You should be shot the next time you set foot in this country.
Coincidence, or American Zersetzung goons who believe impunity is forever?
Here again is a link to an infinitesimal sample of the “bad things” that have happened to this Zersetzung target over several years:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5mBjmxlwLKWtm5n6WBmTDPoHs-0PwKiD&disable_polymer=true
Mr. R. J. also told me web pages concerning these issues also disappeared, so I archived the URIs. (And he couldn’t figure out how it could happen, given my sister’s technical skills.)
web.archive.org/web/20170202074843/http://lawflog.com/?p=271
web.archive.org/web/20170202074643/http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/July-1.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20170202074743/http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014.07.01-Letter-to-Judge-Black.pdf
Correction: … threats were ‘multiplexed’ from my older brother, J.C., etc.
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj35/14.html
I posted some anti-Trump comments on a Yahoo article last year about his Muslim ban and deporting Mexicans and since then have been constantly harassed and intimidated by police, watch-groups, agents, and even ex-convicts. Apparently a rogue and corrupt agent or police officer can put you on a watch-list by twisting and falsifying the reason to put you there. So basically if they don’t like you for some reason, they can get back at you by labeling you a “terrorist”.
What a load of bullshit.
https://www.intellihub.com/terrorist-watchlist-inoffzieller-mitarbeiter-gang-stalking/
Check this out: https://www.intellihub.com/fbi-and-nsa-outsource-their-harassment-of-targeted-individuals-and-watchlisted-individuals-to-private-firms/
Good article. But you use too many hyphens in your writing style. Just being a nitpicker.
@Jordan complained the link was broken. I didn’t find any working link either. And the page for DIOG was way too much for my laptop and browser to handle – it was trying to set up 600+ hi-res pages in a window!
Anyway, my solution is:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domestic_Investigations_and_Operations_Guide.pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Counterterrorism_Policy_Directive_and_Policy_Guide_(redacted).pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Confidential_Human_Source_Policy_Guide_(redacted).pdf
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Program_Aids_-_CHS_Assessing.pdf
Please suggest any potential improvements on Wikimedia Commons.
Trump the new Hoover?
Don’t believe that Trump is up against the Agency pricks. Trumps military cabinets are already meddling in Agencies affairs.
Comey the clown was the pretend fall guy that got Trump elected.
Together Trump and his Agency Klan are pushing their rightwing plan.
This was all premeditated.
The FBI have been using through wall peering and military grade RF weaponry to prevoke / harass (predominantly black) targets into lashings out / shooters.
Another example of FBI created terrorists.
MKULTRA / COINTELPRO continues.
The mainstream media is totally discredited. This is a Anti-Trump article. The authors probably voted for Hillary.
I am pretty certain that secret informers for the leaders already existed with bands of Australopithecus. Hence I am also certain that such informers will exist in governments approved by Greenwald and Reed. And the larger the population the larger the group of informers.
HALF of this is BS. The other half was pulled out of your @$$.
I wonder how many Eff Bee Eye drones are buzzing about this site?
Why be a drone? Is it about money or Moloch?
The Obama FBI did a lot of good things, investigating crooked and racist cops for example. And whatever TI says, not every would-be jihadist who tries to blow people up with plastic “plastic explosive” is really an innocent victim. The agency obviously has a checkered past, and probably an equally sinister future under Trump, but for now, there’s no need for blanket condemnation.
This isn’t fair.
Nobody has proved that Jeff Sessions is hostile to the press. Every Republican Senator will tell you Sessions is a good man who deeply respects traditional values. Did you know he even prosecuted a white man for murder? In Alabama! What more proof do you need?
Plus, just because Trump has said some harsh things about the American press, clearly he values a vibrant press like that supported by Mr. Putin. I’m sure he just wants America to try to live up to the high journalistic standards Mr. Putin has established for the Russian Federation.
Trump just wants a free press like the one Putin has.
What’s wrong with that? He’s not a Washington insider any more than Putin is a Washington insider so when you call Trump vitriolic, you should understand that he isn’t against transparency, he’s only against those rigging the press against him.
He has said this often.
It’s not fair to take a person’s words and twist them to mean what you want them to mean.
Give him a chance. Then, after he fails to achieve the greatness he has promised, he can be criticized for not achieving the greatness he promised. But until then people should simply listen to his words and take them at face value. Who doesn’t love war? Does that mean he’ll kill civilians? Just because he says torture works, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s in favor of torture, does it/
Furthermore, it’s just crude and vulgar to suggest his extra long tie is some sort of compensation for a certain lack of … intellect. You don’t know for sure what his extra long tie means. Maybe he just wants to sell more Trump ties for as long as he’s president. Let’s see if this becomes a fashion statement before trying to smear him with his own issuances.
We should this man a chance. It’s not like he’s another Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t even wear ties.
May 16, 2016 How the President could overthrow the U.S.
As of 2007 the President has the ability to replace the US government if they feel an emergency constitutes such actions. The powers are broad, vague, and not even Congress has been able to challenge it. This is known as National Security Presidential Directive 51.
https://youtu.be/A8ulWoO7g9Q
Yes indeed so. May 9, 2007 National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions,” prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm
I guess this policy presumes sane, pro-American (the one we like to think we have had heretofore) leader and agencies?
What is happening to my country?
Watching Jake Tapper do a number of Sean Spicer reminded me of:
” All the other male pigs on the farm were porkers. The best known among them was a small fat pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white. ”
The “skipping from side to side” is common to all Trumpites. The Trump team is a multi-pig propaganda machine. They take unpleasant reality and turn it into delicious lies to feed them to their yearning supporters.
‘Timing is everything’ Hillary Clinton responds.
It seems to us a bit strange that you refrained from investigating the FBI’s deep involvement in the torture of suspected “terrorists” at the CIA’s secret “Black Site” prisons.
The FBI has so far successfully portrayed itself as “heroically” refusing to participate in the torture of Al Qaida suspects. But new documents released pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by Charles Savage of the New York Times indicate that the FBI worked closely with the CIA on the brutal torture-interrogation of Abu Zubaydah in 2002. FBI headquarters is also described by the CIA authors of the report as having received daily reports on the progress of the torture of Zubaydah as he was subjected on to various types of extreme torture including waterboarding, long periods of confinement in cramped coffin-like boxes, and frequent episodes of being slammed into the walls of his cell – all while he was still recovering from severe gunshot wounds. The highly-censored CIA documents can be found on our website at iwpchi.wordpress.com/cables-about-abu-zubaydah-discovery-m-and-j/ You can use the search feature on these .pdf files to find the many references to the FBI’s participation in the CIA’s “Black Sites” torture program.
IWPCHI
SPAM
American Coward (N. P.)
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/secret-docs-reveal-president-trump-has-inherited-an-fbi-with-vast-hidden-powers/
They call it “ethical” journalism. I skimmed over all those toothless new reports about the “new” FBI leaks and, once again, all theIntercept has been doing so far is “ethically” speaking to “words” and “concepts” and talking about stuff that everybody knows and/or would naturally infer. Then, they will go into their self-feeding “Oh, look! Politicians are lying again! … “, “Trump this, Trump that … ” loops.
If they don’t have whatever it takes to report about sh!t in ways that would involve direct consequences and bring about changes now and/or the future, they could “lose” one of those FBI manuals or a copy and let it resurface at wikileaks. I am sure there are journos out there that would truthfully speak truth to power with some teeth, instead of abstractly and -always rethorically- considering “how well the bureau is living up to ‘their’ ‘abstract’ commitments …”
RCL
$ date
Wed Feb 1 14:31:37 EST 2017
https://ipsoscustodes.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/theintercept_20170131_secret-docs-reveal-president-trump-has-inherited-an-fbi-with-vast-hidden-powers/
RCL
Standard response to a national security letter. If you have nothing to hide, why are you complaining about it?
new law
the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FULFILLMENT ACT
As it is the nature of human beings in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, it is hereby a directive that all laws and policies shall be aligned with such human endeavors for the citizens of the United States to enjoy the fruits of their labor unencumbered by the demands of those who would in any fashion cause Americans to suffer the loss of them or of their time. In effect, the net of those fruits of labor shall be to allow Americans to live free and clear of any an all obligations except for maintenance of property wholly owned in common by all. No law shall be effective which reduces the ownership of control of common property that serves the life support and comfort for all.
While you’re all being offended by each other:
http://www.infowars.com/nightmare-inducing-boston-dynamics-robot-revealed/
We don’ need no steeenkin’ human bein’s
if we dont put human beings first and reduce the population of the planet with a 1 child per couple rule, the population of the planet will be reduced by the rule that human beings did not put themselves first.
The compulsive thread-monopolizer Mona thinks health care insurance hissy fits, cat calls for immigration reform, gun control, Planned Parenthood, Equality, climate change action, volks (er, folks), public employee featherbedding,… aren’t liberal because Hillary. Who endorsed it all.
Chastened, embarrassed progressives always pointing fingers away from themselves.
You — who have been banned here some 4-5 times for crapflooding with links and quotes of inforwars and deranged advocates of Satanic/Illuminati plots — have no moral authority to call anyone else a “thread monopolizer.”
I certainly do post prolifically. Often to scholarly sources on substantive matters. You, not so much..
You are the one responsible for pushing bans on informative commentators who post only a small fraction of your habitual thread-hijacking volume, simply because you want a site that doesn’t even belong to you to read like the NYT.
I’ve witnessed Glenn respond to a post of mine only to see you fly across the site to squeal “Glennnn, that’s the onnne!” You really are disturbed, Mona.
You, who was prevented for over a month from posting because you monopolize the comments sections. You had to rely on Kitt to pass notes to the pages. Remember that?
Thanks to Glenn, Betsy and TI. Let’s hope that this goes somewhere. Good people are suffering.
“How does Trump wage a total war against Islamic terrorism when the agency of which he is “the biggest fan”, that he “supports one thousand percent”, is responsible for the creation and ongoing use of Islamic terrorism, as military-intelligence assets for Anglo-American geopolicy? Does Trump realize that the CIA is funding and arming ISIS, Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda?
Trump’s “War on Terrorism”: Going After America’s “Intelligence Assets”?
Does Trump understand that the CIA is responsible for decades of false flag terror operations, including 9/11? (On 9/11, Trump seems to believe a variation of the consensus official narrative blaming outside Islamic terrorists, possibly the Saudis, and George W. Bush for failing to kill Osama bin Laden. Therefore, the CIA is blameless. He holds this view, despite firsthand experience that goes against the official story.)
Does Trump’s total “war on terrorism” include waging war against the vast network of CIA assets that are currently engaged in destabilization operations across the Middle East? What is his plan for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Al-Nusra—all of which are CIA fronts?”
From a brutal article published on Global Research. Google it and read.
Jake Tapper does a great gotcha on Sean Spicer. (Not that catching them in out-and-out lies matters to these freaks.)
Well, as Kellyanne Conway so succinctly put it, don’t take Trump literally, but listen to his heart instead…guess the same applies to Spicer and any other Trump cohorts.
Yeah, but this is not new … ‘The American people knew Trump was a [freak] when they overwhelmingly elected him’ *Sean Spicer (paraphrase)
its odd that people just now care about what the government does when trump is in office. noone cares that the executive orders on freezing immigration from those 7 nations where implemented by Obama as well.
Like yall are the most brainwashed sheeps ever lol.
Wake up people.
Trump isnt going to kill you, but you will kill you. You not smelling the coffee is what the elites are working off of. You will be the ones who cause shit to burn.
The people control the govt. The people allowed obama to fund isis and terrorist groups, the people allowed obama to invade syria and kill a bunch of people, the people allowed nato to become a power group.
the people allow this shit to happen. Wake tf up.
The list of seven countries is exactly the same one as General Wesley Clark told us about many years ago, that we were going to take out. Why is President Donald Trump being blamed for carrying on what his predecessors had already started? President Trump is a kind-hearted person and he will ultimately pardon all those countries as long as they stop terrorist activities. Right now Pakistani folks are indulging in terrorism and we have to deal with them first. But even before that we have to build the Wall and Mexico has to pay for it.
You seriously believe this BS?
You must be surrounded by unicorns. Trump is being blamed for his policy of immigration from those seven countries, excluding those immigrants from entry, seemingly based on religious grounds. I don’t share your warm & fuzzy feelings about Trump’s heart. I doubt that Trump pardons those countries, but will probably bomb the bejeebers out of them. I’d rather build a yuge wall around Trump and his cohorts, maybe you, too.
Thank your lucky stars that you might be wrong. President Trump is a world class business person, and a non-wallstreet one at that. Thank your lucky stars he is more interested in making friends than enemies because building business means making friends. The prior gov of the DUMB&DUMBERS have completely screwed up the country and failed the people entirely and President Trump is the one who can bury their BS.
Trump is a “world class business person”? How’s that? He exploited and harassed many of his subcontractors, has filed thousands of petty lawsuits, filed bankruptcy several times for his failed businesses and his failed management of those businesses. He was most successful as a reality TV person, but that isn’t saying much. We’ll never see Trump’s tax returns and many speculate that Trump doesn’t want the public to know that he only makes a few $million. I suspect he’ll go down in flames as a failed president, which probably makes Bush Jr happy…he’ll only be the 2nd worst prez after Trump.
if you ever owned a business with properties scattered about the world and were responsible for both the successful operations of them as well as their reputations, then you would have some idea what world class is for a person, not a corporate pig ceo or any of their pimped out elected whores.
In addition to that, his efforts are not life support necessities that wallstreet typically prefers to monopolise for their extortive criminal practices.
if you are capable of understanding and seeing the world from that perspective then you might develop some …. some…. appreciation for those accomplishments. Of course if you are opposed to being in such a position yourself then the world would surely benefit from a book authored by you on how to make the world go round in another fashion.
i am all ears.
Where’s the proof that Trump was ever in charge of the day-to-day operations of his businesses?
Oh my stars and garters! Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff is very concerned that so many are getting radicalized in response to Trump that radicalization is going to infect the Democratic party.
Can I get an Amen!?
“Oh my stars and garters!”
Will Sarah Palin break rank?
Trump didn’t hire Sarah for a cabinet position…Rick Perry got it instead…so Sarah’s ready for a career shift.
Along with millions of others, I’m so thankful I left before this outbreak began!
lol. Schiff is delusional if he thinks they lost because they were too far to the left. They were right-of-center (at best) and slammed the door in anyone to the left of them’s face then berated them every chance they got. Now they’re reaping what they sowed.
They’re also worried…afraid, one might even postulate. Good. About fucking time.
p.s. And why might protesters being marching on Feinstein’s home? Perhaps because she’s one of 14 democrats who have thus far voted for every Trump nominee.
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/826582796055539713
Who are the others? Donnelly, Heitkamp, Hassan, Klobuchar, King, Kaine, McCaskill, Manchin, Reed, Shaheen, Schatz, Whitehouse and Warner.
#TheResistance my ass.
A fine progressive man who had shirttails and is why we have President Hillary Clin — oh, wait!
frankenfeinstein? Does she still have that red light on her porch at night? and the warning sign that any mention of BDS is a violation of her freedom of listening? i think she also cast an absentee ballot for netanyahu.
The peasants are revolting!! “These commoners expect us to actually, you know, have spines and vigorously oppose Bad Things, as if we represent them or something. [rending garments, gnashing teeth] Where will this end?!”
LOL
I’ll give you your Amen Mona. But I do think that some of these guys won’t see the light, because their donor money causes subjective blindness. What they will do instead is come up with new “fake news” laws to curb the internet from being the wild west of organizing against establishment democrats. Their jobs are at stake.
but… Amen!!
There’s that post-Nuremberg playbook again, chapter and verse.
Healthcare insurance hissy fits, cat calls for immigration reform, gun control, Planned Parenthood, Equality, climate change action,…. Real right-of-center.
Well, it’s true, people like you who insist Adolph Hilter was a man of the left, that North Korea is an actual democratic republic, and that a conspiracy of Satanists and Illuminati are controlling people’s minds to, among other thnings, make “sex kittens,” such people do think neoliberal Democrats are not to the right.
Hitler founded a “Socialist Workers Party.” Only leftists gravitate to a name like that. And when you claim he hated socialists, I’ll remind you he left the word in his organization’s name.
The DPRK is as democratic as the DNC.
You must have used the phrase “sex kittens” 100 times in comments so far. The author Springmeier never did. You get some kind of charge out of repeatedly writing that.
You also have no clue what “mind control” is. Your slavish reliance on the New York Times is a form of it (which indirectly also indicates that another kind, trauma based mind control, is a concept that goes right over your pointy little compulsive, intellectually insecure, thread monopolizing head).
Every so often I run into someone ignorant enough to try to make the “Hitler as leftist” case in public. Thankfully it is a rare occurrence but one does wonder how large a drool bib (that) you and your kind wear.
You often cite to infowars, and your beloved author Fritz Springmeier is a convicted armed bank robber who pushes Satan/Illuminati conspiracies. Most of your favorite sites and writers are bizarre nutters.
THAT is the basis of your oh-so-sound judgment and insight.
This tsunami of fascism represents a de facto martial law.
It makes it easier to implement the full martial law the new regime seems willing to impose.
Almost everything is in place for seamless transition!
Well at least they will be able to get to the bottom of the real issue, according to your pre-election coverage, Hillary’s emails.
Who wants to protect press freedom? You Glenn and 200 websites blacklisted on ProPornOT.
DO NOT COUNT ON MSM OR LEFT LEANING MEDIA CONSUMED BY MCCARTHYITE AMOK.
You are almost alone with your readers.
Or any Political Label,, this fight is won or lost in the blood streets of our evolution
——————–Mudbone
Ah, alone at last. If only the “alternative facts” folks would stick to their proTrump-flavored sites’ comment sections.
It gave me the chance to look at Fort Dix 5, again.
What a horrible travesty of justice it is.
Christie goes home to wife and kids,
the Duka brothers rot in prison.
The fuckin GOVERNMENT says————————>
That’s JUSTICE !!
Is That J. Edgar ?
How come he’s not dressed up ?
Psst—
Put on that dress and let’s party !!
again, an unmasking brought by trump’s campaign and victory; whereas the democrat side of things used to buy into typical american authority/gun worship (in favor of the FBI and military in addition to state and local police) now they see how the cops think and what their actual purpose is. for the past eight years that side ignored dead black kids and framed muslim converts but now that the wall of obama has fallen suddenly everyone’s concerned. well, not everyone, but…
whether it’s sincere, useful or long lasting has yet to be seen but i’m not terribly confident. not only is this national aggression and dementia a symptom of typical historical decline but any effort to adjust it would require a level of concern most (US) americans are incapable of at the post-GWOT/pre-WWIII moment. 9/11 is a hell of a drug. so is 50 years of a cold war cold that lingers in the country’s system. these files are just an extension of post-war ugliness where citizens are potential “enemy combatants”. on top of all that, certain factions seem to think the CIA is their buddy because they cling to personality/identity politics in lieu of any true objective concern with the structure of the state (deep or otherwise).
my cynicism aside, great job on these.
quote: ” As we enter the Trump era, with a nominated attorney general who has not hidden his contempt for press freedoms and a president who has made the news media the primary target of his vitriol, one of the most vital weapons for safeguarding basic liberties and imposing indispensable transparency is …”
Using what the 2nd Amendment was designed for when a President, “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Tsarnaev. Didn’t the FBI keep moving the goal post with his citizenship? He needed it so he could box competitively. There’s a shady area.
I’ve always wondered where the US Secret Service stood?
After all, Hillary’s uncle, Wade Rodham (now deceased), was a Secret Service agent assigned to the presidential protection detail when President Kennedy was in the White House (and assassinated).
I am no fan of the police, but to imply that police are racists because they supported Trump is stupid.
Google search: “hillary police disrepect” and you get some ideas why she was not popular with them. Among the highlights are things like her behavior to her security detail, and many speeches in which she essentially called them out of control murderers of black people. No one should be surprised Hillary did not get the cop vote.
Calling the other side “racist” for unfounded reasons like this, only accomplishes making yourself shrill and unpersuasive, and worse yet, devalues the word “racist” for the cases that ACTUALLY deserve it. I expect better than this Glenn.
So you’re just going to pretend that The Intercept wasn’t reporting that it was the FBI who investigated police and found that that they are and always have been infiltrated with White Supremacists “and other domestic extremists?”
Also, do you have a quote or several quotes of Hillary Clinton saying, “police are out of control murderers of black people?” Not that she would have been wrong if she had said that, but I suspect you’re sharing your fantasies about what Clinton has said.
To readers who eyes are hurting due to the blue field: Sorry about my screwing up the tag.
Why sorry? It looks nice.
Good comment too!
You’re such a typical librul Kitt. First you color everything to make it look nice. Then you apologize for it. Tsk, tsk.
fault·find·er (fôlt?f?n?d?r)
n.
One who is given to petty criticism and constant complaint.
The FBI COINTELPRO is still going on. Look up organized gang stalking. Once somebody puts you on a watch-list they will use police, first responders, community watch, even convicts who have bargained a plea deal to harass, follow, and intimidate you contantly. Please help expose this corruption and illegal practice going on right here in America.
… peer through the walls of private homes; and more.
that “and more” coda was the best part. The FBI with their so-called fusion centers are putting under Zersetzung regular folks out there who have nothing to do with terrorism or any of that [email protected] they fancy about. They are torturing people by targeting them with what they call “‘no-touch’ torture”: high frequency electromagnetic lobes they beam at people using their “Psychotronic weapons” and sleep depriving them with “legally authorized” sonic guns. The FBI is using regular folks as training targets to test all the military grade [email protected] they are getting “and more …” Moreover, it is not just about the FBI and “persecuting freedom of speech in campus across the U.S.”:
https://canarymission.org/
As it happened during MK-Ultra University Departments and researched facilities are enjoying big time being in bed with them … We can’t let those emmging effing morally deafferented morons get away with MK-Ultra 2.0. They are publicly posting people’s names and their intimate private affairs on on that “canary mission” site. Why don’t we make public their names and actions and let them sign their abstract rap lyrics during their indictments and defense? And this is not just about the FBI, as part of their port-governmental, trans-humanistic agenda, police departments across the glob are participating in this. I am sure it is not hard at all finding business connections and mutual cultural exchanges, between, say, the FBI, MI6, the BND and Shin Bet.
// __ Stop 007 – Who I am
youtube.com/watch?v=o1rLEAjACz8&t=112 (who I am)
youtube.com/watch?v=o1rLEAjACz8&t=420 (how the harassment started)
~
// __ Question Time 1 (Targeted Individuals) (Stop 007)
youtube.com/watch?v=Rx_SDzSyxmE&t=210 (answering questions)
~
I hoped you got a hold on NYC’s DIOG! There is a “city FBI” in NYC, which, Imagine! as Lennon would say, the actual federal FBI scorns. They even engage in public and published back and forths without expossing any specific details of their mutual grivances, which are not just about funds. The federal FBI accusses the NYC one of overreaching, crass execesses and abuses which have created problems for them!
Also, the FBI doesn’t “demand that companies provide the bureau with personal data about their users” public and private companies at all levels, even churches!, happilly cooperate. Would you, please, tell us how many and which companies have said -NO!- to their “demands”?
RCL
Well said RCL.
The FBI puts the c in crooked. Or was that the CIA?
Well here’s one Tuesday evening that will be spent at Intercept…
God forbid that a cynical rebel such as I would paint the FBI (or any other establishment institution) in a positive light, but doesn’t this imply the FBI is sensibly keeping an eye on possibly unhinged elements in the Police Force, and being careful not to feed potentially inflammatory information to these nutcases? It is to be hoped that you’re not suggesting that now Trump is president, the Bureau is going to be uncharacteristically incautious about conspicuously manic movements that can pose a hysterical threat to social order.
You see, the next sentences in your article are these:
Which seems to be an implication that the FBI will now be suddenly irresponsible in this regard.
I don’t care for them taking liberties, but I think yours is a topsy-turvy observation that ultimately contradicts itself in a clumsy attempt to portray Trump and the FBI as in cahoots with white supremacists – using evidence that suggests the Bureau is not so predisposed at all.
“but doesn’t this imply the FBI is sensibly keeping an eye on possibly unhinged elements in the Police Force, and being careful not to feed potentially inflammatory information to these nutcases? ”
This was my reading of this particular piece of info, as well. I haven’t had a chance to read all of the articles yet. The summary doesn’t reveal anything that I didn’t already know (or at least strongly suspect) to be true of the FBI. Maybe the in-depth pieces are more groundbreaking?
ASSHOLE ALERT ,,,ASSHOLE ALERT!!
“ASSHOLE ALERT ,,,ASSHOLE ALERT!!”
Another mature commenter on The Intercept, I see. This place sure does attract them.
He shouts because he has nothing to say.
Many of the rest here say exactly the same things but with different words. They feel they must, I suppose, because for some GG is more prophet than journalist, Contrary words cause the crowd to clutch their pearls and clamor for censure.
In short, you’re with them or you’re against them.
Mudbone is only slightly different. He’s more like the drunk at the end of the bar.
Common courtesy has little sway here.
Yes, prophet is a good word to describe the way that some of the commenters here seem to treat Greenwald. Don’t get me wrong–I appreciate his work and agree with much of what he says. But a prophet, he is not.
Reed: TRUMP IS GONNA KILL US ALL!
Greenwald: Um, yes, quite. I reckon we should give an overview discussing COINTELPRO and other background aspects, showing that abuses have been increasing since at least the 1970s, exacerbated massively during the so-called war on terror and continuing through Obama’s clever –
Reed: TRUMP IS RIGHT NEXT TO US, SALIVATING WITH EVIL! RUN SCREAMING! HITLER! HITLER! HITLER! THERE’S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS!
Greenwald: Er… Well, in point of fact perhaps we should stress that this really is an issue of institutionalized corruption swept under the rug by Congress and both Parties for decades, and that revealing this to the public should be seen as shining a light on the workings of precedents that should never have been accepted, in just the same way as the Snowden –
Reed: SATAN! THE DARK LORD IS AMONG US! AARGH!
Greenwald: Okay, well let’s work on our parts separately. We’ll put them together later as an introduction to this material. I’m so glad you’re… so… um… excited about getting this out there, as this is truly significant work, and a lot of effort is needed to –
Reed; FOR GOD’S SAKE, MAN, TRUMP IS COMING FOR THE SOULS OF THE CHILDREN!
Greenwald: Oh, damn, I’ve got a… call… You’re gonna have to – we’ll pick this up later. Great talking, Betsy.
LOL!
Jesus, seriously…
“Trump values loyalty to himself above all other traits, so it is surely not lost on him that few entities were as devoted to his victory, or played as critical a role in helping to achieve it, as the FBI.”
This isn’t journalism.
“Reed; FOR GOD’S SAKE, MAN, TRUMP IS COMING FOR THE SOULS OF THE CHILDREN!”
I think it’s been obvious that Betsy has been pulling for the agency rather than the bureau. (the Trumpdown twit fest was enough to gag a maggot.)
Prior to the election I noted the CIA and FBI appeared to be at war; it’s good to see Glenn agrees with me … :)
nuf is the name; divination is the game.
I’ll take questions now.
“Mark Riebling, Wedge – The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, 1994″
Apparently my guiding Spirit missed that. I am heartened that I did reach the correct conclusion; I am bothered about my timing …
will read the book anyway.
Thx
Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11: How the Secret War Between the FBI and CIA Has Endangered National Security
I have to get a used copy from powells as it is not available in my multi-county library system.
Maisie that is very clever and well executed. But, do you mean to ridicule the belief that we could be looking at the disintegration of the rule of law in toto?
Is it humorous to contemplate that Donald Trump may not obey court orders? And that the people with the guns — cops and soldiers– are wildly supportive of him? What if he and his overtly white supremacist cabal literally are lawless?
If Betsy is as fearful as you suggest, I don’t think that’ especially unjustified.
Maisie that is very clever and well executed. But, do you mean to ridicule the belief that we could be looking at the disintegration of the rule of law in toto?
Is it humorous to contemplate that Donald Trump may not obey court orders? And that the people with the guns — cops and soldiers– are wildly supportive of him? What if he and his overtly white supremacist cabal literally are lawless?
If Betsy is as fearful as you suggest, I don’t think that’s especially unjustified.
That was weird. The little ball rolled around and around and so I hit the submit button again and it went out twice. sorry.
One thing is for sure, standing up for human rights, peace justice, would be a lot easier if the Americans were on our side. There is a price to opposing Trump. It takes courage for people around the world to stand on their principles. Because Trump is going to strike back, as this writer says, perhaps it is safer for many nations to remain quiet and just hope Trump sticks to beating up on American women, Mexico and the middle-east.
About Trump deciding to keep Comey: Doesn’t the director of the FBI serve a fixed 10-year term? I seem to recall that the fixed term was set up after Hoover died in an effort to “depoliticize” the Bureau. So Trump couldn’t get rid of Comey if he wanted to, or keep him when his 10 years is up.
That’s not correct. It takes an act of Congress to keep him after the 10 years (see his predecessor, Robert Meuller, the only one since Hoover to serve more than 10), but they can be fired with or without cause (see William Sessions, ousted by the Clinton administration). The only reason it stays between parties is because it’s seen as a nonpolitical position. Something that is likely to change for the foreseeable future.
This is good. Most Americans apparently aren’t aware of the opposition function the free press plays in other democracies. Are getting a taste of it.
Americans have to realize, they don’t have more than a handful of congress members who could legitimately be categorized as “the opposition”. In other democracies, the opposition doesn’t vote with the government. The opposition is the people’s alternative to the government. Unless they are in coalition with the government, in which case they get cabinet posts and a say in policy. Do Democrats have either of those now in Trump’s government? So why is Trump getting Democrat votes?
And with all branches of government in the hands of the Republicans, how does it serve the public to have the media on their side as well?
Because what they consider news media hasn’t been an opposition for 8 years. Much like Fox News has become the “truth” and CNN has become the “lie” according to the President, the reverse was true during the previous administration and Fox, the only mainstream news outlet opposing Obama, was what we now call “fake news”. The reality is that both are often inaccurate, sometimes intentionally inaccurate, biased, and in it for ratings more than truth.
I had been trying to dissuade people from panicking over the new President, but the more this panic develops, the more I think it should be encouraged. Even if it’s not much worse than what Obama did, people are finally noticing that the way the US does business is not remotely ethical or transparent. People are taking the role of media seriously. They’re investing in technology to resist oppressive government overreach. They’re taking to the streets, airports and wherever else they’re needed over nearly every new policy that stands as a violation of civil rights. If it takes elevating Trump from a sad, egocentric man with too much power to an imagined evil dictator, maybe it’s not so bad if people finally start doing something about the ever-growing power of the Presidency and deconstruction of civil rights.
“Even if it’s not much worse than what Obama did, people are finally noticing that the way the US does business is not remotely ethical or transparent.”
This has been pretty much my take on the whole situation thus far. Even if the protests are a bit misguided (pussy hats? really?), at least people are becoming more aware.
“So why is Trump getting Democrat votes?”
Because contrary to the volcano of drivel the Dems spout, they agree with Trump’s policies. Obama set the stage for them. The want repression, they want a police state, they want the wealth of the nation siphoned off to the richest parasites, and they want eternal war.
Wow what idiot’s and a joke of an article poor liberal attempt
Says one stuck on page 1 of Tying Shoes for Dummies.
btw schmuck, if you ever figure it out, then try “How to Stop Looking Like a Moron in 10 Easy Steps.”
Meanwhile, while we are aware of FBI/other USG sockpuppets routinely trying to inject proUSG propaganda or mocking various TI articles, it’s rare to see this level of stupidity. I guess now that His Excellency is in charge, the qualification levels for jobs throughout the USG has now been lowered to Class10…”We don nee no stinkin smart people”
Seriously, for those interested, here is a really interesting argument, and one I’ve argued against in some ways (that institutions can/will impede Trump’s worst impulses and policies), but I’m prepared to reconsider now, or at least concede that my argument is a double-edge sword/crapshoot:
http://coreyrobin.com/2017/01/31/the-american-terrible/
The internal link at end of first paragraph of Prof. Robin’s piece is a long-form version of this argument and well worth the read in addition to the linked blog entry, and part of an idea he argued in his first book.
…And Hitler could have ruled Germany without vilifying the Jews or starting wars…..
…but that is not how the Fuhrer rolled.
Notwithstanding the constitutional problems of the FBI, the FBI was the only remaining US law enforcement institution with the power to challenge the Clinton aristocracy’s corruption. Perhaps, it was due to bias, but it was the closest any US institution has come to applying justice to the ruling elite, since Ronald Reagan.
Give credit where credit is due.
Actually, since Bush Senior in the S&L crisis.
I am no republican, but when is the last time a democrat actually jailed our aristocracy?
This guy gets it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/31/anti-trump-resistance-fail-ditch-establishment-democrats
Also founding editor of Jacobin, which of course is a good thought provoking resource for anyone not a centrist Dem.
Certainly does, thanks for the link. What do you think if constituent assemblies as a way forward to get the Constitution shaped up?
Well changing the Constitution, for better or worse, is difficult to do except in exceptional circumstances and/or with long effort. Prohibition being the one sort of exception to the general rule. And we haven’t had one since 1971 making voting age 18, which should be about as non-controversial as it gets, so it isn’t very common.
Easier, though less permanent than amending Constitution, is regaining super significant majorities and making most necessary tweaks via federal statute and/or administrative rule. Executive orders obviously aren’t very permanent.
In the wake of the acting Attorney General’s having characterized the Muslim ban as illegal, I was trying to find how Jeff Sessions will deny in court that it is a Muslim ban. I think I’ve found the right argument imbedded in US Department of Justice archives:
Torture….errr, I mean …A Muslim ban is only: “serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death”
Hopefully Trump’s lawyers are as skilled as Bush’s and Obama’s.
I’m not sure “inherited” is the right word for Trump’s power windfall. Manna from heaven? Gifted … maybe?
*Inheritance is a legal term used to describe the practice of passing on property, titles, debts, rights, and obligations upon the death of an individual. The rules of inheritance differ between societies and have changed over time.
The rules of inheritance are the rules of inheritance
Got it now ,, AHOLE</b?
what are you drinkin today?
just got me some everclear
And for the general population the RULES OF INHERITANCE
don’t mean squat . Legally speaking ,,,,,,,,,of course !
This just in! In surprise bipartisan move, Donald Trump appoints his stuffed bird “Goldy” to lead US justice department.
Twelve Democrats vote with the Republicans to confirm Trump’s pick.
Nancy Pelosi vows to feed the bird when Trump is away on foreign trips.
Bi Partisan is so passe it makes me think of LUCKY STRIKES—
LS,,M,F,T
Smoke em ,, John Wayne does ,, and he’s a cowboy !!
To trust anything the US government says is complete folly. The FBI has been a semi-secret police organization since it was formed last century. they can cause more trouble then the supposedly prevent. To get any “real” information about the organization is a real accomplishment; the shows on TV are just propaganda to give them a good image, some of which I do enjoy, but the reality is they do a lot of underhanded unethical acts to further the governments agenda,(and their own, too). All the information gleaned from paid CI’s can be manipulated to again, further their agenda(s). I think the fact that ‘Whitey Bulger’ managed to keep out of their hands for almost 20 years is just hilarious. It just shows what paid CI’s can do, especially when it backfires as in Whitey’s case. Sure they can do good pertinent work, the transparent stuff, but their secret stuff, which there’s a lot of, is what should be on everyone’s radar.
Just pay the TAX and VOTE
Says one while filling out his 1040, insuring part of the reward for his labor, is available to those members of Congress he VOTED for to appropriate for killing 8 yr old Yemen girls.
Meanwhile, failing to understand a collective tax revolt is the ONLY way the American people have to reign in this regime of psychopaths, he continues to believe in “the American way”. Pay your TAX and VOTE.
sheeezusHfuckingchrist. If stupidity were weather you’d be a fucking 8.7 coast to coast hurricane.
Trump: – “We need a Muslim ban! This Quebec Premier is such a loser! Sad!”
Trump: – “It’s not a Muslim ban! Lying media says I called Quebec premier a loser! Sad!!!”
So ? What is it ?
Geez ,,
they’ve banned your Mother from marketing her goods on the corner .
Why does an endorsement of Clinton by an ex director of the CIA count as evidence that:
“the top echelon of the CIA community was vehemently pro-Clinton, ” ?
For guys who said there need to be irrefutable evidence for Russian involvement in the US election, this is totally lame.
HUH??
There are people here that still talk about the LAW .
Yeah,, the LAW .
If THOU SHALL NOT KILL
is #1
This fuckin Govrnment is going to hell
OMG Sean Spicer just said that if a nominee is qualified, the default position should be to confirm an appointee.
Obama’s pick for Supreme Court? Anyone????
I’ve said it before, I’m amazed by the “press secretary” tradition in America.
CNN – “Mr Spicer, you said ten things that were untrue yesterday…do you promise to tell the truth today???”
Spicer – “Oh absolutely!!!”
The White House press secretary’s job is to trumpet the propaganda of the government, especially the administration they serve. To think it otherwise is complete folly.
Glenn ,,
Why this photo of a colored man whispering into Nixon’s ear ?
I believe that’s J. Edgar Hoover … the President Whisperer.
“deny their rights in the name of fighting terrorism, as he has already done with his odious restrictions on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.”
Try to focus on the actual rights denied, of which there are plenty, entry into the US is a privilege, not a right.
But after entry people, even the illegal ones, still have rights. DJT just squashes those right, whether he is in breach of the law/constitution or not.
FYI: https://everydayconcerned.net/author/ramolad/
WHY IS THE MAN WHISPERING INTO NIXON’S EAR COLORED ?
As the old man said
————— ” I’ll pay half to kill the other half “—————
Take that to the bank !
And the only GOOD JUDGE is a DEAD JUDGE
Good idea replying to yourself here. It keeps your shortish comments together, allowing a richly deserved and much more nuanced view. Keep it up!
Your MOMMA was nuanced !!
Out of curiosity why do you feel compelled to come here day in and day out just to utter inane bolded soundbites that you think are clever and just strike everyone else as odd, if not deranged, and most certainly having nothing to do with anything being written or discussed here?
Are the old ladies at the retirement home not letting you play mahjong or bridge with them to pass the time, before your dementia becomes full blown and functionally debilitating?
Be nice to them, I bet they’d let you play with them if you’d stop acting like such a stark raving loony.
“When married to Trump’s clear disdain for domestic dissent.”
This is just an unbalanced assertion. Let us remember Obama’s use of Homeland Security and their fusion centers to crush the Occupy movement.
Trump has claimed the opposite in one of his 140 character essays:
“Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don’t always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.”
The freedom of assembly is already dead — by bipartisan consensus and the introduction of free-speech zones. Obama also signed a very draconian law that made it a felony to protest around secret service agents. I am sure Jeff Sessions is salivating over that now. Regardless, I am glad liberals finally realize the danger of Obama’s skillful legal push towards a unitary executive and a deep-state above the law.
What’s really going to tee off the left is when people get angry enough at protesters blocking airport entrances, lying down on freeways, etc., that we enact laws making doing such things an imprisonable feloney. And first they get pepper sprayed when they refuse to disperse….and if they point a gun they get killed……
“This is just an unbalanced assertion. …”
Even you should recognize the fact that Trump saying something in a Tweet and having it actually reflect what he does are two separate things. Sometimes more.
“Regardless, I am glad liberals finally realize the danger of Obama’s skillful legal push towards a unitary executive and a deep-state above the law.”
As am I.
Yes, I’m pretty sure Trump has quietly acknowledged that it’s best to follow the Hillary Clinton model of having “both a public and a private position.”
It seems that, by editorial decree, that the intercept decided, long time ago, that every article that TI publishes must at least include one sentence about ‘despicable’ Trump. Even when the article is not about Trump.
This is an old oratory tactic, that Romans used when they said, no matter what topic they were discussing, that ‘Carthage must be destroyed’. For the sole reason that Carthage had to be destroyed according to the orator.
It doesn’t trouble me, although it does lower the ethical standards of TI reporters to some degree and just shows you that the ‘courageous reporting’ here must be taken with a grain of salt
….along with a jigger of tequila and a bite of lime. :)
Oh, the sudden outrage to discover secret federal police agencies commit underhanded acts to maintain their budgets so they can continue to commit underhanded acts. Shocking! Oh, wait …
Ruby Ridge.
Waco.
The election of 2016.
I think the editorial decree came down from their running-dog imperialist owner, Pierre Omidyar, who donated 100K to the ‘Never Trump’ fund. I am sure Glenn finds this constant epistemic closure tedious.
This is not so much shocking as it is amusing – for example, the list of prohibitions on recruting human sources, it requires some reading between the lines. Here’s the header on a long list:
(2.3) Prohibitions on FBI personnel in the Identification, Evaluation, and Recruitment of PCHSs [potential confidential human sources] and the Development and Operation of CHSs[confidential human sources].
Translation offered:
1) FBI agents cannot spy on their bosses by recruiting other FBI employees as CHSs.
2) FBI agents cannot investigate corruption in FBI contracting deals by recruiting contractors as CHSs.
3) FBI agents cannot feed money to friends and family by recruiting them as CHSs.
4) FBI agents cannot allow themselves to be recruited by organized crime groups.
5) FBI agents cannot allow themeselves to be recruited as double agents of foreign governments.
Obviously the FBI has has major issues with all of the above, some of the more famous being cooperation with Mafia figures like Whitey Bulgar, double agents and moles like Robert Hanssen, all manner of internal corruption issues, political agendas of FBI executives as seen in COINTELPRO, shady contracting practices, etc.
Oh, wait – on COINTELPRO, there’s no prohibition against pursuing explicitly political or ideological agendas! That’s not mentioned at all in that list. Curious, isn’t it? This is contained with the “official authorization” – this is the real issue, since all these documents say is that all such recruitment efforts are supposed to include:
There’s no requirement that the “authorized purpose” conform to Constitutional law, is there? It’s basically “if the boss says you can do it, you can do it.” Environmental protesters? Anti-war protesters? Religous organizations? No concerns needed about the Bill of Rights, are there?
So, who comes up with these objectives? That’s the question that matters. I bet Americans would love it if the FBI devoted most of its resources to developing confidential informants inside outfits like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, investingating the banksters and crooks who’ve done so much economic damage over the years – but no, they’re off the table. The Obama Administration has among the worst records of investigating and prosecuting white-collar crime and government corruption of any administration, doesn’t it? Even in very well-defined cases like HSBC laundering $2 billion in Mexican drug cartel money, Loretta Lynch and Barak Obama declined to pursue criminal charges – hell, James Comey got a temporary position to sit on the HSBC advisory board to “help them with compliance”!
Instead, the FBI is used to go after whistleblowers who expose government corruption in contracting, as with “Trailblazer”, the NSA and Thomas Drake. Isn’t that wonderful? And notice how the top FBI executives always seem to get cushy jobs with Wall Street, with their banks and law firms, upon “retirement”? What a racket.
So, who writes the objectives? Who decides who to investigate, and who not to? Cases like this one, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/13/fbi-informant-anna-eric-mcdavid-eco-terrorism
These documents are rather lacking in discussing such issues – it’s all about tactics. Here’s about all they say about this:
And this is why a lot of people think the FBI is run by a pack of KGB-like creeps and thugs in the service of Wall Street and politicians. They do try to play a balancing act between centers of wealth and power, perhaps, treating powerful Republicans and Democrats with equal respect (i.e. Comey refuses to investigate Clinton while she’s running against Sanders, but there’s so much dirt on Clinton that Republicans get him to release some of it when she’s running against Trump).
But your low-level FBI employees, they are a sad pack of apparatchiks and functionairies, following directives from the top, carefully avoiding investigating anyone with real political power or wealth, ’cause that would sabotage their careers. I feel sorry for the pathetic bastards, really. I bet a lot of them end up as drunks.
Great points . . . but,
While I think it is ironic they have prohibitions against FBI agents investigating their own bosses covertly (can you imagine the lack of mistrust and morale that idea would engender), and the fact it would be a tremendous conflict of interest to take money as a “CHS” and your salary while investigating your own boss, I can understand at a practical level for institutional cohesion, functionality and trust.
More importantly, those sorts of shenanigans are supposed to be subject to oversight by the DOJ, an agency IG, Congress and whistleblower laws–at least in theory if not in practice.
The fact of future self-dealing or former civil servants parlaying their public “service” into lucrative private sector positions post-career would be easy to fix with a simple legal change banning it, at least for a reasonable period post-service (say 5 years) and equally forbidding by contract ever permitting a civil servant to work for an “interest” that had any direct and plausible financial stake in the legislative, regulatory or law enforcement objective over which the civil servant had direct input or control (under contractual penalty of forfeiture of any salary previously earned as civil servant for breach of contract).
I’d also agree it is one of the fundamental root problems together with the related problem of campaign finance and control of our elections by corporate entities, business lobbies and high net worth individuals i.e. which renders our nation an oligarchy in practical effect.
This country has serious problems. And unless folks are prepared to rise up in solidarity, demand better systems and demonstrate they are prepared to tear it all down through lack of cooperation if they goals aren’t met, I expect more of the same. Elites don’t care about what the working class wants or needs, because they aren’t forced to under existential threat to their wealth and status. Until the little people are prepared to threaten that directly the best they’ll ever get is more crumb sandwiches.
Yes, the FBI follows these institutional rules – but what’s their job, really? Corporate rent-a-cop, mainly. Someone robs banks, the FBI investigates them; anti-war groups protest defense contractors, same deal; environmental protest groups protesting oil & gas extraction, the FBI infiltrates them. Perhaps if one corporate steals industrial secrets from another corporation, the FBI looks into it.
But if banks rob the public, the FBI is hands off, as Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs and the 2008 economic collapse all prove. Even if extremely serious crimes are committed, if it leads back to the government and defense contractors, the FBI won’t touch it, or even actively covers it up, as was the case with the 2001 anthrax attacks. They’re a bunch of tools.
Not much I’d disagree with there.
” if banks rob the public, the FBI is hands off, as Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs ”
I find it astounding (more like shocked, I tell you) that Mitch McConnel’s wife is just now leaving the Board of Directors for Wells-Fargo.
The banks have been in league with organized crime since it cemented itself in American culture with Prohibition.
The banks launder all the drug profits for all nationalities of el Chapos. The opium wars of 200 years ago are in full-engagement today with close to 10% of the nation addicted to opioids. And the banks turn record profits … while you can’t buy affordable medicine by law.
This nation is mortally wounded.
So you are telling Really ? Richard Milhouse Nixon was a homegrown sociopath ?
GEEZ!!
The “left” (progressives) “rather shamelessly are now crying tears of blood to see Obama finish his term, in a clear indication that they are either unaware of the carnage of his warmongering policy or that they know, but they don’t care. However, when one brings out the facts to them and shows them that Obama has created havoc in Libya, Syria, Yemen and many other corners of the world, and when one presents evidence about the tens of thousands of innocent people who perished as a result, they can no longer argue that they did not know. This is a serious indictment because it ultimately means that they have not only abandoned their lofty ideals of global justice, but also that they blatantly do not give much consideration at all to Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni lives. This makes them racists to the extreme, and they can jump up and down decrying the accusation, but their actions and inactions show their true colors.”
http://thesaker.is/the-conservative-revolution-the-left-dilemma/
Deep State foreign policy objectives are independent of the political puppet show of liberals vs. conservatives that dominates U.S. mass media propaganda. If you look at Bill Clinton in Yugoslavia, G.W. Bush in Iraq, Obama & Hillary Clinton in Libya and Syria – it’s really just the same foreign policy, basically a neocolonial agenda with numerous client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia (who, if you haven’t noticed, Trump is equally aligned.)
Really, the whole ban on people from Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Iran is just a nod to Trump’s more xenophobic supporters; the countries that have the longest record of supporting and financing radical Wahhabi-Salafist terror groups – i.e. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan – are not on the list, nor are countries where other terrorists have come from – Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, etc. For that matter, a lot of terrorists in Europe have been British, French, or Belgian nationals! Gonna ban them too? And now we’ve got Canada, better get them on the list too.
Funny, isn’t it, how the countries left off that list – like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Morocco – were all yuge donors to the Clinton Foundation? And Trump and Clinton used the same tax-dodge address in Delaware, isn’t that cute?
http://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-clinton-refuse-explain-share-address-delaware/215907/
Of course, it’s great that Clinton lost – the Deep State will find Trump a much less useful tool to pursue their agenda than Clinton, who’d have been pushing a no-fly zone over Syria by now and risking WWIII with Russia. Instead, we’ve got protesters in the streets blocking everything Trump tries to do. I mean, the Deep State would need another 9/11 to get public support for more wars, at this point.
Don’t get any ideas, little monkeys.
“The “left” (progressives) “rather shamelessly are now crying tears of blood to see Obama finish his term…”
Those who are aren’t progressives. The progressives are the ones who didn’t vote for a continuation of those policies. Get your pigeonholes and labels correct; or better yet, abandon them altogether.
People who feel the general public should not have been privy to information the FBI was investigating regarding Clinton, will likely applaud the DC Circuit court shutdown of a lawsuit aimed at obtaining wider public access to Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3439285/OLC-FOIA-20170131.pdf
Let’s review the facts.
Clinton was diverting government documents into her basement. To avoid access to information laws. Or if you are more gullible, for her “convenience”.
The US federal police, the FBI was investigating her.
There were open congressional hearings looking into her conduct.
Now, how exactly was the American media, or any media, supposed to ignore all that? How were the voters supposed to remain ignorant of all that?
I have no problem with the facts. I don’t think voters should have ignored any of that and would never promote ignorance to voters.
But there are others below who felt that that information was not due the public. That’s who I was addressing with the quote you highlighted.
His next order should be to add another branch to DHS consisting of daycares and whaambulances for the children with ajustment problems. We have needed a Pres. like this for a long time. One that actually carries out his promises thats what the voters chose. Sorry, the rest of you are having a hard time about the circus leaving town!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!
According to Pew Research poll conducted just before the election, 51% of those who voted for Trump did so in order to keep Clinton out of office. The other 49% (the minority, in case you missed it) were actual Trump supporters.
We do *not* need a dictator. Nor do we need a strong man pushing white supremacist and neo-Nazi policies, all the while surrounding himself with a cabinet consisting of yes-men, ultra-rich bankers and former corporate CEOs, all of whom amassed their wealth as a result of a rigged economy (which he spoke out against in his campaign, in case you forgot) and off the backs of the rest of us, whom they loathe to even consider sharing the fruits of *our* labors with.
https://twitter.com/ckilpatrick/status/825776142489620480
Slaves
I get the inkling from this article that The Intercept has some insight into organized stalking, which would be the biggest corruption scandal in U.S. history. The only problem is that it’s distributed and compartmentalized, and there will probably be no smoking gun.
“…organized stalking, which would be the biggest corruption scandal in U.S. history.”
Truth.
Truth
anyway great story on the main stuff – always useful to be reminded that the state is also at war with itself quite a bit of the time.
I grew up seeing racist cops so that’s no surprise for me: see the Sagon Penn case in the middle 80s in San Diego for a huge outrage; an inspiring, surprising legal victory in part built around the demonstrable ties of a police officer to the KKK; but no happy ending ultimately – a very tragic ending in fact.
It’s a huge case little known outside San Diego, and along with our comparatively trivial white boy yet nevertheless intimidating encounters with SD blond mustache cops, shaped my & a lot of my friends worldviews.
here is a credible presentation, read first:
https://www.adn.com/voices/article/where-was-stand-your-ground-law-when-sagon-penn-needed-it-part-2/2013/01/02/
here on the other hand is how it was presented later:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sagon-penn-couldnt-have-life-2002jul06-story.html
here’s how the “paper of record” presented it at the time
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/17/us/man-acquitted-of-killing-officer.html
What I want Intercept readers to note about the last two stories is that THEY LEAVE THE KKK CONNECTIONS OF THE COP OUT of the story. But these shocking-to-us connections were widely reported in San Diego at the time. The general “law & order” media narrative took a hit. News presentations of the jury verdict were aghast, as if it were the jury that had somehow been unjust. I remember grabbing a copy of the paper and running over to my friends to shout out the news, we were so happy when Sagon Penn was acquitted.
First, good work by all the staff at The Intercept in publicizing these documents. They are important, and the public should have access to them given the FBI’s history in this nation against certain individuals and groups.
Second, I commend whoever leaked them for their courage.
Third, while the first and second are true, much of this was known from earlier redacted versions that were obtained via FOIA requests and lawsuits by various groups. Nevertheless, it is always best to have unredacted versions so, again, I commend whoever leaked them.
Fourth, and sadly, having read all of the reporting (except the pieces on informants), and although not all of the source manuals, I think my fear that these releases will not cause the public opposition to these methods it should, will be born out.
The vast majority of Americans too easily swallow the idea that: “I have nothing to hide, I am doing nothing wrong, so this sort of intrusive surveillance state is fine by me, it is only ‘the other’ who is doing something wrong that needs to worry. The FBI has better things to do than spy on innocent folks doing nothing wrong, so if the FBI is engaging in this sort of surveillance against an individual or group, where there’s smoke there’s likely fire.”
Put simply, they can’t comprehend a) how easily between mistakes and abuse of this sort of broad authority, methods and capabilities undermines the very concept of privacy and democracy, and b) most people don’t comprehend and don’t value their personal privacy to the degree they really should. That’s two big parts of the problem. Maybe these will help change that reality, but I have my doubts.
Moreover, far too many people in America are fundamentally brainwashed into believing they live in a hyper-violent, criminal, threatening country and world (a level of paranoia and fear that is difficult to grasp for someone who actually understands the statistics underlying “risk” or “threat” of harm/crime befalling any individual or group, and/or actual per capita incidences of crime over time in this country–put simply you’ve never been safer and it has nothing to do with mass warrantless surveillance) and thus the overestimate the actual risk and overemphasize the “need to feel safe.” And once you have a people living that reality and level of irrational fear and paranoia they will quite naturally do or permit almost any activity to be undertaken by their “protectors” to “make them feel safe.”
Simple fact is, the courts used to strike the correct balance between the lawful authority of law enforcement to investigate or engage in surveillance of any citizen or lawful resident–and that was the 4th Amendment where warrants to engage in surveillance could only be issued on probable cause that meant “articulable facts” that demonstrated to a neutral judge or magistrate that the targeted individual has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. That’s a pretty fair balance to strike between an absolute “right” and its “practical” limit in a nation of 300 + million people.
But those days are long dead in America unless people wake up and/or the courts reassert themselves and a co-equal branch of government. 24/7/365 panopticon-like methods of electronic and human surveillance of anyone and everyone will continue to be the “new normal.” The only reason there isn’t an “assessment” of every American at this point is lack of manpower to create them. Although with technology lack of “manpower” may be irrelevant soon, if it isn’t already. Machines will soon be able to collect, store, analyze and create “threat reports” on every human being employing some set of flawed algorithms, and they’ll do it constantly. And law enforcement, in secret, will do it with only minor pushback from the court system. The standards will be rendered so loose and amorphous, the degree of “articulable facts” so flexible, that in practical effect nothing will change.
Orwell and others couldn’t even begin to grasp what technology would eventually enable. Its here and now. And unless a critical mass of human beings rediscover their understanding of the value of individual privacy as a fundamental human right, like I said, welcome to the “new normal.”
Unfortunately, I think just like the Edward Snowden documents, the release of these manuals will likely only produce “cosmetic” changes and do nothing to curtail the scope and depth of the actual mass warrantless surveillance (or “assessments”) of all human beings that the NSA, FBI and others have been conducting for decades. Between the FBI, NSA and other agencies practices–we really do live in a STASI-on-steroids society.
I hate to be a cynic on this, but the problem at base isn’t law enforcement overreach or methods (it is of course in one respect), it is that people don’t value the idea of their privacy enough to ever meaningfully push back, limit or demand freedom from these sorts of capabilities, practices and methods. Our elected officials don’t care because they care more about their career prospects, and their own personal freedom from unwarranted surveillance, than they do about protecting the freedoms of the governed who put them in office (of course with a few notable exceptions).
They don’t have the courage to make the argument to the American people (and begin reversing their brainwashing) that they are relatively safe as a historical matter, that only reasonable methods and resources should be allocated to “safety”, and that no government can protect every individual from some bad event through methods that trample all over people’s civil rights and liberties. It simply isn’t possible.
I guess my only real optimism comes from knowing that even though everyone can and will be surveilled or “assessed,” it simply won’t work to achieve the ends it purports to be able to. It won’t make anyone safer, algorithms are flawed, people will be abused (individual and in groups), and eventually the system implodes on itself for lack of effectiveness when people discover ways to work around most of it.
Guess we’ll see.
In any event, this is the sort of high level investigative journalism The Intercept should always strive to produce and I commend you all for it.
Again, thank you to the leaker for his/her courage as well.
‘In any event, this is the sort of high level investigative journalism The Intercept should always strive to produce and I commend you all for it’
I agree, infinitely better than for instance Glenn Greenwald’s reporting yesterday about the 8 year old sister of Al-Awlaki who died according to a Facebook report.
Also, please note that it took TI months before they decided to publish these FBI reports, while the report on Al-Awlaki’s sister took no longer than a couple of seconds to max. hours
Which, of course, is conform to the ‘North Korea law of journalism’
Do you believe that confirmation from the little girl’s grandfather that she was killed in a US led or enabled strike, isn’t relevant to the veracity of Glenn’s reporting?
Maybe the grandfather has reason to lie, and I haven’t seen the body myself or the death certificate, so I can’t definitively prove she’s dead at this point. But based on what is known so far, I have no reason to doubt the grandfather’s, Ben Norton’s reporting (which Glenn linked and/or the overseas news source he/they relied upon) or Glenn’s claims re: the circumstances of her death (assuming it happened) given how Glenn substantiated the claim.
If you have proof the little girl is not dead, she wasn’t the daughter of al-Awlaki, that the US wasn’t responsible or that one of the sources fabricated the claim I am happy to consider it if you link or otherwise provide it. But short of that I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
As far as the rest I guess we can agree to disagree.
It’s always easier to write about something in which you understand the details and history of versus writing about thousands of pages you’ve never seen.
I would hope something that obvious was simple for folks to understand. Personally, if you want to critize Greenwald on the article, by all means, knock yourself out….but at least give some examples of what you thought was important and left out or what was factually incorrect or distorted.
Otherwise, you’re just whining.
I got the inkling from this post that The Intercept might have some insight into organized stalking, which, if revealed, ought to be the biggest corruption story in American history. The only issue is that because it is distributed and systemic, there will not be a smoking gun for tying it into a single, simple, narrative.
The link to the documents seems to be broken. Can we get that fixed?
“Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it’s not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump’s back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation’s top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.”
From a very incisive comment by Charles Hugh Smith which you can google to find.
Its the CIA war mongering civilian faction that was backing Hillary. The military faction which ends up fighting these regime-change wars was backing Trump.
I just want to thank the journalists who worked on this set of stories.
Glenn Greenwald, Cora Currier, Trevor Aaronson, Alice Speri and Jenna McLaughlin have been producing some of the most fearless writing I’ve read in years. And Betsy Reed has been supporting it. Thank you to all of you. I look forward to more of the same as we all face some truly “interesting times”.
If only this was actually going to help someone but themselves. But there’s no money in that. Anyway, do you think TI will divulge how disinfo spewing filth like your’s and Glen’s friend Mona are compensated?
If Mona is being compensated in any way by TI it will be news to all of us, although I don’t know that she is, nor why she would hide that fact if true.
Why not just ask her directly?
If she is less than truthful, and you can prove it, do it. Short of that sliming her with innuendo is about as low as it gets don’t you think? Attack her opinions on the merits or don’t, or prove she’s being paid by TI or don’t, but short of that it appears you just like sliming her because you don’t agree with or like how she interacts with you and others.
Oh come on–Mona brings it upon herself when she calls people f-ing idiots willy-nilly because they have opinions that differ from her own.
@ Melanie
So basically you don’t like her tone? Fair enough, many don’t like mine. Not sure Mona cares what anyone thinks in that regard, and generally neither do I. Maybe that makes us bad human beings for having snotty potty mouths.
I don’t think all opinions are equally worthy of respect or civility. But I’ve got a tough enough skin to take it as good as I dish it out, so that’s how I live my life. Just because someone says something they believe, or because they believe it strongly, doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to defer to it in civil tones.
Some of the most base immoral, illogical and reality challenged ideas, policies and arguments are delivered in the most soothing civil tones one could imagine. I simply don’t believe I’m obligated to tolerate that, or seek to persuade others of the base immoral quality of those ideas, in equally soothing tones. Depends on circumstance, context, history, what’s being discussed et al.
That and I don’t give too much thought to what anybody thinks of me that I don’t know personally, because I’m not trying to win a popularity contest personally or professionally in life, and can live with the fact some folks might not like me. Most who know me personally do, because I’m actually very gregarious and easy going, except when it comes to certain “hot button” objects where decent human beings should know better.
Moreover, given that most people on the internet, unlike in face to face communication, hide behind anonymity they have a tendency to be much more strident in comments than they would in face to face communications. That’s just life. Now I comment under my real name, because if I’ve got a beef with what someone says, I’m not going to sugar coat my thoughts on that or the language I use. That’s who I am, and because I’ve usually taken the time to think about whether the thing or idea I’m arguing against in an abrasive tone warrants that quality of response and whether I’m willing to live with the real world consequences of any incivility I display in that response, I let it rip when I feel justified. Many are not and that’s for them to decide. But it has been my experience both personally and professionally that sometimes the most soothing tones or respectful dialogue isn’t always the most effective or appropriate, though I try to err on that side so long as my interlocutor does as well.
But each to his/her own. I think it’s more appropriate to just state you don’t respect/like someone because of their tone, rather than accuse them without proof of being paid to conduct him/herself the way he/she does.
I hear what you’re saying. But please note that I’m not the one accusing anyone of being paid–that was another commenter. Mona has never actually addressed me personally. But I’ve seen her launch some rather vicious attacks at others, that to me seemed entirely unwarranted. Add that to the fact that she makes statements that suggest that she and Greenwald are BFFs, and I think she makes Greenwald, by association, look bad. I don’t think that’s doing any good for this site or for Greenwald. Anyway, since Mona herself hasn’t made an appearance, as of yet, on this thread, I think it’s time I gave this subject a rest now.
Sliming slime is redundant, and who suggested she’s being compensated by TI? I was referring to her sugar daddies in the Stasi. Oh, sorry, Americans like you refer to your Stasi as the CIA, FBI, ‘local law enforcement’… respectable shit like that.
Hope I didn’t offend your tender and honorable American sensibilities.
And I have already proven her a liar. She makes it rather easy, probably thinking she has impunity for the rest of her degradable life.
Where IS Mona in this thread, anyway? I don’t have a problem with the info Mona shares. It’s the way that she attacks, complete with insults and name-calling, those who don’t agree with her. And acts as though Greenwald is her BFF. Would think that Greenwald wouldn’t want to be associated with that kind of childish name calling. She strikes me as a bit of a stalker, as well.
I wouldn’t know where she is. Anyway, she can’t be a stalker because Dr. Mona insists Stasi goon squads don’t exist, stalk, harass and torture people for fun and money. She even has a web site to prove it.
She has far more credibility than Wikileaks, which is lying and forging documents describing organized stalking activities such as this .
And this: https://wikileaks.org/hbgary-emails/emailid/11681
And this: EXPERIENCED SURVEILLANCE / HUMINT ROLE PLAYERS WANTED
Note the special skills needed:
“We are also recruiting for professionals with HUMINT training experience to conduct intrusions and provide Counter Surveillance support.”
Some pics and vidoes of some my personal favorite Stasi goons (caught in the act) can be found here . despite all knowing Dr. Mona’s assertions that I just made it all up.
Can you tell I detest Stasi apparatchiks yet?
Interesting. When I said stalker, I was thinking more along the lines of a stalker of Greenwald. You know, kind of obsessed–treating him as more of a guru than a journalist.
She does forum-stalk Zersetzung torture targets who comment on the subject here.
CIA and NSA dossiers are Available to the FBI
@Glenn Greenwald
Yes, imagine the network of CIA agents and their usage to perform these functions:
There must be some framework in place to support these requests. Logistical framework, such as an operational site to gather the information from; communication and passing along this information from CIA agents to the FBI in all 50 of the United States, the CIA’s capabilities in providing ‘background’ on ‘friends’ especially here in the continental USA.
And given the close relationship of Silicon Valley companies to these entities, where might you suspect a site like this might operate, especially given the fact, Senator Feinstein is on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee?
https://theintercept.com/document/2017/01/31/domestic-investigations-and-operations-guide/fbi-can-pull-cia-and-nsa-dossiers-in-absence-of-any-crime-raising-privacy-questions/#page-8
So the left thinks government is too big and over reaching?
Yes slow boy. Once again your ignorance and stupid assumptions are shown to be pure derp. Why did you think an education was optional?
the FBI played a critical role in winning the election for Trump. REAAAALLLLLY.
evidence includes that Hillary Clinton says so. REAAALLLLY.
Come the fuck on. Yeah some FBI tried.
That’s quite a stretch from intent to effect, yes?
I think it played a part, Vic. Small but discernable, nonethless.
I think making excuses around Comey, much less using Hillary “the russians are funding anti-fracking action in the USA” Clinton’s own excuses as some kind of evidence, is about the worst thing anybody could do right now.
Don’t encourage those fuckers to excuse themselves; it’s the one thing they know how to do.
No quarter for this shit.
I invoke Pedinska, much below:
Cool then. Let me share a little tale. One of those fall weekends where I was unwisely back on Facebook, I kept seeing all this outraged stuff about Comey & emails & etc. being posted by my tragically trusting center lib friends and I was like, uh, whatever. Finally there were so many dumb memes being circulated that I looked it up.
moral of the little anecdote:
Literally the only people who made a big deal about the Comey October thing were liberals. Literally Hillary Clinton kept it in the papers for three days complaining about it.
Sounds like someone is upset b/c the beastly whore from the invest state of the hog state couldn’t STEAL THE ELECTION. LOL LOL HA HA HA.
Gotta agree with Vic on this. This kind of talk is just playing into the Dem. establishment’s ploy of blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the outcome of the recent election. The FBI’s role was critical. That’s debatable–it’s NOT fact.
Making the factual statement,
is not the same as making excuses regarding Comey. Nor is her statement any sort of evidence of anything other than her own inability to face the truth that her own actions – acts she thought she could keep secret from the American people – were deleterious to her candidacy. And, coming as it does right before a sentence talking about how the NY office felt there was sufficient evidence for an indictment, it certainly has little to no ameliorating qualities.
It was, quite simply, a statement of Clinton’s own beliefs that will do nothing to change anyone else’s beliefs on either side of that equation.
Pedinska, it’s presented in the paragraph where it appears as support for a contention made early. Pretty basic rhetorical construction stuff I’m afraid.
Right you are Vic. Try this instead:
“While Hillary Clinton blames James Comey and his election-week letter for her defeat, factors such as Obama’s die-hard support for the TPP, revelations about the DNC’s biased actions targeting Bernie Sanders, and questions about pay-to-play activity involving the Clinton Foundation and Clinton speaking fees probably played a larger role, particularly in key Rust Belt states that Trump won.”
I approve of this revision, photosymbiosis !
one last thing – Greenwald’s Twitter feed is filled every day with idiots claiming he supported Trump because his reporting on HRC somehow undermined her.
These people will reach for any face-saving excuse and they have no shame. Don’t assist them by repeating speculations that fit their narrative as definite facts.
It’s kind of like who had the bigger gun to shoot themselves in the foot. Apparently, judging from the evidence, Clinton did. But to be fair, Trump’s has gotten much bigger,(his gun) since taking office. How all this plays out remains to be seen.
Oh, SO much better, photosymbiosis!
Ok. So, the phrase that you really object to is,
I understand that objection, and agree with it. I think, absent compelling numerical data we are unlikely to ever be able to correlate to individual bits of the negative pub she got across lots of issues, that’s simply an opinion. We both know Greenwald has those and that he’s not shy about putting them in articles.
Setting that aside, your comment above re: your tragically trusting center lib friends, as well as similar sentiments we see in comments below, would be evidence that my statement above – that will do nothing to change anyone else’s beliefs on either side of that equation – is still valid and will remain so. Those folks are not, and will likely never be, willing to prioritize her actual actions over Comey’s alleged betrayal. No matter how Glenn frames it. :-s
I’m not totally hopeless about that; a lot of them were just complacent, not Hillary die-hards.
More of them than I would have expected reacted positively to the “Bernie Would Have Won” rejoinder last month.
Once the full extent of the campaign fuckup was revealed along with the loss. Don’t give up on em and anyway —- we need everybody right now, just don’t let them lead!
“No matter how Glenn frames it. :-s”
That doesn’t absolve Greenwald from carefully watching how he frames such issues.
Is the FBI holding back on their investigation of Trump/Russian connections until they find a Department of Justice with a steel spine to oppose the POTUS?
O/T:
Just been watching Al Jazeera’s Iraq: A Deadly Deception. I warmly recommend it.
Apparently Richard Pearl now “shuttles” between Washington and the South of France. Can someone put some lead into that neocon Zionist arsehole? Pretty please?
Thank You
Even tho the f…b…i… does a good job serving the public because of the conscientious good agents who work there, the 1%ers at the top of the agency seem to serve wallstreet and the political whores in congress. This is the problem with America. The common folk have been losing ground but working harder since 1967 because of wallstreet and political shenanigans.
would be swell if you could OCR the docs, however imperfectly.
“Even tho the f…b…i… does a good job serving the public because of the conscientious good agents who work there…” HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
That’s funny. That’s a good joke. Funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Absolutely hilarious. HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA
It is a joke right? fbi does not equal “serving the public,” they’re there to cover up for their pimp.
i simply urge you to discriminate between the soldiers and bosses.
thanks for the reply
“It is a joke right? fbi does not equal “serving the public,” they’re there to cover up for their pimp.”
I think this is a bit simplistic. I think there are FBI agents who are very dedicated to their jobs and to serving the public. I think it’s possible that the agency does both. “Cover up for their pimp,” as you put it, at the higher-up levels, while there are good agents out there just doing their jobs.
Voltaire, French philosopher said ” when misinformed, uninformed and politicized people choose democracy , that democracy is of plug- ugly . It belongs to those gangster”. ( I just paraphrased it).
Gangsters are in charge.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. – Nietzsche
For years and years the US government has made their citizens believe that the so-called enemy is outside their borders and hates them for their “freedoms.” They’ve gazed for too long into that abyss.
That hatred you make reference to has been downgraded to a mild dislike.
Digesting the document trove presented here will take days if not months. Getting to know the acronyms, the jargon, the various actual applications, the hidden agenda of factions and individuals and the clear intent of the current ruling faction — Republicans — will take more time, scrutiny and knowledge than most people have.
That’s why we rely on journalists. The levers and buttons secretive agencies pull and push to obtain political results is a fascinating subject. It is definitely worth the study.
I look forward to the glib assessments by the denizens of The Intercept commentariat — those readers seeking advantage, cognitive exercise and/or pure personal comfort. Truth is merely an inconvenience.
Let’s start with fiction. From 1984:
We see this with the Trump faction already. Recent issues like the inaugural crowd size, refugee (etc.) treatment, and the firing of Sally Yates all demonstrate the various facets of political power exercised by the Republicans. The truth is irrelevant, integrity is an obstruction and policy is but one means of increasing political power.
Tonight, for instance, Trump has announced plans to name a new Supreme Court nominee for the vacancy left by Scalia’s death (two decades too late.)
The Republicans immediately refused to allow Obama’s nominee a hearing or a vote. A year and an election later, Trump’s impending announcement mocks the entire sordid and sinister intent demonstrated by Republicans — in plain sight — for the last ten months — and for decades prior.
Yet it tells us all we need to know about the use of State power. Again.
What sort of judicial oversight should the FBI fear when it brazenly uses its State sanctioned power to deny — to collaborate in the denial of — an open and independent judiciary? What difference do these documents make when the exercise of political power renders them irrelevant? What can we — citizens — infer when Comey remains, while Sessions awaits in the wings, and when the president can shamelessly dispute and deny photographic evidence?
This is what Rove meant when Susskind reported of him:
This is how State power is exercised now.
Keep this in mind “while you’re studying” these documents — “judiciously as you will.”
“In the end, the Party will announce that two plus two makes five” and there is absolutely nothing anyone’s judicious study can do to prevent or punish this malignant exercise of State power.
Thank you.
Thank you Milton
Growing up (physically, if not mentally) during the time when
the “Cold War” was the preferred description for the crap which
is now the “Global War on Terror,” there was a consistent sort of
awareness of the activities of spies, both for and against the
corporate capitalist church of “America.”
The genius of the current version of the corporate global
warmongering is that the need for – and the variations of –
abuse and subterfuge
are so abundantly infested and infiltrated
that the spies are spying on and working against their own colleagues
in their devotion to corruption and domination
and through the help of democrats and republicans “in office”
while they continue the ever-expanding global infestation in
the name of private greed.
The main difference between the capitalizing spies in the FBI and
the CIA is where the main focus needs to be – domestic or global.
Mad magazine is more valid than the fake constitution of
the faking United $tates of America, but let’s continue to
pretend that the solution to this problem will be coming from
within the “government” which has escalated this sadism.
Donald Trump is a level of boredom which has been achieved
through the lust for affluence and indifference to environmental
quality which is the main shared characteristic of both
democrats and republicans.
The current preferred delusions are to pretend that there is a
difference wherein
Trump wants to redecorate the domestic
palace of Versailles (as he sees it) while Hillary would
have used the palace (as she sees it) as a juggernaut to crush
more lives globally.
Neither pretense is worthwhile, but the vast majority of people
are clearly still devoted to one form of corruption or the other
and that must be reassuring to both the FBI and the CIA.
I have spent the better part of 2 years trolling the message board of this website because of the ideological differences I have with this site and its writers. That being said, let me tip my cap to you guys. It seems the rest of the media has just awoken to the fact America is at war in Yemen. You guys have been covering Obama’s drone campaign in Yemen for years. You’re not partisan hacks and that makes you worthy of respect. As much as it pains me to say this, well done
Americans have a choice, grow rich and powerful or grow up.
This is why I keep reading The Intercept. Now, the question is, will we get someone(s) into office in 2018-2020 who will do something about this?
The answer is, probably, no. No single person is going to have the ability to dismantle this kind of infrastructure. What’s required is either a seachange in one of the parties, or an entirely new party having enough people elected to office to do the incredible amounts of paperwork, legislation, investigation, and prosecution that will be required to purge our government of this kind of institutional corruption. That is not a likely story. What is more likely is that the pendulum will swing the other way, the ineptitude of the current administration will be recognized, and America will go back to voting for middle of the road fascists, like the entrenched elites at the Democratic and Republican parties. They may be violating our freedoms, but at least they do it with a scalpel, not a bludgeon. I know, cynical right?
Oohh my side! Gr8 comedy peeps.
Thank you. Good investigative journalism–what I come here for, unlike some of the overtly partisan screeds and lazy Google-culling output indulged in by some of the writers at TI.
adding a bunch of pictures doesn’t really help the content, mr. mackey. it just takes longer to get to the article, should i want to read it.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
The one thing you can trust, is that you can not trust the Government ! ! !
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” Thomas Jefferson.
“Officials of the bureau were so concerned that many of these police forces are linked to, at times even populated by, overt white nationalists and white supremacists,”
I’m sure there are many other affiliations within police departments that some people find objectionable, but Glen only points to the ones leftists fear.
Correction: Glenn only points to the ones who cause the most problems. White nationalists and white supremacists are such troublemakers and deserve no place in law enforcement since they obviously cannot be expected to apply the law equally to all citizens. Equal application of the law is NOT the M.O. of white supremacists!
Trolls are in
Ignore
Great article
This explains why the Obama’s worked so hard to get HRC elected the last month of the campaign. Barack had prepared the field for the first woman dictator of the USA. And the MSM had no clue…
So now that Trump is in, we need to fear for our rights? Obama surely respected our 4th amendment Everytime he signed & expanded the NDAA & the patriot act.
No you should have been fearing it since ~9/11/2001, Obama continued to expand power, Trump is now in a position to abuse that power. Hopefully he shows us all the cracks with out actually starting a new huge war Global or Civil. Any damage he does in the next 4-8 years can be undone as long as we pay attention to how he does it and strip those powers from the next official.
We were fearing for our rights then too. Its just even more of the same with trump with emphasis added. Ever notice you never heard republicans complain about Obama is regards to his support of NDAA & the Patriot Act? Republicans didn’t not like everything Obama did; they just refused to publicly acknowledge to their constituents when they were in support of stuff Obama did. You know- “can’t look like you get along with the pretend enemy.”
Mr. Comey took a gamble during the election – Trump could have lost – and is now reaping the rewards. The American system pays dividends to those entrepreneurs willing to put their career on the line. Jealousy will make people claim that Mr. Comey was just lucky. But he had a dream of a police state and now that dream is becoming a reality.
on a more serious note, i’m surprised trump kept him on. comey certainly looked like he was playing both sides with the non indictment indictment speech, and trump allegedly values personal loyalty. why not replace him with one of the agents that leaked to giuliani?
I haven’t seen Mr. Comey’s file on Mr. Trump, but I assume it is voluminous.
“why not replace him with one of the agents that leaked to giuliani?”
Perhaps he has done just that.
“[F]ew entities were as devoted to [Trump’s] victory, or played as critical a role in helping to achieve it, as the FBI.” -Glenn Greenwald
I’m so damn sick of partisan, whining loser Democrat shills like this Greenwald bozo, pointing fingers at the FBI in a pathetic attempt to distract people from what a horrible awful candidate Hillary Clinton was.
Give Mr. Greenwald a bit of time – it’s only been a couple months since the election and it takes a while for the effects of partisanship to wear off. He will eventually reconcile himself to the fact that Mrs. Clinton was a terrible candidate, but you can’t expect him to do so while the wounds of the election defeat are still fresh.
It’s interesting to watch people who share a single obsessive opinion disagreeing with one another.
The snarkers are the best because they have to pretend they’re not pretending while they’re pretending they’re serious.
It’s like watching a bunch of rambunctious children sprint across an auditorium littered with banana peels. The fat one with tiny hands is already on his ass.
We exist for your amusement.
We are not amused.
WAS, while she was still a candidate he covered her negatives a lot, more than almost all other left leaning news sources. He stopped giving her focus after she lost. If she had won he would be covering her, and ignoring Trump it is how good journalism works, you cover the person who is actually doing something. Which is why if you look back though the intercepts articles you will see I am right, and why you will also see plenty of negative articles about President Obama while he was still in office.
If you want to accuse the Intercept/Greenwald of bias you would be more accurate to call them anti establishment with a slight left tilt, they go after who ever is in power, but do so with more gusto when it is the right in power. Greenwald is who Snowden went to when he leaked, during a democratic presidency.
The fact that HRC sucked doesn’t obviate reporting on an FBI lacking constitutional restraints. That said, I had a hearty laugh at the “Even Hillary Clinton herself blamed Comey…” — So the fuck what?? She would say that, wouldn’t she?
Who Mrs. Clinton blames publicly and who she blames privately are two different things. Remember, she has a public policy and a private one. In private, her inner circle is mostly blaming Mr. Obama, for not taking a public stand against Russian interference in the election until after it was over.
Personally, I blame the CIA. They are a little gun shy due to their reputation of interfering in elections and were not as proactive as the FBI and Mr. Comey. However, the Deep States wins in either case, so I’m not too bitter about the outcome.
Yes, the FBI should have just kept the facts they knew about Mrs. Clinton’s illegal server quiet. The public shouldn’t know about such things. The public should just keep quiet about our betters and vote based on the public persona they wish us to perceive instead of the one with inconvenient facts attached to it.
Or, at the least, they could have told us what they knew about Mr. Trump. Because otherwise we never would have known what an odious, tax-document-hiding, pussy-grabbing, serial-bankruptcy-declaring, wife-beating, daughter-leering, Russian-diddling, racist, sexist pig-at-the-public-trough we’re dealing with.
Trump’s purity is, of course, what won him the election. :-s
Is it your view that a law enforcement agency conducting an investigation involving a politician or other public figure should immediately publicize any and all information it obtains in the course of the investigation, irrespective of the information’s accuracy, significance, or potential to mislead? I believe it is universally accepted investigative practice not to do that, for reasons that ought to be self-evident.
I actually think that’s a tough call to make. But I think you make several misrepresentations in your statement. The FBI didn’t immediately publicize everything. If they had, then you folk wouldn’t have been squealing about “last-minute” attempts to alter elections. Information about the ongoing nature of this investigation was out there for quite some time. In fact, I believe that was what did that vast majority of the damage that was done to Clinton on this front.
Was the information inaccurate? I believe it was the truth. What information that was revealed did you find lacking in truth?
Was it significant? Yes. The public deserves to be informed about the people they are being asked to choose to lead them, irrespective of the party they represent. I recall the outcry when it was discovered that the NYT sat on the NSA spying story prior to Bush’s 2004 re-election. You think that’s what should have happened in this election too? I am surprised to find you of that persuasion at this late stage of our acquaintance.
Potential to mislead? How? We were being shown factual information that even Clinton’s defenders couldn’t disavow. We were each given an opportunity to evaluate that information. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being lied to by politicians. I want to know ALL the mud they’re rolling around in, especially when they think no one’s looking.
The bullshit about whether or not they would charge her, we could have done without. That was theater – resembling the theater we’ve been served regarding alleged Russian tampering, imo – and I grant you that it likely caused some harm. But someone of her elite nature will never face charges of any kind. There is plenty of precedent for that. And whether or not that bit of theater cost her the election – swimming as it was in a sea of other issues – is impossible to determine.
This was a shit pile of an election, with the electorate being served up two massive ham sandwiches – granted, with different sorts of embellishments between the molding bread slices – that any grand jury would salivate to indict had the charges alleged been leveled at any ordinary human being, as opposed to two of the most cosseted, privileged and powerful people our country services. I think a significant percentage of the electorate saw that quite clearly. It’s not like they’ve been hiding that bit.
http://people.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-and-bill-clinton-at-donald-trumps-wedding-photo/
Comey’s October letter to Congressional Republicans — the letter that transformed the campaign — was about information the FBI had just become aware of but had not yet even reviewed. Indeed, at the time the letter was sent and made public, the FBI had not even obtained the necessary warrant to allow it to lawfully review the information. These facts must be clearly understood if the FBI’s degree of culpability is to be meaningfully evaluated.
If you are a consumer of mainstream news media, then you know the Comey letter was the overwhelmingly dominant story (in print and, more importantly, on television) during the last 10 days of the campaign when virtually all of the late-deciding voters broke for Trump. There was by no means a “sea of other issues” being placed before the public during that time.
You may well be correct that someone of HRC’s status was highly unlikely to be criminally charged. But millions of Americans don’t necessarily know that. When Trump and other Republicans were predicting prison time for HRC after the release of the Comey letter, they were doing it for a reason.
As to the NYT and the Bush spying story, I respectfully but emphatically suggest that journalists and government investigators have very different purposes and obligations with respect to the information they collect.
Should be easy to prove at least as to correlation. Show me the post-election polling of these supposed self-identified “late-deciding voters”, and demonstrate that they attribute their votes to Trump over Clinton due to the singular event of the Comey release and the coverage of it.
I’ll wait. Thanks in advance.
But I’ll also tell you in advance what my problem with this theory is, and those who peddle it–it fundamentally relies upon “polling” and treating temporal correlation as causation.
It also, in the absence of asking the precise post-election question I framed above of a statistically significant group of self-identified “late-deciding voters,” fundamentally misunderstands the ability of “polling” to explain anything in a world of multivariate causes–like “motivations” for an individual’s vote.
As soon as you or anyone can demonstrate the question above has been framed properly and asked of a statistically valid sample, and specifically in swing states, then I’ll give that theory proper scrutiny on the merits.
Moreover, you would probably also need to independently identify and poll those self-identified “late-deciders” who refrained from voting for Clinton because they refrained from voting at all because of the Comey action, or voted or wrote-in a candidate because of the Comey action, to see if the net effect of both types taken was enough to alter the election.
As I said, I’ll wait to see someone produce that proper sample, question and numbers assembled in a statistically valid manner before I’ll give the idea any credence whatsoever. As any lawyer or person with a basic understanding of statistics and polling should.
I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to state opinions here, and explain the reasons for them, without providing statistical proof. Everybody else does.
I watched a lot of TV news and read a number of newspapers throughout the campaign. It is simply beyond rational debate that the Comey letter completely dominated the news toward the end, even as millions were already casting votes. (If you dispute that, you are not a consumer of mainstream news.) The election was, as I’m sure you know, extraordinarily close in a number of the decisive swing states. Given those irrefutable facts, the notion that the letter was not outcome-determinative is in my view highly implausible. (But feel free to provide empirical data proving me wrong…)
I meant to add, RR, that Glenn Greenwald (as noted above) is of the opinion that the FBI had a “critical” role in helping Trump win the election. You going to demand statistical proof from him too?
@ Glenn & Gator90
You mean this:
Then yes.
@ Glenn Greenwald
Could you please flesh out or provide proof for the assertion that “few entities” were as “critical” to Trump winning as the “FBI”?
And please define “critical”. I pose the same question to you as I did to Gator90, because I’ve yet to see “proof” that would meet any sort of legal scrutiny for that assertion.
I have zero problem holding him to the same standard (and giving his opinion equal weight in the absence of proof). I’ll also concede I skimmed the first paragraph so fast in getting to the underlying articles and comments that I didn’t notice. Apologies.
But yeah I have the exact same problem with anybody making that assertion, and appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I expect better from Glenn as well.
It’s generally acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was taken down by the triumverate of Comey, Putin and Bernie Sanders a.k.a. the axis of evil.
However, as usual, popular opinion distorts and oversimplifies reality. And Mr. Greenwald is far too modest about his role.
Glenn mentions the “critical” role in helping Trump win. He may well be referring to the FBI’s role throughout the entire campaign. You are the one to assert the “letter” was decisive because of the timing.
You incorrectly assume the voters only made their choice after hearing of the latest news from Comey.
I believe many people had made their minds up about Clinton before the “letter”.
Yes, good point. That’s how I read his premise i.e. “but for Comey’s letter 10 days before election”, and I like you take issue with that statement absent proof, regardless of who is making it.
If Glenn was making a slightly more nuanced or longer time frame claim, that becomes even harder to establish. And he hasn’t, so the critique remains.
Great. I’ve never said you’re not entitled to an opinion. I like many others are not obligated to give it any weight if you are unwilling to establish a factual basis for it. You haven’t, and I appreciate your willingness to concede you won’t or can’t.
I am a consume of every type of news, although I prefer to read rather than watch TV “news” because it by and large is the least informative and properly contextualized sort of information. Notwithstanding that, how much or how little I consume is also irrelevant to the task of substantiating your opinion with relevant facts capable of doing so. I mean there’s no law that says you have to, but the credibility of your opinions suffers if you’re not willing to at least try and come up with credible relevant proof for your opinions.
I’m not obligated to prove your logically or empirically unsupported assertions wrong. And I’m sure you are quite aware of why that is the case. And if you’re not, I hope you never have the displeasure of being opposing counsel against me in a case, because you’ll lose.
And as far as using the term “irrefutable fact” as a lawyer I think you’d shy away from that, almost as much as I thought you’d know to shy away from trying to get another lawyer to disprove your unsubstantiated assertion or opinion. Then again, I’d think a lawyer would shy away from not demonstrating their lack of familiarity with the difference between correlation and causation, or the basics of offering relevant admissible proof to substantiate a belief or opinion.
Clearly I’ve been wrong about that, but as I said I do appreciate your willingness to concede you can’t or are unwilling to offer proof for your opinion, particularly on such a consequential claim and topic.
You know what is the common term for someone who can’t or won’t support their opinions or beliefs with the relevant necessary proof sufficient to establish such belief or opinion? A person of “faith” rather than reason. Hopefully being that sort of person and lawyer continues to serve you, your family and your clients well. Too risky of a proposition for me. But each to his/her own.
” I’d think a lawyer would shy away from not demonstrating their lack of familiarity with the difference between correlation and causation, or the basics of offering relevant admissible proof to substantiate a belief or opinion. ”
I think you tripped up with the double negative.
Gator should “… shy away from … demonstrating [his] … lack of familiarity with the difference between correlation and causation, or the basics of offering relevant admissible proof to substantiate a belief or opinion. ”
Gator claiming that something was obvious based on timing and purported media saturation is what he would float to a jury because it usually works on the masses.
Maybe in closing argument, but I’d never let him ask it of any opinion witness or utter it in any other context absent laying a proper foundation and proof to support it. And I’d win on that issue if not at trial on appeal. Because I know the appellate court understands the rules of evidence, relevance and what is sufficient proof for those sorts of assertions. And so do most trial judges for that matter.
Jury trials are good for certain kinds of cases (personal injury, some employment or civil rights violations, I don’t do criminal but maybe there sometimes). But I try and stay away from those cases as a civil matter unless it is right type of case with good facts and law, because it’s a total crapshoot with juries for one of the many reasons you allude to.
I’ve sat on juries and worked before them, and have very mixed feelings about the ability of lay folks to understand complex legal schemes, even when simplified, or how to give weight and effect to any particular piece of evidence or its relevance. But that’s the system we have, for better or worse (arguably on balance better in grand scheme of things given alternatives), but I’d much rather try and convince a judge than a jury, and if I can’t convince a judge take my chances on appeal because the appellate review standards can give more opportunities to get that overturned when a judge makes factual determinations as opposed to jury (not many and they are very subtle, but they exist–IMHO).
Good response.
I agree our jury system is not able to process complex situations let alone simple ones.
If the cop said it happened then you better take the deal … America in all her glory.
You appear to be confused regarding some, er, critical distinctions between this forum and a judicial tribunal.
Do you dispute that the election was close? Do you dispute that the Comey letter was by far the most-covered national news story in the last 10 days of the campaign? I don’t think you have disputed those facts yet, nor attempted to discuss their likely significance. Instead you deluge me with long-winded, redundant and silly demands that I marshal and present statistical data to your satisfaction. You’re not usually this boring, RR.
Electorally? No.
Generally speaking, no.
I don’t give either of them any significance in the absence of proof they had the affect you and many others claim they had? And that’s for the very simple reasons I’ve stated. The burden of proof isn’t on me, whether in court or as a function of your opinions outside of court. You are alternating between stating and opinion, without relevant evidence (i.e. close election, media saturation), and trying to establish as fact that “but-for Comey’s actions the election outcome would have been different).
I’ve concede you are entitled to your opinion. In the absence of proof I’m not in any way swayed by it, for the reasons I’ve stated. If you find the fact I’m attempting to illustrate to you why your opinion is thus far unsubstantiated, as fact or otherwise, and you think the request you prove it is long-winded or inappropriate–fine as well. But I hope that’s not how you represent your clients in court (or even the court of public opinion) when it comes to such consequential factual assertions.
Believe what you choose for whatever reason you choose, but don’t expect me or anyone else to give your beliefs an ounce of weight without you coming forward with better proof.
Sorry you find that such an onerous burden. Guess will have to agree to disagree on this one, and you can go ahead and believe things you can’t prove. Not how I operate. You are free to do as you please.
“the letter that transformed the campaign ”
That is beyond even a stretch. Hillary could have ponied-up all her emails a full year earlier but, no, there was too much dirt attached in every direction.
“[T]he letter” came about from the investigation into Hillary’s best friend and confidant’s hubby sexting endlessly, culminating in a sext with his child on the bed in the background. (pretty hard to ignore that pizza pie)
Hillary has a history of covering for Bill’s predation of women so it was normal to have Huma’s hubby doing basically what Bill does. And we can thank the Honorable Charles Schumer for Anthony Wiener’s rise to infamy. Thanks Chuck and the rest of AIPAC; always looking out for #1.
If you think Glenn is a Democrat shill, you haven’t been paying a lick of attention.
Sorry. I’m new here.
A tip: if you say anything critical of Mr. Greenwald, you will be attacked remorselessly.
Remorselessly? You expect someone to show “remorse” for spirited debate? Are you high?
A corollary: it’s perfectly alright to slam the person you supported when he (or she) does exactly what he (or she) promised,
This is America!
Of course you can eat your cake and have it too.
(As long as you call it “cake” rather than “shit.”)
:-)
Read, live and learn then!
Gert, this gator’s an old Gator. He’s been rolling around in this swamp for ages. So old he’s got Spanish moss dingleberries nearly a mile long. Almost as old a Gator as I am a Pedinska. ;-}
Gripping article. I look forward to reading everything you’re about to expose. Timely information and tight writing!
I hope one of the forthcoming articles highlights this item: “peer through the walls of private homes.” That image connects like a direct jolt to the brain. Maybe you are familiar enough with the FBI’s capabilities that this doesn’t stand out for you. But it captures all the implications you are exploring in a simple fact which I think would immediately impress the average reader.
This is excellent Glenn, I am grateful to the Incercept for tirelessly uncovering the truth in a world where facts and real journalism have become more and more elusive. I request that as you reveal the finer points of this story that you make them accessible to the vast majority of the population that has eschewed probing in depth reportage for simple sound bites. In effect, I’m asking that you make the attempt to simplify your delivery tactics to include as many readers as possible so this important and revolutionary story doesn’t become deemed another “white liberal elite” attempt at divisiveness… In short, I want this to change hearts and minds of all readers, not just your liberal or progressive followers. I am sure you have this in mind yet I am deeply concerned about gaining a unified front as we together move through the mountain toward what is truly important. Thank you!
The so-called ‘anti-war candidate’ also put the former CEO of the genocidal Blackwater in charge of national security
http://wikileaksdecrypted.com/erik-prince-donald-trump-blackwater-nisour-square-massacre/
Here is an article that looks at the most recent attempts by the FBI to further spy on Americans:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/12/how-fbi-is-monitoring-your-tweets.html
Washington uses any excuse to further pry into what little remains of our privacy.