The FBI Seems To Be Leaking Like A Sieve Concerning Details Of Clinton Email Invesgitation
from the aren't-they-supposed-to-keep-this-stuff-secret? dept
Okay, look, let's face the fact that any time we write about anything having to do with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, people in the comments go nuts accusing us of being "in the tank," or "shills." or even (really) "up the ass" of one candidate or the other (and, yes, this has happened with both of the major party candidates). I'm assuming it will happen again with this post, even though it's not true. As should be abundantly clear, we're not big fans of either choice (and don't get us started on the third parties...). So when we talk about one, the other (or even both together), it's not because we're "biased" or trying to help or hurt one or the other. We're just doing the same thing we always do, and which we never had a problem with before, which is reporting on policy related issues having to do with technology, free speech, the 4th amendment, law enforcement, etc. So, before you rush in to yell at us in the comments, please consider that maybe just because we're not toeing the party line on your preferred candidate, maybe it's not because we're in the tank for the other one.Anyway... I know there's been plenty of discussion going on about FBI Director Jim Comey's letter from last week to members of Congress about the state of the Clinton email investigation, which happened due to discoveries during the unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner's apparent sexting. We also explored the questionable nature of Comey's actions based on the law and previous precedent (though we also mocked both Republicans and Democrats who seemed to completely flip flop their praise/hatred of Comey from the July announcement about not enough evidence against Clinton to Friday's announcement). That one really set off some people, despite our reporting on Comey's questionable behavior in office dates way back to basically when he first got the job.
But here's the thing that got me. Comey's letter on Friday had basically no details at all. Here's what it said again:
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.There's very little actual information in those two short paragraphs. Almost none, in fact. And yet, we now know a ton about what's going on, including all of the following:
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
- The "unrelated investigation" is the investigation into Anthony Weiner for allegedly sexting an underage girl.
- The emails that the FBI found were on "a device" or "devices" that belonged to Weiner and/or his estranged wife/Clinton aide Huma Abedin
- The FBI actually found these emails months ago, but didn't tell Comey until last Thursday.
- The FBI hadn't actually read the emails because it didn't have a warrant
- The FBI got a warrant over the weekend.
- It is not believed the emails in question were directly from Clinton
- Before sending a letter Comey sent an internal memo to FBI staff about his decision
- Many in the DOJ are upset about Comey sending the letter
There are, really, two issues here. Given how much of this information leaked, almost all of it within hours of the letter being made public, why didn't Comey and the FBI just come out and say all of this in the first place? The second, is how the hell can the FBI -- the very same FBI that frequently refuses to comment about "ongoing investigations" -- have any credibility in the future when it refuses to comment on other ongoing investigations. Not only did Comey comment in a way he knew would be made public, the FBI had no problem leaking basically all of the details.
I thank James Comey for giving reporters an epic comeback to whenever the bureau tells us they won't comment on an ongoing investigation.
— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) October 31, 2016
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: emails, fbi, hillary clinton, investigations, james comey, leaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I am not racist but...
Everyone has a bias, TD is no different. And no, I do not think you are up any of the candidates asses. That said, you tell me which one you think is worse and I will be able to show you a bias.
All the candidates suck so hard it cannot be possibly determined which will be worse. So for now, people will just stick with their clueless party affiliations and again... vote for the lesser or two evils in a race to the bottom.
We were warned over 200 years ago about this shit by our very first President George Washington. What does this say about us? Fucking Willfully Clueless... that's what that says! But in the meantime we are still wasting our fucking time on hand-wringing over who is accusing who of bias.
Tell you what, no one gives that much of a damn, TD needs to write about what is important for TD. Yes I like being able to comment on your articles, but like all other things, do what you love, and if the work is good people will come. Fuck it up and people will leave! Simple as that! Fuck the bias! Fuck the complaints! Fuck the Accusations! It's there, its not going anywhere!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not racist but...
What's your bias? Which one do you think is worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not racist but...
I will not be voting.A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
We are living out George Washington's Prophecy that he said would come to pass if we continued to have political parties and to refer to each other by affiliations or geography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
I like that idea. Of course, they'd never let it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not racist but...
Um, that only works if one of them really ISN'T worse than the other. Otherwise, it isn't bias, it's just what it is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not racist but...
A person far to the left sees the media as being right. A person far to the right sees the media as being left.
The true conclusion is that there is always a bias because it is impossible to not be. Just the process of determining what is or is not news worthy is a biased action itself.
I only care about the bias that leads to blindness. For example, the people that are willfully blind to Hillary's corruption and Donald's obvious lies. You can either select Hillary and sell out, or go with Donald and build the Police State even faster. Both options are so terrible its like choosing your method of demise instead of guessing which one might work to improve America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
Neo-ludditism or thecnophobia. Pick your poison. The resolution of the industrial revolution should clue you into why 70% is nowhere near correct and also why "robotics, automation and cheap energy" are very much biased towards making jobs stay in USA (who makes the makers?).
The problems will be the geographic spread the dynamic education-needs. But apart from screwing over smaller cities and the lower eductated it is not a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get to the point--PLEASE !
State your MAIN POINT first !! (..save your claims of neutrality & purity for the end). And PLEASE be concise.
Comey's behavior should not be a mystery -- he's fundamentally a politician in a political appointee job.
Politicians act politically... without honesty & integrity-- this should not be a surprise.
Comey reluctantly acted last Friday to quell an almost open rebellion within the FBI on his despicable handling of the original Hillary email case. If Comey did not re-open that case -- other mutinous FBI agents were poised to go public with lots of dirt on Comey & Hillary.
Comey states no details on his actions because he wants them hidden in a total CYA posture. Comey painted himself into corner and doesn't know what to do now... except to say as little as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get to the point--PLEASE !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not racist but...
Nice argument from ignorance you have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not racist but...
Well do tell big mouth, enlighten us ignorant folk with your "insights"!
Is "you are ignorant" all you have in that little bag of tricks or is there more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not racist but...
My bias? Equality before the law is a fundamental value. We do not have an aristocracy. Yet. President Hillary Clinton would represent a significant undermining of our status as a republic. I care about the values of the Enlightenment; therefore, I am not "with her."
If you want honest government, vote Trump because our institutions will be on him like white on rice. As secretary of state, the president himself couldn't say no to Hillary. Who's going to say no to her when she's president?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not racist but...
I do agree with your points on Hillary, but Trump has made it clear he is in full support of a tyrannical police state with stop and frisk everywhere. Both make it clear that the Constitution is best used at toilet paper and should be ignored until it benefits them.
though you might have a point about the hate most others will have keeping him in check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
I'm actually banking a lot on that. I find the idea of a president Trump scary, but a president Clinton is unthinkable. All the institutions that would enable Hillary will contain Donald.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
That's the key point. Hillary has a whole political machine just waiting for her to take the helm that would make her unstoppable. Trump as President would would have much less actual power in comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
Trump as President would would have much less actual power in comparison.
We tried that with Bush, remember?
And we got Cheney and Rumsfeld as a result.
Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not racist but...
Yep. Though there is a difference between accepting that there will inherently be some bias, and knowing whether or not my own contribution to an open discussion is being sold as business intelligence.
It would be nice of Mike would tell us whether or not TD, or his other companies have taken money from the Clintons for services rendered. I've seen a couple of posts on TD that were echo'd by Mrs. bobble-head with alarming similarity a few days later.
"Who's going to say no to her when she's president?"
Same as always. Some poor bastard private in a foxhole, shortly before a missile turns him into pink spray. We can only hope that the citizens compel the state into detente faster than they did the last few times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not racist but...
It would be nice of Mike would tell us whether or not TD, or his other companies have taken money from the Clintons for services rendered. I've seen a couple of posts on TD that were echo'd by Mrs. bobble-head with alarming similarity a few days later.
Um, no, we've never taken any money from any political campaign whatsoever. I also don't think we've ever written anything positive about either candidate, so it's pretty ridiculous and totally clueless to suggest that we're somehow supporting her. You're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"All the candidates suck so hard it cannot be possibly determined which will be worse."
I disagree with that.
I agree that they're both pretty terrible, and this election should serve as an indictment as to the failure of our electoral system (and if we cannot manage reform it, the ultimate failure of democracy in the United States), but for those of us still trying to work within the confines of the system, Hillary remains a better choice.
One of the things that is horrific to me, at least regarding those Trump supporters I know or hear from on the internet (including relatives in STEM fields who should be completely capable of thinking it through and don't) is that they seem to assume that Trump really is some kind of answer, that they can vote for their lying, word-salad-tossing, woman-assaulting, grudge-persecuting, violence-inciting demagogue and everything will be done. They appear to believe can just sit back and wait for the economy to turn around and America to become great again, because daddy Trump will take care of them.
For the rest of us, activism doesn't end on election day. We still have countless issues that neither candidate has on its agenda. We still have to push at the president that real issues need to be addressed, or they'll suffer embarrassment, or worse.
The thing is, Trump won't care. His response to embarrassment is to do something even more embarrassing, repeat until the public is saturated. In the meantime he'll be jailing his personal enemies, and looking for how to start a real nuclear war.
This is where Clinton's position as an old school politician comes in. She can be embarrassed. She recognizes that some of these issues are real or at least has advisors she might actually listen to. She understands (for instance) torture and mass surveillance are ultimately wrong even if she may have conceded they are temporary necessary evils, and the less temporary they are the more problems they cause.
Her opinion can evolve with enough pressure.
Trump is a laser guided missile for whatever staffer figures out how to point the missile. Honest, honest Iago is going to get fabulously rich, much like Halliburton with Cheney directing Bush, all the while wrecking the nation, possibly to the point that we'll never recover.
Trump is a puppet, and if he is not already controlled by someone (Putin?) then it's only a matter of time before someone finds where to put their hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "All the candidates suck so hard it cannot be possibly determined which will be worse."
I... What? Trump isn't the one doing everything in his power to try to inflame tensions with another nuclear armed nation. Trump's not the one threatening military retaliation for hacking that we can't even prove the origin of.
There's plenty of shit to dislike trump for, but he's far far far less likely to start WW3 than Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "All the candidates suck so hard it cannot be possibly determined which will be worse."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az1JyDJ_iKU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is trying to salvage his reputation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He is trying to salvage his reputation
You simply cannot avoid the politics at that level. Not only are you required to play them per your seniors, if you do not play then you will be roasted by the general public as well.
A lot of American citizens "say" they they hate politics, but they are proving to be very in love with the drama it brings. I think humans have some sick and twisted deep seated desire to corrupt everything they participate in for the pure entertainment that it brings. To hell with all of the people that have to suffer because of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He is trying to salvage his reputation
Republicans are screaming this is proof Comey is incompetent and that he made the wrong call to not prosecute Hillary months ago. Trump will want to replace Comey with a 'competent' loyalist who will suggest prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
And now that Democrats will have a reason to blame Comey for an election loss, they aren't going to be too willing to stand up for him if a president Trump fires him, whereas before this they probably would have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is what is becoming important in the law enforcement community. Seeking justice is not as important as controlling the narrative and getting a conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no doubt that Comey is acting because it will give him the ability to control parts of how he will be remembered.
The true problem here is the timing. He is insane if he believes it will not have an effect on the election.
I guess going out with a bang after getting fired and potentially face charges if Clinton wins, will give him a platform for martyring his memory. If Trump wins he will be remembered for his flip-flopping and being a RINO. But getting fired by president Trump might actually look good on your resume tbh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dept of Just Us names Podesta's lawyer to speed FBI email probe
Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal.
In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's Campaign chair, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.
Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, ... Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dept of Just Us names Podesta's lawyer to speed FBI email probe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shill. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The special treatment drips with so much stank that it reeks around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can't beat 'em, have fun with them
Okay, look, let's face the fact that any time we write about anything having to do with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump...
Given at this point I'd say it's pretty clear that those screaming 'Partisan!' aren't going to buy that you're not shilling for both parties... at the same time... based upon reasons... I say have fun with it/them. Flip a coin before each article and at the very top write 'This article is pro-Trump/Hilary, so sayeth the all-knowing penny'.
Don't get vexxed, turn those who can't figure out that politics is not a binary thing into entertainment for your sake and the sake of those of us who understand that politics isn't black-and-white, 'You're either for me or against me'.
As for the FBI's actions here... yeah, the Spencer Ackerman quote really nails it, the FBI has seriously screwed over their credibility when it comes to future instances where they might want to claim that they 'can't comment on an ongoing investigation'. If they can let slip something like this that excuse is not going to be very believable in future, 'lesser' cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now which candidate is best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now which candidate is best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
Clearly the solution to make sure we get worthwhile candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
If there's no one you like, just place a negative vote against the one you dislike most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
No, if NOTA wins, all listed candidates are struck from the ballots for the next 8 years. A by-election is then called, with all of the parties given the option to elect new candidates.
This way, the electoral collega doesn't have the last word, we, the people, do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
I think we desperately need to change our electoral system to something other than first-past-the-post. Instant runoff seems like a reasonable option. And if it had been allowed in the primaries, Trump certainly couldn't have gotten the nomination with only 45% of the vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
There are about two-and-a-half months between Election Day and Inauguration Day. If the Parties simply pick their #2 vote-getters for the re-do election, we could run it in early-to-mid December with few issues as long as the Federal government was footing the bill. Some localities would struggle to run two elections that close together otherwise (elections tend to be expensive).
Another solution would be to move Election Day to early-October and have any potential re-election be in mid-November or early-December to allow enough time for slower overseas mail-in ballots.
While I do agree with the need to address the problems inherent to our first-past-the-post system and I also believe that instant runoff voting is a better system overall, I don't know if it would have prevented Trump's rise. If he was #1 on 45% of ballots cast, how many #2's or #3's would he have gotten? IRV tends to help people on the cusp of bursting onto the political stage rather than hurt them.
Ok...I'm going to stop giving potential counterexamples for why we should have IRV before people forget that FPTP got us Clinton v Trump in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now which candidate is best?
You say "simply", but it isn't. First you have to define "#2 vote-getters". To determine what that means, you're going to have to rewrite convention rules and delegate allotments, which are decided by the parties, not stipulated by law, and, at least for the Republicans, can vary greatly from state to state.
A lot fewer than Bush, Rubio, Kasich, or even Walker, I'd wager.
Not if they're polarizing, it doesn't. It favors candidates who can achieve a broad consensus as "good enough", not candidates who draw vehement opposition from a majority of the party. Trump would have been dead last on a lot of primary voters' ballots. So would Cruz. And yet they wound up being the top two vote-getters, because the moderate (compared to them) vote was split.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now which candidate is best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now which candidate is best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now which candidate is best?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I KNEW IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sharp downward slope
Every election I say to myself "it has never been this bad".
Every election it seems that's correct.
Time to get liquid and ready to run for our lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sharp downward slope
lol, that is said every year along with the most important election ever.
This is not the first and will not be the last time we have had shit for candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sharp downward slope
No, but it is a race between the most unpopular major-party candidate in recorded history and the second-most.
It can still get worse. But I think there's a valid argument to make that this is the worst it's been in a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sharp downward slope
Hopefully both parties realize what farces they have evolved into, and give us some decent/less terribad choices in 2020.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sharp downward slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sharp downward slope
Who's "they"?
Trump got 14 million votes in the primary. Most people didn't think he was going to win when he announced his candidacy.
Are you suggesting that some nefarious agent within the Clinton campaign manipulated Trump into running for President, and somehow got him 14 million votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sharp downward slope
Primary challenges to incumbents have become pretty rare over the past couple of decades; I wouldn't count on any other Democrats running against an incumbent Clinton unless things go really badly for her. Like, worse than the impeachment proceedings against her husband bad. I can't think of many Democrats who could mount a legitimate challenge to her otherwise and would be willing to do so; Sanders is going to be 79 by then.
If Trump wins, on the other hand, I'd say odds are very good he'd be challenged in the 2020 primaries. There's a lot less party unity behind him than there is behind Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because it appears that there are internal factions in the FBI that are conducting a proxy war via the press. Hence the leaks that may be seen as damaging to Clinton and the leaks that may be seen as positives for Clinton.
Of course none of them should be leaking anything: one of the first principles of investigation club is that you don't talk about investigation club. You gather evidence, you collate, you analyze, and if you think you have enough to make a case, then (depending on who you are) you either bring charges or you ask someone else (e.g., a grand jury) to bring charges.
But you never, never, NEVER let any of this out until you're ready, because doing so screws everyone. It screws the innocent -- because it may turn out the subject(s) of the investigation really are innocent. It screws the guilty -- because in THIS society, we accord rights to all, including the guilty. It screws prosecutors -- because investigatory misconduct is an excellent way to ensure that convictions won't stand. And it screws the public, because we all have an interest in seeing the innocent exonerated and the putatively-guilty tried in a court of law, in accordance with the legal and Constitutional frameworks for such trials.
I'm not a fan of the FBI. But I do recognize that there are career public servants working there who are trying, the best that they can, to faithfully uphold the law and to carry out their investigations with honesty and integrity. All of those people have to just be fuming over this nonsense, because it's undercutting their hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Based recent history, it is pretty clear that these "faithful people with integrity" are clearly in the absolute minority in a capacity that relegates them to meaningless.
The DoJ/FBI and many of these shit agencies have gone the extra mile to inject injustice into the system and its processes. Secret Laws, Interpretations of them, NSL, Spying, lying, corruption, cooked up evidence, intentional mishandling of it, or with holding exonerating evidence?
I am not sure it is even possible to remain clean and participate in the Legal System at this point in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? It seems to a popular law enforcement activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PTSD Mike?
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many people declaring this fits their narrative and the other people are demons....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Are Missing the Point About Bias
Techdirt lately is becoming more and more obvious in being agenda driven, which is expected as it is a self-proclaimed advocacy blog. Whether it is through posting nit-picky articles that are more inflammatory then valuable pieces to prove a stance on an issue, or repeatedly covering companies and organizations that Techdirt has some professional relationship to without properly disclosing it, Techdirt is becoming a Gawker Media in everything but a different form.
Yes, it is true that this is an advocacy blog that is a group of people promoting an agenda, but it needs to be made abundantly clear on what it is. Make it abundantly clear where the blog stands on issues, as well as that it cannot be trusted to tell the whole story on any issue. Make it clear that this is an exclusive website in terms of ideas and that certain stories from around the web will not be curated or just dismissed if it doesn't follow the narrative Techdirt has.
Maybe it is a sign that as of late, it is becoming more clear that news and journalism are becoming more position oriented, which is not necessarily bad as long as there is an effort to put the bias aside. From what I observe, there is a strong desire on this site, as well as other blogs and news websites to have different and opposing viewpoints on issues that could lead to a different side that would be helpful for people in the grand scheme.
But I might be full of it when I say this. I think in the end, there needs to be another declaration of where Techdirt stands as a media organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
Techdirt lately is becoming more and more obvious in being agenda driven, which is expected as it is a self-proclaimed advocacy blog. Whether it is through posting nit-picky articles that are more inflammatory then valuable pieces to prove a stance on an issue, or repeatedly covering companies and organizations that Techdirt has some professional relationship to without properly disclosing it, Techdirt is becoming a Gawker Media in everything but a different form.
Wait, what?
Yes, it is true that this is an advocacy blog that is a group of people promoting an agenda, but it needs to be made abundantly clear on what it is. Make it abundantly clear where the blog stands on issues
Um. That's what we do in EVERY SINGLE POST. We explain our point of view and our opinion on the issues.
that it cannot be trusted to tell the whole story on any issue.*
Why do you say that? We frequently look at claims we disagree with and explain why we disagree with them. I'd argue we tell a pretty complete story on lots of the issues we cover.
But I might be full of it when I say this. I think in the end, there needs to be another declaration of where Techdirt stands as a media organization.
Is anyone really that confused where we stand? We stand for supporting public-first innovation -- and with it basic civil liberties around free speech and protection against undue surveillance. We stand for due process.
I think that's pretty much the core of everything we stand for and discuss which hasn't changed in the 18 years we've been at it, despite your claims of a sudden change around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
Loaded terms, all, but maybe you should boil this down into a TechDirt philosophy statement:
"We stand for public-first innovation, free speech, due process, and protection against undue surveillance."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
And Techdirt isn't an news site. It's an opinion blog. Practically every single post is simply an opinion on news that is reported elsewhere. Techdirt's agenda couldn't be more obvious, but people still seem to think it's pursuing some secret, subversive plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
Techdirt lately is becoming more and more obvious in being agenda driven, which is expected as it is a self-proclaimed advocacy blog. Whether it is through posting nit-picky articles that are more inflammatory then valuable pieces to prove a stance on an issue, or repeatedly covering companies and organizations that Techdirt has some professional relationship to without properly disclosing it, Techdirt is becoming a Gawker Media in everything but a different form.
Wait, what?
Yes, Techdirt is becoming just like Gawker Media in the sense of making big deals over issues that are not that are not that important, such as the article this week Rights Groups, Activists Ask President To Respond To Unanswered Encryption Petition spending half the article mocking a typo that isn't that important to the debate. Gawker Media was also notorious for these "non-controversies" that actually does more harm to the discussion then good.
Gawker Media was also known for its inflammatory, click-bait titles designed for traffic. I mean, today there was an article titled -Copyright Office Fucks Over Thousands Of Sites With Plans To Remove Their DMCA Safe Harbors-, which is designed to drive traffic in. Its not "Copyright Office Announces New Designated Agent System, Concerns Arise" or "New DMCA Safe Harbor Rules May Harm Small Websites" its a title that instead is inflammatory acting like the end of the internet is upon us. Keep in mind, the DMCA is problematic and does deserve to be talk about, its just this title is not reflective of the situation at hand.
So are you surprised at why Techdirt may be comparable to Gawker Media?
that it cannot be trusted to tell the whole story on any issue.*
Why do you say that? We frequently look at claims we disagree with and explain why we disagree with them. I'd argue we tell a pretty complete story on lots of the issues we cover.
I say that because Techdirt has repeatedly covered organizations and companies that have given sponsorship or have had some other professional relationship with without properly disclosing this. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the biggest example of this. Every-time you post an article from their website word for word is it because the website had legal assistance from them when Roca Labs threatened the site, or is it because the views align with the staff at the time. When the EFF is in the news and Techdirt covers this, is it because they sponsored an article or is it because the cause is supported by the writer? Every-time the EFF is mentioned on the site, I ask if the prospect of past of future sponsorship or service to the site is in mind when the post is made or if the views of the author are in perfect alignment. Its the same with every other sponsor, the website has taken money from companies and organizations that are agenda and are frequently curated without making it clear where the relationship starts and ends.
But I might be full of it when I say this. I think in the end, there needs to be another declaration of where Techdirt stands as a media organization.
Is anyone really that confused where we stand? We stand for supporting public-first innovation -- and with it basic civil liberties around free speech and protection against undue surveillance. We stand for due process.
I think that's pretty much the core of everything we stand for and discuss which hasn't changed in the 18 years we've been at it, despite your claims of a sudden change around here.
Does the article that has half a page mocking a typo help the public position against surveillance? Do inflammatory titles bring value to the debate over public-first innovation?
I never claimed that there was a sudden change. I claimed that the articles lately are being noticed by some long-readers as being more abundantly agenda driven in terms of what is curated as well as how it is presented then what it might have been in the past. I claimed that maybe it would be beneficial to bring on a new writer that may shake up the status quo in a fair and interesting way.
And I also claimed that their should to be a stronger declaration as to what does this website stands for in terms of editorial policies. What does Techdirt accept in terms of what gets featured on this website? What does Techdirt accept in terms of how content is presented and written? This is what I think readers what clearly defined, as these factors have the tendency to change gradually.
BTW, I also want to thank you for replying back to this. I think that questioning the status quo is a great way to make every side stronger and I appreciate having a representative from the site have their point of view presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
So, in other words, Gawker didn't cover the stories I thought it should. Techdirt doesn't cover the stories that I think it should. Therefore, Techdirt is just like Gawker.
I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
A recent example would be the article about the Trump campaign's attempts to "suppress" the African American vote. Suppressing the vote is a loaded term that implied FAR worse behaviour than what was actually going on. Yes, convincing people not to vote (the ACTUAL events) could technically be called suppression, but the usual meaning of suppressing the vote is FORCEFULLY PREVENTING people from voting (something which was not occurring at all). Mike was quite rightly lambasted in the comments for that bullshit.
As I said in one of my previous comments, it's more Breitbart-like than Gawker-like. You won't find factual inacurracies so much as you'll find innocent words being abused to imply things that are not true, while never actually straight lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
...so, psychological suppression is not really suppression?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Are Missing the Point About Bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, everyone is looking at Trump and Hillary. Hillary will be elected, but basically will be able to get absolutely nothing done because Congress will investigate the hell out of her for 4 years. All the blame will go to Hillary.
How do we know that this wasn't the plan all along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So why is it leaking like a sieve this time around?
There are two possibilities. The leaks are intentional, or they aren't. If they are, then the above is the most plausible answer. If they aren't then the most plausible answer is that Comey, or persons in his direct chain of command, have surpressed the investigation in some fashion, and the leak is a retributive response for that dereliction of duty by his inferiors.
Either case is indicative of collusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So why is it leaking like a sieve this time around?
Actually, there are quite a few more possibilities than that. It's possible that SOME of the leaks are intentional. It's simultaneously possible that SOME of the leaks aren't. If we are dealing with N leakers, where N > 2 (and that appears to be the case here) then each of the N may have their own possibly-overlapping, possibly-conflicting set of reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-fbi-bankers-clinton-email-228201
Still waiting to see how that's gonna turn out....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IE, the people that contribute money to your parties and provide for the revolving doors between government and the private sector.
that can literally get you murdered! It's what killed Kennedy. If you go against money as a president you die, if they can get to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I knew this thread was going to be bad when I clicked on it, but I honestly didn't have "Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories" on my Bingo card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing, isn't it, that from a pool of hundreds of millions, we couldn't field even one solid candidate. Guess we need a bigger pool! I hear that one of the candidates is planning on immediately admitting 165 million immigrants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but even once we get them documented and naturalized, they'll be able to vote, but not run for President. That's restricted to natural-born citizens - at least until we push through a Constitutional amendment to change it. After all, the Constitution is so old that it obviously needs major revisions. Really, it's amazing we don't rewrite the whole thing every generation or two, just to keep up with social norms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I say, the Presidency should be open to anyone who's been a US citizen for 35 years, whether that's by birth or immigration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a new truism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean surely, as Tech journalists, you'd report on George Soros and his heavy ties with the company (Smartmatic) that provides voting stations in a majority of battle ground states followed by donating 25 million to the Clinton campaign?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-st ates/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/george-soros-returns-to-politics-with-25-million-splash-report.h tml
Oh, is that not tech news?
I mean we all remember this testimony from a programmer who was asked to rig a voting machine in the early 00s right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc
And then we have a more recent one from Princeton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdHJxFiqCrQ
Yup, not tech news...
I mean people seem to gloss over the fact that the Clintons are a bunch of war mongering pseudoliberal cornies but nobody wants to admit it even with all of the leaks that proves that they are.
FFS in South Korea, their first female president was just detained for less than what Hillary has been pulling off on a weekly basis for the past 30 years:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37831514
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean surely, as Tech journalists, you'd report on George Soros and his heavy ties with the company (Smartmatic) that provides voting stations in a majority of battle ground states followed by donating 25 million to the Clinton campaign?
We're an insanely small and overworked staff. We miss probably 20 stories A DAY that we'd like to cover, and really only get to cover between 5 and 10 stories per day.
Saying that because we missed some pet story of yours is not evidence of bias. It's evidence that we can't do everything.
And now I have a choice of responding to baseless conspiracy theory mongering or actually working on stories. I'm going back to actual stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, the end part of your reply is the exact reason why I'm full of disdain towards TD as of recent because of your unwillingness to investigate that which is clearly bonafide 'conspiracy theories' in the strictest legal definition of the phrase.
These conspiracy theories are very very fucking real if you've kept track of of Project Veritas and Wikileaks to any degree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFiwA2P914
Do you still remember the legal definition of the word conspiracy Mike?
"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People have been desensitized to real and actual conspiracies not only by the MSM but by people like Alex Jones who capitalize on them. And then we also have numerous shows and movies depicting conspiracy theorists as absolute loons.
I regress, the general populace has been desensitized to real conspiracies and thus easily dismiss them as the word all on its own has been completely misconstrued.
I reiterate, this is the legal definition of a conspiracy ,which no, is not made of baseless accusations, as most of you have been conditioned to believe, but hard facts most especially in the court of law:
"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense."
There are endless cases of criminals going to jail for 'conspiring' to commit murder or some other illegal acts, why should politicians get a pass? Because some nuts and movies paint any conspiracy against the political elite as radical and thus contrived nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFiwA2P914
They even admit that their group cares not for morals nor ethics and that they've been pulling this shit off for 50 years now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://theantimedia.org/leaked-dnc-rigged-bernie-primary/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7Pn relFdY
So again, Mike and Anon, do you actually know what the word conspiracy means or are you just going to continue to play stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what your links actually say.
There was some foul play involved here, and I think the word "conspiracy" may apply; certainly the DNC put its thumb on the scale to favor Clinton over Sanders. But when you exaggerate the nature of the conspiracy into something less plausible, you risk losing attention for the stuff that actually happened and deserves public outrage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that you are using the word "conspiracy" in a legal and serious sense and not a tinfoil-hat one. That does not change my question. I will repeat it, with the understanding that I am using the word "conspiracy" in the same way you are:
Would it be fair to summarize your argument as "TechDirt should be investigating conspiracies, and its failure to do so proves bias"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Turns out it's not just wrong, it's laughably wrong and being passed around on conspiracy sites. If this is what you want Techdirt to cover, I've got news for you: we won't.
We don't cover bullshit like that.
Here's just one explanation of why it's bullshit, and you can check the details pretty clearly yourself if you'd like. There's nothing to it. The company is not owned by Soros (even slightly) AND the machines aren't being used in the presidential election.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congres sman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/
So, yeah, sorry if this doesn't live up to what you wanted, but anonymous commenters whining about how we didn't cover their preferred widely debunked conspiracy theory isn't very compelling. And as evidence of "bias" I think it says a lot more about yours than ours. We prefer reporting on factual things, not fantasy land stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take a deep breath Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take a deep breath Mike
But that's the thing: this is coverage of how evil the cops are. It's just that it involves the presidential campaign, and people think that makes it different from all the other coverage of how evil the cops are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI DNA
The FBI has always been a corrupt organization which has been used by its leadership to influence elections and politics since its inception.
It's like the parable of the scorpion and the frog. This type of influence is in the FBI's DNA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBIAnon
http://pastebin.com/vvG9PSJN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
credibility issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: credibility issue
What's that got to do with the subject we're actually talking about, which is the FBI leaks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's speculation on why he sent a letter to Congress after learning about potential emails that *might* be related to the investigation. Does he want to damage Clinton, does he want to help the Republicans, is he trying to outpace the "FBI in the bag for Clinton" belief, is he trying to pre-empt a post-election claim of the FBI playing politics by sitting on the info...
But regardless, he messed up. Or perhaps it's better to say he was screwed by the GOP, who took his ass-covering letter and decided to trump it up a bit and release it to the public. And since a reasonable person would kind of assume the Congressional Republicans would do something like that (they're *really* wanting to nail Clinton; priority #1 after all those investigations), the rest of the FBI is kind of pissed at Comey.
So they leak details out of frustration.
Well, either that or Comey trying to un-screw himself. He can't un-reveal something, but maybe if he reveals more stuff he can somehow undo the damage he did to the FBI's and his own images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix your title
Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The media swing of the moment around election day no longer determines who gets into office; at most it makes a few percent difference in the length of their term.
No more multiterm blocks of about 50% of the country having no representation in the most powerful office.
And third party voting becomes more tenable. There would have to be some low-end cutoff, but 5% of 1461 days is still 73 days.
Advantages of incumbency are also reduced, since the tail of candidates who got less and less of the vote are in office in the run-up to the next election day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toeing the party line
Not from the navy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "tow the line" form represents a false etymology.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-toe2.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]