The NSA's independent investigator, Robert Storch, is a long-time D.C. bureaucrat, making it unlikely he'd formally investigate frivolous allegations of "unmasking."
Nobody was held accountable for the Obama unmask-a-thon, the deep state spying on the Trump campaign or the FBI goon squad entrapment of General Flynn. The media are entirely complicit which is why nothing will come of this “investigation”. We now live in a wholly corrupt pseudo socialist banana republic. Get used to it.
And don't forget that Susan Rice was in the middle of Obama admin unmasking. She's now one of Biden's top "domestic" advisers; in a position that does not require Senate confirmation, which she undoubtedly could not obtain.
In a new filing in the Couy Griffin case, the government has admitted that they are withholding crucial evidence that proves the innocence of January 6 defendants. More shocking about this situation is that the US Department of Justice is refusing to release this evidence.
Here is a message from one of our Team Kraken attorneys:
On Monday, August 9, Department of Justice prosecutors admitted to something we have long known. That DOJ is in possession of exculpatory evidence in favor of the January 6 political prisoners.
Defendant Couy Griffin faces charges for leading a prayer in an "unrestricted area" at the Capitol on January 6. He and others charged with being present at the Capitol have long been seeking evidence showing they did not break the law.
While prosecutors refuse to produce exculpatory evidence, today they admitted that it is in their possession:
"Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fistbumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information."
However, the DOJ continues to drag its feet and deny these January 6 defendants their constitutional right to access this evidence. The Government alleges it is
"not currently in a position to identify all information that may be material to the defense in this case."
It further states that
"we are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review."
These developments should come as no surprise. The Government ...
Refuses to release video of January 6 to the public,
Has imprisoned those who peacefully protested at the Capitol, and
Refuses to prosecute the officer who shot unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt.
Well, that would be a violation of Brady v. Maryland . Even if you think the process is so corrupt as to be a subversion of justice, an open violation of Brady is a guaranteed argument on appeal and no judge (or prosecutor) wants an appeal grounded in Brady. Also, no prosecutor is going to state openly that he or she is withholding exculpatory evidence.
Are you really suggesting that the US lejudiciall system isn't corrupt?
It is as corrupt as the legislative and executive branches of the government.
That was made very obvious in the judicial reaction to the 2020 presidential election.
55+ courts ruled on procedural grounds to simply DISMISS the cases filed by Trump legal teams. There were ZERO filings for DISCOVERY - thus no evidence was seen or ruled on in any of those cases.
Yes...something even more is amiss here with the Ashli Babbit murder. The state ordered her body cremated as soon as the autopsy had been done -- or fabricated as the case may be.
Now no second opinions on her death will ever be made..
Yes Abby, Samantha Power is deeply plugged in to the Swamp community. She is married to Cass Sunstein who is infamous for his advocatiing "cognitive infiltration" of web forums and disrupting discussions with statist propaganda. He wrote a book (more of a pamphlet) called 'Conspiracy Theories"
Conspiracy Theories
Cass R. Sunstein
Adrian Vermeule
Publication Date
2008
Publication Title
Law & Economics Working Papers
Abstract
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
You are right. The UN Ambassador had scores of unmaskings in her name yet when questioned she stated that she absolutely did not sign for or authorize the unmasking. Was any investigation made as to who did it? NO! Same with Joe Biden's office and many others. It is all a sham and a con job.
Not sure if anyone now living could break and tame the wild jungle of D.C. politics and bureaucratic backroom governance. Violations and more violations and the DOJ sits quietly like a senile old man. It is run by inner circle swamp rats who have a vested interest in keeping the lid on the garage can called Washington D.C.
You’re correct and Trump exposed this which is why the intel agencies, DOJ and Pentagon conspired with the democrats and the media to destroy him. He embarrassed them and showed the American people how inept and corrupt the swamp is.
They can do all these investigations but nothing will happen to hold people accountable. Guess what happened to the IG Horowitz report of the investigation of Russian collusion?? Nothing. The FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who literally fabricated email to get the two hop fisa warrant on Carter page (and this entire trump campaign) got zero jail time and as of his month is allowed to practice law again. It’s such a fucking joke.
Naive is probably a better word for it and the FBI preyed on the fact that he probably underestimated their desire to destroy him and the Trump administration. When you compare what Flynn “lied” about with what Clapper, McCabe and Clinton did it’s preposterous what a double standard was used in selective law enforcement. And this selective law enforcement is of course banana republic tyranny.
Not even naive. If he had spoken to an ambassador on behalf of the administration, isn't he sharing information with people not authorized to have it by confirming it took place and the content? If not under oath and required to divulge the conversation, he SHOULD NOT disclose it to FBI agents, the FBI director, or anyone else stopping by his office for a chat. He followed the rules of non-disclosure.
It's customary for officials of an incoming administration to have informal discussion with their counterparts in other governments.
Biden's team did it when he succeeded Trump. Obama's team did it when he succeeded Bush. But people like Ph8drus either don't know, or pretend they don't know about that.
There were a lot of accusations about how Flynn's conversation was a violation of the Logan Act, treasonous, so on and so forth. The government had a transcript of the conversation, but kept it hidden for years. Eventually the transcript was released.
Except for a few ignorant wingnuts like Ph8drus, no one could point to anything Flynn said that violated anything.
Um...I was agreeing there, evil. Flynn did nothing wrong, he didn't tell unauthorized persons (FBI) the content of his communications. That is the right thing to do. He was not under oath nor authorized to disclose, therefore it wasn't a lie, it was not telling unauthorized people something.
You're right, Ph8drus. I reread your post. My apologies.
Not making excuses but... I think when you wrote, "he didn't tell unauthorized persons (FBI) the content of his communications.", I don't believe that's factually correct.
I don't think Flynn held anything back. He thought the FBI's visit was a friendly one. What he actually said in the interview is clouded b/c the original FBI Form 302 (apparently written by J. Pientka, Strzok's companion), was for a long time lost. The one that was used as "evidence" for so long was not the original, but one rewritten up by Page and Strzok. I don't know if it the original 302 was in the docs turned over by the DOJ reviewing attorney, or not. The whole thing has been clouded. IMO, intentionally so by those who control the documents.
Again, Ph8drus, my apologies. We have to stick together. We can't afford to attack our own. Take Care Pardner.
What a load of it Needham, the entrapment was the fault of the system not the victim of that system...it was the FBI who set Flynn up and threatened his family.
The judges in the FISA court were at fault for being inattentive.
Flynn’s attorney had challenged that the government had turned over all exculpatory evidence. AG Barr appointed a DOJ attorney to look into the matter, who then turned over volumes of additional material.
What does that tell you? If the original attorneys did their job ethically, why would there have to be additional volumes? The original attorneys didn’t get into any trouble. Each of those attorneys is one of them.
People don't appreciate just how serious this misconduct is. The senior bureaucrats have become lazy and sloppy. They are biased in favor of establishment Democrats and are violating the law in order to find dirt on Republicans and anyone else who is out of favor with the administration. It was bad towards the end of the Obama administration and became even worse during the Obama/Trump transition.
I've been a prosecutor. I've had the ability to request subpoenas and drag them in front of a grand jury. I recognized that I have to follow the law if I want to keep the public's trust. I can't favor members of the elite. My boss, the Prosecuting Attorney, had a lead foot. He was getting speeding tickets all the time. He never, not once, tried to talk his way out of a ticket. The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it.
"The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it."
No disrespect intended, counselor, but your words ring hollow. They would have substance and merit if we had a "justice system" in the USA, We don't. We have a "legal system", and a two-tiered one, at that.
The fact that Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, George W. Bush, O.J. Simpson, et al, (and that's just scratching the surface) walk free, while thousands of poor people, most POC, rot in jail for years -for no other crime than possessing marijuana- is a testament to that fact.
No disrespect taken. You make a valid point. My words are seeming more and more hollow because of the two tiered legal system you described.
I remember once reading about the method used by Acting Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights Deval Patrick to coerce settlements. He would bring a civil suit against a publicly traded company then threaten them - either you accept our proposed settlement agreement or we will bring criminal charges against you. For many publicly traded companies, a criminal prosecution would be an extinction level event. I was walking to lunch with my boss, the county Prosecuting Attorney, and I asked him about this kind of action. He misunderstood my question; he assumed I was contemplating doing this. He stopped, spun on his heels, and pointed his right forefinger at my face: "If I ever catch you doing that I will charge you with extortion!" Damn right. I got my answer. Deval Patrick was using the USDOJ as a criminal extortion racket. It's no wonder that more and more people are losing confidence in the system.
He was very charismatic and interesting, but he was not very good at leading an office. He eventually ended up as a judge; I never practiced in front of him so I have no idea whether he was a good judge or a bad judge. But he was extremely ethical.
When we did our job, one question we always asked was, "is this the right thing to do?" Doesn't matter if you can think up some legal argument to support it. If you think and action is wrong, then explain why and find a way to accomplish the task that is not wrong.
I'm a retired civil litigator. I'd love appearing in his court, I bet. All you ask of a judge is a good legal mind, and integrity. Unfortunately too many judges lack one or the other, or both.
I prefer the crochetty old type. I always got along well with them. It was the young, smart judges that always hated me (because I was so much like them). I remember my first day in front of one old, famously mean, judge. I heard that he was a civil war reinactor. I used to do Sci Fi costuming. So after my first hearing I talked with him about sewing and fabric. Man oh man...did I make a friend.
I remember the time the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney set me up for a fail. He asked me to cover a change of plea hearing for him but did not tell me it was for a habitual sexual offender. Different script. Judge asks the first question, I go "Duh." Judge asks the second question, I go, "Duh." Judge orders us into his chambers. Boy oh boy is he PISSED off. He storms into his chambers, spins on his heels, his right forefinger is pointing right at my nose and he says, "Mr. G........, this is not fair to you." I am thinking..."okay, this is not what I expected." He then got the Deputy Prosecutor on the phone and chewed him out. It was funny at the time, but that guy got me back big time. The lesson I learned that day is to tell the judge that it was MY fault and do NOT chew out the other guy.
A prosecutor less politically connected than Deval Patrick would likely have been disciplined by the bar. It is unethical for an attorney to use the threat of criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in a civil action; i.e., it's unethical to extort.
Thanks, Counselor. If it's any consolation, I know you folks don't write our laws, and the folks on your side of the house can be put into some really tough dilemmas. I still have some hope left, especially knowing that you, and folks like you, are holding the line.
I am one of the world's worst litigators. So I would be better as a defense counsel. ;-) Did you ever see MY COUSIN VINNY? Remember the public defender? I am almost that bad in trial court. Now on appeal...that is a lot more fun, as long as you don't have a Scalia or a Sotomayor going at you from the bench.
you are so right! i foresee a bad ending to the lack of accountability in our system. At the moment, both parties know the discontentment of millions on this yet nothing has been done. The law is applied only for the little people and, judges are going with the flow. Biden is proving to be the real nightmare for many of us.
It is a common misunderstanding that a majority of State Prison inmates are victims of Nixon's "war on drugs". According to an article in the Summer, 2021 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, 55.5% of the people in state prisons are their for committing violent crimes. 16% are in prison for property crimes. 14% are in jail for drug offenses and 12.3% for crimes like illegal possession of weapons or DUI.
Don't you mean Reagan's "war on drugs", and Clinton's "war on drugs", Obama's "war on drugs", Biden's "war on drugs" and every other pandering Neocon politician's "war on drugs"?
And since it's such a "low percentage" of the inmate population (the highest in the world) it's somehow NOT an injustice? Especially if we're talking poor POCs, right?
Gotta keep that sweet, SWEET taxpayer manna flowing to the for-profit prison system and guards unions, right?
Does it cost the taxpayers more to run a for-profit private prison than a state-run prison? Typically (with the exception of Black Water and the other mercenary armies funded by the USA), privatizing saves the taxpayers money. Cry me a river about the criminal POC's and I will just paddle away on top of them. You love to repeat talking points & I just find it boring and stupid.
Don't want to interrupt the flame war, but the efficiency of 0rivate prisons isn't the issue, and didn't seem to be Phil's point. The prison operators and the associated unions exert a lot of undue influence on weak politicians.
The entire argument for private prisons rests on cost-savings. Private prison companies claim they can do the work of the government for less money. But do they?
The truth is, probably not.
The key word is "probably". In other words, the article neither agrees with you that private prisons cost more than state-run prisons nor does it disagree.
One can say that humans "probably" have an impact on climate change. One can say that "probably" replacing police officers with social workers is stupid. One can say that "probably" China will control the world by 2050. None of those statements carry any weight.
Prison profits isn't the main issue in drug "wars" of course, nor that some groups are more likely to offend. But it is definitely a factor in the process of devising irrational laws. Drug problems are better handled by giving people reasons to remain sober. Outlawing things that are nobody's business just encourages some to get high to escape the insanity for a while.
I wonder how many of the 55.5% violent criminals committed their crimes in relation to the drug trade -- by definition run by criminals -- and might not have been involved at all if we had reasonable policies towards recreational drug use.
And no one said anything about a "majority" being in for drug offenses. He said "thousands". That 14% for drugs is 14% too many IMO.
People aren't in the drug business because they like drugs; they're in it because it's profitable. If you legalize drugs, most of them would seek another line of work. This is just speculation, but it stands to reason that many of them would have no problem picking another line of work that's low effort, high risk, and harmful to other people--since that's what they do today.
I don't care whether drugs are legal or not. But I do think your charitable opinion of drug dealers as victims of an abusive system is probably misplaced.
To say "many of them would have no problem picking another line of work that's low effort, high risk, and harmful to other people" is to imply there are some that would not, which was my point. Of course there are many that just have a criminal mindset and would rather get what they want by taking it from others. But the highly lucrative nature of the illegal drug business certainly draws in people that otherwise might find a legitimate line of work.
James didn't seem to be defending dealers, just pointing out the numerical impacts that might escape some observers. A lot of society's problems are traceable to irrational prohibitions.
I have a buddy in Boulder who's neighbor owns a Dispensary. Things were very profitable until members of the Sinoala Cartel showed up in his shop asking him what % of his weed business he was now going to be buying from them instead of through official state channels. They were very professional about it with a little slide show of the 2 people who'd told them to get lost the prior week. I guess coyotes have to eat too.
Cartels are not going to give up their $20 billion a year business in the U.S. just because some naive people think that all the worlds' problems are solved by legalizing drugs.
I am a Libertarian and believe that all drugs should be legalized. I don't think it matters if a violent criminal committed his crime while in the business of transporting or selling narcotics. I am only repeating recently-published statistics. I agree that it is unfortunate that drug users must rely on criminalized sources for their recreation. It would be so much better if all drugs were legalized and that users knew what they were ingesting.
We agree about bringing drugs into the open. Have governments directly procure from sources. Use government force to prevent outside dealing and pay a fair price for the goods. Have drug manufacturers produce and package them for sale in licensed facilities (pharmacies). Sell drugs for a reasonable profit with profits devoted to harm reduction and addict support. Close down an entire corrupt system with huge profitability. Addict identification might be an issue but could be managed to control distribution quantities. Like signing for Sudafed.
Whoa, slow your roll HardeeHo! Who said anything about getting government directly involved in distribution and sale? That would create an even more distorted and corrupt system than what we have now.
Look, we already have one mind-altering drug that is widely available to any adult 21+ years old. Alcohol. Other drugs should be no different. By all means, bring them under government regulation for basic safety standards, but otherwise government should have no role in their distribution and sale.
It's useful to have someone verify products. Illegal drugs avoid those reviews, which is good enough reason to dump the prohibitions. Almost as bad is the restrictions on legal drugs, requiring prescriptions from a licensed practitioner who looked it up in a book. Everyone should be able to buy and use any product they want. Misuse of drugs is no more risky than automobiles, but we don't outlaw them.
what's your working assumption of what the misconduct was? What's different between unmasking Carlson and Page? (besides the obvious that no one to this day knows what Carter page does)
PS - probably anyone who subscribes to GG has lost some, if not all confidence in the equal application of the law. Save those monitoring his substack comment feeds for unfettered convos (the press and the IC - hi guys !!!)
Yes, that is a good point. Their actions are presumptively legal. However, I spent much of my life working with confidential taxpayer return information. When I was working for the government, it was a felony to release that info. I was extra careful dealing with. When I was in Federal District Court, I would remind the judges and the magistrates that it would be a felony for us to release taxpayer return info.
There need to be strict controls on the administrative process for unmasking a US citizen. If you are a government official and you don't follow the correct procedures you risk serious sanctions. I always had to worry about that when dealing with tax information; why not apply the same rule to national security secrets?
As you say, "The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it." Which is why a lot of us have lost confidence in it. If anyone other than a well-connected Democrat politician has moved classified documents to a personal server, they would be behind bars. Not so Hillary Clinton. She got a pass because the FBI director conjured a mens rea clause out of thin air in a statute criminalizing the negligent handling of classified material. Now I'm generally in favor of mens rea standards being applied in matters of administrative law where a bureaucratic whim can change what is or isn't a violation, but the notion at a statute explicitly criminalizing *negligence* could be construed as having a mens rea standard is absolute nonsense, but that nonsense was invented so HRC could walk free, while the guy who tried to save his unit in Afghanistan by sending some classified intel via Yahoo! Mail rots in a stockade.
One hopes Glenn's readers are alert enough to take the appropriate lesson from this story, which is that you're all being spied on all the time, and all the kabuki theatre "oversight" committees and bastard son of FISA courts are cheap shabby window dressing for the imperial tyranny that owns us all.
Anyone who tells you that this kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is proof that the system works or that your democracy is self-correcting is either a fed or, worse, a useless idiot for the feds.
Scott McNeally, CEO of Sun Microsystems, famously said "Privacy is dead -- get over it" about 20 years ago. It's only gotten worse since then. Spying was ubiquitous back then, now it's weaponized.
Google/Bing/DDG "Identity Graph" Cracked Labs Surveillance. FB, GOOG, AMZN and APPL have the largest and most complete identity graphs on every adult age American on the grid. And the NSA. I met 4 of their best at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas 2 years ago. They spent a lot of time with Samsung, ADT and Linksys execs and engineers trying to figure out how to pipe all that IOT data into their data centers and to make sense of what was worthwhile data and what was just noise.
Yup, we are all being spied upon all the time - is that news to Glenn or anyone else out there? - if we aren't aware of it by now, we must have been sleepwalking through the last decade or so ...
True. The odds that this IG review will report & reveal the whole truth are not good, though I suppose there's a chance we may be told part of the truth.
This will end up just like all the other investigations into the IRS, NSA, CIA and FBI. The system is an absolute joke. There are 2 justice systems, one for us and one for all the connected and deep state folks. What ever happened to the Durham Report??? Lying to a Federal court is not problem if you are a government employee doing the dirty work of the swamp.
We'll all see the NSA IG's report on Tucker Carlson's unmasking right after we get John Durham's Clinton / DNC / Russia Dossier report - like never....
The "Deep State" has this well covered - not to worry.........
I'm not saying I expect anything earth-shattering or incriminating to come of this. Unfortunately, the NSA has pretty broad authority to unmask, so all they have to do is come up with some dubious pretext and they'll probably get cleared. But still, I think the launch of a formal IG investigation signals that some people in power take seriously that something wrong happened here, and that's worth highlighting.
As you've previously mentioned, "pretty broad authority" is the whole terrifying problem. Same with FISA court referrals. Excellent work, as always, sir.
As I tried pointing out when I was doing the NSA reporting, the scandal with the US security state isn't that what they did was illegal. The scandal is that pretty much everything they want to do has been legalized.
What’s the risk that the IG sweeps this under the rug…?
“Nothing to see here! Move along. Move along!”
Even if he doesn’t sweep this under the rug, the MSM will report that that’s exactly what happen.
Look for some no-nothing bureaucrat to be the fall guy and the fact that those in the Deep State attempted to ruin (“deplatform”) a major political commentator (Tucker Carlson) to be either completely missing from the report as “beyond the scope” of the review or completely misrepresented by the MSM…
Horowitz found substantial misconduct in the FBI investigation and one low level attorney got a slap on the wrist. Without true congressional oversight over the DOJ and CIA they will continue this deep state corruption with impunity. Where are the civil liberties advocates and investigative journalists? (Except for yourself)
The FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who literally fabricated email to get the two hop fisa warrant on Carter page (and this entire trump campaign) got zero jail time and as of his month is allowed to practice law again. It’s such a fucking joke.
I generally agree. In all likelihood the IG's investigation will not lead to much happening. However, at least some of the IGs do a good job of at least exposing wrongdoing. Even if this doesn't lead to any meaningful consequences for the wrongdoers, there is benefit in exposure. The DOJ IG, Michael E. Horowitz, did a pretty credible job on improper FBI conduct. His report was well done. And it at least led to McCabe's dismissal.
The IG investigation is being done to find out who the whistleblowers were who wanted tucker of this so that they can be “Epsteined”. Can’t have any loose ends.
I see Glenn is red pilled while I am black pilled.
Last night on a zoom with the family, my brother-in-law, a lifelong Democrat and true believer, went on a rant about how it's impossible to tell an ignorant person they are ignorant, meaning anyone who doesn't believe what he believes. It was an incredibly tone deaf diatribe against anyone who would not, for any reason, be vaccinated, or submit to carrying a "gun license" to own firearms. He went on to slam anyone who does not go to college as not being educated about the world. I listened to this and just shook my head. This man is an engineer, very intelligent, yet he can not form a single political thought that strays outside of whatever is the current established talking points. Ironically, all of those talking points, if applied to people of color in the current context, would be considered extremely racist.
This is the problem. A growing constituency believes in whole-cloth fiction, and does so with religious zeal. Whether the NSA independent investigator determines the unmasking of Tucker Carlson to be unlawful is irrelevant. Such findings would be ignored or buried under the latest propaganda, and regurgitated by useful idiots like my in-laws.
Americans are currently living in a state of surveillance and social credit that is fundamentally little different from that in Communist China. Post a politically incorrect point of view on social media or send an email to the "wrong" person and suddenly the Feds shows up at your door asking questions, you find yourself publicly "unmasked" by unknown individuals in the intelligence/law enforcement community, you are de-platformed by Big Tech, you get put on a "do not fly" list and your employer decides that you have become a liability and you lose your job.
The biggest difference is the CCP is more transparent regarding the surveillance of its citizens. Here in the good ol' USA, we are told by our "betters" (e.g. the Deep State/ DC establishment/swamp/MSM) that a surveillance state could never happen here because we are all protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yeah sure...
We live in a country that benefits the few at the expense of the many. That's what the system is currently set up to do and that will not be changing any time soon. Trump tried to change certain things at the margin and look at what happened to him.
Agreed. We now live in a country where many in positions of power (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats, school administrators, etc.) seemingly make and impose decisions by executive fiat on the fly with no regard for the Constitution or rule of law. We have seen this again and again concerning the response to COVID.
It would seem roughly one-third of the country has no problem with it, another one-third is not happy about it at all, and one-third doesn't really know what they want. I do not see how the US can prosper when there is such a fundamental disagreement over how we govern ourselves.
I’m still waiting to see the consequences for the unmasking of General Mike Flynn, which had disastrous results for the General. I’m not falling for this.
And Apple is begging people to believe that client side image scanning, analysis and reporting is totally benign, and that they absolutely will not, ever, ever, ever allow, or be pressured to allow, this technology to be used for anything other than discovering pedo’s. Are we really supposed to believe that if the Chinese government threatened to destroy Apple’s market share in China, they wouldn’t buckle? It’s a preposterous proposition for us to believe. Apple must think we’re all stupid. We live in times that are immensely scary. And it all came to a head this year. We are living in a repeat of the monarchical age where elites - the sophisticated - among us rule over our lives and actions. When I see these things unfold I think back to Madison talking about the dangers of factions and the tyranny of the majority. He believed that a representative government of free people wasn’t by itself enough to protect liberty from the power of factions. In fact he argued that the power of majority rule would lead to a tyranny of the majority if the government wasn’t formed in such a manner as to head that off - the separation of powers, federalism, the electoral college, the balance between the house (the mob) and the Senate (the states, back then). And then there’s Stimson, in his book “The American Constitution” (1923) talking about the threat to liberty that massive unelected bureaucracies present to us all as they rule without judicial review. But now the real affront to liberty and freedom are these massive technology company’s, all hiding under the guise of being private entities, which allows them to censor not just some crazy dude that’s walks into an Apple store and starts causing trouble, but millions upon millions of content users, in virtual space, that could otherwise be blocked by the push of a “button.”
We had better start to focus on reigning in politicians and government. Step one is - stop voting for democrats. Currently they’re toxic - the epitome of totalitarianism.
Not to discount what you said on the matter, but I was rather impressed when Apple stood up to the Feds who wanted help cracking the San B denied the Feds wanting to crack the San Bernardino terrorists. They weren't denying help for some white collar criminal, but an actual terrorist with the potential to uncover other eminent threats.
I see what you're saying about China and their potentially more powerful leverage, but did Apple not garner some credibility with aforementioned scenario, or not really in your eyes?
BTW, I'm huge a proponent of Federalism, and cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many don't see the incredible value and utter compromise it offers.
They did indeed. I was thrilled with the idea that they would be a tech giant that stood against the government. But that was under the specter of a totalitarian trump. They were bulwarks against potential back doors then. But then the political climate changed, they banned Parlor from the App Store under the guise that Parlor had been used during the capital riot. That was true, but FB and Twitter were the primary tools of communication that day, and in the days leading up.
And now, this technology is incredibly risky. It’s not just China. The precedent will be that this sort of thing SHOULD be the norm on SM. Progressives are already calling for it to be used on FB. And if you think FB is gonna ride on some ethical tide and only use this tech for good…well…I would say you’re the opposite of wise.
The broader potential for abuse far outweighs the smaller potential to discover pedophiles. You can train the tech to look for ANY image type. That’s the obvious negative. And it’s not small - it’s enormous. Apple is actually able to watch you, analyze you, and report you. Take away all the nonsense about child porn and drill down to what this does.
Lastly, no serious pedophile ring is using iCloud anymore, much less an iPhone after Apple formally announced this capability. Which is a problem for two reasons: 1) will not solve the problem at all. In fact I’ll be surprised if they catch a significant amount of people simply because it’s out in the open now. 2) The fact they can’t catch anyone will add to the call that this tech must be used EVERYWHERE.
It only gets worse. The calls for using this to stop “extremism” will come. Google just spoke about the need to do this sort of thing in real time across the internet. Do you think it was a coincidence that a couple weeks later Apple unveils this tech? Of course not.
And extremism right now is any anti-government discourse. Any. Add a picture of you at the range with your rifle along with a history of, “the government sucks tweets and you’re an extremist. This tech begins to send alerts to concerned individuals. Maybe that’s not even the government. Maybe it’s just everything in tech. Maybe now under the direction and definition of extremism from ADL you can’t use electronic banking at all.
But the most obvious is this - The Chinese market is the most important market for Apple. Not only from the perspective of new users, but from a manufacturing perspective as well. China has all the cards in it’s hands to force Apple to make this capability available to the Chinese to surveil their citizens. That absolutely 100% will happen in the not so distant future.
But they whispered in FBI's ear that model was easier to hack, and pointed them to offshore hackers who could take care of it for them. Marketing benefit for Apple, same result for FBI, plus a small fee for the hacker, who is probably on Apple's payroll anyway.
That was a wonderful marketing move for Apple, but they remain a part of the Prism project and have a history of collecting and turning over data to the government. Every so often they will put on a big privacy publicity stunt where they know the FBI can get the information by other means, (as the FBI did in the San Bernardino case) but when it's not for marketing purposes Apple has no problem turning over all your data to the 3 letter agencies:
"Apple announces new policies to aid law enforcement worldwide"
Glenn, nothing will happen. Our masters in Washington have become a pathetic joke. Until we hold people in that city accountable and send them away in handcuffs and leg irons, our country will not move forward even an inch. Perhaps dropping a MOAB on DC would help! I'm focusing on my local community where I may be able to make an inkling of a difference.
D.C. is a putrid swamp that will only be reformed by a big purge and many trials and jail sentences. That won't happen since they all "know one an other" and have enough dirt on the bureaucrats that make the sausage in the factory. Political corruption is like the silt that gathers at the delta of a river. At some point it blocks the entire river and needs to be dredged on a regular basis. Elected officials without a backbone or integrity are the main reason for the current state of affairs. In the end the voters are responsible for the quality of the gov't. Without a good and honest free press the criminality remains hidden and creeps like the Biden's are celebrated an their corruption is ignored.
MOAB has some awesome mountain biking and scenery too. Moving all that sandstone would be a bit of a feat though. Not really environmentally conscience either. Can't wait to see what type of sandstone configuration you're planning for your local community. Are you planning to use navajo or wingate? No wait, don't tell me. Surprises are best aren't they
It is too soon for the media to go from "Tucker is a megalomaniac conspiracy loon who things the NSA is actually interested in him, chuckle, chuckle, snort" to "NSA has very good and legitimate reasons to keep an eye on Tucker and we're thrilled that they're on top of it"?
Tucker is having enormous influence, so he must be stopped, even if it means breaking the law. Remember the FBI lawyer that changed the FISA documents, he was slapped with a feather on the wrist. Back in action as we speak. There will be no punishment.
Maybe the NSA should investigate Dan Rather for interviewing Saddam Hussein or maybe the late Walter Cronkite for interviewing Begin and Sadat etc inter Alia ad Infinitum arrrgle bargle …
Looks like 'Tucker Derangement Syndrome' is becoming a thing. Progressives hate him, in part because he's popular (way more popular than CNN and MSNBC) and in part because he calls them out when few if any others will do so. Accordingly, following the progressive playbook, he must be destroyed. I will, of course, await the investigation's results, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the NSA and others were guilty as charged.
Nobody was held accountable for the Obama unmask-a-thon, the deep state spying on the Trump campaign or the FBI goon squad entrapment of General Flynn. The media are entirely complicit which is why nothing will come of this “investigation”. We now live in a wholly corrupt pseudo socialist banana republic. Get used to it.
And don't forget that Susan Rice was in the middle of Obama admin unmasking. She's now one of Biden's top "domestic" advisers; in a position that does not require Senate confirmation, which she undoubtedly could not obtain.
The fact that general Flynn was indicted and Susan Rice is not in jail confirms my point.
Yes. Excellent point. Or the fact that Flynn was indicted while Strzok and McCabe were not.
In a new filing in the Couy Griffin case, the government has admitted that they are withholding crucial evidence that proves the innocence of January 6 defendants. More shocking about this situation is that the US Department of Justice is refusing to release this evidence.
Here is a message from one of our Team Kraken attorneys:
On Monday, August 9, Department of Justice prosecutors admitted to something we have long known. That DOJ is in possession of exculpatory evidence in favor of the January 6 political prisoners.
Defendant Couy Griffin faces charges for leading a prayer in an "unrestricted area" at the Capitol on January 6. He and others charged with being present at the Capitol have long been seeking evidence showing they did not break the law.
While prosecutors refuse to produce exculpatory evidence, today they admitted that it is in their possession:
"Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fistbumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information."
However, the DOJ continues to drag its feet and deny these January 6 defendants their constitutional right to access this evidence. The Government alleges it is
"not currently in a position to identify all information that may be material to the defense in this case."
It further states that
"we are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review."
These developments should come as no surprise. The Government ...
Refuses to release video of January 6 to the public,
Has imprisoned those who peacefully protested at the Capitol, and
Refuses to prosecute the officer who shot unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt.
\\][//
Well, that would be a violation of Brady v. Maryland . Even if you think the process is so corrupt as to be a subversion of justice, an open violation of Brady is a guaranteed argument on appeal and no judge (or prosecutor) wants an appeal grounded in Brady. Also, no prosecutor is going to state openly that he or she is withholding exculpatory evidence.
M. Mori,
Are you really suggesting that the US lejudiciall system isn't corrupt?
It is as corrupt as the legislative and executive branches of the government.
That was made very obvious in the judicial reaction to the 2020 presidential election.
55+ courts ruled on procedural grounds to simply DISMISS the cases filed by Trump legal teams. There were ZERO filings for DISCOVERY - thus no evidence was seen or ruled on in any of those cases.
https://hereistheevidence.com/
\\][//
The exculpatory evidence is being suicided.
Yes...something even more is amiss here with the Ashli Babbit murder. The state ordered her body cremated as soon as the autopsy had been done -- or fabricated as the case may be.
Now no second opinions on her death will ever be made..
\\][//
Yup.
Susan Rice is a deep state insider allied to the authoritarians of the ÜberLiberal Neo-Marxist Panoptic Maximum Security State.
These tecnocrats are aiming to take this system global with the so-called "Great Reset.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/26/the-great-reset-h-g-wells-dystopian-vision-comes-alive/
\\][//
I am always reading something interesting with your links. Thanks for it.
Thank you Basenji7, I appreciate that.
\\][//
Samantha Power too. And I think she WAS confirmed.
Yes Abby, Samantha Power is deeply plugged in to the Swamp community. She is married to Cass Sunstein who is infamous for his advocatiing "cognitive infiltration" of web forums and disrupting discussions with statist propaganda. He wrote a book (more of a pamphlet) called 'Conspiracy Theories"
Conspiracy Theories
Cass R. Sunstein
Adrian Vermeule
Publication Date
2008
Publication Title
Law & Economics Working Papers
Abstract
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/119/
\\][//
You are right. The UN Ambassador had scores of unmaskings in her name yet when questioned she stated that she absolutely did not sign for or authorize the unmasking. Was any investigation made as to who did it? NO! Same with Joe Biden's office and many others. It is all a sham and a con job.
Not sure if anyone now living could break and tame the wild jungle of D.C. politics and bureaucratic backroom governance. Violations and more violations and the DOJ sits quietly like a senile old man. It is run by inner circle swamp rats who have a vested interest in keeping the lid on the garage can called Washington D.C.
You’re correct and Trump exposed this which is why the intel agencies, DOJ and Pentagon conspired with the democrats and the media to destroy him. He embarrassed them and showed the American people how inept and corrupt the swamp is.
Carter Page has a multi-million dollar lawsuit out there. Hope he doesn’t settle.
Me too but I know he will because there’s no way the goon squad is going to go through discovery.
Samantha Power right?
Right on. In the same vein, when Dear Leader Biden "calls out" Big Tech, he's merely giving them instruction they are eager to receive.
It was the most egregious abuse of power we have ever seen.
They can do all these investigations but nothing will happen to hold people accountable. Guess what happened to the IG Horowitz report of the investigation of Russian collusion?? Nothing. The FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who literally fabricated email to get the two hop fisa warrant on Carter page (and this entire trump campaign) got zero jail time and as of his month is allowed to practice law again. It’s such a fucking joke.
You're correct and the reason this happens is because our media let's them get away with it. The moment a GOP member jay walks, it's news 24/7.
If Flynn got entrapped, then he was/is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Naive is probably a better word for it and the FBI preyed on the fact that he probably underestimated their desire to destroy him and the Trump administration. When you compare what Flynn “lied” about with what Clapper, McCabe and Clinton did it’s preposterous what a double standard was used in selective law enforcement. And this selective law enforcement is of course banana republic tyranny.
Not even naive. If he had spoken to an ambassador on behalf of the administration, isn't he sharing information with people not authorized to have it by confirming it took place and the content? If not under oath and required to divulge the conversation, he SHOULD NOT disclose it to FBI agents, the FBI director, or anyone else stopping by his office for a chat. He followed the rules of non-disclosure.
It's customary for officials of an incoming administration to have informal discussion with their counterparts in other governments.
Biden's team did it when he succeeded Trump. Obama's team did it when he succeeded Bush. But people like Ph8drus either don't know, or pretend they don't know about that.
There were a lot of accusations about how Flynn's conversation was a violation of the Logan Act, treasonous, so on and so forth. The government had a transcript of the conversation, but kept it hidden for years. Eventually the transcript was released.
Except for a few ignorant wingnuts like Ph8drus, no one could point to anything Flynn said that violated anything.
Um...I was agreeing there, evil. Flynn did nothing wrong, he didn't tell unauthorized persons (FBI) the content of his communications. That is the right thing to do. He was not under oath nor authorized to disclose, therefore it wasn't a lie, it was not telling unauthorized people something.
You're right, Ph8drus. I reread your post. My apologies.
Not making excuses but... I think when you wrote, "he didn't tell unauthorized persons (FBI) the content of his communications.", I don't believe that's factually correct.
I don't think Flynn held anything back. He thought the FBI's visit was a friendly one. What he actually said in the interview is clouded b/c the original FBI Form 302 (apparently written by J. Pientka, Strzok's companion), was for a long time lost. The one that was used as "evidence" for so long was not the original, but one rewritten up by Page and Strzok. I don't know if it the original 302 was in the docs turned over by the DOJ reviewing attorney, or not. The whole thing has been clouded. IMO, intentionally so by those who control the documents.
Again, Ph8drus, my apologies. We have to stick together. We can't afford to attack our own. Take Care Pardner.
What a load of it Needham, the entrapment was the fault of the system not the victim of that system...it was the FBI who set Flynn up and threatened his family.
The judges in the FISA court were at fault for being inattentive.
\\][//
You sound like a Democrat…”It’s never my fault!”
You sound like an idiot, no Democrat would ever defend Gen. Flynn.
\\][//
Flynn’s attorney had challenged that the government had turned over all exculpatory evidence. AG Barr appointed a DOJ attorney to look into the matter, who then turned over volumes of additional material.
What does that tell you? If the original attorneys did their job ethically, why would there have to be additional volumes? The original attorneys didn’t get into any trouble. Each of those attorneys is one of them.
People don't appreciate just how serious this misconduct is. The senior bureaucrats have become lazy and sloppy. They are biased in favor of establishment Democrats and are violating the law in order to find dirt on Republicans and anyone else who is out of favor with the administration. It was bad towards the end of the Obama administration and became even worse during the Obama/Trump transition.
I've been a prosecutor. I've had the ability to request subpoenas and drag them in front of a grand jury. I recognized that I have to follow the law if I want to keep the public's trust. I can't favor members of the elite. My boss, the Prosecuting Attorney, had a lead foot. He was getting speeding tickets all the time. He never, not once, tried to talk his way out of a ticket. The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it.
"The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it."
No disrespect intended, counselor, but your words ring hollow. They would have substance and merit if we had a "justice system" in the USA, We don't. We have a "legal system", and a two-tiered one, at that.
The fact that Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, George W. Bush, O.J. Simpson, et al, (and that's just scratching the surface) walk free, while thousands of poor people, most POC, rot in jail for years -for no other crime than possessing marijuana- is a testament to that fact.
No disrespect taken. You make a valid point. My words are seeming more and more hollow because of the two tiered legal system you described.
I remember once reading about the method used by Acting Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights Deval Patrick to coerce settlements. He would bring a civil suit against a publicly traded company then threaten them - either you accept our proposed settlement agreement or we will bring criminal charges against you. For many publicly traded companies, a criminal prosecution would be an extinction level event. I was walking to lunch with my boss, the county Prosecuting Attorney, and I asked him about this kind of action. He misunderstood my question; he assumed I was contemplating doing this. He stopped, spun on his heels, and pointed his right forefinger at my face: "If I ever catch you doing that I will charge you with extortion!" Damn right. I got my answer. Deval Patrick was using the USDOJ as a criminal extortion racket. It's no wonder that more and more people are losing confidence in the system.
Sounds like the county prosecutor you worked for was a real stand up guy. I wish there were more of them.
He was very charismatic and interesting, but he was not very good at leading an office. He eventually ended up as a judge; I never practiced in front of him so I have no idea whether he was a good judge or a bad judge. But he was extremely ethical.
When we did our job, one question we always asked was, "is this the right thing to do?" Doesn't matter if you can think up some legal argument to support it. If you think and action is wrong, then explain why and find a way to accomplish the task that is not wrong.
I'm a retired civil litigator. I'd love appearing in his court, I bet. All you ask of a judge is a good legal mind, and integrity. Unfortunately too many judges lack one or the other, or both.
I prefer the crochetty old type. I always got along well with them. It was the young, smart judges that always hated me (because I was so much like them). I remember my first day in front of one old, famously mean, judge. I heard that he was a civil war reinactor. I used to do Sci Fi costuming. So after my first hearing I talked with him about sewing and fabric. Man oh man...did I make a friend.
I remember the time the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney set me up for a fail. He asked me to cover a change of plea hearing for him but did not tell me it was for a habitual sexual offender. Different script. Judge asks the first question, I go "Duh." Judge asks the second question, I go, "Duh." Judge orders us into his chambers. Boy oh boy is he PISSED off. He storms into his chambers, spins on his heels, his right forefinger is pointing right at my nose and he says, "Mr. G........, this is not fair to you." I am thinking..."okay, this is not what I expected." He then got the Deputy Prosecutor on the phone and chewed him out. It was funny at the time, but that guy got me back big time. The lesson I learned that day is to tell the judge that it was MY fault and do NOT chew out the other guy.
A prosecutor less politically connected than Deval Patrick would likely have been disciplined by the bar. It is unethical for an attorney to use the threat of criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in a civil action; i.e., it's unethical to extort.
Perhaps it's unethical to extort, but 99% of guilty pleas are based on extortion.
We call it the plea deal.
Thanks, Counselor. If it's any consolation, I know you folks don't write our laws, and the folks on your side of the house can be put into some really tough dilemmas. I still have some hope left, especially knowing that you, and folks like you, are holding the line.
I am one of the world's worst litigators. So I would be better as a defense counsel. ;-) Did you ever see MY COUSIN VINNY? Remember the public defender? I am almost that bad in trial court. Now on appeal...that is a lot more fun, as long as you don't have a Scalia or a Sotomayor going at you from the bench.
you are so right! i foresee a bad ending to the lack of accountability in our system. At the moment, both parties know the discontentment of millions on this yet nothing has been done. The law is applied only for the little people and, judges are going with the flow. Biden is proving to be the real nightmare for many of us.
It is a common misunderstanding that a majority of State Prison inmates are victims of Nixon's "war on drugs". According to an article in the Summer, 2021 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, 55.5% of the people in state prisons are their for committing violent crimes. 16% are in prison for property crimes. 14% are in jail for drug offenses and 12.3% for crimes like illegal possession of weapons or DUI.
Don't you mean Reagan's "war on drugs", and Clinton's "war on drugs", Obama's "war on drugs", Biden's "war on drugs" and every other pandering Neocon politician's "war on drugs"?
And since it's such a "low percentage" of the inmate population (the highest in the world) it's somehow NOT an injustice? Especially if we're talking poor POCs, right?
Gotta keep that sweet, SWEET taxpayer manna flowing to the for-profit prison system and guards unions, right?
Does it cost the taxpayers more to run a for-profit private prison than a state-run prison? Typically (with the exception of Black Water and the other mercenary armies funded by the USA), privatizing saves the taxpayers money. Cry me a river about the criminal POC's and I will just paddle away on top of them. You love to repeat talking points & I just find it boring and stupid.
Don't want to interrupt the flame war, but the efficiency of 0rivate prisons isn't the issue, and didn't seem to be Phil's point. The prison operators and the associated unions exert a lot of undue influence on weak politicians.
I suspect the NEA and the AFT have a lot more clout than private prison operators. After all, the NEA tells the CDC and Joe Biden what to do.
"Does it cost the taxpayers more to run a for-profit private prison than a state-run prison?"
Yes.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-cold-hard-facts-about-americas-private-prison-system
https://apnews.com/af7177d9cce540ab9f2d873b99437154
Here is a quote from the article you posted:
The entire argument for private prisons rests on cost-savings. Private prison companies claim they can do the work of the government for less money. But do they?
The truth is, probably not.
The key word is "probably". In other words, the article neither agrees with you that private prisons cost more than state-run prisons nor does it disagree.
One can say that humans "probably" have an impact on climate change. One can say that "probably" replacing police officers with social workers is stupid. One can say that "probably" China will control the world by 2050. None of those statements carry any weight.
Prison profits isn't the main issue in drug "wars" of course, nor that some groups are more likely to offend. But it is definitely a factor in the process of devising irrational laws. Drug problems are better handled by giving people reasons to remain sober. Outlawing things that are nobody's business just encourages some to get high to escape the insanity for a while.
I'm afraid you're right, sad isn't it?
I wonder how many of the 55.5% violent criminals committed their crimes in relation to the drug trade -- by definition run by criminals -- and might not have been involved at all if we had reasonable policies towards recreational drug use.
And no one said anything about a "majority" being in for drug offenses. He said "thousands". That 14% for drugs is 14% too many IMO.
People aren't in the drug business because they like drugs; they're in it because it's profitable. If you legalize drugs, most of them would seek another line of work. This is just speculation, but it stands to reason that many of them would have no problem picking another line of work that's low effort, high risk, and harmful to other people--since that's what they do today.
I don't care whether drugs are legal or not. But I do think your charitable opinion of drug dealers as victims of an abusive system is probably misplaced.
To say "many of them would have no problem picking another line of work that's low effort, high risk, and harmful to other people" is to imply there are some that would not, which was my point. Of course there are many that just have a criminal mindset and would rather get what they want by taking it from others. But the highly lucrative nature of the illegal drug business certainly draws in people that otherwise might find a legitimate line of work.
James didn't seem to be defending dealers, just pointing out the numerical impacts that might escape some observers. A lot of society's problems are traceable to irrational prohibitions.
I have a buddy in Boulder who's neighbor owns a Dispensary. Things were very profitable until members of the Sinoala Cartel showed up in his shop asking him what % of his weed business he was now going to be buying from them instead of through official state channels. They were very professional about it with a little slide show of the 2 people who'd told them to get lost the prior week. I guess coyotes have to eat too.
Cartels are not going to give up their $20 billion a year business in the U.S. just because some naive people think that all the worlds' problems are solved by legalizing drugs.
I am a Libertarian and believe that all drugs should be legalized. I don't think it matters if a violent criminal committed his crime while in the business of transporting or selling narcotics. I am only repeating recently-published statistics. I agree that it is unfortunate that drug users must rely on criminalized sources for their recreation. It would be so much better if all drugs were legalized and that users knew what they were ingesting.
We agree about bringing drugs into the open. Have governments directly procure from sources. Use government force to prevent outside dealing and pay a fair price for the goods. Have drug manufacturers produce and package them for sale in licensed facilities (pharmacies). Sell drugs for a reasonable profit with profits devoted to harm reduction and addict support. Close down an entire corrupt system with huge profitability. Addict identification might be an issue but could be managed to control distribution quantities. Like signing for Sudafed.
Whoa, slow your roll HardeeHo! Who said anything about getting government directly involved in distribution and sale? That would create an even more distorted and corrupt system than what we have now.
Look, we already have one mind-altering drug that is widely available to any adult 21+ years old. Alcohol. Other drugs should be no different. By all means, bring them under government regulation for basic safety standards, but otherwise government should have no role in their distribution and sale.
It's useful to have someone verify products. Illegal drugs avoid those reviews, which is good enough reason to dump the prohibitions. Almost as bad is the restrictions on legal drugs, requiring prescriptions from a licensed practitioner who looked it up in a book. Everyone should be able to buy and use any product they want. Misuse of drugs is no more risky than automobiles, but we don't outlaw them.
Have seen not a pittance of accountability except for the disorderly tourists
what's your working assumption of what the misconduct was? What's different between unmasking Carlson and Page? (besides the obvious that no one to this day knows what Carter page does)
PS - probably anyone who subscribes to GG has lost some, if not all confidence in the equal application of the law. Save those monitoring his substack comment feeds for unfettered convos (the press and the IC - hi guys !!!)
Yes, that is a good point. Their actions are presumptively legal. However, I spent much of my life working with confidential taxpayer return information. When I was working for the government, it was a felony to release that info. I was extra careful dealing with. When I was in Federal District Court, I would remind the judges and the magistrates that it would be a felony for us to release taxpayer return info.
There need to be strict controls on the administrative process for unmasking a US citizen. If you are a government official and you don't follow the correct procedures you risk serious sanctions. I always had to worry about that when dealing with tax information; why not apply the same rule to national security secrets?
As you say, "The law has to apply equally to all of us or we will lose confidence in it." Which is why a lot of us have lost confidence in it. If anyone other than a well-connected Democrat politician has moved classified documents to a personal server, they would be behind bars. Not so Hillary Clinton. She got a pass because the FBI director conjured a mens rea clause out of thin air in a statute criminalizing the negligent handling of classified material. Now I'm generally in favor of mens rea standards being applied in matters of administrative law where a bureaucratic whim can change what is or isn't a violation, but the notion at a statute explicitly criminalizing *negligence* could be construed as having a mens rea standard is absolute nonsense, but that nonsense was invented so HRC could walk free, while the guy who tried to save his unit in Afghanistan by sending some classified intel via Yahoo! Mail rots in a stockade.
One hopes Glenn's readers are alert enough to take the appropriate lesson from this story, which is that you're all being spied on all the time, and all the kabuki theatre "oversight" committees and bastard son of FISA courts are cheap shabby window dressing for the imperial tyranny that owns us all.
Anyone who tells you that this kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is proof that the system works or that your democracy is self-correcting is either a fed or, worse, a useless idiot for the feds.
Scott McNeally, CEO of Sun Microsystems, famously said "Privacy is dead -- get over it" about 20 years ago. It's only gotten worse since then. Spying was ubiquitous back then, now it's weaponized.
Google/Bing/DDG "Identity Graph" Cracked Labs Surveillance. FB, GOOG, AMZN and APPL have the largest and most complete identity graphs on every adult age American on the grid. And the NSA. I met 4 of their best at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas 2 years ago. They spent a lot of time with Samsung, ADT and Linksys execs and engineers trying to figure out how to pipe all that IOT data into their data centers and to make sense of what was worthwhile data and what was just noise.
They also have the best processing capabilities to quickly analyze all that data.
Yup, we are all being spied upon all the time - is that news to Glenn or anyone else out there? - if we aren't aware of it by now, we must have been sleepwalking through the last decade or so ...
That is indeed the lesson, unless you are a member of the clan.
True. The odds that this IG review will report & reveal the whole truth are not good, though I suppose there's a chance we may be told part of the truth.
What do you know about odds Rose? Are you a statistician? Where did you go to university?
You,"suppose"? or you "presume"? Is the "whole truth" even a statistical possiblity?
How many comments is this for me now?
How about I follow you around and jab at you about trivial bullshit for the rest of this thread?
You like that idea turdpuff?
\\][//
This will end up just like all the other investigations into the IRS, NSA, CIA and FBI. The system is an absolute joke. There are 2 justice systems, one for us and one for all the connected and deep state folks. What ever happened to the Durham Report??? Lying to a Federal court is not problem if you are a government employee doing the dirty work of the swamp.
We'll all see the NSA IG's report on Tucker Carlson's unmasking right after we get John Durham's Clinton / DNC / Russia Dossier report - like never....
The "Deep State" has this well covered - not to worry.........
I'm not saying I expect anything earth-shattering or incriminating to come of this. Unfortunately, the NSA has pretty broad authority to unmask, so all they have to do is come up with some dubious pretext and they'll probably get cleared. But still, I think the launch of a formal IG investigation signals that some people in power take seriously that something wrong happened here, and that's worth highlighting.
That implies there might be some honorable people still in government. I assume that such people will be replaced soonest.
It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It implies that they have to look like they're doing something about corruption besides covering it up.
Exactly. In fact, they may even twist the results of this "investigation" to paint Tucker as a tinfoil hat wearer in order to diminish his stature.
As you've previously mentioned, "pretty broad authority" is the whole terrifying problem. Same with FISA court referrals. Excellent work, as always, sir.
As I tried pointing out when I was doing the NSA reporting, the scandal with the US security state isn't that what they did was illegal. The scandal is that pretty much everything they want to do has been legalized.
What’s the risk that the IG sweeps this under the rug…?
“Nothing to see here! Move along. Move along!”
Even if he doesn’t sweep this under the rug, the MSM will report that that’s exactly what happen.
Look for some no-nothing bureaucrat to be the fall guy and the fact that those in the Deep State attempted to ruin (“deplatform”) a major political commentator (Tucker Carlson) to be either completely missing from the report as “beyond the scope” of the review or completely misrepresented by the MSM…
Totally agree, Glenn….
Forgive me if my comment somehow inferred otherwise.
We all understand that you know these clowns way better than any of us. You’re on their list and it’s not for Hanukkah card…
Horowitz found substantial misconduct in the FBI investigation and one low level attorney got a slap on the wrist. Without true congressional oversight over the DOJ and CIA they will continue this deep state corruption with impunity. Where are the civil liberties advocates and investigative journalists? (Except for yourself)
The FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who literally fabricated email to get the two hop fisa warrant on Carter page (and this entire trump campaign) got zero jail time and as of his month is allowed to practice law again. It’s such a fucking joke.
I generally agree. In all likelihood the IG's investigation will not lead to much happening. However, at least some of the IGs do a good job of at least exposing wrongdoing. Even if this doesn't lead to any meaningful consequences for the wrongdoers, there is benefit in exposure. The DOJ IG, Michael E. Horowitz, did a pretty credible job on improper FBI conduct. His report was well done. And it at least led to McCabe's dismissal.
The IG investigation is being done to find out who the whistleblowers were who wanted tucker of this so that they can be “Epsteined”. Can’t have any loose ends.
I see Glenn is red pilled while I am black pilled.
Last night on a zoom with the family, my brother-in-law, a lifelong Democrat and true believer, went on a rant about how it's impossible to tell an ignorant person they are ignorant, meaning anyone who doesn't believe what he believes. It was an incredibly tone deaf diatribe against anyone who would not, for any reason, be vaccinated, or submit to carrying a "gun license" to own firearms. He went on to slam anyone who does not go to college as not being educated about the world. I listened to this and just shook my head. This man is an engineer, very intelligent, yet he can not form a single political thought that strays outside of whatever is the current established talking points. Ironically, all of those talking points, if applied to people of color in the current context, would be considered extremely racist.
This is the problem. A growing constituency believes in whole-cloth fiction, and does so with religious zeal. Whether the NSA independent investigator determines the unmasking of Tucker Carlson to be unlawful is irrelevant. Such findings would be ignored or buried under the latest propaganda, and regurgitated by useful idiots like my in-laws.
"He who walks with wise men becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer." Proverbs 13:20 Take heart and pity those who live with him.
Americans are currently living in a state of surveillance and social credit that is fundamentally little different from that in Communist China. Post a politically incorrect point of view on social media or send an email to the "wrong" person and suddenly the Feds shows up at your door asking questions, you find yourself publicly "unmasked" by unknown individuals in the intelligence/law enforcement community, you are de-platformed by Big Tech, you get put on a "do not fly" list and your employer decides that you have become a liability and you lose your job.
The biggest difference is the CCP is more transparent regarding the surveillance of its citizens. Here in the good ol' USA, we are told by our "betters" (e.g. the Deep State/ DC establishment/swamp/MSM) that a surveillance state could never happen here because we are all protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yeah sure...
We live in a country that benefits the few at the expense of the many. That's what the system is currently set up to do and that will not be changing any time soon. Trump tried to change certain things at the margin and look at what happened to him.
We now live in post-Constitutional America, no 2 ways about it.
Agreed. We now live in a country where many in positions of power (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats, school administrators, etc.) seemingly make and impose decisions by executive fiat on the fly with no regard for the Constitution or rule of law. We have seen this again and again concerning the response to COVID.
It would seem roughly one-third of the country has no problem with it, another one-third is not happy about it at all, and one-third doesn't really know what they want. I do not see how the US can prosper when there is such a fundamental disagreement over how we govern ourselves.
I’m still waiting to see the consequences for the unmasking of General Mike Flynn, which had disastrous results for the General. I’m not falling for this.
Nothing will come of this so-called investigation. The Deep Swamp State investigating the Deep Swamp State … 😂
the NSA investigating itself? what a joke! more waste of taxpayer money!!
Very few have ever really existed, because the price of doing so is usually quite high. It’s an age old story.
And Apple is begging people to believe that client side image scanning, analysis and reporting is totally benign, and that they absolutely will not, ever, ever, ever allow, or be pressured to allow, this technology to be used for anything other than discovering pedo’s. Are we really supposed to believe that if the Chinese government threatened to destroy Apple’s market share in China, they wouldn’t buckle? It’s a preposterous proposition for us to believe. Apple must think we’re all stupid. We live in times that are immensely scary. And it all came to a head this year. We are living in a repeat of the monarchical age where elites - the sophisticated - among us rule over our lives and actions. When I see these things unfold I think back to Madison talking about the dangers of factions and the tyranny of the majority. He believed that a representative government of free people wasn’t by itself enough to protect liberty from the power of factions. In fact he argued that the power of majority rule would lead to a tyranny of the majority if the government wasn’t formed in such a manner as to head that off - the separation of powers, federalism, the electoral college, the balance between the house (the mob) and the Senate (the states, back then). And then there’s Stimson, in his book “The American Constitution” (1923) talking about the threat to liberty that massive unelected bureaucracies present to us all as they rule without judicial review. But now the real affront to liberty and freedom are these massive technology company’s, all hiding under the guise of being private entities, which allows them to censor not just some crazy dude that’s walks into an Apple store and starts causing trouble, but millions upon millions of content users, in virtual space, that could otherwise be blocked by the push of a “button.”
We had better start to focus on reigning in politicians and government. Step one is - stop voting for democrats. Currently they’re toxic - the epitome of totalitarianism.
This sort of thing is why I never used an iPhone (or any other evilphone).
I use a PC, plus a cheap non-app phone (avoiding apps saves many problems).
Not to discount what you said on the matter, but I was rather impressed when Apple stood up to the Feds who wanted help cracking the San B denied the Feds wanting to crack the San Bernardino terrorists. They weren't denying help for some white collar criminal, but an actual terrorist with the potential to uncover other eminent threats.
I see what you're saying about China and their potentially more powerful leverage, but did Apple not garner some credibility with aforementioned scenario, or not really in your eyes?
BTW, I'm huge a proponent of Federalism, and cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many don't see the incredible value and utter compromise it offers.
They did indeed. I was thrilled with the idea that they would be a tech giant that stood against the government. But that was under the specter of a totalitarian trump. They were bulwarks against potential back doors then. But then the political climate changed, they banned Parlor from the App Store under the guise that Parlor had been used during the capital riot. That was true, but FB and Twitter were the primary tools of communication that day, and in the days leading up.
And now, this technology is incredibly risky. It’s not just China. The precedent will be that this sort of thing SHOULD be the norm on SM. Progressives are already calling for it to be used on FB. And if you think FB is gonna ride on some ethical tide and only use this tech for good…well…I would say you’re the opposite of wise.
The broader potential for abuse far outweighs the smaller potential to discover pedophiles. You can train the tech to look for ANY image type. That’s the obvious negative. And it’s not small - it’s enormous. Apple is actually able to watch you, analyze you, and report you. Take away all the nonsense about child porn and drill down to what this does.
Lastly, no serious pedophile ring is using iCloud anymore, much less an iPhone after Apple formally announced this capability. Which is a problem for two reasons: 1) will not solve the problem at all. In fact I’ll be surprised if they catch a significant amount of people simply because it’s out in the open now. 2) The fact they can’t catch anyone will add to the call that this tech must be used EVERYWHERE.
It only gets worse. The calls for using this to stop “extremism” will come. Google just spoke about the need to do this sort of thing in real time across the internet. Do you think it was a coincidence that a couple weeks later Apple unveils this tech? Of course not.
And extremism right now is any anti-government discourse. Any. Add a picture of you at the range with your rifle along with a history of, “the government sucks tweets and you’re an extremist. This tech begins to send alerts to concerned individuals. Maybe that’s not even the government. Maybe it’s just everything in tech. Maybe now under the direction and definition of extremism from ADL you can’t use electronic banking at all.
But the most obvious is this - The Chinese market is the most important market for Apple. Not only from the perspective of new users, but from a manufacturing perspective as well. China has all the cards in it’s hands to force Apple to make this capability available to the Chinese to surveil their citizens. That absolutely 100% will happen in the not so distant future.
But they whispered in FBI's ear that model was easier to hack, and pointed them to offshore hackers who could take care of it for them. Marketing benefit for Apple, same result for FBI, plus a small fee for the hacker, who is probably on Apple's payroll anyway.
That was a wonderful marketing move for Apple, but they remain a part of the Prism project and have a history of collecting and turning over data to the government. Every so often they will put on a big privacy publicity stunt where they know the FBI can get the information by other means, (as the FBI did in the San Bernardino case) but when it's not for marketing purposes Apple has no problem turning over all your data to the 3 letter agencies:
"Apple announces new policies to aid law enforcement worldwide"
https://www.digitaltrends.com/apple/apple-law-enforcement-partnership/
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
An uncharacteristic moment where the man was both lucid and honest.
Glenn, nothing will happen. Our masters in Washington have become a pathetic joke. Until we hold people in that city accountable and send them away in handcuffs and leg irons, our country will not move forward even an inch. Perhaps dropping a MOAB on DC would help! I'm focusing on my local community where I may be able to make an inkling of a difference.
D.C. is a putrid swamp that will only be reformed by a big purge and many trials and jail sentences. That won't happen since they all "know one an other" and have enough dirt on the bureaucrats that make the sausage in the factory. Political corruption is like the silt that gathers at the delta of a river. At some point it blocks the entire river and needs to be dredged on a regular basis. Elected officials without a backbone or integrity are the main reason for the current state of affairs. In the end the voters are responsible for the quality of the gov't. Without a good and honest free press the criminality remains hidden and creeps like the Biden's are celebrated an their corruption is ignored.
MOAB has some awesome mountain biking and scenery too. Moving all that sandstone would be a bit of a feat though. Not really environmentally conscience either. Can't wait to see what type of sandstone configuration you're planning for your local community. Are you planning to use navajo or wingate? No wait, don't tell me. Surprises are best aren't they
Mother of All Bombs- the famous "Bunker Buster"
https://utah.com/moab
(Funny that Utah is a ".com", by the way).
Sweet fancy Moses! You mean you are planning a mass casualty event for your own community. Good grief! Quick, give me your address
Good for you!! Bloom where you are planted!!
It is too soon for the media to go from "Tucker is a megalomaniac conspiracy loon who things the NSA is actually interested in him, chuckle, chuckle, snort" to "NSA has very good and legitimate reasons to keep an eye on Tucker and we're thrilled that they're on top of it"?
Tucker is having enormous influence, so he must be stopped, even if it means breaking the law. Remember the FBI lawyer that changed the FISA documents, he was slapped with a feather on the wrist. Back in action as we speak. There will be no punishment.
Maybe the NSA should investigate Dan Rather for interviewing Saddam Hussein or maybe the late Walter Cronkite for interviewing Begin and Sadat etc inter Alia ad Infinitum arrrgle bargle …
Hat tip for proper use of Scalia's neologism.
Looks like 'Tucker Derangement Syndrome' is becoming a thing. Progressives hate him, in part because he's popular (way more popular than CNN and MSNBC) and in part because he calls them out when few if any others will do so. Accordingly, following the progressive playbook, he must be destroyed. I will, of course, await the investigation's results, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the NSA and others were guilty as charged.
Of course, the IG investigation may just leave out a lot about bad acts by the security state and the role of the White House here.