https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/24/archives/exoperative-says-he-worked-for-f... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25595897 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO " Ex‐Operative Says He Worked for F.B.I. to Disrupt Political Activities Up to '74 By John M. Crewdson; Special to The New York Times February 24, 1975 WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — Despite assurances by the Justice Department that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's controversial Counterintelligence Program was halted in April, 1971, a former undercover operative says that the bureau continued as late as last June to employ program‐style, techniques against domestic political groups. The former operative, Joseph A. Burton, told The New York Times in a series of recent interviews of activities he carried out for the F.B.I. that appear similar to several of the categories of “dirty tricks” that characterized the Counterintelligence Program, or Cointelpro, effort. Mr. Burton's account included examples of bogus documents, informants and sham “revolutionary” front groups used to disrupt a variety of political activities in this country. He also told of “infiltrating” labor unions and, with other F.B.I. undercover operatives, of reporting to the F.B.I. on the Republican National Convention at Miami Beach in 1972, and of encouraging and assisting demonstations against the Nixon Administration over the Watergate scandals. F.B.I. Challenges Assertions An F.B.I. spokesman termed many of Mr. Burton's allegations “distorted or false” in a statement issued today. The spokesman reiterated that the bureau's “Cointelpro effort had not continued beyond April, 1971, and maintained that the F.B.I. had not instructed Mr. Burton to join or report on any labor unions and had no knowledge of his involvement in any “violent” demonstrations during the Miami convention. Cointelpro's operation is expected to be investigated by the select committees that the Senate and House of Representatives have recently set up to examine intelligence gathering by Federal agencies. Cointelpro was described in a report by the Justice Department last November as a 17‐ year attempt to disrupt, expose or neutralize such organizations as the communist party and the Ku Klux Klan. In making the Cointelpro report public, William B. Saxbe, then the Attorney General, disclosed that such activities “were implemented at various times during the period from 1956 to 1971. when all programs were discontinued.” No Renewal Asked Mr. Saxbe, who became Ambassador to India earlier this month, said that during his tenure as Attorney General he had not been asked to consider the reinstatement of any Counterintelligence Programs against domestic groups and could foresee no circumstances under which he would do so. He also pointed out that Clarence M. Kelley, the F.B.I. director, cautioned his agents in December, 1973, when the existence of Cointelpro was made public, that they must not “engage in any investiga tive activity which could abridge in any way” the constitutional rights of American citizens. In a subsequent speech to Duke University law students, Mr. Kelley affirmed that he would not direct the bureau to enter into domestic counterintelligence efforts without first consulting the Attorney General and the President. Mr. Burton, who lives in Tampa, Fla., said that he and other undercover intelligence agents operated bogus “Communist” organizations, set up with the assistance of the F.B.I., to help them gain a foothold with radicals in their communities and with other revolutionary groups around the country. ‘Formed Red Star’ Group For more than two years, Mr. Burton headed the “Red Star Cadre,” ostensibly a pro‐Communist Chinese organization that he said he formed in May, 1972, “at the direction of the bureau,” and directed until he left the bureau's employ in July, 1974. The F.B.I., he said, supplied him with everything from the name to operating funds to Tshirts, bearing a large red star and the legend “Fight Back,” that he and his radical comrades were to demonstrations. Mr. Burton, a 42‐year‐old auctioneer and antique dealer, said he became involved with the F.B.I. after he was invited by a co‐worker at a Tampa janitorial service to join the Communist party. Mr. Burton said he advised the F.B.I.'s Tampa field office of the invitation and was visited the next day by two agents, who persuaded him to adopt a revolutionary guise and to try to infiltrate radical groups in the Tampa area. He said he was later asked to infiltrate other groups in the United States and Canada. The function of the Red Star Cadre, he said, was to “make other organizations come to us and want to discuss ideology.” Attracted Members He was successful in this, he said, as well as in attracting as members of his cadre a number of local radicals in whom the F.B.I. was interested. Mr. Burton said he was later told by the F.B.I. that his efforts in Tampa were part of larger attempt by the bureau to find and cut off funds believed to be flowing to Maoist groups in this country from China. To provide a headquarters for the cadre, Mr. Burton said, he opened a junk store, the Red Star Swap Shop, for which the F.B.I. provided half the overhead expenses while allowing him to keep the profits it produced. The shop quickly became a gathering place for radicals in Tampa, Mr. Burton said, and he was soon reporting to the bureau not only on the cadre membership, which at its peak numbered less than 20, but also on anyone who ventured into the store, “even if they came in to buy.” At one point, he said, the approached him with a plan to conceal recording and filming equipment in the store's air‐conditioning system. He said he rejected the proposal because, if the equipment was discovered, it might “get me killed.” Sent to Miami Beach As the fledgling Tampa group became known to other radical organizations around the country, Mr. Burton said he was called upon by the Surea to leave the city in connection with his work. His first out‐of‐town assignment, he said, was to “cover” the demonstrations at the Republican National Convention in 1972 in Miami Beach, where he and other Red Star members traveled at the F.B.I.'s expense. While his “comrades” protested or slept in a large tent in Flamingo Park, also paid for by the agency, Mr. Burton said he slipped away to telephone periodic reports to the bureau's Miami office. During one report, he said, the Miami agents “suggested that I try to get into one of the ‘affinity groups’ which ended up later ‘trashing’ the taxicabs” around the convention site. But he said he demurred on the ground that “the type of Left philosophy that I was expounding at that time would not have condoned my doing that.” “The only thing I helped to do,” he said, “was incite people to turn over one of the buses and then told them that if they really wanted to blow the bus up, to stick a rag in the gas tank and light it.” The protesters, he said, were unable to overturn the vehicle. ‘Sense of Importance’ Asked why he had agreed to undertake such tasks in return for relatively little money or security, Mr. Burton, who never graduated from high school, replied: ‘Most people work in intelligence because it gives you sense of importance, a sense of being worthwhile and doing something worthwhile instead of mopping floors. “I felt like, being the person that I am, the social position that I'm in, the educational background and everything, that this was something I could give to my country.” The experiences that followed the Miami trip, however, according to Mr. Burton, led gradually to frustration and, finally, to concern about the legality and propriety of what he and others were doing in the bureau's behalf. “When the F.B.I. came to me,” he said, “I felt honored, the most trusted person in town. After I got to know them a little oloser, I said, ‘We got a monster running around in this country.’ I hate to say that, but that's the way I feel about it. Opposed Disruption “I don't see anything wrong with gleaning intelligence, but do see it with setting up an espionage agency in order to glean that intelligence and, at the same time, to do disruptive, disorganizing types of things.” Mr. Burton conceded that “I don't like the left.” “The real solution to the left,” he went on, “is to solve our social problems in the country, and then the left has no inroad. But until we can do that, then I think we should operate under the law.” He said he had not yet received a reply to a letter he addressed lag. month to Mr. Kelley, the F.B.I. director, asking for some assurance that his bureau directed activities “both inside and outside” of the country were “legal and proper and within the… jurisdiction of the F.B.I.” Asked about the validity of Mr. Burton's concern, Nick F. Starnes, the former head of the F.B.I.'s Tampa office, declined to make any specific comment on Mr. Burton's account. Mr. Stapes, who has recently, been promoted to head the bureau's Washington field office, did say that Mr. Burton had done “an outstanding job when he was under our control,” and that, to the F.B.I.'s knowledge, he had not engaged in any illegal activities. Not Bring Them Together Mr. Burton said his general instructions from the bureau could be characterized as “do not ever do anything that will bring Marxist‐Leninists together in any way, do anything to prevent them from coming together.” One element of this, he went on, was to impose “a financial, economic drain on them, keep draining them for everything you can get.” In this connection, he said he set about ordering vast quanitles of revolutionary literature, ostensibly for redistribution in Florida, from other pro‐Chinese groups around the country. Little of the material was ever passed out, he said, but the bureau continued to direct him to order it by the crate, “just because it was hurting the organization to produce the printing,” or because it was “hurting the Chinese to ship it to them.” Mr. Burton said, however, that some of the materials he distributed were printed not by leftist organizations or by the Chinese Government but by the F.B.I. He produced one document that he said had been approved by F.B.I. headquarters in Washington, printed by the bureau and mailed to a number of Marxist‐Leninist “collectives” around the country. He said the intent of the document, which contained a number of unfounded accusations, were to undermine an incipient move by independent collectives to unite as the “Organization of United States MarxistLeninists.” “In the F.B.I.'s files there is a report.” Mr. Burton said, that credits the bogus document with “breaking up that organi zation.” On another occasion, he said, he was told that intelligence specialists at F.B.I. headquarters “thought it would be a goody idea if we put out a newspaper here.” In addition to serving as a vehicle for propaganda, he said, the publication, to be named The Southern Socialist, might provide a cover for an F.B.I., photographer to circulate freely at radical meetings and others events. Mr. Burton, who once owned a small newspaper in Colorado, said he prepared a prototype edition of The Southern Socialist, but that he and an agent, in the F.B.I.'s Chicago office, reputed to be an expert uon Marxist philosophy, could not agree on what line the newspaper should espouse, “and I just kind of let it die.” Mr. Burton said that although he knew of no burglaries carried out by the F.B.L, whenever he visited the home or office of a radical leader, “I always filed an entry report on it.” On some occasions, he said, he was asked for such details as “what kind of locks are on the door and how the windows opened.” After one visit to the Chicago apartment of a black Communist leader, Mr. Burton said he reported to the F.B.I. that the man kept his funds in cash, secreted between the pages of the Marxist volumes in his library. The F.B.I., he said, was “very specific in asking me, ‘Which books? Which page? What shelf?’” Another time, he said he noticed some letters in the office of another radical group from an American professor “who was in Iran working with this militant organization.” He said he was asked by the bureau to assess “the chances of getting in there and photographing them,” but replied that the office was so well guarded that “you can't even get a telephone serviceman in there.” The F.B.I., he said, then offered to supply him with a small, expensive camera “developed in the Soviet Union,” but Mr. Burton, concerned about losing his cover, rejected the offer. During the first year he worked for the F.B.I., he said he subsisted entirely on the meager profits of the swap shop and the salary earned by his wife and declined, out of patriotism, to accept any payment for his services. But as his finances dwindled, le said he reluctantly agreed in the spring of 1973 to begin incepting compensation from the bureau. Assigned to Union Although the payments eventually reached $400 a month, to said, he found it necessary to ask the bureau for help in finding a second job to supplerent his income. The F.B.I. told him, he said, that they had long wanted to get somebody in” the Tampa local of the United Electrical, ladio and Machine Workers of America which had organized a Westinghouse Corporation plant there that produced equipment for the nuclear power industry. The bureau told him, he said, that the electrical union was “controlled by Communists,” and that to ingratiate himself with the other members, he should “come off as a Marxist.” Although Mr. Burton by then had a reputation as a strident revolutionary and although there was a waiting list for employment at the plant, he said, he was hired immediately and assigned to the daytime shift, unusual for a new worker. One F.B.I. official in Washington conceded that “we got him a job at Westinghouse,” but denied that Mr. Burton had been assigned to infiltrate the union or that the bureau had prevailed upon Westinghouse officials to falsify some aspects of his employment application. Mr. Burton said that during his five months at Westinghouse, he was asked by the F.B.I. to provide information on “anybody connected with U.E. —what ‐their sentiments were and how they felt.” The bureau was especially interested, he said, in the union's chief Tampa organizer, who had played a key role in the vote to unionize, and Mr. Burton said he kept them advised of what the man “was doing, where he was, what time he was there, and who he was meeting with.” Important to Union According to one union lawyer, the outcome of the vote was of the greatest importance to the union. A rejection of the national contract, he said, would have been “a real crisis” and would have undermined the union's bargaining position with the company in other plants. Among the information Mr. Burton was asked to get by the F.B.I., he said, was an estimate of “how many people would reject the contract.” He said he had made discreet inquiries and reported that it would be accepted without a single negative vote, but that the bureau, terming such an outcome unlikely, expressed disbelief. The contract was accented unanimously, a union official said. Although union officials said that Mr. Burton's radical proselytizing had made him suspect among his fellow workers as a “company agent” or worse, it apparently did little to damage his stature within the organized labor community. Several months later, he said, he successfully carried out an assignment to infiltrate a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes, whose efforts to unionize Tampa garbage collectors had attracted the bureau's attention. Mr. Burton, who said he earned nearly $3,000 for his F.B.I. work during the first hall of last year, said he was also paid about $400 each month to cover his operating expenses in Tampa, plus additional funds to finance out‐of‐town trips, including “about 10” to meet with radical organizations in Canada. Some of the bureau's money, he said, was contributed by him in the name of Red Star to pay for the activities of domestic and foreign leftist groups, including a wing of the Canadian Communist party, which he said he had been assigned to infiltrate and disrupt. On one occasion, he said, he was approached by the leader of the Tampa chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which sought American withdrawal from Vietnam. Wanted to Merge The veterans, he said, wanted to merge with the Red Star Cadre and to share expenses on a headquarters office. “I called the bureau,” Mr. Burton said, “and they said, ‘Yeah, go ahead, we'll give you the money.’ ” Although the two groups never formally merged, Mr. Burton said he and two other operatives the bureau had placed in the Red Star organization did join the veterans’ group at the F.B.I.'s direction. He said that at the F.B.I.'s direction, he began giving the veterans $50 a month in bu‐ reau money to pay half of the rent on the office. He said that at first he took his assignment seriously and began helping the veterans’ Tampa chapter to recruit new members, but was told by his F.B.I. superior, “We don't want to do that, were trying to kill them in Florida. Mr. Burton said he then reversed his course and began to promote an internecine dispute between the Tampa chapter and the group's national office that resulted last August in the chapter's expulsion from the organization. Anti‐Nixon Group Another organization that Mr. Burton said the F.B.I. encouraged him and his two fellow operatives, both former military intelligence officers, to “get control of” was the Bay Area Citizens Opposed to Nixon, which conducted demonstrations in and around Tampa during the Nixon Administration's Watergate difficulties. The group organized a protest last March when then Vice President Ford visited Tampa, he said, adding that shortly before the visit, he and the two other operatives met with bureau agents to plan for their participation in the demonstration. One of the F.B.I. agents, Mr. Burton said, agreed to provide anti‐Nixon placards for the three operatives to distribute to protesters who did not have signs. Short of gaining outright control of the group, Mr. Burton said, the bureau's hope was “that we could control demonstrations, make them move when we wanted them to, make them shout what we wanted them to.” Despite their apparent lack of success, he said, the F.B.I. did not abandon its efforts to neutralize the group. He said the same technique, complete with F.B.I.‐provided placards, was employed again a few weeks later during a protest outside Tampa's Federal Building, where the F.B.I. has its offices. " " dundarious 5 hours ago [–] Somewhat famously, in an interview with BBC's Andrew Marr, Noam Chomsky[0] used COINTELPRO as an example of press subordination to power, by comparing their self-adulation over uncovering Watergate (an attack on 50% of corporate/state power, the Democrats) to their lack of reporting and even awareness of COINTELPRO (an attack on a wide variety of largely powerless social movements and civil liberties groups). Knowledge of COINTELPRO was only achieved thanks to the burglary of an FBI office, with documents mailed to major newspapers, and only the Washington Post willing to run the story. The burglars[1] revealed themselves[2] only recently. [0] https://youtu.be/-34w0OUIOyw?t=961 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/burglars-who-took-on-f... reply api 5 hours ago [–] The fight against totalitarian communism is full of great examples of the principle that if you fight against an enemy there's a tendency to become that enemy. COINTELPRO is only one example. Another is the fact that we placed much of the US economy under at least indirect state control via the Cold War national security state in order to battle the evil of state controlled economies. I saw the same thing after 9/11 when there seemed to be a strong push for some kind of theocracy in the USA, albeit of a far lighter variety than was found in Afghanistan, and a general revival of ultra-right reactionary ideologies that somewhat resemble those of the 9/11 hijackers. We also surrendered a great deal of freedom (especially privacy) to battle those terrorists who supposedly hate our freedom. Edit: I can keep going... during WWII we put Japanese Americans in camps. reply voodootrucker 4 hours ago [–] Not sure why the down votes. I've been joking for a while I'd like to see a sitcom where the main characters are an Islamic and domestic terrorist living together in New York while they execute their plots. A terrorist "odd couple" if you will. I think the characters could bond over a lot of shared ideals, despite their superficial differences. (And of course they'd have to be incompetent or it wouldn't be a funny.) reply mhh__ 4 hours ago [–] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions reply virgulino 4 hours ago [–] This is a great movie. Odd but great. reply mhh__ 4 hours ago [–] That describes most of Chris Morris's work Brass Eye is his most outlandish creation but before that he did Jam which is (to quote the comments of the following YouTube video) "absurdly poignant" https://youtu.be/LhKla4MEstY reply virgulino 4 hours ago [–] Thanks for the tip, I will try to watch these two. Anyways, you made me look for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Morris_(satirist) , and I'm shocked to learn that he is Denholm Reynholm, from the IT Crowd! reply leetcrew 4 hours ago [–] I wonder if you might enjoy the first couple seasons of homeland? there are a lot of problems with the show, but in some ways it's a surprisingly charitable portrayal of islamic terrorists. reply Alupis 3 hours ago [–] Sounds like the TV show "The Americans", although that focuses on KGB sleeper agents in America during the Cold War. reply voodootrucker 3 hours ago [–] I was thinking more like "damn it, we failed to blow up the government again", and "you got your bacon in my tagine" and "you woke me up with your call to prayer", "you might worship a different god than me, but at least we both hate women's rights". The domestic terrorist could be a coal-rolling hick. That kind of shtick. I'm scared to even type that. You'd need writers legitimately from each culture to keep it funny, balanced, and self-deprecating. reply Alupis 2 hours ago [–] It's not a full show, but Key & Peele have a hilarious skit where they are terrorists in a cave, plotting to overthrow America, only to be thwarted by TSA's rules. You might get a kick out of it. https://youtu.be/IHfiMoJUDVQ reply maxerickson 4 hours ago [–] Isn't Watergate far more consequential? It's problematic that the FBI targets groups for poor reasons, but it doesn't result in much change to the country, it just unfairly harasses members of those powerless groups. reply dundarious 4 hours ago [–] It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run the country and the economy, so their concerns have more consequence. Even in this framing of "consequential", one can argue about the narrow range of consequences on offer by Democrats and Republicans, and the broad potential consequences of social movements, but I tend to agree with you. However, Chomsky's argument is that this "perfect experiment" of history, Watergate vs. COINTELPRO, reveals that "on the question of principles", Watergate shows that the press "think[s] that powerful people ought to be able to defend themselves", whereas "one tiny part of the COINTELPRO program was itself far more significant in terms of principle than all of Watergate, and if you look at the whole program, it's not even a discussion". This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc. reply yrimaxi 2 hours ago [–]
It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential.
The tautology being that important people are important.[1] Applying wishful thinking for the moment, what would America look like today if popular movements in the 60’s had never been infiltrated? What would the civic culture of America look like if regular people were “allowed” to participate in the public sphere without such underhanded tactics from the the government’s side? But I guess all of that is inconsequential, wishful thinking or not. [1] Infer disclaimers.
This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc.
You predictably, given the demographics on this board, think that _the point_ is to stick it to The Man, The Press, or some Important Person, in order to embarass or dress them down.[1] And yet that is just a bonus, and was never the point at all. How many small-venue lectures has this man held, how many letters and emails to people-of-no-consequence has he sent, etc.? All in order to support and connect people working in grassroots movements (he explains this in the same interview). Not in order to, once in a blue moon, land a somewhat mainstream interview in order to tell The Press off to their faces or to combat other Important People of Consequence. [1] Andrew Marr was so “dressed down” that he some years later cheered when GB and the US invaded Iraq—that interview had no impact on his view of the press or his role within it, as the Propaganda Model would have predicted. reply dundarious 31 minutes ago [–] I agree with all your points and my post was meant to convey the same logic. I think you misunderstand me. In particular, I mention deflating press self-esteem specifically to say that is _not_ the point. Chomsky is not interested in “epic smackdowns” like the Ben Shapiros or even Hitchenses of the world. reply maxerickson 2 hours ago [–] Oh, I guess I take it as a given that most media is not engaged in adversarial truth seeking, so it doesn't land as a point. I guess on the other side of it I'm not convinced that the FBI would be effective at disrupting groups. There's lots of other things at play when you are talking about small groups of people with views outside the mainstream (a major one is that the mainstream will concede ideological ground, which can massively deflate a group, but that's the group succeeding…). reply AndrewBissell 4 hours ago [–]
It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run the country and the economy, so their concerns have more consequence.
But whom amongst those powerful groups would have had any kind of serious stake in whether Nixon or Ford was president? As opposed to whether the Black Panthers continued with their free breakfast and housing programs? reply klodolph 4 hours ago [–] I’d say COINTELPRO is more consequential by far, and it’s not even close. You might ask questions like, “What happened to the Black Panthers?” Or the question, “Why are these groups powerless?” reply AshWolfy 38 minutes ago [–] A number of powerful and mainstream people got caught up in cointelpro including members of congress, the naacp, and the sclc, including most famously mlk reply dundarious 29 minutes ago [–] It’s a near certainty that Fred Hampton was assassinated as part of COINTELORO. I agree with you. reply delecti 2 hours ago [–]
[...] but it doesn't result in much change to the country [...]
I would argue that it deliberately results in no change, which is subtly but meaningfully different. Kinda like how not choosing is still a choice, suppressing change is enforcing a preference for the status quo. reply goodluckchuck 3 hours ago [–] Watergate (probably) was COINTELPRO. reply maxerickson 2 hours ago [–] Not in any meaningful sense. It's not like the tapes of Nixon sitting in the Oval Office ordering some crimes were faked, and that wasn't at all related to activities carried out against activists, it was Nixon seeking political advantage. reply arminiusreturns 2 hours ago [–] Bigger than COINTELPRO, an FBI program, it was largely a coverup of CIA involvement and connections that spread out like tendrils across the globe and touched other matters such as the coup of 63, the rise of Bush and CIA, etc. "I just said that the thing was leading into directions that were going to create potential problems because they were exploring leads that led back into areas that would be harmful to the CIA and harmful to the government (unintelligible) didn’t have anything to do unintelligible)."..."Gray called Helms and said I think we’ve run right into the middle of a CIA covert operation."..."the problem is it tracks back to the Bay of Pigs and"..."the Bureau is going on this because they don’t know what they are uncovering" - H. R. Haldeman, Nixons Chief of Staff [1] "Another leading Watergate burglar was James McCord, a former top official of the CIA Office of Security, the agency bureau which is supposed to maintain contacts with U.S. police agencies in order to facilitate its basic task of providing security for CIA installations and personnel. The Office of Security was thus heavily implicated in the CIA's illegal domestic operations, including cointelpro operations against political dissidents and groups, and was the vehicle for such mind-control experiments as Operations Bluebird, Artichoke, and MK-Ultra. The Office of Security also utilized male and female prostitutes and other sex operatives for purposes of compromising and blackmailing public figures, information gathering, and control. According to Hougan, the Office of Security maintained a "fag file" of some 300,000 U.S. citizens, with heavy stress on homosexuals. The Office of Security also had responsibility for Soviet and other defectors. James McCord was at one time responsible for the physical security of all CIA premises in the U.S. McCord was also a close friend of CIA Counterintelligence Director James Jesus Angleton. McCord was anxious to cover the CIA's role; at one point he wrote to his superior, General Gaynor, urging him to "flood the newspapers with leaks or anonymous letters" to discredit those who wanted to establish the responsibility of "the company."" - George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster Tarpley Another angle worth considering, especially given his actions the last 4 years, is how Woodward was former naval intelligence and an FBI asset. [2] 1. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9608/... 2. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/19174#efmAMfANh reply honkycat 4 hours ago [–] You look around at the gig economy, our stagnant wages, our failing industrial sector, our hyper-militarized police force, and wonder "How did we get here?" I can tell you how we got here: COINTELPRO. The FBI's war on political freedom. I don't believe for a second it ever stopped, rather, they just found new euphemisms to use. I believe the behaviour of our law enforcement agencies to destabalize progressive movements has been WILDLY destructive to our culture and politics. The FBI and law enforcement agencies use federal funds to destabilize and destroy our worker and leftist movements over and over again. Progress cannot happen because whenever people begin to organize, their organizations are destroyed. Look at Occupy Wall Street, a valid movement protesting the bailing out of big, corrupt banking institutions while leaving the average person out to dry. They were maced, demeaned by the media, their organizers stalked and harassed by police organizations. reply fwsgonzo 2 hours ago [–] I wonder if the number and size of the 3-letter agencies in the US make this a certainty simply because people want to have something to do. And they can't go after money, not even the IRS does that: https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich reply AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago [–]
I believe the behaviour of our law enforcement agencies to destabalize progressive movements has been WILDLY destructive to our culture and politics.
It's important to realize that this isn't partisan behavior. They use the same tactics against anarchists and anti-authoritarians, or really any threat to institutional power. An obvious recent example on the other side being their campaign against Trump, e.g. Steele Dossier, and the apparently true Hunter Biden story being derided as "Russian disinformation" by "intelligence sources" in the run up to the election. Because Trump, for all his faults, was one of the most prominent threats to institutional power in recent history. And Trump sucks, let's be clear about that, but it's the same dynamic and it's important to see it for what it is even when it's being deployed against someone you don't like. reply alsetmusic 4 hours ago [–] This type of behavior has resulted in an inquiry of long-term (up to five years at a time) police undercover work in the UK[0]. There is a short podcast series on the ways in which UC police wrecked the lives of women with whom they entered into long-term sexual relationships as part of their cover. Really unconscionable behavior by the state. The series is called Bed of Lies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Policing_Inquiry reply HashThis 6 hours ago [–] And that was before the FBI had NSA's data on US citizens. The FBI's version of X-Keyscore has a different name. reply AndrewBissell 6 hours ago [–] It's obvious these sorts of programs are still ongoing. Probably all that really came out of the Congressional inquiries in the 1970s was the development of better methods to keep them hidden from the public. We only know about COINTELPRO because some mysterious group of activists stole a bunch of the records from an FBI field office in Pennsylvania! reply boomboomsubban 5 hours ago [–] They aren't mysterious anymore, six members of the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI revealed themselves a few years ago. reply AndrewBissell 5 hours ago [–] TIL! Kinda surprising none of them suffered any repercussions but I suppose enough time had passed it wasn't considered worth drawing attention to it. reply arminiusreturns 3 hours ago [–] Isnt that just a bunch of conspiracy theories? Hanlons razor! Its just a few bad actors not systemic to the org. At least it stopped after the Church committee, because its impossible to keep a secret conspiracy secret. Its just a bunch of coincidences that aligned by chance. Did everyone here forget their tinfoil hat? We should censor such conspiracy craziness for the greater good, because the platforms are private and have every right to do so, also people who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally ill. Talk like this is just illogical people trying to put meaning to events that happen where there is none. Its not like there is cordination among rich and powerful groups of people to conspire against the people, thats just a cliched trope. reply AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago [–] Conspiracy theory: Many crazy conspiracy theories are published and promoted by intelligence agencies to foster public distrust in the existence of actual conspiracies. Meanwhile many "crazy conspiracy theories" are based on a real conspiracy, so if QAnon is full of bullshit then Epstein is a non-story and anyone asking questions is a conspiracy nut. reply ilaksh 5 hours ago [–] There's a phenomenon I have noticed where things like these are okay to discuss if they involve someone else's government or if they are far enough back in the past. But there is some cut-off point closer to present day where sinister-sounding allegations about one's own government automatically become "insane conspiracy theories". It's just good to know that anything bad they were doing is over now. It must be. Because the US government, and all of its agencies and military actions, despite a few bad apples in the past, is trustworthy and true to the pure mission of democracy and freedom for all. And there are never any "means to an end" "ethical compromises" anymore. Other countries, sure. But ours? No, of course we rooted all of that out. Only the pure of heart survive here. The pure light of Democracy doesn't permit evil or corruption or subversion to survive. And anyone who suggests otherwise and makes a serious allegation against the government or admits a fundamental lack of trust for it, is definitely mentally ill and should be publicly noted as such. /s reply godelski 4 hours ago [–] Just the other day I brought up that many countries use things like memes to modify public perception. Topic was about China but I brought up that everyone else does it too (US, Russia, Israel, Germany, etc) and people thought it was insane and a conspiracy theory(specifically that anyone would want to influence Reddit because it is "a small website"). It honestly feels like we're gaslighting ourselves because this topic has been so openly discussed over the last 50 years that it is hard to say that this isn't happening. Though maybe because I suggested agencies use memes now instead of more well known sock puppets. Even on HN news I've been downvoted for this. I guess people don't think memes are being weaponized, even when they are explicitly referred to as such by those in the military[0] and other agencies. Actually one thing I've liked about The Boys (on Prime) is how it shows the viral marketing of Stormfront and how it is manipulating people (and how people didn't even notice the not even remotely subtle naming of the character). I guess that just shows how effective of a tool all this is. [0] https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE?t=1287 reply dang 4 hours ago [–] The problem isn't that it doesn't happen, it's that there's no reliable way to tell when it's happening vs. isn't, and internet users are, let's call it, rather undisciplined about jumping to conclusions. On any divisive topic, people eagerly proclaim without a shred of evidence that some comment they don't like has been planted. Soon there are astroturfers and spies and foreign agents under every bed. However much real manipulation may be happening, it's plain that many people are simply indulging their assumptions and fantasies about this, which quickly inflates to grandiose levels. This has an extremely degrading effect on discussion, surely at least as degrading as any sophisticated campaigns. That's why the HN guidelines ask people not to post such insinuations [1]—it's not because such things don't exist. It's because once a topic gets polarized enough, it always feels like the other side isn't arguing in good faith. In the absence of some specific evidence or data or something at least a teeny bit objective to go on, the default presumption has to be that the other user is commenting in good faith and just has a totally different view than you do (I don't mean you personally, of course). I find it helpful to imagine that we're already at the endgame of this, which is that everything is potentially manipulated and artificial. I call this the SSM: imagine a Sufficiently Smart Manipulator [2], smart enough to plant whatever they want, make it sound authentic, and leave no traces that we can detect in the data. What can we do in such a situation? Only what we should be doing anyway, which is thinking and writing clearly and respectfully replying to bad arguments with better ones. Since that's the only answer in the long run, we might as well practice it now. It has the desirable side effect of strengthening the community, and a healthy community is the best immune system against all forms of manipulation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=sufficiently%20smart%20by:dang... reply godelski 4 hours ago [–] I think this is the root of it but also why it is so effective. You can never tell when it is happening and when it works correctly it causes people to independently mimic and generate new content for you. Even better when you push the very topics to the extreme. Either this is being done at such a large scale with such precision that the lizard people effectively are mind controlling the population vs it doesn't happen at all (for what it is worth I'm on the very mundane end of the spectrum). The former I would call gaslighting but I don't have a great term for the latter, maybe someone else does? Side note: interesting to see you outside your moderator role and thanks for the service to the community and your thoughtful addition to the discussion. Edit: (You got a ninja edit on me!) I think the point you make about the sufficiently smart enough effect. And I do like that the community here is (imo) much better at self enforcement with good faith arguments. But would not a simple tactic be to encourage the use of bad faith arguments? That seems fairly simple to execute and an easy way to generate a Divide and Rule[0] tactic. But I think when it comes down to it the impossibility to even know is what makes all this both very interesting and frustratingly difficult (as well as effective). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule reply dang 3 hours ago [–] (Sorry about editing the rug under you - I write these comments by adding to them bit by bit, but it somehow only 'works' if I do it live.) You're raising an important point which I think about a lot. It's very clear to me that most users who get into intense arguments about divisive topics are true believers. The anger and hurt feelings that energize these arguments and get re-energized by them are too unmistakeable to just be cynically planted. But it may be that these are second-order effects of propaganda systems. If you convince enough people and get them feeling angry and hurt enough, they'll do your job for you, and much better, simply by being intensely sincere. You can't say that these commenters are manipulators, because they're not. "You're a shill!!" is simply going to meet with justified indignation, and "you've been brainwashed!!" is no good either. The whole distinction between "manipulated" vs. "authentic" simply doesn't help address the dynamics of what really goes on in these discussions. You can't use it to make anything better. That's not to say that we should do nothing when we find some real indication of actual manipulation—the opposite is the case. But it doesn't make that much difference when the 'organic' dynamics point in the same direction. Certainly it doesn't solve the problem. Another extremely powerful factor that does the propagandist's work for them in an entirely innocent way is tribalism. Is it manipulation if I feed your beliefs about your identity and (especially) the opposing identity in a way that inflames you with indignation against the enemy? That "food" is so eagerly gobbled by the consumer that at some point you have to ask who's influencing who. The tribal psyche, which we not only all have but are almost totally dominated by, is enough to generate the situation all on its own. Media stories will feed it because that's what people want. No one can get enough of hearing how good their group is and how bad the opposing one is. This force is so powerful that it's not even possible to discuss it, except in the abstract. In my experience, if you take that seriously then you eventually feel that even such external manipulators as are lurking out there are really only effective by activating the real manipulators, which are inside ourselves. "We have met the enemy and it is us," etc. This perspective is much better because it is empowering: we can do something about it, we can work on it, we can change. The other perspective (external agents are manipulating things!) just leads to a wilderness of mirrors, even if external agents doubtless are manipulating things. There's nothing we can do about that, except in the important (but relatively rare) case where evidence appears; in the absence of evidence, all we're doing is projecting our shadows onto each other. The reason I think the sufficiently-smart-manipulator argument is a good one is that besides being the only response that can actually work, it points us directly at what we need to be doing anyway, which is addressing these more powerful factors in ourselves. Ok, I'm done editing for the moment :) reply godelski 2 hours ago [–] These are some really good points. It is reminding me a lot of one of my favorite John Cleese videos[0]. One of the things that I think makes this so difficult is that language has a lot of limits that people don't realize. Since we often don't run into issues with communication (or rather don't notice since the errors are small) it is difficult to realize when we're in boundary cases. For example there's priming[1]. Many may learn that this is a useful way to influence people and many are aware of the psychological experiments, but it is also a fundamental part of how we communicate. We try to communicate the most information with the least amount of words. But this same factor is why good faith arguments are so important but also difficult to maintain. We could not easily converse if we didn't make certain assumptions about another person's views. This is normally fine but we run into problems in heated topics where we often act like someone can only hold an extreme opinion (and of course, mine is not extreme and just common sense). It's the "oh, I've heard this argument before" and while one person may have subtext another may not (why it is difficult to identify dog whistling). Removing nuance from a topic makes it easy, and we like easy things. But that's not beneficial to resolving issues and like you say "leads to a wilderness of mirrors". But it is impossible to tell if priming like this is actively being pushed or naturally happening, since we do have a natural predisposition to form tribes and groups. We're nuanced and thoughtful with our arguments while they are overly simplifying and idiotic. They just want a win while we want to actually fix things. And since this kind of talk is natural it is also almost impossible to figure out if I'm doing the thing I'm actively complaining about or not. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/priming reply AndrewBissell 3 hours ago [–]
But it may be that these are second-order effects of propaganda systems. If you convince enough people and get them feeling angry and hurt enough, they'll end up doing your job for you, and much better, simply by being intensely sincere. You can't say that these commenters are manipulators, because they're not. "You're a shill!!" is simply going to meet with justified indignation, and "you've been brainwashed!!" is no good either.
This is a really important point and something I try to very consciously and actively resist, not always successfully. The thought "these are all bots" may be a more comforting one to most people than "lots and lots of my fellow human beings have been manipulated into behaving like bots." I would bet an SSM might even have sockpuppets demo and engage in this tactic to encourage divisions. reply AndrewBissell 3 hours ago [–] Would like to echo your compliments to dang. The only bit of pushback I would make to his point is that if the SSM really does exist, perhaps the correct course of action is to reduce our participation as much as possible and move our engagement to less easily manipulated forms of communication, particularly face-to-face meetings. Perhaps, even if we do our best to post in good faith and make well reasoned, careful arguments, in the end we only lend a superficial credibility to a system which still has a negative effect in the aggregate (because it has been engineered to do so). And yes, I'm aware of the inherent hypocrisy in posting this on a (well!) moderated forum with a system of largely opaque voting and flagging. :-) reply SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [–] It's just a pretty fuzzily defined theory. It's surely true that Western governments use memes and similar content to convince people of things. Quite often they do so openly, with military ads and public health messages and such. But China dictates public perception - in addition to sending messages, the government has full editorial control over all major social media platforms, and regularly intervenes to shut off discussion on any topic they'd prefer people not to hear about. It seems very unlikely Western governments are doing anything like that. reply neves 4 hours ago [–] And everybody here believe that US Gov has no influence in the recommendation algorithms of the main social networks. That they don't an army of fake profiles to direct public opinion to their economical benefit. reply cwkoss 4 hours ago [–] In America, we tend to amplify outrage at irrelevant things instead of silencing the important ones. Works just as well and is harder to prove. reply godelski 4 hours ago [–]
we tend to amplify outrage
I think this is the key word here which makes it impossible to differentiate sock-puppetry from genuine outrage (or at least genuine levels of outrage). I think this is why some turn to monsters under every bed (as dang suggested) vs gaslighting. The fact that this is both extremely transparent and very opaque makes it very difficult to even have a discussion. That is amplified by the difficulties we have in communicating and being able to determine where someone is on the spectrum of "doesn't exist" to "microphones in my vaccine" reply AndrewBissell 4 hours ago [–] Blatant censorship tends to call attention to things and reveal to people that their perceptions are being manipulated. It's much subtler and more effective to exercise editorial control over nominally "independent" media by firing reporters pushing stories about inconvenient truths, which Allen Dulles used to do by simply calling up the heads of major newspapers. reply SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [–] But inconvenient truths come out all the time, don't they? If the CIA had the power to keep stories they don't like out of the national conversation, they surely would have used on the Snowden leaks or Abu Ghraib. reply godelski 3 hours ago [–] I think the Snowden case is actually a good point. When we look at how officials responded they shifted the conversation to metadata to downplay the amount of information and what that information could be used for. It does seem like their responses were fairly effective since people don't consider metadata particularly useful. But also a large amount of people don't even know who Snowden is and opinions on him are quite divided (and there are radicals with ridiculous opinions on both sides that often take the spotlight). I don't think people seriously talking about this think the government has an all seeing power or a hand in everything (I personally don't think even China does). So it would not be expected that the CIA/NSA or any agency could prevent a story like that from eventually breaking. But the question is how effective are they at being able to downplay it and sway public opinion? Personally I see it as subtle and frequent nudging more than active control. reply AndrewBissell 3 hours ago [–] Compare the way media covered the Snowden leaks vs the Vault 7 ones. The Vault 7 leaks basically show that as soon as you're a person of sufficient interest to the state, tools like Signal and Tor (for which Snowden is probably the highest profile proponent) are at best useless, and at worst might just paint a target on your back. But hardly anyone has ever heard of them. reply ClumsyPilot 3 hours ago [–] Russian government has the same power in regards to VKontakte, Yandex, etc. However it does not really stop stories spreading. What they have realised recently, is that injecting misinformation, even if it's outrageous bullshit, is far more effective. Coming back to the West: Snowden and Assange are still pariahs, Assange is remembered by the public as a rapist escaping justice rather than for wikileaks. Id say the strategy is working. reply VintageCool 2 hours ago [–] I think that Assange is best known for WikiLeaks, but WikiLeaks is now a pariah after the 2016 US election. reply neves 4 hours ago [–] Read Greenwald book to know how many big news organizations refuse to publish Snowden leaks. reply viro 3 hours ago [–] Greenwald has really hurt his credibility in recent years. reply AnthonyMouse 46 minutes ago [–] Greenwald has continued to cover both US political parties critically. In an era of hyper-partisanship, anyone not choosing a tribe and remaining loyal to it is treated as a pariah by those who do, but it's the latter group who have lost their credibility. reply AndrewBissell 4 hours ago [–] I don't think they have the power to exercise total control or prevent (much of) the truth from eventually coming out, in particular now that alternative sources have become more widespread. Again it's a balancing act -- mixing some of these things into the mainstream sources which are meant to be trusted helps to lend them credibility, and there seems to have been no serious repercussions to any programs or the players involved from the Snowden or Abu Ghraib leaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout reply yrimaxi 2 hours ago [–] Eh, memes (or the theory about memes) are so early-aughts. reply AndrewBissell 4 hours ago [–] The funny thing is, a strategy to do this kind of thing was explicitly laid out by a U.S. Army major named Michael Aquino in 1980. He appears to have gained influence after his paper's publication and was promoted to lieutenant colonel. I imagine the sort of things he advocated had already been going on for some time so I don't think he represented some kind of inflection point, but it's not like this stuff has never been openly discussed. https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/mindwar-michael-aquino.pdf reply giardini 40 minutes ago [–] ilaksh says >"It's just good to know that anything bad they were doing is over now."< One could make that assumption but since, if something bad once happened then it might also have happened before, after, or now in the same or other context[and almost certainly did, will, or is happening]. If we see a system fail we must become more alert in watching for failure. If we put fail-safes in place we must constantly monitor and verify they are working properly, probably forever. Always verify. As for mental illness: by now in human history it should be clear that a man may try most anything to improve his lot, even at the expense of others. Neither mental illness nor malevolence is required. It is best to keep an open mind when examining motive. reply DubiousPusher 5 hours ago [–] Had exactly this kind of cognitive disonant moment with a friend of mine the other day. They were going off about Chinese persecution of Uighurs (which is terrible and should stop). When I pointed out that the Chinese government claims this as an antiterror campaign and compared it to America's disasterous antiterror campaign they were not having it. P.S. Before I get dogpiled, I am not saying that one justifies the other or that they are identical. reply dukeofdoom 3 hours ago [–] I visited Aruba a decade ago. The Hotel TV picked up a channel fro Venezuela. It was amazing. It was like the Hugo Chavez action channel. Hugo playing baseball. Hugo interacting with a farmer, Hugo riding in the back of a truck... and so on. That day I learned all I need to know about TV. And those who control it. There's also this great song by John Mayer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBIxScJ5rlY reply AndrewBissell 5 hours ago [–]
But there is some cut-off point closer to present day where sinister-sounding allegations about one's own government automatically become "insane conspiracy theories".
This is indeed a really interesting, perhaps even engineered, phenomenon. It's quite striking for example that people will clamor to have Confederate generals' or even George Washington's name removed from schools and public buildings, but don't bat an eye at having a major airport named after the Dulles brothers. reply godelski 4 hours ago [–] I think engineered outrage has been openly discussed for quite some time. America does it to its own people. Other nations do it to and about American citizens. And this isn't even remotely unique to America. Every major country plays the same game, just to different degrees (if anyone is aware of a major country that doesn't play this I'm honestly interested). Why would "trying to manipulate perception" be surprising for a country to do? Is that not what propaganda is at the root of it? Why wouldn't this idea also advance and get better? We've got native advertising, why not native propagandizing? (foreign and/or domestic) And why would America or China (insert enemy) be unique in using this tactic? reply AndrewBissell 4 hours ago [–] Agreed on all points. What's interesting to consider is the implications of the existence of a technology like social media which can provide the perfect means for short feedback cycles, experimentation, and mass dissemination. And then you dig into the military roots of the internet itself and start really rubbing your chin. There's a good account on Twitter that delves into some of this: https://twitter.com/cuttlefish_btc reply SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [–] The cutoff point is simply the point where modern politics tempts people to fire off streams of sarcastic quips instead of discussing the evidence and why they believe it. I've never seen for example the ATF gunwalking scandal described as a "conspiracy theory", because the people calling out the ATF focused on concrete evidence for specific accusations of wrongdoing. reply PaulHoule 4 hours ago [–] That cointelpro method became the flamboyant sting directed at the mafia after illegal gambler j Edgar Hoover died and no longer covered for them. reply baby 3 hours ago [–] Is there a good documentary on gov or political disruption as attacks? reply dundarious 3 hours ago [–] There is a documentary about the burglars [0] who revealed COINTELPRO, called 1971 [1]. It's really an awful name for SEO! It was released in 2014 so searches for "1971 2014" might return useful results. Funnily enough, there is also a completely unrelated film called '71. Anyway, 1971 is more about the reveal of the program, so details about the program itself are secondary. I would love to see a documentary/drama series about UK agent provocateur, Bob Lambert [2].
To gain credibility as an activist, he formed friendships with other movement members; he also embarked in long-term relationships with women as a means of establishing a cover story. He fathered a child with one of the activists he was spying on.
In 2013, it was reported that while undercover with London Greenpeace, Lambert had co-authored the 'McLibel leaflet', which resulted in a defamation lawsuit from McDonald's Corporation that took ten years to resolve.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve... [1] https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/1971/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lambert_(undercover_police... reply freen 3 hours ago [–] It is well known that the bulk of the budget for the American communist party was, and continues to be funded by CIA stooges’ dues. reply ed25519FUUU 6 hours ago [–] After we wake up and stop playing this bizarre “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” game with Trump, the hangover from what the FBI (and the CIA) did in OUR elections is going to be massive. Make distrusting the intelligence agencies cool again! reply jancsika 5 hours ago [–]
Make distrusting the intelligence agencies cool again.
How about "make citing sources and referring explicitly to documented acts of corruption cool again." reply AndrewBissell 5 hours ago [–] By this line of reasoning you would not have distrusted the FBI up until the moment these stories broke in the mid 70s, long after the point where that distrust would have been useful in the present moment. reply jancsika 3 hours ago [–] I'm not in favor of vague statements like OP's initial comment, which is compatible with (and on it's own, indistinguishable from) wild conspiracy theories. It appears from OP's subsequent comment that OP was referring to stories in the run-up to the 2016 election that depended on anonymous/pseudonymous sources with links to the intelligence agencies. In that case there is a wealth of reporting on those issues-- some similar to the one the OP has now posted which were before the election, but many more in the aftermath of it. Hell, writing on the subject of blind trust in anonymous intelligence sources is apparently the raison dêtre of Glenn Greenwald these days. Pick any piece at random of his from The Intercept or substack and I'd bet you'll find reputable sources regarding trumped-up 2016 election stories that back up his general argument about how problematic that practice is. Other writers have done the same, consistently, for years now. Given that wealth of easily searchable material (which, btw, has stood the test of time and been corroborating by other sources), being comfortable making vague statements and encouraging blanket distrust is irresponsible. Are you and OP bedfellows with the "stop the steal" idgets who AFAICT are following the "make distrusting the deep state cool again" to the tee? I'm not. If you aren't either, then I don't see how you would distinguish your positions if not through clear-headed discussion of documented acts of corruption. I also don't see why we shouldn't go out of our way to distinguish our own distrust from the myriad active campaigns to exploit people's growing general distrust to siphon money from them. (The hundreds of millions Trump has raised is one such example.) Also notice how OP's follow-up essentially implies that I would not be able to easily figure out the truth without doing my own personal research project. MSM can't be trusted. Intelligence can't be trusted. But personal speculation is apparently in play: "Is that by accident?" OP asks, again without explanation as to scope, evidence, etc. of the implication. That way lies rabbit holes. reply ed25519FUUU 5 hours ago [–] My first experience being “black pilled” with the Russia hoax was finally getting to the bottom of what that whole “trump tower computer backchannel to Russian Alfa bank” thing was all about[1] (this link will not give you the answer, just allegations) As a technical person it made me curious. A direct “connection”? Was it an IRC channel? Was trump talking directly to a Russian bank over AOL instant messenger?? Lol what a joke it turned out to be. Good luck to you as you wade through mountains of MSM excrement in search of answers. It’s easy to find the allegations and hard to find the truth. Is that by accident? Make distrusting the intelligence agencies great again! 1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-server-tied-to-russi... reply VintageCool 2 hours ago [–] It was three servers doing DNS lookups on each other. One was Alfa Bank. One was in Trump Tower. One was at Spectrum Health, which is owned by the DeVos family. Notable members include Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and Blackwater founder Erik Prince. Erik Prince is known to set up backchannel meetings between the Trump team and Putin associates in the Seychelles. reply ed25519FUUU 2 hours ago [–] You’re leaving out the crucial details as to why any DNS queries or connections were made, while also still clinging to some allusion of malfeasance. Also you might want to let Snopes know. They still have it as “unproven” reply dragonwriter 5 hours ago [–] Maybe, but news from 1975 that already was part of revelations of that nature that triggered their backlash, legislative responses, and every other kind of “hangover” they could, before many people voting today we're even born, probably aren't much of a factor in that except as precedent and context, not news or triggering events. reply ed25519FUUU 5 hours ago [–] If you thought it was bad in 1975, wait until you learn about the patriot act, FISA courts, and FVEYS! reply dragonwriter 3 hours ago [–] There weren't “FISA courts” before the revelations in the 1970s because there was no judicial oversight or legal limits with penalties applied to surveillance by the national security apparatus at all. FISA, the courts it created, and the criminalization of domestic surveillance outside of specified limitations were part of the backlash against the abuses that were revealed in the mid-1970s. reply ed25519FUUU 2 hours ago [–] I miss the days when “wiretapping” someone literally required you to physically tap into a wire. It’s so much easier to do it now. reply tehjoker 6 hours ago [–] [flagged] krapp 6 hours ago [–]
It's crazy how the intelligence agencies used Trump to make themselves look like knights in shining armor to liberals
That's not a thing that actually happened - "liberals" don't trust the intelligence agencies any more or less than they did before Trump. And I don't know why this article has people suddenly running defense for Trump when it doesn't even mention him. But interesting play nonetheless. reply tehjoker 6 hours ago [–] Remember all the intelligence people, like former CIA director Brennan that became MSNBC pundits? Remember the time they made a big deal of Trump offending the CIA in front of the wall of fallen heroes? For the record, I despise Trump. I am not defending him, but I don't like people thinking highly of the longstanding dark institutions that have been at the heart of American politics since WW2. Trump = Bad does not mean any other part of the American state is good. reply AndrewBissell 6 hours ago [–] It's not just the intelligence agencies. Gallup polling shows liberals' trust in the media skyrocketed after Trump's election and has remained persistently high despite the whole Russiagate farce. reply triceratops 5 hours ago [–]
Russiagate farce
You mean when the DoJ indicted, charged, or successfully prosecuted a number of Russian nationals and members of the Trump administration for election-related crimes or obstruction of justice? That farce? Like someone said, "For a purported witchhunt, they sure found a lot of actual witches." reply jokethrowaway 5 hours ago [–] As an outsider I don't follow much USA politics, so apologies if I got the gist wrong and I'd appreciate corrections. For my bias, I mainly read left wing publications, listen to right wing YouTubers and I'm an anarcho-capitalist. The claim sold by the media was that Russia "hacked" the elections, making Trump win. (that was before this year's message that election meddling is highly unlikely) What was found out was contact with Russia to dig dirt on Trump's opponents. Sure, it may be illegal, but that's hardly interesting. reply triceratops 4 hours ago [–]
The claim sold by the media was that Russia "hacked" the elections
I didn't see that. Most of the claims were about Russian social media campaigns. We'll never know if those campaigns made a significant difference, but they certainly did happen. The other big thing was the DNC hack, also probably orchestrated by Russia.
What was found out was contact with Russia to dig dirt on Trump's opponents.
I'd call that highly illegal, highly interesting, and even more worrisome than the prospect of a few hacked Diebold machines. A President who conspired with a foreign power to win election? Can you imagine the leverage that foreign power would have over such a President? With machine hacking, the President can claim ignorance. No such chance here. The last guy who did that was named Richard Nixon.[1][2] 1. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vie... 2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nix... reply maxerickson 4 hours ago [–] There were not mainstream US media claims that the Russians hacked the 2016 elections. On the other hand, there were lots of stories about Russian influence operations. reply ed25519FUUU 1 hour ago [–] Did you watch basically any cable news in 2016? They literally started the Russian collusion special counsel investigations from allegations Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails to help Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-t... reply maxerickson 1 hour ago [–] The phrase 'Russia "hacked" the elections, making Trump win' implies tampering with the voting and vote counting. You've linked an influence operation that may have involved computer hacking. It's also, you know, pretty clear that Russia was running influence operations, not a media delusion. reply AnthonyMouse 6 minutes ago [–] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1344319775464415239 AndrewBissell 5 hours ago [–] If all that was on offer from the beginning was taking out a few lackeys like Manafort and Stone obviously it wouldn't have captured liberals' attention the way it did. They were expecting a big break of evidence that Trump was a Manchurian candidate installed by the master Svengali Putin. It was a classic psychological deflection tactic on liberals' part, "Trump's election can't be a symptom of any real institutional rot in America, it's just a result of dirty foreign tricks that will be exposed and easily rectified by removing Trump." Even the New Yorker was finally forced to admit "maybe we went too far with this." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/14/is-russian-med... reply triceratops 4 hours ago [–]
They were expecting a big break of evidence that Trump was a Manchurian candidate installed by the master Svengali Putin
"It couldn't be proved to be bad as some people said" is not the same thing as "farce". The stuff that was proven was bad and illegal. The Mueller report concluded that there was some evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.[1] The investigation achieved multiple convictions and indictments.
"Trump's election can't be a symptom of any real institutional rot in America, it's just a result of dirty foreign tricks that will be exposed and easily rectified by removing Trump.
It's not an either-or. Trump was only ever a competitive candidate due to real, deep problems and widespread disillusionment with the establishment. But it's also possible that Russian social media campaigns, the DNC email hacks, and the Comey letter tipped the scales (80k votes in 3 states) in his favor in 2016. We'll never really know. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Redacted_report... reply jeffreyrogers 6 hours ago [–] Liberals tripped over themselves to push a story about Russian bounties that can't be corroborated[0] and that was criticized by people like Glenn Greenwald, hardly a right-winger. It's fine to hate Trump I guess and if you think the ends justify the means, that's your right, but it's demonstrably true that people who in normal years would be highly skeptical of anything coming out of the intelligence agencies are eager to promote anything that makes the Trump administration look bad. Edit: Another aspect of this story is that it was pushed after bipartisan support for exiting Afghanistan was emerging. So basically this "information" was put out there to keep us in a war no one likes and the putatively anti-war party eagerly promoted it because Trump is bad. Edit 2: I fully expected this comment to be downvoted, but I hope some of you downvoters will engage with my argument in the replies, since most of you have no argument against my claims, which are factually true. [0]: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-pentagon-officials-russi... reply JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago [–] Anyone claiming the Russian bounty program was a certainty or a hoax is misinformed. Some credible agencies had a high degree of confidence; others, such as the NSA, disagreed [1]. “Can’t be corroborated” reflects the NSA’s view, but not the CIA or NIC’s, who found it “credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of certainty.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_bounty_program reply cheaprentalyeti 5 hours ago [–] I can't even say this without sounding like a "whataboutism," but the main material support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, for the last nineteen years, roughly two decades of war, has been Pakistan, and we've done NOTHING about it but keep shoveling them money in exchange for the transit rights to ship material through to support our troops in a rearguard fight against their minions. WE are paying people to kill US troops by ignoring what Pakistan does with the money. And that they were harboring Osama Bin Laden for a decade. But we need to chase rumors that Russia does the same. Yeah, right. Maybe we need to stop sending troops to countries where they're not accomplishing anything besides being hostages? reply AndrewBissell 5 hours ago [–] The tone of the initial NYT story that broke the scoop certainly didn't reflect any of this uncertainty. Would have been a good idea for them to check in with the NSA or the DoD first! reply Zetaphor 6 hours ago [–] James Comey and Robert Mueller were popular among the left (of which I consider myself a part) because of their resistance to Trump reply munk-a 6 hours ago [–] "among the left" is a really wide net to throw and I don't think it really does any favors to your statement to be so overly general. I think it's pretty much the mirror image of the Benghazi investigations. Some investigating needed to happen, but politics got involved and turned the whole thing into a circus. This isn't particularly surprising since the US's two party system usually leads to extremely incompatible "truths" now that social media bubbles exist. reply 8note 1 hour ago [–] I'm pretty sure the left dislikes James Comey quite a lot since he did a last minute "give Trump's Hillary emails conspiracy a false sense of legitimacy right before the election" thing reply AndrewBissell 6 hours ago [–] Both of these guys have been involved in really shady stuff in America's past, they are career company men and never represented or mounted any real threat to Trump. Comey may even be a big part of how Trump even became POTUS in the first place. reply bee_rider 6 hours ago [–] "The left" is multiply defined. If you mean Democrats generally, the party has become the number one home of middle class people with college degrees. They are naturally going to be more comfortable with the FBI than, say, old school left wing labor activists. It seems less likely that opinions are changing, and more likely that people with certain opinions are moving. reply krapp 6 hours ago [–]
James Comey and Robert Mueller were popular among the left (of which I consider myself a part) because of their resistance to Trump
Because of their resistance to Trump. That doesn't translate to the left, in general, suddenly being in favor of and trusting the three letter agencies or the military industrial complex. You know, the side of the political spectrum with all of the anti-war protestors and socialists. The narrative is bizarre. Edit: never mind, I see this is about discrediting Russiagate for whatever reason, I get it now. reply dukeofdoom 5 hours ago [–] They've done a great job with political prosecutions of Trump's inner circle and the people that helped to get him elected. Successful Prosecuted or Charged: Steve Bannon Michale Flyn Julian Assange Paul Manaford And Trump Himself (impeachment) Let that be a lesson to any future Populists! reply munk-a 5 hours ago [–] I assume that was stated with heavy sarcasm since two of those people (Micheal Flynn + Paul Manafort) have already been pardoned[1] and none of them were either handed or likely to be handed serious sentences anyways. Michael Flynn is as close as you can get to a legit case of treason and his sentencing had already been kicked down the road several times. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi... reply dukeofdoom 5 hours ago [–] Well actually, Flynn case was based on him lying to an FBI agent during a party. The case was pure entrapment. It was so bad, that eventually the government itself asked for the case to be dismissed. Then a partisan hack judge (Sullivan), decided that he was going to continue with the prosecution by appointing his own prosecutor (I kid you not). Watch a lawyer explain what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svYdF4UvJf0 More background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKQG1lM0gvU reply mhh__ 4 hours ago [–]
It was so bad, that eventually the government itself asked for the case to be dismissed.
I'm sure that's why and not Flynn's relationship with the President... reply dukeofdoom 3 hours ago [–] If you think the courts are on Trump's side, you haven't been paying attention. reply 8note 2 hours ago [–] Didnt the government ask for the case to be dismissed after flyn had already pled guilty? reply namdnay 4 hours ago [–]
It was so bad, that eventually the government itself asked for the case to be dismissed
“The government” being William Barr... I’m not sure how him pushing to drop charges on a fellow Trump ally signals anything about their validity reply useragent86 3 hours ago [–] This is a great example of how public perception has been manipulated by the media. In fact, the Obama DOJ set Flynn up, sending two FBI agents to question him before the transition to the new administration. They pretended that he was not the subject of the investigation, so Flynn felt no need to have an attorney present while being questioned. Afterward, the FBI agents themselves, on the form they filled out regarding the interview, stated that they did not think that Flynn lied. Regardless of that, the DOJ continued to prosecute Flynn for doing something completely normal for an incoming National Security Advisor to do, speak with a foreign diplomat. Only after bankrupting him with legal fees, which even forced him to sell his home, did they relent. And then, when the DOJ refused to further prosecute Flynn, a federal judge refused to dismiss the case, a bizarre act forcing Flynn's attorneys to file a plea with a superior court. The judge even appointed his own prosecutor to continue prosecuting Flynn! Now, why did all this happen? Is it because the then-newly elected President's incoming National Security Advisor spoke with a foreign diplomat? Or is it because the Obama administration hated Flynn because of what he did while running DIA (which they fired him for), and the incoming President appointed him to be his National Security Advisor, and the DOJ is apparently full of "#resist"ers? But that's not a perspective you'll hear from NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc.
From them, you hear, "Treason!"
The old saying applies: You can fool some of the people some of the time... reply munk-a 2 hours ago [–]
Regardless of that, the DOJ continued to prosecute Flynn for doing something completely normal for an incoming National Security Advisor to do, speak with a foreign diplomat. Only after bankrupting him with legal fees, which even forced him to sell his home, did they relent.
Just to clarify here... Michael Flynn was retained by a Turkish firm to try and run PR against a cleric that had fled to the US - he was not "reaching out" or "establishing open lines" - he was employed as a hatchet man against an American resident while employed as a National Security Advisor. When you take a cabinet level position in the US government it's generally accepted that you sever all foreign financial ties. reply namdnay 3 hours ago [–]
the DOJ continued to prosecute Flynn for doing something completely normal for an incoming National Security Advisor to do, speak with a foreign
So normal that he lied about it to the press and his own entire incoming administration? Yeah right reply dukeofdoom 3 hours ago [–] He's an Ally in the same Brutus was to Caesar. 1) Did not investigate any voter Fraud. Still ran his mouth saying there was none. Georgia seems to have a Zombie voting problem. Amazing! 2) Sat on the Hunter Biden investigation. Knew there was one, kept his mouth shut about it before the election when it could have helped Trump. Its debatable how much loyalty Republicans have to Trump. reply namdnay 3 hours ago [–]
He's an Ally in the same Brutus was to Caesar.
An interesting analogy...Brutus who was close and loyal to Caesar until Caesar’s extrajudicial and dictatorial excesses pushed him to put republic before family and kill his mentor? :) reply dukeofdoom 2 hours ago [–] Except Trump is not a dictator, no matter how much the TV tells you so. What you should realize you are defending the current two party system in the US. The same cabal of people that have been in power forever. Communism fell and new people took over. But these US politicians predate that. They're so old and corrupt, they are literally crapping their pants on live TV. Enjoy the Biden administration. Its all you deserve. https://youtu.be/7l04Xovebuc?t=32 reply 8note 2 hours ago [–] Kicking Flynn to jail is something you should support then? He's himself admitted to being one of those corrupt folks you're against. What makes you think trump isn't more of the same corruption? He brags about being a donor with benefits over the past 20+ years. The bad results from this corruption is the stuff that trump and his compatriots wanted done reply not_a_moth 6 hours ago [–]
sham “revolutionary” front groups used to disrupt a variety of political activities in this country
More recently, the riots leading up to 2020 election. Glad they mysteriously stopped now anyways. reply tehjoker 6 hours ago [–] It got cold out is the more obvious explanation. There's a reason they are called "hot summers" in the history books. However, there is an element of truth in the fact that the Biden campaign succeeded in coopting liberal civil rights people after the election. IMO they should continue to fight hard against state oppression, which will continue regardless of the face of power. reply tuesdayrain 2 hours ago [–] Google trends shows major spikes in "black lives matter" searches around election time https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... It's foolish to assume that is a coincidence. reply chokeartist 4 hours ago [–]
It got cold out is the more obvious explanation.
Right. Because if Trump won the cold would have curtailed rioting. Totally believable. reply zug_zug 6 hours ago [–] If it were up to me, I'd pass a law saying anybody hired by such agencies must take an oath to America, to report their bosses within the agency who violate morality, democracy, or legality, to an oversight court. Consider just for one moment how likely you would be to ask somebody to do something illegal if they have taken an oath to report you to an oversight body. reply cies 6 hours ago [–] They take oaths and break them. Oaths dont help. We need: less dark budgets, less people/positions "above the law", whistle blower protection programs for these heroes, and put people in jail who thought to be above the law (this never happened yet). You can go to jail for some weed, but executing evil-yet-state-sponsored atrocities is a serious career. Topsy turvy all the way. reply munk-a 6 hours ago [–] I agree specifically with less people/positions "above the law" but it'll be rough. The law in this case is politics - it's whatever the people say it is - and the political system is terribly broken right now. I think it is still proper to move these agencies to have more civilian oversight but in the short term we're going to see a whole lot of abuse of the system until our representation can be fixed. reply walshemj 5 hours ago [–] Should have split the FBI into a federal police force (with much stricter limits) and a smaller mi5 equivalent. reply munk-a 5 hours ago [–] I'm pretty certain we did - and that mi5 equivalent is the CIA. reply walshemj 5 hours ago [–] CIA cant work internally "supposedly" reply rgblambda 5 hours ago [–] Doesn't stop MI5 from doing shady shit. reply cwkoss 4 hours ago [–] Fully agree. Pardoning Snowden would be the most effective single act a president could take towards reducing corruption in the intelligence community. reply rmrfstar 6 hours ago [–] While the title is about CIA, its actually a story about DOJ and FBI. [1] The rot runs pretty deep. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-cove... reply meekrohprocess 5 hours ago [–] I wish that modern oaths also had curse clauses. It seems oddly common for autocrats and kleptocrats to have no problem screwing over millions of people, while still being terrified of religious or superstitious wrath. "So help me god" is not enough. How about, "And should I ever violate this sacred oath, in thought or in deed, may I be forever cursed and damned." Anyways, the US military already takes those sorts of oaths to refuse and report illegal orders, but they still commit plenty of war crimes. reply Lammy 5 hours ago [–] “Again, your ancestors were taught, ‘Never swear an oath that you don’t intend to keep, but keep your vows to the Lord God.’ However, I say to you, don’t bind yourself by taking an oath at all. Don’t swear by heaven, for heaven is where God’s throne is placed. Don’t swear an oath by the earth, because it is the rug under God’s feet, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King. And why would you swear by your own head, because it’s not in your power to turn a single hair white or black? But just let your words ring true. A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice. Anything beyond this springs from a deceiver.” - Matthew 5: 33–37 (TPT) reply AaronFriel 5 hours ago [–] There are evangelical Christian sites that interpret this as oaths of office being non-binding or non-Christian, and while I don't think many people consciously use that as a reason for violating their oaths, it's something to keep in mind. reply munk-a 5 hours ago [–] These are extremely twisted interpretations - a better way to read that is "Don't be a dick whether or not you took an oath - be truthful in all things." Those interpretations don't surprise me though since, like with any other group of people, there are a bunch of evangelical christians that bend the tenants of the group beyond a breaking point to suit their own interest. reply jfk13 5 hours ago [–] Who bend the tenants....? I don't think you mean that. Tenets, perhaps. reply pjc50 5 hours ago [–] I believe there's a similar clause in the German constitution. Something about all those people claiming at Nuremburg to just be following orders. reply boomboomsubban 5 hours ago [–] While the sentiment is good, this doesn't sound much different from loyalty oaths and policing your neighbors. reply jokethrowaway 5 hours ago [–] That's never going to work. Power mostly attracts the worst individuals. The only solution is not having these agencies reply DubiousPusher 5 hours ago [–] What? Get rid of the oaths entirely. It's just pageantry. It's the most human thing in the world to twist words to your desire and then justify it morally through rationist gymnastics. reply dietr1ch 5 hours ago [–] I'm ok with them only taking an oath to the US if that means they won't mess around with the rest of America reply colejohnson66 6 hours ago [–] Don’t they already do? reply "