Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by tanderson92 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tanderson92·

> We're talking about the FBI, not the NSA, and court documents.

It's called parallel construction; it has happened before and it will happen again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130...

View on HN

Why do they need parallel construction when The Intercept narrowed it to a single person (printed and lives in Augusta, GA)? I'm going to restrict my conversation on this topic to the reporting and sworn testimony.

I'm not shielding The Intercept from criticism. But the reporting is based on what the DOJ wanted released and I do not share your trust in what they say.

You are shielding The Intercept from criticism. The Intercept has not countered the DOJ testimony or any of the other reporting on this. The FBI has sworn that these things happened. So let us think through the counterfactual that you're proposing: The Intercept didn't burn their source and the FBI lied to a federal judge on a warrant application. In that reality, the Intercept would immediately publish a story about how the FBI lies to federal judges. Not only would it be a huge blockbuster, but that search warrant would be fucked and the search (during which she confessed) would be inadmissible. Not only do they have a huge story, they got their source off!

Instead, they released this chickenshit statement that tries to cast doubt on the testimony without actually disputing any of it: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/statement-on-justice-dep... So, it looks like we live in the reality where the FBI didn't lie on a warrant application and The Intercept burned a source.

I have not proposed a counterfactual, contrary to what you allege. I simply do not automatically trust what the DOJ believes simply because the FBI swore to it in an affidavit. The government lies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com