zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Aside from people in tech and the MAGA crowd, does anyone actually care about the "Twitter Files" stuff?

>>mikece+23
You may not mind it because you're side won. But that is incredibly short-sided. What if the FBI decides to sway an election to a candidate you don't support sometime in the future? See where this is going?

>>starkd+ff
Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI issued a press release about how they were urgently reopening an investigation not into the hack but into possible wrongdoing by the hacked candidate? And then later acknowledged there was no wrongdoing?

You're right; I really hate to think about what the fallout would be if the FBI inappropriately swayed an election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...

>>hairof+Dh
But the FBI was not actively hacking the emails. You are really just proving my point about the FBI unnecessarily involving itself in these issues. They are supposed to be impartial. That's this story should be taken seriously from a bipartisan perspective.

>>starkd+mk
Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929

>>Apocry+Nl
Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?

>>starkd+5I
The point is you alleged that the apathy in this was due to partisan selfishness. It’s clearly not if even the “winning side” is ambivalent about the feds cracking down on their partisans.

>>Apocry+3J
That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.

>>starkd+H62
Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?

>>Apocry+ef2
No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?

>>starkd+Zm2
Clinton’s loss can be blamed on a multitude of reasons, not least a failure to campaign in the relevant Rust Belt and Midwest states where she lost. Be that as it may, there is a running narrative in her party that the FBI’s actions under Comey, when it comes to the timing of the investigation and how the announcements regarding it were delivered, contributed to her loss.

At any rate, I am just pointing out the humorous irony involved in appealing to that party to watch the FBI lest “they might lose a future election”… they already believe themselves the losers of one because of FBI involvement!