When I saw that statement, from a company spokesperson, it was striking.
Is it now respectable and advisable for a corporation to make official statements like this?
When I saw that statement, from a company spokesperson, it was striking.
Is it now respectable and advisable for a corporation to make official statements like this?
Their audience here is the incoming administration, which is founded on party loyalty and an "us-vs-them" mindset, where "them" are the corrupt elites.
They're making a bet that whoever is prosecuting them in 4 months is going to be a lot friendlier to them if they act like victims of a vengeful democratic elite, and they're probably right. Really smart, honestly.
Or all the people he pardon'd in exchange for indirect money.
It's literally transactional.
This kind of conspiratorial thinking dominates the Republican party and such a story would play well with the base. There is a clear motive for this approach - and it seems likely to work.
If that's the case, I would've expected to the statement to be something like, "From our understanding, our only crime is to have presented an analysis that the outgoing administration also understood to be valid."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/13/fbi-raid-...
I sincerely hope Congress performs their duty of oversight on the FBI well, so we can learn the truth of the matter. Overt politicization of federal law enforcement is a scary development.
The current US government is the most corrupt entity in the history of the world, if you multiple corruption times power.
And I love my country (USA), but just hate what the government has become over the past 60-80 years.
We have no information about why they are there, so you conclude it must be political retribution and they must be protected. THIS is why Trump won. So many people have zero critical thinking skills. When you see something that for which you have no information, you can say "I wonder what is going on." Then, you stop. Things that could be:
* Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns. * Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring. * Participating in dogfighting. * Been a back channel for selling trade secrets. * Had some people killed. * Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia. * or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.
But, given I have zero evidence to support any of this, let's stick with "let's see what they say."
- Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns. - Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring. - Participating in dogfighting. - Been a back channel for selling trade secrets. - Had some people killed. - Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia. - or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.
A real-world example of "zero evidence". Let's stick with "no lying". Also, in late 2024, giving the monstrously corrupt FBI the dishonesty-based benefit-of-the-doubt is beyond naive and comfortably in the realm of dishonest.
It has been days since I have seen such an example of "zero critical thinking skills"