emptywheel

Maybe re-read the thread, Jake. The whole point is not to be uncritical of the FBI, but not to recognize the Nunes fiasco isn't about whether the FBI is good or bad.

Point me to the part of your thread where you encourage people to make reasonable critiques of FBI current practices. I just see you labeling criticisms as “piling on” (conflating us with BS Trump attacks) & acknowledging Hoover was bad as though there are no current problems

Sorry, you read my thread that repeatedly pointed out that the FBI has engaged in abuses, that Hoover set up an unconst'l fourth branch and that it would be too dangerous to exist if it was politicized was too uncritical for you, Jake.

I didn’t misread it. You acknowledged abuses from 50 years ago but said we shouldn’t criticize it today and ignored serious current problems. My point is FBI problems are an important ongoing issue that don’t get benched because Nunes is a con artist

Jake is right, Matt. Virtually none of the people who routinely criticize CURRENT abuses, with rigor and evidence, hopped on the Nunes fiasco. Setting up the conflict in the way you have disappears the most responsible side of this.

I will admit ACLU and Snowden did bad tweets on it at end of 702 debate, but those were BY FAR the outlier and many privacy advocates (me included) said it was improper

Right: caricaturing those who do adhere to evidence and rigor (as seems all the rage among former spooks and agents these days) is undercutting the kind of evidence-based discussion that is necessary and responsible.

Thank you for demolishing a claim I didn't make and don't believe.