How the Interrogation of Reality Winner Reveals the Deceptive Tactics of "Friendly” FBI Agents

Source: theintercept.com/2017/12/28/how-the-interrogation-of-reality-winner-reveals-the-deceptive-tactics-of-exceedingly-friendly-fbi-agents/

Continued in next post

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

...

...

...

...

...

“OK,” Winner replied. “I would have to try to remember.”

...

...

...

This should be required reading for anyone who wants to be politically active against the state.

It also relates to the wisest legal advice any lawyer has ever given:

Do not ever say anything to the police without first consulting your attorney, and always use written statements through the mail not verbal Q&As whenever possible.

This would work, but the FBI in these cases blocked any and all exits. The solution would be to ask for a warrant, but that makes you look suspicious and for them to keep an extra eye on you. The days of even good advice like this working are beginning to vanish.

True, but it still works. Ultimately it's the victim's job to make the government's ability to crush them as time consuming and bureaucratic as possible. From the start, demanding everything in writing and sent through the mail means there's at least 48 hours between any communication, and communications can be revised and checked for errors/self-incrimination before they are sent. While not foolproof (lawyers charge a lot of money for this sort of shit), it's effective in slowing down an investigation and preventing the government from quickly getting enough to get a warrant. And if they do go to trial, it becomes easier for the victim to claim what information was/wasn't lawfully obtained which can affect how the court case goes.

The point is to put the brakes on. If the government is actually going to send a salaried person to your door then they have already committed resources to look at you. At that point, asking for clarification in writing is something the government must abide by because ultimately during a court case everything boils down to whatever written records the government can access. Even if the process cannot be stopped, it can be choked or hamstrung by it's own red tape if people know their rights.

What I fear the most is they know this is effective. And will do everything in their power to legally prevent it. And they have enormous power. Power that will never decrease as the years go by. I wonder how ineffective this might be to the future working class, while being very effective to the future ruling class.

That agent is soft selling it pretty impressively, I imagine they catch a lot of people off-guard like that.

That's certainly true, but again the goal here isn't so much to "beat" the government as it is to slow it down. The government operates on the written word and needs written records for everything it does, so demanding everything in writing almost always works - and it absolutely works in places where the government wants to begin a court case (where they will have to reference written records to obtain a conviction). Everything can be slowed down by demanding information out of investigators in writing - who they are, why they are there, who sent them, their contact info - which they will have to provide at some stage anyway. This is the medium to which lawyers operate through, everything being recorded in writing.

Again, remember that it all comes back down to the courts which need all their written rules to the followed for a case to be successful. As all accused people get a court-appointed attorney, providing everything in writing makes their job easier as it creates more opportunities for them to claim the government was mistaken or just wrong. Even if it's not enough to prevent a conviction, it can be enough to get some charges dropped or sentences reduced. It's about creating as much red tape as possible.

The only time it doesn't work is if you're driving a car or brandishing a firearm, where you might have to comply with police instructions (pulling a vehicle over, providing documents, dropping a gun) before they present anything in writing.

They're trained to be manipulative, it is what they are paid to do. The more self-incriminating information that can be gained in the field, the easier the ensuing court case will be. It is classic police work and you can even notice it when elementary school deans lean on students to rat each other out or stress them out enough to get them to swear (which can result in disciplinary measures that can be further used against them).

What chokes this is by asking for things in writing, where intentions and demands can be clearly seen.

basic stuff really, this video never gets old
youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Remember kids, never say anything to a police officer without a lawyer present. It's the number one most basic rule for staying out of prison and you don't need to know anything about the law besides that, that's what your lawyer is for.

What I find surprising about all this, is the disturbing aspect these agents knew about things she told her family offline, knew about her hobbies she spoke of online but knew of specific details nobody but her would know about since she didn't tell anyone about them.

This can mean a lot of things. It could mean her political beliefs made her a prime target for spying, by people who otherwise seem like normal passer bys. But what about the details about the dog in her house she told nobody?

I'm not implying these FBI agents are psychics, and what I'm suggesting might be bizarre. But Silicon Valley is already developing algorithms which predict human behavior, correct? The government always has this technology first, before the commercial market. Nearly always.

She worked for the US Air Force, we know she divulged secrets to the NSA. We know that both the US Armed Forces have sophisticated espionage capabilities, and the NSA, well, I think even the worst possible news we find out about the NSA is only scratching the surface. And then we have the FBI, who talked her into casual conversation about things nobody should know.

Is it not impossible, especially given the beefed up charges for no reason, that there was collaboration between the USAF, NSA, and FBI in this? I mean it would go through a lot of bureaucracy, but it just sounds to me that if there was no other way for the FBI to gather this information she told nobody and knew only herself, these "AI" algorithms are being used in far more powerful ways by the NSA? That NSA she leaked documents from?

What I'm suggesting here, is at this point, as far fetched as it may seem, is there a possibility that the NSA, given its brobdingnagian scale of Network surveillance that seemed impossible just 10 years ago, that the NSA has the technology Silicon Valley is pimping out but already far more sophisticated with far more resources at its disposal.

Like I keep repeating, this sounds outlandish, but I don't see a reason why she would lie about them knowing things nobody should know, and I have all the suspicion in the world of our intelligence agencies. It begs the question

Does the NSA have the software and hardware power, to effectively predict crime before it happens given a background on a specific individual?

Have we passed the point, where Philip K Dick's Pre-Crime has come into fruition, just without psychic precogs, but software.

Sorry,

What I meant was not necessarily predict crime, but predict human behavior.

This.

REMINDER THEINTERCEPT BASICALLY SNITCHED ON THIS PERSON TO THE FBI
Don't trust journalists.

I want to believe this is sarcasm.

thanks user

The absolute state of "rights" in a liberal democracy.