← Back to context

Comment by tptacek

3 days ago

If you want to formulate a bank-shot argument about how this preys on people of Chinese ancestry, I'm fine with that. All I'm here to say is that you can't plausibly be charged with a FARA violation simply for arguing or protesting for a policy position that China happens to want you to take; the DOJ bears the burden of proving that you knew you were coordinating with China, directly, and, if it's a felony, willfully (that, is, voluntarily, deliberately, with a purpose to break the law).

Read Klippenstein's piece again. Does he want you to know this?

You can't plausibly be arrested by ICE if you're in the US legally, in theory, but look where we are.

I'm afraid that a paranoid, worst-case, bad faith assumption isn't something we can handwave away anymore.

  • amazing how his responses stopped immediately after posting this very obvious and overwhelming rebuttal.

    • Is that really how you think conversations work?

      The fact is that I don't have a stake in analyses about whether the administration is operating in good faith. I'm an opponent of the administration. I'm already sold on that point.

      My problem is with the Ken Klippensteins who are engagement farming with posts that misinform people about how the law works.

      If you're already winding up with a reply about how the law doesn't matter anymore, ask yourself "why are we talking about this then?" If it doesn't matter, they don't need to announce anything, and their announcement has no content.

      As it stands: the announcement really doesn't have any content anyways; they generate this stuff specifically to rile people like you up, and Klippenstein feeds off that energy like a remora.

      2 replies →