Hacker News Reader

Comment by furyg3 | Hacker News Reader

Just to chime in on the 'alternate explanations', I think it's important for anyone with conspiracy ideas to remember that the case he was being questioned in was not an investigation into Boeings liability as an airplane manufacturer, but rather a civil suit he made against Boeing for defamation of character.

View on HN

And companys would never bring the full instruments to force on a single person. PIs etc, psycho-terror and so on and so forth..

The Ebay stalking case comes up to mind

Which only came to light because they were shockingly inept about it.

That case absolutely made me wonder about how many big corporations have successfully executed more subtle versions of the tactic.

There is a name for that kind of state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

In which any evidence admitted or discovered in his case would become potential admissable evidence that could be leveraged in the Fed's criminal probe as a matter of public record. And since it was a defamation suit, his entire history was discovery fodder with a much lower bar to cross for subpoena's or discovery than the criminal probe would be. Then there's potential leaksge to the media and public (and thereby regulators) of exactly what to look for.

Don't stop thinking at the first order consequence/event. There is generally much more to it.

Your comment borders on gaslighting.

Barnett was involved in a whistleblower lawsuit against Boeing, alleging serious safety concerns at the North Charleston plant, where he managed quality for the 787 Dreamliner production. He claimed the push for speed compromised safety, with sub-standard parts being used and a significant failure rate in emergency oxygen systems.

Despite raising these issues, he felt his concerns were disregarded, leading to legal action against Boeing, alleging career damage due to his whistleblowing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com