Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

A lot of the media were used as pawns of a foreign government interference campaign by publishing all these leaked emails without verifying where it came from.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:35 PM, JBJ said:

They hacked voter roles.  They could have commited voter fraud with the information, but this particular hack couldn't change actual votes cast.

Expand  

They could have changed voter rolls to alter the outcome anyways if they have enough data about these people. Also more than one state was hacked, not all of the systems are built the same exact way. Furthermore it doesn't matter if they didn't change a single thing, you don't just sit on your hands and say "well we're fine, because nothing was really altered" for something this goddamned important.

  • Like 1
Posted

it seems like wikileaks (org 1) personnel got lucky because of a too-narrow criminal statute.  they were involved after the actual stealing, but they were soliciting knowingly stolen materials.  looks like the statute says only the initial access is illegal, and not the dissemination of that information.  

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:40 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

it seems like wikileaks (org 1) personnel got lucky because of a too-narrow criminal statute.  they were involved after the actual stealing, but they were soliciting knowingly stolen materials.  looks like the statute says only the initial access is illegal, and not the dissemination of that information.  

Expand  

Why can't they be conspirators as accessories after the fact? 

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:23 PM, Mojo Hand said:

"On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress.   The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent."

Expand  

 

  On 7/13/2018 at 4:28 PM, Storm the Field said:

 

Expand  

Which one of these is accurate?

Posted (edited)
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:44 PM, JBJ said:

 

Which one of these is accurate?

Expand  

Both?   I don't understand the question.  What I pasted over was from paragraph 43.a.  on pages 15-16.    The other is from paragraph 44 on page 16. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:38 PM, GSU&UT said:

They could have changed voter rolls to alter the outcome anyways if they have enough data about these people. Also more than one state was hacked, not all of the systems are built the same exact way. Furthermore it doesn't matter if they didn't change a single thing, you don't just sit on your hands and say "well we're fine, because nothing was really altered" for something this goddamned important.

Expand  

Probably.  I would hope our systems would catch that in the metadata.

And I agree on your second.  I was only trying to address JJs vote-changing.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:35 PM, JBJ said:

They hacked voter roles.  They could have commited voter fraud with the information, but this particular hack couldn't change actual votes cast.

Expand  

lulz

Is that water getting hot yet, Kermit?

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:44 PM, JBJ said:

 

Which one of these is accurate?

Expand  

I'm trying to understand what the issue is and I'm getting nothing.  Are you under the impression that there is only 1 person in the United States?  I'll have you know there are far more than 1.  More than even a hundred.  Those conversations could have been with different people.  

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:46 PM, Mojo Hand said:

Both?   I don't understand the question.  What I pasted over was from pages 15-16.    The other is from a different page. 

Expand  

That works too, they are worded exactly the same, so I was assuming only one was a real quote.

Posted

i think this has way more significance than anything before. the congressional candidate absolutely needs to be named. need the list of republicans running for congress in 2016.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:49 PM, Incredulity said:

so would requiring individuals present valid government ID at a physical polling place solve this?

Expand  

No, genius, because one thing you can do when you've hacked into a voter roll database is remove people from that database. You know, like people who match a profile that says they're very likely to vote for the person you don't want to win.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:49 PM, hayden_horn said:

i think this has way more significance than anything before. the congressional candidate absolutely needs to be named. need the list of republicans running for congress in 2016.

Expand  

That's what I was trying to get to.  "Campaign official" we can select from a known list.  "Candidate for Congress" means a new player.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:51 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:
lulz at you seeing the KGB attack the U.S. and your reaction is to try to figure out how to get a partisan advantage on it.

But that is EXACTLY where we are.

The GOP is more interested in preserving their working relationship with our enemy than protecting our country. It is the party of treason.
  • Like 4
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:46 PM, Mojo Hand said:

Both?   I don't understand the question.  What I pasted over was from paragraph 43.a.  on pages 15-16.    The other is from paragraph 44 on page 16. 

Expand  

Definitely Stone.  Also probably a Congressional candidate in Florida.

  Quote

August 15, 2016: In one Direct Message exchange, Guccifer 2.0 asks Stone: “do you find anything interesting in the docs i posted?”

August 17, 2016: Donald Trump is briefed by US intelligence agencies that Russia is implicated in the DNC hack (h/t: @RVAwonk)

August 17, 2016: In one Direct Message exchange, Guccifer 2.0 says to Stone. “please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.”

August 21, 2016: Stone tweets: “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary”

[Note: In an interview on October 19, Stone would later claim he had meant only that his tweet was not about Podesta’s emails but about business dealings, which he did not learn about from Wikileaks. Think Progress has a helpful analysis of why “Stone’s alibi falls apart.”]

August 22, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 sends to Florida GOP operative Aaron Nevins 2.5 gigabytes of data from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Nevins posts some of that data on his anonymous Florida politics blog.

Expand  

Roger Stone timeline from almost a year ago.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:56 PM, Kyrie Eleison said:

this...as well as warning for Trump to not trust Putin in the upcoming meeting.

Expand  

Definitely something Trump will take to heart. He loves people suggesting how he should behave. 

If anything, this will just reflexively push Trump even further in Putin's corner. As a malignant narcissist, he views any suggestion that anybody else helped him win the election as a personal attack which must be aggressively counter-attacked.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:47 PM, JBJ said:

Probably.  I would hope our systems would catch that in the metadata.

And I agree on your second.  I was only trying to address JJs vote-changing.

Expand  

You didn't understand my point.  The line in the sand keeps moving . . . at what point are we dead sure they didn't change votes, or at the very least contribute to voter suppression?

Posted

Do those states whose election boards were hacked have any legal recourse against the hackers, or does that all have to go through the feds? 

 

Reason I am asking is how pardons might play out if US citizens start getting indicted. 

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 4:40 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

it seems like wikileaks (org 1) personnel got lucky because of a too-narrow criminal statute.  they were involved after the actual stealing, but they were soliciting knowingly stolen materials.  looks like the statute says only the initial access is illegal, and not the dissemination of that information.  

Expand  

I think there is probably a First Amendment flavor to that statute.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 5:04 PM, jimmyjazz said:

You didn't understand my point.  The line in the sand keeps moving . . . at what point are we dead sure they didn't change votes, or at the very least contribute to voter suppression?

Expand  

We can't be.

There is no doubt much needs to be done to secure the integrity of elections.  But, all efforts at same regress into poo flinging about racism and voter suppression.

Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 5:14 PM, Huckleberry said:

Let's play a game called "How transparent is Incredulity"?

In Act I, he just asks a question on if Voter ID laws would help:

Then multiple point out how stupid that question is for the obvious reason.

 

Incredulity completely ignores his leading question being destroyed by logic and starts calling out EVIL LIBERALS.

Then Incredulity later posts that we can't do anything about election integrity because THE EVIL LIBERALS will start calling names. Despite the fact that, you know, he was the one who started calling names.

In short, he's very transparent.

Expand  

Propose a solution then.  

Anything proposed by anyone even perceived to be a conservative will be followed with the above sanctimonious crap.

 

Indicting "Guccifer" is window dressing at best.  Does nothing to fix the problem. 

 

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
  On 7/13/2018 at 5:18 PM, maninblack said:

Think they'll show up?

Expand  

Maybe we can work out some kind of multi-legged trade where we get the Russians, we send Donald Jr. and Eric to North Korea, and our friend Un sends the remains of our military personnel killed in Korea to Russia.

Posted (edited)

The collusion has been right out front the whole time. It was already under way and he knew it!

Edited by Mapache
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...