Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 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.

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 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.  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, 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."

 

9 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

 

Which one of these is accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

Which one of these is accurate?

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

Which one of these is accurate?

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted
Just now, 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. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted
Just now, 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Roger Stone timeline from almost a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Storm the Field

Storm the Field 5294

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kyrie Eleison said:

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

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, 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.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, 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.  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11665

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, 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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32851

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

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:

25 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

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

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

24 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Nope.  Doesn't matter if you have ID if you've been removed from the voter rolls. 

 

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

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.

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

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

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.

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

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.

In short, he's very transparent.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11665

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 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.

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Think they'll show up?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...