Jump to content

U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Goddess Dictator said:

god help me I'm in Arkansas. I am at work, sitting within twenty feet of at least three Trump voters. Seriously, every day is a struggle to keep my mouth shut. More than half the people i work with believe Obama is a Muslim (even though that's demonstrably not true) and you should see the looks I get when I say things like "Even if he were, which he's not, that would be fine." 

i miss you rest of the country!

It's not just Arkansas. I'm flabbergasted at the number of acquaintances and neighbors who are planning on voting for Trump.  I'm in the deep red suburbs of Chicagoland, but it's still disturbing that these college educated, upper-middle class folks are on board with this insanity.

I just texted a friend who is at the DNC in Philly looking for sanity.  Thankfully, that friend is optimistic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

is it however a violation of 52 USC 30121?  curious.

I googled it and probably not. After all, the emails have no financial value and they're not being donated to Trump's campaign, but to the American people as a whole.

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Of course there is, there's no way not to read as calling for espionage. And I'm going to bite my tongue on saying anything because I like to remain polite.

Can you elaborate? I genuinely don't understand what you mean. The only way to read that as calling for espionage is to assume that the FBI lied to everyone and the missing emails are in fact not missing at all, but in fact still somewhere on government servers. I don't think Trump has ever accused them of that. Without that assumption, no amount of espionage done starting from the time of Trump's speech will have any effect -- you can't steal data that isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the solicitation nevertheless 'indirectly' inures to the benefit of the GOP candidate, surely?  a salient question is whether it is a statutory 'contribution.'  the definition includes a 'thing of value,' so maybe, reading broadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Can you elaborate? I genuinely don't understand what you mean. The only way to read that as calling for espionage is to assume that the FBI lied to everyone and the missing emails are in fact not missing at all, but in fact still somewhere on government servers. I don't think Trump has ever accused them of that. Without that assumption, no amount of espionage done starting from the time of Trump's speech will have any effect -- you can't steal data that isn't there.

Because he's calling for enemy nations to release the illegally obtained information they may have hacked to help influence the presidential election in his favor. It's not treason, but it sets a gross and dangerous precedent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the schedule for tonight's speakers:

http://pix11.com/2016/07/27/list-of-speakers-for-third-night-of-democratic-national-convention/

Very savvy to put Bloomberg in prime time. Sounds like he's going to go full scorched earth on Trump's business record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Without hyperbole, we are actually, literally almost at the point where a major party nominee for president is committing treason. 

I'm not familiar enough with the statutes to know if he has crossed the line. I suspect not, since he is calling for foreign espionage, not actually conducting it (maybe sedition is the more accurate charge?). But I think there is enough happening here, with all the vague connections to Putin, that the FBI should formally investigate the issue.

He is literally asking for foreign spies to "Do him a Nixon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

kids, no 'treason' absent a state of war.  see 18 USC 2381.

That's not what that statute says. Text follows:

 

Quote

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

As long as you owe allegiance to the United States, you can commit treason either by:

(i) levying war against the US

or

(ii) "adher[ing] to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere." 

Nothing in that text requires that a "state of war" exist or be declared for someone to adhere to the enemies of the US or to give them aid and comfort. I don't see any reason to equate "enemies" with "state of war." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought it would be tough to argue that a country that the US is not at war with, and with which it maintains diplomatic relations, can reasonably be called an enemy in legal terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do people now actually think that Russia hacked Clinton's email and have her emails?  I think it's a real possibility, but a lot of posters here keep repeating the line that there is no evidence that Clinton was hacked.  A large number of people knew about Clinton's non government email, including hackers, and there were attempted hacks of Clinton's email server.  I'm not confident that the security of Clinton's email server was sufficient to withstand hacking by the Russian government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

I would have thought it would be tough to argue that a country that the US is not at war with, and with which it maintains diplomatic relations, can reasonably be called an enemy in legal terms.

I think it gets tricky there. Giving secrets out to other nations-  even ones that the US is allied with-  is considered potentially treasonous. 

But it doesn't seem like it would be something that one could charge. 

Better to go after campaign rules that were nixonish. It is against the rules to obtain the other party's documents via illegal means or conspire to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

So do people now actually think that Russia hacked Clinton's email and have her emails?  I think it's a real possibility, but a lot of posters here keep repeating the line that there is no evidence that Clinton was hacked.  A large number of people knew about Clinton's non government email, including hackers, and there were attempted hacks of Clinton's email server.  I'm not confident that the security of Clinton's email server was sufficient to withstand hacking by the Russian government.

Well, lets see if Russia releases anything. If they do, then yea, I'll believe she's hacked. If they don't, still no evidence she was hacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, lets see if Russia releases anything. If they do, then yea, I'll believe she's hacked. If they don't, still no evidence she was hacked.

So right now, you don't think Clinton was hacked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Better to go after campaign rules that were nixonish. It is against the rules to obtain the other party's documents via illegal means or conspire to do so.

Can you provide a link to said rules/laws?

And they would probably not apply in this instance, as Trump is talking about her personal and work emails. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

So do people now actually think that Russia hacked Clinton's email and have her emails?  I think it's a real possibility, but a lot of posters here keep repeating the line that there is no evidence that Clinton was hacked.  A large number of people knew about Clinton's non government email, including hackers, and there were attempted hacks of Clinton's email server.  I'm not confident that the security of Clinton's email server was sufficient to withstand hacking by the Russian government.

They didn't even have to hack the server.  If they knew the server's IP address and determined whose network it was on, they could have hacked the provider and "listened in" on all email to and from that IP address.  What puzzles me, though, is if classified or even sensitive material was being discussed, why weren't those emails encrypted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

They didn't even have to hack the server.  If they knew the server's IP address and determined whose network it was on, they could have hacked the provider and "listened in" on all email to and from that IP address.  What puzzles me, though, is if classified or even sensitive material was being discussed, why weren't those emails encrypted.

All the emails were presumed by Clinton to be non-classified, so no need for encryption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

So right now, you don't think Clinton was hacked?

I don't see any reason to believe that. I simply don't have enough information to know. The FBI said there is no evidence anyone hacked her server even if they believe it was possible. Until I see emails or documents from her server or evidence it was hacked from anyone at all, I have no reason not to believe the FBI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

I don't see any reason to think anything one way or another. I simply don't have enough information to know. The FBI said there is no evidence anyone hacked her server even if they believe it was possible. Until I see emails or documents from her server or evidence it was hacked from anyone at all, I have no reason not to believe the FBI. 

That's a reasonable position.

I just don't think that the line that there was no evidence of hacking to be very meaningful since the lack of evidence doesn't prove that Clinton wasn't hacked.  All it means is that we haven't yet confirmed whether or not Clinton was hacked.

That said, it appears the Russians are very involved with our election.  It's hard for me to imagine that they weren't aware of Clinton's server or were aware but didn't trying hacking it.  And if they tried hacking it, was the security good enough to stop it?  I'm skeptical that it would be.

If Russia has the emails and releases them in October, including unredacted versions of the thousands of emails that have been classified after the fact, would that knock out Clinton?  If the race is close in October, I think that would seal it for Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...