ADVERTISEMENT

It’s Mueller Time ....running thread

it still shows a good-faith attempt to exercise the House's authority to effect justice.

You keep wanting to look at impeachment as some kind of sanction for high crimes or misdemeanors. It’s not that at all. It’s not justice-seeking. It’s only a process to remove one from office.
 
Provisional voting makes hacking disenfranchising difficult if not impossible.

If your name were completely dropped from the records, how could you prove you had the right to vote? I can prove where I live, how long I have lived here, but how can I prove i was properly registered to vote?

In addition, poorer people who rely on public transit would find this a further burden they may not want to deal with. Working poor tend not to get paid while standing line in the county clerk's office.
 
If your name were completely dropped from the records, how could you prove you had the right to vote? I can prove where I live, how long I have lived here, but how can I prove i was properly registered to vote?

In addition, poorer people who rely on public transit would find this a further burden they may not want to deal with. Working poor tend not to get paid while standing line in the county clerk's office.

I think the purge data would be there.
 
You keep wanting to look at impeachment as some kind of sanction for high crimes or misdemeanors. It’s not that at all. It’s not justice-seeking. It’s only a process to remove one from office.
That's a curious take. In fact, the process is political, no doubt about that, but there is process due - not to be confused with the legal notion of due process - in that the house has to investigate first, and then vote - similar to a grand jury - whether to impeach the office holder based on grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and then the referral of an impeachment to the senate for a vote is similar to a prosecution with the senate acting in a role similar to that of a petit jury. A vote to impeach by the senate is a conviction . . .

. . . sure sounds like the framers intended to impose on the political process of impeachment an aura, if not the fact of, a justice-seeking process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker
That's a curious take. In fact, the process is political, no doubt about that, but there is process due - not to be confused with the legal notion of due process - in that the house has to investigate first, and then vote - similar to a grand jury - whether to impeach the office holder based on grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and then the referral of an impeachment to the senate for a vote is similar to a prosecution with the senate acting in a role similar to that of a petit jury. A vote to impeach by the senate is a conviction . . .

. . . sure sounds like the framers intended to impose on the political process of impeachment an aura, if not the fact of, a justice-seeking process.
He's perfectly aware of that. What he's interested in is painting the discussion as being about "justice" so he can dismiss it as nothing more than the bleatings of naive SJWs. Actual discussion of the topic at hand is not his concern.
 
Last edited:
documented intrusions by foreign enemies.

What documented intrusions? All your links talk about are attacks that are now so frequent the system blinks red. You haven’t linked any documented intrusions. Supposedly the Ruskies hacked the DNC, but that isn’t election infrastructure.
 
I think the biggest issue isn’t the Russians. Instead it’s the corrupt insiders who use any means to make sure their interests acquire and maintain political power. I don’t agree that the Feds hold all the answers. There is a lot of talent in state and local government.

I understated the attacks. The federal OPM took 10 million attacks every month and that was 3 years ago. Attacks on servers are not news.
You keep repeating that. We've heard it. My point is, as much talent as there might be in state and local government, it's not there in every state and local government. Furthermore, why ask people to reinvent the wheel? Adversaries here or abroad rely on a few geniuses who are matched with the few geniuses who create our defenses. We should rely on our geniuses as they do theirs.
 
You keep wanting to look at impeachment as some kind of sanction for high crimes or misdemeanors. It’s not that at all. It’s not justice-seeking. It’s only a process to remove one from office.
It's a form of justice, broadly defined. It's society (via Congress) saying the POTUS committed high crimes and misdemeanors and will be penalized by premature removal from office. But the point here is that the Court can examine the case later and see that bound by the Justice Department rules (or whatever), the closest the House could come to "indicting" was impeachment. Therefore, impeachment was the good-faith instrument for triggering tolling. That's a hypothetical argument, assuming tolling isn't automatic as you claim.

Assuming tolling isn't automatic, what other attempt at recourse is there to prevent the POTUS from being above the law, aside from the voting booth, which is totally unrelated to addressing the high crimes and misdemeanors?
 
You keep repeating that. We've heard it. My point is, as much talent as there might be in state and local government, it's not there in every state and local government. Furthermore, why ask people to reinvent the wheel? Adversaries here or abroad rely on a few geniuses who are matched with the few geniuses who create our defenses. We should rely on our geniuses as they do theirs.

So one Edward Snowden can penetrate all systems in all states?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
You keep repeating that. We've heard it. My point is, as much talent as there might be in state and local government, it's not there in every state and local government. Furthermore, why ask people to reinvent the wheel? Adversaries here or abroad rely on a few geniuses who are matched with the few geniuses who create our defenses. We should rely on our geniuses as they do theirs.

This is spot on.
 
TO me the problem is the opposite. What if he can penetrate only systems in Mississippi? You good with that?

I guess before we proceed you need to understand the 2 bills you are backing. It doesn’t do what you post about it doing. Last year we had bipartisan election security pass with funding. This year the Dems put up a bill that only they agree with and you think it solves all the problems. The several warnings from various agencies about election interference should be taken seriously. Legislation that receives only Democratic votes is not serious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
He's perfectly aware of that. What he's interested in is painting the discussion as being about "justice" so he can dismiss it as nothing more than the bleatings of naive SJWs. Actual discussion of the topic at hand is not his concern.
Hmmm . . . my take is that CO was trying to avoid having impeachment be a justice-focused process by describing it as a purely political process. His take was more about the exercise of power - which CO is in favor of if it's done by "conservatives" - and not about justice, which would require an actual inquiry into whether Trump engaged in any of the 10 (or more) obstruction of justice examples identified in the Mueller Report (volume II).
 
I guess before we proceed you need to understand the 2 bills you are backing. It doesn’t do what you post about it doing. Last year we had bipartisan election security pass with funding. This year the Dems put up a bill that only they agree with and you think it solves all the problems. The several warnings from various agencies about election interference should be taken seriously. Legislation that receives only Democratic votes is not serious.
I don't know thing one about the two pieces of legislation McConnell buried. I'm advocating for Congress doing its job, as hoped by Mueller, the agencies you mentioned, and all sentient Americans. Time is of the essence. Maybe they don't have time for a vacation.

This issue is non-partisan unless one party considers it advantageous to allow our democracy to be undermined.
 
He's perfectly aware of that. What he's interested in is painting the discussion as being about "justice" so he can dismiss it as nothing more than the bleatings of naive SJWs. Actual discussion of the topic at hand is not his concern.

Good frickin’ grief. Did you even read my post? You sure don’t understand the SOL point. You are more interested in imputing stuff I didn’t say than you are understanding a simple response to Quigley.
 
I don't know thing one about the two pieces of legislation McConnell buried. I'm advocating for Congress doing its job, as hoped by Mueller, the agencies you mentioned, and all sentient Americans. Time is of the essence. Maybe they don't have time for a vacation.

This issue is non-partisan unless one party considers it advantageous to allow our democracy to be undermined.

It should be non partisan. But the Dems have been advocating the weakening of the federal system for decades. Now they are wanting to nationalize all elections. The antidote to election interference isn’t an act of congress, it’s technology.
 
It should be non partisan. But the Dems have been advocating the weakening of the federal system for decades. Now they are wanting to nationalize all elections. The antidote to election interference isn’t an act of congress, it’s technology.
I agree that Dems have been advocating weakening of the federal system for decades. The reason is simple: The results of letting the states have all the power have been egregious in far too many circumstances, from extreme partisan gerrymandering, to air and water pollution, to the exploitation of employees, to Jim Crow, to sexual domination of females by males and the list can and does go on and on . . .

. . . those are good reasons to advocate the weakening of the federal system by diminishing the power of states to impose one person on another in areas that have meaningful adverse effects on the other.

Do you disagree with those reasons?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
You are more interested in imputing stuff I didn’t say than you are understanding a simple response . . . .

That's a time-honored tradition on the WC . . . why shouldn't Mark be allowed to do that . . . .? If in fact that's what he did . . . .
 
I agree that Dems have been advocating weakening of the federal system for decades. The reason is simple: The results of letting the states have all the power have been egregious in far too many circumstances, from Jim Crow to sexual domination of females by males, to extreme partisan gerrymandering, to air and water pollution, to the exploitation of employees, to Jim Crow, to sexual domination of females by males and the list can and does go on and on . . .

. . . those are good reasons to advocate the weakening of the federal system by diminishing the power of states to impose one person on another in areas that have meaningful adverse effects on the other.

Do you disagree with those reasons?

Put more simply, if the states behaved themselves there would have been no reason to federalize more. Federalism was no excuse to allow racism/gender discrimination.
 
Put more simply, if the states behaved themselves there would have been no reason to federalize more. Federalism was no excuse to allow racism/gender discrimination.
And if individuals and businesses behaved themselves there would be less reason to federalize, or for the states to impose restrictions/regulations. But individuals and businesses are human - corporations being persons and all these days - and prone to think solely about themselves without thinking about the impact their actions have on others. Hence the need for restrictions/regulations . . . whether by the states or federal government.

Trump is right about one thing, the rules are rigged against the vast majority of us. What he didn't acknowledge is how he and folks like him influence the rigging of the rules against the vast majority . . .

. . . the outcome of the 2020 election will be a referendum on whether the American public have learned who's rigging the system for whose benefit. Jury's out on that point . . . .
 
It should be non partisan. But the Dems have been advocating the weakening of the federal system for decades. Now they are wanting to nationalize all elections. The antidote to election interference isn’t an act of congress, it’s technology.
SInce AIs haven't replaced us yet, it's humans creating technology. Who's creating it for Mississippi?
 
SInce AIs haven't replaced us yet, it's humans creating technology. Who's creating it for Mississippi?

I am sure small/poor US states attract the very best computer talent completely able to go toe to toe with the FSB. That is why a small country like Iran was never hit by something like Stuxnet, resources do not matter at all.
 
I am sure small/poor US states attract the very best computer talent completely able to go toe to toe with the FSB. That is why a small country like Iran was never hit by something like Stuxnet, resources do not matter at all.
All the best IT guys are flooding into Wheeling.
 
That's a time-honored tradition on the WC . . . why shouldn't Mark be allowed to do that . . . .? If in fact that's what he did . . . .
CO has always loved explaining to other people what they think, but if you interpret anything he says in any way beyond simply quoting his words verbatim, you are committing the gravest of sins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I think the purge data would be there.

Here is the new attack vector, encryption. State actors are involved. They trick CO into clicking on a link of Trump pitching a no hitter for the Rockies. It downloads malware onto his machine that is capable of infecting servers he is attached to.

A couple years ago, the malware would fire off immediately. But good backups meant most places could ignore the threat. Now malware downloaded today does not fire off until November 1, for example.

Imagine such an attack next year. November 1, the state discovers all their voter data in encrypted. They restore to Oct 31, and the restore encrypts. They go to Oct 30, same. Eventually they go to July 28, and it works. But what about all the data added or changed between July 28 and November 1? What if they only keep 60 days of backups?
 
Here is the new attack vector, encryption. State actors are involved. They trick CO into clicking on a link of Trump pitching a no hitter for the Rockies. It downloads malware onto his machine that is capable of infecting servers he is attached to.

A couple years ago, the malware would fire off immediately. But good backups meant most places could ignore the threat. Now malware downloaded today does not fire off until November 1, for example.

Imagine such an attack next year. November 1, the state discovers all their voter data in encrypted. They restore to Oct 31, and the restore encrypts. They go to Oct 30, same. Eventually they go to July 28, and it works. But what about all the data added or changed between July 28 and November 1? What if they only keep 60 days of backups?
It's a technological problem. WHen AIs take over, they'll solve it.
 
Here is the new attack vector, encryption. State actors are involved. They trick CO into clicking on a link of Trump pitching a no hitter for the Rockies. It downloads malware onto his machine that is capable of infecting servers he is attached to.

A couple years ago, the malware would fire off immediately. But good backups meant most places could ignore the threat. Now malware downloaded today does not fire off until November 1, for example.

Imagine such an attack next year. November 1, the state discovers all their voter data in encrypted. They restore to Oct 31, and the restore encrypts. They go to Oct 30, same. Eventually they go to July 28, and it works. But what about all the data added or changed between July 28 and November 1? What if they only keep 60 days of backups?

What does this have to do with the Russians, Trump or Congress?

Data held for ransom is an issue for all data. It would be nice to fix this with an act of congress but I don’t think that will happen.
 
What does this have to do with the Russians, Trump or Congress?

Data held for ransom is an issue for all data. It would be nice to fix this with an act of congress but I don’t think that will happen.

The Russians can do very similar attacks. Set up deletions to run at a certain date in the future but before an election. Restoring backups won't restore the deleted records because the deletions fire off again.

The simple point, the bad guys are winning. I see a couple more hacks are in the news. If you really believe most states individually have better technological defenses than state actors have attacking, you are wrong. It makes more sense to me to pool talent and share information. It is the same as the historical difference between US Army regulars and state militias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
The simple point, the bad guys are winning. I see a couple more hacks are in the news. If you really believe most states individually have better technological defenses than state actors have attacking, you are wrong. It makes more sense to me to pool talent and share information. It is the same as the historical difference between US Army regulars and state militias.
But Federalism!!!
 
But Federalism!!!

Right, Federalism decrees that our state's must individually fight a war against nations. Imagine the two world wars if we committed loose coalitions of state militias to the battlefields instead of a federalized army.
 
What does this have to do with the Russians, Trump or Congress?
Step outside yourself for a moment and observe the difference between Marvin's points and yours:

I don’t think that will happen.
That's all you're putting out right now. Thing is, with all the money we've spent on God knows what, including $5.9 trillion on the War on Terror, what have we got to lose by pooling our resources and doing our best to combat this basic threat against our democracy? In the past, when have we ever shrunk from a threat? We know this is going to be a problem in the future, maybe this is our next moonshot. Maybe this is the most important moment in our nation's history. Can we afford to be shrinking violets just because Moscow Mitch and Dacha Don don't like their self-perceived optics of Trump's 2016 election being tainted? No one but Trump is questioning the legitimacy of his victory. Even if the Russian somehow duped people into voting for Trump, they still pulled the levers themselves.
 
The Russians can do very similar attacks. Set up deletions to run at a certain date in the future but before an election. Restoring backups won't restore the deleted records because the deletions fire off again.

The simple point, the bad guys are winning. I see a couple more hacks are in the news. If you really believe most states individually have better technological defenses than state actors have attacking, you are wrong. It makes more sense to me to pool talent and share information. It is the same as the historical difference between US Army regulars and state militias.

Step outside yourself for a moment and observe the difference between Marvin's points and yours:

That's all you're putting out right now. Thing is, with all the money we've spent on God knows what, including $5.9 trillion on the War on Terror, what have we got to lose by pooling our resources and doing our best to combat this basic threat against our democracy? In the past, when have we ever shrunk from a threat? We know this is going to be a problem in the future, maybe this is our next moonshot. Maybe this is the most important moment in our nation's history. Can we afford to be shrinking violets just because Moscow Mitch and Dacha Don don't like their self-perceived optics of Trump's 2016 election being tainted? No one but Trump is questioning the legitimacy of his victory. Even if the Russian somehow duped people into voting for Trump, they still pulled the levers themselves.

Not one federal official has ever conducted an election. Not one federal official has ever counted a vote. State and local elections are not stovepiped. There are national conferences of election officials where information and technology is shared. As far as fighting foreign interests is concerned, remember that Fusion Centers came from and were funded by state and local governments.

The fed track record wasn’t all that great prior to 9-11. It was fragmented and duplicative. We don’t disagree about election security. I don’t think the one basket of eggs theory works for elections and prefer the combined input of all people. People aren’t smarter just cuz they receive a federal pay check. If you like the single top down approach, there is nothing more to say.
 
Not one federal official has ever conducted an election. Not one federal official has ever counted a vote. State and local elections are not stovepiped. There are national conferences of election officials where information and technology is shared. As far as fighting foreign interests is concerned, remember that Fusion Centers came from and were funded by state and local governments.

The fed track record wasn’t all that great prior to 9-11. It was fragmented and duplicative. We don’t disagree about election security. I don’t think the one basket of eggs theory works for elections and prefer the combined input of all people. People aren’t smarter just cuz they receive a federal pay check. If you like the single top down approach, there is nothing more to say.
It's not a federal election issue, as you've pointed out. It's a technology issue. We need a president who leads on the issue, just as Kennedy led on the space program. Our president unfortunately has a juvenile vested interest in not taking responsibility for the issue. You're trying to conflate this project with pet liberal projects that are dubious at best. You're right they're dubious at a federal level, but that's not what this is. You need to think NASA. Think Manhatten Project. That's the immensity and gravity of the threat.

Our entire modern civilization is utterly dependent on two things: our electrical grids and our computer systems. Both are easily attackable and vulnerable. Can we really afford to be reactive rather than proactive?
 
ADVERTISEMENT