https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...unces.html
Interesting discussion. Did the Democrats in Alabama with their fraudulent facebook page, copying Russian tactics, commit the same crime? Did the Russians even commit a crime?
"...It’s not a crime to post political comments under an online alias. It’s not a criminal offense in this country to spew inaccurate information on social media -- or tell outright lies about candidates for public office If it were, the U.S. would need a hundred more prisons, at least one of them for politicians and campaign consultants.
Mueller’s theory of the case became clear on June 15, when Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben argued in court against a motion by Concord, one of the indicted Russian corporations, to dismiss the charges. The special counsel, Concord argued, targeted it “for a contrived crime not specifically defined in any statute, without notice and under a standard known only to the special counsel.”
“We do not need to prove a criminal violation of the underlying statute,” Dreeben told U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich in response.
If you find that standard alarmingly elastic, you’re not alone...."
"... That was a form of fraud. It was most definitely a conspiracy – mapped out by Obama’s top campaign aides. I’m not saying federal prosecutors should start parsing campaign rhetoric looking for criminal intent. That would be insane, not to mention unconstitutional. Nor do the Democratic Party computer nerds who fooled around in the Alabama sandbox want any attention from the special prosecutor. But here’s Mueller’s dilemma: If he indicts Russians who targeted Democrats while giving a pass to Americans who used the exact same fraudulent means to harm Republicans, then his investigation no longer looks like it’s about the sanctity of the U.S. election process. It looks like it’s about getting Donald Trump."
The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
(01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
I'll hold you to that, although by that time, Senator-Elect Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) will already be set for his swearing in.
Not to mention where it would end if followed to its inception. Remember, the original “Russian hacking” has never actually been proven by US justice standards. The reports of a DNC hired 3rd party were accepted by the deep state run by Hussein’s holdovers. Not exactly believable since most all of them have been fired for cause since.
(01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
There's no evidence the President knew anything about the Russian trolls. Any criminal investigation would involve those Russians and those Democrats who ran the Facebook fraud, not the candidates.
There's a question as to whether it is, or should be, a crime.
Or is it a tort that Moore could sue them over?
(01-20-2019 12:17 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
I'll hold you to that, although by that time, Senator-Elect Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) will already be set for his swearing in.
Nice try, but I think that its far more likely that it will be Mo Brooks that you'll be trolling me with. He's also deplorable.
(01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
So WHY hasn't NC district 9 certified. NO evidence Mark Harris knew of any wrongdoing, the only evidence I see in this election is clear evidence DEMOCRATS ARE SORE LOSERS.
(01-20-2019 01:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
So WHY hasn't NC district 9 certified. NO evidence Mark Harris knew of any wrongdoing, the only evidence I see in this election is clear evidence DEMOCRATS ARE SORE LOSERS.
That's just a gross mischaracterization of the situation. He hired that criminal.
The reason why a hearing hasn't taken place is because the Republicans ended the independent voting board that was supposed to look into the allegations.
But this is off topic.
Of course they did and they preyed on good hearted republicans. Pure manipulation of decent folks. Democrats hate America.
Alabama will remember.
(01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
The Constitution, and the First Amendment as well as republican government, is possible only when the people behave themselves.
Quote:Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-John Adams
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045
And, yes, the Founders believed those two attributes went hand-in-hand.
Quote:Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
- George Washington, Farewell Address 1796
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
(01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
I agree, but we are entering a time like never before. We have developed technology to where we can create videos of anyone saying anything we want. I'm going to assume a majority of the public doesn't know it even exists. Your average joe will no longer be able to trust information we used to consider hard evidence within 10 years once the tech is perfected.
Imagine a scenario where a kid in his basement can use a couple of programs to defame you in a video by have you doing or saying something incredibly racist, sexist, whatever. Said video blows up on social media. Random people on the internet then dox you and ruin your life over something that never even took place. You work fires you, etc. I mean, it's a video right? It has to be real
That's coming heavily for politics within the next couple of election cycles. Very hard to discredit something that is inaccurate once it is already out there.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
(01-20-2019 04:27 PM)Shrack Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
I agree, but we are entering a time like never before. We have developed technology to where we can create videos of anyone saying anything we want. I'm going to assume a majority of the public doesn't know it even exists. Your average joe will no longer be able to trust information we used to consider hard evidence within 10 years once the tech is perfected.
Imagine a scenario where a kid in his basement can use a couple of programs to defame you in a video by have you doing or saying something incredibly racist, sexist, whatever. Said video blows up on social media. Random people on the internet then dox you and ruin your life over something that never even took place. You work fires you, etc. I mean, it's a video right? It has to be real
That's coming heavily for politics within the next couple of election cycles. Very hard to discredit something that is inaccurate once it is already out there.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Also raises the question of how law enforcement will be able to use video footage as evidence.
The deep fakes saga showed us how easy it is. You don't even need a powerful computer, someone else simply has to train the AI to do it, and then you can run that trained model on your low powered computer.
(01-20-2019 08:41 PM)q5sys Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 04:27 PM)Shrack Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
I agree, but we are entering a time like never before. We have developed technology to where we can create videos of anyone saying anything we want. I'm going to assume a majority of the public doesn't know it even exists. Your average joe will no longer be able to trust information we used to consider hard evidence within 10 years once the tech is perfected.
Imagine a scenario where a kid in his basement can use a couple of programs to defame you in a video by have you doing or saying something incredibly racist, sexist, whatever. Said video blows up on social media. Random people on the internet then dox you and ruin your life over something that never even took place. You work fires you, etc. I mean, it's a video right? It has to be real
That's coming heavily for politics within the next couple of election cycles. Very hard to discredit something that is inaccurate once it is already out there.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Also raises the question of how law enforcement will be able to use video footage as evidence.
The deep fakes saga showed us how easy it is. You don't even need a powerful computer, someone else simply has to train the AI to do it, and then you can run that trained model on your low powered computer.
It's right out of Fahrenheit 451. The framing of the fireman Montag was easily accomplished with morphing Montag's image onto an actor so that the State had proven his guilt on the evening news which was on a wall size interactive flat screen. Now consider this vision by Ray Bradbury was penned in 1953 and his vision of the future was eerily advanced.
Thanks to computer imaging you can't trust still photos either. Take a legit photo shot of your target and you can stage a still shot of them doing almost anything.
Get a high quality phone recording of a voice and you can make the image say anything you want in virtually a dead ringer for the voice of the intended target.
The adage that comes to mind for me is "believe some to none of what you see and nothing of what you hear." While DNA can be planted, it is still by far your best defense if you are innocent and your worst nightmare if you are guilty.
Scary times. We are wussifying our youth at a time when thugs are rising among us, making an effective defense in court more expensive than the average person can afford, and living in a technological age where video and audio and photographic evidence is easily faked. I call that a near Hell experience. Meanwhile as noted in the other thread the uber wealthy buy political favors, live in guarded communities with body guards and surveillance everywhere. They don't care what the average citizen is having to endure in order to secure their families, defend their property, and the legal expense they may incur if they have to defend either and then face charges for simply having done so. It's insane!
(01-20-2019 09:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 08:41 PM)q5sys Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 04:27 PM)Shrack Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
I agree, but we are entering a time like never before. We have developed technology to where we can create videos of anyone saying anything we want. I'm going to assume a majority of the public doesn't know it even exists. Your average joe will no longer be able to trust information we used to consider hard evidence within 10 years once the tech is perfected.
Imagine a scenario where a kid in his basement can use a couple of programs to defame you in a video by have you doing or saying something incredibly racist, sexist, whatever. Said video blows up on social media. Random people on the internet then dox you and ruin your life over something that never even took place. You work fires you, etc. I mean, it's a video right? It has to be real
That's coming heavily for politics within the next couple of election cycles. Very hard to discredit something that is inaccurate once it is already out there.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Also raises the question of how law enforcement will be able to use video footage as evidence.
The deep fakes saga showed us how easy it is. You don't even need a powerful computer, someone else simply has to train the AI to do it, and then you can run that trained model on your low powered computer.
It's right out of Fahrenheit 451. The framing of the fireman Montag was easily accomplished with morphing Montag's image onto an actor so that the State had proven his guilt on the evening news which was on a wall size interactive flat screen. Now consider this vision by Ray Bradbury was penned in 1953 and his vision of the future was eerily advanced.
Thanks to computer imaging you can't trust still photos either. Take a legit photo shot of your target and you can stage a still shot of them doing almost anything.
True, however thanks to that being easily fake able for the last decade... a good attorney can question the validity of the photo.
There are forensic things one can look for in a photograph that does show tampering, but those type of evaluations are very expensive.
But almost everyone knows still photos can be faked these days, so it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury of that. However you're life could still be ruined since the Media doesn't like to wait for a ruling.
We're going to have a rough few years till it becomes commonplace understanding what is possible with video editing with a few clicks.
An evil person that wanted to end someone's political career could easily put out a video of them admitting to anything, along with sex videos, etc.
(01-20-2019 09:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 08:41 PM)q5sys Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 04:27 PM)Shrack Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]The troubling idea to me is that we need somebody to dictate what is and what isn't truth as opposed to leaving that to the end consumer.
Lying to people is protected by the First Amendment. The onus falls on the consumer to discern between truth and lie, nobody else.
I agree, but we are entering a time like never before. We have developed technology to where we can create videos of anyone saying anything we want. I'm going to assume a majority of the public doesn't know it even exists. Your average joe will no longer be able to trust information we used to consider hard evidence within 10 years once the tech is perfected.
Imagine a scenario where a kid in his basement can use a couple of programs to defame you in a video by have you doing or saying something incredibly racist, sexist, whatever. Said video blows up on social media. Random people on the internet then dox you and ruin your life over something that never even took place. You work fires you, etc. I mean, it's a video right? It has to be real
That's coming heavily for politics within the next couple of election cycles. Very hard to discredit something that is inaccurate once it is already out there.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Also raises the question of how law enforcement will be able to use video footage as evidence.
The deep fakes saga showed us how easy it is. You don't even need a powerful computer, someone else simply has to train the AI to do it, and then you can run that trained model on your low powered computer.
It's right out of Fahrenheit 451. The framing of the fireman Montag was easily accomplished with morphing Montag's image onto an actor so that the State had proven his guilt on the evening news which was on a wall size interactive flat screen. Now consider this vision by Ray Bradbury was penned in 1953 and his vision of the future was eerily advanced.
Thanks to computer imaging you can't trust still photos either. Take a legit photo shot of your target and you can stage a still shot of them doing almost anything.
Get a high quality phone recording of a voice and you can make the image say anything you want in virtually a dead ringer for the voice of the intended target.
The adage that comes to mind for me is "believe some to none of what you see and nothing of what you hear." While DNA can be planted, it is still by far your best defense if you are innocent and your worst nightmare if you are guilty.
Scary times. We are wussifying our youth at a time when thugs are rising among us, making an effective defense in court more expensive than the average person can afford, and living in a technological age where video and audio and photographic evidence is easily faked. I call that a near Hell experience. Meanwhile as noted in the other thread the uber wealthy buy political favors, live in guarded communities with body guards and surveillance everywhere. They don't care what the average citizen is having to endure in order to secure their families, defend their property, and the legal expense they may incur if they have to defend either and then face charges for simply having done so. It's insane!
I saw a Perry Mason episode the other day where they simply made sure people the same size had their heads turned to fake an incriminating photo (which photo they knew existed but didn't have a copy of). That was 1960 with comparatively primitive photography. Its not a new idea.
(01-20-2019 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 01:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2019 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There's no evidence that Jones knew about it. However, I think Jones should face scrutiny right after Trump's scrutiny has been completed.
So WHY hasn't NC district 9 certified. NO evidence Mark Harris knew of any wrongdoing, the only evidence I see in this election is clear evidence DEMOCRATS ARE SORE LOSERS.
That's just a gross mischaracterization of the situation. He hired that criminal.
The reason why a hearing hasn't taken place is because the Republicans ended the independent voting board that was supposed to look into the allegations.
But this is off topic.
Is there evidence Harris new he hired a felon? I believe that conviction happened 20 years ago.