|
that's a massive grain of salt if i've ever seen one
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
I Want To Believe
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll wait until I see it on an actual news source.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Louise Mensch says a LOT of crazy poo poo
CHICKEN SHOES fucked around with this message at 05:09 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/has-a-sealed-indictment-been-issued-against-president-trump/ Louis Me...*stops reading*
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
I;'ve also never heard of rawstory
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
CHICKEN SHOES posted:Louise Mensch says a LOT of crazy poo poo she did get the FISA stuff right
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
true but a lot of stuff wrong, chaff to wheat ratio is out there
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
It's also being pushed by Claude Taylor who has also been fairly reliable.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Mensch has about the same fact / complete bullshit ratio as Alex Jones, and that other guy was the guy saying that there were like dozens of raids going out a couple days ago (there weren't).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:Louis Me...*stops reading* Seriously. I'm getting sick of this poo poo because as much as I would love for it to happen, Mensch has proven to be time after time to be a massive bullshit artist. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 05:33 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
What does an indictment even do? He can just say "lol no" and it's over. It has to be an impeachment first before anything like that can apply to the president unless I'm completely wrong in my understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/has-a-sealed-indictment-been-issued-against-president-trump/ I'm missing something here. Why can't he be prosecuted until after impeachment? I thought they needed charges to start impeachment.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I'm missing something here. Why can't he be prosecuted until after impeachment? I thought they needed charges to start impeachment. theres been grand jury stuff going on in the rocket docket in eastern VA sounds like preet bhrara (sp?) was fired as soon as they found out that NYC was possibly prosecuting the money angle. well, all the us attorneys
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
I have full doubt of that being real. Now a good story to flush paranoids into making a serious mistake, that's some 2D chess I can believe people are trying to play.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I'm missing something here. Why can't he be prosecuted until after impeachment? I thought they needed charges to start impeachment. I am not a lawyer so there's probably fiddly legal stuff I'm getting wrong but my understanding is that it's "executive privilege". As a part of the separation of the branches of government the president is basically (kinda) immune to judicial rulings. Mostly. Sorta. It's a bit untested because, ya know, most people aren't bugfuck insane narcissistic megalomaniacs and they realize that placing the nation into constitutional crises by just saying "lol no" to everything a judge does is kind of a bad thing that will probably not work out to their favor. Trump....does not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
edit nvm
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Have there been any polls after Trump fired Comey?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Me and my pops were talking about the next FBI Director and we agreed it'd probably be Mike Rogers because he was part of Trump's transition team and was part of his advisory staff for 6 months before Trump was sworn in. Trump values loyalty above all else.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What does an indictment even do? He can just say "lol no" and it's over. It has to be an impeachment first before anything like that can apply to the president unless I'm completely wrong in my understanding. Actually, it's not that simple. The Constitution is not at all clear on the issue. There are no court rulings to use as precedent. The closest thing we have is that on the two occasions this has come up (Nixon and Clinton) the government decided not to try, suggesting they didn't believe they had the authority to indict and prosecute in proceedings outside Congressional impeachment.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
That's a loving stupid rule.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
The Wannacry hack seems uh, a bit uh, visible? Like I understand that that it was just a mashing of a lame virus and a great, NSA tier exploit together, but it seemed to me like a particularly brash and stupid move? Like There is not a more visible way of emphasizing the vulnerability of tons of systems to this exploit than to attach ransomware to it. Looking forward to seeing more analysis of how it was initially launched and what the purpose was. Getting 28 people to send 300$ worth of bitcoin to the perpetrators seems ridiculously undervalued for the scope and breadth of systems that were accessed by the DEEPBLUE exploit or whatever. Seems suspect that this was just some jackass spoiling the pot because they could.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
It's not really a rule. Nobody knows what will happen, except that if they try it you can bet it'll be decided by the Supreme Court. Edit: That said, it's Louise Mensch. It's not happening.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:The Wannacry hack seems uh, a bit uh, visible? Like I understand that that it was just a mashing of a lame virus and a great, NSA tier exploit together, but it seemed to me like a particularly brash and stupid move? Like There is not a more visible way of emphasizing the vulnerability of tons of systems to this exploit than to attach ransomware to it. Looking forward to seeing more analysis of how it was initially launched and what the purpose was. Getting 28 people to send 300$ worth of bitcoin to the perpetrators seems ridiculously undervalued for the scope and breadth of systems that were accessed by the DEEPBLUE exploit or whatever. Seems suspect that this was just some jackass spoiling the pot because they could. Ransomware attached to a worm is a new thing. Previously it's been something user-initiated, most often clicking "enable macros" in a mass-spammed Word document. They probably expected this to hit hundreds of thousands of people, who could be willing to pay for their files, if not more. Instead they hit poo poo like the NHS, and some of both Nissan and Renault's production plants. Infosec is loving magical. poo poo like this shows us just how much ancient, unsupported, unpatched software is out there in the wild in life-or-death critical positions.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/863611344653885440
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
 Richard Spencer led a torch-lit rally of white supremacists in front of the statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, VA. They were chanting Nazi slogans such as: "Blood and soil!" "Russia is our friend!" "No more Brother Wars!" "You will not replace us!" The mayor considers it to be an act of intimidation aimed at minority groups, hearkening back to the Klan days. https://twitter.com/craftypanda/status/863564616026263555
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbpUcfpbnrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBPt335vcAQ
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:The Wannacry hack seems uh, a bit uh, visible? Like I understand that that it was just a mashing of a lame virus and a great, NSA tier exploit together, but it seemed to me like a particularly brash and stupid move? Like There is not a more visible way of emphasizing the vulnerability of tons of systems to this exploit than to attach ransomware to it. Looking forward to seeing more analysis of how it was initially launched and what the purpose was. Getting 28 people to send 300$ worth of bitcoin to the perpetrators seems ridiculously undervalued for the scope and breadth of systems that were accessed by the DEEPBLUE exploit or whatever. Seems suspect that this was just some jackass spoiling the pot because they could. Or they wanted to weaponize it and deploy before everyone was fully aware of how vulnerable their networks are, or some other group took advantage of it. It seems like a lovely rush job considering how little thought went into their anti-forensic code.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Butts posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbpUcfpbnrs Fatso's gonna blow a loving gasket when he sees this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Or they wanted to weaponize it and deploy before everyone was fully aware of how vulnerable their networks are, or some other group took advantage of it. It seems like a lovely rush job considering how little thought went into their anti-forensic code. Wouldn't that be something that could and probably was accomplished without the insane profile that ransomware entails? Seem to me that alot of people could have (or probably did) infect a whole slew of systems using this exploit, which have since been put on red-alert as a consequence of how ransom ware makes poo poo inoperable. Or I've watched hackers too many times.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Wouldn't that be something that could and probably was accomplished without the insane profile that ransomware entails? Seem to me that alot of people could have (or probably did) infect a whole slew of systems using this exploit, which have since been put on red-alert as a consequence of how ransom ware makes poo poo inoperable. Or I've watched hackers too many times. That's the fun part of zero days out in the wild. Everyone gets to use them for whatever dumb thing they want until the vulnerability is too loud to ignore. So make sure you're the first loud dumb thing to hit it big! Make money! So all those people who weren't trying to be loud probably want to kill the ransomware people who couldn't even design a ransomware worth spreading.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Sergg posted:
Jesus, he really is just a flaming Nazi.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
i live right in the middle of a bunch of civil war battlegrounds on the confederate side so i'm just waiting for some klan rallies to pop up in my area. gonna crash the gently caress out of them. bird food bathtub posted:Fatso's gonna blow a loving gasket when he sees this. couldn't he just ignore it though
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
There's like a big rear end fire in Dallas right now. Not sure what started it 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
TBeats posted:couldn't he just ignore it though Normal Presidents would, but Cheeto the Hutt is a thin-skinned idiot. Whether or not he realizes he's getting baited he's going to do something.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:33
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:Normal Presidents would, but Cheeto the Hutt is a thin-skinned idiot. Whether or not he realizes he's getting baited he's going to do something. yeah it was mostly rhetorical. i'm excited for the twitter meltdown.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:There's like a big rear end fire in Dallas right now. Not sure what started it Isn't there a big pro-marijuana thing in Texas today? If that's the case, Austin should look like it's in a perpetual fog.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:I am not a lawyer so there's probably fiddly legal stuff I'm getting wrong but my understanding is that it's "executive privilege". As a part of the separation of the branches of government the president is basically (kinda) immune to judicial rulings. Mostly. Sorta. It's a bit untested because, ya know, most people aren't bugfuck insane narcissistic megalomaniacs and they realize that placing the nation into constitutional crises by just saying "lol no" to everything a judge does is kind of a bad thing that will probably not work out to their favor. Its fiddly all the way down. Presidential immunity from prosecution is a subset of executive privilege. While the issue of immunity from state prosecution has been pretty clear for almost 200 years, Presidential immunity from federal prosecution is arguably still open. The issue came up in Nixon v U.S. and the court asked the parties to brief the issue, but were able to decide the case without having to give an answer. (Which was/is the correct way to answer) The phoneposting short version is, 1. Of all the branches of government, the executive is unitary; vested in a single person. The power of prosecution is an executive function. There is no way for the executive to prosecute the executive without the executive's consent. Anything else is a separation of powers problem. However, the Constitution specifically provides an answer to the separation of powers problem; impeachment. In addition to the procedural problems with prosecuting the executive, there are some broader structural issues; does it more broadly violate the Constitution by allowing single prosecutors to interfere personally with the ability of the duly elected president to carry out the duties he/she has been elected to carry out? The counters are: as a practical matter the executive is much less unitary than it was 200 years ago, and "who cares, this one is bad!" 2. The impeachment rules in the Constitution imply impeachment as a condition that must be fulfilled before prosecution: "but the Party convicted [I.e., successfully impeached] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." The counters are that the quoted language merely ensures that an impeached person cannot assert double jeopardy if prosecuted later, and that judges have been convicted first, then impeached (though judges are not unitary) Presidential immunity is a bigger and deeper issue than today's "Trump bad!" (or yesterday's Clinton bad! or Nixon bad!) I am not a Trump fan and I'm not a fan of the imperial presidency and definitely not a fan of an imperious executive. Please step back a little and balance the very real long term damage to the presidency against poking and jabbing at a buffoon who happens to be president. The courts (and the bureaucracy) are doing a good job of keeping the county on a reasonably even constitutional keel during the presidency of someone who neither knows nor cares about how the country functions on its most basic constitutional level. It world be a terrible irony to get rid of Trump by unnecessarily destroying the same institutions that we complain that he is destroying. The prosecution genie will not go back in the bottle once we loose it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:The Wannacry hack seems uh, a bit uh, visible? Like I understand that that it was just a mashing of a lame virus and a great, NSA tier exploit together, but it seemed to me like a particularly brash and stupid move? Like There is not a more visible way of emphasizing the vulnerability of tons of systems to this exploit than to attach ransomware to it. Looking forward to seeing more analysis of how it was initially launched and what the purpose was. Getting 28 people to send 300$ worth of bitcoin to the perpetrators seems ridiculously undervalued for the scope and breadth of systems that were accessed by the DEEPBLUE exploit or whatever. Seems suspect that this was just some jackass spoiling the pot because they could. This was expected to hit a lot more people. The only reason tens of thousands more systems around the globe didn't get hit is the guy registering the hardcoded URL that triggered the test environment shutdown of the worm.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:11
|
|
