|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On November 04 2016 09:21 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:11 pmh wrote:On November 04 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case
2. it is still going rogue
3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence. I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree. Yeah, the difference is that you are willing to believe that basic agents are influencing the elections for a just cause because the heads of the FBI, DoJ and Internal Corruption are bought. The rest of the world doesn't believe random people making extraordinary claims on their word. I haven't concluded anything of the sort. I'm waiting to see the evidence. However, from what I've seen so far, I do think that it is more likely than not that the FBI agents have a point. Fbi must have something concrete against Clinton,that is pretty obvious to me. If they didn't have anything concrete I doubt they would risk bringing out the news that they did. They probably have skimmed through the mails already,or have other reliable information. Will go further and say that what they found is probably very sensitive,hence all the caution when proceeding. Not going to fast,do it slow and good. What "risk" is involved in these leaks?
The risk of being blamed for interfering with the election without having any good reason.
What if Clinton wins and the fbi got nothing? Surely heads will roll.
|
On November 04 2016 10:49 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The FBI is “Trumplandia,” according to an agent who spoke anonymously to The Guardian newspaper.
In a report published Thursday, multiple sources within the FBI say that deep antipathy toward Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and anger that FBI Director James Comey did not bring charges against her this summer have motivated leaks that could damage her presidential campaign.
One agent told The Guardian that many at the bureau view Clinton as the “antichrist” and are supportive of Trump.
“That’s the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump,” the FBI agent told The Guardian.
But another FBI source disputed the level of support Trump has within the bureau, according to The Guardian.
“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt,” the source said. “What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician.”
According to the report, the tensions boiled over in July when Comey declined to recommend charges against the Democratic presidential nominee for possibly mishandling classified information through her use of a private email server to conduct government business, according to the FBI agent.
Comey last week sent a letter to congressional committees notifying them that the FBI was looking at new emails uncovered in a separate investigation that could be related to the Clinton case. The FBI has come under tremendous criticism from Democrats and some Republicans for interfering with the election by releasing that information to Congress just under two weeks from Election Day.
There have been further leaks about internal fights within the FBI and other possible investigations since the Comey news broke, all of which has suggested an agency in a public war with itself. Source So, when will an investigation about abuse of office be launched against Comey and his crooks? A federal institution should be impartial, and the past weeks have shown that they are clearly not.
I'm not sure when; and it's not clear how publicly they'll announce it, while cleaning house is good, there may be criminal violations, and people tend to like ot keep criminal cases secret. Also politicians are really busy with the election, so I think stuff will mostly get done afterwards. Most of congress is probably out campaigning right now.
just checked the calendar:
http://actioninc.apts.org/legislative/resources/congressional-calendar
congress is in recess until nov 13; and then they only stay for a week until thanksgiving recess. then they have a few weeks in early december.
|
On November 04 2016 11:00 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:21 Aquanim wrote:On November 04 2016 09:11 pmh wrote:On November 04 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
1) Correct.
2) Correct.
3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence. I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree. Yeah, the difference is that you are willing to believe that basic agents are influencing the elections for a just cause because the heads of the FBI, DoJ and Internal Corruption are bought. The rest of the world doesn't believe random people making extraordinary claims on their word. I haven't concluded anything of the sort. I'm waiting to see the evidence. However, from what I've seen so far, I do think that it is more likely than not that the FBI agents have a point. Fbi must have something concrete against Clinton,that is pretty obvious to me. If they didn't have anything concrete I doubt they would risk bringing out the news that they did. They probably have skimmed through the mails already,or have other reliable information. Will go further and say that what they found is probably very sensitive,hence all the caution when proceeding. Not going to fast,do it slow and good. What "risk" is involved in these leaks? The risk of being blamed for interfering with the election without having any good reason. What if Clinton wins and the fbi got nothing? Surely heads will roll.
Who's going to get blamed? Is it even known who's doing the leaking? If not, then there's no risk at all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
comey isn't a crook. he's being unfairly maligned
|
On November 04 2016 09:21 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:11 pmh wrote:On November 04 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case
2. it is still going rogue
3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence. I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree. Yeah, the difference is that you are willing to believe that basic agents are influencing the elections for a just cause because the heads of the FBI, DoJ and Internal Corruption are bought. The rest of the world doesn't believe random people making extraordinary claims on their word. I haven't concluded anything of the sort. I'm waiting to see the evidence. However, from what I've seen so far, I do think that it is more likely than not that the FBI agents have a point. Fbi must have something concrete against Clinton,that is pretty obvious to me. If they didn't have anything concrete I doubt they would risk bringing out the news that they did. They probably have skimmed through the mails already,or have other reliable information. Will go further and say that what they found is probably very sensitive,hence all the caution when proceeding. Not going to fast,do it slow and good. What "risk" is involved in these leaks?
huh, penalties are lighter than I thought.
the relevant penalties section of the hatch act:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7326
An employee or individual who violates section 7323 or 7324 shall be subject to removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.
that's a pretty pitiful penalty really. I also hate the way the law codes specify a dollar amount and doesn't auto-update them; that $1000 was set in 1940.
and as to who's doing the leaking? they WILL be doing an investigation into that. whether they find the guy who knows.
|
On November 04 2016 09:29 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:03 pmh wrote:
deleted. site charges 10% which is ridiculous. reported for obvious meme bait
right.
I did link a website, predictit.org, where you can bet on the political market. There are all sorts of bets. At first I thought it was an interesting website as it was founded by a university and looked professional,but then I found out that they charge 10% of the profits as fee.
So I deleted it.
what even is meme bait??
|
On November 04 2016 11:04 oneofthem wrote:
comey isn't a crook. he's being unfairly maligned
Crook or hero depending on whether or not his investigation goes the way you think it should go.
|
On November 04 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:
So I'm curious, since we have a bunch of attorneys (and a paralegal) in here: how would you go about defending this dumbass if you wanted the best chance of a favorable result?
Looking at the article in more detail, I can't give a concrete answer because I don't know exactly what the claims and the elements of those claims are. It's not even clear what relief Tesla is seeking (legal or equitable) or how the defendant is trying to get lawsuit thrown out (are we talking overall litigation strategy? dismissal on the pleadings? summary judgment?). In fact, I'm not even sure where the lawsuit was filed. All of that said, these claims often require a showing of reasonable reliance for the claim to be actionable legally. So if Tesla is unable to make that showing, then the defendant could win outright.
|
As an aside, executives in the oil industry are notoriously shady (and sometimes stupid) as fuck (and I've been involved in a lot of cases involving them), so color me unsurprised that an oil exec would try something like this.
|
On November 04 2016 11:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:
So I'm curious, since we have a bunch of attorneys (and a paralegal) in here: how would you go about defending this dumbass if you wanted the best chance of a favorable result? Looking at the article in more detail, I can't give a concrete answer because I don't know exactly what the claims and the elements of those claims are. It's not even clear what relief Tesla is seeking (legal or equitable) or how the defendant is trying to get lawsuit thrown out (are we talking overall litigation strategy? dismissal on the pleadings? summary judgment?). In fact, I'm not even sure where the lawsuit was filed. All of that said, these claims often require a showing of reasonable reliance for the claim to be actionable legally. So if Tesla is unable to make that showing, then the defendant could win outright.
Fair point, I can definitely see that perspective. This almost seems like a non-issue from a legal perspective unless the dude was stupid enough to admit he was attempting to acquire the info in question.
|
On November 04 2016 11:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:
So I'm curious, since we have a bunch of attorneys (and a paralegal) in here: how would you go about defending this dumbass if you wanted the best chance of a favorable result? Looking at the article in more detail, I can't give a concrete answer because I don't know exactly what the claims and the elements of those claims are. It's not even clear what relief Tesla is seeking (legal or equitable) or how the defendant is trying to get lawsuit thrown out (are we talking overall litigation strategy? dismissal on the pleadings? summary judgment?). In fact, I'm not even sure where the lawsuit was filed. All of that said, these claims often require a showing of reasonable reliance for the claim to be actionable legally. So if Tesla is unable to make that showing, then the defendant could win outright.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2016/09/14/tesla-sues-oil-industry-exec-it-says-pretended-to-be-elon-musk-to-gain-secrets/#67461eb7dd37
There is a copy of the complaint attached to the article. It is pretty bare bones and does not appear to be the whole story. I can't believe Tesla would go that hard to find out who sent the email if it was an isolated event. The chain of events seems to be:
Email was sent
Tesla goes HAM and tracks down how sent it and hacks some twitter account.
Finds out it is an oil exec
Files claim
Their damages appear to be focused on recouping the costs of hunting this brain trust down.
|
Okay, so the credibility of the impersonation is a necessary element of the claims. So yes, I'd consider fighting on those grounds, particularly given that exemplary damages seem to be available.
|
On November 04 2016 11:52 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, so the credibility of the impersonation is a necessary element of the claims. So yes, I'd consider fighting on those grounds, particularly given that exemplary damages seem to be available.
So under what conditions would a stupid argument like that actually get accepted?
|
I really want to see their opposition and how they justify such extreme measures to figure out who sent a single email. The cost of doing is prohibitive without a good reason.
|
On November 04 2016 11:55 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 11:52 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, so the credibility of the impersonation is a necessary element of the claims. So yes, I'd consider fighting on those grounds, particularly given that exemplary damages seem to be available. So under what conditions would a stupid argument like that actually get accepted?
Given that the impersonation was immediately recognized here when tried, this could be it. I don't know the applicable case law, though.
|
On November 03 2016 14:21 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 13:39 Buckyman wrote:On November 03 2016 13:28 Doodsmack wrote:On November 03 2016 12:12 Buckyman wrote:On November 03 2016 12:10 Doodsmack wrote:
I'd have to a imagine Clinton lawyers could get the wikileaks evidence thrown out pretty easily. Unless the FBI subpoenaed Podesta's gmail or something. A lot of the Podesta emails have cryptographic signatures that prove they were sent from his account. Isn't that just us taking Wikileaks at their word or is there some way to verify? Ultimately Wikileaks is just splashing text up on their website, it could be entirely fabricated for all we know. Wikileaks can't sign documents using the private key from Podesta's email account. Is the private key anything other than a string of text displayed on the wikileaks website? How do we verify that what we're seeing as the key on the wikileaks website came from google? I'm just saying Russian intelligence could in theory modify these emails before giving them to wikileaks. Thus why they could maybe be challenged in court.
There are two keys involved in this sort of crypto signature.
Podesta's private key lets his email client attach a 'signature' to an email - an encrypted hash of the message. The signature requires access to the private key to produce, is always the same for any given message text, but is different (with very, very high probability) if the text is changed even slightly.
Podesta's public key is, well, public. Anyone can request it from gmail. It's used to verify that his private key was the one used to generate a given signature.
To the best of my knowledge, his private was never leaked. Access to his private key would imply not only compromising his account, but also gmail itself. And without the private key, nobody can forge a signature.
Therefore, either the messages were actually sent from Podesta's account, or the leak is a far more extensive security issue than revealed to the tune of "we have control of everyone's email".
|
Severe anxiety. Fear of retaliation. Shame. And a sense of having been abandoned by their leaders.
That's how more than a dozen current employees interviewed by CNNMoney describe the mood inside Wells Fargo (WFC) in the aftermath of the fake account scandal that has shaken the bank to its core.
"The culture is toxic," said John, a Wells Fargo home mortgage consultant. CNNMoney is not identifying any of the workers by their real names because each of them insisted on anonymity for fear of getting fired.
The post-scandal atmosphere has taken a huge toll, John said, because customers now assume "Wells is scamming them." Things have gotten so bad that John said he is taking Xanax to control his panic attacks.
"It's beyond embarrassing to admit I am a current employee these days. My family and friends think I'm a fraud for working at Wells," John said.
It's been just over seven weeks since Wells Fargo admitted to creating as many as 2 million unauthorized accounts and firing 5,300 workers since 2011. The scandal led to the abrupt retirement of longtime CEO John Stumpf.
New CEO Tim Sloan has vowed to make things right at Wells Fargo, but recent conversations with current employees suggest he has a long road ahead in fixing how workers in the trenches feel about top executives.
"They don't care about us. All they care about is money in their pocket," said Jane, a Wells Fargo collections worker, who said she is being treated for depression and anxiety due to the high-stress environment.
"Wells says they are there for us. I have not seen it," she said.
Source
|
And yet, all in all I've had better experiences with WF than with the other major banks I deal with (BoA, Chase etc).
|
As someone who has worked for all three, they are deeply stupid on so many levels. Forget to big to fail, they are to large to function. BoA has a special place in my heart for having one of their local branches foreclosed because they failed to respond to a civil claim. The civil claim was the repeatedly attempted to foreclose on the wrong house.
But WF deserves everything it has coming to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
