That said, it would only take one person to hack voter registrations, so there would be no possibility of a criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement among two or more people to violate a law....

Good to hear this is getting some press.

And you'll never guess against who. Yeah yeah, that's a disproved article but one more besides CA and then it does fall into RICO

Thanks for the info.

.


These issues will stop quick, fast, and in a hurry.


.

.


Data Security and Business Continuity are seen as cost areas, that many shitty IT providers and cheak as fuck companies skip to save a buck.

Oh, but then where is a publicized data breech, then that shit comes back in spades.


The problem is, many times that information loss is never discovered or hidden for a long period of time.


.

As Chair because a good leader takes full responsibility especially for such a huge cluster fuck as this.



cause all on this board know better than Debbie would do the right thing

has the best hackers. Bourgeois "democracy" is a total joke.

How many were changed? 10,100,1000? These articles using qualitative versus quantitative analysis are completely useless.

"multitudes" yeah, umm, OK.

But I would be fine with pressing the D.A. for as many details as possible. Those details are not all necessary before this is news, however.

It wasn't even really close, so there must be evidence of mind-numbing totals out there - perhaps you can tell me where the numbers are?

Seems I'm getting alternating replies from different posters

And you're taking this seriously? lol

Or should look into it. So yeah like the OP says it is an imortant development. Even if it "only" messed with republicans, no voter of any flavor should get their registration hacked..

"an invited guest at the grand opening of the Temecula Valley Republican Headquarters "

Come on, you really believe this nonsense?

As an attorney, while most will think attorneys may not be honest, their most common dishonesty would be exaggerating and distorting kind of lies. What a prosecuting attorney can NOT DO is allege he has investigators who have discovered a hack, without getting into ethical trouble. So I find his statement as an "authoritty" pretty reliable IN THIS IMPORTANT BUT RESTRICTED SENSE. Now, when he is speaking to Republica s on the issue, for reasons exactly analogous to what happens with a couple folks already posting replies on this thread, the DA doesn't want to be seen as helping Democrats in front of republicans so he fudge as much as he can on the scope of the hack. But a hack pretty much has to be supported by evidence,so I believe the core part of what the DA said: a hack happened, just like I wouod believe the core part if a DA announced that a murder occurred. The DA can't really fabricate the core fact, and starts to have incentives to exaggerate and twist facts only once they are trying to tag evidence to a certain defendant. Thus, the DA is truthfully reporting a hack, but probably lying or twisting when he tried to say it affected republicans only, because in saying that he is trying to tag the evidence potentially to some Dem sympathizer.

The primary process has, really, been befouled.

so resort to claiming that you were cheated out of victory.

Pathetic

Why do you say this? I am asking around for numbers - perhaps you have something concrete to share.

A dozen? More?

go sit next to Alex Jones

As president Carter says, we no longer have a functioning democracy

Get over your primary loss..

This is the DA of Riverside County which is a conservative inland swatch between LA and San Diego. I hadn't heard of any of this but it has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

Referring to the Riverside County District attorney, one can say:

1. A California District Attorney announced today that.....
But, one can not properly say the following, because there is no state-level district attorney as you properly point out:
2. THE California District attorney announced today that....

Now, i did not use either the article "a" or the areticle "the" due to running out of space in the title line. But if I had more space available I would have added the "A" so it would read like #1 above.

It is permissible, and frequently practiced in expert, technical and time-pressured professions, to do what are called "whiz deletions" which include elimination of articles roughly like what I did in the title we are talking about. The plain English writing movement pushes back on that because it can create ambiguity in some cases like this one as an example.

So, you're right it is ambiguous. But you didn't say that, you instead imputed one particular construction (#2 above) and in effect declared me uninformed and deserving of public civics knowledge correction for allegedly not knowing that the state of California itself does not have D.A.'s, the counties do.

I guess when people such as yourself are eager to disagree or make an opponent seem wrong, things like this happen. It has been a while since I posted extensively on Dau so I have some reservoir of good will to try to work out why this particular misunderstanding occurred. I reassure you that I do possess the knowledge you were concerned I did not have. So have a great evening!

says the non-existent California D.A.

Please read more carefully next time. Thank you

which I am about to let loose. It should get as much attention as this wish upon a unicorn story. I am so #berndout.

Re-do!!!

The illuminati never sleep.

Contempt prior to investigation is a hallmark of that kind of cynicism

after endless repetition of the same unproven bullshit excuses for losing.

It's laughable on its face.

You prove vote switching or hacking or whatever in a lawsuit in front of a jury. Posting random silly conspiracy theory bs you find online in strange sources does not deserve my "investigation."

Most people see this stuff as denial and sour grapes. There is no way any "hacking" made the difference in a primary one candidate won by well north of three million votes. Hundreds would have to be in on it and keep it secret. And no smart politician would ever take that chance when they had a perfectly good expectation of winning clean, as Hillary always did.

It's hilarious in its way though. Almost parodically so.

Who are you actually accusing? If you had real proof you'd file charges or a lawsuit. And win.

Having litigated numerous cases in this field especially during the Bush years, I fully understand the points you make about the demands of evidence and proof. The reason I post this is that I am personally unaware of any election official or "autheoty" EVER admitting that a hack occurred. So, it is a remarkable admission.

I think some here think of the guilt of the story as an ACCUSATION, so naturally you wish to know who is being gored here, or attempting to. Nobody. I'm personally agnostic. What's remarkable to me is that the wall of respectability and solid operation of elections got busted in Riverside County by an ADMITTED HACK. They never admit ANYTHING (Election officials and prosecutors).

Ok in fairnessome other lines above pointed to the relevance of the story as probably forcing other counties to investigate. They won't be so partisan as the Riverside DA. I have no idea where this investigation will lead. Most likely not too far because even if it is true the greatest fear of election officials is that the perceptions of election integrity they right to maintain will be shattered. (Already are, but...) so they fight against these kinds of admissions with their entire heart and soul.

Other people besides me are obsessing about who might be the target of the Republica. DA insinuation. I don't think any hacker would be connected to either camp, frankly, so I'm not worried about the assumptions people make here that lead them to conclude the OP or others' replies are conspiratorial ramblings. I'm focused on an admission that may be slightly historic.

I believe Brad Blog covered it extensively if memory serves.

where the excerpt ended and your comment began.



I didn't notice you'd left a comment because you didn't set it off. When it appears to me that there is just a quoted section below a link, then I usually go directly to it.

Opinions are divided, however, concerning whether I do that intentionally or just negligently. Lol

I hope all is well with you.

Are you involved in the Ohio RICO suit?

But hacks do happen. A point too often denied out of hand when an investigation wouod be the appropriate response.

Those who believe Clinton was behind all these so called hacks, and somehow the hacker knew which Democrats were going to voter for Bernie, and only changed their party registration. Many times over the course of the primaries I have see some here claim that BS, that only Bernie's voters were targeted to lower his vote count. Must be some damned good hackers who can tell just from looking at your name who you are going to vote for!

than the other side. That said, I see no evidence of anyone's particular involvement, other than the knee jerk defensiveness of a few. No allegation is made in the OP or by anyone anywhere as to who may have done it. Only as to who was allegedly affected by it. Maybe somebody somewhere else made allegations like those you characterized of HRC involvement. No need to raise that straw man here.

The actual reason has a lot to do with libel laws, which give media qualified immunity for printing the press releases of officials in criminal matters. The media infact Can NOT go to the victim for example, independently verify it, AND PRINT QUOTES, without losing their qualified immunity. Yes, it's not illegal to verify or check on stories but they are then subject to more.legal exposure. So they are not in the habit of checking things out.

This story is in the media there.locally. the relevant question is when or if it would jump from local media to regional or nationwide media. We all know there are many many good stories and issues that. Dont.make that leap to the big.time.

You make an evidence-dependent argument but you have no.evidence that there was an attempt to verify that failed. And even.if you did have that evidence the prosecutor is under no obligation to share the work of his.investigators upon request. So a media outlet could fail to get the evidence.but that failure wouldn't mean anything like "no evidence exists."

You could check with that DA's office, though.