SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

This is where, if Dems wanted to play hardball, they'd introduce articles of impeachment in the House for his seat on the DC Circuit and make a criminal referral to DOJ over perjury to Congress.

[bearrock]

Dems should consider promising a smooth and quick confirmation to one of the others on the list.  It is a terrible precedent to let Kavanaugh get confirmed despite his extremely questionable statements to the senate (or perjury depending on your opinion of Kavanaugh's credibility).  At the very least, his acceptance of material from Miranda seems to be willful blindness to me.

Edited September 8, 2018 by bearrock

[tshile]

49 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Dems should consider promising a smooth and quick confirmation to one of the others on the list. 

Then not doing it. 

 

Im against lying just because the person you lied to has done scummy things to you but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t. And I’d understand why even if I don’t like it. 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Then not doing it. 

 

Im against lying just because the person you lied to has done scummy things to you but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t. And I’d understand why even if I don’t like it. 

But GOP controls the senate at the very least until January and probably a lot longer after that.  I mean literally, dems could say, give us your shortlist, we would vote to confirm any one of the following candidates as soon as background check comes back confirming that they are not secretly a murderer.

 

I know there's no way it happens, just saying that's the kind of length I think dems should go to try to have the seat go to another conservative jurist rather than someone who at the very least seems to be playing fast and loose with the truth in senate testimony.

[twa]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

This is where, if Dems wanted to play hardball, they'd introduce articles of impeachment in the House for his seat on the DC Circuit and make a criminal referral to DOJ over perjury to Congress.

 

desperation is so sad

 

Quote

 

https://dworkinreport.com/2018/09/07/this-is-why-we-just-filed-a-criminal-complaint-against-brett-kavanaugh/

Scott Dworkin explains why he and the Democratic Coalition filed a criminal complaint to the US Department of Justice against Judge Brett Kavanaugh with the legal counsel of Massachusetts lawyer J. Whitfield Larrabee. Scott and Jon Cooper, who is the Chairman of the Democratic Coalition, both joined the complaint individually. A parallel judicial ethics complaint will be filed with the Clerk of the DC Circuit Court for Chief Judge Merrick Garland to review on Monday morning. Transcript

 

 

 

What happens when a objective look is taken?

 

Lat dismantles the hype

 

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by twa

[bearrock]

Even if Kavanaugh believed the mole claim, then it's the dem staffer doing the stealing, not Miranda.  Dem staffer sharing internal information with the GOP side would clearly go beyond any authorized access.  Either way, Kavanaugh knew that he was being fed inappropriately gotten information.  

 

Now Lat starts off with how it is allegedly "stolen" because the files were on a shared server and therefore is akin to exploiting a glitch.  https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792  Let me pause to give everyone a chance to have a good laugh.  So if my company files reside on a Amazon server with another company's file, can I exploit the "glitch" to access to those files at whim?  The question is of course a matter of permission and authority, not one of physical or digital proximity.

 

Now, the meat of the matter.  Kavanaugh testified as follows in 2006

 

Quote

Mr. Kavanaugh. I knew Manny Miranda because he was a member of Senator Hatch's staff and then Senator Frist's staff working on judicial nominations.

 

Senator Durbin. Did you ever work with him in terms of judicial nominations?

 

Mr. Kavanaugh. He was part of a group of Senate staffers that did work on judicial nominations with people at the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel's Office. We talked about this last time. I did not know about any memos from the Democratic side. I did not suspect that. Had I known or suspected that, I would have immediately told Judge Gonzales, who I'm sure would have immediately talked to Chairman Hatch about it. Did not know about it, did not suspect it. He was part, however, of the staff, of course, that worked on judicial nominations, including with--on both sides.

 

I think given that he was told that the source of information was a mole from the left and various emails containing materials marked as confidential, he had to be stupid not to suspect that he was being fed memos from the dem side.

 

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So if my company files reside on a Amazon server with another company's file, can I exploit the "glitch" to access to those files at whim? 

 

Currently this would be considered a crime. 

 

I dont agree with it but our legal system is slow to catch up on anything, as such this is currently a crime. 

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

desperation is so sad

 

Pesky laws.

 

How dare they get in the way of a forty year campaign to make women less than human!?

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Currently this would be considered a crime. 

 

I dont agree with it but our legal system is slow to catch up on anything, as such this is currently a crime. 

Would or would not be considered a crime?  The first sentence and second sentence kind of seems to conflict (or maybe my brain just isn't working on Sat morning?).

 

But many if not most computer crime statutes criminalize exceeding authorized access as well as unauthorized, so if I access files I don't have permissions for, that would fall within the scope of the statute

[tshile]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

Would or would not be considered a crime?  The first sentence and second sentence kind of seems to conflict (or maybe my brain just isn't working on Sat morning?).

 

But many if not most computer crime statutes criminalize exceeding authorized access as well as unauthorized, so if I access files I don't have permissions for, that would fall within the scope of the statute

Would. I don’t think my statements conflict. I think the current law in regard to unauthorized access is an over reaction to needing to put something in place to deal with computer crimes. 

 

But I also think it’s your responsibility to protect your stuff and if you fail in that responsibility, and I find out and am able to get to your stuff, then I should not be penalized with jail time. You’re the one who failed in your duty. You should be responsible for that. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Would. I don’t think my statements conflict. I think the current law in regard to unauthorized access is an over reaction to needing to put something in place to deal with computer crimes. 

 

But I also think it’s your responsibility to protect your stuff and if you fail in that responsibility, and I find out and am able to get to your stuff, then I should not be penalized with jail time. You’re the one who failed in your duty. You should be responsible for that. 

Got it, thanks for clarifying.  And I agree with it to a large degree.  Individual responsibility is important and certainly accidental access should not be criminalized.  I do think there are some circumstances where it is akin to burglarizing an unlocked house.  Should the owner have locked the house?  Of course.  But the burglar is doing wrong by taking advantage of the lax security as well.

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, twa said:

What happens when a objective look is taken?

 

Lat dismantles the hype

 

That thread is only on the Pryor stuff, which is different from memogate.

 

His memogate thread is a lot of "well it's not 100% clear it was stolen so why should he have known?"

 

As a defense attorney, I have made that argument before.

 

I usually lose.  Judges go "nice try, but no dice."

 

 

It's a bad defense especially once volume of evidence starts piling up.  Brett getting one memo marked confidential?  Okay, I can see him not really knowing.

 

But once you get to 5 or 6 or more, the circumstantial evidence reaches a point where Brett's denials start straining his credibility.

 

"Officer, I didn't know this cocaine was in my apartment and room!  My roommate brought it home and left it everywhere and I thought it was sugar!"

 

Yeah, that doesn't usually work.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

But I also think it’s your responsibility to protect your stuff and if you fail in that responsibility, and I find out and am able to get to your stuff, then I should not be penalized with jail time. You’re the one who failed in your duty. You should be responsible for that. 

Agreed. I was sifting through unmentionables in the unsecured lockers at LA Fitness the other day and some dumb broad left her purse in one. Easy $37!!

Edited September 8, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

But I also think it’s your responsibility to protect your stuff and if you fail in that responsibility, and I find out and am able to get to your stuff, then I should not be penalized with jail time. You’re the one who failed in your duty. You should be responsible for that

 

Doesnt that mean getting fired for leaving your documents unprotected? Or are you saying you should be criminally liable as well?

 

If I have a $100 bill showing in my back pocket and you swipe it, you stole from me. I left it insecure but you stole it. I am an idiot but that’s all unless you are saying something else?

[tshile]

This isn’t really the thread for this. The shortest way I can think to address all your responses without going much further is to say I don’t think putting documents on the public internet and having people see them (without having done anything wrong other than stumbling upon them) is the same as taking money out of your pocket or rummaging through someone’s purse or going into someone’s house uninvited because the door was unlocked. I consider all of those examples ridiculous. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by visionary

[Llevron]

Called it 

[bearrock]

Murkowski should at least demamd a bill to protect tribal interest in exchange for her yes vote.  GOP would have to be stupid to turn down that deal.  Whether she could trust GOP leadership is another matter.

[Dan T.]

22 hours ago, twa said:

Unfit my ass.

 

This is going straight to the Taken Out of Context thread. 

[visionary]

That’s something I definitely don’t want to see the records of....

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

[StillUnknown]

Steve Schmidt emptying the clip

 

respect