Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the Bill of Rights says a militia, not to exceed 500,000 people has a right to maintain weapons to defend local communities from incursions, and that the public at large can choose officers to maintain those weapons.
I know this because, the federalist papers were written to explain the Constitution to the public, and were published in local papers before the ratification.
The authors of the Federalist papers consist of a President, a Chief Justice, and Commander of the Army.
If you want to say times have changed fine. I will agree, but the founders never supported individual gun ownership that way.
Well yes, but not everything in the Federalist Papers was agreed on to be part of the Constitution. What was agreed upon made it to the final draft after much debate.
The best way to think about the Bill of Rights is that the Framers decided the Government had no business being involved in the subjects written in them.
It was never hacked. The DL speed of the transfer was too fast to be hacked. It was an external drive. Inside job. Seth Rich's own communications and e-mail attachments show he was transferring data to a conduit, who was in direct connection with Assange. Assange has admitted Seth was a source.
You write this as if you know anything about the technology. What you 'know' is what you have been told through your handlers, and you repeat it as if it were facts.
Don't be someone else's tool. Stand up for America.
So we agree that the FBI was given the same copy/copies as Crowdstrike, yes? And that Crowdstrike never had "the server" in their possession? Further can we agree that Crowdstrike is an American company and the "the server" has never been in Ukraine?
Do we agree that copies of the drives from as close to the time the "hack" was suspected are more beneficial than the physical drives themselves weeks/months later?
Do we agree that there could have been modifications made to the copies, but there is no evidence that any modifications were actually made?
The FBI was never able to evaluate whether the server was actually hacked. Period.
So, a video Fox News retracted, apologized for, admitted wasn't true and promised they no longer would use that source isn't being "debunked"?
Bold stance.
Debunked means disproven. Parts of the video might be debunked. I have no idea -- I never watched it. But we're not talking about a video. We're talking about the claim that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. And that claim has not been debunked.
Fox News did not -- AND COULD NOT -- "admit" it wasn't true. Fox simply decided it wasn't worth the litigation risk to have to prove to a judge or jury that what they said about Seth Rich's brother was true. That doesn't prove anything they said about Seth Rich's brother was false, let alone what they and others said about Seth Rich himself.
Who proved that the claim about Seth Rich wasn't true? No one.
Who tried to prove it wasn't true? No one.
Is it true? We don't know. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Is it plausible? Absolutely.
Don't forget that all of the different security services confirmed that it was the Russians that hacked the DNC server.
You can't be serious. Sure, the CIA calls in Coast Guard Intelligence and says, hey, we already investigated this, but just for the hell of it -- just because we love wasting the taxpayers' money -- why don't you do your own investigation?
You can't be serious. Sure, the CIA calls in Coast Guard Intelligence and says, hey, we already investigated this, but just for the hell of it -- just because we love wasting the taxpayers' money -- why don't you do your own investigation?
Mueller has an extensive section on the hacking by the Russians..
“ it is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these E Mail accounts , which were not public”
HMMM. Could it be because only a clone , one of several having been looked over and worked on by DNC Lawyers and staffer , was available for examination ?
Perhaps the reason that it is unclear is that the evidence, the trail, was redacted by the DNC?
And why wasn’t the actual data synopsis ( technical details ) released with the Mueller Report? Just words on a page, opinions of Lawyers telling us it was as they say.
Right.
“ it is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these E Mail accounts , which were not public”
HMMM. Could it be because only a clone , one of several having been looked over and worked on by DNC Lawyers and staffer , was available for examination ?
Perhaps the reason that it is unclear is that the evidence, the trail, was redacted by the DNC?
And why wasn’t the actual data synopsis ( technical details ) released with the Mueller Report? Just words on a page, opinions of Lawyers telling us it was as they say.
Right.
You have an official government analysis and your response is that there is no technical details. They would be inappropriate and likely far too large. They may also deal with matters the government does not wish to openly discuss. And it is the view of a chief cop on an investigation.
Basically you do not wish to deal with the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
