fun for us if they hack, but that evidence won't stand up in court. We need some red-handed, sure as eggs, bona-fida verified data, or even a good argument with several points, that proves beyond a resaonable doubt that x did y. This tactic of using the media to provoke a response, allows the defence to save face, if they can, legally. So they offer short-cuts for the defence to bite on.
However, there are many routes up the mountian. What if nothing is forthcoming? Not even a knee-jerk from the social media hype?
Can they see who or which computers were communicating with timestamps? sure, IF so, who is the recipient? No doubt some sort of login was already detected, when they did the deed. IS there data being held by private or national-size servers? Who owns/runs those? This way lies legalese minefields: Are we allowed to just go hunt through some server's data base? I think not. I'm sure governments already do, but they won't admit to it. [insert: Spies, five eyes; NSA etc.]. To gain access with a search warrant, the court must first order one. It's a strategy that has a variable that is determined in court, by possibly biased judges and can mean the defence's involvement or even derailment claiming muh privacy. It has a extra step in the process, and requires some planning.
They can also triangulate the non-voters from cross-checking voter rolls against Dr Frank's 6th polynomial curves, but that will only prove that a numbers racket happened, and ballot destruction and stuffing occurred, until it is followed with a knock-around that some are balking at, on grounds of privacy rights or something. Determination will be needed to overcome resistance, even to the grass-roots level when canvassers could be attacked in the street by agitators. This may win Trump his re-instatement, but it is hard work. It could also turn into a bloodbath.
They have found algorithms used with a very high correlation, so high, it's unnatural. Nice but it needs to be part of evidence because we have not pointed to the perpetrator ... yet.
BRING ON THE HACKERS!
fun for us if they hack, but that evidence won't stand up in court. We need some red-handed, sure as eggs, bona-fida verified data, or even a good argument with several points, that proves beyond a resaonable doubt that x did y. This tactic of using the media to provoke a response, allows the defence to save face, if they can, legally. So they offer short-cuts for the defence to bite on.
However, there are many routes up the mountian. What if nothing is forthcoming? Not even a knee-jerk from the social media hype?
Can they see who or which computers were communicating with timestamps? sure, IF so, who is the recipient? No doubt some sort of login was already detected, when they did the deed. IS there data being held by private or national-size servers? Who owns/runs those? This way lies legalese minefields: Are we allowed to just go hunt through some server's data base? I think not. I'm sure governments already do, but they won't admit to it. [insert: Spies, five eyes; NSA etc.]. To gain access with a search warrant, the court must first order one. It's a strategy that has a variable that is determined in court, by possibly biased judges and can mean the defence's involvement or even derailment claiming muh privacy. It has a extra step in the process, and requires some planning.
They can also triangulate the non-voters from cross-checking voter rolls against Dr Frank's 6th polynomial curves, but that will only prove that a numbers racket happened, and ballot destruction and stuffing occurred, until it is followed with a knock-around that some are balking at, on grounds of privacy rights or something. Determination will be needed to overcome resistance, even to the grass-roots level when canvassers could be attacked in the street by agitators. This may win Trump his re-instatement, but it is hard work. It could also turn into a bloodbath.
They have found algorithms used with a very high correlation, so high, it's unnatural. Nice but it needs to be part of evidence because we have not pointed to the perpetrator ... yet.