I don't just mean printer based but yeah.
When I think watermark I usually think of something specifically placed but I am including other things that aren't necessarily intentional (for example discoloration from a smoke-heavy environment).
What's more how do they know they didn't arrest her on that date? I'm not suggesting clones or anything more strange, but it's not uncommon for people in major investigations to be brought into custody and then released, or interrogated, or tracked, etc.
Realistically, if they had arrested her, but weren't prepared to publicize the state of affairs, they'd do their best to make it look like she wasn't.
It's too ambiguous to utilize as a counter-proof. If anything, the greatest Q criticism is the ambiguity. Realistically, the only reason I put any salt to it is because there are so many instances in which future has proven past.
When you look at the details it isn't just BLM. It's any human rights activism.
Two angles I see: 1.) China has been VERY sensitive about it since the Hong Kong protests and people slipping "free Hong Kong" in everywhere. 2.) The Olympics have always been about nations engaging in their rivalries on an "even" (if you ignore doping lol) playing field versus their rivals in sport. Soviets versus the US comes to mind. Diverting from that to have all the participants grandstand their internal and external politics in the sideshow stuff is antithetical to the purpose.
Now, given what we know about the global community, this is far more likely about the first one, IMO.
Maybe maybe not, but they'd lose any legal challenge.
I think this was an attempt to poke the defenses. If they could get it frozen without the money or serious legal challenge, it buys them time. They apparently cannot.
Next out of their playbook would be to bribe the people that can make it happen. If that fails, it will likely turn into threatening people that can shut it down.
I think we are ignoring this too much. There are many people that can shut this audit down; they need full protections just like the audit itself directly does. We're talking state judges/supreme court, state senators, etc.
If all else fails I imagine they'll take damage control routes. Instead of covering up or stopping the audit they can purge their traces with the people on the ground that did it. Silence them or discredit them entirely. Make it look like an isolated incident.
I think they knew they could not take the legal avenue successfully. They probably just opted to not over-invest into a failed strategy.
See, the only legal legs they can stand on are accusations of impartiality and associated insecurity of the ballots. Since the audit won a legal battle to begin with, this will have trouble getting traction. Since the audit is livestreamed for transparency, this is an untenable position.
I don't think it shows confidence, I think it is one of two things: 1.) A move of desperation. Maximum delays to have time to plan a counter. 2.) A feint. Make it look like they'll approach this the legalistic route, back out. We've won, right? Wrong! They'd have some other plan, the question is what.
I could believe they're stumped. We have security, people working it don't seem to be vulnerable, it's live streamed, it's got legal and financial backing, etc.
That said, a cornered animal is perhaps the most dangerous. They'll probably keep trying things off the cuff in hopes of finding a weakness, and slowly ramp up the intensity. We know they're capable of extreme violence. We all must pray for the protection and validity of this audit. The crime must be exposed.
What are you on about?
The handshake is exactly right. The audits expose the Xiden regime. Xiden fights it. Government implodes, the people go nuts, and military is forced to step in.
"military is the only way" doesn't mean they don't have help.
"When I was just a boy, me an Cornpop, we used to go at it in back with our knives. We'd slash and roll and weave, and when we weren't doing that, we were sharpening them and using them to shave off our budding blonde leg hair.
One day, Cornpop brought a gun. I told 'im "that don' belong round here, c'mon man!" he raised it and started terrorizing the neighborhood. Nobody could have their fun with the knife fights anymore, everyone was heartbroken. Then, fifteen years later, Cornpop went on to become a cop. He was a bad cop, man. One day he tried to arrest me when I was sniffing a kid. I said to him "C'mon man, let me just live!" but that wasn't good enough for him; so I wrestled him to the ground and we went at it like we used to when we were boys. When we was done Cornpop decided to leave me be. He was a bad, bad, dude."
- Joe Biden, probably?
I am not saying I agree or disagree with your take, just to be clear, just commenting in relation.
I honestly think I could take or leave Trump in some capacity at this point. On one hand, the people voted for him; he should be president; he is also an absolutely fantastic leader.
On the other, if the Great Awakening happens and our government is purged of corruption, any patriot that is a good leader will be fine by me!
That's basically impossible.
"Bot farms" aren't really like server farms or anything like that; they don't really even have a physical location. Anyone adept enough at certain (relatively simple) operations, and with enough time on their hands, can compile a "botnet". What we're observing is a series of DDoS attacks (Distributed Denial of Service) which basically happens by directing a "botnet" to send traffic to a destination.
Basically, everything that is connected to the internet has an address and can send and receive information to and from that address. Botnets are lists of these devices that can be readily weaponized, without the owner of the device even knowing it, to all send packets to a destination website. Because it's a collection of all different devices with their own unique addresses, the host of the website cannot just block specific addresses. That is why it is called "distributed". Many people call this "hacking", but realistically it can be done without breaking into any systems or getting access to any data, which reduces the applicability of that term.
Defenses against DDoS attacks have improved over the years; there are ways of automatically predicting which messages from which addresses are chaff, though the most common way is and probably will remain placing some temporary restrictions on the traffic until it is over (attacks are limited in time roughly proportionately to the size of the botnet used). Many websites and services, including high profile ones, lack sufficient DDoS protections as well.
Knowing who perpetrated the attack from the attack alone should be next to impossible. It could be anyone with enough patience or some spare change. If my memory serves me right, the going rate was something like a few hundred bucks for a several thousand strong botnet, and that's just Joe Blow buying an attack from the black market corners of the internet. Tracing such transactions, I'd imagine, would be the only way of identifying attackers. Nobody that's operating in those spheres on the internet is going to be inept at securing their identity.
In other words, there's almost certainly no way of figuring out who is doing it. It's likely a state-sponsored actor, which means he can't even sue them because they aren't in this country. It will continue as long as his attackers care to make it (and can afford it; given a state actor that means indefinitely practically).
Maybe he figured something out. He'd have to know something that dozens of the most successful tech companies still haven't figured out. That said, I REALLY don't believe what you're describing him saying could ever come to be.
Now, if we're talking about people actively hacking into the website and stealing data or changing code, I could see that being traced. Even then, though, any hacker worth their salt (like state-sponsored ones should be) will be undetected and legally immune.
You'd have basically no way of knowing who he would be.