Wiki - releases 8000+ DNC emails.
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Leaks showing them discussing the risk of being sued for defamation for posting the "sexist job ads" from Trump. These fvcks need to go down.
Of course. Costs money to keep crooked politicians honest.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...operty-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
By now, I think pretty much everyone has made up their mind. If someone votes for Clinton, they truly understand they are voting for a dishonest politician. Vote for Trump...and you'll certainly get change...who knows good or bad. I had hoped for the nuclear bomb that the press couldn't even suppress...but at this point, Wiki isn't going to do anything else but solidify what we already know.
Didn't bother to quote sec 1 which specifically talks about applying only to specific individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the State Department and the AG.
So....still no.
Right... with advice from the SOS and AG anyone who has engaged in cyber activities contributing to the harm of US interests. Which is why I quoted 7 saying there need be no prior notice that this has been determined.
Again, sorry assuming implied knowledge, I have to remember that on posts you are involved on. I have that prob with my kids, too. Just rattling on about things I consider common sense and realizing they have none.
Again, sorry assuming implied knowledge, I have to remember that on posts you are involved on. I have that prob with my kids, too. Just rattling on about things I consider common sense and realizing they have none.
Despite your best effort, this still doesn't apply to Wikileaks. I'll take the word of the lawyer on a legal matter over the word of a definitely not a lawyer or anything close to one.
Just curious, is Clinton Scott a close relative of yours?
Is the George Soros message board Clinton defense posting project paying you by the post or for content? If it's by content, they are overpaying.
Another post just ringing with "integrity". You are a real piece of work.
1. It does, however, require that they actually be determined to meet the standard and to be subject to the Executive Order. Section 7 just says you don't have to provide them notice of the determination. You have provided no evidence that such a determination has been made. Last time I checked, the DNC wasn't "critical infrastructure".
2. Even if it had, contributing to them would be a violation of the Executive Order...a separate offense.....wholly different than "accessory to theft" (which is criminal). Your entire new argument is irrelevant to your original proposition and a red herring from the start.
So yeah....still no.
Last edited:
Hell, the Executive Order you cited is just authorizing sanctions against the cyber-attackers of critical infrastructure.
It's not even a criminal statute.....like "accessory" statutes are.
So...yes, please....tell us more about how you are assuming implied knowledge.
It's not even a criminal statute.....like "accessory" statutes are.
So...yes, please....tell us more about how you are assuming implied knowledge.
Last edited:
Hell, the Executive Order you cited is just authorizing sanctions against the cyber-attackers of critical infrastructure.
It's not even a criminal statute.....like "accessory" statutes are.
So...yes, please....how you are assuming implied knowledge.
