Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Watchdog Sues Trump's Election Committee Over Voter Data (engadget.com)
From a report: When the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity sent a letter to all 50 states seeking personal, identifying information on all voters in the US, at least 44 states refused in some part. Trump signed an executive order last May to create this commission while claiming that millions of people had voted illegally. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has taken issue with this request, as well, and has filed a lawsuit accusing the Commission of violating the privacy of American voters. EPIC also asserts that the original request asks states to send the data to a non-secure website, making the data vulnerable to identity theft and financial fraud. Not to mention political agendas. EPIC is also seeking information about "the failure to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment," and has filed for a temporary restraining order "to block the Commission's efforts."
I'm not as concerned about voter privacy (which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on) as the likelihood that whoever in this administration tasked to do it is some part time Republican committee-connected programmer bro (maybe not even that lowly skilled) who hacks together some shitty piece of analysis code that comes to wrong conclusions, is misused for political purposes, and is vulnerable to hacking.
This is the flavor of the week for the administration. It's one thing they are putting out there to see if it flies, and that's about how long their interest and dedication to doing the job right will last. There are people (secretaries of state, registrars, data scientists) whose entire lives are dedicated to maintaining and verifying and analyzig voter rolls. Who do you trust to handle and come to conclusions about this kind of data conscientiously?
As the Republicans say, when the Federal Government comes knocking with the line "I'm here to help" you should be scared. They're right in this case.
requesting that all the states turn over all this voter information and then imagine sputtering rage that would have ensued from the GOP.
The Democrats raised the loudest stick about elections being hacked. The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states...
Well then lets check, lets check everywhere the full extent of votes really being hacked, of votes really being cast illegally. What is the issue with not checking this? They claim voter privacy but there is no such concern in regards to the federal government which owns all of the results of a national election anyway and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.
Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit, and they do not want it uncovered - and here I'm speaking for both parties. This is yet another glimpse of the Deep State disliking being exposed to sunlight.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't get the brouhaha. Save for SSN#, voter registration records are public. There's plenty of websites that provide names, dates of registration, political party affiliation, home addresses, phone numbers, and even dates of last elections they voted in. And even if a state doesn't provide a public search interface for its voter registration database, plenty of PAC'S, party officials, etc. can request the records for a nominal fee. You could also get personal information from a database of people making campaign contributions. That latter is how gay marriage activists were able to harass people like Brendan Eich for their support of California's Prop 8.
Didn't hear much from EPIC then.
No one is protecting anything except Trump's fragile ego. This whole Advisory Commission action was set into motion because Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. Total waste of time and money... plus it apparently jeopardizes voter privacy and security. So don't try to politicize Trump's grandiosity, malignant narcissism, impulsivity, maniacal insecurity, or hypersensitivity to slights & criticism.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you need to produce ID to buy a gun (which is a constitutionally protected right), then you should need to produce an ID to vote.
RI found 150k+ illegal voters a week or so ago.
Um, no, no they didn't. They found inaccuracies in the registration lists and cleared them away (which happens when they didn't vote for the past 2 elections) or marked them inactive (when election mail is sent back as undeliverable). It's normal and part of maintaining accurate voter rolls. The names cleared didn't actually vote, by definition, you understand that, right?
You fucking losers just hate being wrong, so you lash out, call people names, threaten them and in some cases try to assassinate them. At some point you wankers will either grow up or being wiped off the map. Either way, everyone wins.
I don't know who you should contact for the hypocrite of the year awards, my apologies.
these are all issues that affect how each state is represented and are proper matters for a state to research (perhaps with support from the federal gov).
Why yes they are matters for the states to research.
However almost no states are doing so.
So the federal government has decided to do an audit. You know, like any non-crooked organization might have to do from time to time just to ensure things were on the level...
Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The voter rolls are public information that states may or may not make easy to get. They're normally available to anyone who follows the rules and pays the fee.
Or there's what California does.
What the hell does Trump think he's doing? Identifying all his 'enemies' within the 300,000,000 people in this country? What's next, Trump? Bringing back the McCarthy Committee? Loyalty tests? What a bunch of bullshit.
1. Put all of the data in a big Hadoop cluster.
2. Throw in social security records.
3. MapReduce/Spark
4. Nice big graphical charts that lay bare how absolutely cluster fucked our election system actually is in terms that even someone with an 80 IQ can understand.
My bet:
1. You'll find a lot of UMC voters double voting in different states where they have legal residences.
2. You'll find a lot of dead voters still voting.
3. You'll find a lot of immigrants.
If anything, I expect to find that felons are the least problematic group as most of them won't give two shits about voting if it steers them anywhere near a repeat offense that sends them back to prison.
Read the article summary. It's at the top of the page. That's part of what people are afraid of.
Sending sensitive, private financial information to CFPB? EPIC is A-OK with that!
Sending sensitive, private medical information to the Federal Data Services Hub under ACA? EPIC is A-OK with that too!
Collecting minimal voter information that's already mostly public to see whether there might be a problem with illegal voting? EPIC can't allow that!
It seems to me like EPIC is more driven by political partisanship than by a consistent concern for protecting the privacy of Americans from federal overreach.
The New York Times published the exact responses of the elections officials here: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/30/us/ap-us-voting-commission-state-responses.html
Almost all of them are along the lines of "we'll gladly turn over the information that our state considers public if the commission just fills out the standard paperwork for requesting it, but we aren't turning over the substantial amount of non-public data the commission is requesting without a court order".
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
"The letter, sent Wednesday to all 50 states, requests that all publicly available voter roll data be sent to the White House..."
They're asking for otherwise-PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information. They're not asking for secret stuff (why would the states have that anyway?).
Isn't it getting a little tiresome to misinterpret everything Trump does as malignantly as possible?
-Styopa
If we're lucky it's just Trump's ego that touched this off. Because this isn't some harebrained scheme to prove Trump is the bestest president ever.
No, this is an attempt to pull voter records for the entire US. It's data collection for targeted voter suppression under the guise of preventing fraud. This is some dark failed state dictatorship level shit.
Every state, across the board, across party lines has told them (In only slightly more polite words) to go fuck themselves.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Looks very reasonable to me. https://apps.npr.org/documents...
...which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on...
I'm not disagreeing with your overall comment, but some federal governments may legitimately ask for this, but the executive office of the United States of America cannot. The executive branch has no role whatsoever in elections.
Article I, Section 4 of the constitution states:
Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
It is up to the states to control elections, Congress can pass laws that can make and alter elections nation wide. The Executive office plays no role. Article 2:
Section. 1. ...
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The states are also in charge of their electors in the electoral college for the President of the United States. The President is not involved. The President should not get involved in the sausage making of the office of the President, as it would be a conflict of interest and cross the boundaries of the balance of power.
The twelfth amendment altered the way the electoral college worked, but it left un-changed the fact that the States, and not the federal government, is in charge of elections.
So it is true that some federal governments may have an interest in this, the federal government of the United States has an extremely limited role. The executive branch has no role in this whatsoever.
Look, the problem is that we know at least 39 states were hacked, and voting machines in specific counties and precincts were disabled, and attempts were made to disenroll American voters, by Russia.
But the commission is correct that the Russian White House is trying to make it worse.
Expect new actions after Putin's lapdog gets his new marching orders from his master at the G-20.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear"
- Words said before every dark chapter in history, ever.
Trump supporters are even dumber than we thought.
It sounds like the organization is basing its complaint on headlines, instead of what was actually requested. The committee did not ask for private information, or for information that it would be illegal to provide. Rather, the committee asked for information that was available to the public. Essentially, it seems to me, the committee was looking to save a few bucks by getting the data gift-wrapped, instead of going out and getting the data itself.
They're asking for significantly more information than what is publicly available. The types of info they are asking for make it seem like the are attempting massive purges of people who are likely to vote against them.
I particularly like Mississippi's response to the commission
Quoted in part: "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from."
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Dumbass A/C, afraid? Try pissed, and getting more so.
My concern is having to read some dumb-asses popping off and equating government to athletics. Until losers of athletic events are euthanized, there will be no valid comparison.
Block all blue states from participating in federal elections until they can prove, either by providing data to the federal government or through an internal audit run by an independent entity, that they don't have dead people, illegal aliens or other fraud on their voter rolls. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/...
Also, we need a federal voter ID law for all federal elections. The ID can be free, but you have to spend the time up front to get it at least 2 weeks before the election. If you can't be bothered, you clearly don't value your voting rights. We have made voting rights universal, to the detriment of the country, but there used to be all kinds of restrictions on voting rights, having the very minimal requirement of a photo voter ID is common sense if you want to prevent voter fraud, and a big problem if you are perpetrating it.
The Democrats hate voter ID laws for the simple fact that they abuse the ignorant (busing people from homeless shelters), the elderly (busing people from nursing homes who are mentally incapable of voting), the incarcerated, the dead, and some other just blatant fraud. Investigation into the veracity of the voter rolls would reveal some of this fraud and spur motivation for a national a voter ID law (probably in concert with a national registry that prevents voting in multiple states and culls dead people from the rolls periodically) and that would dramatically increase the difficulty of this fraud and abuse of our election system.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
If I have nothing to hide, it's none of your or anyone else's god damn business!
Yes, it is. But some of it isn't and has been declared unconstitutional (e.g. citizenship test)
I wish I had mod points to mod you up. I also wish that dumb-ass and chief would get to work. Is executive pay and benefits eligible to be considered and "Entitlement" when applied to billionaires?
That's nonsense. Every piece of info on your voter registration card is public info available to anyone who requests it.
Reading is fundamental:
" including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,..."
Read the letter, it is very clear: In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE voter roll data for Alabama, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information
Actually no there isn't. There are individual state popular votes that elect electors to the electoral college for the candidate that wins the majority of votes. But there isn't a national popular vote, contrary to what some morons seem to be asserting.
This can be done without sending the data to the Federal gov't. Allow auditors the ability to run queries physically at the states, but not remove any data from the state without getting permission. Disable the USB ports and search them at the door. Or only allow them to request queries in writing; they'd never have to touch the database itself.
Are you sure about this? We do have a federalist system.
Table-ized A.I.
I know lots of people say Trump is doing this because he's so egotistical that he can't believe he actually lost the popular vote. I actually think that's unlikely and 2 other reasons are a lot more likely.
1) It's simply red meat for his supporters and nothing more. If you have friends on Facebook who are pro-Trump and pro-Republican, you have probably been appalled at some of the crazy things they think are true. I'd love to see someone take a poll to verify this, but I suspect that Trump's supporters believe as much as 50% of the USA population is on welfare (actual number is about 8%) and that 20% or greater of the people in the USA are here illegally (it's actually about 4%).
2) Trump loves to distract his detractors with things they shouldn't even pay attention to, like tweets. Trump may actually know full well he lost the popular vote but this committee is meant to serve as a distraction from something else (health care failure maybe).
Keep in mind that some of the wing nuts on the left have already played into Trump's hand by publicly asserting that zero fraudulent voters occurred in the 2016 elections. All Trump has to do is find one anywhere and they're proven wrong. This could be simply about showing up his detractors who said there weren't any fraudulent votes and discrediting them for the future.
There is a popular vote. It just doesn't count for anything.
No, it counts for something. Just not the Presidency.
If Trump didn't think it counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if, as he claims with no proof, that millions voted illegally for Clinton.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sorry, hit Post too soon. Correction/clarification:
If Trump didn't think the popular vote counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if "millions" of illegal voters hadn't voted for Clinton. There is not, and there never has been, proof that "millions" of people vote illegally. Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem. Trump is trying to claim that it is, and the Pence commission is political cover for that narrative.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
TFA says they are asking for non-public information.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What about states rights Mr. not-a-leftist? Or is that one of those principles you abandon once it becomes inconvenient?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Until losers of athletic events are euthanized, there will be no valid comparison.
Hillary was euthanized? I thought she was just sent off into the woods to sulk for a while. The "fewer yards but more points" analogy seems appropriate to me.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No one is protecting anything except Trump's fragile ego. This whole Advisory Commission action was set into motion because Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. Total waste of time and money... .
I suppose you could look at it that way if you intended to keep up the partisan party line. Actually this whole thing makes good sense to me for a number of reasons.
First, Not comparing the various state's lists for duplicates allows for those who wish to commit voter fraud and vote multiple times in multiple states an easy way to do this.
Second, Some states do not have very good procedures to purge their voter rolls of various illegible voters including illegals, those who have moved out of state, people who have died and others who should not be voting. Having them on the rolls only makes vote fraud easier.
Now I'm not so sure that having some federal commission going though the voter rolls is a splendid idea, but it's not totally without reason or benefits.... Benefits? Yep....
1. Making some kinds of voter fraud harder to do and easier to detect.
2. Restoring public confidence in the voter registration process and the thus the election results.
So if we can put the partisan rhetoric aside a bit and discuss this, maybe we can come up with some kind of reasonable way to do this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem.
Successful voter fraud isn't detected. You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted. Such an investigation would require information the commission is seeking from states. People who like to downplay the possibility of voter fraud sure like to enable it by opposing such checks, opposing voter ID requirements (even if the ID is free and easy to obtain), opposing auditable and securable voting machines (i.e., paper ballots), etc.
Whether you suspect voter fraud or you expect no voter fraud, the best way to start figuring it out is to do what the commission is trying to do.
Registering fake voters, voting multiple times, voting for other people, voting for dead people, etc. is standard fucking procedure in this country at every level. It's such a cliche that it was the basis for a Simpsons episode, and when Lisa decided to prove it, the level of "who gives a shit" was so high that she was simply handed the entire vote record. "Vote early, vote often." isn't just something people say, it's something they do.
When every single step of the game leading up to the election is rigged, do you really think they'd grow a conscience and stop at the sacred polls? Do you really think elections at the national level are any more secure than at the local level? If so, why? The scale of the election doesn't help you here, it hurts you. And you only need to "influence" a handful of states to have an impact. Hell, you can often target a handful of polling places each in a dozen counties to swing the legislative branch.
Someone with a suspicious mind might think that Trump has something to hide by not releasing his Tax returns. At least that situation has some reasoning behind it (conflicts of interest, foreign investments/liabilities, etc), this "election committee" is pointless. Election fraud is about as rare as finding a winning lottery ticket fluttering in the wind.
Where are your tax returns? Do you have something to hide?
It's because TFA is FAKE NEWS. Pretty common these days.
Yeah, that doesn't wash.
First, every President for the last 40 years has released his tax returns as a matter of good faith.
Second, when Trumpkin was demanding Obama's Birth Certificate (his fucking BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Like someone could get that far in the election without anyone bothering to check that they're a citizen first?!?) he said - more than once - that he would release his tax returns if he got elected. For the last 6 months we've been waiting and he's been pretending he didn't say a thing. To boot, when he's demanding that other people pay "their fair share" he turns around and says, "I use the tax laws to my advantage". At BEST he's a hypocrite.
Third, as has been established many times in this thread, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with elections - this is established in our Constitution (you should probably read it since your President can't be bothered to)
Fourth, the current administration has made no bones about taking personal action against someone that they simply don't like. Do I want my information given to these underhanded douchbags? No, the answer is (and will always be) NO.
Translation: "We have an open tab at the GSA to run this farce of a commission but we're too lazy to cross-collate the publicly available information with other non-election data sources, so you do it. Then upload it to the webserver we payed the cousin of some campaign contributor some insane amount of money to set up, which, by the way, has no security whatsoever."
To which the proper reply is "get stuffed".
Someone had to do it.
Registering fake voters, voting multiple times, voting for other people, voting for dead people, etc. is standard fucking procedure in this country at every level.
Citation Needed
Of course it does. But if you read the ACTUAL REQUESTS you will see they are only requesting publicly available data allowed by laws of each state. TFA is lying to you and you can't even admit it.
If you can point me to a previous national level investigation, I would be happy to cite it.
How exactly does examining publicly available voter data suppress the vote?
The Executive Branch enforces the law. It is dishonest or ignorant to say they have no role.
The STATES SELL basically the same information to ANYONE, for $$$. Also your entire dribble about it violating the constitution is just flat WRONG, the National Voter Registration Act, passed by Congress, delegates the authority to the executive branch. http://www.washingtonexaminer....
They are afraid it will suppress "voters" that are not entitled to vote. Because it's "racist" or somesuch.
Successful voter fraud isn't detected.
That's a brilliant self-perpetuating delusion, worthy of the best conspiracy theorists. If a voter-fraud study turns up no evidence, it's not because there's no voter fraud, it's because the fraudsters are too good at it! And there are millions of them! Millions, I say!
You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted.
Well, you have a point there. Oh wait, you don't:
https://www.brennancenter.org/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.politifact.com/flor...
http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/...
http://www.projectvote.org/blo...
[Ignoring the remainder of your speculative, strawman-filled, fact-challenged rant.]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Do you not even read what you write "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations", so yeah laws can be quite easily written which the states have to obey. This prima facie gives the Federal government right of access to all information relating to elections from the states ie the basis upon which laws would be written to over rule the states and federally define regulation governing the running of elections in those states, which the President and the executive branch would administer.
Do you not understand, the congress and senate write the rules and the executive branch, the President, carries our the rules.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Unless someone has silently edited either the Slashdot article or the Engaget article since you posted that, your statement is completely false. Nowhere on the version of the article that I read does it mention non-public data. At most, it talks about Louisiana refusing by saying they'll have to buy the publicly-available data.
But perhaps you've read the many other articles that did say that and you got confused, which is perfectly understandable. In that case, please try reading the actual letter instead of relying on lazy journalists who don't bother to cite their sources:
"I am requesting that you provide to the Comission the publicly available voter roll data" (emphasis added).
So no, neither the Slashdot summary nor the article linked here says that and it wouldn't be true even if they did say that. And any source saying that should give you a copy of the letter to verify it for yourself because if they do not, they are completely unreliable rumor mongers. If they bothered to cite reliable sources, they wouldn't have this sort of problem.
Did someone update the article silently? The article does not, in fact, claim that (though other articles have). Nor does the Slashdot summary.
You are, of course, correct that the actual letter requests "publicly available voter roll data" but nobody bothers to cite (or read) that.
How did you get modded troll? The letter is here and it asks for "publicly-available voter roll data."
There are a few extra fields of data in some states that you missed, but they only asked for the public data, so the person you responded to is wrong to say otherwise.
It uses the phrase "publicly available" then proceeds to list things that are generally not publicly available - varying by state of course. Its hard to believe that those who drafted the letter are unaware of that, or of the proper procedures to follow when making such a request - even with the incompetence of this administration. No, it seems more like the letter was sent specifically to capture this news cycle. The states, nearly all of them, predictably refused to comply. Now trump gets to paint the narrative exactly like he wants - "the states are helping to cover up millions of fraudulent votes". The rejection of this letter serves as a stand-in for actual evidence, which won't ever come. You can expect plenty more posturing like this throughout the commission. The entire point of the commission, after all, is to provide a propaganda counter-point to the Russia investigation. A smooth way to change the subject while appearing not to change the subject.
Am I right in reading this as saying that the government of the US wants to know who voted for what? I'm asking because I can't quite believe that I am reading this. Wasn't voting in secret supposed to be one of the cornerstones of democracy? If somebody, in government or elsewhere can subsequentially find out how individuals voted, how can we guarantee that there aren't voters who are being intimidated into voting the "right" way? Because President Trustworthy promises?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your voting records are public information and are currently stored (and sometimes sold) by the state.
What does that letter have to do with the states providing the following information?
Name,
Address,
DOB
DOD if applicable
Dates Voted.
Oh the fact that the letter asked specific questions to State Attorney Generals? And that if they lied they would be subpoenad.
Ahh. That's the f**king problem. Not voter information but having to truthfully answer questions.
Now I get you.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I don't know who modded you down, f**k'em. Folks will be getting Entitlements for a very simple reason; I question if 1%'ers are entitled to them. Entitlements are cheaper than another French Revolution.
First, this is a bipartisan committee not just the administration. Second, only a few states are refusing to provide publicly available information, not 44. Third, the federal government has much more data on people than this basic voter information from your tax returns. All they want to do is confirm the voters informations on matches the information they already have to find any issues. What they are doing is not difficult, all it will tell them is if a more in depth investigation is needed.
You were voted up by fraudulent moderators.
Those that mod me down are kneejerking emotional babies. My analysis is correct, they like entitlements, just not all of them. I happen to like less entitlements than they like.
My question I left was also correct. Who decides which entitlements people are entitled to? We have elected officials who are happy to dole out the public's monies to stay in office. Rich, Poor doesn't matter as long as they can stick it to the middle class.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
...
The information doesn't include who one voted for. Additionally, it is publicly available information. As in, you can go get this same information yourself. See the actual request letters, and don't rely on the journalists and/or commentators.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It may be time for me to revisit my position of not moderating. I've noticed some pretty poor moderation, as of late. I didn't moderate, because I don't believe I am qualified to judge. At the same time, it looks like I am more qualified than many others.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Maybe you got modded down because your post wasnt very well thought through
"How do you distinguish between entitlements"? Observation maybe? Your comment is like saying "they're all cars so how can you possibly tell the difference!?"
Governments who give entitlements will inevitably "go to hell"? Yeah, every world government sure is going to hell right now.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
They're "responding" to a request that wasn't made. We know this, because we can read the actual letter and see that they never asked for that.
What kind of idiot would fall for a childish trick like that?
> It uses the phrase "publicly available" then proceeds to list things that are generally not publicly available - varying by state of course.
It qualifies the entire list with "if publicly available in your state." That conditional would evaluate differently in each state, depending on local law.
Yes, some states do and some do not have those specific items. They wrote one letter for all 50 states and asked the state to supply whichever of that list of items is publicly available, figuring that the states would be smart enough to figure that out. It's written in such a way that it only requests an item if it is publicly available in that particular state.
So apparently a lot of Democratic states can't read simple English. Who knew?
You may have misunderstood, I was complaining that you got modded troll for providing factual information.
You don't do a national investigation to prove supposed guilt with no evidence. Otherwise we'd spend all our time investigating fake voting, leprechauns and unicorn serial killers.
You mean like the Russian collusion investigation? Clearly we do.
That's fair enough as a standard. When the FBI, DoD, NSA, House and Senate committees, agree on the need for an investigation into voter fraud, we should absolutely do that as well. I'd insist on it.
Your statement would make sense if those agencies were actually calling for an investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump admin. Sorry, you just failed.
I did misunderstand.
:)
my bad
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
So you're fine with submitting personal information over insecure Http?
That's what the committee is under fire for. They're not telling them to stop. They're telling them to do it right.
No, I am not ok with passing sensitive information over insecure channels. I wrote a pro-Trump joke which got modded troll, while seeing other instances favoring liberals being modded funny.
I voted 3rd party because I couldn't put my name behind either Trump nor Clinton. I lean Conservative, but am disenfranchised with the Republican Party.
You sound bitter.
It was meant as not-so-tongue-in-cheek that anyone from the other party can't do anything right. George W. Bush was judged for results of previous administrations (as were Clinton and Obama). People get so loyal to their party that nothing else matters. Yes, I'm Conservative. No, I don't self identify with the Republican Party or Tea Party.
No worries, mate :)