• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Caller ID

Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Fishking said:
Lol...the entire premise of the left is based on the victim complex. You literally could not exist without it. So funny.
Click to expand...

Who's always complaining about how persecuted they are, despite controlling the government. Heck, your golden god is always talking about how "unfairly" he's treated.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

OpportunityCost said:
Can you imagine what would happen to liberalism if journalists were ethical again?
Click to expand...

That would put Breitbart and Fox out of business. Are you laboring under the illusion that an unbiased press ever existed?
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Slingshot Bob said:
lol, from a lib!:lamo
Click to expand...

If I had a nickel for every time I read on DP how "if a conservative did this...." or "the media is out to get me" I wouldn't have to work for a living.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

DiAnna said:
Source: ZeroPointNow, proud propagator of "Pizzagate" and James O'Keefe shill. :lol:
Click to expand...

You mean Pizzagate wasn't real?
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

reinoe said:
Is it really jumping to conclusions when it comes to the shadiness and incompetence of anything involving DWS? That's like jumping to conclusions about eating arsenic pills.
Click to expand...

Yes because a secretary who watches way too much 20/20 is an expert in voice changing technology. There is no evidence whatsoever to this claim.

All we know is someone from the DNC called the law office.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

rocket88 said:
Who's always complaining about how persecuted they are, despite controlling the government. Heck, your golden god is always talking about how "unfairly" he's treated.
Click to expand...

Leftists. That's literally every ya'll have? Social justice and economic justice are both ideologies entirely based on victimhood status and that's your entire platform.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Fishking said:
Leftists. That's literally every ya'll have? Social justice and economic justice are both ideologies entirely based on victimhood status and that's your entire platform.
Click to expand...

A little self-awareness goes a long way....except among the righttards.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

rocket88 said:
A little self-awareness goes a long way....except among the righttards.
Click to expand...

At least you finally acknowledge I'm correct.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

rocket88 said:
If I had a nickel for every time I read on DP how "if a conservative did this...." or "the media is out to get me" I wouldn't have to work for a living.
Click to expand...

Wow, you cut me deep, undercover surgeon.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Yeah, the filing is pretty short on details. This could have been, and probably was, just some idiot working in her office. It's unlikely she had any knowledge of it. She may be corrupt, but she's smarter than this.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

I am still trying to figure out if it was DWS. It looks like someone in her office made the call. Was it her private cell, is that why folks are so sure?
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Risky Thicket said:
It equates because both Trump and Wasserman-Schultz are nothing more than pond scum. What person of character and integrity would do something like this? It isn't acceptable when Wasserman-Scultz does it and it isn't acceptable when Trump does it.

Wrong is wrong no matter who does it.
Click to expand...

Them being scum does not mean that their actions are the same or equivalent. Lots of celebrities use alter ego's. Book authors even have a separate name for it, pen name. Hell, how many here on this forum use their real name? It is what you do with that alter ego that matters. Giving oneself time to make decisions or make oneself look good is a lot less problematic than using one to gather info on people that are suing the people you work for.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

There are a few people in here that are correct. We don't fully know who called. All we know is it came from Wasserman's office.

Couple of notes here though.

After crying about fake news for months now I find it funny that so many on the right are fully willing to believe that it was Wasserman herself that called and won't admit that there is a possibility that it was someone else at her office that did this, just because a news article said so.

On the flip side,

Those that lean left here are trying to claim that there isn't enough evidence to say for sure it was Wasserman herself (the part that they are correct about) and yet are quite willing to fully believe pretty much any negative story about Trump even though there's less proof of some of those stories than what we have here of Wasserman's office calling to find out info.

Both sides are being highly hypocritical in this imo.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

rocket88 said:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is simply the most worthless Democrat there is.
Click to expand...

She was the bees knees according to Hillary.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

This whole thing sounds more like routine daily political shenanigans to me.

Nothing will come of it.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

ashurbanipal said:
Yeah, the filing is pretty short on details. This could have been, and probably was, just some idiot working in her office. It's unlikely she had any knowledge of it. She may be corrupt, but she's smarter than this.
Click to expand...

What makes you believe that? Do you really believe a secretary or aide by his/her own initiative did this?

Obviously it's not 100% a sure thing, but the number coupled with a voice changer (her voice is distinguishable, her secretary/aide's probably no so much) looks pretty bad (I would assume also that she's known for saying 'okie dokey'; need confirmation though). Granted there's the outside possibility of a number spoofer, but I doubt it.

In all probability, at an absolute minimum, DWS commissioned someone working for her to make the call (and thus is responsible for it), even if she herself didn't do the deed; either way it's still retarded both because it was done in the first place, and because she and/or whoever she commissioned to do this, if anyone, forgot to account for caller ID.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

rocket88 said:
That would put Breitbart and Fox out of business. Are you laboring under the illusion that an unbiased press ever existed?
Click to expand...

Maybe it would, I would take it if it meant more unbiased, fact based coverage.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Surrealistik said:
What makes you believe that? Do you really believe a secretary or aide by his/her own initiative did this?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe an aide possibly did so, and that's more likley than that Wasserman-Schultz did so. Anyone who rises to lead a national party is smart. Doesn't mean they cannot make dumb decisions, but calling an opposing law firm sniffing around is such an amateur move, sounds like something a newbie would do. That means an aide, probably first time doing this kind of job.

Surrealistik said:
Obviously it's not 100% a sure thing, but the number coupled with a voice changer (her voice is distinguishable, her secretary/aide's probably no so much) looks pretty bad (I would assume also that she's known for saying 'okie dokey'; need confirmation though). Granted there's the outside possibility of a number spoofer, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Anyone's voice is distinguishable after the fact, either by recording or by memory. I have no idea whether Wasserman-Schultz is known for saying "okey-dokey," but I see no reason to think whoever authored the filing was trying to make such a connection. That may just be a detail they recall from the conversation.

Surrealistik said:
In all probability, at an absolute minimum, DWS commissioned someone working for her to make the call (and thus is responsible for it), even if she herself didn't do the deed; either way it's still retarded both because it was done in the first place, and because she and/or whoever she commissioned to do this, if anyone, forgot to account for caller ID.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that's the most probable story? I think it's more probable that a young new hire did this--primarily because anyone with much experience knows that no one on the other end is going to give out any useful information. Wasserman-Schultz certainly knows that.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

ashurbanipal said:
Well, I believe an aide possibly did so, and that's more likley than that Wasserman-Schultz did so. Anyone who rises to lead a national party is smart. Doesn't mean they cannot make dumb decisions, but calling an opposing law firm sniffing around is such an amateur move, sounds like something a newbie would do. That means an aide, probably first time doing this kind of job.

Anyone's voice is distinguishable after the fact, either by recording or by memory. I have no idea whether Wasserman-Schultz is known for saying "okey-dokey," but I see no reason to think whoever authored the filing was trying to make such a connection. That may just be a detail they recall from the conversation.

Why do you think that's the most probable story? I think it's more probable that a young new hire did this--primarily because anyone with much experience knows that no one on the other end is going to give out any useful information. Wasserman-Schultz certainly knows that.
Click to expand...

I have never known DWS for being clever, beyond the fact that she did preside over one of the biggest leaks in the DNC's history. DWS was leader more because she had the right friends than the right aptitudes.

Second, no, I very much doubt an aide of DWS' would have a notable or distinguishable voice, especially if it was a 'new hire' as you claimed.

Lastly, c'mon, seriously, how on earth is it more likely that a rogue staffer took the initiative to do something like this with a voice changer without any kind of authorization, direction or clearance from his/her boss? That's silly. No one would call the lawyer dealing with the DNC collusion/fraud case out of the blue like that. What is it you believe exactly, that some staffer was out to get brownie points for his/her boss by randomly doing some cursory snooping on the matter? The more likely event is that DWS did it or directed a staffer to.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Surrealistik said:
I have never known DWS for being clever, beyond the fact that she did preside over one of the biggest leaks in the DNC's history. DWS was leader more because she had the right friends than the right aptitudes.
Click to expand...

No doubt she knew the right people. I think you misunderstand the point I'm making, however. It takes someone with basically no experience of life to pull this kind of stunt.

Surrealistik said:
Second, no, I very much doubt an aide of DWS' would have a notable or distinguishable voice, especially if it was a 'new hire' as you claimed.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a distinguishable voice. Once a person has heard someone speak in a memorable context, they can usually identify that voice again.

Surrealistik said:
Lastly, c'mon, seriously, how on earth is it more likely that a rogue staffer took the initiative to do something like this with a voice changer without any kind of authorization, direction or clearance from his/her boss?
Click to expand...

Pretty likely. Two ways to know this: First, just in terms of sheer numbers, there's one Wasserman-Schultz and more than one staffer working out of that office (let's guess about ten). Assuming all of them have access to the phones there, it's one out of eleven that Wasserman-Schultz did it, but ten out of eleven that someone else did.

Second, the way I've already said--it takes someone who basically doesn't know anything about the world to think that calling an opposing law firm will yield anything but grief.

I've supervised a large staff before (~2,000), and about half of my time was spent policing the newbies from doing stupid ****.

Surrealistik said:
That's silly. No one would call the lawyer dealing with the DNC collusion/fraud case out of the blue like that. What is it you believe exactly, that some staffer was out to get brownie points for his/her boss by randomly doing some cursory snooping on the matter? The more likely event is that DWS did it or directed a staffer to.
Click to expand...

You start out reasoning correctly--this is a dumb stunt unlikely to yield anything good. If you know that, and I know that, Wasserman-Schultz surely knows that. But why does that mean that Wasserman-Schultz would do this, or direct someone to do this? More likely a young intern. You can get voice-changers as free apps these days.

Now let me be clear. I'm not saying it's impossible that she did this. Just not the most likely chain of events.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Everyone has a distinguishable voice. Once a person has heard someone speak in a memorable context, they can usually identify that voice again.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I've seen and heard people confuse voices all the time, especially someone they've only heard once or twice. DWS' voice is memorable in large part because she's a public figure; you can place her immediately, or at least are far more likely to than some random person you've heard speak on a single occasion. The use of a voice changer leans much more towards DWS being the culprit than a random staffer who is forever relegated to background obscurity and whom that law office has never heard speak before and will probably never hear speak again.

ashurbanipal said:
Pretty likely. Two ways to know this: First, just in terms of sheer numbers, there's one Wasserman-Schultz and more than one staffer working out of that office (let's guess about ten). Assuming all of them have access to the phones there, it's one out of eleven that Wasserman-Schultz did it, but ten out of eleven that someone else did.

Second, the way I've already said--it takes someone who basically doesn't know anything about the world to think that calling an opposing law firm will yield anything but grief.

I've supervised a large staff before (~2,000), and about half of my time was spent policing the newbies from doing stupid ****.

You start out reasoning correctly--this is a dumb stunt unlikely to yield anything good. If you know that, and I know that, Wasserman-Schultz surely knows that. But why does that mean that Wasserman-Schultz would do this, or direct someone to do this? More likely a young intern. You can get voice-changers as free apps these days.

Now let me be clear. I'm not saying it's impossible that she did this. Just not the most likely chain of events.
Click to expand...

Again, I think you greatly overestimate DWS' intelligence, competence and tech savviness (also I resent the implication that DWS is at least as smart as me per the bolded wording).

Likewise, I think you greatly overestimate the misplaced enthusiasm and initiative of the people who work for her.

Bottom-line it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that some intern or staffer decided to randomly do something that dubious and even unintuitive completely on his or her own without any kind of direction.

Beyond that, DWS is certainly shady enough to want to commit to this sort of improper snooping; it fits her character and MO; she has no sense of propriety or fair play; the woman is about as scummy as a politico can get.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Surrealistik said:
Not at all. I've seen and heard people confuse voices all the time, especially someone they've only heard once or twice.
Click to expand...

So have I. But I've also seen people get them right...and I've seen more getting it right than getting it wrong. However, you seem to be thinking of this point in a "view from nowhere" style. You have to think from the point of view of the person making the call--no matter who that is, they obviously didn't want to get caught. They also didn't think of caller ID. Again, that's a pretty amateur move, more likely to be made by an, er, amateur than someone who's been around the block a few times--as Wasserman-Schultz clearly has.

Surrealistik said:
DWS' voice is memorable in large part because she's a public figure; you can place her immediately, or at least are far more likely to than some random person you've heard speak on a single occasion. The use of a voice changer leans much towards DWS being the culprit than a random staffer who is forever relegated to background obscurity and whom that law office has never heard speak before and will probably never hear speak again.
Click to expand...

See above.

Surrealistik said:
Again, I think you greatly overestimate DWS' intelligence, competence and tech savviness
Click to expand...

Or, you greatly underestimate it. It only takes average intelligence to figure all this out, and as much as I dislike her, I doubt she's of below-average intelligence.

Surrealistik said:
(also I resent the implication that DWS is at least as smart as me per the bolded wording).
Click to expand...

She probably is at least as smart as you, unless you're a super-genius or something.

Surrealistik said:
Likewise, I think you greatly overestimate the misplaced enthusiasm and initiative of the people who work for her.
Click to expand...

Or, again, you greatly underestimate it. I'm speaking from the experience of supervising a large number of people, some of them young and enthusiastic. What is your base of experience with this?

Surrealistik said:
Bottom-line it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that some intern or staffer decided to randomly do something that dubious and even unintuitive completely on his or her own without any kind of direction.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it strikes you that way. Look: I'm no fan of Wasserman-Schultz. I think she is a major contributor to the Democratic party's current state of ruin. I think she is corrupt, and a supporter of an elite class that I come very close to hating. That means I'm at least somewhat close to hating her. I'd love it if she hangs herself, metaphorically speaking. In evaluating this situation, however, emotion and bias cannot enter into it. As I already posted, one way to think about it is with simple math, and math (at least of the simplistic sort need here) doesn't admit of bias. That basic math tells us it is much more likely that a staffer did this than Wasserman-Schultz herself.

Surrealistik said:
Beyond that, DWS is certainly shady enough to want to commit to this sort of improper snooping; it fits her character and MO; she has no sense of propriety or fair play.
Click to expand...

I agree, but her being a narcissistic megalomaniac doesn't mean she's dumb.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

ashurbanipal said:
So have I. But I've also seen people get them right...and I've seen more getting it right than getting it wrong. However, you seem to be thinking of this point in a "view from nowhere" style. You have to think from the point of view of the person making the call--no matter who that is, they obviously didn't want to get caught. They also didn't think of caller ID. Again, that's a pretty amateur move, more likely to be made by an, er, amateur than someone who's been around the block a few times--as Wasserman-Schultz clearly has.
Click to expand...

Addressed below.

Beyond that though, again, if it were a random intern/staffer, the secretary at that law office is almost certainly never going to even hear that same intern/staffer speak again, and has surely never heard him/her speak before; the risk of exposing one's voice for such a person is essentially nil.

Or, you greatly underestimate it. It only takes average intelligence to figure all this out, and as much as I dislike her, I doubt she's of below-average intelligence.

She probably is at least as smart as you, unless you're a super-genius or something.
Click to expand...

Put it this way, it doesn't take a super-genius (which I certainly don't claim to be; no one on this forum is) to be more intelligent than DWS. Anyone who's reasonably clever (which I like to think I am) is probably sharper than the woman. Anyways, total aside.

Or, again, you greatly underestimate it. I'm speaking from the experience of supervising a large number of people, some of them young and enthusiastic. What is your base of experience with this?

I don't see why it strikes you that way. Look: I'm no fan of Wasserman-Schultz. I think she is a major contributor to the Democratic party's current state of ruin. I think she is corrupt, and a supporter of an elite class that I come very close to hating. That means I'm at least somewhat close to hating her. I'd love it if she hangs herself, metaphorically speaking. In evaluating this situation, however, emotion and bias cannot enter into it. As I already posted, one way to think about it is with simple math, and math (at least of the simplistic sort need here) doesn't admit of bias. That basic math tells us it is much more likely that a staffer did this than Wasserman-Schultz herself.

I agree, but her being a narcissistic megalomaniac doesn't mean she's dumb.
Click to expand...

Average and even smart people do stupid **** routinely. Gaffes happen, both in word and action. In the end, there is no particular reason to believe a random staffer randomly went out of their way to do this without direction over the fact that DWS wanted to get a scoop on the progress of the lawsuit against the DNC, either through herself or a subordinate, and overlooked caller ID in the process.
 
Re: Wasserman Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC–Forgets To Disaable Calle

Surrealistik said:
Beyond that though, again, if it were a random intern/staffer, the secretary at that law office is almost certainly never going to even hear that same intern/staffer speak again, and has surely never heard him/her speak before; the risk of exposing one's voice for such a person is essentially nil.
Click to expand...

This isn't the important question. The important question is whether or not the person making the call might have thought otherwise.

Surrealistik said:
Put it this way, it doesn't take a super-genius (which I certainly don't claim to be; no one on this forum is) to be more intelligent than DWS. Anyone who's reasonably clever (which I like to think I am) is probably sharper than the woman. Anyways, total aside.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too sure that no one on these forums is a super genius. Perhaps you are smarter than Wasserman-Schultz--it's obviously possible. I don't know either you or her personally. The point, however, is much as you have phrased it: it doesn't take much to figure out that calling a law-firm isn't going to net anything useful, and will probably be used against you later.

Surrealistik said:
Average and even smart people do stupid **** routinely. Gaffes happen, both in word and action.
Click to expand...

Sure. But what is the way to bet? That a salty dog makes a noob error, or that a noob does? Experienced people make noob errors, but in the absence of any further information, it's more likley that the noob commits the noob error.

Surrealistik said:
In the end, there is no particular reason to believe a random staffer randomly went out of their way to do this without direction over the fact that DWS wanted to get a scoop on the progress of the lawsuit against the DNC, either through herself or a subordinate, and overlooked caller ID in the process.
Click to expand...

If by "particular reason" you mean there is no specific piece of evidence that such is the case, I agree. But then, there's no specific piece of evidence that Wasserman-Schultz made the call, or directed someone else to do so. The case then has to be evaluated on prior probabilities. If more evidence comes out, that evaluation can be adjusted accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom