patrick.net

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Clinton's Extreme Carelessness as Secretary of State

She is just about 70 years old.

What if individuals at the FBI looked at all of Weiner's wife's emails through homeland Security anti-terrorism connections and found something, and then the most recent pursuit of Weiner's emails was only a pretext for the FBI to be able to say, well you know, we thought that while we were in his laptop, we should read his wife's emails, you know, just in case.

Privacy sure ain't what it once was.

I think there is room at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for Comey.

because answering your question takes more time. now don't interrupt me

That's because we've been at 3 the whole time Liberals were stuck in 0.

Even king Liberal Idiot himself Bill Mahr has said he doesn't care if Jon Benet's body is buried in Hillary's closet he says Trump is more dangerous.

Well that's not how it works fucksticks, this isn't LaLa land this is the United States of America and in this Country! The United States of Ameirca!
You need a tickey... No tickey! No laundry!

Comey has a fucking Tickey now so step aside Assholes!

Hot Tickey coming through!

At this point everyone that planned on voting for Hillary, knows about her email server. They also know that there may be a lot of emails she erased rather than have congress go through them with a fine tooth comb.

So what does this story do, besides totally dominating the last (or at least second to last) media/news cycle before the election ?

Makes a person wonder.

FP says

I know for sure that if a regular Joe had done the same, he would have been fired and most likely criminally charged. You dismiss this calling it "fake email scandal."

PRevious Secretarys used their own email accounts rather than State Dept email accounts. Did everyone want to go through all of their emails to see whether any had referred to anything classified ? Why not ?

jazz music says

That's a fair assessment considering this damning evidence

That's utter bs. Trump doesn't do drugs he doesn't even drink that has been documented his whole life, for many it is an appeal if somebody who is not a career-politician enters the stage (not just in the US, but increasingly so everywhere), and the housing crisis was fueled by the same people who lost their homes later on after pricing out everybody else by any means necessary. This victimization of people who overstated (sometimes criminally), overpaid and contributed to the bs run up in housing is utter shite and a slap in the face of those who actually handled responsibly and decided they are not going to buy a million dollar crap-shack on falsified credit info just to please their SO or outdo their neighbors.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

PRevious Secretarys used their own email accounts rather than State Dept email accounts. Did everyone want to go through all of their emails to see whether any had referred to anything classified ? Why not ?

marcus, don't talk about things you know little about. There are very strict regulations about dealing with classified and sensitive information, and when it is mishandled it is a serious violation. If there's doubt that that the protocol has been broken, it must be investigated.

We all know she's guilty as hell. That doesn't mean we're all Trump supporters.

Halloween, World Series, Weekend, Golf, Football, and the fact that people have pretty much made up their minds.

Wo, this real-time posting shit is cool.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231599

I remind you, if it happened is a felony.) Huma is married to (but now estranged from) Weiner. The laptop belonged to Weiner.

Let's try a non-partisan information source:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/

Highlights:
-The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015″ — three weeks after the subpoena.
-Clinton’s office disclosed on March 10, 2015, that she gave the State Department 30,490 work-related emails on Dec. 5, 2014, and “chose not to keep” 31,830 emails she deemed “personal.” (Note - over 30K work-related emails on her private server??? This isn't a "senior moment"...sorry. SHE HAD MORE WORK EMAILS THAN PERSONAL ON HER "PRIVATE" SERVER)
-It appears that Clinton, who has admitted to not being tech savvy, assumed that her email address — hdr22@clintonemail.com — was displayed in the “from” field when she sent emails. But the FBI says that that was not the case. The FBI said “e-mails from Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her e-mail address.” Only 13 people emailed her directly, and the “majority” of State employees interviewed by the FBI did not know she had a private server, the FBI said.

No offense, but if it walks like a duck, ...

Quigley is deplorable says

I'm so sorry that you hate Democracy....

Agreed. Isn't it ironic that we have all these laws in place for good reasons and that the left couldn't get enough of those laws during the Republican administrations and now that they are being held to the same standards they just toss the rule of law and every ordinary citizen under the bus as "deplorable". Real-life comedy. This is not about who will win anymore, this is bigger, it's about upholding the rule of law for every citizen, nobody is above the law.

Comey El scape goat grande!

Shifting the burden of proof is bass ackwards.

It should be easy for the HRC Campaign. Just show reporters your email account and compare some Wikileaks emails to them.

Of course, they already admitted the emails are theirs. You can't steal counterfeit emails anymore that you can steal counterfeit coins from the US Mint.

They are not forged that DIMK that is highlighted in every email header on the WikiLeak.

Means domain key.

The email server for that domain and that domain only has a certificate on their server, they conicalize the header infomration then the encryt it with the cert on their server.
Mail software can then use the DIMK server key on the DNS server for that Domain to decrypt the header to make sure it is from that domain and not a spoof or a spam.
It is an email verification system created by Yahoo and Google.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the emails are indeed authentic. The question has been, was it legal to use it as eveidence? And at the time, NO! No it was not.
But now the Wiener phone brings it all into play because Hillary and Huma lied under oath?

Got it you low information bottom dwellers?

just any guy says

The FBI said “e-mails from Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her e-mail address.”

Email transmits a senders name as well as an email address. An email client chooses what to display in the From field. You can always look at header information. Or, you can add an email to your contacts, and edit it. There are lots of ways of seeing the email address. just any guy says

Note - over 30K work-related emails on her private server??? This isn't a "senior moment"...sorry.

The 30K work-related emails was not the senior moment. The 3 emails that contained a small amount of classified information were senior moments. The ones that were marked classified were not marked correctly. That doesn't make it OK, but backs up the senior moment claim.

just any guy says

I remind you, if it happened is a felony.) Huma is married to (but now estranged from) Weiner. The laptop belonged to Weiner.

Was Weiner cleared to possess this kind of information?

See here's the problem.

She has her eye on the prize and will lie, steal and smear all who get in her way.

My suspicion is that she's been up to no good (not illegal) for a long time. So long in fact she feels untouchable... brash in fact. Mixing gov and foundation. Using gov to make money FOR the foundation. Hiring friends and family. Giving away contracts to friends, family and donators and a bunch of other stuff I can't even imagine. It just boggles the mind. She's been doing it FOR YEARS!

It's business as usual for her. So much so she's forgotten that, were it exposed' the voters wouldn't approve and she wouldn't be able to go all the way. Why worry? Who will EVER find out? It's not like the CIA or the FBI do random check on officials of the state... unless

...unless...

Those fucking darkies in Libya attack a CIA safe-house and annex. Now shit comes apart so... let's do an immediate patch and claim it was because of a video. Now congress want to see email records to find out what exactly happened. Damn! Let's stall and wipe. Now they're bitching about lack of transparency because of private email servers. Turns out I shouldn't have done that. But how else could I have run the State Dept and The Foundation so close (hand in hand) using .gov email??

I HAD to use a private server!

And I almost got away with it.

Ok.. delay, obfuscate and wipe. Then lie because there is not proof to the contrary. Fantastic! We did a quid pro quo with the FBI and they'll be stern but no inditement.

Oh crap! Now that little fucking, hoarding Weiner doesn't clear out old emails and they've built up on the server so one side of the 30,000 I said I lost/wiped are now in plain sight.

Ok we know the FBI can't process, show, comment on the emails ANY time soon so we'll do a peacock bluff for the Dem voters and claim we want all the information on the table. Ignoring the hypocrisy that one of the main reasons the emails aren't 'on the table' is because she DELETED THEM. The FBI found them by mistake. It's not incumbent for the FBI to release all the found evidence. They found it it wasn't turned over.

See this isn't a person who wants power because they are philanthropic and want to help the average American. To her it's a game and the winner sits in the Oval Office and gets to do exactly what they want (barring congress).

Because it's what she's been doing for years.

Feux Follets says

Only bass ackwards for team Clinton. Why not just release the originals to the public and put the controversy to rest ?

What originals. If they were falsified, then there were no originals by definition. The burden of proof is shifted to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist, or what is faked must be true?

It is up to Wiki to prove they are true beyond any reasonable doubt, rather than just putting them out there. Assange is selling out, probably to get asylum somewhere. Maybe Russia has promised tradecraft to get him out of the embassy to Ruskyland.

Anyone can change the text of emails. In't this a he said / she said any way you slice it? It wouldn't be productive for HRC campaign to turn it into an investigation on the minutia, when most of the population will believe what they want about the authenticity in the end.

Ceffer says

It is up to Wiki to prove they are true beyond any reasonable doubt, rather than just putting them out there. Assange is selling out, probably to get asylum somewhere. Maybe Russia has promised tradecraft to get him out of the embassy to Ruskyland.

They've already admitted the Wikileaks are real. They neither confirm nor deny, which means they're real. If they weren't, it would be easy to prove it - Wikileaks published the header and other details of all the emails for each and everyone:

The only people trying to fake the emails were Stonetear/Combetta on behalf of a "very, very VIP" client. In the end, they realized they couldn't fake the headers and just deleted the ones in question.

The Russians would have to fake IP addresses, writing styles of hundreds of correspondants to these emails, mimic device identifying information, etc. etc.

(For example, notice Podesta uses Apple products).

Can't bleachbit those headers.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

They've already admitted the Wikileaks are real. They neither confirm nor deny, which means they're real.

Honestly? I think the stretching point snapped right there. Neither confirming or denying is simply failing to honor the allegation in any way, not an admission that they are true.

So, if anybody accuses anybody else of something, even on the basis of falsified information, it is true by default if the accused does not disprove it? The National Enquirer is going to be happy with this paradigm.

The Wiki stuff weighs in at the level of unconfirmed hearesay.

I think that Podesta stated that some emails are real, but that they are not going to cross check each one and confirm or deny on a case by case basis.

Ceffer says

Honestly? I think the stretching point snapped right there. Neither confirming or denying is simply failing to honor the allegation in any way, not an admission that they are true.

They claimed the emails were stolen... You can't accuse somebody of stealing from you while suggesting the stolen item is a forgery by the same entity you're accusing of theft.

I think that Podesta stated that some emails are real, but that they are not going to cross check each one and confirm or deny on a case by case basis.

That's because they're all real. If just a handful were provable fakes - something which a campaign that has raised hundreds of millions of dollars has the resources and expertise to easily and quickly show - then it casts the whole batch in doubt.

If they could do it, they would have done it by now.

Ceffer says

The Wiki stuff weighs in at the level of unconfirmed hearesay.

Wikileaks, after hundreds of thousands (millions?) of government and corporate data from around the world, has a 100% Perfect Track record of releasing valid documents so far.

Ceffer says

Neither confirming or denying is simply failing to honor the allegation in any way, not an admission that they are true.

You know we're talking about politics here right?

Not answering/confirming/denying means... It doesn't behove me to answer this question right now.

Because it will hurt me more than help me.

Has a politician ever said... "If I confirm this question, it will give me such an advantage... it just wouldn't be fair on my opponent, so I won't."

It's very rare to have a politician admit to anything. It's more likely that when they go silent... you have your answer.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Wikileaks, after hundreds of thousands (millions?) of government and corporate data from around the world, has a 100% Perfect Track record of releasing valid documents so far.

And what would this standard of proof be exactly? This statement itself beggars credulity.

You're talking about throwing stuff out to be judged by mobs with a grudge.

It's very rare to have a politician admit to anything. It's more likely that when they go silent... you have your answer.
=============================

And most people, when faced with a patently false accusation, would immediately say it isn't true. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's only when you are evaluating whether they'll find something that might disprove your statement.... or, perhaps, you just cannot recall all the details and you don't want to mis-speak.... that most people would hold off boxing themselves into a specific answer.

Ceffer says

And what would this standard of proof be exactly? This statement itself beggars credulity.

Your standard is such that it's impossible to meet. The Source/Headers are provided in every single one of Podesta's emails.

I'll say it again: Wikileaks that has leaked millions of documents over a decade. NOT ONCE has any entity, corporate or government, successfully challenged the authenticity of the emails. It's not just the US government who have had their secrets leaked, but Bank of America, the Bush Administration, the United Nations, Goldman Sachs, etc. etc. etc. - all these powerful entities have never successfully challenged a wikileaks document.

For faked emails, highly placed people are certainly preferring to resign than to fight to prove they're all fakes.

Amy Dacey, the committee’s chief executive; Luis Miranda, its communications director; and Brad Marshall, its chief financial officer, will leave amid a reshuffling of leadership positions, said Donna Brazile, the interim chairwoman.

The departures came more than a week after WikiLeaks posted almost 20,000 of the committee’s emails, a number of which revealed officials showing favoritism toward Hillary Clinton in her primary campaign against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The messages confirmed the concerns expressed by Mr. Sanders throughout the campaign, cast a cloud over the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week and led to the resignation of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as the committee’s chairwoman.

-The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015″ — three weeks after the subpoena.
-Clinton’s office disclosed on March 10, 2015, that she gave the State Department 30,490 work-related emails on Dec. 5, 2014, and “chose not to keep” 31,830 emails she deemed “personal.” (Note - over 30K work-related emails on her private server??? This isn't a "senior moment"...sorry. SHE HAD MORE WORK EMAILS THAN PERSONAL ON HER "PRIVATE" SERVER)
-It appears that Clinton, who has admitted to not being tech savvy, assumed that her email address — hdr22@clintonemail.com — was displayed in the “from” field when she sent emails. But the FBI says that that was not the case. The FBI said “e-mails from Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her e-mail address.” Only 13 people emailed her directly, and the “majority” of State employees interviewed by the FBI did not know she had a private server, the FBI said.
===================================

(sorry, my ability to quote has some issues right now...)

Don't forget, DOJ gave immunity to staffers in exchange for things that could have simply been subpoenaed. Immunity? First of all, you don't have to give immunity in exchange for something that can be subpoenaed. Second, why would a person need immunity unless they did something criminal? What were they getting immunity from? According to the investigators no one did anything worthy of an indictment. There is no reasonable explanation for any of this.

It is obviously a common political strategy used by both sides to keep the other exhausted disproving negatives or endless baseless allegations.

It's the ole' throw mud and see what sticks.

Given the context of this election, the Wiki stuff does not meet any reasonable standard of credibility. It is really in the eye of the believer or the scandal monger. It may be fun, but it's not credible proof.

Ceffer says

Given the context of this election, the Wiki stuff does not meet any reasonable standard of credibility. It is really in the eye of the believer or the scandal monger. It may be fun, but it's not credible proof.

Reverse burden of proof. It's the person asserting there is fakery, who has the burden of proving fakery.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Reverse burden of proof. It's the person asserting the fakery who needs to prove any faking happened in the first place.

Exactly. Reverse burden of proof means they have no burden or obligation at all to address it in any way. If you have to resort to reversing the burden of proof, you have admitted that you have not fulfilled YOUR burden of proof and you are merely riding on an uncomfirmed and unproven allegation.

Nobody even said they asserted fakery, they said that "some" were true, but they weren't going to waste their time sifting through the mess to compare note by note.

Even if they asserted fakery, there is no obligation on their part to prove or disprove it one way or the other.

You are dismissing the 100% unblemished track record of an organization that has released millions of documents of countless organizations and individuals, and not one has successfully proven a fake document.

The Podesta emails alone involve a vast multitude of correspondents using different devices over the course of almost a decade. (2008)

Right down to dinner date arrangements, griping emails from associates, family members, etc. etc.

To assert that some or all of the emails are faked would be an operation on par with the Manhattan Project, an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence, not just non-supported dodgy assertions about "Alterations".

The far simpler and economical explanation is that they are real.

If they're lazy or cheap, they can name some of the emails - which many DNC Staffers and HRC Campaigners have written themselves and let their surrogates/crowd sourcing show it to be so. Certainly at least they can name a few of the "altered" emails (or show the originals in their possession for contrast).

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

You are dismissing the 100% unblemished track record of an organization that has released millions of documents of countless organizations and individuals, and not one has successfully proven a fake document.

Sorry, I am not that gullible. You might at least put the figure at 95 percent or so, which would at least resemble a statistical standard. Of course, you would then have to identify the 5 percent which wasn't true. Really, one guy in an embassy and a bunch of anarchic hackers are going to tell the truth 100 percent of the time?