patrick.net

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?

* clinton squeaks by in election
* in 4 weeks gets indicted and impeached, later jailed
* little rabid grasshopper virginia fuckface takes over and pardons her, but no job left for her
* congress stalls SCJ nomination for 4 years under pretense little rabid grasshopper virginia fuckface not elected to nominate SCJ's
* Clinton foundation torn down over the course of 2017, more special investigators installed to clean up the mess

As I said before, if it takes them weeks to find out which ones are duplicates, they are not doing it right.

You forget government runs on 386's...

YesYNot says

As I said before, if it takes them weeks to find out which ones are duplicates, they are not doing it right.

Sounds like a good choice - I'm up for it.

Everyone should just be called "Sir" and those in disagreement can protest by proving they are not "Sirs" by dropping their knickers.

Ya gotta like Mark Dice, fuck Maddow.

Hehehe "Inflammatory and Content Free"

If it's content-free, what is there to be upset about?

BEST ELECTION EVA.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

We're read the stories about non-gender specific and trans-friendly pronouns whatever the fuck that means and have decided to release the UNIVERSAL PRONOUN "FUCKFACE!" into the public domain.

It won't work. People who prefer to be fucked in the ass, like CIC around goats, will be triggered and insist on being called FUCKASS in all caps.

I blame all this on the Realtors as well as NAR.

Ironman says

FBI FOUND 650,000 EMAILS ON LAPTOP

650,000

650,000 fuckin' emails. It's a spam folder the likes which God has not seen, Mu'adib.

Ironman says

Why don't you volunteer to help them,

Because I'm not a computer. If they don't have a computer program to compare an email against other emails in their database, they are fucking idiots.

Speaking of idiots... I mentioned that they didn't have a warrant yesterday, and the hillary haters club all said of course they have a warrant. https://patrick.net/?p=1298002&c=1340017#comment-1340017 Do you think any of them will admit that they were wrong, or will they take the Trump route and deny deny deny?

At least she had the guts to criticize Israel over the attacks on the Palestinians. Nobody else that was connected bothered to do that.

And while I am at it, I have nothing against Lesbians personally. Die, you are kind of a bigot aren't you?

Coolest Scooby Doo ending ever!

Classic "the buck stops here!" stuff

Bernie was the inevitable reaction from the left. Same impetus, different angle.

Whatever happens in the election, Hillary is the end of the democratic party in the same way Bush jr was the end of the republican party. PC culture and SJW's have been exposed for the evil they are. Brexit showed the world that globalism can be stopped.

Minus the whole Satin II missile aimed at Chelsea's condo in Manhattan, times are looking up.

Comey hurt the feelings of lesbians and IHLs everywhere, which just goes to show that men are beasts.

Just shows what kind of people vote for her, the perverts and mentally ill with sexual issues.

YesYNot says

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.

With over 30K emails erased that were deemed "personal" by Hillary, how many of those do you think were truly classified emails? Once again, why go against the subpoena and erase over 30K emails if they didn't contain anything to worry about? If she didn't want any personal emails exposed, she shouldn't have co-mingled work and personal on a private server.

FortWayne says

Just shows what kind of people vote for her, the perverts and mentally ill with sexual issues.

At least they aren't the deplorables who couldn't see a racist when he smacks them in the face with it. You should read up on Murray Rothbard, anarcho capitalist Libertarian. He was a total racist. And Trump says many things Rothbard says.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

just like the twisted libby she is!

You are an idiot sometimes. You have strong women fears like Donald Trump has?

rando says

The demand that you restrict your speech to 31 random made-up pronouns or face employment or legal consequences is actually closely related to the wholesale export of manufacturing to China

Wtf ? The social justice warrior gender nonsense is self correcting. 70% of the people I talk to on a regular basis are "liberals." And at most, one of them buys into that bullshit (and he is someone that I dislike). The fact that there are some students and some professors at universities that are on the lower end of any measurable intelligence distribution, or that have some strange issues, doesn't mean that all universities are somehow fucked up.

Why is it that right wingers do this ? THat is look at extreme rare cases and generalize ? I guess maybe they look at the phenomenon of gay marriage, and think that if that can become mainstream, so can anything. I've got news for you. It can't, and it doesn't take a Trump movement to stop SJWs. The internet is and has done a pretty good job of shaming them when they get ridiculous. And meanwhile there should be such a thing as a legitimate and justifiable social justice cause. Police shooting too many people and not being accountable enough is one good example. (causing many police forces to adopt body camera policies, which is a great idea). Sometimes even whacky activists make a positive difference.

You're not going to turn back the clock on homosexuality and put it back in the closet. But the Kaitlin Jenners of the world will always be a small minority.

As for that pronoun nonsense ? Give me a fucking break.

CBOEtrader says

Whatever happens in the election, Hillary is the end of the democratic party in the same way Bush jr was the end of the republican party.

I think there will always be "an establishment." I wish that Hillary represented the republican establishment, and that we actually had a left, and that what is currently a big part of the republican party (i.e. alt right, right wing radio audiences etc.) would quickly go to the ashbin of history.

White fear of change in monochrome parts of the country is going to continue, but soon they will be enough of a minority that they will need to team up with some other groups to remain relevant, and it's hard to see what that will look like. But I don't see how they can remain the face of the republican party, unless they go back to dog whistles and a little bit of subtlety. So republicans might regress to what they were. The party of business and the rich, somehow tied to the alt right and tea party so that they can win elections.(by the way - this is fairly close to who Trump really is - the latter groups, Patrick and others are getting conned).

The most interesting outcome might be more political parties. But the establishment doesn't want that. Too high a risk of becoming more socialist.

Daddy says vlad gave mom copies of michelles speeches to plagerize soos the family would look 'telligent.