Assange: Clinton is a cog for Goldman Sachs & the Saudis

[Hashfag45]

1.Good point.
I'll ask the same question, because I'm curious to know

2.On the other hand, I never heard Hillary complain that the emails were altered. I'm sure she would've been quite vocal about that, if that were the case

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/55163925.jpg

 

[underguy1]

How can you prove that the text of an email isn't altered without seeing the original text on the original computer it was stolen from?

Umm ... uhh ... duh .....

Show us the originals so we can verify the Wikileaks versions aren't doctored.

Until then .......

Oh.

My.

God.

You really are that stupid aren't you?

 

[underguy1]

1.Good point.
I'll ask the same question, because I'm curious to know

2.On the other hand, I never heard Hillary complain that the emails were altered. I'm sure she would've been quite vocal about that, if that were the case

Oh.

My.

God.

You pathetic stupid moron.

https://media.giphy.com/media/gj8bDcA9gKi5i/giphy.gif

 

[Hashfag45]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58296195.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How can you prove that the text of an email isn't altered without seeing the original text on the original computer it was stolen from?

Umm ... uhh ... duh .....

Show us the originals so we can verify the Wikileaks versions aren't doctored.

Until then .......

From deduction as in the dog did not bark...

No one hacked has pointed out a single altered email; if they could they would have already.

That would have been the quickest and easiest way to get past the scandal.

 

[hashtag45]

Oh.

My.

God.

You pathetic stupid moron.

You missed my point. Try to suss out what the other poster actually meant, before getting hot-headded and barging in like a bull in a spanish arena.

I'm absolutely certain that the Wikileaks emails are 100% authentic and haven't been doctored. Wikileaks are a very credible source.

But Magnetron's post made me wonder: if some less credible sources post emails, how can one figure out if those are real emails and haven't been tampered with and altered?
-- Because just the other day a poster provided us with a link to a source that published the so called emails of Hillary's campaign manager (who used derrogatory words about her). But it was fake and I totally fell for it.

If you guys think I'm a moron when I'm being upfront about things that I don't understand, so be it.
But why don't you help me become a bit less of a moron by improving my understanding too?
Just answer my question, smartass.

 

[underguy1]

These are emails.

E mails.

FFS.


https://media.giphy.com/media/zNrg4ulntLBMk/giphy.gif

 

[hashtag45]

These are emails.

E mails.

FFS.


https://media.giphy.com/mphy.gif

And one can't photoshop emails by adding another text layer? Or similar things, you catch my drift.
Mello69 does that all the time with boobies in his threads, yet you morons still jump and click on those threads like stupid dogs when they hear the dinner bell.

 

[underguy1]

And one can't photoshop emails by adding another text layer? Or similar things, you catch my drift.
Mello69 does that all the time with boobies in his threads, yet you morons still jump and click on those threads like stupid dogs when they hear the dinner bell.

You are completely missing the point.

And I've told you before not to second guess what I do or don't do/believe.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From deduction as in the dog did not bark...

No one hacked has pointed out a single altered email; if they could they would have already.

That would have been the quickest and easiest way to get past the scandal.

The emails are not doctored. All it would take is one example from the person who sent it and the person who received it.

 

[Dribble]

Coming from a guy that cant leave the Ecuadorian Embassy because he would be arrested and extradited to face charges of sexual assualt. Amazing to me that people believe a criminals word is god.

 

[hashtag45]

The emails are not doctored. All it would take is one example from the person who sent it and the person who received it.

I'm 100% convinced that they aren't doctored.
But my question wasn't about Wikileaks. It was more about BB's ridiculous thread about claims that Hillary's campaign manager wrote in an email that "she smelled like cabbage amd so on", and the fact that I and a couple of other peopke were gullible enough to fall for it. initially.

But I'll drop it, because I'm starting to sound obstinate and silly.

But before I go, I'll just use an example of what I meant by using one of my own pm exchanges that made me chuckle. (someone who claimed to be a guy in his 20's and sent me -and I suspect, many other female posters- funny trolling pm's).
See where I tried to photoshop his/her username and some of his/her statements (to illustrate my point but also to avoid breaking forum rules)

 

[underguy1]

Coming from a guy that cant leave the Ecuadorian Embassy because he would be arrested and extradited to face charges of sexual assualt. Amazing to me that people believe a criminals word is god.

There are no charges of sexual assualt. Or even assault.

And it isn't 'his word' that you are being asked to believe.

Bandying around the 'criminal' term just makes you look childish.

 

[Hashfag45]

Coming from a guy that cant leave the Ecuadorian Embassy because he would be arrested and extradited to face charges of sexual assualt. Amazing to me that people believe a criminals word is god.

They will if it fits their racist and-or political views, typical birthers.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Coming from a guy that cant leave the Ecuadorian Embassy because he would be arrested and extradited to face charges of sexual assualt. Amazing to me that people believe a criminals word is god.

Innocent unti proven guilty which is why the people being hacked are still able to run for public office despite the investigations into their criminal activities...



... and again, they've hinted that the emails may have been doctored (in this subtle way, they can never be accused of lying), but have produced no proof. We know that some of these emails exist across multiple devices, so it would be easy to show a few of the originals and prove that Assange, or THE RUSSIANS have doctored the emails.

 

[hashtag45]

Ok, you must have read it by now so I removed the attachment.
I hope that my example made a wee bit clearer what I was trying to get at.

 

[Magnetron]

The emails are not doctored. All it would take is one example from the person who sent it and the person who received it.

You would have to put every single email to that test because it would be easy to slip in 1 doctored for every 1,000.

999 were authentic - it has to be true!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What good does one doctored email do?


Everyone loves a grand conspiracy, this does not rise to that level.


Note that no one, not even from the government, who has access to the earliest versions of the emails have come forward with one clear definitive example of doctoring.


When you find the evidence, when you have a fact, then you have a case, until then it is no more than wishful thinking, maybe even hopefulness, that the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton, in particular, can avoid the tarnish the will dominate half of America's attitudes about "inclusiveness" and "coming together" for the next four years as they view her election as illegitimate, just as the Democrats never got over Al Gore's loss to Bush.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - When you can show me the barking dog, I will agree with your pov...



... until then those emails are legitimate.

 

[Magnetron]

Innocent unti proven guilty which is why the people being hacked are still able to run for public office despite the investigations into their criminal activities...



... and again, they've hinted that the emails may have been doctored (in this subtle way, they can never be accused of lying), but have produced no proof. We know that some of these emails exist across multiple devices, so it would be easy to show a few of the originals and prove that Assange, or THE RUSSIANS have doctored the emails.

The whole point of crying Emails Emails Emails ! is to impress upon voters that there is something incriminating written in them.

But without proving to the public that there is A] incriminating text beyond a reasonable doubt that is B] not the result of doctoring, it's all carnival barking.

After HRC wins the election, only the tinfoil hat brigade will still cling to the conspiracy theories as the well adjusted Americans move on.

 

[hashtag45]

Magnetron,
Wikileak's entire existence is linked to their credibility regarding the authenticity of materials leaked.

They wouldn't risk. to put out even ONE falsified email. Because, if found out that would be a field day for their enemies who would have reasons enough to discredit them and puff! all their credibility gone.

 

[Magnetron]

This is the equivalent of Eyer posting that Kim Dotcom, 4Chan and Anonymous are going to release incriminating videos of Bill Clinton on Saturday ( yesterday ) doing nasty things to minors, right before the election.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There doesn't have to be anything incriminating them.

The way they were handled has actually incriminated people close to Hillary, especially Huma and now the bit about the maid handling classified material...

So, to take the focus off of the careless handling of State secrets and the artless machinations of Democrats and the agents of the Clinton Foundation, then claiming they were forgeries is the equivalent of dangling a bright shiny object.

Petraeus was ruined for sharing, but not giving one document to his mistress.

A navy guy is in jain for taking six pictures.

We are told there is a 99% chance that up to five foreign actors hacked her email.

If she had been on government servers, then my consternation would be about the hackers, but when she decided to use her own unsecured personal server, possibly to hide all of the pay-for-play wheeling and dealing of the Department of State, the Foundation and foreign states, well then that is low-hanging fruit and my ire is directed at her for her carelessness and lack of judgement.

Now, the Podesta emails are another facet of this not related to her criminality, but they are an indictment of the political process as currently practiced by the elites. It is low, base and despicable. I doubt if any of those have been altered in any way, shape or form based upon the sameness of the pattern of the conversations. It would take a helluva lot of time and effort to massively take innocuous and innocent emails and turn them into something just this side of sordid.

And yet, there is no barking dog.

 

[Magnetron]

Magnetron,
Wikileak's entire existence is linked to their credibility regarding the authenticity of materials leaked.

They wouldn't risk. to put out even ONE falsified email. Because, if found out that would be a field day for their enemies who would have reasons enough to discredit them and puff! all their credibility gone.

I didn't say they would "knowingly" publish false documents.

The information that Wikileaks leaks to the public is leaked to Wikileaks in the first place by sources possessing zero credibility.

Which is why no one takes the leaked versions seriously to begin with.

Except desperate Trump supporters and Republicans with blind hatred for Democrats.

 

[Magnetron]

There doesn't have to be anything incriminating them.

The way they were handled has actually incriminated people close to Hillary, especially Huma and now the bit about the maid handling classified material...

So, to take the focus off of the careless handling of State secrets and the artless machinations of Democrats and the agents of the Clinton Foundation, then claiming they were forgeries is the equivalent of dangling a bright shiny object.

Petraeus was ruined for sharing, but not giving one document to his mistress.

A navy guy is in jain for taking six pictures.

We are told there is a 99% chance that up to five foreign actors hacked her email.

If she had been on government servers, then my consternation would be about the hackers, but when she decided to use her own unsecured personal server, possibly to hide all of the pay-for-play wheeling and dealing of the Department of State, the Foundation and foreign states, well then that is low-hanging fruit and my ire is directed at her for her carelessness and lack of judgement.

Now, the Podesta emails are another facet of this not related to her criminality, but they are an indictment of the political process as currently practiced by the elites. It is low, base and despicable. I doubt if any of those have been altered in any way, shape or form based upon the sameness of the pattern of the conversations. It would take a helluva lot of time and effort to massively take innocuous and innocent emails and turn them into something just this side of sordid.

And yet, there is no barking dog.

Powell and Rice did the same thing with classified info on private servers.

They were not investigated.

Double standard.

Argument lost.