Slashdot Mirror

> I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy.

Even if we believe the claims being made without any real evidence, at worst they're alleged to have revealed the truth to us, the same way the Pentagon Papers did a generation back. Remember, for all the talk of "election" hacks, there have been no credible allegations that any voting machines were tampered with by anyone.

Inasmuch as we are to worry about foreign influence on our elections, why is there no concern over the funding of Clinton by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, places with a terrible human rights record where abuses like modern day slavery can still be found? Places that fund terrorists like ISIS? You know, the people who do this sort of thing? (NSFW - graphic content)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

If you're having trouble making out the context, look here for a more digestable form.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather temporarily work with Russia and take out ISIS than to attempt the reverse.

Your links about Russia basically say that they might be trying to fund people they agree with--so if you don't think the above is also harmful, that's literally hypocritical. I'd personally take a more nuanced view that it matters what they have the politicians in question do with that money, whether they follow the relevant laws, etc.

And it's not like elections can be straight up bought. Let's not forget that Hillary spent twice as much as Trump on this election and lost badly where it counted. It's doubly ironic that it's exactly the same kind of loss she suffered to Obama in the DNC primaries in 2008, where he was focused on delegates and she was focused elsewhere as anyone who watched 538's coverage back in 2008 should remember.

> I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy.

Even if we believe the claims being made without any real evidence, at worst they're alleged to have revealed the truth to us, the same way the Pentagon Papers did a generation back. Remember, for all the talk of "election" hacks, there have been no credible allegations that any voting machines were tampered with by anyone.

Inasmuch as we are to worry about foreign influence on our elections, why is there no concern over the funding of Clinton by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, places with a terrible human rights record where abuses like modern day slavery can still be found? Places that fund terrorists like ISIS? You know, the people who do this sort of thing? (NSFW - graphic content)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

If you're having trouble making out the context, look here for a more digestable form.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather temporarily work with Russia and take out ISIS than to attempt the reverse.

Your links about Russia basically say that they might be trying to fund people they agree with--so if you don't think the above is also harmful, that's literally hypocritical. I'd personally take a more nuanced view that it matters what they have the politicians in question do with that money, whether they follow the relevant laws, etc.

And it's not like elections can be straight up bought. Let's not forget that Hillary spent twice as much as Trump on this election and lost badly where it counted. It's doubly ironic that it's exactly the same kind of loss she suffered to Obama in the DNC primaries in 2008, where he was focused on delegates and she was focused elsewhere as anyone who watched 538's coverage back in 2008 should remember.

See, this kind of bait would be far more effective if I hadn't read the CTR strategy sheets. I should have realized that when your boss called you "nerd virgins", he was implying you came from Slashdot.

It's pretty obvious in retrospect, no?

> purportedly phished

At least for the Podesta emails, we have good reason to believe that. I've covered this several times previously in comments, but we have some pretty good evidence when you line things up with the timing of it:

* A spear phishing email to Podesta conveniently dated not long before the dump ends.
* The stats page for the bit.ly phishing link says the link was used twice in the right time frame.

Slashdot finally covered this story via thehill.com, some weeks after I had already dissected it in comments and in that they appear to admit to getting phished, blaming it on a "typo" (which is highly suspect, but whatever).

I'd write more submissions about this sort of thing, but there appears to be an organized effort going around marking anything they don't like as "SPAM" in the firehose (like this), as I've also seen happen abusively to other submissions on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tagging herbal viagra ads as 'binspam', not stories I disagree with. I'd much rather disagree with someone openly than sneak around and try to hide inconvenient facts. If the facts stop agreeing with me, I'd much rather start rethinking my positions than playing blame games.

Finally, for those having trouble keeping all the dumps straight, I left this comment some time ago that will help to clarify. There have been a lot of dumps and there are some people who like to confuse and conflate these issues.

Call me when Trump sets up an illegal email server with Top Secret emails on it - connected to the internet.

Call me when Clinton does. The FBI investigated and found no meaningful wrong doing. Stop pretending that this is a thing that matters. Your favorite asshole won the election. Let it go.

Then lies about it.

You're seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't lie constantly? You are seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't break any laws?

You are FULL OF SHIT.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

...

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information [the emails were classified WHEN THEY WERE SENT, and not retroactively]

...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ["extremely careless" == "grossly negligent", no?]

Note well that it is a FELONY to be "grossly negligent" in the handling of classified information.

Are you really going to try to argue Hillary! wasn't "grossly negligent"? When there is actual evidence that she directed the removal of classification markings and ordered underlings to send data "unsecure"?

Why did Comey say there was no intent?

Gee, you think the $500,000 the FBI deputy director's wife got from Terry McAuliffe had anything to do with that?

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

> FFS the WMD was 100% Cheney stovepipe to fit his predetermined actions.

So, kinda like this?

Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. Brent

Source email from 2015-12-21 12:09

> The CIA went out of their way to cast doubt on the "intelligence" that curveball'Ed the US into Iraq.

So, something like the FBI is doing now?

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Source

I bet someone is going to blame him for quietly informing Congress of his actions right before the election, but remember this is the same guy who refused to recommend prosecution of Hillary even after this hearing. Feel free to watch the full hearing if you prefer.

> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.

No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.

I give credit to the heuristics that most reliably lead me to the truth.

Finding people or institutions who are good sources of information and have a good track record is a better than average method for finding the truth.

Attempting to independently verify a small subset of the relevant facts in a field for which I have limited expertise is a very easy way to be wrong.

Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.

Though that's an earlier article that leaves out the smoking gun of the same IP being used as the control address for the DNC hack and the hack on the German parliament demonstrating the same actor was behind both.

But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:

- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it.

Which never made sense, a fairly advanced hacker emulating a guy who guessed password resets do dump celebrity emails?

See also: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/former-intelligence-officer-on-the-bogus-russian-hack-20578/

A source who both mischaracterizes the Iraq war build up (the CIA did not generally agree with Bush), who undersells the Russian hack evidence (leaving out the control addresses), and is mostly trying to sell a conspiratorial anti-government book and speaking/consulting business.

And one last note, but they were planning to blame Trump for being too cozy to Russia from the beginning.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks

But Trump's uncomfortable pro-Russian biases and entanglements were known all along, that may have been one of the reasons Putin was willing to through with it.

and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email

So?

> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.

No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.

I give credit to the heuristics that most reliably lead me to the truth.

Finding people or institutions who are good sources of information and have a good track record is a better than average method for finding the truth.

Attempting to independently verify a small subset of the relevant facts in a field for which I have limited expertise is a very easy way to be wrong.

Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.

Though that's an earlier article that leaves out the smoking gun of the same IP being used as the control address for the DNC hack and the hack on the German parliament demonstrating the same actor was behind both.

But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:

- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it.

Which never made sense, a fairly advanced hacker emulating a guy who guessed password resets do dump celebrity emails?

See also: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/former-intelligence-officer-on-the-bogus-russian-hack-20578/

A source who both mischaracterizes the Iraq war build up (the CIA did not generally agree with Bush), who undersells the Russian hack evidence (leaving out the control addresses), and is mostly trying to sell a conspiratorial anti-government book and speaking/consulting business.

And one last note, but they were planning to blame Trump for being too cozy to Russia from the beginning.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks

But Trump's uncomfortable pro-Russian biases and entanglements were known all along, that may have been one of the reasons Putin was willing to through with it.

and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email

So?

> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.

No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.

Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.

But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:

- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it. There were allegations made about his use of Russian language, but nobody bothered to give quotes.
- The RATs were widely available on underground forums.

See also: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/former-intelligence-officer-on-the-bogus-russian-hack-20578/

And one last note, but they were planning to blame Trump for being too cozy to Russia from the beginning.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email.

So this pretty much looks like a case of confirmation bias to me.

> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.

No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.

Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.

But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:

- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it. There were allegations made about his use of Russian language, but nobody bothered to give quotes.
- The RATs were widely available on underground forums.

See also: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/former-intelligence-officer-on-the-bogus-russian-hack-20578/

And one last note, but they were planning to blame Trump for being too cozy to Russia from the beginning.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email.

So this pretty much looks like a case of confirmation bias to me.

> No there aren't, at least not in this article.

Yes, the FBI, though they only allude to that in passing. There have been other random anonymous people quoted as disagreeing too. I don't think there's much point in playing the "my anonymous source can beat up your anonymous source" game though. I don't believe any of them, it's been the standard way to fabricate evidence in the press since before any of us were born. So there's no point going down that route to begin with.

> Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.

Yeah, no. See, I got over the secret evidence thing back when they used it to manufacture the war in Iraq. I've adopted the put up or shut up motto.

> Because that's been well established for months.

If by "well established" you mean that the press keeps reporting that it's true without giving us even one single verifiable fact we could hang our hat on. Or links to other articles saying the same thing, which link to more articles in a giant web of lies. Go follow them, look for actual, verifiable statements. Something you can actually corroborate with public records or such.

I have yet to find one single damned shred of evidence. So point me to hard evidence, I'm done with anonymous insiders spreading unverifiable rumors.

> He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network.

There wasn't any evidence he could dismiss, nothing was ever presented. That's kind of the point here. You didn't link us to anything, either. It's really easy to prove this wrong. Just point me to an actual fact that can be corroborated somehow. I've done that dozens of times referencing specific facts, leaks, DKIM signatures, etc. It's not even hard.

The only evidence we have of hacking is the phishing email that got Podesta, whereas that article was discussing the DNC leaks, a completely different thing. And I'm the one who keeps linking that! You lot never even noticed that the phishing email claimed there were hack attempts from the Ukraine (of course, that was as fake as the bit.ly reset link Podesta used...).

> And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?

Read it again. There are only two directors endorsing that who happen to be in charge of a lot of people at different agencies. It's only right at the top of the thing. And quoted in my post....

But yes, I absolutely refuse to believe this secret crap. I'm old enough to remember the WMDs and the yellowcake that were used to manufacture a war out of nothing last time. I also remember that being called out for a lack of evidence (and rightfully so).

I mean, if someone as incompetent as Bush can get the intelligence community to lie to us to start a war, you can't seriously expect me to buy this sort of thing again.

Doesn't anyone remember how that evidence was fabricated?

The emperor has no clothes. These are naked rumors and the people peddling them are full of crap.

Just for fun, go look up the bylines on these stories (not just this one, all of them in general). Then search for those names in the Podesta or the DNC leak dumps on Wikileaks.

There's a damned good reason they never bother to link you to these.

> No there aren't, at least not in this article.

Yes, the FBI, though they only allude to that in passing. There have been other random anonymous people quoted as disagreeing too. I don't think there's much point in playing the "my anonymous source can beat up your anonymous source" game though. I don't believe any of them, it's been the standard way to fabricate evidence in the press since before any of us were born. So there's no point going down that route to begin with.

> Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.

Yeah, no. See, I got over the secret evidence thing back when they used it to manufacture the war in Iraq. I've adopted the put up or shut up motto.

> Because that's been well established for months.

If by "well established" you mean that the press keeps reporting that it's true without giving us even one single verifiable fact we could hang our hat on. Or links to other articles saying the same thing, which link to more articles in a giant web of lies. Go follow them, look for actual, verifiable statements. Something you can actually corroborate with public records or such.

I have yet to find one single damned shred of evidence. So point me to hard evidence, I'm done with anonymous insiders spreading unverifiable rumors.

> He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network.

There wasn't any evidence he could dismiss, nothing was ever presented. That's kind of the point here. You didn't link us to anything, either. It's really easy to prove this wrong. Just point me to an actual fact that can be corroborated somehow. I've done that dozens of times referencing specific facts, leaks, DKIM signatures, etc. It's not even hard.

The only evidence we have of hacking is the phishing email that got Podesta, whereas that article was discussing the DNC leaks, a completely different thing. And I'm the one who keeps linking that! You lot never even noticed that the phishing email claimed there were hack attempts from the Ukraine (of course, that was as fake as the bit.ly reset link Podesta used...).

> And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?

Read it again. There are only two directors endorsing that who happen to be in charge of a lot of people at different agencies. It's only right at the top of the thing. And quoted in my post....

But yes, I absolutely refuse to believe this secret crap. I'm old enough to remember the WMDs and the yellowcake that were used to manufacture a war out of nothing last time. I also remember that being called out for a lack of evidence (and rightfully so).

I mean, if someone as incompetent as Bush can get the intelligence community to lie to us to start a war, you can't seriously expect me to buy this sort of thing again.

Doesn't anyone remember how that evidence was fabricated?

The emperor has no clothes. These are naked rumors and the people peddling them are full of crap.

Just for fun, go look up the bylines on these stories (not just this one, all of them in general). Then search for those names in the Podesta or the DNC leak dumps on Wikileaks.

There's a damned good reason they never bother to link you to these.

They leaked some old ones, actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

As for this story, it makes no sense. The email in question is here and for some reason, I was unable to find any links to it in either article. As an aside, why do media outlets fail so badly at citing sources like this? It should be utterly basic journalism, but the major papers routinely fail to do this very basic step and wonder why bloggers eat their lunch... This was first reported many weeks ago, they're severely behind the times on this. I mean, you know it's bad when you're scooped by Slashdot commenters.... sheesh!

Back on topic, the relevant part of the response to the spear phishing email says this:

This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account. He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/s... to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP.

If you or he has any questions, please reach out to me at [redacted]

It's definitely an illegitimate email, but there's more wrong with the statement above than just typing "a legitimate email" instead "an illegitimate email." Being illegitimate means they DON'T yet have his password, so there would be no reason to change it and no good reason to advise that! Two-factor authentication, however, is very reasonable.

We know from the stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page that Podesta didn't follow his instructions to go to https://myaccount.google.com/security though, and it's true that we can't hold Charles Delavan responsible for that part.

> No doubt, but notice that they waited until after Sanders lost the primary to out Clinton.

For which hack? I covered the list of them just the other day - https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9986237&cid=53472053

You realize there are many sets of leaks at different times and not many people even took Trump seriously back in the summer of 2015, right? (Many still do not, but I digress...)

Oh, and we have an email from them in 2015 saying "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."

Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

> why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium?
Flag as Inappropriate

If you look at the PDF attached to this email, you'll see that it was the DNC's own "pied piper" strategy wherein they had their allies in the media promote Trump early on believing him to be one of the weakest candidates who would hurt the Republican party.

So that would appear to be your answer.

> No doubt, but notice that they waited until after Sanders lost the primary to out Clinton.

For which hack? I covered the list of them just the other day - https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9986237&cid=53472053

You realize there are many sets of leaks at different times and not many people even took Trump seriously back in the summer of 2015, right? (Many still do not, but I digress...)

Oh, and we have an email from them in 2015 saying "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."

Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651

> why did it end up being a selection between two of the worst imbeciles ever to grace the presidential podium?
Flag as Inappropriate

If you look at the PDF attached to this email, you'll see that it was the DNC's own "pied piper" strategy wherein they had their allies in the media promote Trump early on believing him to be one of the weakest candidates who would hurt the Republican party.

So that would appear to be your answer.

The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:

Hillary's emails

Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by /u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that /u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad :)

Podesta's Gmail account

This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.

We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+

That bit.ly link resolves to a .TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.

DNC Leaks

This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.

You can find more discussion about that here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.

True, there's no need to bring Sid Blumenthal into this - just because he and Podesta pushed that and the "Obama is a Muslim" lies doesn't mean they need to be brought up every time some criticizes Obama.

I don't think they need to worry about their firewalls, they need to worry about falling prey to obvious phishing scams (note the bit.ly link...) and not working together to compromise their own OPSEC by bypassing all the controls.

Actually, Podesta's email didn't get hacked, he got tricked. He appears to have fallen for a dumb phishing email that they bought into hook, line and sinker that any 10 year old who can write HTML could have crafted.

Well, maybe they can review why Podesta appears to have reset his Gmail password via a fake bit.ly reset link in a fake spear phishing email that claimed he was being hacked from the Ukraine? Note both the staff's reaction ("This is a legitimate email") and the fact that the Podesta dump ends soon after this email.

It's doubly odd, because Google does warn people who are actually subject to state-sponsored attacks, but we see no such notice here.

as a source of reliable news, and that probably applies to the socials as well, for obvious reasons, if you aren't a Leftist.

The so-called MNM was in the tank for Hillary during this election cycle: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
The media dropped all appearances of journalistic standards and went ballistic in their attacks against Republican candidates, predicting that the final winner, Trump, had no chance of being elected. They started believing their own propaganda and it got echoed back and forth among the various news outlets. Hillary had a tough time filling a high school gymnasium and photos of her rallies were always up front and closely cropped, deliberately. Here is an example of but one of many:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...

Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube combined forces to censor "hate" speech on their sites. What they deemed hate speech became patently clear as we approached November 8th. Any posts against Hillary were shadow-baned, and if that didn't force repentance the account was suspended. If the account holder didn't conform to Leftist norms then the account was canceled. Google and Twitter did the same. Google CEO was even on Hillary's campaign team.
Here is a screen captures of an experiment testing Twitter's bias:
http://www.informationliberati...
Guess who got banned.
Here is a similar experiment testing Facebook's bias:
https://www.breakingisraelnews...

Google was just as evil. When Google first set up YouTube they encouraged EVERYONE to create content and post it. They set up provisions for sharing ad revenue. Some YT posters became so successful they quit their jobs and became full time content creators for YouTube. Some of the content was political in nature. You guessed it. Videos which were not favorable to Hillary, or were favorable to Trump got demonetized, and sometimes the account was canceled, throwing the content creator out of a job. Those videos continued to make ad revenues but Google took it all. And they mock Trump's "You're Fired!", or his defunct "university". I suspect that Google has stolen more money from demonetized videos than Trump ever made from his short-lived university. Pure thievery.

During the debate Hillary was "horrified" that Trump would not say that he would accept the outcome of the election, so confident she was of her own election. She when on to describe his attitude as anti-democratic and UN-American. Then she lost the electoral count. Now, according to her own words, SHE is being anti-democratic and UN-American. She joined Jill Stein in the recount, but only in the states she had a narrow loss, not the states she narrowly won, probably fearing the truth of the Veritas video uncovering paid Democrat operatives bragging that they've been stuffing ballot boxes for "50 years" and they "won't **** stop now". Recounting a Chicago-style count would probably be hazardous to her popular vote totals. Here are Hillary's close counts:
Nevada by only 27K votes, Colorado by 75K, Minnesota by 44K and New Hampshire by only 3,000 votes.

So, despite the fact that both wings of the Democrat party ( the Far-Left Bernie and the Far-Left Hillary, they argued over who was more "progressive" and I call it a tie), the leadership of the Republican Party and many of its members and ALL of the Alt-Left Media, as listed in Podesta's email, were against Trump he still won by 37 electoral votes, a margin Hillary would have gladly accepted. The IRS's throttling of 501c applications, which doomed Conservative PACs in the last two elections wasn't effective in stopping Trump because he funded his campaign himself, and he spent a fraction of

Literally none of the story is true.

So you bought that fake news narrative without checking?

Not only did the whole thing start as an online hoax by pranksters

How do you know that? Some things are pranks, some things are conspiracy theories (that may even have some truth behind them).

but the images in the supposed Instagram are from people who "liked" the pizza restaurant's page

Here's where you are dead wrong. Some of the images are from associations, but some very creepy ones involving children were found directly on the owner's Instagram account, "jimmycomet", including the young girl taped to the ping pong table with a male standing suggestively behind her. Ha ha, very funny?

None of the "FBI charts of code words" are from the FBI.

But the symbols are.

None of the information that the #pizzagate morons point to is true. It is 100% false.

Maybe if you weren't reading "fake news" and did some checking, you wouldn't be saying this. I haven't even gotten into the kind of art that Tony Podesta (John Podesta's brother) had at his home, which is documented by mainstream sources.

Here is a comprehensive, detailed rundown with citations on the history of this hoax and whether a single fact or assertion about pizzagate has been proven true or is possible to be proven true:

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagat...

And here's an archive version of the summary Snopes is "debunking". It also has citations, with archives of pages that have since been made private, deleted, or changed.

Pedophiles who sexually abuse children as well as those who produce, distribute, and trade child pornography, are using various types of identification logos or symbols to recognize one another and distinguish their sexual preferences.

Seriously, go and read the memo. Accidental? Where do you come up with this shit? I mean, in the absence of other evidence it might be nothing, but when Podesta himself has an artsy, sterile bedroom with children's stuffed animals in it, more investigation is called for. He's childless, by the way. What kind of grown man keeps stuffed animals in his bedroom? Much less a top-level political operative?

That's all anyone wants, an investigation. If there's nothing there, then nobody will find anything. Judge for yourself, that's all everyone has to do. Absolutely DO NOT trust the media when they are telling you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I mean, come on, look who's getting blamed for the incident - the crazy guy, or the people pushing the investigation! Use your brain! If there was nothing there they wouldn't be making such large efforts to suppress it!

Besta Pizza's logo was one well-known to the FBI as a pedo symbol. If it wasn't incriminating, then why did they change it when it was exposed? Here's the same symbol on the The Elpida part of the Ratcliffe Foundation's website: all the way at the bottom row, first photo, the wall mural. Archived here for when it gets deleted - and why would it ever get deleted if it's not incriminating? Clearly a pedo symbol, aka "BL" aka "Boy Lover" according to the FBI. The art in Podesta's house is super-creepy and definitely pedo. See that gold one of the man bent over backwards? That's a recreation of a photo that a serial killer took after he beheaded his victim. More importantly, powerful people are telling you not to pay any attention. What should you do when this happens?

The guy is screaming for the investigation to stop. This narrative is being forwarded by the same people who brought you the fake news about the election. Who do you trust? The gatekeepers that we know for a fact are corrupt, or a bunch of independent investigators? It's one thing if the investigation turns up nothing. But it is entirely another to shriek and demand that the investigation stop, and attack the investigators. It was the "crazies from the internet" who took down Michelle Fields and her lies. Nobody is telling you to believe a crazy conspiracy theory. Just read for yourself, make your own decisions, come to your own conclusions. Don't trust the gatekeepers, they don't deserve your trust. We're in a new era of real citizen journalism and the media is scared shitless.

Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-29 13:28 2016-10-19 jamesacorp@gmail.com john.podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-29 10:50 2016-10-19 john.podesta@gmail.com jamesacorp@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-28 03:12 2016-10-19 jamesacorp@gmail.com john.podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-28 02:22 2016-10-19 john.podesta@gmail.com jamesacorp@gmail.com
Subject: Cooking w/ Fratelli Podesta Briefing
2015-10-05 23:14 2016-10-19 mfisher@hillaryclinton.com john.podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-29 02:29 2016-10-19 jamesacorp@gmail.com john.podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-27 21:42 2016-10-19 jamesacorp@gmail.com John.Podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Comet Ping Pong and OBAMA...and Podesta?.
2008-09-28 02:48 2016-10-17 JPalmieri@americanprogress.org john.podesta@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: INVITE: Hillary for America / October 6
2015-10-06 21:56 2016-10-17 podesta@podesta.com john.podesta@gmail.com

Except... all those emails contain discussion about a Political Fundraiser Gathering. There's little but tenuous claims linking Podesta to anything improper. If you actually look at all the supposed evidence, yeah it comes off like little more than a nutters vendetta.

Whether an official investigation would uncover anything is unknown... it still wouldn't LINK to Hillary.

There are lots of weird uses of language that make people suspect code words are in play, not just one or two. I mean, I'd like to write this off as a "damn you autocorrect" kind of thing, but some of them are just weird. Look here, for example:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795

The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you're busy, so feel free not to respond if it's not yours or you don't want it.

This came up after people were already questioning whether some uses of 'cheese pizza' referred to child pornography (CP), so... yeah.

It doesn't help that they're proud of some very weird art that looks to be posed like one of Dhamer's victims.

Well, I still haven't seen any smoking guns just yet, only a lot of strange things that point in a bad direction or to bad taste in art & friends. I don't know too many Democrats these days eager to retain friendships with Republicans, let alone those who are also convicted child molesters, but it's not exactly illegal either. There's nothing illegal about saying that "traffic is really warm and really weird in light of Hastert" but people who have seen enough strange uses of language regarding what they suspect are codewords could read that in a weird way.

But by banning pizzagate, they've only made it better known. They didn't even manage to shut it down, it /r/pizzagate lives on Voat now as /v/pizzagate. Twitter users outraged that they did nothing about pedo pics someone allegedly pointed out on twitter gab.ai. Wikipedia censors all but a pitiful mention of it, so it's documented on Infogalactic.

There are still the usual problems with idiots who fake something to troll the community, though, but they're working on moderating that out. For example, I know at least one of the claims of steganography in the images appeared to be fake. There certainly wasn't any ZIP file marker in the image I found on Wikileaks, though it wasn't clear if you were supposed to use some steganography program first.

Well, I still haven't seen any smoking guns just yet, only a lot of strange things that point in a bad direction or to bad taste in art & friends. I don't know too many Democrats these days eager to retain friendships with Republicans, let alone those who are also convicted child molesters, but it's not exactly illegal either. There's nothing illegal about saying that "traffic is really warm and really weird in light of Hastert" but people who have seen enough strange uses of language regarding what they suspect are codewords could read that in a weird way.

But by banning pizzagate, they've only made it better known. They didn't even manage to shut it down, it /r/pizzagate lives on Voat now as /v/pizzagate. Twitter users outraged that they did nothing about pedo pics someone allegedly pointed out on twitter gab.ai. Wikipedia censors all but a pitiful mention of it, so it's documented on Infogalactic.

There are still the usual problems with idiots who fake something to troll the community, though, but they're working on moderating that out. For example, I know at least one of the claims of steganography in the images appeared to be fake. There certainly wasn't any ZIP file marker in the image I found on Wikileaks, though it wasn't clear if you were supposed to use some steganography program first.

Who's the reality denier?

Email chains not only detail Steven's position but planned movements on insecure server AKA handing information to terrorist.

Here's a breakdown:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Here's the federal FOIA confirmation:
https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

Here's the leaked confirmation:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...

Here's the documents that show she knew it was going to happen:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...

I have a special dislike for Clinton - she's a murderer, a liar, a thief and she covers for multiple sexual offenders. My feelings about Trump are very mixed - he doesn't fit with my vision overall but I like the promise of "swamp draining" I just don't like the idea of him replacing what gets weeded out with something else. Sometime you remove something and replace it with nothing and that's the best answer.

Facts are the foundation of a rational opinion. I am not a member of the "feelings" party, nor am I a member of the "bomb them all" party, the two of which the lines tend to blur between. It's obvious you and AC are part of the "for the feelz" groups.

You fucking idiot.

They endorsed Clinton.
The NYT actually RAN THEIR ARTICLES THROUGH HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN.
Even the liberal shitrag Rolling Stone called them out on their pro-Hillary propaganda bullshit.

What fucking PLANET were you on this whole fucking election? Were you attempting to be the first human to drink a full gallon of Mercury in the course of a year?

It occurs to me that certain weasel types might someday get rid of the DKIM keys, so here's an archive of some relevant to another important email as dumped by the same tool I linked above:

d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4G NADCBiQKBgQCJdAYdE2z61YpUMFqFTFJqlFom
m7C4Kk97nzJmR4YZuJ8SUy9CF35UV PQzh3EMLhP+yOqEl29Ax2hA/h7vayr/f/a1
9x2jrFCwxVry+nACH1FVmIwV3b5FCN EkNeAIqjbY8K9PeTmpqNhWDbvXeKgFbIDw
hWq0HP2PbySkOe4tTQIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

And now the lameness filter hates me. What's the best way to deal with that? This being Slashdot, we know that you just have to write a long, unfocused rant about nonsense and copy paste it a few times. Apologies for the spam, but Slashdot thinks the DKIM keys above are someone posting ASCII art or whatever. Go figure? Also I had to add a few spaces inside the keys. Sorry, just remove those please.

d=1e100.net; s=20130820;

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCA Q8AMIIBCgKCAQEAnOv6+Txyz+SEc7mT719Q
QtOj6g2MjpErYUGVrRGGc7f5rmE1cR P1lhwx8PVoHOiuRzyok7IqjvAub9kk9fBo
E9uXJB1QaRdMnKz7W/UhWemK5TE UgW1xT5qtBfUIpFRL34h6FbHbeysb4szi7aTg
erxI15o73cP5BoPVkQj4BQKkfTQYGN H03J5Db9uMqW/NNJ8fKCLKWO5C1e+NQ1lD
6uwFCjJ6PWFmAIeUu9+LfYW89Tz1N nwtSkFC96Oky1cmnlBf4dhZ/Up/FMZmB9l7
TA6gLEu6JijlDrNmx1o50WADPjjN4rG ELLt3VuXn09y2piBPlZPU2SIiDQC0qX0J
WQIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

Might as well give a quick lesson about DKIM to anyone who wants it. It's far more relevant than all this political nonsense anyhow :)

To find the Google key that signed the message, just click the message and then 'view source' which will show you this DKIM header:

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
                d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
                h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type;
                bh=08N7TAGRcCUnWsH1b+s0pSHDjHMlUZ7FyGhNbvfAvoE=;
                b=ZwBMDZQD7udVLR8S0lQfgJIuEyK1pt9iZs7g8efiCz/1Fxerox/kgyfAnRM4x1kfdm
                  T72+p5NL4rd6CAKj0PRIeL5//6rgF0vMI2Wl8zsKcQgibPICvz3mbYgAddCmUiFmZkiJ
                  jac24XjA/oCGdt1zHiJa9ovgXNFeTSr1Puk+CNaGXtz/hKriSQxI07qvd4RgGeBeBkXw
                  lsvqZsTjoUcfTVcrNt1HkxyDrXvOIcnT2AfwvqVubJiRH/eu+DPg2xLUydvXE4ahd+Xj
                  igfUe71VMbGIJejk8SplVhjnrjTXEnNHx4t3wiel4AskrDs4Bs9GP+WRPfNPqwRcXjEo
                  uW+g==

Now use any online DKIM key checker you want to look up the key using gmail.com as the domain and 20120113 as the selector, as you can see in the signature above: d=gmail.com; s=20120113;

That gives this result, which I might as well archive for posterity. I mean, Google could take down that DNS record someday, leaving people unable to authenticate the message. Here's the PEM version of the relevant key as dumped by the tool I linked above.

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA1Kd87/UeJjenpabgbFwh
+eBCsSTrqmwIYYvywlbhbqoo2DymndFkbjOVIPIldNs/m40KF+yzMn1skyoxcTUG
CQs8g3FgD2Ap3ZB5DekAo5wMmk4wimDO+U8QzI3SD07y2+07wlNWwIt8svnxgdxG
kVbbhzY8i+RQ9DpSVpPbF7ykQxtKXkv/ahW3KjViiAH+ghvvIhkx4xYSIc9oSwVm
Al5OctMEeWUwg8Istjqz8BZeTWbf41fbNhte7Y+YqZOwq1Sd0DbvYAD9NOZK9vlf
uac0598HY+vtSBczUiKERHv1yRbcaQtZFh5wtiRrN04BLUTD21MycBX5jYchHjPY /wIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.

> The cult of tradition

It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.

> The rejection of modernism

Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.

> The cult of action for action’s sake

This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.

This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."

> Disagreement is treason

Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right? :)

Oh! He complained about the media too!

You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?

So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them? :)

> Fear of difference

That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g

All I have to say is "good luck with that." There have never been more than a few, some electors are legally bound to vote with their state, etc.

Still, surprised he'd do that given what they really think about him

From:ntanden@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-08-11 21:38
Subject: Re: You know what average Americans need?

I fucking hate that guy.

Like I'd like to kick the shit out of him on twitter...but I know that is
dumb.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:35 AM, John Podesta
wrote:

> An everyday American pompous law professor.
> On Aug 11, 2015 5:07 PM, "Neera Tanden" wrote:
>
>> The smugness of Larry Lessig
>
>

The difference is that people no longer trust the MSM. I doubt they pay that much attention to the memes, but the MSM pretty much burned their credibility with a lot of people so we completely ignore whatever you're saying the same way we do with the people who constantly try to sell us viagra.

I don't know why, but it might have something to do with crap like CNN lying and telling us it's illegal to read wikileaks (as a lawyer, Chris Cuomo should've known better), the DNC holding events with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disapprove of, the New York Times posting editorials in favor of pedophilia, hyper-ventillating over #fakenews and ignoring the "nerd virgins" at Correct the Record propaganda teams that are openly employed, or maybe just the absolute disgust and condescension that the average liberal online treats people from the "flyover states" with.

I mean, isn't it just the least bit odd that you have to invent Russian propaganda teams because you can't believe that people disagree with you?

The difference is that people no longer trust the MSM. I doubt they pay that much attention to the memes, but the MSM pretty much burned their credibility with a lot of people so we completely ignore whatever you're saying the same way we do with the people who constantly try to sell us viagra.

I don't know why, but it might have something to do with crap like CNN lying and telling us it's illegal to read wikileaks (as a lawyer, Chris Cuomo should've known better), the DNC holding events with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disapprove of, the New York Times posting editorials in favor of pedophilia, hyper-ventillating over #fakenews and ignoring the "nerd virgins" at Correct the Record propaganda teams that are openly employed, or maybe just the absolute disgust and condescension that the average liberal online treats people from the "flyover states" with.

I mean, isn't it just the least bit odd that you have to invent Russian propaganda teams because you can't believe that people disagree with you?

Aside from them holding clandestine events with the DNC their own lawyers said they couldn't do?

Note the email subject is "WaPo party" (i.e. Washington Post) and in response to the statement "They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party." we get the reply "Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."

Also, we're totally ignoring that Hillary had her "nerd virgins" (their own words for these people) from Correct The Record doing this.

Aside from them holding clandestine events with the DNC their own lawyers said they couldn't do?

Note the email subject is "WaPo party" (i.e. Washington Post) and in response to the statement "They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party." we get the reply "Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."

Also, we're totally ignoring that Hillary had her "nerd virgins" (their own words for these people) from Correct The Record doing this.

A) It's funny you'd link to the Washington Post, because they've never fessed up about this:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

B) The primary excuse is "it's just art" and that Podesta wasn't able to attend that one, as if that somehow makes it better. Never mind Abramovi saying on Reddit that it's only art when done publicly and this was a private performance (but who knows, maybe an admin edited that in there...). And yes, Podesta appears to believe in that, how else do you explain the attachment on this email which is a reference to the myth of Osiris and the birth of Hecate?

I mean, just look at what even the WaPo acknowledges that Spirit Cooking is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EsJLNGVJ7E

When the allegation is that someone is into some really loony stuff, you don't really "debunk" that by saying yes, they are, but they weren't able to attend that one time.

Or to put it a snarky way, by modifying their headline: "No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner, he was unable to attend that time. Marina Abramovi misses him."

A) It's funny you'd link to the Washington Post, because they've never fessed up about this:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

B) The primary excuse is "it's just art" and that Podesta wasn't able to attend that one, as if that somehow makes it better. Never mind Abramovi saying on Reddit that it's only art when done publicly and this was a private performance (but who knows, maybe an admin edited that in there...). And yes, Podesta appears to believe in that, how else do you explain the attachment on this email which is a reference to the myth of Osiris and the birth of Hecate?

I mean, just look at what even the WaPo acknowledges that Spirit Cooking is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EsJLNGVJ7E

When the allegation is that someone is into some really loony stuff, you don't really "debunk" that by saying yes, they are, but they weren't able to attend that one time.

Or to put it a snarky way, by modifying their headline: "No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner, he was unable to attend that time. Marina Abramovi misses him."

You focused on the pics, but the emails are the weirder thing. Like the handkerchief with the pizza-related map and the talk of spirit cooking, which that site then shows various disturbing images of.

You focused on the pics, but the emails are the weirder thing. Like the handkerchief with the pizza-related map and the talk of spirit cooking, which that site then shows various disturbing images of.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

1) Alefantis is not a "friend" of Clinton; he's just a supporter. He's never met her.

2) The art in his restaurant is weird, but it's not "kids being tortured or placed in sexual poses"

3) The case in Haiti was 10 Baptist missionaries from Idaho trying to rescue children after the earthquake without permits. The missionaries had previously planned to build an orphanage and school in the Dominican Republic. There are Podesta emails that mention Silsby, but in the context of current events and how the US government should handle what had become an international diplomatic issue between the US and Haiti (aka, Hillary's job). Example here. Silsby is in no way a "friend" of Clinton.

You all have a strange way of declaring everyone to be a "friend" of Clinton.

Did you not read the wikileaks emails that showed the Clinton camp conspiring with the MSM, fudging the sampling? Make sure to read the attachment, as you'll see them recommend strategies for different regions and states. For instance, in Florida, it was recommended that "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly, so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first. And by doing this, they manufactured a big lead in the polls for their candidate, hoping to convince Trump supporters that he was going to get slaughtered, so they would not bother to get out and vote.

I tried doing what you suggest.

Here's the result for "Rachel Maddow". What do you find here that's so unprofessional and incriminating as to discredit the journalist?

Here is another result, for another name on that list.

Here is the result for "jeff zeleny", a name near the top of your list. All I see is quotes from printed articles bylined by the journalist.

In short: based on my sample of 3, not a single one shows even the slightest hint of a relationship, "improper" or otherwise, between the journalist and either the DNC or Clinton personally. They show people (analysts, strategists) reading and sharing what the journalists were publicly saying. And yet the (anonymous, I notice) party who produced this "list" headlined it as "journalists who colluded with the Clinton campaign".

THIS WHOLE FUCKING LIST IS AN EXAMPLE OF FAKE NEWS. I suggest next time you check it before you link it.

I tried doing what you suggest.

Here's the result for "Rachel Maddow". What do you find here that's so unprofessional and incriminating as to discredit the journalist?

Here is another result, for another name on that list.

Here is the result for "jeff zeleny", a name near the top of your list. All I see is quotes from printed articles bylined by the journalist.

In short: based on my sample of 3, not a single one shows even the slightest hint of a relationship, "improper" or otherwise, between the journalist and either the DNC or Clinton personally. They show people (analysts, strategists) reading and sharing what the journalists were publicly saying. And yet the (anonymous, I notice) party who produced this "list" headlined it as "journalists who colluded with the Clinton campaign".

THIS WHOLE FUCKING LIST IS AN EXAMPLE OF FAKE NEWS. I suggest next time you check it before you link it.

I tried doing what you suggest.

Here's the result for "Rachel Maddow". What do you find here that's so unprofessional and incriminating as to discredit the journalist?

Here is another result, for another name on that list.

Here is the result for "jeff zeleny", a name near the top of your list. All I see is quotes from printed articles bylined by the journalist.

In short: based on my sample of 3, not a single one shows even the slightest hint of a relationship, "improper" or otherwise, between the journalist and either the DNC or Clinton personally. They show people (analysts, strategists) reading and sharing what the journalists were publicly saying. And yet the (anonymous, I notice) party who produced this "list" headlined it as "journalists who colluded with the Clinton campaign".

THIS WHOLE FUCKING LIST IS AN EXAMPLE OF FAKE NEWS. I suggest next time you check it before you link it.

> I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist.

Fake ads on Craigslist are not a new idea: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Also, I wonder about your source. The Washington Post has been doing things like this and I've not yet seen them come clean about it: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Re: WaPo Party
From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren’t going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

> I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist.

Fake ads on Craigslist are not a new idea: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Also, I wonder about your source. The Washington Post has been doing things like this and I've not yet seen them come clean about it: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Re: WaPo Party
From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren’t going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.