Slashdot Mirror

The "lying media" had no problem when it was a other side with Sarah Palin's email. The reported on it non-stop and tried saying Palin's was trying to hide things. With Clinton it is suddenly unethical, abuse and illegal. Wikileaks even posted the emails https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sar...

A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.

B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.

C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.

For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?

> Unlike PKI, DKIM has no revocation list mechanism natively. If one were to steal the keys, the best anyone could do is say "No, really, that email that appears to be sent from me and signed by me really wasn't!"

Two points:

* There is a way to revoke the keys, even if it doesn't involve CRLs or OCSP -

INFORMATIVE NOTE: A key may also be revoked as described below. The distinction between revoking and removing a key selector record is subtle. When phasing out keys as described above, a signing domain would probably simply remove the key record after the transition period. However, a signing domain could elect to revoke the key (but maintain the key record) for a further period. There is no defined semantic difference between a revoked key and a removed key.

INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: If a private key has been compromised or otherwise disabled (e.g., an outsourcing contract has been terminated), a signer might want to explicitly state that it knows about the selector, but all messages using that selector should fail verification. Verifiers should ignore any DKIM-Signature header fields with a selector referencing a revoked key.

* One of the keys in this example belongs to Google. So our hypothetical attacker in this case needs both GMail's key and hillaryclinton.com's. And both cover the body of the message. Here's the signature from this email just so everyone is clear on what we're talking about:

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc;
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b

Money laundering for electoral fraud?

“Take the money!! We're consistently flagging more FARA registrants daily. In terms of # - we're at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers - but to Jesse's question - that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I'd want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)...Wyeth Wiedeman Ben Barnes Group National Board for the Following Up and Recovering of the Libyan Looted and Disguised Funds of the Transitional Government of Libya, through Washington African Consulting Group, Inc (12/3/14 - Current)."

This is a LIE that takes seconds to verify. Assad is a Russian ally, they published the Syria files, that exposed a lot of the dictator's government. And they did it in a time when the US was pushing for open military intervention in Syria (they were already on the ground training people for ).
They also have around 650.000 files on Russia.

This is a LIE that takes seconds to verify. Assad is a Russian ally, they published the Syria files, that exposed a lot of the dictator's government. And they did it in a time when the US was pushing for open military intervention in Syria (they were already on the ground training people for ).
They also have around 650.000 files on Russia.

This is a LIE that takes seconds to verify. Assad is a Russian ally, they published the Syria files, that exposed a lot of the dictator's government. And they did it in a time when the US was pushing for open military intervention in Syria (they were already on the ground training people for ).
They also have around 650.000 files on Russia.

The real question is who controls that truth meter and who they work with. [1]

Are they going to ban lies like this one from CNN? And yes, it is a clear lie.

Anyhow, it's clear they haven't learned anything whatsoever from this election, so you have 8 years of Trump to look forward to unless they figure it out.

[1] Refer to this old comment if you don't like reading raw HTML and for more context. It's an email thread of the DNC collaborating with Politifact.

Their Reddit post is a link to a Wikileaks email that's hard to read due to being HTML. So no, it really comes from Wikileaks, not Redddit.

Here, I'll copy paste the text from the HTML version for you so that you can read it a little more easily -

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, geburgan@gmail.com, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, ryban1001@gmail.com
Date: 2016-04-24 12:36
Subject: Re: Nice job

Thanks. Just for the whole group going forward, while we shouldn't produce a twenty page briefing, it is helpful to include the hot button topics I may or will likely be asked, like HRC's emails, Benghazi, etc. so I can have them top of mind to draw from. This is especially true with any FOX interview. It helps me make my responses stronger. As I said to Luis, there's a lot in my head, the briefings help bring things about which I'm already familiar, to the top of my head!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill
Cc: Kate Houghton
Subject: RE: Nice job

Oh, and as I said on the phone, great job pivoting to the broader contrast and squeezing in the economy, jobs and 73 months of growth.

From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:59 AM
To: Geoff Burgan; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Paustenbach, Mark; Ryan Banfill
Cc: Kate Houghton
Subject: Nice job

I thought you did well and stayed calm and poised despite Wallace's hammering. Just a few thoughts:

Going forward I think you can start with the "I've cautioned on tone..." and then give the explanation about the context of the broader race and how substantive it has been.
On the email server. Clinton isn't the subject of the investigation, so that should be something we say up front. It's also not fair to compare her to past Secretaries of State who frankly didn't live in the digital age in the same way... The Bush Administration's use of email generally was lower, so was the Clinton Administration, because the Internet is actually a relatively new thing.
And the only missed opportunity I saw was reminding Wallace that this email server came about as a result of what the Republican leadership in the House acknowledged was a politically driven investigation meant to lower her poll numbers. The Benghazi committee cost taxpayers millions for Republicans to try to affect this presidential election.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Here's what's wrong with Jeb Bush saying Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 11:04 p.m.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she might find herself preoccupied with an FBI investigation, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said at a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina.

"Sheâ(TM)s under investigation with the FBI right now," Bush said Jan. 14. "If she gets elected, her first 100 days â" instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the court house."

Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.

Here are the facts.

In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the governmentâ(TM)s possession. In this case, the location was Clintonâ(TM)s privat

Except it's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. The DNC purposely elevated Trump (along with Carson and Cruz) in order to eliminate the more moderate candidates on the Republican side in a "Pied Piper" strategy. For proof, just read the attachment from this email:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

What they didn't count on was that Clinton was such a awful candidate that she couldn't even beat Trump (and certainly would have lost to Cruz or Carson too).

Okay, so I think the "kill list" really is pretty bogus, but the problem is you're using that to invalidate some real scandals.

Hillary really did work to evade the Presidential Records Act, then lied to Congress about it (see also: 18 U.S. Code 1001). Here's what the FBI found. Why didn't they charge her? Because she's was the Democratic presidential candidate and the charges go up to a Democratic-controlled DoJ. Guess what they'd do with the charges? Oh, right.

If you don't like that summary clip, you can watch this 3 hour hearing.

Here's her and Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the act. Kinda puts a new spin on why Powell endorsed Hillary, huh? Feel free to prosecute them both, it's only fair.

Source (click 'view original PDF')

C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

Re: Question
From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
Subject: Re: Question

I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.

You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn't need to follow me. I relented and let one guy follow me one

[REVIEW AUTHORITY: Geoffrey Chapman, Senior Reviewer]

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

-----

C006122520 SIFIE UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09

> That only confirms the headers. The bodies of the emails are Russian fabrications.

Okay, so click here and then the "view source" link and you can read the DKIM signature yourself. I'll save you some trouble and copy paste it:

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
                d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
                h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc;
                bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
                b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
                  mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
                  2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
                d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
                h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc;
                bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
                b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
                  klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
                  kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
                  Ersjyl8edCTfC6nGbUrEEV7C6uQE3N16B5m2XPnRATWSuWj/Nz7ZsM/9snj+rlTjJx5e
                  wI5Epet9ADtlAWqJw/L/5HCNaAFqyR3QK1/AFjsTk+Q2METC3+0Eo+yMaArw2viFZLu4
                  hvoQ==

What does that mean? Let's check Wikipedia:

The DKIM-Signature header field consists of a list of tag=value parts. Tags are short, usually only one or two letters. The most relevant ones are b for the actual digital signature of the contents (headers and body) of the mail message, bh for the body hash, d for the signing domain, and s for the selector. The default parameters for the authentication mechanism are to use SHA-256 as the cryptographic hash and RSA as the public key encryption scheme, and encode the encrypted hash using Base64.

Now, would you like to go back and look at the b and bh parameters in the signature and tell me what those mean? Right, they cover contents (headers and body) as well as the body hash. If you want to make a serious claim that this is fake, give me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win 1 BTC from Erratasec for breaking DKIM.

I'm waiting.

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

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

Here are some emails that prove otherwise. Note the DKIM authorization.

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

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

Here are some emails that prove otherwise. Note the DKIM authorization.

Anyone have a list?

1. 1. Russians
2. 2. whatever

Just go from there. Whatever you do, though, you cannot mention the Pied Piper strategy. Because, well, see #1.

Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.

For anyone who doubts the parent post, read the PDF attached to this email and look at the list of names of "Pied Piper Candidates" the DNC hoped to face.

Maybe they should dump the superdelegates and let the people choose their own candidate next time?

Reforming the primaries is only half the task. The other half would be cashiering that circus otherwise known as the electoral college and allowing the people to elect the president directly with a majority of the popular vote.

For anyone who doubts the parent post, read the PDF attached to this email and look at the list of names of "Pied Piper Candidates" the DNC hoped to face.

Maybe they should dump the superdelegates and let the people choose their own candidate next time?

wikileaks twitter account pointed out the same thing

"By biasing its internal electoral market the DNC selected the less competitive candidate defeating the purpose of running a primary."

"Clinton's Pied Piper Strategy (use media contacts to promote Trump) has backfired spectacularly. PDF of our leak:"
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:

Operationalizing the Strategy Pied Piper Candidates

There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

            Ted Cruz
            Donald Trump
            Ben Carson

Read the PDF attachment on this email for the source.

I'm not saying they were all relevant, I'm saying that quickly filtering them out based on keyword searching does not constitute an investigation based on actual experience investigating the Podesta email dump.

I realize this point is lost on you, but seriously, it's not like anyone had any reason to believe Comey was even going to send anything to the Democratic attorney general after we saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That said, it's true that what Powell did was also bad (click 'view original PDF'), but it's hard not to see intent to subvert the law here when they're literally discussing exactly how to bypass the legal requirements in this PDF and how much the NSA hates them for doing that. By all means, prosecute him as well.

You missed this one: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/...

Technically, there is a memo from Colin Powell to Hillary telling her how to get away with this kind of thing (click 'view original PDF' -- I can't link it directly). I'm not clear on what all he did other than what it says in the memo, but I'd say that he should get investigated too. It does make it unclear how the FBI can't prove "intent" here, though.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the connection to ISIL???

The Clinton foundation accepted donations from Qatar and tried to hide it, and according to wikileaks, the government of Qatar is funding ISIL. Since it was in her leaked emails, she obviously knew about it.

http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...

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

we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Bleh, if it's something that boring, we've got a dozen examples of using the Clinton Global Initiative / Clinton Foundation money in bogus ways. Here you go. That's only equivalent. Go to /r/wikileaks and start reading the real bad stuff for yourself, don't let CNN think for you (they're lying). Don't get me wrong, though, I don't support anyone doing that. But that's like the least bad stuff we've found in the Podesta & FBI dumps. I hope those deals all get stopped and the lawsuits are won. Oh, and you remember how Colin Powell supported Clinton? Turns out there's a document between him & her describing how to break the email rules. For anyone asking: feel free to throw the book at him for anything you can prove in a court of law. I'd happily rule against any of the shady business deals against any of them were I a juror.

But there's just so much even worse stuff going on. Remember that gunless "assassin"? It was a bird dogging attempt (agian). And an old lady who lives with him died back in 2002, but she's still voting.

Make sure you look into the sources on that. See, we have her address (same as his). We know when she died. We have voting records showing that she's been voting all this time. And we have him mentioned in the Stratfor dumps. Yet another bird dogging attempt and all the links are out there for anyone who wants to look them up. It's easy to see one news item you don't agree with and dump it, but be sure you look at the election records, look up the address, look up the death records.

As for the rate of going through these, we've found that they love to use irrelevant subjects like "congratulations" to send some of the crazy attachments. So while I can totally believe they'd filter out "irrelevant" emails, they'd be led around by the nose if they did so.

I was actually talking about Hillary. The Clinton foundation accepted donations from Qatar and tried to hide it, and according to wikileaks, the government of Qatar is funding ISIL.

http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...

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

we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region.

> Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.

From looking into the leaked Podesta emails, they cut off shortly after a phishing email arrived. It was a completely bogus email from "Google" with a fake bit.ly reset link claiming that his account had been accessed from the Ukraine.

You'd think the real hackers wouldn't want to point people back at themselves. If anything, I suspect an insider. I'm not too clear on why her IT staff actually fell for a bad phishing email for one thing. Though perhaps they didn't mean for him to use the link in the email?

Stop it. Please tell me of a Trump critic who has been silenced. Get real.

Here's what being silenced looks like... https://www.wikileaks.org/pode...

John Podesta's name does not appear on the list [wikipedia.org] of past secretaries of state. John Podesta's email.

How right you are. And State did not email John Podesta. That's also a fact. The press secretary from State (spokeswoman, whatever they call her) sent an email to Clinton's press secretary and others with her campaign. The topic was a response to a journalist, so it makes sense that the press secretaries are communicating. That is their job.

Here is the email in question, since TFA helpfully decided to not link to it. Here is the list of released emails sorted chronologically by email date, set to page 126 centered around the start of March 2015, if you'd like to take a look for yourself. If more emails are released the page number might need to be changed, I took a while to look for that to make it easy for other people.

The people involved are Lauren Hickey, the person at State, who emailed Heather Samuelson, who is apparently a lawyer involved with determining which emails get released and which don't, plus Philippe Reines, an HRC senior advisor while she was at state and a current aide, and Nick Merill, the HRC traveling press secretary. Nick Merill forwarded the email to Jennifer Palmieri, HRC communications director, who forwarded it to Podesta. That's how it ended up with Podesta. I imagine that the purpose of State sending it to the people involved was because they wanted to verify or whatever with Clinton, and those are the people that the person at State would contact if they want to get in touch with HRC herself.

The problem comes when the campaign staffers to whom it was sent then ask for and are granted changes to the material before it is then actually released to the public.

What if the information that State was releasing was factually incorrect, vague, etc, and the campaign was seeking to correct or clarify? There doesn't automatically need to be some sort of malfeasance involved. If HRC had nothing to do with State then I'd say maybe there's something shady, but since she was the former secretary and they were being asked direct questions about her, it would make sense if the people at State were trying to check with her to make sure their statement is accurate. Again, I'd love for this to be a reason to string up HRC, but I'm not seeing it. On the list of reasons why I dislike her, I'll file this particular email somewhere in the low to mid hundreds.

It was because the material was sent to a political campaign and the campaign got it changed.

It's not "a political campaign", it's the former secretary. And, what did they change? She says there was a change "re records", look at that email that includes the response from State and see if you can find the part where they mention records which sounds shady. I'm not seeing it.

This whole thing is someone sitting in a field hearing a bunch of hooves behind them and jumping up shouting "I HEAR A ZEBRA!" and they turn around, and no, it's just a horse. So they sit down again and wait for the next hoof beats to once again jump up and assume there's a zebra nearby. It's not a zebra, it's just a horse. Maybe one day there will be a zebra, but this isn't it.

John Podesta's name does not appear on the list [wikipedia.org] of past secretaries of state. John Podesta's email.

How right you are. And State did not email John Podesta. That's also a fact. The press secretary from State (spokeswoman, whatever they call her) sent an email to Clinton's press secretary and others with her campaign. The topic was a response to a journalist, so it makes sense that the press secretaries are communicating. That is their job.

Here is the email in question, since TFA helpfully decided to not link to it. Here is the list of released emails sorted chronologically by email date, set to page 126 centered around the start of March 2015, if you'd like to take a look for yourself. If more emails are released the page number might need to be changed, I took a while to look for that to make it easy for other people.

The people involved are Lauren Hickey, the person at State, who emailed Heather Samuelson, who is apparently a lawyer involved with determining which emails get released and which don't, plus Philippe Reines, an HRC senior advisor while she was at state and a current aide, and Nick Merill, the HRC traveling press secretary. Nick Merill forwarded the email to Jennifer Palmieri, HRC communications director, who forwarded it to Podesta. That's how it ended up with Podesta. I imagine that the purpose of State sending it to the people involved was because they wanted to verify or whatever with Clinton, and those are the people that the person at State would contact if they want to get in touch with HRC herself.

The problem comes when the campaign staffers to whom it was sent then ask for and are granted changes to the material before it is then actually released to the public.

What if the information that State was releasing was factually incorrect, vague, etc, and the campaign was seeking to correct or clarify? There doesn't automatically need to be some sort of malfeasance involved. If HRC had nothing to do with State then I'd say maybe there's something shady, but since she was the former secretary and they were being asked direct questions about her, it would make sense if the people at State were trying to check with her to make sure their statement is accurate. Again, I'd love for this to be a reason to string up HRC, but I'm not seeing it. On the list of reasons why I dislike her, I'll file this particular email somewhere in the low to mid hundreds.

It was because the material was sent to a political campaign and the campaign got it changed.

It's not "a political campaign", it's the former secretary. And, what did they change? She says there was a change "re records", look at that email that includes the response from State and see if you can find the part where they mention records which sounds shady. I'm not seeing it.

This whole thing is someone sitting in a field hearing a bunch of hooves behind them and jumping up shouting "I HEAR A ZEBRA!" and they turn around, and no, it's just a horse. So they sit down again and wait for the next hoof beats to once again jump up and assume there's a zebra nearby. It's not a zebra, it's just a horse. Maybe one day there will be a zebra, but this isn't it.

We don't know much about that police investigation yet and there's a lot going on so I will say I haven't looked too deeply into that one yet. One concern is that we do have certain people on video saying they've been busing groups in for 50 years and how that works is that they get voter registrations with fake credentials and bus people around to vote in all the places they're registered.

That said, your source was interesting and you could very well be right.

There's so much going on it's hard to keep track. There are also a lot of pedophile claims going on. The Todd & Claire thing against Julian Assange has been pretty thoroughly busted. All the profiles are fake, the "UN partner" bit was a sham and the address goes back to place lots of corps are registered (though the phone # shows a potentially coincidental link). The one against Trump is so bad even Jezebel doesn't quite believe it. There's also one against BIll, regarding flights on a convicted pedophile's "Lolita Express", including 5 flights without SS protection, but it's a fair point that tons of famous people flew on that guy's plane. Why they'd do that knowing he was a famous pedo with a private sex island, though, I do not know. Trump also had connections to the guy and rode the same plane, but that was well before he was convicted of pedophilia and the claims he kept sex slaves came out.

Finally, there's one more knife in Bernie's back in the Podesta dump. Make of this what you will:

From:Joel@gpg.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2016-02-22 00:09
Subject: Friendly advice. No mercy.

Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can't start believing our own primary bullshit. This is no time to run the general. Crush him as hard as you can. Other than that, hope all is well and congrats on Nevada!

Source

So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.

There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.

We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.

An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.

So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.

There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.

We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.

An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.

So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.

There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.

We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.

An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.

They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.

See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?

Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!

They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]

So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.

[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.

"decent sources"?

Go and read the actual Clinton e-mails from wikilekas. and DNC email database
Or go read the DCLeaks with Soros e-mails

"decent sources"?

Go and read the actual Clinton e-mails from wikilekas. and DNC email database
Or go read the DCLeaks with Soros e-mails

All that really matters is whether the leaks are true. In the case of Podesta's emails, we can validate them by the DKIM signature. We know how Podesta was hacked, though, it was exactly this phishing email. See how that is a bitly link to "reset" his Google password? What I don't know is how they could possibly miss that GMail would flag this saying something like "THIS IS NOT FROM GOOGLE YOU MORON."

Similarly, whether or not that was American intelligence that hacked a top Russian aide, what's perhaps more worrying is that Hillary has been pushing for a no-fly-zone that would leave us shooting down Russian planes over Syria. To most people who know about the area, this sounds like a great way to start WWIII. This might help explain why she's so eager to to expand the draft so women can #FightForHer.

Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.

But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that

Source

Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

Source

[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'

Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).

The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.

Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.

Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.

This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.

There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.

Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.

But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that

Source

Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

Source

[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'

Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).

The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.

Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.

Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.

This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.

There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.

> You mean he didn't say he grabbed women's genitals?

He said women "let" him do that. When Bill was accused, it was in a court of law. He eventually turned in his license to practice law in order to avoid disbarment. Trump's accusers all appear in the 11th hour of a high-stakes political campaign, in the media rather than in a courtroom. Mere allegations are pretty cheap, no? I mean, we also have this old video Hillary Clinton from years ago.

So unless you want to vote for someone accused of sex crimes, make sure you vote 3rd party.

> You mean he didn't praise Putin?

Beats going to war with them. I mean, Clinton's advisor Podesta seems to think our current strategies will lead to nuclear war and there's another one talking about Trump's "bromance" with Putin going way back. Either way, I'd personally rather avoid wars with nuclear powers, though I don't know about you.

I won't dispute the polls, they really look bad for Trump. Hardly worth the effort of voting if you know you'll win, though.

If he disputes the election, it won't be the first. How could anyone forget Bush v. Gore? There are reports of voting machine anomalies in Texas, as well, so be sure to check that your ballot matches your vote.

Saying the press isn't biased is just silly though. They all have their biases and everyone has some bias they agree with that they are less critical of. So it's a bad standard to hold them to. Instead, you should hold media outlets to be truthful and to investigate things--especially those things they agree with--to support them with verifiable facts. Truthfulness and verifiable sources are what people should be holding to, but trying to get sources out of "journalists" nowadays might as well be pulling teeth. Nobody wants to lose pageviews.

They seem to think we're looking at nuclear war. Don't know about you, but I'm not a fan:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/727

Re: you call it

                                        From:john.podesta@gmail.com
                                        To: john@algpolling.com
                                        Date: 2015-07-15 19:33
                                        Subject: Re: you call it

                                        Yup
On Jul 15, 2015 5:21 PM, "John Anzalone" wrote:

> âoeThis agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear
> war in the Persian Gulf⦠This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain
> gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler.â
>
> â" Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), quoted by BuzzFeed
> ,
> on the nuclear deal reached with Iran.
>
>
> â" John Anzalone
> Anzalone Liszt Grove Research
> 334-387-3121
> www.algpolling.com
> twitter: @AnzaloneLiszt
>
>

And don't tell me the email is fake unless you can prove that the DKIM signature has been tampered with.

If you are saying this without sarcasm you are an idiot. Agree/disagree with Wikileaks all you want but at least know what the organization is about.

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.

IOW, they specialize in government dealings because that is what is 'censored or otherwise restricted official materials'.

The difference is that if you have dirt on Trump any media source will publish it and you won't need protection from the government. If you leak government secrets you either get jailed, holed up in Russia, or worse. The point of Wikileaks is to protect the leakers from the government you mongoloid.

There are plenty of other news organizations that are digging up dirt on Trump. Or did you forget getting grabbed by the pussy? Or did you forget the X million of dollars losses in a tax return leak? Or did you forget the lawsuits of Trump University?

FFS. Apologetic shills just get to me in the morning before I have had my coffee.

Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.

I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."

Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.

I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."

It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.

What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?

Yeah, they've been planning to blame Russia for almost a year now:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651#efmABRADsAGxAIRAMIAN3AU-AZ2Aa5AelAe4AlZA2SA3bA6eA-xBIPBJy

Remember: CNN authorization is required to view this.

https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/

First email discusses a banal PR tweet.
Second email is a roundup of recent news programs.
From Wikipedia: "The OpenDKIM Project organized a data collection involving 21 mail servers and millions of messages. 92.3% of observed signatures were successfully verified, a success rate that drops slightly (90.5%) when only mailing list traffic is considered." [cite]
Verify emails when they come up; it makes no sense to point to two unverifiable emails as indicative of thousands.

First email discusses a banal PR tweet.
Second email is a roundup of recent news programs.
From Wikipedia: "The OpenDKIM Project organized a data collection involving 21 mail servers and millions of messages. 92.3% of observed signatures were successfully verified, a success rate that drops slightly (90.5%) when only mailing list traffic is considered." [cite]
Verify emails when they come up; it makes no sense to point to two unverifiable emails as indicative of thousands.

Some of the wikileaks stuff can be cryptographically proven to have been modified before release (most likely by who ever gave the emails to assange). Just check the DKIP signatures located in the emails that have them, you can easily see that some of them indicate modification. Use opendkim and check yourself.

curl -s https://www.wikileaks.org/pode... | opendkim-testmsg
curl -s https://www.wikileaks.org/pode... | opendkim-testmsg
opendkim-testmsg: dkim_eom(): Bad signature

Voila, end of discussion.