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.
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
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.
The only conspiracies I've read about were those hatched by the DNC, which we learned about in their own DKIM validated emails. I note that everyone who posts things like this never bothers to give examples, citations or links.
Free thinking is about examining the sources yourself and coming to your own conclusion, including sources you're predisposed to disagree with. If you cannot even interact with ideas you disagree with, you simply blind yourself and you're in for a rude awakening when your filter bubble suddenly bursts.
Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.
> I've lost track of the rationalizations, the reasons why Trump won.
Some humorous reasons, in no particular order:
* The Putin bromance helped Trump win the gay vote * Russian deplorables prevented Syria from being annexed * The details of Harambe's assassination got leaked by Seth Rich * Flyover country problems * The Secret Service tossed Hillary Clinton into the van like a plate of tendies and accidentally dropped her * Pepe turned racist for the dank memes * Bill lost his frequent flier gold status with Epstein * Tod & Claire had to pack up shop after being found out for copyright infringement * Vile Rat's guild took silent revenge for his loss in Benghazi * Hillary accidentally deleted the email with the leaked debate questions before Kaine's debate, then forgot about it * The 400 lbs hacker 4chan tipped the public off to Podesta & co.'s #spiritcooking in the secret basement of Comet Ping Pong Pizza with Jay-Z * Bill & Obama's disowned relatives showed up * Correct the Record's self-described "nerd virgins" were distracted by Melliana porn * The Artist Formerly Known as Prince died, so he couldn't return Hillary's lost shoe at midnight and thus she turned into a pumpkin
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
>dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit means clinton not guilty for perjury. >civil contempt that's another story.
Perjury just means you lied during the case. Being held in contempt means the judge decided he was guilty of that. It's not something that goes to trial, it's the judge who decides that based on the person's conduct in court.
So no, dismissing the sexual harassment suit does not and did not invalidate the fact that he was held in contempt and faced a referral to the bar association and gave up his license to practice law in a plea deal. That's more or less a guilty plea. After being found guilty of contempt by the court, which he would have had to appeal separately. He didn't appeal the judge's finding of civil contempt and settling the sexual harassment suit did nothing to change that, because it's a separate matter from the disposition of the case itself.
> Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.
They didn't even cover half of what was found and discussed on/r/wikileaks, just a few banal items like the VP list (which was silly, because she actually promised it to Kaine a long time ago so that DWS would control the DNC), or how Donna Brazille got booted from CNN for leaking all the debate questions (several other people, however, were also complicit and didn't go anywhere...).
> Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.
Hillary was under investigation long before that (still is, allegedly, but that might just be a rumor). And frankly, I don't think this did it. If anything dumped her numbers, I'd say it's the creepy as hell #spiritcooking that the media never touched, but which went viral.
> Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.
Too many stories to know which things you're talking about specifically. I did hear about a few things that I'm not happy with, though.
> Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!
Send them some leaks next time? Though I think you could more easily just leak that sort of thing to CNN/ABC/etc. In fact, I seem to recall that someone did exactly that for some older tax documents. Here's their response to that, incidentally:
> what part of 'Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit' do you not understand ?
That's not even half the story...
On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones's claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[9] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.[13]
Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart. She also appeared in the news media to show the results of a makeover [14] and of a Rhinoplasty paid for by a donor.[15]
In April 1999, Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred,[16][17][18] far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested.[18]
Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar Association for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before Clinton left the office of president, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law in Arkansas for a period of five years.[19][20] His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses.
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?
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:
So in spite of a pervasive scheme, over a long period of time and a letter between her and Colin Powell detailing how to avoid the law, you don't think there's any intent. Never mind that being exactly how intent is normally proven...
As for the "not a crime" part, please refer to this:
18 U.S. Code 1001 - Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.)
> "False" information WITHOUT intent to commit crime being proven is NOT evidence of crime!
I like how you did not, because you could not, dispute even one fact therein. Critical thinking requires more than just posting insults and running away, it requires that you actually go through the items you disagree with, then give evidence to support your position.
Here's an email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing how to break the law. How can you read this and tell me they "accidentally" broke the law when they discussed how to cheat it this openly?
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
You know exactly which addresses were on there? Care to give us a list? I already know of half a dozen. Even Wiener had a ridiculous alias ("Carlos Danger" if you were wondering). Huma Abadeen--Hillary's top aide--was Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener's husband. She frequently ran classified material through him in the things we already know about. Hillary let her use her email accounts. Her relaying a message from Hillary to others, including Wiener, is hardly out of the question. Why wouldn't her emails also be relevant?
They've anticipated discovery into their plans. We can already see that just in the public emails. That's why it makes no sense to think that you can just apply a few filters and be done. We know, because, as I've said, I and others have spent hours every day analyzing, researching and cross-referencing the small cache we have.
So no, I don't buy that you can filter it. It doesn't wash from the experience myself and many others have had in researching the existing set of emails.
> He had his own activities (legal and otherwise) that were unrelated to her.
Democratic Representative Anthony Wiener is (was) married to Huma Abadeen, Hillary's top aide who is almost always at her side.
A lot of people are saying everything is dupes, but strangely enough, nobody can give a real source of information on that that isn't simply a rumor or something they assume must be true because of how things played out.
Slashdot Mirror
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')
> 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
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
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:
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.
Feel free to make memes of this and share on Twitter under #whyshegottrumped or share on /r/T_D, I'm just a lurker over there.
I almost forgot that fracking in Flint poisoned the water supply of Michigan with red pills.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
Here are some emails that prove otherwise. Note the DKIM authorization.
The only conspiracies I've read about were those hatched by the DNC, which we learned about in their own DKIM validated emails. I note that everyone who posts things like this never bothers to give examples, citations or links.
Free thinking is about examining the sources yourself and coming to your own conclusion, including sources you're predisposed to disagree with. If you cannot even interact with ideas you disagree with, you simply blind yourself and you're in for a rude awakening when your filter bubble suddenly bursts.
CNN booted her for that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.
> There is no evidence CTR exists or ever did.
https://correctrecord.org/
> I've lost track of the rationalizations, the reasons why Trump won.
Some humorous reasons, in no particular order:
* The Putin bromance helped Trump win the gay vote
* Russian deplorables prevented Syria from being annexed
* The details of Harambe's assassination got leaked by Seth Rich
* Flyover country problems
* The Secret Service tossed Hillary Clinton into the van like a plate of tendies and accidentally dropped her
* Pepe turned racist for the dank memes
* Bill lost his frequent flier gold status with Epstein
* Tod & Claire had to pack up shop after being found out for copyright infringement
* Vile Rat's guild took silent revenge for his loss in Benghazi
* Hillary accidentally deleted the email with the leaked debate questions before Kaine's debate, then forgot about it
* The 400 lbs hacker 4chan tipped the public off to Podesta & co.'s #spiritcooking in the secret basement of Comet Ping Pong Pizza with Jay-Z
* Bill & Obama's disowned relatives showed up
* Correct the Record's self-described "nerd virgins" were distracted by Melliana porn
* The Artist Formerly Known as Prince died, so he couldn't return Hillary's lost shoe at midnight and thus she turned into a pumpkin
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
She's considered one of the most influential First Ladies.
http://americanhistory.about.c...
And let's not ignore being a Senator or Secretary of State.
> Why not? Trump blamed everything of the last 30 years on Hillary.
You mean she wasn't First Lady, a Senator, or Secretary of State for that time?
Look at the stories posted by msmash.
Noticed a pattern yet?
So... you expect the Republican-controlled House & Senate to impeach a president of their own party?
Good luck with that.
>dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit means clinton not guilty for perjury.
>civil contempt that's another story.
Perjury just means you lied during the case. Being held in contempt means the judge decided he was guilty of that. It's not something that goes to trial, it's the judge who decides that based on the person's conduct in court.
So no, dismissing the sexual harassment suit does not and did not invalidate the fact that he was held in contempt and faced a referral to the bar association and gave up his license to practice law in a plea deal. That's more or less a guilty plea. After being found guilty of contempt by the court, which he would have had to appeal separately. He didn't appeal the judge's finding of civil contempt and settling the sexual harassment suit did nothing to change that, because it's a separate matter from the disposition of the case itself.
> Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.
They didn't even cover half of what was found and discussed on /r/wikileaks, just a few banal items like the VP list (which was silly, because she actually promised it to Kaine a long time ago so that DWS would control the DNC), or how Donna Brazille got booted from CNN for leaking all the debate questions (several other people, however, were also complicit and didn't go anywhere...).
> Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.
Hillary was under investigation long before that (still is, allegedly, but that might just be a rumor). And frankly, I don't think this did it. If anything dumped her numbers, I'd say it's the creepy as hell #spiritcooking that the media never touched, but which went viral.
> Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.
Too many stories to know which things you're talking about specifically. I did hear about a few things that I'm not happy with, though.
> Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!
Send them some leaks next time? Though I think you could more easily just leak that sort of thing to CNN/ABC/etc. In fact, I seem to recall that someone did exactly that for some older tax documents. Here's their response to that, incidentally:
http://europe.newsweek.com/jul...
> what part of 'Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit' do you not understand ?
That's not even half the story...
Source
> You realize Hillary and trump both won their party's nomination fair and square, right?
Inciting violence at rallies and blaming it on Bernie supporters isn't my idea of "fair and square."
And that's just one example.
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?
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
Read the PDF attachment on this email for the source.
So in spite of a pervasive scheme, over a long period of time and a letter between her and Colin Powell detailing how to avoid the law, you don't think there's any intent. Never mind that being exactly how intent is normally proven...
As for the "not a crime" part, please refer to this:
18 U.S.C. 1001
> "False" information WITHOUT intent to commit crime being proven is NOT evidence of crime!
I like how you did not, because you could not, dispute even one fact therein. Critical thinking requires more than just posting insults and running away, it requires that you actually go through the items you disagree with, then give evidence to support your position.
Here's an email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing how to break the law. How can you read this and tell me they "accidentally" broke the law when they discussed how to cheat it this openly?
I agree with you, I hate seeing this kind of thing no matter who does it. Wikileaks has faced a ton of DDoS attacks as well, especially this week.
You know exactly which addresses were on there? Care to give us a list? I already know of half a dozen. Even Wiener had a ridiculous alias ("Carlos Danger" if you were wondering). Huma Abadeen--Hillary's top aide--was Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener's husband. She frequently ran classified material through him in the things we already know about. Hillary let her use her email accounts. Her relaying a message from Hillary to others, including Wiener, is hardly out of the question. Why wouldn't her emails also be relevant?
They've anticipated discovery into their plans. We can already see that just in the public emails. That's why it makes no sense to think that you can just apply a few filters and be done. We know, because, as I've said, I and others have spent hours every day analyzing, researching and cross-referencing the small cache we have.
So no, I don't buy that you can filter it. It doesn't wash from the experience myself and many others have had in researching the existing set of emails.
> He had his own activities (legal and otherwise) that were unrelated to her.
Democratic Representative Anthony Wiener is (was) married to Huma Abadeen, Hillary's top aide who is almost always at her side.
A lot of people are saying everything is dupes, but strangely enough, nobody can give a real source of information on that that isn't simply a rumor or something they assume must be true because of how things played out.
Here is a video of the FBI discussing the emails:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Remember that they put Martha Stewart in prison for lying to the FBI once.
Says who? Who, pray tell, has access to the FBI sources to tell us that?
Oh, right.