Want to claim they're fake? Give me the blockchain transaction when you win this challenge for 1 BTC: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016...
You do not, because you cannot, argue with this. You just post insults. Because that's all you can do. You will not, because you cannot, argue against any of the things found in the email. You just ignore them.
> One side has the FBI director in charge of the investigation saying they have had enough time to determine the emails don't change their conclusion on Clinton.
Oh, for anyone who can't/won't read the PDF I linked, I just transcribed it. Enjoy:
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
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: 09/08/2016
full corridor behind just so they knew where I was if I was needed immediately. Their job is to keep you hermetically sesaled up. Love, Colin
On Fri, Jan 23 2009 at 7:37 AM, > wrote:
Dear Colin,
I hope to catch up soon w you, but I have one pressing question which only you can answer!
What were the restrictions on your use of your blackberry? Did you use it in your personal office? I've been told that the DSS personnel knew you had one and used it but no one fesses up to knowing how you used it!
President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us. I just have to figure out how to pring along the State Dept. Any and all advice is welcome.
All the best to you and Alma, Hillary
UNCLASSIFIE UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No
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:
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.
> Ah yes, grandiose claims of "I've read all the emails..."
That's kind of literally the opposite of what I'm claiming, though I've certainly read many of them, I don't believe anyone can read them all in a short time and make any sense out of it. That's not a realistic investigation by any means.
But yes, they do conspire a lot in the emails. The entire Democratic primary was a sham, as well. Might want to read them for yourself, unless maybe you prefer to let CNN do the thinking for you...
Yeah, it's not like we have any experience from looking through the Podesta dumps.
I'm perfectly capable of writing perl -ne '/incriminating evidence/i and print' but I also know just how silly that idea is.
Unlike those who let CNN think for them, I've actually gone through the Podesta dumps. I know about important attachments hidden under irrelevant subject lines. I know the different code names and the different email addresses used. And there are some indications they talk in code, as well.
The people on/r/wikileaks are still making connections months later. The idea that any real review has been done on 650k emails in 8 days is pretty silly based on the real data of thousands of people doing it on another set over a longer time. We have a search engine for the Podesta dump. Saying you did a few searches so you've done a full review is kind of silly.
And this time they have 650k emails that are, somehow, all dupes of the 33k?
Oh, but we can filter out irrelevant ones, right? Like the crazy attachments about dirty stuff they like to attach to emails with subjects like "Congratulations" that we have in the Podesta dumps? Great plan, there....
> The point is that Trump's supporters have no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review the emails.
That's just silly. People are still finding new things in the Podesta emails. Our evidence comes from having experience DOING the same task on another set of email. By that, we know that lot of things were hidden in attachments on emails with silly subject lines like "Congratulations." Tell me, why would someone reply to a weeks-old email saying "Congratulations" about something to send an attachment with incriminating stuff and not, say, send a new email or respond to another thread that was recent & relevant? There are also various code names to worry about (Diane Reynolds = Chelsea Clinton, Evergreen = Hillary Clinton, etc.) that will confuse naive grepping.
Saying that a computer could hash and search 650k emails in a few minutes is just silly. We can already do that with the Podesta dumps via search engines, but we find new things and make new connections every day. It's not a very easy task to parallelize, either. People are only making connections about the Clinton Foundation selling influence by connecting the dots across many emails.
So sure, they can "review" 650k emails in 8 days, but how you can have 650k dupes from 33k emails is not well-explained and anyone who has actually read/r/wikileaks would know that most of the good stuff is deliberately hidden in binary attachments under ridiculous subject lines that won't be found by mere grepping. We know because it took us weeks to catch onto the methods.
But yeah, sure, feel free to assume they've done a thorough review of 650k emails by running a handful of greps, secure in the knowledge that computers can search quickly and that makes it all easy, because that's what you wanted to hear.
The violence was staged and I gave you all the links to establish that as fact. We also have the "bird dogging" discussion in the Podesta emails (which can be DKIM validated) and we can place them on calls with the DNC coordinating this stuff in addition to what I had when I originally wrote that. I suggest actually reading through and watching each of those items.
So if you hate people for causing violence, look no further than Hillary. Remember that guy with no gun at the Trump rally who got taken down by the SS? Turns out he was a plant and there's a dead woman who has been voting by mail from his place for a decade.
Yeah, I hear you. I have a lot of respect for the people who actually argue their positions based on facts. I'm certainly not perfect myself and I've had people prove me wrong about a few things.
The problem is that fear wins elections so everyone has too much of an interest in stirring that up. It doesn't help when there are real occasions for fear, either. I really wish we could get people to relax a bit and calmly discuss things, but the hate gets dialed up to 11 real fast. The paid trolls aren't helping matters either.
I've never even heard of RWNJ. I didn't start posting much of anything about the election at all until a few weeks back when I found out about the Zulema stuff and learned the violence was staged. Before that, I bought into the idea that he was dangerous and barely talked about it at all.
And I question if you were even here in 2008, but my Slashdot history is public, go look at my posts on Obama yourself. I didn't vote for McCain, his campaign ended the day he chose Sarah Palin.
Even if Trump is elected, Obama would just pardon her. I mean, we already saw this display, I'm not really surprised the FBI would say this now.
No, I never thought she wouldn't beat the rap (sadly). They have a DOJ that won't convene a grand jury to look at anything and which hands out immunity deals like candy for things like destroying the evidence. So... yeah.
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.
Synthetic diamonds could be an important semiconductor. I wish the DeBeers monopoly would end already via cheap synthetic diamonds instead of remaining and blocking important research. Nobody is going to carry around a detector. Man made diamonds are better: at least you know they're not used to fun wars in Africa or dug up by what are essentially slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a nice little summary video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Want to claim they're fake? Give me the blockchain transaction when you win this challenge for 1 BTC:
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016...
You do not, because you cannot, argue with this. You just post insults. Because that's all you can do. You will not, because you cannot, argue against any of the things found in the email. You just ignore them.
Correction: how are there 650k dupes of 33k emails.
Don't, just vote. Leave cheating to the Democrats.
> What specific lie did she state about the email server? An actual quote please, so we can verify context.
Why don't you ask Comey that one? You know, the guy who just said they had no reason to change their conclusions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> One side has the FBI director in charge of the investigation saying they have had enough time to determine the emails don't change their conclusion on Clinton.
Here's the FBI defending their investigation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Which once again begs the question why Comey broke the FBI guidelines to not insert himself in the middle of the political process
Watch this and you might understand what's going on a bit more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh, for anyone who can't/won't read the PDF I linked, I just transcribed it. Enjoy:
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.
> Ah yes, grandiose claims of "I've read all the emails..."
That's kind of literally the opposite of what I'm claiming, though I've certainly read many of them, I don't believe anyone can read them all in a short time and make any sense out of it. That's not a realistic investigation by any means.
But yes, they do conspire a lot in the emails. The entire Democratic primary was a sham, as well. Might want to read them for yourself, unless maybe you prefer to let CNN do the thinking for you...
So tell me, how are there 650 dupes of 33k emails? I've yet to see proof that these are duplicates.
We've found more than just "suspicious" stuff if you read /r/wikileaks.
Yeah, it's not like we have any experience from looking through the Podesta dumps.
I'm perfectly capable of writing perl -ne '/incriminating evidence/i and print' but I also know just how silly that idea is.
Unlike those who let CNN think for them, I've actually gone through the Podesta dumps. I know about important attachments hidden under irrelevant subject lines. I know the different code names and the different email addresses used. And there are some indications they talk in code, as well.
The people on /r/wikileaks are still making connections months later. The idea that any real review has been done on 650k emails in 8 days is pretty silly based on the real data of thousands of people doing it on another set over a longer time. We have a search engine for the Podesta dump. Saying you did a few searches so you've done a full review is kind of silly.
And this time they have 650k emails that are, somehow, all dupes of the 33k?
Oh, but we can filter out irrelevant ones, right? Like the crazy attachments about dirty stuff they like to attach to emails with subjects like "Congratulations" that we have in the Podesta dumps? Great plan, there....
> The point is that Trump's supporters have no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review the emails.
That's just silly. People are still finding new things in the Podesta emails. Our evidence comes from having experience DOING the same task on another set of email. By that, we know that lot of things were hidden in attachments on emails with silly subject lines like "Congratulations." Tell me, why would someone reply to a weeks-old email saying "Congratulations" about something to send an attachment with incriminating stuff and not, say, send a new email or respond to another thread that was recent & relevant? There are also various code names to worry about (Diane Reynolds = Chelsea Clinton, Evergreen = Hillary Clinton, etc.) that will confuse naive grepping.
Saying that a computer could hash and search 650k emails in a few minutes is just silly. We can already do that with the Podesta dumps via search engines, but we find new things and make new connections every day. It's not a very easy task to parallelize, either. People are only making connections about the Clinton Foundation selling influence by connecting the dots across many emails.
So sure, they can "review" 650k emails in 8 days, but how you can have 650k dupes from 33k emails is not well-explained and anyone who has actually read /r/wikileaks would know that most of the good stuff is deliberately hidden in binary attachments under ridiculous subject lines that won't be found by mere grepping. We know because it took us weeks to catch onto the methods.
But yeah, sure, feel free to assume they've done a thorough review of 650k emails by running a handful of greps, secure in the knowledge that computers can search quickly and that makes it all easy, because that's what you wanted to hear.
> The RFCs that created the Arpanet email infrastructure that modern Internet email is built in were developed years before this fraud.
I'd say 'described' rather than 'created'.
Depending on what you consider email, it was going strong in the 70s and there were proto-email systems back in the 60s, whereas Postel's email RFC is from 1982.
> Sooner later Russia is going to have to be put into its place.
Yeesh, racist much?
Pray tell, why do you want to fight a useless war with Russia over Syria so badly? To help Saudi Arabia and Qatar build an oil pipeline?
If there is one, I hope you volunteer to deploy and put some skin in the game instead of sending poor people out to die for oil (again).
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.
The violence was staged and I gave you all the links to establish that as fact. We also have the "bird dogging" discussion in the Podesta emails (which can be DKIM validated) and we can place them on calls with the DNC coordinating this stuff in addition to what I had when I originally wrote that. I suggest actually reading through and watching each of those items.
So if you hate people for causing violence, look no further than Hillary. Remember that guy with no gun at the Trump rally who got taken down by the SS? Turns out he was a plant and there's a dead woman who has been voting by mail from his place for a decade.
Yeah, I hear you. I have a lot of respect for the people who actually argue their positions based on facts. I'm certainly not perfect myself and I've had people prove me wrong about a few things.
The problem is that fear wins elections so everyone has too much of an interest in stirring that up. It doesn't help when there are real occasions for fear, either. I really wish we could get people to relax a bit and calmly discuss things, but the hate gets dialed up to 11 real fast. The paid trolls aren't helping matters either.
Interestingly, the recent FOIA dumps had some new info on Vince Foster.
It seems that they found his suicide note, in which he basically took all blame on himself and said that Clinton did nothing wrong.
However, they appear to have somehow lost the gun with which he committed suicide. The documents did not explain how that could have happened.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if it's that she'll be something similar to a Bush III, I wouldn't find that a reason to support her.
I've never even heard of RWNJ. I didn't start posting much of anything about the election at all until a few weeks back when I found out about the Zulema stuff and learned the violence was staged. Before that, I bought into the idea that he was dangerous and barely talked about it at all.
And I question if you were even here in 2008, but my Slashdot history is public, go look at my posts on Obama yourself. I didn't vote for McCain, his campaign ended the day he chose Sarah Palin.
Even if Trump is elected, Obama would just pardon her. I mean, we already saw this display, I'm not really surprised the FBI would say this now.
No, I never thought she wouldn't beat the rap (sadly). They have a DOJ that won't convene a grand jury to look at anything and which hands out immunity deals like candy for things like destroying the evidence. So... yeah.
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.
Synthetic diamonds could be an important semiconductor. I wish the DeBeers monopoly would end already via cheap synthetic diamonds instead of remaining and blocking important research. Nobody is going to carry around a detector. Man made diamonds are better: at least you know they're not used to fun wars in Africa or dug up by what are essentially slaves.
That or the agents lost their lunch after running into #spiritcooking and deleted them.
The NYPD still has their own investigation going on, though, apparently.