Actually, the FBI docs say they have evidence that Clinton's server was hacked, but this is easy to confuse because Podesta fell for a spear phishing email to his gmail account, which led to it being compromised. We do, in fact, have the exact phishing email in one of the most recent dumps. You can see a fake bit.ly reset link in it.
Well, yes, but that's because they handed out immunity to everyone involved in destroying evidence, did not convene a grand jury, and let the one person they had all the evidence for wrongdoing on off the hook because she "lacked intent." A standard that does not exist in the statute, when there are plenty of false exculpatory statements that can be used to establish intent and a pervasive scheme that lasted for years that also demonstrates intent. The only thing left is the Obama pardon, though I think that will only come if Trump wins.
But yeah, nothing to see here, just Hillary cheating again, like on the debate, or when inciting violence or when shafting Bernie (and blaming said violence on him...).
> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.
The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:
The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but/r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...
The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.
There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.
FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.
And here's a great video to go along with your reading of that law. The FBI Director is on the stand here, under oath, being grilled about their handling of this case:
You might want to read some of the FOIA dumps coming out of the FBI.
This video gives a pretty good rundown of all the ways this prosecution was weird as hell. This is Congress grilling the FBI about their handling of the case.
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!
They actually support Hillary, in part, damning her primarily for implying that her client was guilty with her statements about polygraphs. However, that section clearly shows why it's problematic to give an anonymous source badmouthing the victim. You see, anyone could claim they heard anything and doing so robs anyone of a way to check the validity of her sources. Given how easy it would have been to give a source, the lack of one should be considered suspect for that reason alone.
Allowing unsubstantiated rumors to destroy someone is simply wrong and that's why things like hearsay are normally kept out of court.
You're right, I should've linked that all up, but by the time I had finished the brain dump it was too late at night and I was too tired to link everything.
There's a huge list of stuff here with easy summaries, but I don't think it's everything.
If you have particular items of interest, please let me know so I can pull up citations for you. I know the FBI dump is a pain in the rear to find stuff in due to not being able to search it. Most of this came from discussions on/r/wikileaks if that helps.
It's amazing that you think that someone, since at least 2009, has been sending fake messages with fake senders from Gmail, Yahoo and clintonemail.com without anyone wondering about the oddly incriminating messages showing up in their inboxes.
If you think you can fake these, you can get 1 bitcoin from erratasec.
Btw, if you can forge an email that validates correctly as I've shown, I'll give you 1-bitcoin. It's the easiest way of solving arguments whether this really validates the email -- if somebody tells you this blogpost is invalid, then tell them they can earn about $600 (current value of BTC) proving it. Otherwise, no.
Please show me the blockchain transaction when you win this, ok?
> if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system?
That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system. I have a lot of problems with how she supported this motion seeking a test, as well, given that the fact that she didn't name her sources, merely repeating anonymous claims with no one standing behind them. As another put it -
Clinton critics have also pointed out that she filed an affidavit in support of a motion seeking a psychiatric test of the victim in which she asserted that unnamed persons told her the victim was "emotionally unstable," displayed "stubbornness," and had made false accusations before. We don't know whether those allegations are true (the victim denies them) and we don't know whether Clinton told the truth that someone told her those things. If she didn't tell the truth, or if she put them in an affidavit in a way that concealed that she had no basis to believe that her source had a reason to believe they were true, then that was unethical and contemptible.
The hacks have exposed a ton of crap. Possible evidence of us selling weapons to Isis in Libya (RIP Vile Rat) and trying to claw them back, they faked violence at the Trump rallies (and blamed Bernie), they were talking about making hay of Trump's "bromance" with Putin long ago, they utterly shafted Bernie in every way. He even had people give him fake support just to steal his voters back at the end. They faked a Craigslist ad for Trump that was disgustingly sexist. Nobody there trusts each other. Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener's) ways were known long ago, he appears to have gotten leaked classified info from his wife, top Clinton aide Huma, enough so that Huma sent emails from Hillary's device and vice versa, also forwarding classified things to webmail (Yahoo, Gmail). They talk about being especially worried about the sensitive pic of North Korea that was in her emails. They talk about quid pro quo to declassify one of the items she sent retroactively. In 2010, they talk about "how we just changed an entire Governor's race in 48 hours--without any fingerprints." They discuss an email from "Diane Reynolds" (Chelsea Clinton) about how the apple doesn't fall from the tree: you get a kiss on the cheek, then stabbed in the front and in the back. Hillary, if you're wondering, goes by "Evergreen" and "hrod" among other things. I haven't even covered the half of things, either. Oh, and FYI, some of that is from the FBI's response to FOIA requests, the rest is from the Podesta email dumps, which as we all should know, can be cryptographically validated via the DKIM signatures.
But yeah, let's worry about whether maybe Russia informed us of this. You know what Russia's stake in the election is?
Russia doesn't want to go to war with us over Syria.
Well, they were contacted afterwards. If they know that a server is allegedly communicating with Russia, it's pretty easy to see who the server is talking to with a simple tcpdump from something upstream. So that should be hard to miss.
Now yes, cleaning up an infection is one thing. But missing something like that entirely should be pretty hard if they had actual professional help.
I've had even less clueful people catch a hacked AMI recently because it was sending data off somewhere unknown in the not so distant past, so I'm going to have a hard time saying it was entirely missed.
There's also some stuff about DNS queries, but when they actually talk to the bank, someone was spamming something about a Trump property. So the easiest explanation here is a corporate firewall that rejects their pings and scans and a few people on the inside clicking spam.
So I will take part of that back, I don't like spammers and Trump should fire whatever marketing group was doing that to promote his place.
You're right that they talk about DNS queries, but I'm pretty sure this is an actual ICMP echo:
That wasn’t the only oddity. When the researchers pinged the server, they received error messages. They concluded that the server was set to accept only incoming communication from a very small handful of IP addresses.
It can also be pretty easily explained by having a bunch of normal people on PCs behind a corporate firewall that doesn't accept traffic. Which makes sense because when they talk to the people, we find this:
“Spectrum Health does not have a relationship with Alfa Bank or any of the Trump organizations. We have concluded a rigorous investigation with both our internal IT security specialists and expert cyber security firms. Our experts have conducted a detailed analysis of the alleged internet traffic and did not find any evidence that it included any actual communications (no emails, chat, text, etc.) between Spectrum Health and Alfa Bank or any of the Trump organizations. While we did find a small number of incoming spam marketing emails, they originated from a digital marketing company, Cendyn, advertising Trump Hotels.
So, I'm still saying this looks like BS to me. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that some Russian hacked something somewhere. I just don't buy there being a story here without more evidence than a few stray DNS queries.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the FBI docs say they have evidence that Clinton's server was hacked, but this is easy to confuse because Podesta fell for a spear phishing email to his gmail account, which led to it being compromised. We do, in fact, have the exact phishing email in one of the most recent dumps. You can see a fake bit.ly reset link in it.
Well, yes, but that's because they handed out immunity to everyone involved in destroying evidence, did not convene a grand jury, and let the one person they had all the evidence for wrongdoing on off the hook because she "lacked intent." A standard that does not exist in the statute, when there are plenty of false exculpatory statements that can be used to establish intent and a pervasive scheme that lasted for years that also demonstrates intent. The only thing left is the Obama pardon, though I think that will only come if Trump wins.
But yeah, nothing to see here, just Hillary cheating again, like on the debate, or when inciting violence or when shafting Bernie (and blaming said violence on him...).
YouTube advanced to the next video on me. I meant to post this one instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even if you somehow claim the email server was above board (it wasn't), how do you excuse lying to Congress?
Here, this explains pretty well all the problems with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look it up in the schedule? This is the DOJ interviewing a witness to a crime.
They don't normally send agendas to private citizens through third parties regarding what they'll talk about.
> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.
The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:
http://jezebel.com/the-source-...
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31...
The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...
The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.
There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.
FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.
And here's a great video to go along with your reading of that law. The FBI Director is on the stand here, under oath, being grilled about their handling of this case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You might want to read some of the FOIA dumps coming out of the FBI.
This video gives a pretty good rundown of all the ways this prosecution was weird as hell. This is Congress grilling the FBI about their handling of the case.
> If not 100% buying into info obtained illegally with no means of detecting which emails (in entirety) might have been planted maybe.
You can perform DKIM validation on the emails. Erratasec will give you a bitcoin if you can spoof them. The simplest way to settle this is to show me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win.
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:
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.
They actually support Hillary, in part, damning her primarily for implying that her client was guilty with her statements about polygraphs. However, that section clearly shows why it's problematic to give an anonymous source badmouthing the victim. You see, anyone could claim they heard anything and doing so robs anyone of a way to check the validity of her sources. Given how easy it would have been to give a source, the lack of one should be considered suspect for that reason alone.
Allowing unsubstantiated rumors to destroy someone is simply wrong and that's why things like hearsay are normally kept out of court.
I'd rather be neutral good than lawful evil. Yes, that is more chaotic.
They're probably worried about her poll numbers falling like a rock due to corruption scandals that aren't even peaked yet.
And "phase 3" from Wikileaks is starting up....
You're right, I should've linked that all up, but by the time I had finished the brain dump it was too late at night and I was too tired to link everything.
There's a huge list of stuff here with easy summaries, but I don't think it's everything.
If you have particular items of interest, please let me know so I can pull up citations for you. I know the FBI dump is a pain in the rear to find stuff in due to not being able to search it. Most of this came from discussions on /r/wikileaks if that helps.
It's amazing that you think that someone, since at least 2009, has been sending fake messages with fake senders from Gmail, Yahoo and clintonemail.com without anyone wondering about the oddly incriminating messages showing up in their inboxes.
If you think you can fake these, you can get 1 bitcoin from erratasec.
Please show me the blockchain transaction when you win this, ok?
Almost... just for giggles, it looks like it isn't even his:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw...
So why doesn't the server in question actually belong to Trump?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw...
Well, you are right about this correlating with election nonsense, but... yeah.
Looks to be pretty bogus.... it would appear that the damn thing doesn't even belong to Trump.
> if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system?
That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system. I have a lot of problems with how she supported this motion seeking a test, as well, given that the fact that she didn't name her sources, merely repeating anonymous claims with no one standing behind them. As another put it -
The hacks have exposed a ton of crap. Possible evidence of us selling weapons to Isis in Libya (RIP Vile Rat) and trying to claw them back, they faked violence at the Trump rallies (and blamed Bernie), they were talking about making hay of Trump's "bromance" with Putin long ago, they utterly shafted Bernie in every way. He even had people give him fake support just to steal his voters back at the end. They faked a Craigslist ad for Trump that was disgustingly sexist. Nobody there trusts each other. Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener's) ways were known long ago, he appears to have gotten leaked classified info from his wife, top Clinton aide Huma, enough so that Huma sent emails from Hillary's device and vice versa, also forwarding classified things to webmail (Yahoo, Gmail). They talk about being especially worried about the sensitive pic of North Korea that was in her emails. They talk about quid pro quo to declassify one of the items she sent retroactively. In 2010, they talk about "how we just changed an entire Governor's race in 48 hours--without any fingerprints." They discuss an email from "Diane Reynolds" (Chelsea Clinton) about how the apple doesn't fall from the tree: you get a kiss on the cheek, then stabbed in the front and in the back. Hillary, if you're wondering, goes by "Evergreen" and "hrod" among other things. I haven't even covered the half of things, either. Oh, and FYI, some of that is from the FBI's response to FOIA requests, the rest is from the Podesta email dumps, which as we all should know, can be cryptographically validated via the DKIM signatures.
But yeah, let's worry about whether maybe Russia informed us of this. You know what Russia's stake in the election is?
Russia doesn't want to go to war with us over Syria.
Do you?
Well, they were contacted afterwards. If they know that a server is allegedly communicating with Russia, it's pretty easy to see who the server is talking to with a simple tcpdump from something upstream. So that should be hard to miss.
Now yes, cleaning up an infection is one thing. But missing something like that entirely should be pretty hard if they had actual professional help.
I've had even less clueful people catch a hacked AMI recently because it was sending data off somewhere unknown in the not so distant past, so I'm going to have a hard time saying it was entirely missed.
There's also some stuff about DNS queries, but when they actually talk to the bank, someone was spamming something about a Trump property. So the easiest explanation here is a corporate firewall that rejects their pings and scans and a few people on the inside clicking spam.
So I will take part of that back, I don't like spammers and Trump should fire whatever marketing group was doing that to promote his place.
BTW, I will say that you may be right inasmuch as your arguing that nobody here MITM'd them.
You're right that they talk about DNS queries, but I'm pretty sure this is an actual ICMP echo:
It can also be pretty easily explained by having a bunch of normal people on PCs behind a corporate firewall that doesn't accept traffic. Which makes sense because when they talk to the people, we find this:
So, I'm still saying this looks like BS to me. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that some Russian hacked something somewhere. I just don't buy there being a story here without more evidence than a few stray DNS queries.