…Because they so want an orange ruler?
No need for proof, my good man. Point away too even the nuttiest of cites. The thing is I only here “they’ll probably fake up some emails” but never “remember that other time they faked up emails?”.
Your quote makes me think you doubt the WikiLeaks emails authenticity. You shouldn’t. If they were falsifiable, you could make a chunk of change proving it.
Errata Security: Yes, we can validate the Wikileaks emails
AFAICT, the Wikileak emails are authentic.
I got a mailer today from the RNC stating the Hillary Clinton has been “in power” for 30 years. I’m trying to figure out what the hell she’s had power over for the last 30 years. (Bill maybe? Chelsea?) Maybe I’m just stupid or my math is wrong but I don’t see it.
It’s so quite this week. I’m not seeing interviews with either candidate.
This should be a great opportunity for Trump to promote his platform. Do a lot of interviews. But, 1. what platform? and 2. his campaign is terrified of what he might say.
Hillary of course isn’t about to do any sit down interviews. She much rather scream the FBI is out to get me!!! from a podium.
John Kerry is right. This election is a national embarrassment. The sooner this travesty is over the better.
Well, guess we better give up then, this Donna Brazile scandal is spreading like mildfire. Hundreds of people give a fuck.
What DKIM does is show that whoever sent the email had access to her private key. Someone who was able to break into her email server could also have stolen her private key which they then could use to sign fake emails. I’m not saying that that happened but it’s a possibility.
Things that make you go “Hmmmmm…”
I wonder if this is a personal score to settle between Comey and the Clintons, or if this is broader more generalized anger at the democratic party’s association with BLM.
That’s discussed rather thoroughly in the comments to the article I cited. Neither the FBI, nor anyone else, has found any evidence that her private server was hacked.
I’m sure the files stolen during the Watergate break in were authentic too.
Why do Republicans not seem to be able to discern that breaking in to a server, stealing files and then disseminating them to the public is perhaps a Not-Good thing, particularly in the context of an election.
Why do Republicans seem to ignore evidence and testimony from experts that this break-in and theft were most likely done by Russian operatives? Is this simply no big deal? Is it not a problem that the Russian government is hacking into political party servers to impact an election? Do you not care that your nominee for president has actively encouraged this Russian hacking, and said that they’ll be “rewarded mightily”?
Seriously, if the Watergate break in happened today, the burglers would be hailed as heroes, and Nixon would brag about them in a news conference.
So is the election “rigged”? Maybe we should have a Straight Dope poll on it.
No, I never meant to suggest that they weren’t (aren’t) authentic – they absolutely are authentic, or the targets would have pushed back harder by now, which they haven’t.
What I’m saying is that there might be a manufactured bombshell by Stone, Bannon, et al. – similar to the allegations that Ted Cruz’s father had something to do with JFK’s assassination. Later discredited but insult to injury sufficiently added with little time to swing back.
He’s not “my nominee”. My guy was Cruz. I just dislike Clinton even more than I dislike Trump.
There’s probably a fair bit of debate to be had about whether disseminating private information to the public is a good thing. One’s perception of hacks and leaks is usually colored by if they benefit or are harmed by it. Some people think Snowden’s leaks were terrible. Others think he’s a hero. Same thing with leaks about Abu Ghraib, and lots of other events.
In this case, I think the bulk of the Wikileaks information has been to highlight shady practices and dishonesty by Democrats, and done very little to harm national security, so my vague impression is that it’s a net positive.
I’m sure the files from the Watergate break-in would have revealed lots of bad things and shady practices by the Democrats. So why the big deal about it? It should have been lauded, right?
I don’t seem to recall you complaining when Trump’s tax returns got leaked.
But it can’t be absolutely proven (and those emails were obtained from somewhere).
I’m not claiming that there was any forgery, just that DKIM isn’t absolute rock-solid proof that there wasn’t.
As much as I don’t want to agree with you, I agree with this point. I guess it really does come down to the fact that we are arguing that Hillary Clinton’s sins are somehow lesser than Donald Trump’s. I, for one, don’t seem to understand how the voting public can in any way regard them as equally bad, even though I absolutely can understand why people dislike Hillary Clinton if they’re conservative and not exactly enthusiastic if they’re liberal or moderate.
We’re reasonably confident that those emails were obtained from Podesta’s Gmail account, aren’t we? He got suckered by a phishing attack and gave the hackers his creds. That’s how his emails were obtained.
I don’t recall that there was a criminal break-in to a server to obtain them. It would seem that the whole returns were not released either… Just the front pages of the state returns that would have been the property of his spouse at the time - Marla. If she wanted to give them to a newspaper anonymously, there is nothing criminal about that.
Breaking into a server and getting the contents is criminal. Stop supporting criminals. Phishing to get a password, then using the password to hack is a criminal offence. Stop supporting criminals.