Post #415,193
11/5/16 7:03:55 PM
11/5/16 7:03:55 PM
|
Don't be so gullible. It's beneath you. :-)
No, I'm not worried that my donations have been misused. Stolen e-mails aren't a "leak". FOIA e-mails from State aren't a "leak" either. http://www.anonews.co/hillary-assange/Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said that Wikileaks have obtained information that, when released soon, will guarantee a Hillary Clinton indictment. Assange is a partisan and Wikileaks is a tool used by Russia to try to influence the election. Nothing out of there can be trusted without further investigation. The Podesta stuff that apparently isn't via Wikileaks is also stolen and not a "leak" either. It's not worth my time to give the crank(s) at ZeroHedge another click. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,197
11/5/16 8:48:19 PM
11/5/16 8:48:19 PM
|
you howl rooskies are coming!1! then call me gullable. Hack + DKIM authenticates email
So you are quite comfortable ignoring all of it because it was stolen...Ok always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,199
11/5/16 9:26:24 PM
11/5/16 9:26:24 PM
|
Re: you howl rooskies are coming!1! then call me gullable. Hack + DKIM authenticates email
|
Post #415,201
11/5/16 11:38:02 PM
11/5/16 11:38:02 PM
|
so wapo has clearly identified
The hackers, hiding behind ominous aliases like Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks are russian. They should notify the fbi. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,203
11/6/16 1:22:11 AM
11/6/16 1:22:11 AM
|
Re: so wapo has clearly identified
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-documents-idUSKBN12Y2WYThe FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are examining faked documents aimed at discrediting the Hillary Clinton campaign as part of a broader investigation into what U.S. officials believe has been an attempt by Russia to disrupt the presidential election, people with knowledge of the matter said.
U.S. Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has referred one of the documents to the FBI for investigation on the grounds that his name and stationery were forged to appear authentic.
In a document forged to appear as though Carper was writing a letter to Clinton, Carper is quoted as saying the Department of Homeland Security had advised him of a risk that a "massive" cyber attack "could change the election results in favor of a specific candidate." The document dated October 3 was reviewed by Reuters. You can see a copy of the letter here: tmsnrt.rs/2emt5AI.
[...] I don't understand why you're seeming to think that it's impossible for Russia to be doing what it is accused and suspected of doing... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,204
11/6/16 1:32:25 AM
11/6/16 1:32:25 AM
|
In a document forged to appear as though Carper was writing a letter to Clinton
if it was forged, the indications are clear. If the dkim headers are accurate the source is accurate, if changed dkim would not resolve. Since I spent 3 years assisting the ietf in writing the specs I am comfortable in stating that forgery is extremely difficult
That was a major error in who set up the clinton private email server. plausible deniability would be extremely more difficult with dkim installed always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,205
11/6/16 1:04:51 AM
11/6/16 1:04:51 AM
|
Timeline?
The Clinton e-mail server stuff was from her time as Secretary of State. She left State on February 1, 2013.
The Carper letter is dated October 3, 2016.
Whatever the security settings on her server were, they don't seem to be applicable to the rat copulating that's going on with Carper's letter nor to lots of other "leaked" (really stolen) e-mails, etc., that is somehow about how "horrible" she is, now.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #415,212
11/6/16 10:58:12 AM
11/6/16 10:58:12 AM
|
The rats are more likely dems, how come you love repo rats but have an issue with dem rats?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,198
11/5/16 9:06:37 PM
11/5/16 9:06:37 PM
|
Re: Don't be so gullible. It's beneath you. :-)
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #415,200
11/5/16 9:26:50 PM
11/5/16 9:26:50 PM
|
Thanks.
|
Post #415,202
11/5/16 11:45:10 PM
11/5/16 11:45:10 PM
|
the attachement has the detailed invoice. I am not a lawyer
but should hillary's campaign be paying clinton foundation legal fees? The way that billing is being done I wonder if Hillary is billing the campaign for campaigning always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,208
11/6/16 8:43:31 AM
11/6/16 8:43:31 AM
|
And is that what it says?
No, it says "Foundation". Perhaps the line item is regarding legal research done for the campaign concerning the Foundation, since it seems to be a political football. The WJC Political could be related to the campaign as well, same as HRC Political is. Or, they could have sent the entire bill to the wrong place given the dates of the work. Perhaps they weren't getting paid, given how horrible the Clintons are, eh, and they were pushing it up the priority? Or it might be simple incompetence on the part of the legal firm's billing department, improperly combining work in a single bill. And, since Podesta forwarded it away from his hilllaryclinton.com address, that could mean that this wasn't to be paid by the campaign, and it needed different handling. You don't know, I don't know, and that muckraking site doesn't know. Hint: if a story doesn't get picked up by a major outlet, there's nothing there but speculation. Find a matching line item for all of the charges on a campaign expense filing and then you have a story. Otherwise it's just more crap. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #415,213
11/6/16 10:59:57 AM
11/6/16 10:59:57 AM
|
if you need a lawyer to investigate yourself you have more issues than I have
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
