Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's NOT how it leaked or became public its about WHAT was revealed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's NOT how it leaked or became public its about WHAT was revealed

    I believe the thread title list the attidude of most of those on the boards, that lean well to the 'right' believe about leaks. PE Trump and his supporters said basically the same thing during the campaign..... Yet.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...g-leaks-233272

    Ms Conway:

    “What's disappointing is having leaks in the media before we actually have a report on the alleged hacking and it's been very confounding to us and certainly to the president-elect why this report if it wasn't prepared until yesterday, why operatives were expelled, why punishment preceded actual conclusions.”
    She also has not concept of the difference between findings you can act on and having to wait for a Final report with all the spelling and minor details worked out.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    I believe the thread title list the attidude of most of those on the boards, that lean well to the 'right' believe about leaks. PE Trump and his supporters said basically the same thing during the campaign..... Yet.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...g-leaks-233272

    Ms Conway:



    She also has not concept of the difference between findings you can act on and having to wait for a Final report with all the spelling and minor details worked out.
    Leaks from anonymous sources which consist of nothing more than "sources say that the CIA has concluded that the Russians hacked the election to help Trump win" can't be verified... They are fake news.

    Leaks of emails detailing how the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders and how the Clinton Foundation was a "pay for play" scam can be verified... They are real news, even if improperly obtained, just like Trump's illegally published tax return was real news.

    She's not the one having difficulty with the concept. You are. Until the intelligence agencies issue their report, there are no findings. There are just unverifiable assertions from anonymous sources.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      The snowflakes are wailing in the wind...the answer is they're wailin' in the wind.

      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Leaks from anonymous sources which consist of nothing more than "sources say that the CIA has concluded that the Russians hacked the election to help Trump win" can't be verified... They are fake news.

        Leaks of emails detailing how the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders and how the Clinton Foundation was a "pay for play" scam can be verified... They are real news, even if improperly obtained, just like Trump's illegally published tax return was real news.

        She's not the one having difficulty with the concept. You are. Until the intelligence agencies issue their report, there are no findings. There are just unverifiable assertions from anonymous sources.
        No they can't and have not. All you have is electronic images that a 14 year old can make in his or her basement. Let a lone an organization like Wikileaks.

        In both cases you have anonymous and un-sourced leaks. Basic fact.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          No they can't and have not. All you have is electronic images that a 14 year old can make in his or her basement. Let a lone an organization like Wikileaks.

          In both cases you have anonymous and un-sourced leaks. Basic fact.
          The emails and tax returns were confirmed to be real. Neither the DNC, Podesta nor Trump claimed otherwise. When documents are forged, like the Dan Rather case, it's usually pretty easy to debunk them.

          A quote from an anonymous source can't be verified.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            The emails and tax returns were confirmed to be real. Neither the DNC, Podesta nor Trump claimed otherwise. When documents are forged, like the Dan Rather case, it's usually pretty easy to debunk them.

            A quote from an anonymous source can't be verified.
            Shows us the confirmation.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              The emails and tax returns were confirmed to be real. Neither the DNC, Podesta nor Trump claimed otherwise. When documents are forged, like the Dan Rather case, it's usually pretty easy to debunk them.

              A quote from an anonymous source can't be verified.
              That is what amuses me to no end: neither the Hillabeast nor the DNC denies that the facts released are true; they're just butt-hurt because the truth was told.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                That is what amuses me to no end: neither the Hillabeast nor the DNC denies that the facts released are true; they're just butt-hurt because the truth was told.
                Same with PE Trump. That's the point.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  Shows us the confirmation.
                  Most of the emails can be digitally verified...
                  Tech blogger finds proof DNC chief's emails weren't 'doctored' despite claims

                  Published October 24, 2016

                  After Democratic Party boss Donna Brazile claimed emails showing her apparently tipping off Hillary Clinton to questions at a March town hall were “doctored,” tech sleuths got to work -- and now say they've found proof the emails are authentic.

                  Fox News' Megyn Kelly questioned Brazile last week about an email that surfaced in hacked messages from Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s account. The email, posted by WikiLeaks and attributed to Brazile, passed on a question to campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri about the death penalty, under the subject line: “From time to time I get questions in advance.”

                  The exchange came right before a March town hall hosted by CNN and TV One, where a similar question was asked. Yet Brazile denied receiving questions from CNN.

                  "I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don't even send,” she said, adding, "I will not sit here and be persecuted, because your information is totally false.”

                  However, tech blog Errata Security quickly found the email in question could be verified using an everyday verification program.

                  DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) is a system employed by many email servers, including HillaryClinton.com, to verify emails to recipients and avoid spam filters. The system sends a DKIM "key" to the receiver to verify the sender and confirm the email hasn’t been tampered with.

                  Consequently, bloggers ran the DKIM keys included in this and other emails through verification software, which in turn validated the Palmieri email as both real and undoctored. The Daily Caller also ran a similar test and got the same result.

                  In a blog post for Errata Security, cybersecurity expert Robert Graham presented his results, and showed that if the emails had been altered in any way, the software would have declared the email unverified.

                  "It took less than five minutes," Graham told FoxNews.com, noting that such software is common and widely available.

                  [...]

                  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...te-claims.html

                  If any of the published emails lacked a verification key, and were doctored, the victim could simply produce the original email and prove that they were altered.

                  While it's not impossible that some of the emails were faked or altered, no one has presented any evidence that they were.
                  Are the Clinton WikiLeaks emails doctored, or are they authentic?

                  By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, October 23rd, 2016

                  Hillary Clinton and her campaign have sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of thousands of emails leaked by WikiLeaks showing the inner workings of Clinton’s campaign.

                  It’s not just that they came from Russian hackers in an attempt to meddle in the U.S. election.

                  But also that they might have been doctored.

                  [...]

                  It’s possible to verify the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the emails, cybersecurity experts said. So we can’t definitively say none of the thousands of leaked emails, which came from campaign chair John Podesta's account, have been doctored.

                  Experts told PolitiFact that there is precedent to support Kaine’s claim. While most of the emails are probably unaltered, they said there is a chance that at least a few have been tampered with in some way.

                  "I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few. The vast majority were genuine. I believe that's the case with the Podesta emails, as well."

                  [...]

                  In massive document dumps like the Podesta email leak, the risk of encountering altered documents is heightened because it’s easy to slip them in among thousands of genuine documents, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and former lawyer for the National Security Agency.

                  "It is possible the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails includes forged or altered documents," Hennessey said. "With any large leak, it is wise to proceed with caution and skepticism and verify the authenticity of documents before reporting."

                  The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.

                  [...]

                  Well-known hacker Robert Graham verified the email’s digital signature, a tool email providers use to confirm that an email actually came from the provider’s server without alteration.

                  These digital signatures are embedded in the raw sources available on the WikiLeaks website and can be used to "concretely prove that many of the emails in the Wikileaks dump are undoctored," said cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait.

                  However, some of the emails in the WikiLeaks dump — especially among emails sent to Podesta — don’t have these signatures and can’t be technically verified. And digital signature verification wouldn’t detect tampering by omission, like if the hackers were to withhold certain emails.

                  [...]

                  So why doesn’t the Clinton campaign provide some evidence that emails have been doctored, like publishing original emails? Experts pointed to political calculation.

                  By saying the emails may be inaccurate generally, the campaign can plausibly deny certain facts that the emails reveal. If they offer proof that a particular leaked email is fake, however, that risks giving the impression that any emails they do not refute are accurate. Or they just might not want the original email to become public for any number of reasons.

                  "It boxes the campaign into a bad spot," Winterton said.

                  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-or-are-they-/
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    Same with PE Trump. That's the point.
                    The point is that the emails are real.

                    The fable that Russia hacked the election to help Trump win is fake news until some actual evidence is presented.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      The point is that the emails are real.

                      The fable that Russia hacked the election to help Trump win is fake news until some actual evidence is presented.
                      You have no proof of that what so ever. They went through several hands any and all could have been fabricated and or altered., Simple fact.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        You have no proof of that what so ever. They went through several hands any and all could have been fabricated and or altered., Simple fact.
                        That's 100% wrong. Most of the emails can be digitally verified to prove they have not been altered.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          That's 100% wrong. Most of the emails can be digitally verified to prove they have not been altered.
                          According to your one outside source. We have a internet security firm backing up the Russian hack... yet that is not enough....

                          Sorry. One person saying it is so does not make it so.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is pure humor. Wikileaks COMPLAINING about leaks from the CIA to press!!!!!!

                            http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...rt-info-to-nbc

                            In a Friday tweet, WikiLeaks slammed the CIA for leaking information to NBC.

                            "The Obama admin/CIA is illegally funneling TOP SECRET//COMINT information to NBC for political reasons before PEOTUS even gets to read it," the tweet read.
                            Perfect example of the thread subject.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Leaks from anonymous sources which consist of nothing more than "sources say that the CIA has concluded that the Russians hacked the election to help Trump win" can't be verified... They are fake news.
                              Before partisans on either side get their panties all twisted, let's be clear: "leaking" is as American as cherry pie. I recall reading a biography of J Edgar Hoover, and I came away with the impression that one of his greatest strengths as a government insider was his ability to cultivate relationships with friendly journalists and feed them leaks when it might serve the Director's interests. I'm sure that Gen George McClellan fed leaks to friendly journalists whenever he was pi$$ed at Pres Lincoln, which was most of the time. In the aftermath of Scooter Libby's conviction, the Times' Judith Miller came out on PBS and admitted with all candor that government officials who leak to favored reporters are certainly using those reporters to serve the leakers' interests -- even when those interests are strictly petty, as in the case of "Deep Throat," who was motivated by resentment over being passed over for a promotion.

                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Leaks of emails detailing how the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders and how the Clinton Foundation was a "pay for play" scam can be verified
                              I would submit that the rigging of the primaries was verified, but the Clinton Foundation's shenanigans, while quite plausible, have not been verified.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X