DEM insider, not "THE RUSSIANS" responsible for DNC hack

[bripat9643]

Do you think WikiLeaks would come out and say it was the Russians? Now that's some funny shit.

. Who cares who it was, all I can say is THANK YOU to them. Now if anything reported wasn't true, then I could see all the outrage maybe, but it's true in which is embarrassing to the Dems big time. Maybe the world couldn't stand the Clinton's either. Hmmmm.

You don't care how evidence is gotten? Jesus, so many people on this forum that don't care about individual rights.

People who commit crimes have the "right" to keep someone from exposing them, no matter which side they're on? And what about anonymous whistle blowers? Their evidence should be ignored? It's evident you take up for crooked scum.

No. That's not it at all. It's called the fruit from a poisonous tree doctrine. Look it up.

That applies in criminal trials, not in public opinion, doofus.

 

[bripat9643]

I have yet to read of one wikileaks email that has been proven not authentic. Nor have I heard of one of the accused even commenting on any of their disturbing contents.

The Right wing "Ignorance is proof" argument. Anything the Right is ignorant of does not exist!

The Chief Strategist For Hillary Clinton Calls Out The Wikileaks Emails For Being Fake
Democrats have been warning for months that the emails contain false information that was placed there by the Russians. While not totally fake, the emails are highly likely to contain false information. In other words, the emails aren’t credible.

Podesta can easily prove that by showing us the original emails, but he won't do that, will he?

 

[Lewdog]

Do you think WikiLeaks would come out and say it was the Russians? Now that's some funny shit.

. Who cares who it was, all I can say is THANK YOU to them. Now if anything reported wasn't true, then I could see all the outrage maybe, but it's true in which is embarrassing to the Dems big time. Maybe the world couldn't stand the Clinton's either. Hmmmm.

You don't care how evidence is gotten? Jesus, so many people on this forum that don't care about individual rights.

People who commit crimes have the "right" to keep someone from exposing them, no matter which side they're on? And what about anonymous whistle blowers? Their evidence should be ignored? It's evident you take up for crooked scum.

No. That's not it at all. It's called the fruit from a poisonous tree doctrine. Look it up.

That applies in criminal tries, not in public opinion, doofus.

I never said it applied to the public. I've said all along that if it came to the law it wouldn't be valid. The emails could literally say that Hillary killed someone, and it couldn't be used against her.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, whatever. Did you happen to read post #5 right above you? Should that not be the bigger story, the one no MSM dares touch? It's what's in those emails that is the most distressing and incriminating. None of the accused have denied anything contained in all those emails -- silence speaks volumes. DNC getting away with murder as usual. Thanks MSM.

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

Ok, so it bothers you too, good.
But to your second point, none of us Americans care or should care how the information was obtained compared to the gravity of what those emails spoke to. Podesta is an evil man and he was Hillary's #1 guy. Evil. Pizzagate anybody?
Planned Parenthood is evil too. Are we to let these people off the hook for selling baby parts just because the MSM and others are dying to pretend there is no evidence? Not enough even to investigate this? Or is all that matters > > "how dare those two young adults sneak a camera into an interview?!!!"

Pizzagate was proven a fake story...and you are still using it? Why should it matter how the evidence was gotten? Ok, so you don't believe in rights. Got it. cool story.

Rights ???? You as a lefty are going to have some expectations of rights now ??? Where are those rights you lefties denide so many while you were fundamentally changing America into one of the biggest social experiments from hell, in which is now known to the entire world as pure crazy, and all the while you Dems were trying to obtain a voter class that is forever loyal to boot ??

I'm not a lefty...try again numbnuts.

Yeah, right, and I'm the queen of England.

 

[bripat9643]

. Who cares who it was, all I can say is THANK YOU to them. Now if anything reported wasn't true, then I could see all the outrage maybe, but it's true in which is embarrassing to the Dems big time. Maybe the world couldn't stand the Clinton's either. Hmmmm.

You don't care how evidence is gotten? Jesus, so many people on this forum that don't care about individual rights.

People who commit crimes have the "right" to keep someone from exposing them, no matter which side they're on? And what about anonymous whistle blowers? Their evidence should be ignored? It's evident you take up for crooked scum.

No. That's not it at all. It's called the fruit from a poisonous tree doctrine. Look it up.

That applies in criminal tries, not in public opinion, doofus.

I never said it applied to the public. I've said all along that if it came to the law it wouldn't be valid. The emails could literally say that Hillary killed someone, and it couldn't be used against her.

Then the law is irrelevant, isn't it? There's no law that says the public can't read those emails once they have been published, is there?

 

[Lewdog]

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

Ok, so it bothers you too, good.
But to your second point, none of us Americans care or should care how the information was obtained compared to the gravity of what those emails spoke to. Podesta is an evil man and he was Hillary's #1 guy. Evil. Pizzagate anybody?
Planned Parenthood is evil too. Are we to let these people off the hook for selling baby parts just because the MSM and others are dying to pretend there is no evidence? Not enough even to investigate this? Or is all that matters > > "how dare those two young adults sneak a camera into an interview?!!!"

Pizzagate was proven a fake story...and you are still using it? Why should it matter how the evidence was gotten? Ok, so you don't believe in rights. Got it. cool story.

Rights ???? You as a lefty are going to have some expectations of rights now ??? Where are those rights you lefties denide so many while you were fundamentally changing America into one of the biggest social experiments from hell, in which is now known to the entire world as pure crazy, and all the while you Dems were trying to obtain a voter class that is forever loyal to boot ??

I'm not a lefty...try again numbnuts.

Yeah, right, and I'm the queen of England.

Well you don't look like a queen and act like one... but not of any royalty.

 

[william the wie]

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

Ok, so it bothers you too, good.
But to your second point, none of us Americans care or should care how the information was obtained compared to the gravity of what those emails spoke to. Podesta is an evil man and he was Hillary's #1 guy. Evil. Pizzagate anybody?
Planned Parenthood is evil too. Are we to let these people off the hook for selling baby parts just because the MSM and others are dying to pretend there is no evidence? Not enough even to investigate this? Or is all that matters > > "how dare those two young adults sneak a camera into an interview?!!!"

Pizzagate was proven a fake story...and you are still using it? Why should it matter how the evidence was gotten? Ok, so you don't believe in rights. Got it. cool story.

Rights ???? You as a lefty are going to have some expectations of rights now ??? Where are those rights you lefties denide so many while you were fundamentally changing America into one of the biggest social experiments from hell, in which is now known to the entire world as pure crazy, and all the while you Dems were trying to obtain a voter class that is forever loyal to boot ??

I'm not a lefty...try again numbnuts.

Yeah, right, and I'm the queen of England.

Then you shouldn't be commenting on US elections.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think WikiLeaks would come out and say it was the Russians? Now that's some funny shit.

Yeah, whatever. Did you happen to read post #5 right above you? Should that not be the bigger story, the one no MSM dares touch? It's what's in those emails that is the most distressing and incriminating. None of the accused have denied anything contained in all those emails -- silence speaks volumes. DNC getting away with murder as usual. Thanks MSM.

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

That doesn't mean that voters can't read it and act on it, moron.

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

 

[Lakhota]

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

• Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
• He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
• The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
• Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
• 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
• Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SrMrOjX5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Funny. Daily Mail is a British NaziCon rag. U.S. intel says Russia did the hacking. That's good enough for me when 17 national security agencies say the same thing.

 

[Lewdog]

Do you think WikiLeaks would come out and say it was the Russians? Now that's some funny shit.

Yeah, whatever. Did you happen to read post #5 right above you? Should that not be the bigger story, the one no MSM dares touch? It's what's in those emails that is the most distressing and incriminating. None of the accused have denied anything contained in all those emails -- silence speaks volumes. DNC getting away with murder as usual. Thanks MSM.

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

That doesn't mean that voters can't read it and act on it, moron.

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, whatever. Did you happen to read post #5 right above you? Should that not be the bigger story, the one no MSM dares touch? It's what's in those emails that is the most distressing and incriminating. None of the accused have denied anything contained in all those emails -- silence speaks volumes. DNC getting away with murder as usual. Thanks MSM.

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

That doesn't mean that voters can't read it and act on it, moron.

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

That still wouldn't make it inadmissible. That only happens when the police obtain evidence illegally. If some hacker posts it on the internet, it's perfectly admissible.

You don't know the law, do you?

 

[Lewdog]

And as a Bernie Sanders supporter it sucks, BUT they could literally say in the mails that Hillary pulled out a gun and shot someone in the fact and killed them,and nothing could happen to her legally. The evidence was obtained illegally.

That doesn't mean that voters can't read it and act on it, moron.

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

That still wouldn't make it inadmissible. That only happens when the police obtain evidence illegally. If some hacker posts it on the internet, it's perfectly admissible.

You don't know the law, do you?

Wrong, it's still obtained illegally..and it wouldn't be admissible also on the grounds that it's authenticity could not be verified.

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't mean that voters can't read it and act on it, moron.

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

That still wouldn't make it inadmissible. That only happens when the police obtain evidence illegally. If some hacker posts it on the internet, it's perfectly admissible.

You don't know the law, do you?

Wrong, it's still obtained illegally..and it wouldn't be admissible also on the grounds that it's authenticity could not be verified.

ROFL! The only time it's inadmissible is when the police break the law to obtain it. Otherwise, it's completely admissible. It's authenticity can easily be verified. One of the easiest and surest is to subpoena Podesta's email accounts.

 

[edthecynic]

Trump was in on it the whole time!

Trump Ally Roger Stone Admits 'Back-Channel' Tie To WikiLeaks
Roger Stone, a self-described master of the political dark arts and the longtime ally of Donald Trump, admits he has had “back-channel communications” with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over the release of thousands of emails stolen from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

 

[turzovka]

I have yet to read of one wikileaks email that has been proven not authentic. Nor have I heard of one of the accused even commenting on any of their disturbing contents.

The Right wing "Ignorance is proof" argument. Anything the Right is ignorant of does not exist!

The Chief Strategist For Hillary Clinton Calls Out The Wikileaks Emails For Being Fake
Democrats have been warning for months that the emails contain false information that was placed there by the Russians. While not totally fake, the emails are highly likely to contain false information. In other words, the emails aren’t credible.

Fine, have your last word on it. I read most of both Snopes and the NY Times pieces on pizzagate. They fail. They completely ignore some disturbing facts! And then they go further to suggest their own theories to try and discredit other more plausible theories. Here is a quote / defense from Snopes speaking of the owner of the pizza place in question --- "Now, there is obviously some weird stuff in there, but I really think these people are starting to go crazy!! One of the supposedly inappropriate pictures they pull from James Alefantis' instagram is of a smiling girl with her hands taped down to a table. Yeah that's weird but, can that not just be a really innocent game? Like just picking on a little kid?"

Oh, sure it could. Just post something like that on Instagram and in this day and age the first thing people will think of is --- oh, this 43 year old tychoon is just picking on a little kid (not related to him) for fun and decided to post it. Thanks SNOPES for pointing out the obvious explanation. That is Snopes version of telling us truth from false claims. LOL

All I will say is there is so much disturbing truths about the Podesta brothers and the emails and their artwork! and creepy meals with a known witch and so much more I do not care to get into it all. It is sick! And if anyone really cared I would suggest they start with Infowars videos and then follow along. It goes deeper and deeper.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

Yeah who cares about espionage anyway? Happens all the time so no biggie. Russia can have it.

 

[Lewdog]

And they did... but that doesn't change how the laws are written.

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

That still wouldn't make it inadmissible. That only happens when the police obtain evidence illegally. If some hacker posts it on the internet, it's perfectly admissible.

You don't know the law, do you?

Wrong, it's still obtained illegally..and it wouldn't be admissible also on the grounds that it's authenticity could not be verified.

ROFL! The only time it's inadmissible is when the police break the law to obtain it. Otherwise, it's completely admissible. It's authenticity can easily be verified. One of the easiest and surest is to subpoena Podesta's email accounts.

Hey numbnuts, you think a court of law is going to let some random anonymous hack information that can not be verified be admissible in a court of law? I sure the fuck am glad you are an "engineer" and not in Criminal Justice.

 

[edthecynic]

I have yet to read of one wikileaks email that has been proven not authentic. Nor have I heard of one of the accused even commenting on any of their disturbing contents.

The Right wing "Ignorance is proof" argument. Anything the Right is ignorant of does not exist!

The Chief Strategist For Hillary Clinton Calls Out The Wikileaks Emails For Being Fake
Democrats have been warning for months that the emails contain false information that was placed there by the Russians. While not totally fake, the emails are highly likely to contain false information. In other words, the emails aren’t credible.

Fine, have your last word on it. I read most of both Snopes and the NY Times pieces on pizzagate.

And what exactly does "pizzagate" have to do with false info being inserted into the RussiaLeaks/WikiLies emails, unless you are admitting that pizzagate is a perfect example of such tampering.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you saying you would make it against the law for the public to read published information?

No...not at all. Where the fuck you get that idea? But if Hillary was taken to court one of the questions against of potential jurors would be if they had heard the information in the media.

That still wouldn't make it inadmissible. That only happens when the police obtain evidence illegally. If some hacker posts it on the internet, it's perfectly admissible.

You don't know the law, do you?

Wrong, it's still obtained illegally..and it wouldn't be admissible also on the grounds that it's authenticity could not be verified.

ROFL! The only time it's inadmissible is when the police break the law to obtain it. Otherwise, it's completely admissible. It's authenticity can easily be verified. One of the easiest and surest is to subpoena Podesta's email accounts.

Hey numbnuts, you think a court of law is going to let some random anonymous hack information that can not be verified be admissible in a court of law? I sure the fuck am glad you are an "engineer" and not in Criminal Justice.

There is nothing "random" nor "anonymous" about the information. I already explained how it can easily be verified. Judges have to follow the law when ruling on admissibility. It's not a matter of their personal opinion. If the evidence is relevant to the case, then it has to be admitted.

I have more legal knowledge in my left pinky than you have in your entire body.

You're a moron.

 

[edthecynic]

I have yet to read of one wikileaks email that has been proven not authentic. Nor have I heard of one of the accused even commenting on any of their disturbing contents.

The Right wing "Ignorance is proof" argument. Anything the Right is ignorant of does not exist!

The Chief Strategist For Hillary Clinton Calls Out The Wikileaks Emails For Being Fake
Democrats have been warning for months that the emails contain false information that was placed there by the Russians. While not totally fake, the emails are highly likely to contain false information. In other words, the emails aren’t credible.

Podesta can easily prove that by showing us the original emails, but he won't do that, will he?

You would only claim the emails released by Podesta were the ones that were altered, ala Obama's long form birth certificate.
The Right are tooooo predictable!!!