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

[Lakhota]

Just another fake news thread.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

 

[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?

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!!!

That doesn't make any sense. Please learn to speak English.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

 

[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.

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.

What false information?
The only one I am aware --- and the only one the MSM dares report on --- is where Donald Trump quoted an email and attributed the quote to the wrong person. Yes, he made a mistake and that was both admitted and cleared up. So that proves what? That all these emails have been doctored? Who is coming forth claiming that and proving that? No one.

 

[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!!!

That doesn't make any sense. Please learn to speak English.

The Right-wing perpetual dumb act again.
Obviously I struck a nerve!!!

 

[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.

What false information?
The only one I am aware --- and the only one the MSM dares report on --- is where Donald Trump quoted an email and attributed the quote to the wrong person. Yes, he made a mistake and that was both admitted and cleared up. So that proves what? That all these emails have been doctored? Who is coming forth claiming that and proving that? No one.

Read the link.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

So what? There was nothing new in the emails. Only confirmation that her campaign had sabotaged the Sanders campaign and that the media was colluding with the her campaign.

Pfffffffffft. That's not news. Everyone suspected this shit was going down. The emails just let us all know we were right that she was an evil bitch along with her campaign staff and the media.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Yeah..............sure.............like we're gonna believe a blog from a British citizen.

Get me a reliable American news source, or American politician saying this and I'd be more likely to believe you.

What are your verfied reliable news sources?

 

[pwjohn]

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

More fake news.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, it can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

 

[ColonelAngus]

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

More fake news.

What are your verified reliable sources?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

 

[ColonelAngus]

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

This destroys the whole liberal narratives, and you know the libs' egos, need for an elaborative conspiravy theory, and rabid hatred of Conservatives will never allow them to admit they were betrayed by one of their own.

How about that DNC staffer, Seth Rich, who was murdered execution style after he leaked information to Wikileaks?

No witnesses, No leads. He was not robbed.

 

[Lewdog]

You are sooo fucking stupid. How are they going to verify Wikileaks released information from an anonymous source? You understand what hearsay is? Holy shit man... you are so fucking retarded.

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.

 

[bripat9643]

I already told you that a court could subpoena Podestas email accounts and compare them with the email published by WikiLeaks. There are also other ways to verify the authenticity of an email. They are admitted as evidence all the time. Saying "I agree" in an email is sufficient confirmation of many kinds of contracts.

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.

Your example doesn't fit your claim.

If you wanted a warrant to prove that some defamatory photo someone published on the internet was a fake, and he admitted it in an email that was published on the internet after it was hacked, then a judge would issue a subpoena for the original email. That's exculpatory evidence, and a judge cannot refuse either side the right to present it as evidence in a trial.

 

[beagle9]

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.

SO !!!!!! It still doesn't undo the damage where people found out just how sleezey the Democrats actually are. That's a good thing, because that's all the liberals know is how to cry to get their way, so to drink of their own bitter medicine is sooooo great, and a relief to everyone that was tired of their hypocrisy.

 

[edthecynic]

How about that DNC staffer, Seth Rich, who was murdered execution style after he leaked information to Wikileaks?

No witnesses, No leads. He was not robbed.

FAKE NEWS!