5 ms·

There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse [1]. Additionally every campaign, company, even private individua

There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse [1]. Additionally every campaign, company, even private individual has emails that wouldn't look good if they were leaked to the public with no context. I'd bet there were emails from the other side that would have been just as damaging had they been leaked. In fact we know there were, because several damaging emails from Donald Trump Jr. have been leaked since. One more point. Many of the leaked Clinton emails weren't actually damaging in and of themselves. They were damaging because of the conspiracy theories that they spawned. Innocuous party planning emails morphed into Pizza Gate, which was spread in large part by Russian trolls. [1] https://www.salon.com/2017/11/03/the-dncs-emails-werent-only-hacked-they-were-edited-report/ https://www.salon.com/2017/11/03/the-dncs-emails-werent-only...

downandout 9y ago
>There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse [1]. And yet nobody denied their authenticity. Getting rid of Bernie, leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign, and on and on were all things that nobody denied doing after they were exposed. Regardless, my point was that the conduct in this case (creating fake data that a very small group of voters may rely on) is far worse than exposing what seems to be undisputed questionable conduct.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Hacking emails is not the only election tampering for which there is evidence. For example, there were widespread attempts to alter voter lists: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/us-tells-21-states-that-hackers-targeted-their-voting-systems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/us-tells-21-s...
1001101 9y ago
Your reference, [1], refers to documents from Guccifer 2.0, which Salon uses to extrapolate that "emails hacked from the Hillary Clinton campaign may not have been as reliable as the anti-Clinton camp would like to believe." But then there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Non-repudiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Non.... As far as damaging e-mails from the other side, they would probably need to go further than: mocking people with disabilities, attacking gold star families, insulting POWs, admitting to sexual assault, etc. because all of that is on tape. As far as Russia being involved with the pizza nonsense, I'd like to see some citations on that. Here's one accounting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Ge...
- learc83 9y ago
  Not all of the emails were signed. I haven't seen any evidence that even most of the damaging emails were signed. Additionally there are several attacks potentially available to state actors to forge those signatures. The most probable is to steal the server's private key. >As far as damaging e-mails from the other side, How about agreeing to take a meeting with a Russian agent? Trump only won by about 80k votes in 3 states. The election was very close--a change in weather could've swung it. You can Google Russian involvement with Pizzagate. It was mostly Russian linked bots retweeting it to push it into trending. In addition to Russian bots, all the Turkish pro government newspapers were spreading Pizzagate conspiracies.
Tuna-Fish 9y ago
> There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse This is a lie. The emails were cryptographically signed, they have not been altered.
- learc83 9y ago
  No, not all of the emails were cryptographically signed.
  - will4274 9y ago
    But the majority, including many of the most damaging ones, were signed.
    - learc83 9y ago
      >The majority...many Notice I never said all or even most of the emails were altered. That some of them may have been subtly altered was one point of my argument.
      - will4274 9y ago
        If an email that wasn't part of the public debate was altered, who cares? The simple fact is that, of all the emails that were covered by the media, the Clinton campaign was unable to point to a single one and say it was altered.
        learc83 9y ago
        It looks like a very large number of the emails from podesta's inbox weren't signed. I have seen no evidence that all or even most of the emails that were part of the public discourse were actually signed.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  Let's not pretend cryptographic signing of emails makes them immune to tampering. This makes it essentially a guarantee that they were not modified between Point A and Point B but that's about it. I'm not saying they were or weren't modified nor am I saying it's even a good theory they were modified but we shouldn't make cryptographic signing sound more capable than it is.
will4274 9y ago
The Clinton campaign refused to ever point to a specific email that was altered, making the claim that they were quite unbelievable.
- learc83 9y ago
  Let's assume that there is an email that looks bad for the campaign. The email was slightly altered to make it look a bit worse. Do they admit to writing the slightly less awful email, prolonging the coverage and erasing all doubt that they wrote it?
  - will4274 9y ago
    YES! Obviously! Because if the campaign could show that a single email was altered, it casts doubt on the entire set. Many people would immediately jump to the conclusion that many emails were altered and disregard the story entirely.
    - learc83 9y ago
      The AP is confident that one of the documents from podesta's inbox was altered. Yet the campaign never came forward to authenticate the original document. So we have a clear case of altered email, but campaign didn't authenticate original. It's a political calculation. You may have done it differently, but it's pretty clear we have at least 1 case of it happening.
olivermarks 9y ago
@learc83 'Innocuous party planning emails morphed into Pizza Gate, which was spread in large part by Russian trolls.' Don't want to hijack an important discussion of deliberate misrepresentation of net neutrality citizen perspectives, but I think you will find there was a massive emergency cover up over 'pizzagate'. The sudden use of the term 'fake news' everywhere in the corporate media coincided with the pizzagate revelations as i noted here previously. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=fake%20news,pizzagate https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... There is very disturbing evidence of nefarious activities that should have been formally investigated in my opinion. Ben Swann, whose career was quickly destroyed over pizzagate, discussed the tip of the iceberg here. https://youtu.be/-GZFHLAcG8A https://youtu.be/-GZFHLAcG8A
- learc83 9y ago
  Pizzagate is a crackpot conspiracy theory. A rather bad crackpot conspiracy theory. No one takes it seriously. Even Alex Jones has retracted his Pizzagate statements. The term fake news started being used because people were spreading fake news based on completely absurd readings of leaked emails. The "evidence" for Pizzagate is absolutely comical.
  - fit2rule 9y ago
    A lot of people take Pizzagate quite seriously, because there is more than enough evidence to start a serious, professional investigation. The fact that intelligent people write it off immediately is more about how well the propaganda campaign against this investigation has worked - and yes, there was definitely a coordinated effort to make Pizzagate 'nonsense' in the public eye. Ask yourself this question: what if there really is evidence of a network of pedophiles who have infiltrated government in order to compromise it? Would you feel it better to cover it up, quietly, or would you rather have mass anger at the government? Because, the UK decided it was a national security risk, and they covered up their particularly nefarious corruption by these networks. The US has pretty much done the same thing, albeit with a particularly American flair, wherein the brand "pizzagate is fake news" was very well established as a counter-effort, in order that less people take a look - for themselves - at the evidence being uncovered by citizen investigators. I've gone deep down the rabbit hole of Pizzagate, looking at everything I could on the subject, and I'm no idiot. I believe there was a serious attempt to cover up the corruption - by a pedophile mafia - of the US government. I also think that it behooves every citizen of an open, democratic society, to demand that the secret powers these governments grant themselves be tested - so even if Pizzagate is entirely fake and nothing more than a fantasy concocted by autistic "Russians" (even that is fake news), it behooves the citizenry to not be thwarted, so easily, by the "fake news" brand being propagated by the powers that be. One should not be so quick to dismiss the pizzagate controversy. There really is bad stuff like this happening, and it is of such a heinous nature that there would be riots in the streets. If you haven't seen this, you're not making an honest effort to discover it, because the evidence is there. Please, do not be so dismissive - this is a heinous scenario. Our governments have failed us in this situation, and it is up to we, the citizens, to deal with the aftermath. Ritual sexual abuse is a thing in our governments. It is heinous and vile, and that is why we are being kept from the truth.

downandout 9y ago

>There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse [1]. And yet nobody denied their authenticity. Getting rid of Bernie, leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign, and on and on were all things that nobody denied doing after they were exposed. Regardless, my point was that the conduct in this case (creating fake data that a very small group of voters may rely on) is far worse than exposing what seems to be undisputed questionable conduct.

tempestn 9y ago
Hacking emails is not the only election tampering for which there is evidence. For example, there were widespread attempts to alter voter lists: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/us-tells-21-states-that-hackers-targeted-their-voting-systems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/us-tells-21-s...

1001101 9y ago

Your reference, [1], refers to documents from Guccifer 2.0, which Salon uses to extrapolate that "emails hacked from the Hillary Clinton campaign may not have been as reliable as the anti-Clinton camp would like to believe." But then there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Non-repudiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Non.... As far as damaging e-mails from the other side, they would probably need to go further than: mocking people with disabilities, attacking gold star families, insulting POWs, admitting to sexual assault, etc. because all of that is on tape. As far as Russia being involved with the pizza nonsense, I'd like to see some citations on that. Here's one accounting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Ge...

learc83 9y ago
Not all of the emails were signed. I haven't seen any evidence that even most of the damaging emails were signed. Additionally there are several attacks potentially available to state actors to forge those signatures. The most probable is to steal the server's private key. >As far as damaging e-mails from the other side, How about agreeing to take a meeting with a Russian agent? Trump only won by about 80k votes in 3 states. The election was very close--a change in weather could've swung it. You can Google Russian involvement with Pizzagate. It was mostly Russian linked bots retweeting it to push it into trending. In addition to Russian bots, all the Turkish pro government newspapers were spreading Pizzagate conspiracies.

Tuna-Fish 9y ago

> There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse This is a lie. The emails were cryptographically signed, they have not been altered.

learc83 9y ago
No, not all of the emails were cryptographically signed.
- will4274 9y ago
  But the majority, including many of the most damaging ones, were signed.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >The majority...many Notice I never said all or even most of the emails were altered. That some of them may have been subtly altered was one point of my argument.
    - will4274 9y ago
      If an email that wasn't part of the public debate was altered, who cares? The simple fact is that, of all the emails that were covered by the media, the Clinton campaign was unable to point to a single one and say it was altered.
      - learc83 9y ago
        It looks like a very large number of the emails from podesta's inbox weren't signed. I have seen no evidence that all or even most of the emails that were part of the public discourse were actually signed.
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
Let's not pretend cryptographic signing of emails makes them immune to tampering. This makes it essentially a guarantee that they were not modified between Point A and Point B but that's about it. I'm not saying they were or weren't modified nor am I saying it's even a good theory they were modified but we shouldn't make cryptographic signing sound more capable than it is.

will4274 9y ago

The Clinton campaign refused to ever point to a specific email that was altered, making the claim that they were quite unbelievable.

learc83 9y ago
Let's assume that there is an email that looks bad for the campaign. The email was slightly altered to make it look a bit worse. Do they admit to writing the slightly less awful email, prolonging the coverage and erasing all doubt that they wrote it?
- will4274 9y ago
  YES! Obviously! Because if the campaign could show that a single email was altered, it casts doubt on the entire set. Many people would immediately jump to the conclusion that many emails were altered and disregard the story entirely.
  - learc83 9y ago
    The AP is confident that one of the documents from podesta's inbox was altered. Yet the campaign never came forward to authenticate the original document. So we have a clear case of altered email, but campaign didn't authenticate original. It's a political calculation. You may have done it differently, but it's pretty clear we have at least 1 case of it happening.

olivermarks 9y ago

@learc83 'Innocuous party planning emails morphed into Pizza Gate, which was spread in large part by Russian trolls.' Don't want to hijack an important discussion of deliberate misrepresentation of net neutrality citizen perspectives, but I think you will find there was a massive emergency cover up over 'pizzagate'. The sudden use of the term 'fake news' everywhere in the corporate media coincided with the pizzagate revelations as i noted here previously. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=fake%20news,pizzagate https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... There is very disturbing evidence of nefarious activities that should have been formally investigated in my opinion. Ben Swann, whose career was quickly destroyed over pizzagate, discussed the tip of the iceberg here. https://youtu.be/-GZFHLAcG8A https://youtu.be/-GZFHLAcG8A

learc83 9y ago
Pizzagate is a crackpot conspiracy theory. A rather bad crackpot conspiracy theory. No one takes it seriously. Even Alex Jones has retracted his Pizzagate statements. The term fake news started being used because people were spreading fake news based on completely absurd readings of leaked emails. The "evidence" for Pizzagate is absolutely comical.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  A lot of people take Pizzagate quite seriously, because there is more than enough evidence to start a serious, professional investigation. The fact that intelligent people write it off immediately is more about how well the propaganda campaign against this investigation has worked - and yes, there was definitely a coordinated effort to make Pizzagate 'nonsense' in the public eye. Ask yourself this question: what if there really is evidence of a network of pedophiles who have infiltrated government in order to compromise it? Would you feel it better to cover it up, quietly, or would you rather have mass anger at the government? Because, the UK decided it was a national security risk, and they covered up their particularly nefarious corruption by these networks. The US has pretty much done the same thing, albeit with a particularly American flair, wherein the brand "pizzagate is fake news" was very well established as a counter-effort, in order that less people take a look - for themselves - at the evidence being uncovered by citizen investigators. I've gone deep down the rabbit hole of Pizzagate, looking at everything I could on the subject, and I'm no idiot. I believe there was a serious attempt to cover up the corruption - by a pedophile mafia - of the US government. I also think that it behooves every citizen of an open, democratic society, to demand that the secret powers these governments grant themselves be tested - so even if Pizzagate is entirely fake and nothing more than a fantasy concocted by autistic "Russians" (even that is fake news), it behooves the citizenry to not be thwarted, so easily, by the "fake news" brand being propagated by the powers that be. One should not be so quick to dismiss the pizzagate controversy. There really is bad stuff like this happening, and it is of such a heinous nature that there would be riots in the streets. If you haven't seen this, you're not making an honest effort to discover it, because the evidence is there. Please, do not be so dismissive - this is a heinous scenario. Our governments have failed us in this situation, and it is up to we, the citizens, to deal with the aftermath. Ritual sexual abuse is a thing in our governments. It is heinous and vile, and that is why we are being kept from the truth.