3 ms·

Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actu

Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actually his laptop.

rhino369 6y ago
Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-control-over-cdc-reports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
  - svrb 6y ago
    So something like > The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
  - aksss 6y ago
    Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Tax returns would be harder to verify I think. Email is super simple and cryptographic (virtually tamper proof). Just publish the full, raw email with all the headers. And it’s not a lack of easy confirmation. It’s trivial to say conclusively whether or not that email was processed by Gmail. If it wasn’t it’s 100% guaranteed to be a really poor quality fake. If it went through Gmail and has the proper signatures, then it’s not as easy to confirm or refute because you’d need a lot more info from the mail providers.

3 ms·

Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actu

by donmcronald 6y ago

Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actually his laptop.

rhino369 6y ago
Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-control-over-cdc-reports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
  - svrb 6y ago
    So something like > The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
  - aksss 6y ago
    Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Tax returns would be harder to verify I think. Email is super simple and cryptographic (virtually tamper proof). Just publish the full, raw email with all the headers. And it’s not a lack of easy confirmation. It’s trivial to say conclusively whether or not that email was processed by Gmail. If it wasn’t it’s 100% guaranteed to be a really poor quality fake. If it went through Gmail and has the proper signatures, then it’s not as easy to confirm or refute because you’d need a lot more info from the mail providers.