3 ms·

Worth noting that DNI Ratcliffe is the most unqualified DNI to be appointed (and only managed to get appointed on his second try by a minority), is a Trump loya

Worth noting that DNI Ratcliffe is the most unqualified DNI to be appointed (and only managed to get appointed on his second try by a minority), is a Trump loyalist, lied in his bio (disqualifying, I'd say) and appears to follow QAnon (but that could be for work purposes.) The zerohedge URL is truncated and consequently doesn't work. > And here's the NYPost article itself, excerpts included: Show us the DKIM headers and let us verify the authenticity, then we'll talk about the content of the emails.

jessaustin 6y ago
...DKIM... My understanding is that the purported emails were sent to Biden. He can't really do anything to control what is sent to him, so verifying that these emails were sent doesn't really prove anything. If he had forwarded the emails in a way that indicated his agreement, or if they had been sent by someone else connected to the candidate, that would be a situation in which DKIM would be relevant.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > He can't really do anything to control what is sent to him In which case the whole situation is nonsense and moot. But it appears that some of them are from Biden - "The New York Post cited a purported email from Hunter Biden in August 2017 indicating he was receiving a $10m annual fee from a Chinese billionaire" - in which case the DKIM headers would be a simple check on authenticity, no?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Sure, if he is alleged to have sent an incriminating email, the headers should be published along with the exact contents so that the public may judge for ourselves. This was done for the Clinton 2016 emails that clearly showed undemocratic interference in the primary elections. So, the fact that they haven't been published in this case does make the whole story less believable. The journalists involved this time probably aren't as smart as Wikileaks, but that's no reason their reporting shouldn't be held to the same standard.

jessaustin 6y ago

...DKIM... My understanding is that the purported emails were sent to Biden. He can't really do anything to control what is sent to him, so verifying that these emails were sent doesn't really prove anything. If he had forwarded the emails in a way that indicated his agreement, or if they had been sent by someone else connected to the candidate, that would be a situation in which DKIM would be relevant.

zimpenfish 6y ago
> He can't really do anything to control what is sent to him In which case the whole situation is nonsense and moot. But it appears that some of them are from Biden - "The New York Post cited a purported email from Hunter Biden in August 2017 indicating he was receiving a $10m annual fee from a Chinese billionaire" - in which case the DKIM headers would be a simple check on authenticity, no?
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Sure, if he is alleged to have sent an incriminating email, the headers should be published along with the exact contents so that the public may judge for ourselves. This was done for the Clinton 2016 emails that clearly showed undemocratic interference in the primary elections. So, the fact that they haven't been published in this case does make the whole story less believable. The journalists involved this time probably aren't as smart as Wikileaks, but that's no reason their reporting shouldn't be held to the same standard.