On #PodestaEmails

[vooke]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...inton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

The article seeks to answer the question whether the emails are doctored.
The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent. We asked the campaign, and they directed us to various news reports about the DNC hack, government concerns that Russia might fake evidence of voter fraud, and fake news sites spreading false information about the WikiLeaks emails.

Content from External Source

The bold is what caught my attention. On one hand there is the general notion that they could be doctored but there is absolutely no evidence.

I feel the claims of possibility of doctoring should be dismissed or at least those claiming should be tasked to give evidence.

Here's CNN's Wolf Blitzer pursuing this line of questioning on Adam Schiff

Source: https://youtu.be/jBjlRs8cXB8

5:34
Schiff: 'To get a last minute dump of emails that contain fabricated emails that are widely reported in the press, and there isn’t enough time to fact check and demonstrate the forgery, that is what really concerns me.”

Blitzer: "have you confirmed that any of these emails released over the past two weeks, if you will, by Wikileaks are fabricated or doctored?”

Schiff: “You know I’m not in a position to be able to do that..."


If DNC wishes to cast aspersions on authenticity of #PodestaEmails, they should back them up instead of muddying up the lillegality and motives of the hack with the actual content of the emails

 

[deirdre]

I'm unsure why it would matter if Kaine was "sold" as being the VP choice in 2015 to fellow democrats. But the answers to your 'assertions' seem to be in the very article you link.

So why doesn’t the Clinton campaign provide some evidence that emails have been doctored, like publishing original emails? Experts pointed to political calculation.

By saying the emails may be inaccurate generally, the campaign can plausibly deny certain facts that the emails reveal. If they offer proof that a particular leaked email is fake, however, that risks giving the impression that any emails they do not refute are accurate. Or they just might not want the original email to become public for any number of reasons.

Content from External Source

This explanation seems plausible to me. I've personally heard many "false flag" hoaxers claim that if we dont bother to debunk something that means it must be true. (Which of course is not at all true)




As far as there being "no evidence", I personally find it suspicious that some emails released didnt have the digital signature. Is there an innocuous reason the digital signature would be missing?

We do know, though, that no one has doctored this particular email. Well-known hacker Robert Graham verified the email’s digital signature, a tool email providers use to confirm that an email actually came from the provider’s server without alteration.

These digital signatures are embedded in the raw sources available on the WikiLeaks website and can be used to "concretely prove that many of the emails in the Wikileaks dump are undoctored," said cybersecurity consultant Matt Tait.

However, some of the emails in the WikiLeaks dump — especially among emails sent to Podesta — don’t have these signatures and can’t be technically verified. And digital signature verification wouldn’t detect tampering by omission, like if the hackers were to withhold certain emails.

Content from External Source

 

[JRBids]

So why doesn’t the Clinton campaign provide some evidence that emails have been doctored, like publishing original emails? Experts pointed to political calculation.

Content from External Source

Weren't these emails recovered, after being deleted? How can the Clinton campaign publish the original emails?

 

[vooke]

@deirdre,
I would have expected politifact to dismiss claims without evidence as false but instead they have suggested reasons why no evidence may accompany these claims. Interesting

Another reason for no evidence is; there's zero evidence to back up the claims

 

[deirdre]

Hillary's team made claims of forgery? Who is Adam Schiff? I havent really been following the issue.

is this part of the issue?

CLAIM:( FALSE ): WikiLeaks was caught by Newsweek fabricating e-mails with the intent of damaging the campaign of Hillary Clinton. http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-phony-hillary-clinton-emails/

The article was based on a 10 October 2016 piece penned by Eichenwald which went viral and has since been significantly edited. Daily News Bin asserted that Eichenwald "proved" the inauthenticity of "Podesta Emails" in his article, but what his piece actually claimed was that the Russian news outlet Sputnik had (deliberately) misreported the content of a leaked e-mail, and that Donald Trump's repetition of that misreporting
proved he was sourcing information fed to him by Russian propaganda outlets attempting to manipulate the 2016 election in Trumps' favor.

What Eichenwald wrote was that a leaked e-mail showed that Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal had forwarded to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta a lengthy article he (i.e., Eichenwald) had written, but the Russian news outlet Sputnik misreported the nature of that e-mail and claimed that Blumenthal himself had penned the material he forwarded to Podesta:

Content from External Source

Another obvious reason of why there may be no evidence coming forth is because there is none.

That's possible of course. But without knowing exactly what emails you are talking about so we can examine the facts individually and specifically, there is no evidence of your opinion on the matter either.

I wonder why the article missed this obvious plausible reason

well the article did say

Or they just might not want the original email to become public for any number of reasons.

 

[deirdre]

i'm also a bit curious why you left out the content of your Schiff transcript in the OP. what he says is:


“What worries me the most … is between now and the election the Russians dump information that is fabricated,” Schiff warned. “To get a last minute dump of emails that contain fabricated emails that are widely reported in the press, and there isn’t enough time to fact check and demonstrate the forgery, that is what really concerns me.”

 

[Hama Neggs]

claim that if we dont bother to debunk something that means it must be true.

Or claim that because someone tries to debunk something, it must be true.

 

[Whitebeard]

Or claim that because someone tries to debunk something, it must be true.

Yup, when living in the rabbit hole you can have your cake AND eat it

 

[Efftup]

Yup, when living in the rabbit hole you can have your cake AND eat it

AND it will make you both bigger AND smaller at the same time.

 

[SR1419]

Weren't these emails recovered, after being deleted? How can the Clinton campaign publish the original emails?

I think you are confusing emails. There are essentially 2 sets (now 3 really after FBI announcement yesterday). The emails in this thread are from John Podesta- they were hacked from his email account. The "deleted" emails were from Clinton herself as SOS and on her private server.