Wouldn’t political operatives want to find Hillary’s emails?
Some interesting speculations by Byron York, a man who doesn’t have a history of defending the Trump camp.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Some interesting speculations by Byron York, a man who doesn’t have a history of defending the Trump camp.
I doubt know how to search this blog’s comments, but I am fairly sure I posted here that someone has her deleted emails.
Her lawyers, for sure, have copies. In dealing with criminals like the Clintons, David Kendall (her lawyer) knows the power of insurance. Also great blackmail material to make sure his bill gets paid. The deleted emails would be worth at least 25% of her net worth. She either pays up, or he sells it to the highest bidder. Unethical, but when did that ever bother the Clintons. Know your client!
To be clear, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have all of Hillary’s deleted emails. Israel too.
To be clear, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have all of Hillary’s deleted emails. Israel too.
Cornhead: When you’re right, you’re right.
I really hate when people gloss over what an unmitigated, unprecedented disaster Obama and Clinton were to national cybersecurity multiple times.
I know you’re not supposed to ask “What about?” but Don Jr.’s mal-whatever looks like jaywalking in comparison.
Don’t forget Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
Cornhead:
Try googling:
site:http:neoneocon.com cornhead deleted emails
Better:
site:neoneocon.com cornhead deleted emails
If they had them, it seems to me that there are only two reasons for those countries to NOT release the emails.
Either they preferred Hillary, thinking she would be easier to deal with than Trump and/or to use them as ‘leverage’ when she won.
huxley,
The difference between “what about” for Clinton and for someone who did something 50 years ago is pretty big. The Clintonistas are still trying to sell her as the legitimate winner of the election. When I say “what about,” it is to show the resistance why she lost and why they should have picked a better candidate.
My theory was that Israel would release the deleted emails in October to make sure HRC lost. But maybe the real value was in blackmailing her if she won.
I still think someone or some country has them.
The NSA and its brothers have copies.
They copy just about everything Internet.
That the traffic is going to and fro the SecState’s account ?
That would have EVERY major power drooling.
Look what happened to Zimmerman’s electronic mail !
Cornhead,
I gave that some thought. Another factor for Israel is its dependence upon American support. If Israel had them and released them in Oct. and was caught interfering in a US Presidential election… what might the possible repercussions entail? Could they risk that?
blert,
I thought of the NSA too. If anyone has them, they do. But the last thing the Deep State would wish is for Hillary’s mendacity to be exposed. So they’re “in good hands” with the NSA.
I would think the odds are astronomical that someone _doesn’t_ have the e-mails.
A few weeks ago, completely by accident, I found copies of a couple Orch-85 files (similar to MIDI files) of Rush songs that a friend and I had transcribed in order to play the songs on his TRS-80. This was around 1983 and my friend sadly passed away more than 25 years ago.
These files are from over a third of a century ago, and came from the only person who had copies (I never did) who passed away before the vast majority of people had ever even heard of the Internet and the WWW had barely been invented.
Now, granted this was not something that was being actively hidden, but it just goes to show how persistent digital data that is of interest to someone can be.
Not sure why York has several repeats of how an email or some digital file on the internet never disappears. Makes it seem mysterious.
No mystery to it at all.
Emails have two parties: the sender, and the receiver.
The sender can delete all their emails on their server, but they can never touch the receivers’ emails on another server.
If the thousands of deleted emails were sent by clinton to others who used government email servers, they should have been archived, as part of best practices.
It should always have been a technically trivial matter to do a database search for those emails, though it may have taken some serious effort and resources to restore each archive and run a search.
IIRC, seems the government lost some of those archives, or recycle the tapes, or some such bs answer that placated too many.
.
“Byron York, a man who doesn’t have a history of defending the Trump camp” – Neo
Sort of true prior to the election. Since, he’s been more fashionably supportive.
Take this article you linked.
My guess, the clue is in the title. “What campaign wouldn’t”.
And, he proceeds to talk at length about clinton emails.
Not really any new news.
So why now?
Could it be he wants to deflect some of the heat off of trump jr?
The topic is rather adjacent to that real issue.
blert said: That the traffic is going to and fro the SecState’s account ?
Much less the SecState’s insecure, private account.
And, he proceeds to talk at length about clinton emails.
Not really any new news.
So why now?” -Big Maq
Maybe because of this:
The saga of Peter Smith’s quest to obtain 33,000 emails deleted by Hillary Clinton–an effort now at the center of intrigue swirling around the Donald Trump campaign’s ties to Russia–keeps getting weirder.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/11/gop-researcher-who-sought-clinton-emails-had-alt-right-help-215359
It’s in the news as the media keeps the story that just won’t die alive.
Isn’t it a legitimate question?
Hey Maq!
Proverbs 26:27 – “Malice backfires; spite boomerangs.” or if you prefer “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling.”
The Clintons started this “muh Russia” bonfire…you can’t deflect the heat now that the winds are changing & the fire line might move their way.
The reason we haven’t seen those emails is no one needs the leverage yet.
The difference between “what about” for Clinton and for someone who did something 50 years ago is pretty big.
expat: Not sure of your point. I’m in no way singling you out for “what about.”
And 50 years ago is 1967.
Who are you talking about?
John Guilfoyle:
First I read that Proverb, I thought of Wiley Coyote.
Huxley,
What I’m trying to say is that raising a “what about” question over Clinton is reasonable to me because she is still considered the real winner by many resisters. Talking about her is very different from pulling someone out of the past to justify something Trump does or did. The people who supported Clinton ignored her behavior but pick on everything Trump has said or done. I think lots of Trump voters were probably votes against Hillary. There is nothing wrong with telling people why you didn’t support Hillary.
I’m for someone defeating Stabenow.
I’d prefer it was Bob Young.
Wrong blog. Sorry.
Cleanup on aisle 3?
There is nothing wrong with telling people why you didn’t support Hillary.
expat: Agreed. I thought you were making a specific point about someone from 1967.
Speaking of 1967, the 50th anniversary remastering of Sgt. Pepper’s is a definite improvement.
If you are into the Beatles, 1967 and Sgt. Pepper’s….
My post from about a year ago,
“Cornhead Says:
July 29th, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Correction. Sorensen.
Hillary is finished and she knows it. I’m sure I posted here that some foreign power hacked her private email server in real time. That foreign country has 33,000 of the deleted emails. I think the hacker is Israel. They just disguised themselves as Russia.
Russia knows that the Muslims own the Clintons. Look at who donated to the Clinton Foundation. And Israel could never match that oil money. The emails will expose the entire bribery scheme.
And what a pathetic speech by HRC. “I love children. I am a woman.” BFD. What have you ever done other than enrich yourself?”
Special Counsel Mueller should hire me. Ready for action!
Trump Jr. was trying to find out the extent of Hillary’s lawbreaking. Whether he intended to sell out his country for the information is entirely speculative.
That’s not a decision one can make without knowing what the dirt is.
So Hillary = absolute certainty of guilt.
Trump Jr. = hypothetical guilt.
Let’s not forget that the Clintons have a long, long history of sleaze, corruption, and deceit. Impeachment overshadowed this, but there were very serious problems with the 1996 campaign, with millions of dollars coming in from foreign sources, and China trying to influence the Clinton administration.
And now there is this ridiculous hysteria over Russia and this alleged “collusion.” What we know for certain about Russia is that they were engaged in information gathering and persuasion, which is what all countries do. As for Trump, it is normal to look for damaging information about one’s political opponents, as it is simply what all campaigns do. This is all the more ironic, with the well-documented past record of the Clintons, the suspicion that Hillary Clinton may very well have other things to hide, and the fact that her campaign was willing to spend one billion dollars in an attempt to win the Presidency.
Have we already forgotten the 2000 campaign, where the news of George W. Bush’s DUI arrest was leaked by a Democrat operative just a few days before the election? Who else knew about that, and how long were they sitting on it? If there was anything like that about Mr. Trump out there, we would have surely heard about it in the 2016 campaign.
So far, the only real crimes in this whole affair have been Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server and her unilateral deletion of all those e-mails under subpoena, plus the ongoing leaks of classified information to the media (all very coincidentally designed to damage the Trump administration). James Comey was a hack and deserved to be fired. So far, Robert Mueller does not look very promising. Drain that swamp, Donald.
Ed…
😉
It’s laughable to believe that anyone would agree to sell out his country without knowing what dirt on Hillary he will be getting and it’s even more laughable to believe anyone would agree to sell out his country for nothing that could incriminating Hillary but instead podesta’s emails exposed his spirit cooking hobby to the world. I am sure that revelation must have swayed many voters from voting for Hillary to Trump.
expat Says:
July 17th, 2017 at 8:31 pm
Huxley,
What I’m trying to say is that raising a “what about” question over Clinton is reasonable to me because she is still considered the real winner by many resisters. Talking about her is very different from pulling someone out of the past to justify something Trump does or did. The people who supported Clinton ignored her behavior but pick on everything Trump has said or done. I think lots of Trump voters were probably votes against Hillary. There is nothing wrong with telling people why you didn’t support Hillary.
* * *
I’m not opposed to what-abouting when it goes to show the double-standards of the accusers, so long as one does not use it to justify the (alleged) actions of the accused — assuming, of course, that the (alleged) actions are reprehensible in the first place.
If the thousands of deleted emails were sent by clinton to others who used government email servers, they should have been archived, as part of best practices.
I think the chances that Huma Abedin was cc’d on almost every email are close to 100%. I’d guess that at least some of those deleted 30K could be found among the 60K that Huma had saved off to her personal, shared laptop in a folder labeled “Insurance.”
It may well be that in addition to some foreign actors having Hillary’s emails, someone in the NYC police may have copies of the emails from Huma’s laptop. However, as long as people who threaten the Clintons keep mysteriously killing themselves/dying, they may only come to light after Hillary passes away.
Mysterious, yes. Like Breitbart.