Podesta Emails, part 2

Boxes&Books

CM189191 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

.....any....day....now....

The sheep are funny.


https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795448080317419520

The math:
1/ We've published >7mil emails. Clinton uses pseudonyms and proxies, of which Huma is one, so most need to be read by hand.
2/ At 3 min per email thats 504 officers for 8 days, not including all support and management. So you need around 1000 officers.
3/ To development the workflow and resources for 1000 officers takes many days. Eight is implausible.
4/ Most importantly, this is only a partly paralisable task. Threads, vocab and knowledge flows need to be followed.
5/ That task of following the back and forth doens't work if you have the emails split up to 500 different people for speed.

Assuming that's accurate, maybe Comey should've have kept his mouth shut before commenting on an on-going investigation, which had been closed, on materials he didn't have a warrant for, and hadn't reviewed? Because that's how things normally work, instead of leaking a vague letter to (R) Congress Critters.

Perhaps, maybe, just perhaps, maybe you got it all wrong. Maybe the DOJ applied the pressure. Maybe there is much more to this then some Fox News report. Maybe there are bigger hands at play.
One thing is absolutely certain: You can't fudge the math.

ALWAYS WITH HER

The absence of evidence is proof of cover up. got it.

The point is that you CANNOT FUDGE THE NUMBERS.

The proof are the emails themselves. Do you want me to post every single email so you can try to do the math? Maybe you can come up with a better number?

Let's not waste each others time here.


STILL WITH HER

Gern Blansten

CM189191 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

.....any....day....now....

The sheep are funny.


https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795448080317419520

The math:
1/ We've published >7mil emails. Clinton uses pseudonyms and proxies, of which Huma is one, so most need to be read by hand.
2/ At 3 min per email thats 504 officers for 8 days, not including all support and management. So you need around 1000 officers.
3/ To development the workflow and resources for 1000 officers takes many days. Eight is implausible.
4/ Most importantly, this is only a partly paralisable task. Threads, vocab and knowledge flows need to be followed.
5/ That task of following the back and forth doens't work if you have the emails split up to 500 different people for speed.

Can FBI review 650,000 emails in nine days? Absolutely, says Edward Snowden

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/795435387321655296

There...discussion closed. Their hero hath spoketh.

JimmyV

Crazy talk. The only sensible way to examine 650,000 emails is to print them out onto reams of paper and have the Florida Hanging Chad Guy go through them one by one.

JC29856

https://blog.cylance.com/cylance-discloses-voting-machine-vulnerability

Snowden says research proves voting machines can be hacked with a $30 card! lol

PJ_Soul

JimmyV said:

Crazy talk. The only sensible way to examine 650,000 emails is to print them out onto reams of paper and have the Florida Hanging Chad Guy go through them one by one.

That is actually what I think a lot of people imagine, lol. Like 3 or 4 disheveled FBI agents in a room with no windows, reading each and every email and flagging every single one that contains a word from a massive list of key words that is taped up on the wall so they can consult it.

Boxes&Books

About the work in Haiti and how the Clintons are profiting from a charity (again).
Joe says “they're moving towards a $200 million net worth” and “this isn't about helping poor people, this is about WJC and HRC helping themselves and if this were all about the Clintons just helping poor people instead of making upwards of $200 million, no would have talked about it.” Panel defended WJC and HRC that they aren’t taking money from the foundation but out making an independent living for themselves. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53789
Sounds like they may have screwed up taxes?
I think Haiti relief fund and haiti chai should be seperate items below the line box. Also the way development shows in the top box is weird. One number (2011) is a net and the other (2012) is gross expenses? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53844
Oops. Didn't let the state department know
All - not surprisingly, we've received a number of follow up questions asking for confirmation of the Algeria donation. We could let it sit or confirm for other outlets with the following draft statement: "Immediately following the devastating earthquake in Haiti January 12, 2010, the Embassy of Algeria made an unsolicited donation of $500K to Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief fund. As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for Haiti, the entire amount of Algeria's contribution was distributed as aid. This donation was disclosed publicly on our website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation for Haiti relief and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55210

Boxes&Books

How can anyone say they're proud to be voting for Hillary Clinton?

Just The simple fact that she colluded with the media and accepted debate questions in advance demonstrates terrible character.

How can people continue to make excuse after excuse after excuse for her

Her daughter took a million from the foundation for her wedding.... Shit that would have fed a shit load of people.... Oh but they have an A+ raitting....



PROUD AND IN LOVE- WITH HER

bootlegger10

How did Chelsea take 1,000,000 for the wedding? If that is true the law cannot ignore that.

Boxes&Books

bootlegger10 said:

How did Chelsea take 1,000,000 for the wedding? If that is true the law cannot ignore that.

Hahaha... The law? Not sure if that applies to the Clintons.

bootlegger10

tonifig8 said:

bootlegger10 said:

How did Chelsea take 1,000,000 for the wedding? If that is true the law cannot ignore that.

Hahaha... The law? Not sure if that applies to the Clintons.

It doesn't for sure. Hopefully there is an investigation. Crazy what these people have said in email.

PJ_Soul

bootlegger10 said:

How did Chelsea take 1,000,000 for the wedding? If that is true the law cannot ignore that.

There isn't any proof of that at all at the moment, so there isn't much point in talking about it. If actual evidence is found of that (which I doubt, but you never know), then yeah, worth talking about.
Although nobody ever talks about how Trump steals money from his foundation, and there is proof of that, so maybe everyone should just ignore all of it, eh?

PJ_Soul

tonifig8 said:

How can anyone say they're proud to be voting for Hillary Clinton?

Just The simple fact that she colluded with the media and accepted debate questions in advance demonstrates terrible character.

How can people continue to make excuse after excuse after excuse for her

Her daughter took a million from the foundation for her wedding.... Shit that would have fed a shit load of people.... Oh but they have an A+ raitting....



PROUD AND IN LOVE- WITH HER

Aren't you voting for Trump?? Or am I mistaken about that?

rgambs

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

.....any....day....now....

The sheep are funny.


https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795448080317419520

The math:
1/ We've published >7mil emails. Clinton uses pseudonyms and proxies, of which Huma is one, so most need to be read by hand.
2/ At 3 min per email thats 504 officers for 8 days, not including all support and management. So you need around 1000 officers.
3/ To development the workflow and resources for 1000 officers takes many days. Eight is implausible.
4/ Most importantly, this is only a partly paralisable task. Threads, vocab and knowledge flows need to be followed.
5/ That task of following the back and forth doens't work if you have the emails split up to 500 different people for speed.

Assuming that's accurate, maybe Comey should've have kept his mouth shut before commenting on an on-going investigation, which had been closed, on materials he didn't have a warrant for, and hadn't reviewed? Because that's how things normally work, instead of leaking a vague letter to (R) Congress Critters.

Perhaps, maybe, just perhaps, maybe you got it all wrong. Maybe the DOJ applied the pressure. Maybe there is much more to this then some Fox News report. Maybe there are bigger hands at play.
One thing is absolutely certain: You can't fudge the math.

ALWAYS WITH HER

The absence of evidence is proof of cover up. got it.

The point is that you CANNOT FUDGE THE NUMBERS.

The proof are the emails themselves. Do you want me to post every single email so you can try to do the math? Maybe you can come up with a better number?

Let's not waste each others time here.


STILL WITH HER

Care to respond to Snowden's assertion that it would be easy peasy?

Boxes&Books

https://pardonmanning.wordpress.com/write-to-michelle-obama/

Boxes&Books

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795747649563557888

Boxes&Books

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795778694904221696

PJ_Soul

tonifig8 said:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795778694904221696

Again, seems like the only person with a problem here is Donna Brazille.

So anyway, aren't you voting for Trump? I'm just wondering, given that the negative stuff you say about Clinton supporters applies to those who will vote for Trump ten-fold.

lukin2006

^^^why are you asking who he/she is voting for, who a person is voting for is no one business...

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

^^^why are you asking who he/she is voting for, who a person is voting for is no one business...

There is nothing wrong with asking, and I think he's already said before anyhow - i am just checking to see if I'm remembering it right. It is up to you if you want to tell or not, not up to me to not ask. I would personally never keep such a thing a secret. And I will take his silence as a yes. If I'm right, then WOW, talk about a hypocrite.

Boxes&Books

"I spoke w Arianna... She is enthusiastic abt the project but asks if she's more useful to us not being on the Board... instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts." - DNC discussing Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53056