Wiki leaks John Podesta / Ed Mitchell email

[Longeyes]

This is hitting the news

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...Julian-Assange

Good inside view here from someone who worked closely with Ed

http://rebeccahardcastlewright.com/2...a-is-accurate/

[M-Albion-3D]

​Comment in "The Express"

"Mrs Clinton has vowed to "get to the bottom" of questions about UFOs and open up the mysterious X Files if she is elected in November."

Hillary has got about as much chance of getting to the bottom of a can of baked beans than opening up this subject. This evil woman is merely a "sock puppet" for Soros and his horned buddies!

If she gets the chair, she will be told what and when to do it. Hopefully, she will not be told to "press the button" but alas, I feel it is only time before she does.

[calikid]

​Comment in "The Express"

"Mrs Clinton has vowed to "get to the bottom" of questions about UFOs and open up the mysterious X Files if she is elected in November."

Hillary has got about as much chance of getting to the bottom of a can of baked beans than opening up this subject. This evil woman is merely a "sock puppet" for Soros and his horned buddies!

If she gets the chair, she will be told what and when to do it. Hopefully, she will not be told to "press the button" but alas, I feel it is only time before she does.

While I am encouraged that this particular candidate has at least broached the subject, she would hardly be the first politician to say one thing and do another.

Let's stick with the thread 's topic about the Podesta Gmail release. Was there any one email you have researched that would help us all reach the same conclusion?
I have read a few but not all of the emails yet.
Or are you just stating a personal opinion?

[M-Albion-3D]

While I am encouraged that this particular candidate has at least broached the subject, she would hardly be the first politician to say one thing and do another.

Let's stick with the thread 's topic about the Podesta Gmail release. Was there any one email you have researched that would help us all reach the same conclusion?
I have read a few but not all of the emails yet.
Or are you just stating a personal opinion?

No, this is just my opinion right now and have not seen any specific email, we shall wait and see as the days unfold. I was commenting on the newspaper link where it was describing her apparent conviction directed towards "the truth" which made me feel naused. This woman lies by just moving her lips!

But you're right, I side stepped here somewhat. Back to the thread.

[Longeyes]

Podesta has responded saying Russians hacked his emails and that it no coincidence they were leaked the just after the video of Trump has emerged

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/12....google.co.uk/

I hate to call it but Putin knows America will be at its weakest when the election is on
Why are the Russians asking people stationed overseas to come home?
Could this be a prelude to War? I read an article today which claimed if Hilary got in Putin would go to war
This article is from June
http://www.inquisitr.com/3225440/hil...a-female-face/

http://www.morningledger.com/world-w...-wins/1381015/

This one mentions the EEPA, guess where the space defence satellites are made? WPAFB

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1397/2
http://www.kmimediagroup.com/contact...am-n-mccasland

Surely not a coincidence that the Ed Mitchell emails also mentioned a war in space.

Becoming clear what Putin is driving at he may well be after a space war. Knocking out satellites would have a massive impact now.

[calikid]

And it becomes a good question; is hacking a government officials email account an act of transparency? Or a criminal act of invasion of privacy?
If a news agency took letters out of Podesta's physical mail box and copied them for publication, would it be a coup or a crime? Tough questions.

I for one always try to treat my email correspondence like a post card. The meaning clear if read in private OR public.

While it is obvious hackers breached the email account, it is less obvious if they were Russian.
Let the FBI worry about who did it. That's what they get paid to do.

[M-Albion-3D]

And it becomes a good question', is hacking a government officials email account an act of transparency? Or a criminal act of invasion of privacy?
If a news agency took letters out of Podesta's mails box and copies them for publication would it be a coup or a crime? Tough questions.

The process of democracy in social order, is many ways is comparable to a court of law. In a court of law, the ultimate objective is to discover and expose the truth of an event(s). Under this pretense, one or more sides "lie" in order to protect themselves. In the US we have what we call "the process of discovery" where each side has the legal right to demand on the other, supporting evidence which their adversary is hoping to conceal. Failure to expose and deliver that requested evidence during the proceeding, is a punishable crime.

Emails are the possible documented evidence that can incriminate a person entering into a criminal offense and in a court of law, are subject to the "Discovery Process".

However, when one side becomes so powerful and corrupted (such as Government and its Administrating body) to the degree, that is can manipulate that discovery process (being the equivalent of investigative MSM Journalism and the press) whereby the other side (we the people) and its elected representatives (the jury) cannot "uncover" the actions and possible transgressions of the other side, we the people then become at a disadvantage in arriving at the truth. When this happens a failure in justice occurs (sound familiar?)

When a person decides to become a public servant to the people, their lives then become public and therefore must expect to be scrutinized.

It appears to me and I think the majority of the American people that crimes have been committed here and as such, we the people must have access to all the evidence to establish if a crime has been committed especially when those people accused are being elected into new leadership.

"In a democracy, the people should never fear its government, it is and must remain the government that should fear its people".

[Longeyes]

And it becomes a good question; is hacking a government officials email account an act of transparency? Or a criminal act of invasion of privacy?
If a news agency took letters out of Podesta's physical mail box and copied them for publication, would it be a coup or a crime? Tough questions.

I for one always try to treat my email correspondence like a post card. The meaning clear if read in private OR public.

While it is obvious hackers breached the email account, it is less obvious if they were Russian.
Let the FBI worry about who did it. That's what they get paid to do.

They already do

WASHINGTON—The Federal Bureau of Investigation suspects Russian intelligence agencies are behind the recent hacking of the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman and of a contractor handling Florida voter data, according to people briefed on the investigations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-russ...ack-1476295233

[CasperParks]

Email accounts are often "hijacked".

Also, made to appear an email is coming from a source when in reality it is not.

That a "from address of an email" can be hijacked and altered puts everyone at risk of false accusations.

Persons or businesses being impersonated are likely unaware it happened.

Then comes the "leaked emails"... Who really knows if alleged leaked emails are real? We live in a world where personal and digital espionage is real.

Here comes the next question: Law enforcement suspects someone is guilty, however cannot prove it in a court of law. What if a gung ho prosecutor or police officer crosses the line and creates "fake emails" and "digital data"? It is unlikely that, a low / middle income suspect is unable to afford high price lawyers and digital forensic teams to uncover the truth.

How trustworthy is digital data?

[calikid]

The process of democracy in social order, is many ways is comparable to a court of law. In a court of law, the ultimate objective is to discover and expose the truth of an event(s). Under this pretense, one or more sides "lie" in order to protect themselves. In the US we have what we call "the process of discovery" where each side has the legal right to demand on the other, supporting evidence which their adversary is hoping to conceal. Failure to expose and deliver that requested evidence during the proceeding, is a punishable crime.

Emails are the possible documented evidence that can incriminate a person entering into a criminal offense and in a court of law, are subject to the "Discovery Process".

However, when one side becomes so powerful and corrupted (such as Government and its Administrating body) to the degree, that is can manipulate that discovery process (being the equivalent of investigative MSM Journalism and the press) whereby the other side (we the people) and its elected representatives (the jury) cannot "uncover" the actions and possible transgressions of the other side, we the people then become at a disadvantage in arriving at the truth. When this happens a failure in justice occurs (sound familiar?)

When a person decides to become a public servant to the people, their lives then become public and therefore must expect to be scrutinized.

It appears to me and I think the majority of the American people that crimes have been committed here and as such, we the people must have access to all the evidence to establish if a crime has been committed especially when those people accused are being elected into new leadership.

"In a democracy, the people should never fear its government, it is and must remain the government that should fear its people".

Without getting too far off topic.

ANY campaign manager has the right to discuss matters in private with his candidate to develop a public strategy, without public scrutiny.
It's called doing their job.
How else could any team build policy, and accept or reject new strategies, without such open private discussions?

As a member of the public, I too am fascinated to see behind the curtain on how they arrive at such decisions.
But as I read, I have to take the source of such half-baked revelations into account.
Regardless of which politician, there was no due process and a lack of reasonable accusations of criminal wrongdoing, to justify seizure and publication of personal communications.
Fishing expeditions for evidence is prohibited in the Free World. (Protects Hillary, Donald, and every US Citizen).
IMHO, the overt criminal act was the theft of the emails, and the questionable (Russian?) motives for their release.

Meanwhile, back at the "UFOs in the News" thread, do we think these email releases (Podesta/Mitchell) takes us any closer to disclosure?