Bill Barr and his October Surprise - Page 10

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

This is exactly it - you don't want to give it oxygen. Denials are never as impactful as scandal, regardless of whether or not the scandal is obviously fake, and by engaging with it all you're doing is providing the media the opportunity to run stories on your engagement.

Its the Streisand Effect, only moreso because FOX, OANN, Breitbart, etc. weren't specifically out to get Streisand, and that story wasn't deliberately seeded in order to be propagated in this manner.

No. The Streisand Effect is where you try to keep something out of the public consciousness and your efforts to keep it out of the public consciousness get everybody interested in what you are trying to hide. Stating that something is false may have negative consequences, but it isn't the Streisand Effect.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 17th October 2020, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

My point is that no evidence has been presented that it's Russian disinfo, and no name is attached to anyone with authority that it's Russian disinfo. This is Steel Dossier 101 stuff all over again.

There's stronger evidence for it being Russian disinfo than there is for it being legitimate.

Exhibit A is the fact that it comes from Giuliani who hasn't exactly made a secret of the fact that he's spent much of the last year or so palling around with known and sanctioned active Russian intelligence agent Andrii Derkach, and that he was doing so in order to find dirt on Biden. And that's just one of Giuliani's ties to Russia.

Firestone · 17th October 2020, 08:53 AM

Judging by what Giuliani himself is saying, there isn't much meat on the alleged Hunter Biden's hard drive. And absolutely nothing criminal attributed to Joe Biden.

It's CT territory, even Soros appears in Giuliani's utterings.

Quote:

Giuliani said that prior to the Post’s publication of the story, he told the president “that there were… a number of photographs that show very explicit sexual activity, and other very personal things, and also display criminal conduct.”

But pressed on what in the photos and documents pointed to clear criminality, Giuliani would only point to Hunter Biden’s acknowledged drug use. “Smoking crack is a crime!” he exclaimed.

...

Pressed on why he thought it was appropriate to so aggressively push sordid details of the drug past of the former VP’s son, who has openly discussed his past struggles with addiction, Giuliani insisted it could constitute a “major national-security threat” because it could have opened up Hunter, and therefore 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, to potential blackmailing efforts.

“If you have him on there smoking crack, you have him violating federal law,” he said. “Crack isn’t marijuana… Crack is crack.”

It’s a ridiculous assertion, of course. Hunter Biden has publicly admitted to his struggles with substance abuse—and such an admission would puncture any blackmail or national security issue. Addiction specialists have excoriated members of Team Trump for making similar claims.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-g...dirt-on-bidens

Squeegee Beckenheim · 17th October 2020, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

It's Steele Dossier 101 level nonsense. No one of authority has come out and said this is Russian disinformation. All there is is "people familiar with the matter" and the media burned that bridge a long time ago.

Leaving aside the fact that you're side-stepping your own dishonesty there, you can say that "the media" aren't credible when they refer to sources (which I'll accept as true just for the sake of argument), but that doesn't imply that Giuliani is even half as credible as that. Giuliani is a total clown shoe.

varwoche · 17th October 2020, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

What am I making up? I’d like to see a quote of my post doing so, please.

There couldn’t have been any contact details left, because imaginary people can’t leave contact details when they don’t leave imaginary laptops without imaginary stickers on with a man with an imaginary medical condition.

I can say where that comes from in a general sense.

Whatever the motivation, people apply scientific burden of proof to events/topics in the socio-political domain. And whatever the motivation, it's mighty unimpressive.

Elagabalus · 17th October 2020, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

Nope, didn't evade, it's your memory and comprehension problem, not mine.

"This has nothing to do with the election"

Is your original statement I responded to. Now you are switching it to "how is it connected to the Biden campaign."

Those are two different things. I evaded nothing. It has nothing to do with the Biden campaign, this all happened way before any Biden for President campaign.

If you think that supposed emails in the hand of the the former VP's son getting funny money from China and sharing it with his dad isn't going to sway some voters, keep kidding yourself on that is all I have to say.

I heard you same people blame Comey for exonerating Clinton a few days before the election for Trump's win 4 years ago. You think they aren't going to drip this Biden stuff? You think this has nothing to do with the election?

Or do you realize your snark about me "evading" was misplaced because you can't remember what you said?

Dude, you're evading so much you should start thinking about evasion therapy.

I Am The Scum · 17th October 2020, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Like I said, it depends what is being refuted. If I'm saying that the emails on the laptop aren't mine, then that is easily dealt with since I have access to my own email.

Again, you're badly missing the mark. To you, the investigation never moves past the abstract. "Just prove the e-mails aren't there." Okay, but how is that done? You still haven't explained that part.

We'll try it like this: I want you to prove that the heroin e-mail I claimed to have sent you (for the sake of argument) never actually arrived in your inbox. Do not speculate on what could be done. Actually do it.

Elagabalus · 17th October 2020, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Judging by what Giuliani himself is saying, there isn't much meat on the alleged Hunter Biden's hard drive. And absolutely nothing criminal attributed to Joe Biden.

It's CT territory, even Soros appears in Giuliani's utterings.

What about a coked up Don Jr. at the RNC convention. Isn't THAT a security threat?

Firestone · 17th October 2020, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

What about a coked up Don Jr. at the RNC convention. Isn't THAT a security threat?

Or Trump and Kushner owing hundred of millions of $ to foreign banks?

But yeah, Hunter Biden!

Armitage72 · 17th October 2020, 10:18 AM

I've gained exclusive access to one of the incriminating photos from Hunter Biden's laptop. It shows incontrovertible evidence of Hunter meeting with a dangerous enemy of America.

Stacyhs · 17th October 2020, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It is unreasonable. The story is fishier than a tin of sardines.

Trump lies don't need to be the least bit credible. He puts them out there then cries CT when they are discredited. And sadly people suck up the nonsense the same way they have latched onto Qanon which is as ludicrous as claiming lizard people are running the country.

You misunderstand. I meant it would not be unreasonable for Hunter to go to Delaware, not that he did go to Delaware. After all, that is where his father lives and where he grew up. TahiniBS was attempting to twist my meaning. I agree that the whole Hunter B computer story is, as you put it, fishier than a tin of sardines. Rudy G. is has become nothing but a useful idiot of the Russians.

Firestone · 17th October 2020, 10:49 AM

Why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate:

Quote:

Common practice in these operations is to load the bait files with plenty of genuine hacked/stolen documents, photos, etc., then salt them with some forgeries. This was the technique, for example, in Russia's election-eve onslaught against Macron: /1

This technique puts the target in a position where they cannot deny the genuineness of some of the materials (which might be proved by other means) but also must not seem to be conceding the genuineness of all the materials (which would tend to validate the salted forgeries). /2

All things to keep in mind when someone demands to know why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate. The method of the operation might be to place him in just such a position. /3, efn

https://twitter.com/walterolson/stat...196722177?s=19

TellyKNeasuss · 17th October 2020, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Like I said, it depends what is being refuted. If I'm saying that the emails on the laptop aren't mine, then that is easily dealt with since I have access to my own email. If I am claiming they were altered, then again I have access to my emails so I can prove it. If I am claiming that the emails on the laptop are mine, but some additional emails have been slipped in, then I would expect the logs of Apple, or the other service providers who handled the email, to be able to show that the emails weren't sent. Given that the FBI are involved and presumably the owners of the mailboxes would be cooperative, this doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility.

1) You're assuming that the photo is a photo of an actual email message. AFAIK, that hasn't been proven.
2) I can list all the email on my computer, but that doesn't prove that I never had a particular message and subsequently deleted it. Therefore, there is no way for me to prove that I never received a particular message.

Skeptic Ginger · 17th October 2020, 11:07 AM

The whole Hunter emails nonsense is actually being investigated by the FBI but not as Biden corruption, rather they are investigating Russian influence behind the materials. Trump is going to be sorry what he wished for if he asks Barr or Wray to release what they have found about the emails.

AP via Yahoo: Biden email episode illustrates risk to Trump from Giuliani

Stacyhs · 17th October 2020, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate:

Exactly.

Biden is in a no win situation anyway. No matter whether Biden denied the emails or not, it wouldn't matter; the Fox pundits and Trumpers would attack him anyway just as they did Obama on the birth certificate.

The FBI is investigating this and the Bidens are wisely letting them handle it. They have the experts and the means to determine if this is a Russian manipulation.

llwyd · 17th October 2020, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

... to determine if this is a Russian manipulation.

With Giuliani, of all deranged and corrupt people, in the background, you could almost exchange "if" with "that"...

TellyKNeasuss · 17th October 2020, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So, let me get this straight.

HB is living in Calif. when he supposedly drops off this old computer in Delaware on the other side of the country.

TBS explains this by saying HB goes back to Delaware for some reason. Easily enough checked by flight records/credit card records/ witness accounts etc.

But then HB, for some unexplained reason, just leaves the computer at the store without ever picking it up. It was important enough to take to the store for repair, but not important enough to pick up. For reasons. Despite having damaging emails of his father who is running for President of the US and a sex/drug video of himself.

That has been explaine already. Please pay attention:

If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it.

Skeptic Ginger · 17th October 2020, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

That has been explaine already. Please pay attention:

If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it.

Oh puhleese!

You take the hard drive out and destroy it.

Sorry if I missed your sarcasm.

Stacyhs · 17th October 2020, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So, let me get this straight.

HB is living in Calif. when he supposedly drops off this old computer in Delaware on the other side of the country.

TBS explains this by saying HB goes back to Delaware for some reason. Easily enough checked by flight records/credit card records/ witness accounts etc.

But then HB, for some unexplained reason, just leaves the computer at the store without ever picking it up. It was important enough to take to the store for repair, but not important enough to pick up. For reasons. Despite having damaging emails of his father who is running for President of the US and a sex/drug video of himself.

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

That has been explaine already. Please pay attention:

If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it.

Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said.

Tero · 17th October 2020, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

There is no chain of evidence issue. The FBI came and took the original hard drive. Making mirrors of a hard drive is in no way tampering.

The FBI took something, or nothing. We have only a receipt for a computer in the NYPost article. A third page is added to the document there, but has no connection to the other two pages.

So we know that the FBI received a MacBook Pro from someone and then Giuliani presents this as evidence that it is Hunter Biden's MacBook. It could have been any MacBook anywhere with that number.

The third page is a printed receipt for a computer. Anyone can print that. I can print that with Word.

Beelzebuddy · 17th October 2020, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said.

That's why it's brilliant, don't you see? It's like when you need to hide a body, it's best to take it straight into the police station. It's the last place they'll ever look!

TellyKNeasuss · 17th October 2020, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said.

No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal.

Stacyhs · 17th October 2020, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal.

I'd have to change parties to make a good criminal.

Elagabalus · 17th October 2020, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal.

But what happens if want to save that favorite photo of yourself with a crack pipe?

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Again, you're badly missing the mark. To you, the investigation never moves past the abstract. "Just prove the e-mails aren't there." Okay, but how is that done? You still haven't explained that part.

We'll try it like this: I want you to prove that the heroin e-mail I claimed to have sent you (for the sake of argument) never actually arrived in your inbox. Do not speculate on what could be done. Actually do it.

Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin.

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Maybe they will produce proof like this.

Pretending that what is easy for a campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars and with institutional support should necessarily be easy for me is feeble.

dirtywick · 17th October 2020, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Exactly.

Biden is in a no win situation anyway. No matter whether Biden denied the emails or not, it wouldn't matter; the Fox pundits and Trumpers would attack him anyway just as they did Obama on the birth certificate.

The FBI is investigating this and the Bidens are wisely letting them handle it. They have the experts and the means to determine if this is a Russian manipulation.

Plus, as hard as Fox is trying, nobody is picking this garbage up. There’s no reason to address it, nobody cares what Giuliani says.

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

1) You're assuming that the photo is a photo of an actual email message. AFAIK, that hasn't been proven.

I'm not sure I'm assuming that at all.

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

2) I can list all the email on my computer, but that doesn't prove that I never had a particular message and subsequently deleted it. Therefore, there is no way for me to prove that I never received a particular message.

These emails involved multiple cloud email providers, as well as a DC based international law firm and I don't know who else. There are going to be logs there, and in the case of the law firm probably non-alterable copies of the email, if anybody wants to look at them.

Babbylonian · 17th October 2020, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin.

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Have I mentioned before that retaining e-mails indefinitely is not a standard practice? Have I also mentioned that some people delete e-mails immediately? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Apple would not have copies of e-mails or records of sending/receiving just because someone is using a Mac to deal with their e-mail.

Your continued insistence that it would be easy to disprove the authenticity of a faked e-mail is at odds with reality.

Given that nothing about the story makes sense in reality, as noted more than once, there is no benefit to the Bidens or the Biden campaign to substantively address this non-scandal.

Elagabalus · 17th October 2020, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure I'm assuming that at all.

These emails involved multiple cloud email providers, as well as a DC based international law firm and I don't know who else. There are going to be logs there, and in the case of the law firm probably non-alterable copies of the email, if anybody wants to look at them.

Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password?

Babbylonian · 17th October 2020, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password?

E-mails would typically be downloaded to the hard drive as they are read. Depending on the provider's settings (and perhaps user settings), they can even be automatically deleted from the server upon download. This is less common now that e-mails are accessed from multiple devices since it would be inconvenient to open an e-mail on a PC and then not have it for reference if needed on a smartphone.

Still, a smart computer user shouldn't keep every e-mail message after dealing with it and should only retain those that have important information, and deleting an e-mail locally should always delete the e-mail on the remote server.

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Have I mentioned before that retaining e-mails indefinitely is not a standard practice? Have I also mentioned that some people delete e-mails immediately? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Apple would not have copies of e-mails or records of sending/receiving just because someone is using a Mac to deal with their e-mail.

Have you checked the email address he was using? One of them is rhbdc@icloud.com.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Your continued insistence that it would be easy to disprove the authenticity of a faked e-mail is at odds with reality.

No it isn't. I'm imagining the law firm who sent at least one of the emails. Are you telling me that they have no idea what emails they have sent in the past and no way of proving it? If one of their lawyers makes a mistake, or does something foolish, the lawyer can just delete the email and the law firm has no way of finding the data? I find that hard to believe.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Given that nothing about the story makes sense in reality, as noted more than once, there is no benefit to the Bidens or the Biden campaign to substantively address this non-scandal.

That's a strategic question, and all I can say to it is "we will see".

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password?

People who do a lot of travelling often want to do their email without access to the internet. One way to achieve that would be to install a client on the laptop and sync the mail to it.

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

E-mails would typically be downloaded to the hard drive as they are read. Depending on the provider's settings (and perhaps user settings), they can even be automatically deleted from the server upon download. This is less common now that e-mails are accessed from multiple devices since it would be inconvenient to open an e-mail on a PC and then not have it for reference if needed on a smartphone.

Still, a smart computer user shouldn't keep every e-mail message after dealing with it and should only retain those that have important information, and deleting an e-mail locally should always delete the e-mail on the remote server.

That shouldn't apply to the law firm, or the investment fund's email systems though.

wareyin · 17th October 2020, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Maybe they will produce proof like this.

I'm starting to feel that shutIt has me on ignore, but for the record denying something is not disproving something. You've repeatedly claimed it should be easy to disprove emails (of which nothing but screenshots have been released) but so far you seem unable to explain what would disprove them. How can you claim it should be easy to do something if you can't come up with anything other than 'say uh-huh that wasn't me?'

wareyin · 17th October 2020, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No it isn't. I'm imagining the law firm who sent at least one of the emails. Are you telling me that they have no idea what emails they have sent in the past and no way of proving it? If one of their lawyers makes a mistake, or does something foolish, the lawyer can just delete the email and the law firm has no way of finding the data? I find that hard to believe.

Just to keep hammering away, how would you prove someone else didn't send an email? How would you prove you didn't send an email? We don't have the emails. We don't have metadata. We have a screenshot of a purported email. How do you disprove that? You are claiming it is easy to prove a negative, but so far your "proof" consists of "deny it." That's not proof.

TellyKNeasuss · 17th October 2020, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password?

The email in the original NY Post article had the message as having been sent to Hunter Biden's work email account. I don't know how things work with Apple computers, but with my Windows 10 computer my work email is not stored on my computer even though with mandatory telework I exclusively use my computer to read my work email (my personal email is also not stored on my laptop - that would only happen if I used Outlook for my email).

Babbylonian · 17th October 2020, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No it isn't. I'm imagining the law firm who sent at least one of the emails. Are you telling me that they have no idea what emails they have sent in the past and no way of proving it? If one of their lawyers makes a mistake, or does something foolish, the lawyer can just delete the email and the law firm has no way of finding the data? I find that hard to believe.

I'll tell you what: Produce one of these supposed e-mails intact and it might be worth further discussing data retention policies with you. Unfortunately for this story, this has yet to be proven to have happened at all.

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'm starting to feel that shutIt has me on ignore, but for the record denying something is not disproving something. You've repeatedly claimed it should be easy to disprove emails (of which nothing but screenshots have been released) but so far you seem unable to explain what would disprove them. How can you claim it should be easy to do something if you can't come up with anything other than 'say uh-huh that wasn't me?'

You are on my ignore list, but none the less.... these emails have been sent from a law firm and an investment fund. If you don't think they have the capacity to confirm/deny to a legally defensible standard that these emails were sent by them, then I don't know what to tell you. These are companies who Biden worked for/with and who are being accused of wrong doing here. That is ignoring what ever logs Apple and Google will have.

If they want to refute that they sent these emails, they easily can.

shuttlt · 17th October 2020, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

I'll tell you what: Produce one of these supposed e-mails intact and it might be worth further discussing data retention policies with you. Unfortunately for this story, this has yet to be proven to have happened at all.

We know who it was sent from and to, the subject and the time it was sent. It isn't 5 minutes work to check the archive if their email archive is any good, and a few hours to a couple of days if it isn't.

The Greater Fool · 17th October 2020, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We know who it was sent from and to, the subject and the time it was sent. It isn't 5 minutes work to check the archive if their email archive is any good, and a few hours to a couple of days if it isn't.

The companies involved have no skin in the game at the moment. They open their mouths and they open themselves to attack from one or both sides.

Not worth it.

17th October 2020, 08:49 AM	#361
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim This is exactly it - you don't want to give it oxygen. Denials are never as impactful as scandal, regardless of whether or not the scandal is obviously fake, and by engaging with it all you're doing is providing the media the opportunity to run stories on your engagement. Its the Streisand Effect, only moreso because FOX, OANN, Breitbart, etc. weren't specifically out to get Streisand, and that story wasn't deliberately seeded in order to be propagated in this manner. No. The Streisand Effect is where you try to keep something out of the public consciousness and your efforts to keep it out of the public consciousness get everybody interested in what you are trying to hide. Stating that something is false may have negative consequences, but it isn't the Streisand Effect.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

17th October 2020, 08:50 AM	#362
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,258	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma My point is that no evidence has been presented that it's Russian disinfo, and no name is attached to anyone with authority that it's Russian disinfo. This is Steel Dossier 101 stuff all over again. There's stronger evidence for it being Russian disinfo than there is for it being legitimate. Exhibit A is the fact that it comes from Giuliani who hasn't exactly made a secret of the fact that he's spent much of the last year or so palling around with known and sanctioned active Russian intelligence agent Andrii Derkach, and that he was doing so in order to find dirt on Biden. And that's just one of Giuliani's ties to Russia.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

17th October 2020, 08:53 AM	#363
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,997	Judging by what Giuliani himself is saying, there isn't much meat on the alleged Hunter Biden's hard drive. And absolutely nothing criminal attributed to Joe Biden. It's CT territory, even Soros appears in Giuliani's utterings. Quote: Giuliani said that prior to the Post’s publication of the story, he told the president “that there were… a number of photographs that show very explicit sexual activity, and other very personal things, and also display criminal conduct.” But pressed on what in the photos and documents pointed to clear criminality, Giuliani would only point to Hunter Biden’s acknowledged drug use. “Smoking crack is a crime!” he exclaimed. ... Pressed on why he thought it was appropriate to so aggressively push sordid details of the drug past of the former VP’s son, who has openly discussed his past struggles with addiction, Giuliani insisted it could constitute a “major national-security threat” because it could have opened up Hunter, and therefore 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, to potential blackmailing efforts. “If you have him on there smoking crack, you have him violating federal law,” he said. “Crack isn’t marijuana… Crack is crack.” It’s a ridiculous assertion, of course. Hunter Biden has publicly admitted to his struggles with substance abuse—and such an admission would puncture any blackmail or national security issue. Addiction specialists have excoriated members of Team Trump for making similar claims. https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-g...dirt-on-bidens
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

17th October 2020, 08:55 AM	#364
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,258	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma It's Steele Dossier 101 level nonsense. No one of authority has come out and said this is Russian disinformation. All there is is "people familiar with the matter" and the media burned that bridge a long time ago. Leaving aside the fact that you're side-stepping your own dishonesty there, you can say that "the media" aren't credible when they refer to sources (which I'll accept as true just for the sake of argument), but that doesn't imply that Giuliani is even half as credible as that. Giuliani is a total clown shoe.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

17th October 2020, 09:00 AM	#365
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,437	Originally Posted by gypsyjackson What am I making up? I’d like to see a quote of my post doing so, please. There couldn’t have been any contact details left, because imaginary people can’t leave contact details when they don’t leave imaginary laptops without imaginary stickers on with a man with an imaginary medical condition. I can say where that comes from in a general sense. Whatever the motivation, people apply scientific burden of proof to events/topics in the socio-political domain. And whatever the motivation, it's mighty unimpressive.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

17th October 2020, 09:04 AM	#366
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma Nope, didn't evade, it's your memory and comprehension problem, not mine. "This has nothing to do with the election" Is your original statement I responded to. Now you are switching it to "how is it connected to the Biden campaign." Those are two different things. I evaded nothing. It has nothing to do with the Biden campaign, this all happened way before any Biden for President campaign. If you think that supposed emails in the hand of the the former VP's son getting funny money from China and sharing it with his dad isn't going to sway some voters, keep kidding yourself on that is all I have to say. I heard you same people blame Comey for exonerating Clinton a few days before the election for Trump's win 4 years ago. You think they aren't going to drip this Biden stuff? You think this has nothing to do with the election? Or do you realize your snark about me "evading" was misplaced because you can't remember what you said? Dude, you're evading so much you should start thinking about evasion therapy.
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919

17th October 2020, 09:06 AM	#367
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,573	Originally Posted by shuttlt Like I said, it depends what is being refuted. If I'm saying that the emails on the laptop aren't mine, then that is easily dealt with since I have access to my own email. Again, you're badly missing the mark. To you, the investigation never moves past the abstract. "Just prove the e-mails aren't there." Okay, but how is that done? You still haven't explained that part. We'll try it like this: I want you to prove that the heroin e-mail I claimed to have sent you (for the sake of argument) never actually arrived in your inbox. Do not speculate on what could be done. Actually do it.

17th October 2020, 09:13 AM	#368
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919	Originally Posted by Firestone Judging by what Giuliani himself is saying, there isn't much meat on the alleged Hunter Biden's hard drive. And absolutely nothing criminal attributed to Joe Biden. It's CT territory, even Soros appears in Giuliani's utterings. What about a coked up Don Jr. at the RNC convention. Isn't THAT a security threat?
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919

17th October 2020, 09:24 AM	#369
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,997	Originally Posted by Elagabalus What about a coked up Don Jr. at the RNC convention. Isn't THAT a security threat? Or Trump and Kushner owing hundred of millions of $ to foreign banks? But yeah, Hunter Biden!
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

17th October 2020, 10:18 AM	#370
Armitage72 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 5,263	I've gained exclusive access to one of the incriminating photos from Hunter Biden's laptop. It shows incontrovertible evidence of Hunter meeting with a dangerous enemy of America.

17th October 2020, 10:49 AM	#371
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,031	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It is unreasonable. The story is fishier than a tin of sardines. Trump lies don't need to be the least bit credible. He puts them out there then cries CT when they are discredited. And sadly people suck up the nonsense the same way they have latched onto Qanon which is as ludicrous as claiming lizard people are running the country. You misunderstand. I meant it would not be unreasonable for Hunter to go to Delaware, not that he did go to Delaware. After all, that is where his father lives and where he grew up. TahiniBS was attempting to twist my meaning. I agree that the whole Hunter B computer story is, as you put it, fishier than a tin of sardines. Rudy G. is has become nothing but a useful idiot of the Russians.

17th October 2020, 10:49 AM	#372
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,997	Why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate: Quote: Common practice in these operations is to load the bait files with plenty of genuine hacked/stolen documents, photos, etc., then salt them with some forgeries. This was the technique, for example, in Russia's election-eve onslaught against Macron: /1 This technique puts the target in a position where they cannot deny the genuineness of some of the materials (which might be proved by other means) but also must not seem to be conceding the genuineness of all the materials (which would tend to validate the salted forgeries). /2 All things to keep in mind when someone demands to know why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate. The method of the operation might be to place him in just such a position. /3, efn https://twitter.com/walterolson/stat...196722177?s=19
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

17th October 2020, 10:57 AM	#373
TellyKNeasuss Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,625	Originally Posted by shuttlt Like I said, it depends what is being refuted. If I'm saying that the emails on the laptop aren't mine, then that is easily dealt with since I have access to my own email. If I am claiming they were altered, then again I have access to my emails so I can prove it. If I am claiming that the emails on the laptop are mine, but some additional emails have been slipped in, then I would expect the logs of Apple, or the other service providers who handled the email, to be able to show that the emails weren't sent. Given that the FBI are involved and presumably the owners of the mailboxes would be cooperative, this doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility. 1) You're assuming that the photo is a photo of an actual email message. AFAIK, that hasn't been proven. 2) I can list all the email on my computer, but that doesn't prove that I never had a particular message and subsequently deleted it. Therefore, there is no way for me to prove that I never received a particular message.
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

17th October 2020, 11:07 AM	#374
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	The whole Hunter emails nonsense is actually being investigated by the FBI but not as Biden corruption, rather they are investigating Russian influence behind the materials. Trump is going to be sorry what he wished for if he asks Barr or Wray to release what they have found about the emails. AP via Yahoo: Biden email episode illustrates risk to Trump from Giuliani
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 17th October 2020 at 11:08 AM.

17th October 2020, 11:17 AM	#375
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,031	Originally Posted by Firestone Why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate: Exactly. Biden is in a no win situation anyway. No matter whether Biden denied the emails or not, it wouldn't matter; the Fox pundits and Trumpers would attack him anyway just as they did Obama on the birth certificate. The FBI is investigating this and the Bidens are wisely letting them handle it. They have the experts and the means to determine if this is a Russian manipulation.

17th October 2020, 11:26 AM	#376
llwyd Muse Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 753	Originally Posted by Stacyhs ... to determine if this is a Russian manipulation. With Giuliani, of all deranged and corrupt people, in the background, you could almost exchange "if" with "that"...
llwyd Muse Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 753

17th October 2020, 11:40 AM	#377
TellyKNeasuss Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,625	Originally Posted by Stacyhs So, let me get this straight. HB is living in Calif. when he supposedly drops off this old computer in Delaware on the other side of the country. TBS explains this by saying HB goes back to Delaware for some reason. Easily enough checked by flight records/credit card records/ witness accounts etc. But then HB, for some unexplained reason, just leaves the computer at the store without ever picking it up. It was important enough to take to the store for repair, but not important enough to pick up. For reasons. Despite having damaging emails of his father who is running for President of the US and a sex/drug video of himself. That has been explaine already. Please pay attention: If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it.
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

17th October 2020, 11:44 AM	#378
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss That has been explaine already. Please pay attention: If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it. Oh puhleese! You take the hard drive out and destroy it. Sorry if I missed your sarcasm.

17th October 2020, 11:56 AM	#379
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,031	Quote: Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post So, let me get this straight. HB is living in Calif. when he supposedly drops off this old computer in Delaware on the other side of the country. TBS explains this by saying HB goes back to Delaware for some reason. Easily enough checked by flight records/credit card records/ witness accounts etc. But then HB, for some unexplained reason, just leaves the computer at the store without ever picking it up. It was important enough to take to the store for repair, but not important enough to pick up. For reasons. Despite having damaging emails of his father who is running for President of the US and a sex/drug video of himself. Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss That has been explaine already. Please pay attention: If you want to make sure that every single trace of an incriminating email on a mac disappears, you take it across the country, drop it off at a repair shop that is not an authorized Apple service center and is run by a man with poor eyesight, and leave it there under the assumption that the repairman will take ownership of it, scrub the hard drive without reading your email (since he has bad eyesight), and re-sell it. Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said.

17th October 2020, 12:53 PM	#380
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma There is no chain of evidence issue. The FBI came and took the original hard drive. Making mirrors of a hard drive is in no way tampering. The FBI took something, or nothing. We have only a receipt for a computer in the NYPost article. A third page is added to the document there, but has no connection to the other two pages. So we know that the FBI received a MacBook Pro from someone and then Giuliani presents this as evidence that it is Hunter Biden's MacBook. It could have been any MacBook anywhere with that number. The third page is a printed receipt for a computer. Anyone can print that. I can print that with Word.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

17th October 2020, 01:10 PM	#381
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,077	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said. That's why it's brilliant, don't you see? It's like when you need to hide a body, it's best to take it straight into the police station. It's the last place they'll ever look!
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,077

17th October 2020, 01:23 PM	#382
TellyKNeasuss Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,625	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Ah....but not if he took it to the shop for repair as I said in my post. If he want to destroy the info on it, you remove and destroy the hard drive as Skeptic Ginger said. No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal.
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

17th October 2020, 01:48 PM	#383
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,031	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal. I'd have to change parties to make a good criminal.

17th October 2020, 01:54 PM	#384
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss No, you get some unsuspecting repairman on the other side of the country to scrub the disk. You would make a lousy criminal. But what happens if want to save that favorite photo of yourself with a crack pipe?
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919

17th October 2020, 01:56 PM	#385
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum Again, you're badly missing the mark. To you, the investigation never moves past the abstract. "Just prove the e-mails aren't there." Okay, but how is that done? You still haven't explained that part. We'll try it like this: I want you to prove that the heroin e-mail I claimed to have sent you (for the sake of argument) never actually arrived in your inbox. Do not speculate on what could be done. Actually do it. Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin. First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received. Maybe they will produce proof like this. Pretending that what is easy for a campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars and with institutional support should necessarily be easy for me is feeble.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

17th October 2020, 01:57 PM	#386
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Exactly. Biden is in a no win situation anyway. No matter whether Biden denied the emails or not, it wouldn't matter; the Fox pundits and Trumpers would attack him anyway just as they did Obama on the birth certificate. The FBI is investigating this and the Bidens are wisely letting them handle it. They have the experts and the means to determine if this is a Russian manipulation. Plus, as hard as Fox is trying, nobody is picking this garbage up. There’s no reason to address it, nobody cares what Giuliani says.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,143

17th October 2020, 02:02 PM	#387
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss 1) You're assuming that the photo is a photo of an actual email message. AFAIK, that hasn't been proven. I'm not sure I'm assuming that at all. Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss 2) I can list all the email on my computer, but that doesn't prove that I never had a particular message and subsequently deleted it. Therefore, there is no way for me to prove that I never received a particular message. These emails involved multiple cloud email providers, as well as a DC based international law firm and I don't know who else. There are going to be logs there, and in the case of the law firm probably non-alterable copies of the email, if anybody wants to look at them.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

17th October 2020, 02:05 PM	#388
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by shuttlt Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin. First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received. Have I mentioned before that retaining e-mails indefinitely is not a standard practice? Have I also mentioned that some people delete e-mails immediately? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Apple would not have copies of e-mails or records of sending/receiving just because someone is using a Mac to deal with their e-mail. Your continued insistence that it would be easy to disprove the authenticity of a faked e-mail is at odds with reality. Given that nothing about the story makes sense in reality, as noted more than once, there is no benefit to the Bidens or the Biden campaign to substantively address this non-scandal.

17th October 2020, 02:10 PM	#389
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919	Originally Posted by shuttlt I'm not sure I'm assuming that at all. These emails involved multiple cloud email providers, as well as a DC based international law firm and I don't know who else. There are going to be logs there, and in the case of the law firm probably non-alterable copies of the email, if anybody wants to look at them. Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password?
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,919

17th October 2020, 02:18 PM	#390
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by Elagabalus Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password? E-mails would typically be downloaded to the hard drive as they are read. Depending on the provider's settings (and perhaps user settings), they can even be automatically deleted from the server upon download. This is less common now that e-mails are accessed from multiple devices since it would be inconvenient to open an e-mail on a PC and then not have it for reference if needed on a smartphone. Still, a smart computer user shouldn't keep every e-mail message after dealing with it and should only retain those that have important information, and deleting an e-mail locally should always delete the e-mail on the remote server.

17th October 2020, 02:22 PM	#391
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Have I mentioned before that retaining e-mails indefinitely is not a standard practice? Have I also mentioned that some people delete e-mails immediately? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Apple would not have copies of e-mails or records of sending/receiving just because someone is using a Mac to deal with their e-mail. Have you checked the email address he was using? One of them is rhbdc@icloud.com. Originally Posted by Babbylonian Your continued insistence that it would be easy to disprove the authenticity of a faked e-mail is at odds with reality. No it isn't. I'm imagining the law firm who sent at least one of the emails. Are you telling me that they have no idea what emails they have sent in the past and no way of proving it? If one of their lawyers makes a mistake, or does something foolish, the lawyer can just delete the email and the law firm has no way of finding the data? I find that hard to believe. Originally Posted by Babbylonian Given that nothing about the story makes sense in reality, as noted more than once, there is no benefit to the Bidens or the Biden campaign to substantively address this non-scandal. That's a strategic question, and all I can say to it is "we will see".
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Last edited by shuttlt; 17th October 2020 at 02:30 PM.

17th October 2020, 02:25 PM	#392
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Elagabalus Good point. Why would Hunter download his actual emails onto his hard drive when he can access them from any computer? How did Giuliani get access to them? Does he have Hunter's password? People who do a lot of travelling often want to do their email without access to the internet. One way to achieve that would be to install a client on the laptop and sync the mail to it.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

17th October 2020, 02:27 PM	#393
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Babbylonian E-mails would typically be downloaded to the hard drive as they are read. Depending on the provider's settings (and perhaps user settings), they can even be automatically deleted from the server upon download. This is less common now that e-mails are accessed from multiple devices since it would be inconvenient to open an e-mail on a PC and then not have it for reference if needed on a smartphone. Still, a smart computer user shouldn't keep every e-mail message after dealing with it and should only retain those that have important information, and deleting an e-mail locally should always delete the e-mail on the remote server. That shouldn't apply to the law firm, or the investment fund's email systems though.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Last edited by shuttlt; 17th October 2020 at 02:32 PM.

17th October 2020, 02:32 PM	#394
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,363	Originally Posted by shuttlt First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received. Maybe they will produce proof like this. I'm starting to feel that shutIt has me on ignore, but for the record denying something is not disproving something. You've repeatedly claimed it should be easy to disprove emails (of which nothing but screenshots have been released) but so far you seem unable to explain what would disprove them. How can you claim it should be easy to do something if you can't come up with anything other than 'say uh-huh that wasn't me?'

17th October 2020, 02:35 PM	#395
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,363	Originally Posted by shuttlt No it isn't. I'm imagining the law firm who sent at least one of the emails. Are you telling me that they have no idea what emails they have sent in the past and no way of proving it? If one of their lawyers makes a mistake, or does something foolish, the lawyer can just delete the email and the law firm has no way of finding the data? I find that hard to believe. Just to keep hammering away, how would you prove someone else didn't send an email? How would you prove you didn't send an email? We don't have the emails. We don't have metadata. We have a screenshot of a purported email. How do you disprove that? You are claiming it is easy to prove a negative, but so far your "proof" consists of "deny it." That's not proof.
	Last edited by wareyin; 17th October 2020 at 02:37 PM.