Starry–eyed lovers voting for Clinton

Starry–eyed lovers voting for Clinton

Tech blogger finds proof DNC chief's emails weren't 'doctored' despite claims

The MSM can't wait to jump on yet another lying Democrat Donna Brazile. 

Maybe in another world! 

They have issued a PERMIT if you will... 'Licensed To Lie' to the Democratic Party...without fear of repercussion so their candidate gets elected.

--------------------------------------------

After Democratic Party boss Donna Brazile claimed emails showing her apparently tipping off Hillary Clinton to questions at a March town hall were “doctored,” tech sleuths got to work -- and now say they've found proof the emails are authentic.

Fox News' Megyn Kelly questioned Brazile last week about an email that surfaced in hacked messages from Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s account. The email, posted by WikiLeaks and attributed to Brazile, passed on a question to campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri about the death penalty, under the subject line: “From time to time I get questions in advance.”

The exchange came right before a March town hall hosted by CNN and TV One, where a similar question was asked. Yet Brazile denied receiving questions from CNN. 

"I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don't even send,” she said, adding, "I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.” 

However, tech blog Errata Security quickly found the email in question could be verified using an everyday verification program.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) is a system employed by many email servers, including HillaryClinton.com, to verify emails to recipients and avoid spam filters. The system sends a DKIM "key" to the receiver to verify the sender and confirm the email hasn’t been tampered with.

Consequently, bloggers ran the DKIM keys included in this and other emails through verification software, which in turn validated the Palmieri email as both real and undoctored. The Daily Caller also ran a similar test and got the same result.

In a blog post for Errata Security, cybersecurity expert Robert Graham presented his results and showed that if the emails had been altered in any way, the software would have declared the email unverified.

"It took less than five minutes," Graham told FoxNews.com, noting that such software is common and widely available. "It took me longer to document what I had found."

But could WikiLeaks have hacked and altered the DKIM key also?

Graham says this is unlikely since to do so they would have needed to access the HillaryClinton.com server. 

Graham is so confident in his finding that he has posted a $600 BitCoin challenge to anyone who can alter an email and have it still come up as verified when run through DKIM software.

“If somebody tells you this blogpost is invalid, then tell them they can earn about $600 (current value of BTC) proving it. Otherwise, no,” he says.

Clinton running mate Tim Kaine has also suggested the WikiLeaks emails could be doctored, but so far neither the campaign nor the DNC has presented evidence to support this claim.

Tech blogger finds proof DNC chief's emails weren't 'doctored' despite claims

The Constitution is subject to 'reasonable regulation'?

The Handwriting Is On The Wall

----------------------------------------------------

Here comes the bullshit:

WSJ: No Hillary, The Heller Decision Does Not Endanger Toddlers

In a fact-check on the gun claims Hillary Clinton made during the last presidential debate, the Wall Street Journal reports that she “misleadingly suggested” the District of Columbia v Heller (2008) decision endangers toddlers.

WSJ goes on to show that Heller was not about toddlers but about the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which took effect in 1976.

The discussion of Heller arose after debate moderator Chris Wallace pointed out that in 2015, Clinton said, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” Her statement was in reference to the Heller decision, so Wallace asked if she would explain why she believed the decision was a mistake.

Clinton said:

I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. So they wanted people with guns to safely store them.

Clinton also admitted being “upset” by the decision and reiterated her suggestion that toddlers would be endangered by it.

(“reasonable regulation”)
defined

WSJ quoted Clinton saying the Supreme Court’s decision represented a rejection of “reasonable regulation.” Then WSJ showed that her claim “glossed over the thrust of the city’s gun law, which effectively barred private ownership of handguns.” In other words, Heller was not about toddlers but about the nature of the fundamental rights protected by the Second Amendment.

WSJ quoted a Clinton spokesman who attempted to justify the anti-Hellerstatements by “[noting] that attorneys for the District of Columbia did argue in the case that the city’s weapons regulations were meant to protect children.” But the paper explains that even though “the high court’s majority did consider a secondary question about the storage of firearms, …[that consideration was] only in the context of the right of a citizen to use a handgun for self-defense.”

Again, Heller was about the nature of fundamental rights, not about toddlers.

The Constitution is subject to 'reasonable regulation'?

Randy and Bill

Randy and Bill

In 1980 the Supreme Court awarded the Sioux tribe 106 million dollars as compensation for land that was taken from them

The Sioux refused to accept the payment, and the money remains in the US Treasury to this day, accruing interest. $106 million dollar figure was based on the land value of 1877. The Supreme Court awarded eight Sioux tribes $106 million in compensation—the 1877 value of $17.5 million, plus interest. The Sioux Nation has refused to accept the award, saying they want their land returned. The money is held in accounts at the Treasury Department, accruing interest. As of 2011, the accounts are estimated to be valued at over $1 billion.

If I were them I would check my account. Because knowing this guy

Iran probably has their money.

In 1980 the Supreme Court awarded the Sioux tribe 106 million dollars as compensation for land that was taken from them