hillary admitted they were real in the last debate. We have dates of their events and scripts of their speeches that link to televised events. What are you freaking berniespawn so retarded about? Please tell me youre voting for hillary. Please tell me how you think Trump wont win but you think Bernie has a better chance of winning. Tell me how donating to hillary is cool because bernie can still make college free for gangstas by having no one in the party ever listen to him except crooked hillary. In fact, just tell me anything Bernie ever said, ever.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Or whoever wants to deny it—the burden of proof works both ways.
With that in mind. None of the parties involved have categorically denied the authenticity of the emails, or even any specific email. It's a topic that the Democrats have repeatedly deflected and generally been unwilling to discuss to an almost comedic degree.
To me it's a bit like pleading the fifth when asked if you committed a crime, which to me translates to: "Yes I did, but you will have to find more evidence to convict me. And if you do I never denied it under oath."
Last edited by Astner on Oct 21st, 2016 at 06:55 PM
nah, the burden of proof is on the one who claims authenticity. haven't you ever seen pawn stars, bro?
deflection and lack of categorical denying =/= acknowledgement of authenticity.
pleading the 5th does not equal admission of guilt either...if you're donald, i mean. if you're hillary, that's different.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
No. The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts a claim.
If you assert that a claim is false then the burden of proof is on you. If you were to deny the authenticity of Goldbach's conjecture—which hasn't been proved—you'd be expected to prove it false.
If you're trying to sell an item, then you are the one trying to convince a potential buyer, meaning that you're the one making the assertions.
No. But it is indicative of a hidden motive. If they were false then why would they not deny them? Or at the very least deny the authenticity of specific emails?
Legally? No. But what it is in effect is reserving your opportunity to plead guilty on specific charges. Which you'd have no reason to do if you weren't guilty.
If these were truly fake: why is the Clinton campaign not shouting this from every rooftop? I'm confused.
I will grant you that doesn't prove authenticity either. I just don't understand why they wouldn't be openly denying this more if these were legitimately altered emails. Especially if they could prove they were altered, they could kill two birds with one stone.
For now the strategy of the campaign has seemed to be...dance around the issue by talking about the illegality of the way the emails were obtained.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Surtur, she admitted they were real and authenticated them when she talked about the content of them at the the two debates and had to explain them.
She said "if you read the whole thing, you would see I was talking about open borders about energy.."
Thats all there is too it, all bash is doing is trying to explain why he wont discuss them, from a losing point of view, Astner also destroyed his low liberal iq.
__________________
In order for any life to matter, we all have to matter
@astner (sorry i don't do the split-quote thing, so bear with me)
fallacious reasoning. first off, any valid theory require some form of supporting evidence-or in the case of mathematics, valid reasoning. you can't just say "the universe came from a unicorn's butthole", put the burden of proof on the doubter to prove it wrong, and then kick back and celebrate your victory. secondly, since goldbach's conjecture cannot be proven, it cannot be asserted as mathematical fact. thats the whole point of calling something 'theoretical'. so i don't see how that's even relevant.
...and if the pawn shop is selling something claimed to be authentic, it is also up to them to provide proof. neither party is required to prove a lack of authenticity. pawn shops will of course take up that burden regardless, in order to not miss out on a good purchase.
no it does not indicate motive. all it does is leave room for suspicion, which doesn't hold up when the goal is assigning any guilt, let alone "beyond reasonable doubt".
nah, that's just pure supposition. pleading the 5th cannot be used as supporting evidence of guilt. there's no way to explain around that.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
I'm asking you to explain to me why they wouldn't be talking about how fake these are. I never said that means they are guilty because they haven't, but I'm struggling to see the benefit of not doing so if they are genuinely fake.
But as said, if she is referring to them in debates as if they are real, then isn't that reasonable evidence?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
since you guys keep repeated the same sourceless assertion of clinton authenticating those emails, i guess i was wrong. if you had only said it once or twice, i'd have a case. but after repeat #5 i realized my argument was doomed.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Isn't her saying "if you had read the whole thing" an implication that if the person would have read the entire thing they would understand the context of what she said? Which be weird to say if she believed them to be fake.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.