Thoughts on Wikileaks Denial

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert wikileaks' authenticity.

Originally posted by Its2016
hillary admitted they were real in the last debate.

Her own ****ing mouth. Are you seriously this dense? Or is this more liberal logic?

empty posturing - check
citation - ...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert wikileaks' authenticity.

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."

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.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah, the burden of proof is on the one who claims authenticity.

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.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
haven't you ever been to a pawn shop, bro?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
deflection and lack of categorical denying =/= acknowledgement of authenticity.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
pleading the 5th does not equal admission of guilt either.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
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.

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.

"If you read the email, youll understand what I was talking about............Vladamir Putin"

-H at the third debate. First question.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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.

@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.

Again, she authenticated them in the two debates, deal with it👆

You have been easily outdone👆

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*pointless pawn shop example snipped*

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?

She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication👆

YouTube video
YouTube video

Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications

She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

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.

She is the source, asshat👆

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication👆

YouTube video
YouTube video

Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications

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.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

What is your opinion of this:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=44264