![\"lies\"](\"http:\/\/www.thedailysheeple.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/lies.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
So you want to talk to Mark Cuban on the latest Hillary email thing eh?<\/em><\/p>\n You ought to try someone with a bit of credibility. You see, Mark Cuban is not ignorant and his appearance this morning on CNBC did not contain \u201cmistakes.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n He was lying.<\/em><\/p>\n This \u201cnewly discovered\u201d laptop is\u00a0very likely<\/strong> to be literal nuclear waste for Hillary\u00a0and everyone around her,\u00a0<\/strong>including the Clinton Foundation and\u00a0all<\/strong> of Hillary\u2019s \u201cadvisers\u201d such as Podesta.<\/em><\/p>\n Mark Cuban said that Huma used Outlook and IMAP (for Yahoo and similar.) True.<\/p>\n But then he said this was unlikely to lead to \u201cnew\u201d evidence in the form of the emails.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a lie<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a lie because Cuban knows he\u2019s full of crap; he knows enough about the technologies involved to be fully aware that he was peddling nonsense.<\/p>\n IMAP and Exchange are email protocols. (So is POP3, but that\u2019s pretty much deprecated everywhere for good reason.) Exchange, when available, is often preferred by business people because it syncs not just email but also calendars and contact lists, which can (and does) include both phone numbers and email addresses.<\/p>\n IMAP is typically used by clients like Thunderbird because it doesn\u2019t know to speak Exchange. There\u2019s a plug-in for calendars using the davical protocol and another (the SoGo connector) for contacts, but no integrated Exchange support.<\/p>\n Outlook can use IMAP, but where the server supports it (like Clinton\u2019s \u201chomebrewed\u201d email server) Exchange would normally be used instead as a preferred choice. It both does more and also does a far better job of threading conversations (which is very convenient) and thus is almost-always preferred when it is available.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the problem for the Clintons:\u00a0Both of these protocols will sync any folder they are told to monitor\u00a0and can be told to pull local copies of emails<\/strong><\/em>. By\u00a0default<\/strong> both will typically do so on a desktop or laptop environment because WiFi is usually available and it has enough bandwidth to make that efficient. Mobile devices\u00a0sometimes\u00a0<\/em>are configured to only grab email headers by default\u00a0but increasingly, with 4g service, they\u2019re set up to get full messages too, sometimes including all attachments.<\/strong><\/p>\n The reason to do this is that it is a\u00a0lot<\/strong> faster to search messages locally than over the wire, and it\u2019s convenient to be able to search messages. In addition pulling full copies (including attachments) allows you to work offline (when there\u2019s no WiFi or other network available), and then re-sync when you get back in range.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the problem for Hillary \u2014 when the server had emails deleted and then was \u201cBleached\u201d it had already been taken offline and was never returned to service<\/em>. As such the laptop client would have been unable to connect back to it\u00a0and thus it would never be told to remove anything.<\/strong><\/p>\n Without\u00a0that machine <\/strong><\/em>(Weiner\u2019s laptop)\u00a0being under remote administration such as Domain Policy control (which we can reasonably assume it was not as Huma claims \u201cshe didn\u2019t know about it\u201d and it was allegedly a private<\/em> laptop)\u00a0there is no remote capability to wipe or otherwise get into said computer and remove the emails either. <\/strong><\/em>In fact there\u2019s a decent chance it\u2019s running an operating system edition (if Windows)\u00a0that lacks domain control capability entirely.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n This means that the odds are\u00a0extremely<\/strong> high that all of the deleted emails to which Huma was a participant\u00a0are on that computer.<\/strong><\/p>\n Every. If that examination shows that\u00a0work product, or worse, classified information\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>was sent and\/or received\u00a0and the evidence intentionally destroyed\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>via the \u201cBleachbit\u201d process then\u00a0everyone involved<\/strong> is cooked. Remember, the claim was that the emails deleted were nothing more than yoga chat and similar; all \u201cpersonal\u201d content that the government had no right to and implicated no national security interest. Further, Huma claimed\u00a0twice\u00a0<\/em>(once during her exit from State, and again under oath when questioned) that she had turned over\u00a0all\u00a0<\/em>devices that might or did have US Government work product on them and had retained no copies<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n If that is proved to be a lie, or worse, proof of felony conduct such as influence peddling or (God forbid for them) something like the rumored link to Epstein\u2019s Lolita Express is found in those archives\u00a0then a whole bunch of people are going straight to prison not only on the original acts evidenced in the emails themselves\u00a0but also on felony obstruction of justice and perjury charges.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Yes, folks, this is a very big deal because it is the first discovery of a computer that appears to have been sync\u2019d against the Clinton server\u00a0but was neither tampered with or destroyed<\/strong>, and thus it likely contains\u00a0all\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>of the pertinent evidence to which Huma was a part.<\/p>\n I argue that the media is lying and soliciting others to lie. Mark Cuban knows all of this as he\u2019s well-aware of how email works on the Internet. I\u2019m aware of it too, having run an ISP during the early 1990s, having run corporate, personal and ISP-level email servers both before and since up to and including the present day, and I can confidently state that unless someone took affirmative action to alter the record\u00a0the odds are extremely high that every single email chain Huma participated in is likely on that laptop, whether Hillary and her friends tried to delete it or not.<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m a subject matter expert in this regard folks.<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, CNBC, I\u2019m not your biggest fan. But you (and the rest of the media) know damn well I can get to a studio in about an hour and a half\u00a0and if you call I will be happy to don a suit (ok, at least the top half that the camera can see) and scoot on over\u00a0to correct the record\u00a0<\/em>from a technical level on exactly what has been found\u00a0and what is likely now in both the FBI\u2019s and the NY State Police\/NYPD\u2019s hands.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Consider this an open invite to any of the MSM folks to do exactly that; you folks all still have my phone number and I can only conclude it hasn\u2019t rung because\u00a0you are not interested in the truth\u00a0<\/em>from someone who has the technical competence to explain it to your viewers.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Single.
\n<\/strong>One.<\/strong><\/p>\n