On March 27, 2017, at Convocation, North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, Liberty University welcomed Sen. Bryce Reeves (R-Spotsylvania), Corey Stewart, John Adams and Del. Glenn Davis (R-Virginia Beach)—all candidates for statewide office—to speak.
I invite you to listen to the whole speech made by Senator Bryce Reeves, candidate for Lt. Governor, at the Convocation here.
His speech is built around a passionate, personal interpretation of the reading of James Chapter 1:12 which says,
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love Him.”
As Senator Reeves weaves this message into his personal experiences to reveal his interpretation of the Biblical passage he has chosen, something happens that most, if not all, attending the Convocation, would not notice.
I pause here to offer two definitions:
In “The Liberty Way”, Liberty University’s student honor code, plagiarism is defined as “Paraphrasing or quoting a specific passage from a specific source without properly referencing the source (and/or) replicating another person’s work, in whole or in part, and submitting it as an original work.”
Merriam-Webster is a bit harsher. Plagiarize (v) is defined “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own.”
Back in 2004, Nicholas Cage played Benjamin Franklin Gates, an historian and amateur cryptologist searching for a lost treasure in a Walt Disney movie called “National Treasure”. Here is a side by side clip of Senator Reeves and Nicholas Cage. Yes, this is concerning, but not so easy to catch unless you are a Nicholas Cage devotee:
Yet, concerning as this may be, unbelievably, it happens again! This time Senator Reeves uses a famous quote from Revered Martin Luther King as his own to complete his personal interpretation of a Biblical passage.
A story in the Richmond Times Dispatch, which received very little coverage, can be seen here. In it reporter Patrick Wilson states,
Ravi K. Perry, an associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University and president of the National Association for Ethnic Studies…..said he found it interesting that Reeves, speaking to a conservative audience, chose to quote President Ronald Reagan by name, but used King’s thoughts without attributing them.”
Justin Higgins, writing about the Convocation speech, noted that the Reeves campaign further deepened the quagmire Senator Reeves dove into by retweeting an image posted by Liberty’s Office of Spiritual Development giving him credit for the plagiarized quote. See Tweet and Higgins post here.
One has to wonder why Senator Reeves chose to appear to make both passages in his presentation taken from others appear to be his own rather than add the strength of character and name recognition of those he chose to copy and thereby bolster his argument. The message he delivered that day was a strong one, and yet, he destroyed that message with either petty pride or sloppy preparation.
The Reeves campaign’s only public reply to date was not an apology to the public or the school: “It was an honest mistake,” said Samantha Azzarelli, a spokeswoman for the Reeves campaign.
38 comments
Mies Rohe,
I’ve done a little research into what you’re claiming, and I’m not buying it.
What I do see is a setup. I’ll explain.
To test your claim about Google, I used my own cell phone to setup another email address; in fact I used the name of a dead German architect named Mies Rohe. The address I used is [email protected].
I successfully set up the account, but in the process I did NOT use a phone number to allow recovery if I should get locked out, and guess what; I received NO text message to my phone.
I then went to my laptop and tried to log into Gmail using my phone number (an option; phone number or email address) and guess what; it didn’t know my phone number. So, the number I created the account from was not associated with the account in any way, shape or form, and would not be unless I provided it when setting up the account, or at a later time to allow Google to recover my email account if I get locked out.
I suspect that the Vogel’s cell phone numbers are well known, and it would be a simple matter to create a Gmail account anywhere, anytime and use one of their numbers to create the recovery function, and then the account would be associated with that cell phone number.
It ain’t rocket science; and the fact that Google provided Mr. Vogel’s number is sure not a smoking gun, unless we’re to believe that he is such an idiot that he would create a fake email address to bash his wife’s opponent, and use his own phone number to insure he could recover the account if he got locked out.
This whole affair seems more likely to be a big setup by someone in the Reeves camp, and I think that until there is some other evidence besides a phone number from Google that anyone could have input, I for one will remain skeptical.
If it turns out that the Vogel’s are guilty, I will be the first to condemn them, but if it turns out that someone in the Reeves camp perpetrated a setup, then I think then need to be prosecuted and sued as well.
By the way; how many people supposedly received this email that was allegedly sent by Mr. Vogel?
That you chose to do so is besides the point, which is that in the case of the email account in question there was a confirmatory text that verified the account and that text was sent to the Vogels’ cellphone. For still greater coincidence, add in the IP addresses used. As they say at the hospital, if you hear hoof beats you shouldn’t think zebra.
BTW, it’s not me claiming this. I am repeating what I’ve read here at The Bull Elephant and used links to TBE as documentation. I give credibility to those who run TBE, especially Jeanine Martin. If I’ve been mislead, I’d like to learn that, too, as I have an open mind to the possibility.
Under the circumstance, Reeves’ challenge makes sense.
Like I said, it smacks of a setup.
I find it interesting that you dismiss what I have just proven; that anyone can setup a fake email account and tie it to anyone else’s cell phone.
Tells me you’re not interested in the truth, you’re interested in promoting the idea that your candidate is right, and the Vogel’s are guilty because he says so.
No one has yet answered the primary question I have asked; If Mr. Reeves has all this damning evidence, why has he not filed a criminal complaint or a lawsuit against one or both of the Vogel’s?
So far as I have seen from the evidence presented on TBE, all he’s done is filed suit against a fake email address.
So it smacks of a setup to you. You’re entitled to your POV.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with this save for being an avid reader of TBE. I do not know any of these people, have never met any of them. Neither is any of them my candidate — I find both the Virginia Republican and Democratic parties unacceptable to my politics, which are decidedly libertarian.
Jeanine and the TBE worked this story and revealed what appears to my eye to be a truthful explanation. And, yes, that is apparently what you do: File suit against a fake email address such that you can work with the courts to identify the party that should be the defendant. Until you have a defendant you do not have a law suit.
Whatever you proved in your experiment, it does not deny that an SMS was sent to Alex Jones’ cellphone to verify the email account in question. That happened. Google’s subpoena response shows that, and furthermore shows the use of the account from the IP addresses associated with the Vogel network.
The TBE drew its conclusions and I find them persuasive, far more so than your purposeful distraction. It is a fact that Google sent that SMS to Alex Jones’ cellphone and that its code was entered to verify the account. Whatever you did and whatever it led to is something else entirely. I do not know if what you did would show up the same way on a Google subpoena response nor do I know it would permit the sending of emails. What I do know is that Google believes Alex Jones’ cell verified the account in question and I believe it because I believe The Bull Elephant.
Mies Rohe,
Tom White at VARight, an IT professional, posted this professional evaluation of the evidence. I’m guessing you haven’t read this evaluation, because of your incorrect assertions of absolute guilt on the part of the Vogel’s. Take some time to read what Tom wrote.
http://www.varight.com/opinion/my-unbiased-opinion-on-the-vogel-reeves-email-scandal/
This is what Steve Abertson posted on the VA Right site comments regarding Tom’s post:
Thanks, Tom. This is very helpful. I’ll send you unredacted versions. I don’t believe there has been a phone records subpoena, as neither Vogel has been a party to Reeves’ lawsuit, so as far as I know there is not yet any smoking gun one way or the other re the Google verification SMS.
One thing Tom did not address is the possibility of IP spoofing which can easily be done. See this entry on Wikipedia, and note that there are commercial software programs used for testing websites which allow the user to do this easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
“…commercial testing products (such as HP LoadRunner, WebLOAD, and others) can use IP spoofing…”
Not only are these products available to anyone, HP LoadRunner (for one) offers a free trial, so it would cost nothing to use it once for nefarious purposes. I’m just saying it’s possible.
Here is Tom White:
My Unbiased Opinion on the Vogel – Reeves Email Scandal
I am not supporting any State Senators in the Lt. Governor’s race this year. Neither Jill Vogel nor Bryce Reeves will see my endorsement for two reasons. First, neither has impressed me with their voting records. But the biggest reason by far is the balance of power in the State Senate. Vogel’s seat may be slightly easier to hold in a special election, but Reeves defeated long time Democrat Senator Edd Houck by a hair. And the last thing Virginia Republicans need is to lose the Senate majority. Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats have left the Commonwealth in a much weaker position and we will need both houses and the Governor’s office to restore the state to prosperity.
Right now, only Rep. Glenn Davis is in a position that will not adversely impact the Republican majority in the Legislature.
But if you have not seen the email story, it is in the Washington Post, and on TBE here and here. The second TBE link has several documents included which I have analyzed.
Just as a side note, I am currently an IT manager and have been in the computer and data communications field for over 30 years and have worked on computers for 44 years. I have been a consultant and have done corporate forensics and data restoration of deleted data. I have worked on military encryption gear and have basically spent my entire career in data and computer jobs.
Here is what happened according to the documents that were released.
On 9/22/2016 at 9:57 AM EDT a GMail account was created using the name Martha McDaniel. The email address was [email protected]. The IP address logged was 72.165.xxx.xxx. TBE redacted the IP address in most, but not all places. (They missed one.) Google requires a phone number or other means to verify the user. The phone number they used was 202-669-XXXX – again redacted by TBE. According to TBE, the cell phone number belongs to Jill Vogel’s husband, Alex. And they have a recording of the voice mail message which they claim has been removed that identifies the number as belonging to Alex.
Update – 1/3/17 3:21 PM
Steve Albertson was kind enough to send me the un-redacted documents and, as I expected, the IP addresses do indeed match. So I can verify that the redactions are not relevant to the story.
Problems I have with this:
We can’t verify the phone number because it is redacted and there is no Subpoena Duces Tecum providing records for the cell phone owner. And there is no way to verify the recording as being from the number that has been redacted. Absent some type of phone verification records, I cannot verify that the phone is actually the one tied to the Google account. But I assume they would be able to produce this verified evidence or open themselves up to a suit.
The next event of note was an email sent from this account on September 30, 2016 at 12:49 PM EDT. The IP Address used to log on and send the email was 2.165.xxx.xxx as redacted by TBE. Again, we have no way of knowing the important last two octets of the address.
Another problem with a potential defamation suit is that the email in question does not actually accuse or claim Reeves is having an affair, only that there are rumors.
So what are the un-redacted IP Addresses? TBE redacted a lot of IP addresses in the various documents, but they failed to redact two of the IP addresses. Jill Vogel’s IP address is 162.72.231.134. At the bottom of the page found here just below the redacted IP address that is circled shows the full IP on the bottom line. This is Vogel’s home IP. Or it was from September 19 – September 22 according to the document. And according to the document from Google, the Vogel household accessed the Gmail account 3 times for about 45 seconds total only on September 22, 2016. NOT the day the email was sent.
The account was accessed a total of 6 other times by IP address 72.165.161.144. (If you look at the top of the Century Link response found here you will find the un-redeacted address.) This is the IP address of Vogel’s neighbor who alleges that they operate an unsecured internet WiFi Connection.
So the Gmail account was created on 9/22/2016 from the Vogel neighbor’s internet for a period of about 40 minutes. 4 minutes later, the Google logs show an access from the Vogel’s internet address a total of 3 times for less than a minute altogether. The account was accessed from the neighbor’s account 8 days later on September 30, 2016 at 16:41 UTC which is 12:41 PM EDT. 5 minutes later, the person logged off at 12:46 PM. The email in question was sent at 12:49 PM on September 30, 3 minutes after the account was logged off. But that 3 minute gap is insignificant and most likely accounted for by clock drift. Then on October 1, 2016 the neighbor’s IP address was used to delete the Gmail account.
But what these documents produced so far show is that the Gmail account was not created using Vogel’s internet service. Rather, it was created using a neighbor’s account. And the email was not sent from Vogel’s account, again, it was sent from the neighbor’s account.
Just after the Google account was created using the neighbor’s internet account it was accessed using Vogel’s internet. Not long enough to do anything other than log on and off.
The bottom line is that the account was created on an open WiFi and the email was written on an open WiFi that does not belong to Jill Vogel. The fact that the account was briefly accessed using the Vogel internet service isn’t proof that she was responsible for the email sent 8 days later.
So Reeves will have a hard time proving not only defamation, but he will also have a hard time proving that Vogel even knew anything about it. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that gives way to a lot of interesting theories, but there is no proof.
I would urge TBE to republish the documents without redacting the IP addresses. Often, internet providers own large blocks of addresses. Class B or even A. The first two sets of digits (octets) are the only ones assigned to the owner of a Class B block. And the last two octets change. Not that I think TBE is playing with the redaction’s, but since they missed completely redacting the numbers, I would like to see the un-redacted copy.
The phone number is understandable. But a Subpoena of the phone records showing a text from Gmail would be helpful.
And again, at this point I do not plan to endorse either Senator, so I am not pulling for or defending anyone here. Just looking at the evidence.
First of all, I did not express “absolute guilt” — I said that the evidence stands uncontradicted. You in fact claimed there was no evidence at all, and now you are backpedaling to disputing the evidence that exists. It’s a better start.
Let’s examine your suggestion, which is apparently that someone setup the Vogels, that someone created this gmail account and in doing so used Alex Vogel’s cellphone number, and then sent from the shared open wifi network a scurrilous email alleging a Reeves affair with a staffer.
Now I know you claim the phone numbers are at issue, but I do not see that. I believe the TBE’s investigation that matches the phone numbers and I applaud them for insofar as possible respecting the privacy of the number and redacting it. I do not share your need for further proof of them.
I must say that in comparing the two stories — A, Vogels had a hand in the scurrilous email; B, Reeves or Davis or someone unknown spreads Reeves affair rumor and pins it on Vogels with verification scam and wifi network abuse — I find A more plausible.
That’s the extent of it. I find the TBE investigation more credible than your alternative suggestion, but I do applaud you for addressing evidence instead of continuing to claim there simply is none. TBE worked hard on the story and did produce real evidence, however you interpret it.
The Reeves camp would not have slandered Reeves and a campaign staffer. Nor would they have put themselves at risk in a wifi driveby. There are more likely paths and explanations. If you hear hoofbeats they are far more likely horses, not zebras.
Spare me your horses and zebras analogy; I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean.
You say you stand by the TBE analysis, but you ignore the fact that Steve thanked Tom White for his analysis; Tom is an IT professional and you are what?
I never claimed there was no evidence, just that it did not necessarily point to the Vogel’s guilt, and unlike your denial of ANY possibility of some nefarious doings on the part of a Reeves supporter, I acknowledged that it is possible the Vogel’s or one of their supporters is responsible. I also said that if they are I would be the first to condemn them.
You claim to have read all the TBE analysis, but I got the link to the Tom White post right from a TBE article, so obviously you only read that which supports your supposition that the Vogel’s are undeniably guilty.
Frankly, I’m done here.
The other possibilities have been explored and exposed here and on VARight, and IMHO you have no credibility in this issue anyway.
You claim not to have a dog in the fight, but you sure are fighting hard to convict the Vogel’s, and in doing it from behind the name of a dead German architect instead of your own name removes all credibility in my book.
I make no claims other than that there is — contrary to your claims to the contrary — objective evidence supporting the charges, evidence publicly available due to the efforts of the editors at TBE.
When you see scurrilous charges of an affair with a campaign staffer sent to a Pastor, it isn’t likely they originate with the candidate at the center of the rumor. If they wanted to embarrass an opponent with an email, I suspect it wouldn’t be one alleging an affair by the candidate with a named staffer.
Lots of people here post behind pseudo anonymous names. I feel no shame using a name that was itself made up by the architect who adopted it for a time. You can attack me, but the good work of the editorial staff at this publication that is hosting us should not be dismissed with ridiculous charges of bias.
Your scenario is highly unlikely, especially by comparison with the claims laid out by Reeves, TBE and others. As an observer I think they carry far more credibility than your tortured attempt to explain how someone might have done all this to make the Vogels look bad. That is possible, but so highly unlikely with these facts that it calls for further explanation.
Which is why they teach doctors learning diagnosis that they should go with the more likely explanation when confronted with facts. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses. And you, Cam Jones, are working to make us believe we hear zebras, which is all together possible, but highly unlikely.
Not just my opinion, but that of Mr. White as well; someone with whom even Steve agreed.
Obviously with your hospital background and all your zebras and such, you know more than an IT professional who analyzed the known facts from a background of knowledge that spans many years.
As you said, you’re entitled to your POV.
Sorry, but every one has missed the PRIMARY issue:
WHERE does Honorable Mr Reeves – quoting Dr King – raise up the goals of government that Dr King, who worked so hard, and well, and WAS ASSASSINATED for his dedication to:
QUOTE
August 28, 1963
Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.
UNQUOTE
On Mr Reeves’ campaign website we read:
QUOTE
Bryce knows working families can’t afford higher taxes. He’s proposed common sense solutions to return fiscal discipline to state government that starts by reducing spending – not increasing taxes – and focuses on priorities like education, transportation and economic growth. He’ll continue his fight to eliminate unfunded mandates and oppose any expansion of Obamacare and Medicaid to protect taxpayers.
UNQUOTE
SORRY, folks, but a fetish for ‘reducing spending’ ‘not increasing taxes’, ‘protecting taxpayers’ is very FAR from Dr King’s discussion – from the Bible, God’s Word … the REAL TRUE ETERNAL ALL POWERFUL GOD! – of power, justice, and love.
As posted before is it news
That all the candidates for LG
Leave more than a bit to be desired.
Leaving your moral compass at home,
Or being intellectually lazy apparently
Is not a barrier to running for office.
The daring possibility to head the ticket
Withdrew from the race several weeks ago.
You get what you get.
Lots of committees to look into things , lots
Of telling anyone and everyone what they want to hear.
Lots of wrapping yourself in the flag, apparently any flag.
Lots of the status quo, which for people concerned
With the overnight fed fund rate is fine.
Those people fund our political parties and election contests .
Nothing about the three LG candidates goes against that tide.
William Buckley’s comment about picking the first 2000 names
In the Boston phone book to run our government ( as opposed
To Harvards’ faculty ) is worth thinking about.
You get what you get.
Pro life is my only qualifier in this race, nothing pre empty it for me. Not a single issue, just a qualifier. I’ve been laying in wait for the discussion about Jill pulling support for Pro-life legislation several years ago, leaving Garrett and Reeves who never wavered. Because I respect Jill personally and I share many of the same friends who support her, I haven’t gone down this road yet, but, the time may be coming to bring this festering boil to the surface.
For the love of– I don’t have a dog in this fight, yet, but this isn’t worth reporting on.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6700167efee582818c9d418f024029f3f0bcaffc6bb74618928dc55623bae259.jpg
Honest mistake right?
Maybe Bryce hasn’t been to the National MLK monument that this quote is carved on.
Rick are you going to use the same level of criticism for the person that you are supporting for the LG race? If so, when are you going to write about it for us all to read? Will be waiting to read all about your annalist how an “ethics lawyer” does not clearly see the need to directly answer questions about the origination of an email that is directly connect to her husbands cell phone and should be more than willing to clear up any questions surrounding this issue. And why as a lawyer, has she is not notified all of her clients that she conducted business from her home that was related to their interest on an unsecured internet connection? Aren’t these ethical questions that should be answered, so that the voters knows what so of ethics a person running for LG has?
Wonder how mad Rick was at Melania ripping off Michelle. Even if someone were to say “well she wasn’t the candidate,” the candidate put her up there to speak on his behalf…this is a non story
https://bearingdrift.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-vogel-responds-reeves-allegations/
Rick, Jill must clear her name before the general. Democrats will brutalize her with the Hillary treatment if this is not over by June.
No, they won’t. They don’t care about some obscure inter-party spat.
They have mich more effective and easier to explain attacks on all our Republicans.
Notice the date that was written, it is old and it is from the candidate, not written by you analyzing her motives and actions that appear to be, we let us say, not ethical. And it does not address the issue of informing her clients that she was using un-secured internet access to conduct her business from her home. Shouldn’t that be a priority as a ethics lawyer to inform her clients of the risk that she has potentially exposed them to? Your are trying to evade the issues for your candidate, while nitpicking to death the one you are apposed to. Double standard? Why won’t she agree to a third party looking into the electronics to try and figure out if they were hacked, this could actually help to clear her from her participation in this matter? Maybe because there is actually something to hide?
Looking forward to Rick continuing this trend of exploring ethics issues in the LG race by writing about the Vogel campaign’s shameless attempt to destroy Reeves’ political career and shatter his marriage and family by falsely accusing him of having an affair with his staffer.
That never happened. Senator Reeves concocted it to distract from his flailing campaign.
If there was anything too this, Reeves would have filed a lawsuit. Instead, he is arguing this in TBE and the liberal media.
This is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
I imagine they also broke into the Vogel’s house and connected the email account to her husband’s phone too, right?
No, Bryce has exaggerated the “evidence” he has.
How does one “exagerate” subpoena records that tie the emails and the account they were sent from directly to the Vogel’s house and cell phone?
As far as I have seen, Mr. Reeves has offered no proof other than his allegations that Vogel is responsible. I have read Vogel’s piece on Bearing Drift, and find it to be a credible possible explanation, and I have seen no evidence from Mr. Reeves of any records obtained from either Vogel or her husband, so the statement that there is concrete evidence is false. If Mr. Reeves has evidence he would have, or should have sued the Vogels or had them prosecuted. Until that happens, I see this as an attempt at character assassination by Mr. Reeves. I have yet to see one person come forward to say they received the email that Reeves alleges was sent to people all over the state; where are these people? I would ask those who believe the Reeves story over the Vogel story why they find his unsubstantiated allegations more credible than her speculative defense?
Your claim is absolutely false. Google responded to the subpoena with uncontradicted evidence that the email account in question was verified with a unqiue code sent only to Alex Vogel’s cellphone. That Google responded to a subpoena is proof this matter is already before the courts, We believe the Reeves story because evidence supports it.
Repeat: Unlike wifi, the cellular system is uncompromised by private actors. Google has no dog in this hunt. Google responded to a subpoena in a court case attesting that the email account in question was verified through a unique code sent only to the Vogels’ cellphone.
Whomever was in possession of Alex Vogel’s cellphone received a text with that unique code and verified the new account by entering that unique code, good for a limited time, thus creating the email account that later sent the email. This is a fact.
Explanations that wander into open wifi are non-responsive. Yes, these emails carried the origin IP address of the open wifi network shared by the Vogels and their neighbors. It’s true IP addresses are not determinate of origin. That’s among the reasons Google doesn’t rely upon them, sending verification texts instead. It’s the Google verification text to Vogels’ cellphone that is thus far the key piece of evidence in the matter. It comes from an uninterested party as evidence in court and conveys an unmistakable, uncontradicted direct connection to the Vogels.
Could you share that link again. It was cut off past thebullelephant.com It is unclear to me if Mies Rohe is your actual name, and since you seem to have inside information that you claim is undeniable, then it would make your argument more credible if we know your actual name. Pardon me if that IS your real name, but also pardon me if it is not and I don’t put much weight on your claims. Again, if Mr. Reeves has all this proof (and Google simply responding to a subpoena is not proof of any wrong doing), then why has he not sued the socks off the Vogels?
If you click on that link — yes, it appears truncated, but is not — it works.
or
Here is another way to get to the same link:
http://bit.ly/2m5jmpM
Not claiming inside information in any way. The above links are to this same publication we are reading now: The Bull Elephant, which carried photographs of the Google subpoena response with the Vogels’ cellphone number as the recipient of the SMS used to validate the account, as well as the exact dates/times of logins and the IP addresses associated with them. See the second graphic on the page.
The Bull Elephant also carried another piece written by a private investigator who declared the evidence clear:
http://thebullelephant.com/an-investigation-into-the-vogelreeves-emails/
or bitlink:
http://bit.ly/2p5kMPt
In fact, Reeves has initiated legal action, which is how Google was issued a subpoena. Google does not respond to such requests without court approval.
I posted another comment that appears at the bottom of the page on a test I did that I believe proves that anyone could set up a fake email through Google email using anyone else’s phone number.
I was not able to look at the links you provided at my work, but just reviewed the link to the TBE article about the Google evidence.
I see that there was 1 (one) recipient of this email, and that Mr. Reeves filed suit against the fake emailer, but I see no evidence he has taken any action at all against the Vogels; why not?
If he has all this damning evidence ( and I think I just proved this evening that anyone could have created this email address associated with a Vogel phone number) then why hasn’t he sued the Vogels or attempted to have them prosecuted?
I would. I think it’s all manufactured frankly.
Mr.Tom White at VARight has posted his unbiased evaluation of the evidence presented on TBE of the email allegations.
“Mies Rohe” likes to talk about zebras and horses, and apparently has a background in hospital something or other.im
Tom White is an Information Technology professional with years of experience.
“Mies Rohe”, is an obvious Reeves supporter who uses the name of a dead German architect, and is responsible for monitoring TBE to bully you into believing there is no other possible side to this story than the one put forth by those here on TBE.
Read what both have written, and you decide who is plausible and who is not, but at least get both opinions.
Before you read what Tom White has said below, here are some facts I would also like you to consider:
1 email was sent to 1 SPECIFIC recipient (Travis Witt, a good friend and supporter of Bryce Reeves), by one unknown email originator. It was not addressed to a group, it was not send to a blind copy (Bcc) of unknown people, it was sent to ONE person by name.
That email was then shopped around to every major news outlet in the Commonwealth by none other than Bryce Reeves to try to threaten his opponent into getting out of the race. If it weren’t for Bryce Reeves taking this to every news outlet in the state, no one save Reeves and Travis Witt would have known anything about it.
I ask you; Is this the action of a man who cares about his wife and family?
Below is Tom White’s evaluation, and this is what Steve Albertson posted on the VA Right site comments regarding Tom’s post:
“Thanks, Tom. This is very helpful. I’ll send you unredacted versions. I don’t believe there has been a phone records subpoena, as neither Vogel has been a party to Reeves’ lawsuit, so as far as I know there is not yet any smoking gun one way or the other re the Google verification SMS.”
http://www.varight.com/opinion/my-unbiased-opinion-on-the-vogel-reeves-email-scandal/
Here is Tom White:
My Unbiased Opinion on the Vogel – Reeves Email Scandal
I am not supporting any State Senators in the Lt. Governor’s race this year. Neither Jill Vogel nor Bryce Reeves will see my endorsement for two reasons. First, neither has impressed me with their voting records. But the biggest reason by far is the balance of power in the State Senate. Vogel’s seat may be slightly easier to hold in a special election, but Reeves defeated long time Democrat Senator Edd Houck by a hair. And the last thing Virginia Republicans need is to lose the Senate majority. Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats have left the Commonwealth in a much weaker position and we will need both houses and the Governor’s office to restore the state to prosperity.
Right now, only Rep. Glenn Davis is in a position that will not adversely impact the Republican majority in the Legislature.
But if you have not seen the email story, it is in the Washington Post, and on TBE here and here. The second TBE link has several documents included which I have analyzed.
Just as a side note, I am currently an IT manager and have been in the computer and data communications field for over 30 years and have worked on computers for 44 years. I have been a consultant and have done corporate forensics and data restoration of deleted data. I have worked on military encryption gear and have basically spent my entire career in data and computer jobs.
Here is what happened according to the documents that were released.
On 9/22/2016 at 9:57 AM EDT a GMail account was created using the name Martha McDaniel. The email address was [email protected]. The IP address logged was 72.165.xxx.xxx. TBE redacted the IP address in most, but not all places. (They missed one.) Google requires a phone number or other means to verify the user. The phone number they used was 202-669-XXXX – again redacted by TBE. According to TBE, the cell phone number belongs to Jill Vogel’s husband, Alex. And they have a recording of the voice mail message which they claim has been removed that identifies the number as belonging to Alex.
Update – 1/3/17 3:21 PM
Steve Albertson was kind enough to send me the un-redacted documents and, as I expected, the IP addresses do indeed match. So I can verify that the redactions are not relevant to the story.
Problems I have with this:
We can’t verify the phone number because it is redacted and there is no Subpoena Duces Tecum providing records for the cell phone owner. And there is no way to verify the recording as being from the number that has been redacted. Absent some type of phone verification records, I cannot verify that the phone is actually the one tied to the Google account. But I assume they would be able to produce this verified evidence or open themselves up to a suit.
The next event of note was an email sent from this account on September 30, 2016 at 12:49 PM EDT. The IP Address used to log on and send the email was 2.165.xxx.xxx as redacted by TBE. Again, we have no way of knowing the important last two octets of the address.
Another problem with a potential defamation suit is that the email in question does not actually accuse or claim Reeves is having an affair, only that there are rumors.
So what are the un-redacted IP Addresses? TBE redacted a lot of IP addresses in the various documents, but they failed to redact two of the IP addresses. Jill Vogel’s IP address is 162.72.231.134. At the bottom of the page found here just below the redacted IP address that is circled shows the full IP on the bottom line. This is Vogel’s home IP. Or it was from September 19 – September 22 according to the document. And according to the document from Google, the Vogel household accessed the Gmail account 3 times for about 45 seconds total only on September 22, 2016. NOT the day the email was sent.
The account was accessed a total of 6 other times by IP address 72.165.161.144. (If you look at the top of the Century Link response found here you will find the un-redeacted address.) This is the IP address of Vogel’s neighbor who alleges that they operate an unsecured internet WiFi Connection.
So the Gmail account was created on 9/22/2016 from the Vogel neighbor’s internet for a period of about 40 minutes. 4 minutes later, the Google logs show an access from the Vogel’s internet address a total of 3 times for less than a minute altogether. The account was accessed from the neighbor’s account 8 days later on September 30, 2016 at 16:41 UTC which is 12:41 PM EDT. 5 minutes later, the person logged off at 12:46 PM. The email in question was sent at 12:49 PM on September 30, 3 minutes after the account was logged off. But that 3 minute gap is insignificant and most likely accounted for by clock drift. Then on October 1, 2016 the neighbor’s IP address was used to delete the Gmail account.
But what these documents produced so far show is that the Gmail account was not created using Vogel’s internet service. Rather, it was created using a neighbor’s account. And the email was not sent from Vogel’s account, again, it was sent from the neighbor’s account.
Just after the Google account was created using the neighbor’s internet account it was accessed using Vogel’s internet. Not long enough to do anything other than log on and off.
The bottom line is that the account was created on an open WiFi and the email was written on an open WiFi that does not belong to Jill Vogel. The fact that the account was briefly accessed using the Vogel internet service isn’t proof that she was responsible for the email sent 8 days later.
So Reeves will have a hard time proving not only defamation, but he will also have a hard time proving that Vogel even knew anything about it. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that gives way to a lot of interesting theories, but there is no proof.
I would urge TBE to republish the documents without redacting the IP addresses. Often, internet providers own large blocks of addresses. Class B or even A. The first two sets of digits (octets) are the only ones assigned to the owner of a Class B block. And the last two octets change. Not that I think TBE is playing with the redaction’s, but since they missed completely redacting the numbers, I would like to see the un-redacted copy.
The phone number is understandable. But a Subpoena of the phone records showing a text from Gmail would be helpful.
And again, at this point I do not plan to endorse either Senator, so I am not pulling for or defending anyone here. Just looking at the evidence.
One thing Tom did not address is the possibility of IP spoofing which can easily be done. See this entry on Wikipedia, and note that there are commercial software programs used for testing websites which allow the user to do this easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
“…commercial testing products (such as HP LoadRunner, WebLOAD, and others) can use IP spoofing…”
Not only are these products available to anyone, HP LoadRunner (for one) offers a free trial, so it would cost nothing to use it once for nefarious purposes. I’m just saying it’s possible.
Here is second article that Tom White published explaining why he now believes the Vogel internet might have been hacked:
http://www.varight.com/news/i-now-believe-lt-governor-candidate-jill-vogel-may-have-been-hacked-heres-why/
Read them and come to your own conclusions if you can, but at least you will have all the information available, not just what one “Mies Rohe” tells you is fact.
Really enjoy your selective morale outrage here Rick. The intellectual dishonesty is amazing and truly disappointing.
I mostly agree, Nick, but the “you did something worse” tactic isn’t a real defense. Morally the two transgressions are not even in the same class, but they’re both transgressions nonetheless.
Seriously? What a non issue. What George says below this comment is accurate. Sheeze, you are grasping at straws Rick.
A political speech is not an academic paper. Rigorous footnoting is not needed in speeches.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6700167efee582818c9d418f024029f3f0bcaffc6bb74618928dc55623bae259.jpg
What about graphics?
My last paycheck was $22500 for working 12 hours a week online.Start earning $97/hour by working online from your home for few hours each day with GOOGLE… Get regular payments on weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time… Read more here
!wr278c:
➽➽
➽➽➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs278SmartCare/GetPaid$97/Hour… ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫:::!wr278u:……