I appreciate the determination JC has going through all of this, but I have to agree with others, this seems much ado about nothing. Anyone with even a remote understanding of how politics are done can see this is all par for the course.
Maybe in the coming days there will be something more condemning and of interest. We will see.
This comment is good for the clintonites, but not the rest of us.
Hey, a guy has to make a living. You know, since I'm on the Clinton campaign payroll.
I would like to add that she has been fundraising and polling so well these days, I've gotten a raise! Hope all the rest of you got your raise as well!
What does you working for Clinton have anything to do with my comment? Clintonites are fearless and devoted sheep that will surrender for their queen. Not employes, well I guess employes are sort of the same, except they get paid.
She's spent well over 8 million and counting on social media- who knows who her staff is. I just recognize the clintonites.
I'm not a Clintonite, but still agree that the emails so far as much ado about nothing, as digin so aptly put it. I don't see why anti-Clintonites would be any more interested in the emails so far. Again as digin said, we're all on tenterhooks waiting for something interesting to come out... but so far, these emails seem more like spam in this thread, and not information that is worth page after page of posts for everyone to filter through. Just a link to all of the emails would be sufficient, no? So that we can all just go and see for ourselves? (no, I'm not telling you what to do - just offering my viewpoint).
Much to do about nothing? Are you delusional? Did you know that Dona Brazile had given the clinton camp one of the debate questions in advance? The emails are a tremendous source of information. Damaging information. And I've seen you guys attack republicans for far less damaging words. Clinton, if elected, will be impeached- zero doubt about that. Now you guys can wait around all day for the mainstream media to report on anything relevant. All I've seen is trump trump trump trump.....
The media has done a terrible job- Shit CNN still hasn't even covered the latest Wikileaks news... give me a break.
You have your opinion and that's great. More power to you. I hope Canada doesn't end up with such a horrible crooked candidate, such as we're dealing with here in the States. Enough said, no need for me to waste your time or for you to waste mine.
In wind pissing!
More like screaming into an echo chamber. Really, only the far left and right care about this non-news. People who were never going to vote Hillary anyways.
Still waiting on something interesting to come out.
EMAILID 12539 Philippe Reines admits to the following about Hillary Clinton's emails March 2015 : "To be clear, there are and will likely remain only two parties who can release the full 55k: State and us. Nobody else will have them. Gowdy will only end up with what’s relevant to his committee, which won’t grow that much beyond what he has. Probably not get anywhere close to 500." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12539
What that doesn't seem to mention is that those emails were deemed classified retroactively anyhow. They weren't classified when they were sent. They went through them after the fact - I assume a team was assigned to read them and decide what should have been deemed classified but had been - and then assigned the label to them. Sounds to me like there is some disagreement about how the term was applied retroactively to some of the emails. Could be a case of an overeager evaluator and/or a genuine disagreement about the classifications. Perhaps this Kennedy felt that marking certain emails as classified wasn't necessarily appropriate and thought this could be clarified with a quid pro quo about the emails in question.
I don't see where it says docs were emailed then marked classified. I do see in the fbi report that says the email was marked classified and Kennedy wanted it changed. How does one retrospectively mark a sent email classified?
What that doesn't seem to mention is that those emails were deemed classified retroactively anyhow. They weren't classified when they were sent. They went through them after the fact - I assume a team was assigned to read them and decide what should have been deemed classified but had been - and then assigned the label to them. Sounds to me like there is some disagreement about how the term was applied retroactively to some of the emails. Could be a case of an overeager evaluator and/or a genuine disagreement about the classifications. Perhaps this Kennedy felt that marking certain emails as classified wasn't necessarily appropriate and thought this could be clarified with a quid pro quo about the emails in question.
I don't see where it says docs were emailed then marked classified. I do see in the fbi report that says the email was marked classified and Kennedy wanted it changed. How does one retrospectively mark a sent email classified?
What that doesn't seem to mention is that those emails were deemed classified retroactively anyhow. They weren't classified when they were sent. They went through them after the fact - I assume a team was assigned to read them and decide what should have been deemed classified but had been - and then assigned the label to them. Sounds to me like there is some disagreement about how the term was applied retroactively to some of the emails. Could be a case of an overeager evaluator and/or a genuine disagreement about the classifications. Perhaps this Kennedy felt that marking certain emails as classified wasn't necessarily appropriate and thought this could be clarified with a quid pro quo about the emails in question.
I don't see where it says docs were emailed then marked classified. I do see in the fbi report that says the email was marked classified and Kennedy wanted it changed. How does one retrospectively mark a sent email classified?
DNC and the Clinton Campaign incited violence at Trump rallies and coordinated illegally with super PACs. Many names and organizations from THIS video are in many of the podesta emails.
EMAILID 12393 Neera Tanden and John Podesta. They realize the email deletion will hurt them but they have no idea how much. They think it will quickly pass "I mean, they will go after the deleting of the private emails...but at some point, this just will have to run out of steam, especially as they see minimal electoral consequence. " Podesta said "They will go after the server but that takes us back to Benghazi which is good for us" https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12393
Both articles say that she DIDN'T know about the foreign donors, and I don't see anything that makes those working for her dirty, as far as this particular topic goes.... It seems that it was all on the up and up. There must be some explanation as to why you posted two articles with a comment that literally contradicts what the articles say. What am I missing here?
she knew about them....gimme a break...anyone who says otherwise had blinders on...between being SOT and the Clinton Foundation there is no way she didn't know
WH is certain that Russia is behind the hack without proof but can't confirm our deny they cut Assange internet.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday refused to confirm or deny if the U.S. was the "state actor" that allegedly cut WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's Internet connection.
EMAILID 12393 Neera Tanden and John Podesta. They realize the email deletion will hurt them but they have no idea how much. They think it will quickly pass "I mean, they will go after the deleting of the private emails...but at some point, this just will have to run out of steam, especially as they see minimal electoral consequence. " Podesta said "They will go after the server but that takes us back to Benghazi which is good for us" https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12393
Sad part is nothing is going to come out of all these leaks except verify what most of us know that she has no business running for POTUS but the average person has their head buried in the sand and will still punch her ticket right to the White House
EDIT::: I dont care who is responsible for the leaks they are doing the job that our own FBI and government wouldn't do, so hats off to whoever it is
What that doesn't seem to mention is that those emails were deemed classified retroactively anyhow. They weren't classified when they were sent. They went through them after the fact - I assume a team was assigned to read them and decide what should have been deemed classified but had been - and then assigned the label to them. Sounds to me like there is some disagreement about how the term was applied retroactively to some of the emails. Could be a case of an overeager evaluator and/or a genuine disagreement about the classifications. Perhaps this Kennedy felt that marking certain emails as classified wasn't necessarily appropriate and thought this could be clarified with a quid pro quo about the emails in question.
I don't see where it says docs were emailed then marked classified. I do see in the fbi report that says the email was marked classified and Kennedy wanted it changed. How does one retrospectively mark a sent email classified?
Both articles say that she DIDN'T know about the foreign donors, and I don't see anything that makes those working for her dirty, as far as this particular topic goes.... It seems that it was all on the up and up. There must be some explanation as to why you posted two articles with a comment that literally contradicts what the articles say. What am I missing here?
she knew about them....gimme a break...anyone who says otherwise had blinders on...between being SOT and the Clinton Foundation there is no way she didn't know
So why did you post two articles that contradict your guess that is based on absolutely nothing?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Both articles say that she DIDN'T know about the foreign donors, and I don't see anything that makes those working for her dirty, as far as this particular topic goes.... It seems that it was all on the up and up. There must be some explanation as to why you posted two articles with a comment that literally contradicts what the articles say. What am I missing here?
she knew about them....gimme a break...anyone who says otherwise had blinders on...between being SOT and the Clinton Foundation there is no way she didn't know
So why did you post two articles that contradict your guess that is based on absolutely nothing?
Because Trump supporters don't read the articles they post. This is the pattern.
Both articles say that she DIDN'T know about the foreign donors, and I don't see anything that makes those working for her dirty, as far as this particular topic goes.... It seems that it was all on the up and up. There must be some explanation as to why you posted two articles with a comment that literally contradicts what the articles say. What am I missing here?
she knew about them....gimme a break...anyone who says otherwise had blinders on...between being SOT and the Clinton Foundation there is no way she didn't know
So why did you post two articles that contradict your guess that is based on absolutely nothing?
Because Trump supporters don't read the articles they post. This is the pattern.
who's a Trump supporter???
Secondly the first article from Fox had suggestions she did know
A week later, Abedin revealed in an email to Mook that Clinton learned about the plan to accept foreign lobbying money by reading about it in the newspaper. But it didn’t appear Clinton was prepared to veto the move.
“She just didn’t know that we had decided to accept it,” Abedin wrote. “Wanted to know who the individuals are and wants to weigh in.”
she found out about it after the fact, but she didn't stop it once she was made aware, so yes just as guilty
EMAILID 15261 More from Mindy (the mole on Elizabeth Warren's team) and Maggie (an NYT journalist, often colluding with the Clinton campaign). Mindy is giving up info as usual, " The NYT (Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman) reached out this morning to tell us that they are aware of a meeting HRC had with Senator Warren at her house back in December. They plan to write imminently, so wanted everyone to be aware that this could pop soon." Giving advance warning. "Just talked w Mindy. Good convo. She said she's been getting really good feedback about Dan's outreach--she said she knows we are talking to the people they suggested and they really like Dan...So good work, Schwerin! Also, she flagged that they're going to push back hard against POTUS on trade." handing out info. "And the NYT piece is fine -- for both sides." Of course it is good for you, one of your pawns Maggie Haberman co-wrote it. Phillipe Reines on the same NYT story : "They have to believe it came from us. Reads too perfectly for HRC. If we intended to do it it probably wouldn't read so perfectly." Once again a crooked journalist wrote it so it is no big surprise it reads "too perfectly for HRC". Just remember that Maggie Haberman from the NYT is as Crooked as they come. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15261
EMAILID 13817 Brent Budowsky again writing to Podesta... It seems Budowsky was an informal adviser of sorts to Podesta (while claiming to be a "journalist"). Budowsky wrote Podesta 70 emails according to the search engine, just in the leaks released so far. This time Budowsky appears to fish for a pat on the back, writing "You'll enjoy how I handled Trump's attack against Huma, among other things...Brent" and attaches his latest article, no doubt the fruit of the unhealthy relationship between him and Podesta. http://archive.is/3FStJ Budowsky is as clear a case of a Clinton campaign operative pretending to be a journalist as there ever was. I provided an archived version of the article because of the Clinton campaign's known penchant for deleting incriminating evidence. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13817
EMAILID 12681 Glenn Thrush , extremely corrupt, dishonest "journalist" writes to John Podesta: "Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything" then he sends a huge part of the article to John Podesta. Absolutely disgraceful. Podesta approves the section of course which showed him in a very positive light to begin with. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV Don't worry Glenn Trush of the Politico. I'm sure Podesta won't tell anyone you did this.
EMAILID 15000 Glenn Ivey and Cheryl Mills discuss their dreams of abolishing the Benghazi Committee, which uncovered much of the information that lead to the Clinton email scandal. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15000
EMAILID 15000 Glenn Ivey and Cheryl Mills discuss their dreams of abolishing the Benghazi Committee, which uncovered much of the information that lead to the Clinton email scandal. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15000
Hint Hint: Maybe just maybe Bengazi wasn't isn't the real scandal after all!
Gowdy is focused on how her Benghazi emails are self-selected by her and therefore paint on an incomplete picture. He is not focused on the classified email, which is great.
Gowdy is focused on how her Benghazi emails are self-selected by her and therefore paint on an incomplete picture. He is not focused on the classified email, which is great.
One of the most amazing things about the release of more than 10,000 emails from Hilliary's top adviser campaign manager and yet I don't see 1 that has people saying rallying "this is why I'm voting for Hilliary" this is insight to a "great future president" or this "is why I'm voting for her". Amazing
Comments
Still waiting on something interesting to come out.
And then the two emails that were marked classified... seems it was an honest mistake, no? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/07/ny-times-reports-marked-classified-emails-clinton-case-without-noting-classification-was-botched/211432
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
DNC and the Clinton Campaign incited violence at Trump rallies and coordinated illegally with super PACs. Many names and organizations from THIS video are in many of the podesta emails.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday refused to confirm or deny if the U.S. was the "state actor" that allegedly cut WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's Internet connection.
EDIT::: I dont care who is responsible for the leaks they are doing the job that our own FBI and government wouldn't do, so hats off to whoever it is
Secondly the first article from Fox had suggestions she did know
A week later, Abedin revealed in an email to Mook that Clinton learned about the plan to accept foreign lobbying money by reading about it in the newspaper. But it didn’t appear Clinton was prepared to veto the move.
“She just didn’t know that we had decided to accept it,” Abedin wrote. “Wanted to know who the individuals are and wants to weigh in.”
she found out about it after the fact, but she didn't stop it once she was made aware, so yes just as guilty
Maybe just maybe Bengazi wasn't isn't the real scandal after all!
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14294
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12539
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/a-rigged-system/
Yakoff Smirnoff
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11277