The Podesta Emails

1…3031333536…68

Comments

  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Geez, all of this makes Watergate look pretty tame.
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    edited October 2016
    unsung said:

    Geez, all of this makes Watergate look pretty tame.

    Exactly!

  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    Gern Blansten said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    JC29856 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    JC29856 said:

    We already knew this

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12H1QA

    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?
    Seems to me that's what happened: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-matter-if-Clintons-emails-were-retroactively-classified-as-classified

    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
    Yeah this dead horse has been beaten enough.
    image
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    pjalive21 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    Dirty folks working for Clinton and it appears she knew about it

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/take-money-clinton-aides-agreed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html#

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-emails-show-clinton-camp-chatter-on-foreign-lobbying-health-taxes/

    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
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    Dirty folks working for Clinton and it appears she knew about it

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/take-money-clinton-aides-agreed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html#

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-emails-show-clinton-camp-chatter-on-foreign-lobbying-health-taxes/

    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.
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    edited October 2016
    dignin said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    Dirty folks working for Clinton and it appears she knew about it

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/take-money-clinton-aides-agreed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html#

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-emails-show-clinton-camp-chatter-on-foreign-lobbying-health-taxes/

    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

    Post edited by pjalive21 on
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    EMAILID 15202 Robby Mook the campaign manager Mentioning the Priorities super PAC (see O'Keefe video abaove) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15202
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JC29856 said:

    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!
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited October 2016
    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.

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14294
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JC29856 said:

    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.

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14294

    Mr Gowdy isn't going to like being fed only a certain set of emails...

    https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12539
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    JC29856 said:

    We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.

    Lol, he must be going nuts by now. I know I can't stand to be without it during an 8 hour power outage, and I'm not even Julian Assange. :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    22 pages... have we found the smoking gun yet? lol
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    American butt hurt

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/a-rigged-system/
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    What a dummy I am, I never knew lobbyists write 99% of the legislation and 75% of the news headlines.
    Yakoff Smirnoff

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11277
This discussion has been closed.

Categories