Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Posts 2,000 More Emails From John Podesta (cnn.com)
WikiLeaks has released an additional 2,000 emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta -- the second leak in four days. The first leak contained thousands of emails from Podesta, including apparent excerpts from Ms Clinton's paid, closed-door speeches to Wall Street executives after leaving her position as Secretary of State. CNN reports: The emails appear to be mostly from 2015, covering a litany of policy and strategy discussions between Clinton staffers on how to handle issues of the day and the press, including the release of the book "Clinton Cash" alleging nefarious activity by the Clinton Foundation. Another email has long-time Clinton aide Doug Band referring to Chelsea Clinton as a "spoiled brat." Doug Band emailed Podesta and longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills about a damning story about his consulting company, Teneo, by lashing out at Chelsea Clinton. "I don't deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things," Band wrote. "She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of focus in her life." The emails also revealed that Clinton wanted to respond more forcefully to "Clinton Cash," the 2015 book that looked to connect Clinton Foundation actions and decisions made by Hillary Clinton's State Department. According to an email from another close aide, Huma Abedin, Clinton wanted to tape a straight-to-camera video responding to the allegations. Clinton campaign responded to the release by slamming the Trump campaign for "cheering on a release today engineered by Vladimir Putin," after Trump adviser Jason Miller tweeted a link to the document page with the phrase "And here...we...go."
Deny Deny Deny, Distract, Distract, Distract. Sorry folks, but if you are just now waking up you may want to go back to sleep. Politics is full of criminals and criminal actions, each trying to cover up for each other. The media has been in on the scam, as has been Department heads in charge of prosecuting wrong doing.
It's going to take me a while to read through this lot, I'm not done with the last dump. You can bet your ass the Media won't bother with this, because 11 years ago Trump said the P word. For the people focusing on that instead of actual political corruption, you deserve what is planned by the Left.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This. If this was in any other normal election cycle against a normal opponent, this would be hugely detrimental to Clinton and would cost her supporters and party investment. However, against Pussygate headlines and an imploding Republican party, it's not even enough to crack front page news.
I would probably be a spoiled brat too if I had been raised by parents who taught me that political power is the only thing that matters, and that it can buy you out of any moral responsibility.
It probably also wouldn't help if everything in my life were just handed to me because of my parents' political clout, without me ever having to actually earn anything on my own or even having get a real job that wasn't just handed to me on a silver platter.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Maybe they could wait until there was one with something actually interesting? Clinton didn't like a book that was critical of her foundation, and someone else doesn't like Chelsea. Assange is doing a major disservice to people who don't want to see Clinton elected by burying any potentially juicy details under this constant drip of boring non-news. Where is the email where Clinton brags about how she can grab any guy's dick anytime she wants because of the implication? Where is the email where she boasts about sucking at her job so badly that she doesn't have to pay taxes again?
I read the internet for the articles.
Have you ever considered that it might be for a reason (and not just massive conspiracy)?
Judging by the summary, there's nothing of substance in this release, just some petty bickering and some predictable discussions. What makes any of that newsworthy?
is the press office of the KGB. Only releases information that is useful to russia.
If America didn't criminalize transparency and persecute whistleblowers, then the Russians wouldn't have a monopoly on the flow of information.
Due process. You got evidence please release it.
We've got tens of thousand's of people pouring over all these emails and no one can find ANYTHING that could be submitted in a court of law?! But everyone knows she is corrupt... Meanwhile, we've got the other confessing to sexual assaults and it's just "saying things"
Stay in school kids!
Maybe you should blame your party's leadership for their own actions instead of the people who are revealing their actions.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The trump tape is over a decade old
That the Trump tape is a decade old is a datum back from that era. Comparing Trump then with Trump now shows that he has not changed during that time. That is independent of who ever released the tape.
I don't know if I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that this was all orchestrated for maximum effect before this debate. You'd think that if this tape was common knowledge amongst various people that Billy Bush would have used it to help his cousin Jeb out during the primaries.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
She's got Goldman Sachs and most of corporate America paying her. She's outspending Trump by a ridiculous amount and it's not making a difference. Trump has one thing and one thing only going for him. He's not Hilliary Clinton, and for nearly half of American voters that's all he needs.
If you think people are upset because Trump used the word "pussy," you're completely missing the point.
People are upset because he basically confessed to molesting women, then talked about trying to hook up with a married woman, then bragged about how people with power can do pretty much whatever they want, which you may recognize as the line of thought that is used to criticize the legal treatment of Clinton. It's pretty much the profile of a rapist, even if he hasn't gone that far, and it should alarm people, because he shows no remorse, doesn't even seem to realize that there's anything wrong with what he said or did.
That would be such a good argument if Trump hadn't been fat shaming women, telling people to go hunt down porn and talking about a newswoman bleeding out of her "whereever" in just the last few weeks.
Unfortunately for your argument, Trump's behavior has made it incredibly clear that he has not changed at all, despite his protests to the contrary.
Why not? The mainstream media refuses to do so, but sure as hell runs every 11 year old "pussy" recording it can dig up.
Note: there is a difference between a presidential candidate saying he probably sexually assaulted a bunch of people and internal whining about the boss's kid. Yeah I know its all about relative expectations. So long as trump doesn't shit in his hand and throw it at a camera its a win for him....on second thought maybe thats a win too cause he's sticking it to the media.
The trump tape is over a decade old
When he was but a wee 59 year old.
and occurred when he was a democrat.
Which is relevant how?
CBS was waiting for the right moment for maximum effect ... just like the KGB and wikileaks.
Maybe, though we don't actually know what the circumstances behind the timing were, it could simply be that it took a really long time for a) someone to remember the tape existed and b) to find it.
Either way I'm sure Ted Cruz wishes it would have come out a couple weeks ago!
I stole this Sig
Hillary was also proven guilty by admitting she destroyed emails after receiving a subpoena from Congress which is at a minimum Obstruction of Justice. She is guilty of perjury again by looking at her own testimony where either she lied to Congress or the FBI Director did. Within the statues of the law, she is guilty of mishandling classified information. Proven by the FBI directory who for her case, and only her case, put a stipulation of mens rea on filing charges. NO other cases in the US have used intent as a stipulation for assessing guilt, NONE. Intent has not even been used in the sentencing of cases against US Military mishandling classified materials. Some of which were completely accidental (US Marine who found a paper in his laundry and turned it in only to be handed over to the courts).
Can we stick to facts please...
Hillary did not say that she destroyed email after receiving a subpoena from Congress. The guy managing her email destroyed the emails after being asked to remove personal emails months earlier but he slacked off and didn't delete them until later. The FBI found that there was no collusion. Even the Republicans in Congress couldn't find any evidence. Anything beyond that is just political grandstanding... unless you have hidden evidence to add to the discussion...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
As for intent, historical court cases does not back up your assertion that intent was not a requirement for a successful conviction. Here is a good article explaining the previous cases:
http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/...
Assange doesn't even REALLY believe he's a target of America. If he did he would stop leaking this stuff. Anyone else remember when wikileaks said it would release documents about Russia? Then the Russian security service threatened them publicly? And then they haven't released any anti-Russia stuff since? Assange even removed anti-Russian documents from the Syria release.
Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.
Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.
Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...
American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).
Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?
Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.