Slashdot Mirror
Newly Published WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Campaign Communicated With State Department (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show. Emails from the files of Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta show that the department official provided Clinton aides with the agency's official response to a New York Times reporter in advance of the newspaper's March 2015 report that Clinton had used a private email account to conduct all of her work-related business as secretary. The stolen emails were released Wednesday by WikiLeaks, part of a massive trove of emails released by the document-leaking group on a daily basis since last month. WikiLeaks has indicated it intends to leak emails stolen from Podesta's account every day through the election. In a March 1, 2015 email, State Department press aide Lauren Hickey told Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill and two other advisers that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had "just cleared" a reply to the Times. Hickey provided the agency's response to the Clinton aides and also appeared to agree to a change requested by the campaign, saying: "Yes on your point re records -- done below." It is not clear what specific change was requested and made. State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday that the department would not comment on alleged leaked documents. But he said the department's effort to "provide accurate information to the media" about Clinton's tenure at the agency has "at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy."
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
- The DOJ warned her ahead of interviews
- The DOJ has obstructed the FBI at every turn in its investigations
- The State Department massaged the messages to the media in collaboration with Clinton's help
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
- CNN provided Clinton with the primary debate questions ahead of time (but not Bernie, of course)
- The DNC favored Clinton to the detriment of Bernie at every opportunity, including paying consultants to cause violence at Trump rallies but put the blame on Bernie supporters.
Yes, these are all proven facts.
True, but it does serve as proof to reinforce something that Democrat Deniers keep asserting as untrue
So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.
There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.
We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.
An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
And just to be clear, according to the Wikileaks document, this happened *after* she had left the state department and was running her campaign.
She was, at the time, a citizen with no government authority or privilege.
I get that Slashdot has an anti-Clinton agenda, but come on. Just because a thing was in an email doesn't make it news for nerds.
No and no.
Nerds don't care at this point about all these stories.
They don't matter because this election is going to be the most embarrassing landslide in ordern history in the US.
So please stop putting these on the front page.
Navy machinist Kristian Saucier took some selfies aboard ship and is in prison for it right now. Saucier didn't send the pictures to anyone. Having the classified information (pictures of the interior of the ship) on a non-secure device is a crime, and Saucier is in prison for that crime.
Clinton instructed her staff on how to send classified information "remove markings and send insecure". She intentionally instructed staff to do what Saucier did (have info on an unsecured device) AND more- also Clinton had it sent over the public internet.
What proof do you have for this? The Jane Doe case was originally thrown out for being improperly filed. It was then refiled in another state by an IP lawyer who had spoken to his client once via Skype. Todays planned press conference was cancelled.
Bill Clinton is documented to have flown on Epstein's private jet more frequently than Trump and there's plenty of rumors about Hillary taking that flight too.
That bogus rape accusation against Trump was a smear job by Norm Lubow, a known instigator and agitator who used to work for the Jerry Springer show. No doubt one of the mentally ill people that the DNC has hired to do their dirty work.
Almost everything the DNC and Clintons have been accusing their opposition of, they are guilty of themselves:
Colluding with a foreign nation against the interests of America (Saudi Arabia/Qatar)
Lying
Warmongering
Money Laundering
Rape
and if the current rumblings from the NYPD are true: Paedophilia
It's the most raging case of projection I've ever witnessed.
The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.
She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.
Here's TFL (the fucking law)
18 USC 1924
18 USC 1623
18 USC 1001
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
Know a Radio Room officer who went to jail when a TS document found its way into a trash can instead of the burn bag.
HE didn't even handle the damn document. He was just the officer in charge of the space.
So, yes. The rules are quite different depending on who your friends are, who you are and how much financial influence you can wave around.
Folks go to jail for far less than what Hillary has pulled which is the biggest problem with the whole damn thing.
Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyone else ?
I hope if you ever find yourself under criminal investigation while running for office, that the investigating agency provides you with inside information advantageous to your campaign as well. Totally normal stuff.
You and I have differnet definitions of the term "low":
Sweden's "low" income taxes: no taxes on first 413,200 SEK ($46,376US), 20% tax up to 591,600 SEK ($66,399US), and 25% tax on all income above 591,600 SEK ($66,399US)
Sweden's "low" investment tax is 30%
Sweden's "low" corporate taxes are 22%
Source: https://sweden.se/society/why-...
SEK to US Dollar conversion tool: http://www.likeforex.com/curre...
Ken
She was given some of the questions before the debate. It's all over mainstream media. CNN fires one of their own for doing it.
You miss the part where Donna Brazile was the person who fed Clinton at least two questions, right down to the information on the person who was going to be asking the question? Guess so. It's only been all over the media for the last week, and only picked up steam after CNN canned her and the boss of CNN publicly came out to blast her.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bill Clinton had to pay about 800 000 usd to one of his raped victim by court order.