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."

Comments

No Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't need another leak to let us know how corrupt the Clintons are.

Re: No Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's WL revelation about DOJ coordination ("heads up") with the Clinton machine is more concerning.

Re:No Shit

[Xenographic]

> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.

The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:

http://jezebel.com/the-source-...
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31...

The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...

The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.

There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.

FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.

Re:No Shit

[Fragnet]

"I may lose the election what shall I do? I know, I'll accuse Trump of being a pedo".

Yea, that'll work. Speaking of rapists, who the fuck is that stupid bitch married to again? Bill Clinton? You stupid fuck.

Re:No Shit

[Xenographic]

Well, yes, but that's because they handed out immunity to everyone involved in destroying evidence, did not convene a grand jury, and let the one person they had all the evidence for wrongdoing on off the hook because she "lacked intent." A standard that does not exist in the statute, when there are plenty of false exculpatory statements that can be used to establish intent and a pervasive scheme that lasted for years that also demonstrates intent. The only thing left is the Obama pardon, though I think that will only come if Trump wins.

But yeah, nothing to see here, just Hillary cheating again, like on the debate, or when inciting violence or when shafting Bernie (and blaming said violence on him...).

Re:No Shit

[AmiMoJo]

Most serious politicians commit their policies and talking points to memory, and then prepare extensively for these debates. You are basically saying that Trump's lack of preparation, poor memory and off-the-cuff style makes her professionalism seem suspicious to you.

Re:No Shit

[acrimonious howard]

> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.

I agree that probably went too far, I'd say: "There's a man who brags about sexual assault, waffled on the KKK, insults large groups of people he's trying to lead, takes unnecessary risks and losses often in business, uses charity donations to buy huge expensive murals of himself, breaks campaign precedent with secrecy over tax returns, and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her."

Mark troll if you want, it's all still true.

Re:Leftism as usual

[youngone]

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop basing politics on feelings/desires and focus on what works. But then we would be Rightist.

Not necessarily, Sweden works pretty well and I'm not sure many Americans would call them rightists.

I live in a Western country friendly to the US. The Governing party here is pretty right-wing by our standards, but would be considered dangerously communist in the US.

Missing the point

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Missing the point

[grcumb]

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.

No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time. This kind of behaviour is run of the mill with just about any news story that includes both private and public sectors. They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion. And the fact that someone's taken input from someone else doesn't imply anything; it's neither positive nor negative.

Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?

I'm not.

Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens. And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions. They'd be remiss not to check in.

Seriously, the effort people on both sides are going to in order to vilify and demonise the opponent is shameful. A pox on both your houses.

Re:Missing the point

[Obfuscant]

They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion.

If both parties tell the truth, then there is no contradiction or confusion.

"What color are you going to tell the New York Times the sky is?"

"I am going to say 'green'."

"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."

Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens.

This was communications between the US State Department and the Hillary Clinton political campaign. Neither are "media".

And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions.

Neither John Podesta nor Nick Merrill were ex-directors of the State Department.

Seriously, the efforts people on one side are going to in order to excuse criminal behaviour is shameful.

Re:Missing the point

[Bartles]

Why is the State Department forwarding information to a non-governmental person before they release it to the public? You don't see anything wrong with that? Even worse that this person is a poltical candidate, and the State Department is not supposed to engage in political activity.

Re:Missing the point

[Boronx]

It's a measure of decline of Slashdot that this kind of illogical bullshit gets modded up.

The idea that it's a crime for the State department to discuss it's response to questions from the media with a former Secretary (or her people!) should never have made it past the first neuron in charge of filtering stupid ideas.

"I am going to say 'green'."

"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."

That's all in your head. If they actually had agreed to lie about something, the story would have been about State and Clinton agreeing to lie about something.

Re:Missing the point

[Obfuscant]

The idea that it's a crime

And you're getting modded up for trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "crime", you did.

If they actually had agreed to lie about something,

It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened", not factual evidence that the State Department wanted to know what color to say the sky is.

The fine summary tells us that nobody has figured out what was changed by the State Department at the campaign's request.

The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it. No, it wasn't state confabbing with the ex-director -- John Podesta and Nick Merrill haven't been directors ever.

I'll just go and leave this

[rsilvergun]

right here.

Call me a troll all you want, but my God, if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination then she's practically Christ (Obama gets to be God, since we haven't found jack on him).

Re:Leftism as usual

[lgw]

The 'alt-right' people ain't the only ones who have problems w/ Leftists

The term 'alt-right' is ambiguous right now. Is alt-right a bunch of fringe internet whackos? Or is it the 1/3rd or so of America who's on the right, but feels entirely disenfranchised by the GOP (to the point that voting for Trump seems the best alternative)?

'Alt-right' means different (if overlapping) groups depending on who you talk to, and how much they live on the internet.

There's a fairly large crowd that has a problem with "Leftists", but I would say "yes, and that's the alt-right - which is now more mainstream than the GOP".

Re:Seems ordinary.

[Bartles]

If you were the subject of a criminal investigation by a government entity, do you see it as ok for them to secretly communicate positions and statements to you before they are released to the public. Do you rally think its ok for an investigator to do this with the subject of the investigation?

Re:There's more to come...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well argue with a brick wall, dude. Anything wrong that isn't directly tied to Trump is Clinton's fault in the eyes of Trump supporters while anything wrong that is directly tied to Trump is immediately disregarded as unsubstantiated hearsay, misrepresentation, quotes taken out of context or part of a conspiracy. Trump could rape their mothers and they'd swear on a bible that mom was asking for it.

Re: Kristian Saucier in prison now, didn't send at

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyone else ?

Because she's better than your sorry asses in every way and is having the FEMA camps prepped and is distributing those hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo the Feds have been buying up to DHS and other domestic security forces even as we speak. Keep running your mouths against Clinton and you won't make it to the camps alive. Think of your families and STFU.

Re:The DOJ did as well

[Snotnose]

She was secretary of state. Did she not think she would get, or send, classified emails? If no, she's a fucking idiot who has no business being president. If yes, she's guilty of mishandling classified material which would get you or I 10 years in Federal pound me in the ass prison.

I do not think HRC is a fucking idiot.

Re:The DOJ did as well

[Xenographic]

You might want to read some of the FOIA dumps coming out of the FBI.

This video gives a pretty good rundown of all the ways this prosecution was weird as hell. This is Congress grilling the FBI about their handling of the case.

Re:Leftism as usual

[gfxguy]

I notice how people from many of the most homogeneous countries like to point fingers at the U.S. and talk about how racist we are, and how evil the people who want to stop illegal immigration can only be racist, despite the fact that this country takes on more legal immigrants than any other country in the world.... and you don't here people complaining about the legal immigrants.

Re:Assange's, Will We Survive Your Revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the spoiled (and uneducated) brat. Trump isn't a politician, which is part of his attraction by many Americans who are sick of politicians. Pull your head out of your bum.

propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the New York Times which openly opposes Trump admits the FBI has looked into Russia-Putin-Trump ties and found NOTHING.

This is the same sort of big bold lie that the Democrats spread last election cycle about Romney being a tax cheat, which after the election Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) admitted was a lie but successfully helped torpedo Romney. Reid had told that lie on the Senate floor where he knew that the press would run with it but the Constitution would prevent him being prosecuted for libel or slander (he knew most Americans were too de-educated to know that he was gaming the system to fool them).

The Democrats are far better at being evil in election cycles than the feckless GOP. Every damn election cycle, Gloria Allred calls press conferences and announces that she is representing some poor young female "victim" (often multiple "victims") of a Republican and then after the election *POOF* they all scurry away never to be seen again (remember all the women she trotted out as "victims" of Herman Cain?). Keep voting for the dirtbags that the dirtbag propagandists tell you to vote for! It's been working really well, hasn't it?

I suspect there's a reason why all the super-rich in both parties and on Wall St who've been getting fat-and-happy are backing team Hillary with their money, their votes, and their activism - and there's NOTHING in it for the declining middle class or the stagnant lower class.

Re:There's more to come...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting the Record is working extra hard in the final days. Do they pay you overtime ?