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

[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

[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...).

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

[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: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: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.