Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newly Published WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Campaign Communicated With State Department (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the communication-is-key dept.

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."

31 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:No Shit by unixisc · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, but it does serve as proof to reinforce something that Democrat Deniers keep asserting as untrue

    2. Re:No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a man who rapes children

      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.

    3. Re:No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:No Shit by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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.

    5. Re:No Shit by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...).

    6. Re: No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:No Shit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:No Shit by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...
  2. The DOJ did as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    - 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.

    1. Re:The DOJ did as well by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Leftism as usual by youngone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. There's more to come... by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:There's more to come... by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a straw donor program [cbsnews.com] that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana [nbcchicago.com].

      Talk about straw. You're wording implies this voter fraud "ring" has been "busted", but the referenced article title even says it's an 'investigation' into voter registration fraud. Seems like a big difference between swaths of people trying to vote multiple times, and a pre-election group trying to get voters registered, and possibly individuals getting sloppy or even malicious. If the current argument is that voter fraud actually happens so infrequently that major changes to laws are too heavy-handed because it actually disenfranchises large groups of people, then this particular incident of possible voter registration fraud still doesn't have an effect on the big picture.

    2. Re:There's more to come... by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

      a voter fraud ring in Indiana.

      http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/23/whos-behind-group-police-say-submitted-fraudulent-voter-registration-forms/90778006/

      "the group has submitted about 40,000 registration forms" ... "at least 10 of the group's voter registration forms from Marion and Hendricks counties contained fraudulent information. Local election officials said some of the group's forms were missing key information, such as Social Security numbers and birth dates."

      So, 10 out of 40000 had missing info.

      I am underwhelmed.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:There's more to come... by rmckeethen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where to start? Perhaps you could start by reading the articles you've linked, or maybe even going to the actual sources of those stories? Allow me to help:

      1) The Thornton Law firm (straw donor program) -- The Boston Globe reports that at least 21 politicians nationwide, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have agreed to give back or give-away over $600,000 received from the law firm. Given that no charges have yet been brought, nor have federal authorities even begun investigating the case, it looks to me like the Democrats who received donations from the Thornton firm are being about as above-board regarding this unfortunate incident as you could reasonably ask them to be.

      2) Patriot Majority USA (voter fraud ring) -- As other posters in this thread have noted, the investigation is for alleged voter registration issues, not voting fraud. However, a total of 10 suspicious registration forms, out of the 40,000 the group claims to have submitted, certainly isn't going to move the election one iota in either direction, and this incident seems a far cry from the kind of fraud you appear to be alleging.

      3) Peter Kadzik email on May 19th, 2015 -- As CNN points out in a recent article, the filing referred to in the email had already been made public a day before Mr. Kadzik sent his email. However, aside from that point, I'd agree it does look like Mr. Kadzik intended to tip-off the Clinton campaign, and I would also agree that even the appearance of impropriety in a Justice Department official should be investigated.

      4) Peter Kadzik supposedly in charge of reopened investigation -- Again, as CNN reported in the article linked above, Peter Kadzik is not involved in any known Justice Department investigations regarding the Clinton family. Obviously, if Mr. Kadzik isn't involved the investigations, there is no conflict of interest, making his relationship with John Podesta, or his son's relationship with Podesta for that matter, wholly immaterial. Even Republican Senator Trey Gowdy, who chaired the House Select Committee on Benghazi, admits Mr. Kadzik isn't a decision-maker at the Department of Justice.

      5) Hopewell Baptist Church fire -- Unfortunately, your YOUCARING link appears dead, but several sources confirm that the Hopewell church was likely set on fire Tuesday night, with the message 'Vote Trump' spray-painted around the same time. As the article points out, there's likely no way to know for sure if Trump supporters started the fire, but it's certainly troubling. However, I have no doubt that the community of Greenville will pull together and rebuild the damage, and I imagine some of that help will likely come from Republicans, including those supporting Trump in the election.

    4. Re:There's more to come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  5. Missing the point by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Missing the point by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Missing the point by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Missing the point by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. With no privilege by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Leftism as usual by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Kristian Saucier in prison now, didn't send at all by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Hard to believe by subk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Seems ordinary. by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:Hard to believe by Bartles · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re: Kristian Saucier in prison now, didn't send at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Leftism as usual by kenh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hmm. Sweden. Low federal and corporate income taxes.

    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
  14. Re:Leftism as usual by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  15. Re:Assange's, Will We Survive Your Revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.