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."
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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...).
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...