Wikileaks releases over 2,000 emails from Clinton campaign chair (John Podesta) UPDATED

Status
Not open for further replies.

theBLADE1

The sharpest poster on the Sher
@Black
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
170
http://www.redflagnews.com/headline...-over-2000-emails-from-clinton-campaign-chair

The internet whistleblowing group Wikileaks released over 2,000 emails involving Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The release comes the same day the State Department published 350 emails previously deleted from Clinton's private server.

At first inspection the emails date as far back as 2008 to 2016 and cover the gamut from the mundane like "Hillary Clinton’s Chipotle Order” to “Call with HRC” to “My position on the Iran deal” sent from Nancy Rotering to John Podesta.
Wikileaks said Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001.

Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials in close contact with Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2015 about potential fallout from the former secretary of state’s use of a private email server.

The State Department released 75 pages of Clinton’s emails on Friday, following a court order last month.

Here's the link to the emails. Feel free to search through them at your own whim.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

UPDATED 10/10/16

Brand-new batch of leaks dropped today!!!!!!!!!

https://www.rt.com/usa/362255-clinton-podesta-wikileaks-emails/




Former President Bill Clinton features prominently in the latest leaks, as highlighted by Wikileaks’ Twitter feed. In one, People close to the power couple pushed for Mr. Clinton, referred to as “WJC” for William Jefferson Clinton, to be less involved with his wife’s presidential campaign due to his extramarital affairs.

“I had a multi-email exchange with someone in the media this morning---a name you would know---who is telling me that there are people close to the Clintons who says WJC's sex life could be damaging to her,” a January 2016 email from blogger Brent Budowsky to Podesta reads.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2301

Another email, dated December 2011, from Doug Band, a lawyer who helped create the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), said that Clinton Foundation Chief Operating Officer Laura Graham was “suicidal” due to “the stress of all of this office crap with wjc” and the Clinton Valley Center. Band also called out the couple’s daughter Chelsea for not caring about “her role” in the office problems.

“Bruce [Lindsey] said the stress of specifically the office had caused his very serious health issues as you both know,” he wrote.“But I'm sure chelsea is more concerned with a mostly false story in the distinguished ny post about mf global and teneo not her role in what happened to laura/bruce, what she is doing to the organization or the several of stories that have appeared in the ny post about her father and a multitude of women over the years.”





That email wasn’t the first time Band expressed dislike of Chelsea Clinton. In an email to Podesta a month previous, he said she was “acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.”

What a shocker! Who would have ever thought that Chelsea Clinton is a complete bitch????
:rolleyes:

 
Last edited:
Reading through these is surreal and I can't but feel like it's an extreme violation of privacy.
 
Reading through these is surreal and I can't but feel like it's an extreme violation of privacy.
There's a big difference between leaks that uncover bad behavior, and leaks for the sake of leaking (and damaging). These increasingly seem to be trending towards the latter.
 
Reading through these is surreal and I can't but feel like it's an extreme violation of privacy.

Yeah I get that. But I guess a lot of people feel like she is so connected with shady behavior that any seemingly innocent chain of back-and-forth emails could hold some damning information.
 
There's a big difference between leaks that uncover bad behavior, and leaks for the sake of leaking (and damaging). These increasingly seem to be trending towards the latter.

I just don't know anymore, this election is bonkers.
 
Yeah I get that. But I guess a lot of people feel like she is so connected with shady behavior that any seemingly innocent chain of back-and-forth emails could hold some damning information.

I'd say the more reasonable thing to do is have someone read the emails and only disclose the ones that are damning. This is assuming this sort of thing is ethical in the first place.
 
I'd say the more reasonable thing to do is have someone read the emails and only disclose the ones that are damning. This is assuming this sort of thing is ethical in the first place.

That sounds good in theory but it's 2016 going on 2017 and ethical is out the fucking window.
 
Reading through these is surreal and I can't but feel like it's an extreme violation of privacy.
Yes, but remember that this is the same government that thinks PRISM is okay.
 
I'd say the more reasonable thing to do is have someone read the emails and only disclose the ones that are damning. This is assuming this sort of thing is ethical in the first place.
Wikileaks used to have a practice of at least redacting information relating to privacy that they discontinued.

"We have a harm minimization policy," the Australian told an audience in Oxford, England in July of 2010. "There are legitimate secrets. Your records with your doctor, that's a legitimate secret."

Assange initially leaned on cooperating journalists, who flagged sensitive material to WikiLeaks which then held them back for closer scrutiny. But Assange was impatient with the process, describing it as time-consuming and expensive.

"We can't sit on material like this for three years with one person to go through the whole lot, line-by-line, to redact," he told London's Frontline Club the month after his talk in Oxford. "We have to take the best road that we can."

Assange's attitude has hardened since. A brief experiment with automatic redactions was aborted. The journalist-led redactions were abandoned too after Assange's relationship with the London press corps turned toxic. By 2013 WikiLeaks had written off the redaction efforts as a wrong move.

Withholding any data at all "legitimizes the false propaganda of 'information is dangerous,'" the group argued on Twitter.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b70d...ives-are-exposed-wikileaks-spills-its-secrets
 
Yeah I get that. But I guess a lot of people feel like she is so connected with shady behavior that any seemingly innocent chain of back-and-forth emails could hold some damning information.
Yeah well maybe the media will do it's freaking job and fully vet them rather than just arbitrarily sensationalize this whole thing to push this horse race narrative. If there's really legitimately something in them that points to illegal behavior or real misconduct than so be it .... but I can just see the headlines now blowing every little thing out of proportion.
 
Whoa.....
Thought that was all just referring to the banning of militerizing spacecrafts for use against nations on earth not for preparation against aliens.

Also... Brierbart absolutely, positively hated John Podesta. No surprise that Assange is releasing his stuff.

It's all so wrong though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top