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

[panamaican]

I don't know, how about virtually every mainstream media outlet that matters acting as a mouthpiece for the DNC? Does that bother you at all?

No. Similarly, Fox's support for Trump doesn't bother me either. I form my own opinions.

 

[MusterX]

No. Similarly, Fox's support for Trump doesn't bother me either. I form my own opinions.

You really should go through this thread before you make that judgement.

 

[panamaican]

You really should go through this thread before you make that judgement.

I've been through a lot of it. But after a while, I get tired of people screaming "Aha" and then when I dig into it, it turns out to be a rules manipulation that people don't like. And it's rarely a rules manipulation specific to HRC or the DNC. It's often a rules manipulation that most politicians take advantage of to whatever extent they can.

When the bribery for appointees thing broke, I sat down and researched a large number of the alleged bribes. What people were calling bribes were actually aggregates of donation funds raised over many years. The numbers even included money raised AFTER the person was already appointed to the position.

On top of that, the people were almost always long time Democrat or Obama supporters. Which is completely normal. Appointees always come from those circles - people who've been politically involved for years and years before they ever get appointed to something. There were some bad ones, of course, but I found them from lists that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. Just places that ranked good appointees vs. bad. And those lists were years old. Wikileaks was leaking things that you could already find on the internet and trying to imply that they were criminal.

So, I'm not going to sift through tons of bs to find one nugget of truth that might not even exist. If it's out there someone else will find it and inform me accordingly.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Great reply to cocky scumbag Podesta from Wikileaks

 

[method115]

So I went to look into the super PAC thing and I got this from the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...veal-ties-between-clinton-campaign-super-pac/



and



So, it appears that they she didn't violate any rules but took advantage of the flexibility in said rules to maximum effect. I haven't looked into the state and doj stuff yet.

But this is part of why I'm finding it hard to take the Wikileaks seriously. They show a ton of rules manipulations and then people insist that it's equivalent to wrongdoing. It's like the Trump tax thing. Trump manipulating the tax code to his benefit isn't the same as Trump committing wrongdoing. But in both cases, I don't blame the person for staying within the law but getting a gain. It tells me something about their priorities and goals but we already knew Trump chased cash and we already knew that Hillary is a manipulative politician, more confirmation doesn't tell us anything new. All that shows is that they're both good at their chosen careers.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2372

In this email chain you see they are afraid someone has leaked the meetings. She clearly says "sounds like someone from priorities staffing is yapping".

Also found this one with Podesta setting up a meeting with the PAC.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6225

 

[Hans Gruber]

Hillary's dirty tricks, planning to create a fake Craigslist post and frame Trump.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

That is part of the reason they wanted Trump in the race. They were waiting for the right time

 

[panamaican]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2372

In this email chain you see they are afraid someone has leaked the meetings. She clearly says "sounds like someone from priorities staffing is yapping".

Right but that falls under the damage control thing. Trying to preemptively manage fall out isn't an indication that something bad actually happened. As a lawyer, there's a thing where they say that an offer to settle a case can't be used in court as evidence that the group offering to settle believes they did something wrong. Can't bring it up at all because it's prejudicial - it sways the jury but isn't actually proof of anything.

This is the same. In politics, public opinion is often extremely difficult to reverse so it makes sense to identify anything that the public might interpret poorly and devise a strategy to deal with it. Especially when you're playing in the gray area of the rules or taking advantage of them in a way that will be perceived poorly.

But that only concerns me if it crosses into actual wrongdoing. i looked into the super PAC thing because many candidates blur the line about not consulting with each their super PAC over strategy. I've even brainstormed ways you could do it without breaking the rules just because I think it's an easily abused set of guidelines. So I could see someone trying to game the system and inadvertently breaking the law. But whether they break the law or not, the public isn't going to like politicians ignoring the spirit of the law so you have to have a fall out strategy because the public cares about the perception more than the substance.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

So when is Hillary going to be arrested? You think before she wins potus or after?

 

[68W Man]

This is something that if you paid enough attention you would have already known. The Saudi's are one of the biggest state sponsors for radical Islamic Sunni terror groups.

Even after the 9/11 commission got redacted we learned that memberse of the Saudi government funded and fininaced the 9/11 hijackers.

The Clinton's have taken $25 million in donations from the Saudi's, and over a couple million from Qatar.

Yet our government the Bush/Obama administration have provided them with aid, weapons deals, and political favors. Under the Bush administration the 9/11 commission had 28 pages redacted that had talked about Saudi's role in 9/11. Under the Obama administration the President had tried to veto override a bill to allow US citizens to sue the Saudi government twice. Even with massive bipartisan support.

Our country invaded Afghanistan because they had Al Qaeda training camps, and it was believed that Osama was located in that country, of course we found out that Osama was in bordering Pakistan and after 15 years the Taliban has more control of the country then before.

Bush, Clinton, W Bush all attacked Iraq, placed sancitions on it, bombed it, and then invaded it because of Saddam invading neighboring countries and not abiding by UN resolutions and the thought of WMD's which turned out to be false.

Obama funded terrorists to try and remove Assad in a civil war because of "human rights" causing a massive war that has killing 100,000+ and created a massive refugee situation that is now hurting Europe.

Turkey just had a massive coup attempt that Ergodan had to put down using harsh measures such as using his own jets and tanks against his opposition. and is our ally. Yet when Assad uses military force against his citizens he is portrayed as an evil dictator.

Saudi Arabia has been funding Sunni terrorist groups in these wars, they have refused to take any refugees, they have among the lowest human rights of all countries in the world.

But since we know that the Saudi's who are one of the richest countries in the world were the one's funding the 9/11 attacks and many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's themselves, how could we truly consider this country an ally? If not for the fact that they put in massive amount of money to lobby in our government buy off our politicians and have massive oil reserves?


If our countries leaders and politicians have no problems ruining the lives of thousands of American soldiers, wasting billions of our tax payer dollars, and allowing millions of civilians to die in the oncoming civil war or collateral damage in wars for a lot less, why hasn't America even put in economic sanctions or refused to support the Saudi's? How can this not be seen as treason against the American people?

 

[Fawlty]

So basically you are saying don't be mad at the mainstream media fixing this election and both our candidates being shitty, and Washington being corrupt. There is no in between, either STFU or revolution? I'm trying to understand what your message is but I don't understand it. This entire episode of American history is dissappointing beyond belief.

No, I'm saying that the chicken little reaction to things that, frankly, we all know are political reality, is fucking pathetic.

 

[panamaican]

Re-reading my posts it's clear that Trump's campaign isn't doing their background research. They should have known about all of these sexual misconduct things and been prepared for them. Instead, he looks caught off guard and is responding in the moment which drags the story out.

By comparison, by the Clinton campaign refusing the verify the emails they starve the story to an extent. You've got the Wikileaks but they won't reveal their source. So, how do you vet the story before you run it when you can't get any verification as to it's authenticity? It's very limiting.

Trump's Apprentice tapes fall in the same category. When Mark Burnett refused to reply and then stonewalled the MSM on Apprentice back footage, it killed that angle (at least for now).

I'm starting to really appreciate the value of a good campaign manager.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

No, I'm saying that the chicken little reaction to things that, frankly, we all know are political reality, is fucking pathetic.

People are acting like no ones ever had a clue on how politics work and the world we live in and that Trump is free from corruption and will some how clean politics up or something. I'm still waiting for Hillarys arrest.

 

[68W Man]

Evidence that the Saudi's fund ISIS/9/11 hijackers and other Sunni terror groups

https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-leake...d-qatari-governments-fund-isis-221758254.html

"governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”"



Unredacted 9/11 commission.

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org...rrorism-saudi-arabia-and-its-foreign-affairs/


Our country has made billions of dollars providing weapons and arms to the Saudi's who in turn will send weapons to terror groups.

 

[MusterX]

No, I'm saying that the chicken little reaction to things that, frankly, we all know are political reality, is fucking pathetic.

I could say the same about your irrational fear of Trump.

 

[The Diplomat]

But we have the Saudis to thank for our $2 gas....right?

 

[ThePepe2016]

trump on what he will do in syria...

 

[68W Man]

These leaks show what most people already knew.

The Clinton's have massive control of the media and a massive media bias in their favor.

They are willing to take donations from foreign nations and foreign countries even if those countries are sponsoring terrorists.

They are willing to try and do whatever it takes to cover their tracks.

They tell the American electorate one thing and behind the scenes conspire to do what benefits them, and the people who fund them.

They are running the most funded and paid for campaign of all time, they are calling for open borders and open trade. The reason for this, is because their donors want cheap labor. If you want to see a perfect example of this look at all of the tech companies who lobby for increased H1B guest visa's to import tech workers who will donate to Hilary. Look at how facebook co-owner Moskowitz has put in over 30 million of his own dollars into the Hilary campaign.

If people look at the list of Hilary's biggest donors, Soros, Moskowitz, Saban they will see the agenda's they want to push, refugees, blacklivesmatter, wars against Iran/Syria/Hezbollah for Israeli interests, increase in H1B visa's, open borders, TPP it goes on and on. How is this in any way beneficial to the American public?

 

[MusterX]

By comparison, by the Clinton campaign refusing the verify the emails they starve the story to an extent. You've got the Wikileaks but they won't reveal their source. So, how do you vet the story before you run it when you can't get any verification as to it's authenticity? It's very limiting.

Trump's Apprentice tapes fall in the same category. When Mark Burnett refused to reply and then stonewalled the MSM on Apprentice back footage, it killed that angle (at least for now).

I'm starting to really appreciate the value of a good campaign manager.

LMAO no, ABC, NBC, VoX, MSNBC, CNN, the Associated Press, the NYT, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and others are helping her black the story out. That is kinda the point of this thread and these leaks. They have colluded together to black out stuff about Hillary while running negative stories about Trump.

 

[68W Man]

trump on what he will do in syria...

His answer on Syria at the debate was great.

You don't even know who you are funding and the rejection of a no-fly zone.

How is it in American's best interests to remove Assad and allow Sunni terrorists to take over the country?

How is it in America's best interests to worsen relations with Syria and Russia and put US troops in harm to install a no-fly zone for Syria?

Why are we even involved in Syria, the country was one of the most secular and stable before the Arab spring and they personally invited Russia in, they did not invite us to bomb them.

How are the American citizens going to benefit over removing the Assad regime? The only people who I can think of benefiting are Israel who will have a weak broken up Syria on it's walled up border.

 

[ThePepe2016]

His answer on Syria at the debate was great.

You don't even know who you are funding and the rejection of a no-fly zone.

How is it in American's best interests to remove Assad and allow Sunni terrorists to take over the country?

How is it in America's best interests to worsen relations with Syria and Russia and put US troops in harm to install a no-fly zone for Syria?

Why are we even involved in Syria, the country was one of the most secular and stable before the Arab spring and they personally invited Russia in, they did not invite us to bomb them.

How are the American citizens going to benefit over removing the Assad regime? The only people who I can think of benefiting are Israel who will have a weak broken up Syria on it's walled up border.

knock the hell outta isis and prop up assad regime is the fucking stupidest shit i have ever heard in my life

im pro american so i want syria to be chaos, let russians die there, let them fight a war of attrition... and sunnis are better than Russia+Iran... it is that simple.

fuck ur no fly zone