Wikileaks

[57Brave]

and this is the first time you seen this ?
This was a conversation during the 08 campaign.

But going back to politics in 08 constitutes corruption.

Quite a leap

[Hawk]

and this is the first time you seen this ?
This was a conversation during the 08 campaign.

But going back to politics in 08 constitutes corruption.

Quite a leap

I could personally give a rat's ass about 08' ... but you said that they didn't act on it then, and they clearly and indisputably did.

[57Brave]

you obviously do give a rats ass about 08
It was you that brought it up.

[Hawk]

you obviously do give a rats ass about 08
It was you that brought it up.

Where?

[57Brave]

The Clinton campaign most certainly did act on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_9312004.html

In December of 2007, Billy Shaheen, the co-chair of Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign, raised the issue of Obama’s drug use as a young man, and the possibility that Obama could be attacked as a drug dealer. He said he was talking about how Republicans would attack Obama, but his statements had the effect of injecting racist stereotypes into the campaign: “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks.” It is a tried and true tactic: floating an idea to which you claim to not personally ascribe, with the effect of getting the idea to circulate.

The next day, Clinton privately apologized to Obama for Shaheen’s comments and claimed she had nothing to do with them. Obama didn’t accept the apology because he believed Clinton’s campaign was circulating emails claiming he was a Muslim. According to Reggie Love, Obama’s personal assistant at the time: “The candidate [Obama] very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim.”

In February 2008, the Drudge Report posted a picture of Obama in traditional Kenyan/Somali clothes (including a turban, which helped reinforce the “secret Muslim” smear). Drudge said the picture was circulated by the Clinton campaign. David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager called it “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” Initially, the Clinton campaign did not deny having sent the photo, instead playing dumb about the possible impact of the photo and attacking Obama over it: “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.”



In March 2008, in an interview on 60 Minutes, instead of defending Obama against the “secret Muslim” smear, Clinton carefully and strategically left room open for doubt, saying “I take him on the basis of what he says,” and then when pressed, saying he’s not Muslim “as far as I know.” Clinton could have clearly and unequivocally denounced the smears against Obama, but she didn’t.

---

WOTD: Naiveté

here

[Hawk]

here

How is that 'bringing it up' ?

It was something that was already being discussed, and I was just highlighting that your position was incorrect.

[sturg33]

How is that 'bringing it up' ?

It was something that was already being discussed, and I was just highlighting that your position was incorrect.

Much like the DNC, 57 doesn't want to talk about the fact that his candidate is a racist xenophobic deplorable... instead he wants to distract by mocking you for exposing it

[ESP47]

Guys, it's illegal to be viewing these hacked emails.

Just let CNN sort it all out for us.

[57Brave]

Matthew Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias 2m2 minutes ago

NEW HACKED EMAILS REVEAL CLINTON AIDE ONCE FORWARDED AN YGLESIAS ARTICLE https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15387 …

[57Brave]

like Casey once said, " you could look it up"

Republicans have seized on the episode to accuse the State Department of trying to protect Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. McCauley’s account could undercut those attempts because he said he, not the State Department, had suggested the “quid pro quo.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us...=top-news&_r=0

[50PoundHead]

Can the government of Qatar at least give me $1,000 on my birthday?

[50PoundHead]

As someone who was a minor league political operative for part of my career, I kind of laugh at the Wikileaks stuff that is dripping out about the Clinton campaign. If anyone is truly offended by this, they've been living under a rock. The old saw of "politics ain't bean-bag" seems lost on a vast majority of those offended here. I'd like to see some of the crap Karl Rove's team (or the late Lee Atwater's team) has put together over the years. I've done opposition research and I've written memos outlining the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and some of that commentary was less than polite. I'm not particularly proud of that, but the object is to win and I never worked for a candidate in whom I didn't believe was superior to his opponent and nothing I did was unethical. What is being leaked about the Clinton campaign may be tawdry and troubling to some, but I don't see anything illegal happening. It's a sharp elbows business and you are always trying to find the place where the sharp elbow will do the most damage.

I think the Clinton Foundation and her State Department e-mails are horses of a different color and should be vetted. But as for the Clinton Foundation, I think the donors must be as dense as an igneous rock because donations often mean squat in the big scheme of things if favors are expected. It's changed a lot over the years and my experience at the state level is far different than the cesspool that is Congress, but I worked for a prominent legislator who told me "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, and still say 'No,' you shouldn't be a legislator." That's not applicable now in Minnesota because the lobbying rules have tightened up dramatically, but the spirit of the comments remain pertinent to the discussion.

[Hawk]

like Casey once said, " you could look it up"

Republicans have seized on the episode to accuse the State Department of trying to protect Mrs. Clinton, but Mr. McCauley’s account could undercut those attempts because he said he, not the State Department, had suggested the “quid pro quo.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us...=top-news&_r=0

You know, it's actually really sad when this poor guy (who apparently worked with the FBI for 35 years) is getting dragged into this from out of retirement.

But this is clearly and unequivocally damage control.

People should read the 302 instead of getting lost in the doublespeak. It spells it out pretty explicitly.

[Hawk]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...ist-1476832442

Even without a quid quo pro, the episode shows that the State Department has been assisting the Clinton campaign. Especially notable is evidence that Mr. Kennedy knew the FBI had grounds for classifying the document. According to the McCauley interview notes, Mr. Kennedy called asking for the downgrade, explaining that the email “caused problems” for him.

Mr. Kennedy proposed that rather than mark the email classified, he’d give it a special exemption from Freedom of Information Act requests, which would allow him “to archive the document in the basement of [State] never to be seen again.” Mr. Kennedy seemed to agree that the email was too sensitive for public consumption but wanted to spare Mrs. Clinton the classified reality.

Democrats claim this is all nothing more than State employees engaging in the usual “interagency dispute” over classification—which has been Mrs. Clinton’s defense from the start. But there is nothing usual about the State department calling in “shadow” lawyers to handle emails, intimidating FOIA staff or proposing deals with FBI officials to deep-six documents in State basements. These are the actions of bureaucrats and political appointees seeking to hide from the public the mishandling of sensitive information by the Democratic nominee for President.


From the same piece:

Speaking of the White House, the latest WikiLeaks release contains an email from Clinton aide Phillipe Reines to campaign staffers in March 2015. Mr. Reines is responding to a New York Times headline, “Obama Says He Didn’t Know Hillary Clinton Was Using Private Email Address.” “One of us should connect with the WH just so they know that the email will show his statement to not make sense,” he wrote.

This is the latest evidence that Mr. Obama was aware of, and corresponded with, Mrs. Clinton on her private email server. Notes of an FBI interview with Huma Abedin describe how the Clinton aide was shown an email that the FBI suggests came to Mrs. Clinton under a pseudonym used by Mr. Obama, and she exclaims, “How is this not classified?” She then asks for a copy of the email.

The American public still doesn’t know who knew about Mrs. Clinton’s server, who misused it and how much that put the nation’s secrets at risk. We do know that many Obama officials and bureaucrats have been dedicated to making sure the public never gets those answers.

[Hawk]

As someone who was a minor league political operative for part of my career, I kind of laugh at the Wikileaks stuff that is dripping out about the Clinton campaign. If anyone is truly offended by this, they've been living under a rock. The old saw of "politics ain't bean-bag" seems lost on a vast majority of those offended here. I'd like to see some of the crap Karl Rove's team (or the late Lee Atwater's team) has put together over the years. I've done opposition research and I've written memos outlining the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and some of that commentary was less than polite. I'm not particularly proud of that, but the object is to win and I never worked for a candidate in whom I didn't believe was superior to his opponent and nothing I did was unethical. What is being leaked about the Clinton campaign may be tawdry and troubling to some, but I don't see anything illegal happening. It's a sharp elbows business and you are always trying to find the place where the sharp elbow will do the most damage.

I think the Clinton Foundation and her State Department e-mails are horses of a different color and should be vetted. But as for the Clinton Foundation, I think the donors must be as dense as an igneous rock because donations often mean squat in the big scheme of things if favors are expected. It's changed a lot over the years and my experience at the state level is far different than the cesspool that is Congress, but I worked for a prominent legislator who told me "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, and still say 'No,' you shouldn't be a legislator." That's not applicable now in Minnesota because the lobbying rules have tightened up dramatically, but the spirit of the comments remain pertinent to the discussion.

You and I know that both sides play dirty but that's because we actively follow this.

The majority of Americans don't.

Atwater and Rove were mudslinging experts but, like it or not, they were never caught red-handed in such an overwhelming fashion. Imagine if we were somehow able to extract ALL of the data from Atwater's brain and publish it in neatly organized keyword searchable documents. That is what this is.

These e-mails are the Nixon tapes of the digital age. If they had come out when the Republicans were pushing a candidate like Romney it would have been game over for Clinton. As I mentioned in another post, what is most damaging about the leaks is that there are so many and that there are quotes and comments that are being misconstrued as truths or attributed to HRC even if they clearly are not. These are being pushed hard on social media (as I'm sure those of you with accounts in that world will attest) and are getting media play all over the place thanks to fact that thousands are dropping each day and will continue to drop for the foreseeable future.



The amount of people searching for Trump on Google the past 4 hours. The top search term related to Clinton is Wikileaks.

So, at the very least, Trump is getting his message out there with astounding efficiency. And the pivot to anti-corruption measures is no coincidence either. From a strategic point of view this is a masterstroke. Trump might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but those millions aren't buying incompetent strategists.

Now, whether or not that translates into people buying into the corrupt narrative as it relates to HRC is another debate entirely.

[57Brave]

New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for First Time...
Video...
WIKILEAKS DUMP #12...
Podesta Emails Reveal Cozy Relationship With Hollywood, Iger, ABCNEWS Chief...
Soros Mentioned Over 50 Times...
MEMO: GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT WORKING DIRECTLY WITH CAMPAIGN...
Hillary Wants Obamacare to 'Unravel'...
SHE 'CANNOT WALK AROUND'...
'DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PLANET SHE'S ON'...
CNN live feed drops as Congressman mentions WIKILEAKS...
4 Million Ineligible and Dead on Voting Rolls...
THOUSANDS OF REGISTRATIONS ALTERED IN INDIANA...
Defense Dept. Boosts Overseas Voter Outreach...
O'KEEFE: Dems Explain How to Commit Fraud...
Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times...
LATIMES POLL: ALL TIED UP!
RASMUSSEN: ALL TIED UP!

[Julio3000]

You and I know that both sides play dirty but that's because we actively follow this.

The majority of Americans don't.

Atwater and Rove were mudslinging experts but, like it or not, they were never caught red-handed in such an overwhelming fashion. Imagine if we were somehow able to extract ALL of the data from Atwater's brain and publish it in neatly organized keyword searchable documents. That is what this is.

These e-mails are the Nixon tapes of the digital age. If they had come out when the Republicans were pushing a candidate like Romney it would have been game over for Clinton. As I mentioned in another post, what is most damaging about the leaks is that there are so many and that there are quotes and comments that are being misconstrued as truths or attributed to HRC even if they clearly are not. These are being pushed hard on social media (as I'm sure those of you with accounts in that world will attest) and are getting media play all over the place thanks to fact that thousands are dropping each day and will continue to drop for the foreseeable future.



The amount of people searching for Trump on Google the past 4 hours. The top search term related to Clinton is Wikileaks.

So, at the very least, Trump is getting his message out there with astounding efficiency. And the pivot to anti-corruption measures is no coincidence either. From a strategic point of view this is a masterstroke. Trump might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but those millions aren't buying incompetent strategists.

Now, whether or not that translates into people buying into the corrupt narrative as it relates to HRC is another debate entirely.

Dude...

IMO, these emails are exactly what 50 said they were, and I'm kinda surprised that you're so emphatic that they're more than that.

[yeezus]

lololol god people are funny

[goldfly]

As someone who was a minor league political operative for part of my career, I kind of laugh at the Wikileaks stuff that is dripping out about the Clinton campaign. If anyone is truly offended by this, they've been living under a rock. The old saw of "politics ain't bean-bag" seems lost on a vast majority of those offended here. I'd like to see some of the crap Karl Rove's team (or the late Lee Atwater's team) has put together over the years. I've done opposition research and I've written memos outlining the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and some of that commentary was less than polite. I'm not particularly proud of that, but the object is to win and I never worked for a candidate in whom I didn't believe was superior to his opponent and nothing I did was unethical. What is being leaked about the Clinton campaign may be tawdry and troubling to some, but I don't see anything illegal happening. It's a sharp elbows business and you are always trying to find the place where the sharp elbow will do the most damage.

I think the Clinton Foundation and her State Department e-mails are horses of a different color and should be vetted. But as for the Clinton Foundation, I think the donors must be as dense as an igneous rock because donations often mean squat in the big scheme of things if favors are expected. It's changed a lot over the years and my experience at the state level is far different than the cesspool that is Congress, but I worked for a prominent legislator who told me "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, and still say 'No,' you shouldn't be a legislator." That's not applicable now in Minnesota because the lobbying rules have tightened up dramatically, but the spirit of the comments remain pertinent to the discussion.

yep

[Hawk]

Dude...

IMO, these emails are exactly what 50 said they were, and I'm kinda surprised that you're so emphatic that they're more than that.

I'm not saying that they are things people should be grossly offended by. I'm not offput, personally. But I also can't say that I'm not feeling a great deal of schadenfreude right now. This is embarrassing stuff. I am more offended by the FBI/State debacle which was clearly a coverup and will probably never be disentangled.

In fact, I have said explicitly multiple times that there is no smoking gun - yet - and have gone to great lengths to attempt to correctly characterize the leaks.

I'm honestly more fascinated by the game than the players at this point.

In light of having said that ... what I do believe is that Trump is using Wikileaks as a substantiating element to 30 years of festering Clinton hate. 57 made a point in a thread months and months ago about 'Clinton conspiracies' that never amounted to **** and he was exactly right. But, at the very least, these leaks have piqued a new curiosity in people (voters) and that is evidenced by the information I posted from Google Trends. As I have conceded, people will take away from the documents what they will, but they are hearing about them one way or the other.