Podesta E-Mail Dump

[Perknose]

YMMV, but I found this VF article on the matter fairly sane and balanced. I think this "scandal" is a Rorschach Test for the viewer, with each of us finding enough details to confirm our "bias" that this is either an over-hyped tempest in a teapot or damning and conclusive evidence of the Satanic evil of Hillary Clinton, the Butcher of Bengazi! You can kind of tell which side I fall on, no?

Anyway, I found it a decent article well worth reading all the way through . . . not that I don't expect replies in this thread from folks who have not bothered.

From the article, for Hillary haters:

The first thing you’re likely to feel is weariness. It’s related to a decent rule of politics that people who get restored to office are worse the second time around. Winston Churchill: great wartime prime minister, mediocre peacetime one. Juan Peron: successful 1950s dictator, lousy 1970s dictator. Et cetera. So there’s a dispiriting familiarity to the cast of characters surrounding Hillary Clinton, either as employees or surrogates. Names like Podesta (chief of staff to Bill Clinton back in the 90s), Lanny Davis, Mandy Grunwald, David Brock—weren’t we done with these people 20 years ago? Not to mention Bill and Hillary and Chelsea themselves.

And:

Wealth is also central to the world of The Podesta E-mails. Tanden refers to Clinton donorLady Lynn Forester de Rothschild—who became famous in 2008 for jumping to John McCain after Hillary Clinton lost the primaries—as “that crazy Lade De Rothschild person,” but Lady de Rothschild shows up again and again. Now she’s at Hillary’s speech to a bank. Now she’s getting Hillary to participate in a conference on “inclusive capitalism” in London. Now she’s throwing a book party for Brock, which Podesta will, despite “whacko” qualms, attend. Now she’s offering advice about Elizabeth Warren, writing to Mills that “we need to craft the economic message for Hillary so that Warren’s common inaccurate conclusions are addressed.” Mills forwards this precious advice to six top campaign officials, including Podesta, the campaign chairman and, Mook, the campaign manager.Guest lists include her, just as they include numerous hedge fund managers and financiers. Yes, Democrats look a lot like the party of the 1 percent.

For those I consider the less hysterical regarding Hillary Clinton:

Unless you’re a fierce partisan, you’re unlikely to think these are evil people. To be sure, a lot of them are cartoonish suck-ups, hacks, and mediocrities. But most of the damage done so far is mainly in confirming what we already know. Yes, Hillary is cozy with bankers. Yes, the Clintons have at best a grudging respect for walls between their multiple interests. Yes, the Democratic National Committee was too cozy with Hillary’s campaign. (When Debbie Wasserman Schultzpicks a convention chair without consulting the Clinton campaign, Mook sends an irate e-mail to Podesta and others about it and advises they “sit down with Debbie to make clear how we want things to change/improve before we are willing to consider playing ball with them”). It’s all a bit dodgy, and it’s all very Clintony, but it’s not a scandal.

Finally, you might see yourself in The Podesta Emails—either literally, if you’re in the world of policy or journalism, or symbolically. Life for everyone is mundane, even when the stakes are high, and some of the players are sleazy. Many of us are used to batting away one e-mailer, appeasing another, seeking out time with a third, griping with a friend about a fourth, trying do a favor for the fifth, all while trying to get a job done and keep it together. Our ruling class is educated, ambitious, slightly idealistic, prone to squabbling about the small things, largely aligned on the big things, with a worldview reinforced by the same set of books, magazines, papers, and experts. It’s worried about the less fortunate but also baffled by them. The Podesta E-mails are the way we live now, and whether you see it as benign has a lot to do with your proximity to it. Either way, we’re probably getting another four years of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey wait, I thought a 'dump' related to emails was deleting them all? That's what people on here were insisting just a few days ago.

EDIT: Overall though I don't really get the hype other than it's an interesting look into a high end political operation. I'm surprised at how much they act just like any other office.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's more interesting is how much airtime the story gets overall. Would it get so much airtime if the Russian government handed the e-mails directly to news editors?

 

[momeNt]

Hey wait, I thought a 'dump' related to emails was deleting them all? That's what people on here were insisting just a few days ago.

EDIT: Overall though I don't really get the hype other than it's an interesting look into a high end political operation. I'm surprised at how much they act just like any other office.

Hey wait. You said "document dump" right?!! But, you wouldn't backtrack or misquote yourself intentionally to pretend you were right about something, would you? That would be disingenuous of you.

 

[SP33Demon]

Perk, I think you have a case of Stockholm Syndrome (showing empathy/sympathy for your captors). Try to 'splain away this: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

 

[fskimospy]

Hey wait. You said "document dump" right?!! But, you wouldn't backtrack or misquote yourself intentionally to pretend you were right about something, would you? That would be disingenuous of you.

Oh my god, you certainly wouldn't want to descend into pedantry in order to pretend you were right about something would you? That would be disingenuous of you and we all know how much you dislike that.

 

[fskimospy]

Perk, I think you have a case of Stockholm Syndrome (showing empathy/sympathy for your captors). Try to 'splain away this: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Hey Speedy, it's November 3rd and I thought we were supposed to be two days into the destruction of Clinton by Anonymous already. What gives?

It does seem like you got duped yet again, doesn't it? Do you ever wonder why you're so easy to fool?

 

[momeNt]

Oh my god, you certainly wouldn't want to descend into pedantry in order to pretend you were right about something would you? That would be disingenuous of you and we all know how much you dislike that.

Hey wait, I thought a 'dump' related to emails was deleting them all? That's what people on here were insisting just a few days ago.

EDIT: Overall though I don't really get the hype other than it's an interesting look into a high end political operation. I'm surprised at how much they act just like any other office.

Of course people also frequently refer to a mass transmission of emails and other things as the result of a subpoena as a 'document dump', which would mean there was absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You even separated two words inside a ''. C'mon man. Like seriously.

 

[SP33Demon]

Hey Speedy, it's November 3rd and I thought we were supposed to be two days into the destruction of Clinton by Anonymous already. What gives?

It does seem like you got duped yet again, doesn't it? Do you ever wonder why you're so easy to fool?

I never said they were going to do it, simply reported that it could happen. Given the fact that all of their other predictions were correct, who cares at this point. Clinton is slowly bleeding to death via the FBI. It must hurt watching 2 major battleground states get flipped back to trump (NV, AZ) in less than a week and all the others now back in play.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I never said they were going to do it, simply reported that it could happen. Given the fact that all of their other predictions were correct, who cares at this point. Clinton is slowly bleeding to death via the FBI. It must hurt watching 2 major battleground states get flipped back to trump (NV, AZ) in less than a week and all the others now back in play.

a very cuck-esque answer. pure beta

 

[fskimospy]

You even separated two words inside a ''. C'mon man. Like seriously.

Exactly, I can't believe you're serious right now. You can see the phrase 'document dump' used outside of your definition and in the way I meant it on a dozen places on the internet right now if you search for it.

Like I said, are you descending into pedantry in order to win some point? Seems pretty disengenuous to me, and like I said I know you don't like that.

 

[momeNt]

Exactly, I can't believe you're serious right now. You can see the phrase 'document dump' used outside of your definition and in the way I meant it on a dozen places on the internet right now if you search for it.

Like I said, are you descending into pedantry in order to win some point? Seems pretty disengenuous to me, and like I said I know you don't like that.

I still stand by that the way they handled the email transmission was more akin to the commonly understood meaning of document dump, intended to obscure or hide information pertinent to the case, more than honest and ethical cooperation. It's not about being pedantic or winning a point.

Relaying information pertinent to a subpoena vs a '(document) dump' ... (being purposely ambiguous in case I want to alter my position later) of 30k+ emails only to then learn than 30k+ more emails were deleted, found later, then actually were found pertinent to the original case, is actually PROOF that they were being unethical in their handling of the subpoena. You tried to pass it off as innocent, then when pressed, reverted to changing your own quoted words multiple times in the previous thread.

So no, not pedantry, this is actually incredibly important to how ethical Hillary and her team is in response to an FBI investigation. You schtick is downplay, then when pressed, move the goalposts, revise what you said, find new thread, pretend its an "Aha" moment and feel validated. It isn't just me, nobody likes that.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yup, fskimo is a just a hillary shill like the rest of the lib echo chamber here. They aren't for any change, only for stat quo and the rich globalist elite. I wonder how many of them are actually paid to post their pro-hillary drivel here. This election is about nationalist vs globalist. If you vote hillary, you are voting for stat quo globalism. A vote for anyone else is a vote for this country. I prefer flawed candidate Trump but 3rd party is also good so they get funding for the next election if they can break 5%. Simply put this country needs more voting options the next time around.

 

[fskimospy]

I still stand by that the way they handled the email transmission was more akin to the commonly understood meaning of document dump, intended to obscure or hide information pertinent to the case, more than honest and ethical cooperation. It's not about being pedantic or winning a point.

Relaying information pertinent to a subpoena vs a '(document) dump' ... (being purposely ambiguous in case I want to alter my position later) of 30k+ emails only to then learn than 30k+ more emails were deleted, found later, then actually were found pertinent to the original case, is actually PROOF that they were being unethical in their handling of the subpoena. You tried to pass it off as innocent, then when pressed, reverted to changing your own quoted words multiple times in the previous thread.

So no, not pedantry, this is actually incredibly important to how ethical Hillary and her team is in response to an FBI investigation. You schtick is downplay, then when pressed, move the goalposts, revise what you said, find new thread, pretend its an "Aha" moment and feel validated. It isn't just me, nobody likes that.

This was not in response to an FBI investigation, this was in response to the 19th investigation into Benghazi. The idea that they should respond to a clearly partisan smear campaign like that is not only not unethical, to do otherwise would be stupid.

There was no 'aha' moment here and no moving of the goalposts. It was just always what it is. I don't think you have the basic facts straight on this and yet you're trying to cal something unethical.

 

[Pens1566]

I never said they were going to do it, simply reported that it could happen. Given the fact that all of their other predictions were correct, who cares at this point. Clinton is slowly bleeding to death via the FBI. It must hurt watching 2 major battleground states get flipped back to trump (NV, AZ) in less than a week and all the others now back in play.

You might want to do your homework on the NV prediction there alpha-man. I'd hate to see you cuck yourself.

 

[SP33Demon]

You might want to do your homework on the NV prediction there alpha-man. I'd hate to see you cuck yourself.

Coming from a cuck, I'll take it seriously.
Clinton News Network (aka CNN) just reported a +6 in their 10/25-11/1 poll, so it's probably even worse than that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../nevada_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-6004.html

 

[Pens1566]

Coming from a cuck, I'll take it seriously.
Clinton News Network (aka CNN) just reported a +6 in their 10/25-11/1 poll, so it's probably even worse than that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../nevada_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-6004.html

Yep, it says she's down 6. If you weren't a raving lunatic, you'd look a little deeper as to why that is and what mistakes were made in their sampling and other anomalies.

BTW, you do realize your posting history is just one giant performance art of a reverse cuck, right? We've all watched you get fucked over and over and over and over again.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yep, it says she's down 6. If you weren't a raving lunatic, you'd look a little deeper as to why that is and what mistakes were made in their sampling and other anomalies.

BTW, you do realize your posting history is just one giant performance art of a reverse cuck, right? We've all watched you get fucked over and over and over and over again.

CNN doesn't make mistakes, remember? They don't fix debates by giving Democrats the answers in advance, remember? Wait, are you saying they intentionally cooked the numbers so Trump would lead? and Reverse cuck?

 

[brycejones]

They don't fix debates by giving Democrats the answers in advance, remember?

LOL

 

[skull]

Yep, it says she's down 6. If you weren't a raving lunatic, you'd look a little deeper as to why that is and what mistakes were made in their sampling and other anomalies.

BTW, you do realize your posting history is just one giant performance art of a reverse cuck, right? We've all watched you get fucked over and over and over and over again.

I haven't noticed speedy but I've noticed all you lefties on this board jerk each other off so much it would seem your talking about you and eskimo pie or does that make your cover story wives the cucks?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I haven't noticed speedy but I've noticed all you lefties on this board jerk each other off so much it would seem your talking about you and eskimo pie or does that make your cover story wives the cucks?

lol, um, wat?

 

[jman19]

lol, um, wat?

I don't think that was English.

 

[skull]

What the fuck guys? Your acting like pens made any goddamn sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

I never said they were going to do it, simply reported that it could happen. Given the fact that all of their other predictions were correct, who cares at this point. Clinton is slowly bleeding to death via the FBI. It must hurt watching 2 major battleground states get flipped back to trump (NV, AZ) in less than a week and all the others now back in play.

Dream on, Speedy. Nevada has always been iffy (home of the Bundy boys & Sharron Angle) & Arizona has never really been in play.

 

[momeNt]

This was not in response to an FBI investigation, this was in response to the 19th investigation into Benghazi. The idea that they should respond to a clearly partisan smear campaign like that is not only not unethical, to do otherwise would be stupid.

There was no 'aha' moment here and no moving of the goalposts. It was just always what it is. I don't think you have the basic facts straight on this and yet you're trying to cal something unethical.

Alright, so at least we admit that they handled the subpoena in an adversarial manner makes it "not unethical" when it came from a congressional subpoena (you're right, not FBI investigation) because it was "clearly partisan". Glad we got that out of the way. So basically all your defense of her actions comes purely from your partisanship? So THAT'S when its okay to destroy, or obscure, evidence and impede an investigation. lol