Wikileaks releases Podesta's emails

[senseamp]

Signal to noise ratio is too small, most people are just filtering anything email related out at this point.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Where the emails reside is irrelevant to who and what get deemed business or personal (before the rules were changed). That's a point you still don't seem to understand.

Already rewriting history. The State Department and FBI investigations both contradict your assertion. The lack of criminal intent is where the story ends.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Signal to noise ratio is too small, most people are just filtering anything email related out at this point.

It's more the case that the Trump noise is deafening. I bet even Romney could have buried her with the email controversy.

 

[MongGrel]

It's more the case that the Trump noise is deafening. I bet even Romney could have buried her with the email controversy.

Trump is too busy stepping on his own crank these days.

All that needs to be done is film him live and the news feeds just post it, a conspiracy is not needed.

He still screams about how things are rigged etc though.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Trump is too busy stepping on his own crank these days.

All that needs to be done is film him live and the news feeds just post it, a conspiracy is not needed.

He still screams about how things are rigged etc though.

Trump is an interesting case study. Most Republican national candidates have to appease the derp in the primaries but then sprint for the center in the general.

If you listen to any of Trump's appearances on Stern, he is fairly socially liberal and doesn't fit the Republican mold at all. The birther thing was an odd anonaly and I've never understood why Trump became a champion of that lost cause.

Not only did he out derp his competition during the primaries, but he never pivoted. He just kept sprinting towards the derp.

 

[ivwshane]

Already rewriting history. The State Department and FBI investigations both contradict your assertion. The lack of criminal intent is where the story ends.

Do they? By all means show me where the FBI and state department said that Clinton didn't have authority to determine what was personal and what was business and therefore was in control of what would be subject to a FOIA request.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do they? By all means show me where the FBI and state department said that Clinton didn't have authority to determine what was personal and what was business and therefore was in control of what would be subject to a FOIA request.

Don't be stubborn.

The State Department IG report states:
- policies from 2005 require day to day operations to be managed on government servers, which they found Clinton in violation of
- that Clinton should have turned over her emails before she left office, not after the media started to take notice of her personal server
- Clinton's capture and preservation protocol deemed inappropriate and inadequate relative to what constitutes a federal record

The FBI findings found negligence in the handling of classified information.

By all means, please respond. Can't wait for the next round of spin.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Oh Nos! Hillary knew about "Miss House keeping" month's ago and said nothing. The scandal I'm outraged!!!

I'm getting a sense the Russians have no idea how Politics work in the US.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s-months-in-the-making-email-shows/ar-AAjkVvj

However, Trump’s printed comments on Machado in the document seemingly show the Clinton campaign began considering using the episode against the business mogul before the primaries even began

 

[ivwshane]

Again, I'll take a link.

Don't be stubborn.

The State Department IG report states:
- policies from 2005 require day to day operations to be managed on government servers, which they found Clinton in violation of
- that Clinton should have turned over her emails before she left office, not after the media started to take notice of her personal server
- Clinton's capture and preservation protocol deemed inappropriate and inadequate relative to what constitutes a federal record

The FBI findings found negligence in the handling of classified information.

By all means, please respond. Can't wait for the next round of spin.

 

[Jhhnn]

So long as there are leaks this topic will not move forward.

No one is questioning the right of government employees to manage personal emails on a personal email account. It was more than an honest mistake to manage official business on a personal email completely outside of FOIA oversight.

So what? That was not criminal, per the FBI.

The revelations for me is just how closely a political operation mirrors corporate America. Clueless executives far removed from the daily realities of employees that rely on an infinite number of task forces and subcommittees to help drive decions, with an army of surrogates all jockeying for position and influence, with some driven by questionable ethical intent.

That mealy mouthed gobbledygook was a revelation? Really?

"It's not dead! It's just pining for the fjords!"

 

[TheGardener]

In Russia if you are connected to Putin, bribery is not a crime. In the USA, if you are connected to Obama, bribery is not a crime. Nor is a lack of protecting confidential and top secret documents. I doubt though that Putin would protect someone like that.

 

[ivwshane]

In Russia if you are connected to Putin, bribery is not a crime. In the USA, if you are connected to Obama, bribery is not a crime. Nor is a lack of protecting confidential and top secret documents. I doubt though that Putin would protect someone like that.

So Putin > the president of the united states. Got it!

Thanks for letting us into the little world of yours. Altered reality must be so sweet.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Again, I'll take a link.

So you are stubborn and lazy

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So Putin > the president of the united states. Got it!

Thanks for letting us into the little world of yours. Altered reality must be so sweet.

Haha this is good

 

[Jhhnn]

So you are stubborn and lazy

It's your assertion of fact & your obligation to back it up.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's your assertion of fact & your obligation to back it up.

Assertion of well documented fact. People usually demand links when they have nothing else to contribute. It is intellectually dishonest, lazy and immature.

 

[Jhhnn]

Assertion of well documented fact. People usually demand links when they have nothing else to contribute. It is intellectually dishonest, lazy and immature.

Bullshit. If it were well documented & as you claimed you'd have linked it in the first place. Obviously you cannot, so it's just convenient assertion on your part.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bullshit. If it were well documented & as you claimed you'd have linked it in the first place. Obviously you cannot, so it's just convenient assertion on your part.

The State Department IG report and Comey hearing are not well documented? Stop being so insufferably dense.

I decided to humor your asshattery:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

The text they are referring to are on page 23 of the IG report.
https://oig.state.gov/reports/9926

Comey's statement:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't be stubborn.

The State Department IG report states:
- policies from 2005 require day to day operations to be managed on government servers, which they found Clinton in violation of
- that Clinton should have turned over her emails before she left office, not after the media started to take notice of her personal server
- Clinton's capture and preservation protocol deemed inappropriate and inadequate relative to what constitutes a federal record

The FBI findings found negligence in the handling of classified information.

By all means, please respond. Can't wait for the next round of spin.

The State Department IG report and Comey hearing are not well documented? Stop being so insufferably dense.

Of course they're well documented. They just don't say what you claim

Top of page 19-

As discussed earlier in this report, laws & regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps...t-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

On down the way, the report reveals that Sec Powell used a private email server & preserved & handed over nothing other than what landed in State files & that the same held true for the Staff of Sec Rice who didn't use email herself. Clinton's non-compliance with record keeping wasn't anything new.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Of course they're well documented. They just don't say what you claim

Top of page 19-



https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps...t-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

On down the way, the report reveals that Sec Powell used a private email server & preserved & handed over nothing other than what landed in State files & that the same held true for the Staff of Sec Rice who didn't use email herself. Clinton's non-compliance with record keeping wasn't anything new.

Read page 23 again. The behaviors of her predecessors was irrelevant to their assessment of her non compliance.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read page 23 again. The behaviors of her predecessors was irrelevant to their assessment of her non compliance.

So what? They were all non compliant. Hillary wasn't special in that regard.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So what? They were all non compliant. Hillary wasn't special in that regard.

Keep moving those goal posts

 

[thraashman]

Keep moving those goal posts

But when Powell or Rice did it, no one cared. No one held hearings, no one made the FBI investigate, no one said they should be in jail. No one cared, and then Hillary continued business as usual and the right acted like it was the biggest scandal in history (you know, the right who believes the greatest President in history is the only one who committed treason while in office). It's not Jhhnn or the left that's moving the goalposts, it's the far right.

 

[DrDoug]

Regarding the emails and the Russian Red October Surprise that fizzled, an excerpt from an article at Foreign Affairs (registration required):

The month of October is never a quiet one in a U.S. presidential election year. But this time, the run-up to the vote has been marked by a series of high-stakes cyber-skirmishes between Washington and Moscow. Over the summer, intent on derailing the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Russia released damning emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), leading to the resignation of chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Hoping to create yet another stir, Russia then handed over a batch of Clinton’s e-mails to WikiLeaks on October 7. But much to Moscow’s chagrin, Washington was able to rob Moscow of the element of surprise, and Russia’s “October surprise” fizzled.

Just before the WikiLeaks dump, the White House released a statement in which it directly accused Russia for the first time of hacking the e-mails of DNC and Democratic Party members. The unexpected and unprecedented announcement dominated the headlines, leaving Russia’s and WikiLeaks’ attempts to show Clinton as shifty and close to Wall Street as a sideshow….

The failure of Russia’s long-planned October surprise to tip the election appears to have angered Moscow, which had planned this operation well in advance in hopes of destroying Clinton’s chance of winning the presidency. While news of the DNC hacks first surfaced in June, it was widely reported that they had taken place months earlier, and the e-mails were purposely released in July just before the Democratic National Convention. On July 27, Trump explicitly welcomed Russia’s release of the hacked e-mails, stating, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” When the leaked e-mails failed to get sufficient attention, Trump supporters were deeply disappointed. Trump associate Roger Stone tweeted on October 1, “@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.” There is every reason to believe that Russian hackers and their sponsors felt the same way and were disappointed when Hillary’s support surged after the release, while Donald Trump’s campaign hit the shoals…

Trump’s continued decline in the polls throughout October suggests that Russia’s saber rattling has not had any clear electoral impact. International affairs are simply not central to most voters in this election. This is a fact that is hard for average Russians to understand, as their television propaganda keeps them on high alert to the possibility of a Western invasion. As a result, they tend to believe that Americans are also centrally focused on Russia, which is clearly not the case…

On October 17, a British bank announced that it was shutting down the United Kingdom–based bank accounts of Russia Today, a pro-Kremlin media channel. Although the measure will not take Russia Today off the air in Europe, it will most likely make it extremely difficult for the Russian state propaganda network to operate in the United Kingdom. This is the first time that a Western government apparently intervened directly in the media to curb Russian English-language propaganda stations. The move comes just before France and Germany face vitally important elections in the next year. Russian hackers are also suspected of stealing the e-mails of Germany’s Christian Democrat Union parliamentarians, who face a challenge from pro-Russia right-wing extremists. There will probably be selective releases of e-mails from the incumbents there, too, as the election approaches.

Ecuador’s decision to deny WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Internet access should probably be read in the same light. Although the circumstances of Ecuador’s decision remain unknown, there is every reason to suspect that it capitulated to Western government pressure, given the sensitive timing of Assange’s involvement in the U.S. presidential campaign. After all, external efforts to covertly undermine democratic elections have an unfortunate resonance in Latin America…

I don't think Russia loves Trump, I think Russia wants to destabilize America.

 

[postmortemIA]

Regarding the emails and the Russian Red October Surprise that fizzled, an excerpt from an article at Foreign Affairs (registration required):



I don't think Russia loves Trump, I think Russia wants to destabilize America.

I think you're overlooking the fact that Trump's policy is recognized to be similar what Russians have under Putin. Most of Russians prefer him over Clinton, so I think this time they'd want to actually work with him.