(10-15-2016 04:59 AM)budoslavic Wrote:  

Podesta emails 8 just dropped.

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/commen...many_more/

Here's a good starting point for Leak 8, should be quickly sorted through by Reddit since it's a Saturday, I personally haven't had time to really look due to work, I'm sure I'm not alone

(10-15-2016 08:36 AM)komatiite Wrote:  Is this real? Seems like a fake but it's hilarious. Evan McMullin, sharia Law Center, Glenn Beck and Bill Kristol on the Clinton payroll for "Voter Suppression?"

Seems super legit, not sure why they haven't labelled this shop it "Super secret evil invoice of evil deeds"

Goldman Sachs paid speeches: https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/11011

3 separate word doc attachments.

An example:

Quote: Now, that looks back to an important
connection of what I said before. The biggest
supporters of a provocative North Korea has been
the PLA. The deep connections between the military
leadership in China and in North Korea has really
been the mainstay of the relationship. So now all
of a sudden new leadership with Xi and his team,
and they're saying to the North Koreans -- and by
extension to the PLA -- no. It is not acceptable.
We don't need this right now. We've got other
things going on. So you're going to have to pull
back from your provocative actions, start talking
to South Koreans again about the free trade zones,
the business zones on the border, and get back to
regular order and do it quickly.
Now, we don't care if you occasionally
shoot off a missile. That's good. That upsets the
Americans and causes them heartburn, but you can't
keep going down a path that is unpredictable. We
don't like that. That is not acceptable to us.
So I think they're trying to reign Kim
Jong in. I think they're trying to send a clear
message to the North Korean military. They also
have a very significant trade relationship with
Seoul and they're trying to reassure Seoul that,
you know, we're now on the case. We couldn't pay
much attention in the last year. We've got our own
leadership transition. But we're back focused and
we're going to try to ensure that this doesn't get
all the rails.

Stolen blantantly from the Reddit post at this time (they tend to update it as the day goes on):

Quote:EMAILID 10286 They are discussing the candidacy of Jeb! "Jeb Bush is also spending candidate money on top of PAC money starting next week in NH only so far - currently booking 9/9-9/29 (3 weeks). We haven’t seen creative yet for this, but would assume it would come down on Tuesday. We do not have a big chunk of the spending yet, but should have when stations re-open on Tuesday." They were very worried about and very closely following the moves of Jeb! as the supposed nominee of the Republicans (LOL). They didn't know he was low energy at this time. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10286
EMAILID 11011 The title of this one is: Goldman Sachs paid speeches "" It has some transcripts. START DIGGING ON THIS. Here is one that was highlighted in the email body, but I'm sure we can find more. It is about the poor banks: “I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.” Poor scared banks, they really need a helping hand from government. https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/ema...#efmA5-A9Y
EMAILID 10275 Gathering information on Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of raping her. They likely want to destroy Broaddrick to neutralize her accusation, which creates the public image that Bill Clinton is a rapist. David Kendall writes : "The first is the affidavit and cover letter from her lawyer. This document makes clear that Broaddrick is indeed “Jane Doe #5” in the Paula Jones suit. I believe this has been unsealed but before we release it publicly, I’d need to check." - So this guy is gathering documents and sending them to Podesta BEFORE he checked whether it was unsealed or not. It's OK if I send it by email, I'm sure nobody will find out... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10275
EMAILID 10353 Reporters on the Clinton campaign bus accepted off-the-record parties at the home of John Pedesta. "Thursday night, April 9th at 7:00p.m. Dinner at the Home of John Podesta. This will be with about 20 reporters who will closely cover the campaign (aka the bus)." Were they bribing them with lavish parties for better coverage or they were simply thanking them for services already rendered? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema...7AM0ANzAOp
EMAILID 10728 Brent Budowsky triumphantly reports to John Podesta that he finished his latest article. It is titled "The Magic of Bill Clinton". Brent writes to Podesta in the subject line "Hope this helps" Podesta's response? "Yep". By the way here is an archive link to the article Budowsky wrote http://archive.is/ayD4m to "help out" the Clinton campaign. Let's preserve the evidence much unlike Director Comey did with the contents of Cherly Mills' laptop (destroyed). https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10728
EMAILID 10587 Discussion of the Top Secret emails that were on the Clinton private server. 2015 November. Podesta and others are hoping that a NYT story about these Top Secret emails will not get confirmed. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10587

Text of email 10587, the last on the list above:

Quote:Re: We haven't had a good war with NYT in awhile

From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-11-07 17:56 Subject: Re: We haven't had a good war with NYT in awhile

That's good intel. And frankly if we had to live with just one better for it to be the one about a news article that discusses the drone operation. On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks Adding Nick and Schake since they are on the road with HRC. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 7, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: Two things are true: Heather talked to I believe Alex gerlach at State, who said they were hearing only one email had so far been ruled out as Top Secret. Separately, two reporters who were trying to confirm Gerstein's report with ODNI reported back to us that they were hearing the same. The rumor was not that ODNI had completed the review and determined only one was not TS and the other was, but rather that they had only reached a definitive conclusion on the one (we think the North Korea email that supposedly relied on satellite imagery) and were still deciding on the other. Separately, gerstein is still confident the review is indeed done, and the emails are no longer being handled as TS materials, and the statement was only issued last night because ODNI is trying to avoid embarrassing the IG by acting like they have overruled them. On Nov 7, 2015 1:34 PM, "Jennifer Palmieri" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry. I am misremembering. One of our team heard that rumor from the > state department. Think it was heather. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 7, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Cheryl Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > > sad > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Jennifer Palmieri < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> In fact Brian has heard rumors that not only will ODNI not confirm but >> that they only think one email is not top secret so this may be not such a >> great story after all. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok let's save the ammunition for the day they confirm the story and put >> it on A 37 in the back of the local nyc section given that it involves a >> local resident. >> >> On Saturday, November 7, 2015, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> They tried but could not confirm the politico story and then by day's >>> end yesterday, ODNI issued a statement saying the review was not done yet >>> On Nov 7, 2015 11:41 AM, "John Podesta" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> did I miss something or did they completely ignore the clapper matter >>>> and instead focus on another Grassley lead of an innocuous Teneo letter? I >>>> feel like a another public editor screed should be in the offing. >>> >>> >

Jesus christ

Goldman Sachs email 1 still:

Quote:So China, come on. You either control
them or we're going to have to defend against them.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Wouldn't Japan --
I mean, isn't the thinking now what is going to
happen? But why wouldn't Japan at that point want
to have a nuclear capability?
MS. CLINTON: Well, that's the problem
with these arms races.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Nuclear technology --
MS. CLINTON: But they don't have a
military. They have a currently somewhat
questionable and partially defunct civilian nuclear
industry. So they would have to make a huge
investment, which based on our assessments they
don't want to have to make.
You know, there is talk in Japan about
maybe we need to up our economic commitments to our
military forces. Maybe we have to move from
basically a self-defense force to a real military
again, which would just light up the sky in terms

10


of reactions in China and elsewhere.

Quote:The Russian's view of this is very
different. I mean, who conceives Syria as the same
way he sees Chechnya? You know, you have to
support toughness and absolute merciless reactions
in order to drive the opposition down to be
strangled, and you can't give an inch to them and
you have to be willing to do what Assad basically
has been willing to do.
That has been their position. It
pretty much remains their position, and it is a
position that has led to the restocking of

13


sophisticated weapon systems all through this. The
Russians' view is that if we provide enough weapons
to Assad and if Assad is able to maintain control
over most of the country, including the coastal
areas where our naval base is, that's fine with us.
Because you will have internal fighting still with
the Kurds and with the Sunnis on the spectrum of
extremism. But if we can keep our base and we can
keep Assad in the titular position of running the
country, that reflects well on us because we will
demonstrate that we are back in the Middle East.
Maybe in a ruthless way, but a way that from their
perspective, the Russian perspective, Arabs will
understand.

[I snipped here]

So we now have what everybody warned we
would have, and I am very concerned about the
spillover effects. And there is still an argument
that goes on inside the administration and inside
our friends at NATO and the Europeans. How do
intervene -- my view was you intervene as covertly
as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used
to be much better at this than we are now. Now,
you know, everybody can't help themselves. They
have to go out and tell their friendly reporters
and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I
want credit for it, and all the rest of it.

Talking about adding military intervention into domestic matters:

Quote:MR. BLANKFEIN: I have to say we
Republicans -- we obviously reach out to both sets.
To a person -- a person regarded as someone who may
be expected to be more partisan and has spent so
much time is is very, very well liked by the
Republicans.
PARTICIPANT: First off I would like to
thank you for all the years. Of course, I'm on the
other side.
MS. CLINTON: The dark side?
PARTICIPANT: It's the dark side right
now, but otherwise the sun does come through. You
have to be an optimist. But you have to put a
great, great effort, and I commend you for it. But
I would like two things. No. 1, you just talked
about Sandy. And since you were First Lady and a
senator -- forget the Secretary. But what is wrong

33


with our politicians -- I served in the Corps of
Engineers. Whether it's in Iraq, Iran -- anyplace
outside the US you can build bridges overnight.
You could have gone into Sandy. You could have
gone into New Orleans.
The actual problem is the law from the
1800s. No military, which is the only force, not
the National Guard. They don't have crap. It's
the military. Like down in New Orleans. If we
would just change the dumb law -- because it hasn't
been changed because politicians have no say once
the president declares it martial law. Put the
military up. They would have cleaned up that
coast. You wouldn't have the frigging mess you
have today. But we can do it for everybody else in
the world, but we don't do it because the state
judges don't have no authority. The mayor don't
have no authority, because you're going to put a
military officer in charge. That's one question
why you haven't looked at --

[big snip]
pointed there. Military law.
MS. CLINTON: Well, you can declare
martial law. You can declare martial law.
PARTICIPANT: Military was always --
MS. CLINTON: Well, I personally could
not favor turning control over to the United States
military as much as I respect the United States
military. I guess I'm on the other side of this
with you.
I think that the civilian rule has
served us well, and I don't want to do anything
that upsets it even though I have a very personal

36


experience. You remember when Castro opened the
prisons and sent all the criminals to the United
States?
MR. BLANKFEIN: The --
MS. CLINTON: A lot of those prisoners
were ordered to go to a fort in Ft. Smith,
Arkansas, Ft. Chaffee, and my husband was governor
of Arkansas at the time. It was a military fort,
so the United States military ran it. So if you
were on the fort you were under US military
authority, but if you stepped off the fort you were
not. And the result was there was a riot where
prisoners were breaking through the gates, and the
US military would not stop them.
So my husband as governor had to call
out the state police. So you had the military
inside basically saying under the law we can't do
anything even to stop prisoners from Cuba. So it
is complicated, but it's complicated in part for a
reason, because we do not ever want to turn over to
our military the kind of civilian authority that
should be exercised by elected officials. So I
think that's the explanation.

Whiffs of google and facebook collusion.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10550

Quote:Re: Mellody Hobson

From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2008-09-26 20:35 Subject: Re: Mellody Hobson

GL was talking to Lucas. On 9/26/08, laura nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > whose partnership w/larry brilliant at google?? > what is Lux telling you about his $$ing - never know what's real w/he and > stan > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Podesta <[email protected]> > To: laura nichols <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 2:22:57 PM > Subject: Re: Mellody Hobson > > Good plan. I can get back into this tomorrow. Will help move thru wvwv > or powerpac if ads test well. What happened to their partnership with > larry brilliant at google? Thoght he might take this over. > > > > On 9/26/08, laura nichols <[email protected]> wrote: >> i spoke to her last night - she had fed ex'd the ads she talked to us >> about..there are 2 on the disc, the Reagan one feels to me to be worth >> throwing on one of the tests Lux and and Greenberg etal are doing over >> next >> week..She'd like you to look at - if you'd like i'll give to Julianna to >> download from disc and forward to you if you have a laptop or watch in >> office. just dont forward to anyone. She is cking w/GL to see if he's >> willing to put into test. and dont use GL's name.. > > -- > Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10613

Quote:Re: Facebook shutting down a key path Obama used to reach voters

From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2014-11-18 10:55 Subject: Re: Facebook shutting down a key path Obama used to reach voters

It's very unfortunate. Teddy and others flagged that this was going to happen. There are work possible works arounds but they are very labor intensive. What should ultimately happen is a drill down with them on what CAN be done--and then a lot of brainstorming, i.e. What's the 2016 version of targeted sharing. Teddy has done a session like this with them already but the transparency issue makes it hard to dig deep. Who knows what can be achieved in a well planned negotiation. The good news is that there's time on this. It's GOTV and persuasion value is late. What matters early is just building the list which is all about sign ups and sharing. > On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Nick Merrill <[email protected]> wrote: > > Saw this, It's on my list. Will do. > > > > ________________________________________ > From: H <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 7:43:33 AM > To: [email protected]'; [email protected]'; [email protected]'; Huma Abedin; [email protected]'; Philippe Reines; Nick Merrill > Subject: Facebook shutting down a key path Obama used to reach voters > > Pls read this and figure out if there's something we need to do before the policy is implemented in the Spring. > http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-slams-the...48365.html

One purposeful or unintended element of the slow release of emails.
The 24/7 news cycle has already used up certain distractions.
If more damning material is found, it'll be all the more difficult to ignore.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7874

Quote:Hey bro quick question.

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-10-16 20:34
Subject: Hey bro quick question.

IRS was hacked. I think the State Department was hacked. Sony hacked. Banks hacked. As we try and close the Benghazi Chapter and the email drip drip. Is there ever a moment in TiMe not to Defend the decision but layout the fact....HRC servers were not hacked. Know this is s naive thought but just thinking.

Sent from my iPhone

   

Follow @JackPosobiec
3m3 minutes ago
"Slammed: Dems waiting 3-4 extra rings to pick up the phone bc their newly published #s have been inundated w post-WikiLeaks calls."

@JackPosobiec · 3m
"Clinton Campaign is in panic mode over Wikileaks. Trying to reframe as akin to Watergate. Desperate"

This...might check out:



https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/1459

Quote:Most Americans (and for that matter, the entire rest of the world) either don't remember or might not even have heard about our war with Mexico and - The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which forced Mexico to accept $15 million for all the land in this link. http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educ...map1a.html

   

   

It's getting spicy with Benghazi. Cannot keep up.

(10-15-2016 12:52 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Podesta looks so tone-deaf there. Truly out of touch.

Nice touch with cuck Ryan wearing heels there.

Does Drudge have some intel on Hillary's secret Lesbian life?

delete

(10-15-2016 01:35 PM)komatiite Wrote:  Does Drudge have some intel on Hillary's secret Lesbian life?

Carpet munchers unite!

Ohohohoho


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3198

Quote:
Re: HRC was picture perfect yesterday

From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-08-27 14:13 Subject: Re: HRC was picture perfect yesterday

Thanks. I am sure you are right, although I think most, including at the top are on our side. On Thursday, August 27, 2015, Brent Budowsky <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO yesterday was a very good day. I am thrilled that on the email issue > HRC > offered a change of tone towards what I consider the strongest position, > and her > handling of the Biden issue was picture perfect. Advocates such as myself > can > take a respectful but harder line, while she took the right respectful but > softer line. > > I would warn that regarding at least some Obama White House staff, when the > Clintons next dine at the White House they should bring a food taster and > wear > body armor that covers their backs with at least some people there. I > picked this > up from several sources, though I will not write about this. > > Virtually all the reaction to my Why Biden Shouldn't Run, and Won't column > was > strongly positive except for some mainstream media players who want to gin > up > a divisive battle. My guess, speculating, is that Biden saw it and > probably asked > his staff "Could he be right that I would be seen as a vulture candidate?" > > I did give an extended interview to The Sunday Times of London who called > about > my Biden column. The reporter directly asked me about reports he is > hearing that > some in the White House are working to undermine HRC. I thought about it > for > a full minute, and then told him that it doesn't matter to me whether he > quotes me > or not, but my on-the-record answer was that my take is that many in the WH > support HRC, at least some privately do not, and that there are a handful > of > individuals over there who are preternaturally Machiavellian, > preternaturally stupid, > and preternaturally indiscreet though IMO this is a minority view of > little practical > consequence to the campaign. > > Sent from my iPad