DNC emails

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wasserman is a Kerry scion and represents a huge swath of Dem big money. She got her post in a convention day deal between Obama who wanted Gabbard, the eventual CEO, and the Kerry people.

Kaine gets his credibility from being extremely popular with minority caucuses and women's groups for reasons that should be pretty obvious to anyone that has halfway paid attention to him since his selection.

Conflating the two is pretty goddamn obtuse.

[boutons_deux]

Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns

Then as now, it’s clear that the only thing Republicans do very well is inflame the media withbogusscandals — which is a handy way to distract attention from their inep ude.

They are doing this with their usual aplomb, and considerable success, in the matter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send emails.

Never mind that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, has said he used a system similar to Clinton’s — and

never mind that in 2007 Karl Rove deleted 22 million emails from a private server in the Bush White House —

a matter about which the Beltway media said little and Republicans in Congress, like Rep. John Boehner, said nothing.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/


=====================

Feb. 13, 2015: Gawker — Jeb’s Email Transparency Is a Total Joke
March 13, 2015: Politifact — Jeb edited his own emails (which is right-leaning Politifact’s way of saying he deleted them) — Mostly True (which is how they say something is 100% true when a Republican does something wrong)

The article says that Florida law allowed Bush to delete whatever he wanted. That seems strange. It also says he deleted 300,000 emails vs Hillary Clinton’s 50,000.

March 16, 2015: CNN — Does Jeb Bush Have Hillary Clinton’s Email Problem? The article suggests Jeb broke a state law by deleting 300,000 emails.

March 24, 2015: AP — Jeb Bush Had Another Email Account While Florida Governor

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03...ged-democrats/


iow, all you ignorant, spittle-spewing assholes INFLAMED and OUTRAGED by "Hillary's Emails" are being suckered and conned by Repugs' bull witch hunt.

Benghazi!

Christmas cards!

Whitewater!

Benghazi!

Vince Foster!

Benghazi!

[TheSanityAnnex]

So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country,weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.-Julian Assange

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...ng-isis-syria/

[boutons_deux]

How Many Classified Emails Did Hillary Clinton Send and Receive?


I don't want to make a big point about this, but I want to write it down in order to get comments. Here is my understanding of the results of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's 33,000 emails:

3 were marked classified. Two of these were classified in error. The third was classified correctly but was marked improperly (and was pretty trivial anyway).



110 contained information that wasn't marked classified, but which Hillary and her aides "should have known" was sensitive. That's according to FBI Director James Comey. Based on previous reporting, virtually all of these probably related to the drone program in Pakistan, which was classified but had been extensively reported in the press.


About 2,000 emails were retroactively classified as part of the FOIA process.


Is this correct? Or is there some part of this that I continue not to understand?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...nd-and-receive

So less than 120 emails "in question" in 33,000 emails, while Dubya's Brain deleted 22 ING MILLION WH emails during the US Attorney scandal?

TSA, etc, totally conned, duped, lied to by the Repug witch hunters!

Benghazi!

[ducks]

if one of the four were musslim in Benghazi then trump could have used their parents for policital gain like Clinton is trying to do with khan

[TheSanityAnnex]

How Many Classified Emails Did Hillary Clinton Send and Receive?


I don't want to make a big point about this, but I want to write it down in order to get comments. Here is my understanding of the results of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's 33,000 emails:

3 were marked classified. Two of these were classified in error. The third was classified correctly but was marked improperly (and was pretty trivial anyway).



110 contained information that wasn't marked classified, but which Hillary and her aides "should have known" was sensitive. That's according to FBI Director James Comey. Based on previous reporting, virtually all of these probably related to the drone program in Pakistan, which was classified but had been extensively reported in the press.


About 2,000 emails were retroactively classified as part of the FOIA process.


Is this correct? Or is there some part of this that I continue not to understand?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...nd-and-receive

So less than 120 emails "in question" in 33,000 emails, while Dubya's Brain deleted 22 ING MILLION WH emails during the US Attorney scandal?

TSA, etc, totally conned, duped, lied to by the Repug witch hunters!

Benghazi!

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.

[Winehole23]

duh

[Reck]

So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country,weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.-Julian Assange

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...ng-isis-syria/

Julian Asange is the king of tin foil hats conspiracy theories.

Didn't you once posted an article about him saying that he had enough evidence to indict Hillary? That worked out well.

The irony escapes this guy like you've never seen. Here's a guy who's on the run from the federal government and is holed up in some hole somewhere in Ecuador. This is the guy you look up to. LOL TSA

[Th'Pusher]

Looks like the CEO of the DNC just resigned as well.

[boutons_deux]

Looks like the CEO of the DNC just resigned as well.

People are surprised, shocked that the DNC was prejudiced for, preferred Dem Hillary to "socialist"/non-Dem/outsider Bernie?

DNC exists to promote and elect the DEM candidate, not to treat equally an outsider protest candidate.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Looks like the CEO of the DNC just resigned as well.

The chief executive of the Democratic National Committee has resigned in the wake of an email hack that embarrassed the party on the eve of its convention.


That's according to three Democratic strategists familiar with Amy Dacey's decision to leave her job. The people spoke on condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.


The Democrats say other personnel moves at the party are also expected Tuesday.


The content of the hacked emails exposed an apparent lack of neutrality in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with party officials disparaging Sanders.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/02/

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-source...-election.html


Email fallout: 3 Democratic National Committee resignations

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chief executive of the Democratic National Committee and two other top officials have resigned in the wake of an email hack that embarrassed the party on the eve of its presidential nominating convention.
CEO Amy Dacey, chief finance officer Brad Marshall and communications director Luis Miranda left their jobs on Tuesday, the party said in a statement.


The resignations are the latest fallout from the hacked emails, which exposed an apparent lack of neutrality in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with some party officials disparaging Sanders.
Marshall wrote the most explosive email, questioning Sanders' Jewish faith and suggesting he could be portrayed as an atheist. He has apologized for the missive.


Earlier, party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position and, after being booed at a pre-convention appearance last week in Philadelphia, chose not to speak from the convention stage.
Longtime Democratic operative Donna Brazile is serving as the party's interim chair. Brazile said Tuesday that she has created a "transition team" to help prepare the party for its post-election mission. She said Tom McMahon, a former DNC executive director under then-Chair Howard Dean, will lead that group.


Clinton operatives who moved over to party headquarters after she had effectively secured the nomination in June will continue in their roles; that group includes DNC chief of staff Brandon Davis. Additionally, veteran Democratic strategist Doug Thornell will serve as an interim senior adviser to the party.


Dacey already has a new job. She has been hired by Squared Communications, a Democratic consulting firm based in Washington.
"As one of the top campaign strategists in our party, and with our experiences together on presidential, Senate and congressional campaigns, Amy will help our firm's clients navigate this and future election cycles," Michael Meehan, founder and CEO Squared Communications, said in a statement.


Before joining the DNC, Dacey was executive director of EMILY's List, which works to elect female Democrats.
The cache of more than 19,000 messages was made public by the group WikiLeaks just before the convention.
Democratic Party officials learned in late April that their systems had been attacked after they discovered malicious software on their computers. A cybersecurity firm they employed found traces of at least two sophisticated hacking groups on the Democrats' network — both of which have ties to the Russian government.

[TheSanityAnnex]

rumors swirling around that the leak to wikileaks could have been from inside the NSA for Clinton exposing the names of undercover operatives.

[Reck]

This will make Sanders and his supporters happy.

He's been saying the DNC should be cleaned from top to bottom. Seems like that is happening.

[CosmicCowboy]

This will make Sanders and his supporters happy.

He's been saying the DNC should be cleaned from top to bottom. Seems like that is happening.

Hillary stacking it with even more loyalists.

Keep drinking that koolaid and dreaming, Reck.

[Reck]

Hillary stacking it with even more loyalists.

Keep drinking that koolaid and dreaming, Reck.

You righties give her more power than you think she has.

I always get a kick whenever I read someone say Hillary got people on the FBI payroll and some other .

She seems to have more power than the president himself so I wonder why a person who has unchecked power would want a job as president where everything is under the microscope.

Republicans logic..

[boutons_deux]

Why the Shake-up at the Democratic National Committee Is Doomed


But purging the DNC of top officials won’t remedy the DNC’s problems. Those problems aren’t attributable to individuals who didn’t do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilities exactly as those jobs were intended to be done.

The DNC’s problems are structural.

The Democratic National Committee – like the Republican National Committee – has become little more than a giant machine designed to suck up big money from wealthy individuals, lobbyists bundlers, and corporate and Wall Street PACs.


As long as this is its de facto mission, the DNC won’t ever be kindly disposed to a campaign financed by small donations – Bernie’s, or any others.

Nor will it support campaign finance reform.

Nor will it be an ins utional voice for average working people and the poor.

It won’t want to eliminate superdelegates or support open primaries because these reforms would make Democratic candidates vulnerable to non-corporate interests.

no number of purges of individuals are going to make the DNC the kind of organization that serves the public interest. And why we’re going to need a third party, or a third force, to pressure the Democratic Party to do what’s right by America.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...mmittee-doomed

[boutons_deux]

"opportunity to clean up the party from all that "

won't happen. Dems grovel before BigDonors just like the Repugs. No clean up possible.

Do you think the RNC/Trash internal communications were all good-faith, huggable kumbaya missives?

[TheSanityAnnex]

More DNC information to come, says Wikileaks founder

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/dnc-i...leaks-founder/

JUDY WOODRUFF: While the Republican Party has seen its share of conflicts this week, recent events have also unearthed discord within the ranks of the Democrats as well.
The hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails, experts say by the Russian government, and the posting of e-mails on WikiLeaks, led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other top officials, and exposed rifts within the party.

But the revelation also caused speculation about how WikiLeaks got them and why they released them.
So, we decided to talk to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been holed up for four years to avoid extradition to the U.S.
I spoke with him a short while ago.
Julian Assange, welcome.

You said this week that WikiLeaks is going to be releasing more of the information that was hacked from the Democratic National Committee in different batches. So when will the next batch come?



JULIAN ASSANGE, Founder, WikiLeaks: I’m afraid I must correct you, Judy. I didn’t say that we would be releasing information that has been hacked from the DNC.

We said that we have a significant amount of information, and the information itself is significant, and it pertains to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And we will be releasing it in several batches as we are finished with the journalistic work on each batch.



JUDY WOODRUFF: So, are you saying this is different from what was hacked from the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Committee?



JULIAN ASSANGE: You have DNC leaks, which is what we do, and you have DNC hacks, which is an issue that goes back several years.
There’s been a lot of confusion, which has been pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign to try and confuse hacking of the DNC by a wide variety of actors over the last two years, and our publication of 20,000 e-mails from the DNC.



JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me just pursue that, though. In terms of what WikiLeaks has, you have said you’re analyzing the material and you’re looking at which media partners to work with to get — I think you said maximum uptake from it.
Can you tell us anything tonight about what’s in that material?



JULIAN ASSANGE: It’s a wide range of material. It covers a number of important issues. There’s a variety of natural batches and some thematic constellations that we’re working on.
It’s interesting material. We have done enough work now that we are comfortable with the material’s authenticity. And so now it’s a matter of completing the format, layout to make it easy and accessible and so that journalists can easily extract material from it, extract stories from it, and also the general public.



JUDY WOODRUFF: What would you consider a successful outcome from all this? We know that already four top officials from the Democratic National Committee have resigned. What would you consider the successful outcome, the most damage that could be done from this?


JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks began 10 years.
We take leaks, principally from whistle-blowers, of material that is of diplomatic, political, ethical or historical significance, typically about corruption or war. And we verify it. And we publish it and we write analysis about it.
And we also engineer globe-spanning media collaborations in order to get the best understanding of that material. And we place it in our library, which is available to everyone, has more than 10 million do ents in it now which we feel that otherwise would not have come before the public, and that performs an ongoing role leading to great works in investigative journalism, successful court cases, civil litigation, criminal process, and, of course, also contributes to public understanding during the moments of political compe ion.



JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you about that, about the — what you consider a successful outcome here, because we know you have made clear your strong feelings about Hillary Clinton.
You wrote back in February — and I’m quoting now — “She’s a war hawk who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn’t be let near a gun shop, much less an army. She certainly shouldn’t become president.”
So, I think, why shouldn’t the American people assume there’s a political motive here?



JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, let’s flip it the other way around. Let’s say that I personally, the editor — my personal opinion is different to my function as an editor.
But let’s say that, personally, I loved Hillary Clinton. Would WikiLeaks still publish this material? Of course it would. Otherwise, we would be censoring it. That’s our mandate. It’s actually interesting to think about what media organizations wouldn’t publish such material if it was given to them.

I think that’s a very interesting question. So, my position, as an analyst is that, yes, that Hillary Clinton is a war hawk. But the statement was made within the context of the early phases of the Democratic primaries. It is by no means an endorsement of Donald Trump.



JUDY WOODRUFF: But you still would oppose her becoming president, which is what you wrote?



JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I — my personal analysis is that, if you are concerned about U.S. foreign policy and getting into foolish wars, then Hillary Clinton is not your woman. On the other hand, I mean neither is Donald Trump.



JUDY WOODRUFF: But, bottom line, why shouldn’t the American people look at this and say, this is an effort to undermine the Clinton campaign, the Democratic Party?



JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I can reveal to you the source of the information today. The source of the information is the Democratic Party. It is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It is the chief financial officer. It is the communications officer, Luis Miranda, in fact all these people who have just been fired, and another (INAUDIBLE) so that’s the source of the information that’s known.
As to who the intermediaries are, that’s another question. It’s also a little bit concerning to see the sort of McCarthyist attempt to frame Trump as some kind of Russian conspirator.
I think both presidential candidates are extremely problematic. But a kind of McCarthyist hysteria, trying to depict one of the candidates as somehow a Manchurian Candidate, I think is a bit disturbing. And then also a push for journalists to reveal their sources, as a journalist, it’s disgusting.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I wanted to give you a chance to say what you believe, Julian Assange.
But WikiLeaks, we know, argues for transparency. It’s part of your very mission. And so isn’t this an extension of that, transparency about where this explosive material came from, how it fell into your hands?



JULIAN ASSANGE: As I said, we know exactly where it came from. It came from materials that were just published. We know exactly where it came from. It came from the DNC.



JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re saying the future batches will be material from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former head of the DNC, and others? Is that — am I hearing you correctly?


JULIAN ASSANGE: No, we haven’t said what it is precisely that we are going to publish. We’re working on it. We obviously want it to be a bit of a surprise, because it encourages public uptake and interest, which is what all — all material seeks.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Julian Assange, we thank you for talking with us.


JULIAN ASSANGE: Thank you, Judy.

[Pelicans78]

These emails would only make a difference if a non-Trump Republican candidate was running against her.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Wikileaks: Clinton tied to Gulen
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/ne...slamic-cleric/

[TheSanityAnnex]

Assange says Clinton Foundation emails will be released in October.

[RandomGuy]

Agreeing with "evil" posters? You're a fraud.

Sorry, even evil people can make good arguments, as you did. You still suck, though.

[RandomGuy]

That didnt even touch the subject that the election was rigged. LOL they cheated millions of americans out of their vote. The "democratic" in the name Democratic Party is a sham and has been exposed still waiting on serious conversation on this issue tbqh.

It did. No they didn't. No it isn't, and no it hasn't.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[RandomGuy]

Of course, one has to wonder why the DNC is the one being targeted here.

No such equivalent is had, even though the RNC almost certainly did something similar.

Why is that?