quote:

Originally posted by lopezp:
One thing I've noticed in reading all of these leaked emails is that the players are extremely short and vague in their communications. Answers and questions are never detailed. Sort of like code, with just enough detail to convey a message.

Pretty normal, really, amongst folks who: know each other, get tons of emails, are busy...
Granted, I'm sure they were also being intentionally vague in some cases to avoid oversight or situations like now, but the basic pattern you describe is pretty normal.

I've never been Secretary of State, and even I have spent months and years of my professional life receiving 50-100+ emails per day, all important, all requiring a look, and that's only with teams of 50 or so and projects with as many as 1500 people.

Time is precious, being succinct is critical, verbosity is frowned upon, slang meets efficiency, etc.

#HillaryForPrison

I really wish the State Dept and DOJ would realize that they're not helping themselves by continuing to cover for Hillary.

Now there's emails showing officials in the DOJ giving insider info to Clinton about legal issues that were going to come up.

The state dept. excuses it by saying that those emails were sent off the clock and from non-gov't emails, not officially from the State Dept. Do they really think we're that stupid? Who cares if it was sent off the clock. The person would NOT have had access to that information if they didn't work for DOJ and/or State. Who cares if they did it after hours.

Try using that as an excuse to get out of say insider trading violations. "But your honor, I didn't commit my insider trading on the clock at my job, so therefore it's perfectly legal." Really?

I have a small request; can we substitute Weiner's computer (or personal computer or portable computer) for his laptop?

Weiner's "laptop" has had way too much exposure and makes one wish to gouge out their mind's eye.

Even CNN is cracking a little and exposing the corruption.

CNN: FBI Agents Tell Us DOJ Put Up Politically Motivated Roadblocks During Clinton Foundation Probe

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...ation-probe-n2240973

Piggybacking on Guy’s post about the FBI and the Department Of Justice’s war over the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which had some members of DOJ reportedly “pissed off” that the bureau wanted to go after the nonprofit of the political power couple with gusto:

The story begins by focusing on the email probe side of the controversy, then delves into great detail about a raging, under-the-radar battle over multiple FBI field offices examining possible criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation. The specifics of the report are remarkable, with warring factions offering differing accounts of what has really transpired. One thing that becomes clear from the Journal's reporting is that some within the FBI believe top brass at their agency and at the Justice Department have repeatedly exerted their influence to hamstring or shut down a serious criminal investigation

[…]

One contingent of agents views their bosses at DOJ as actively trying to deep-six their investigative efforts, which could have further damaged the Clintons. Another contingent believes the evidence wasn't strong enough to justify a full-scale investigation.

For more on this covert war between DOJ and the FBI, please finish Guy’s post, but CNN’s Evan Perez and Pamela Brown said last night that the FBI agents who were part of the Clinton Foundation probe wanted to pursue this investigation with vigor, corroborating some of The Wall Street Journal story. Brown also said that politically motivated roadblocks were set up by the DOJ to torpedo the investigation.

Agents in the FBI wanted to aggressively investigate the Clinton Foundation several months ago earlier in the year, the Department of Justice told the FBI essentially you don’t have enough evidence here for predication to get more tools, such as warrants and subpoenas, go back and see what else you can dig up,” said Brown. She later added that agents still wanted to continue their investigation into the foundation, even after the probe into Clinton’s emails was initially concluded in July. The DOJ still said they lacked the evidence, which led to allegations that the roadblocks being established in this case are politically motivated.

Also, Fox News’ Bret Baier also said last evening that the investigation into possible quid pro quo dealings between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foundation have been going on for over a year by the white collar division of the FBI, they consider it a high priority. Sources have told Baier and the Fox that a great deal of evidence has been collected, with witnesses being interviewed pervasively over the course of this investigation, some of which are expected to have a third round interviews with the bureau. This was before the Wikileaks document dumps. New information is analyzed and discovered every day—yes, some through Wikileaks, while other evidence is obtained through new emails. He also said that agents are aggressively investigating this matter.

Also, the devices owned by former chief of staff to Hillary at State, Cheryl Mills and lawyer Heather Samuelson, which were supposed to be destroyed in a side deal between them and the FBI after their analysis had concluded has not happened. They’re currency in the D.C. field office being analyzed as we speak. Guy had more on the DOJ/FBI conflict over the Clinton Foundation here. In the meantime, we can all endure the scars and stains Eric Holder left behind at the DOJ.

^^^ Here we go. More, more, more!

Should be a good news day tomorrow, after these next 1,308 e-mails get digested down, interpreted, and the good ones start head-lining...

Wikileaks Releases "DoJ, FBI, Huma Special" Podesta Emails

Moments ago, after teasing its twitter followers to "stay tuned for our FBI-DoJ #PodestaEmail special circa 4pm EST" Wikileaks released what appears to be part 28 of its Podesta dump, dubbed the "DoJ/FBI/Huma special" and includes some 1,308 emails, bringing the total to 45,526 in total emails released.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ecial-podesta-emails

This one should please the Berniebros...



https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

And Megyn should be gone from Fox after this...

On August 27, 2015, an email from Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues, appears to suggest that both Fox news and Megyn Kelly were part of the campaign's pre-coordination with journalists. Davis tells Jen Palmieri the following "personal" thoughts, which suggest getting a guarantee from Megyn Kelly that she won't be "tough on Hillary" in a proposed interview - which could be a "ratings and media bonanza" - meant to explain why Hillary "wiped" her server.

Dear Jen,

I know what I'm about to propose is very risky and will be instinctively viewed negatively on the first reaction. But because of the high advantages that I see, perfectly aware of the risks, I think this proposal should be considered.

I propose that the Secretary be on the Megyn Kelly File show for at least 30 minutes. I believe I can reduce the risks, since I know Megyn and Roger Ailes very well, by ensuring that the Secretary will have an opportunity to answer tough questions on emails and other issues without interruption.

In fact, I believe it is in the interest of Secretary Clinton as well as Fox for the questions to be tough, something we should not fear as long as she has an opportunity to answer. I know she will do well with adequate preparation, and especially after yesterday's excellent statement taking full responsibility for mixing personal an official business on a single email device.

I still believe the issue of the wiping out of uthe private server still needs to be dealt with – e.g., simply stating that was done primarily to protect personal privacy on personal emails but she made the mistake of mixing personal with official on the server because she was using a single device, and she should have been more transparent shortly after she left office.

This interview has the potential to be a ratings and media bonanza. I have confidence she would hit a political home run and have a massive audience to deliver her message without a filter.

Of course there is a risk that Megan will try to show how tough she can be, even tougher than on Trump. I am assuming the worst case on that risk. But if we have a guarantee, which I believe We will get, that she will have an uninterrupted chance to respond to every question, and we have time to prepare, I think this could be a major plus and even a game changer in the various negative narratives about the Secretary being largely inaccessible and sometimes testy with the media.

It would be so much better to be able to talk to you on the phone about this and discuss the pros and cons. If you are willing and available, what would be the best time in the best telephone number?

With warmest regards, and thanks as always for your consideration of my ideas,

Lanny
He follows up four days later with the following:

Would love a chance to talk on phone - a few additional background points re conversation I had with Roger Ailes and Megyn some time ago on the subject of HRC pre - announcement.

It is unclear what was the ultimate fate of the "personal" proposal.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ecial-podesta-emails

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...e-department-tenure/

CBS says the FBI found State dept emails on the laptop. At least some of these were not on the server.

Not much else being reported.

This would be consistent with questions regarding the immunity of Mills and Samuelson.

If Trump doesn't win, we are headed for uncharted territory.

"Uncharted" is putting it mildly.

Doing a random search for swear words (I wanted to know what makes them swear), I ran across this interesting tidbit:

quote:

Re: Cnn poll

From:ntanden@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-07-25 04:02
Subject: Re: Cnn poll



I repeat, why hasn't this person been drawn and quartered?

I'm reading wolf hall. There is something to be said for the power of
torture.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't you think Cheryl?
>
> On Friday, July 24, 2015, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ntanden@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And
>> has that person been drawn and quartered?
>>
>> Like whole thing is fucking insane.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, let's see what the poll actually says.
>>>
>>> Let's hope the Democratic party is not suicidal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 5:41 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS can you imagine what the Republicans would do to him if he were the
>>>> nominee?
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, July 24, 2015, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing jake tapper and they have a national poll coming out. They
>>>>> wouldn't tell me results but if I had to guess it - discerning from our
>>>>> prep call -will show Bernie doing pretty well w Hillary and doing as
>>>>> well against Jeb or close to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41048

Heading out to work and killing some time. Following some of the wikileaks threads on ZH. Dont quite know what to make of it all. It certainly ties in to what Assange has been eluding to all along. If 10% of this is legit...holy cow hang on...

Out of respect to The Eagle you can follow up on your own.

Is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time remembering if they're in the Donald Trump thread or the Hillary email thread?

quote:

Originally posted by 4x5:
Is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time remembering if they're in the Donald Trump thread or the Hillary email thread?

No both are attacking Hillcrest.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
And Megyn should be gone from Fox after this...

On August 27, 2015, an email from Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues, appears to suggest that both Fox news and Megyn Kelly were part of the campaign's pre-coordination with journalists. Davis tells Jen Palmieri the following "personal" thoughts, which suggest getting a guarantee from Megyn Kelly that she won't be "tough on Hillary" in a proposed interview - which could be a "ratings and media bonanza" - meant to explain why Hillary "wiped" her server.

Dear Jen,

I know what I'm about to propose is very risky and will be instinctively viewed negatively on the first reaction. But because of the high advantages that I see, perfectly aware of the risks, I think this proposal should be considered.

I propose that the Secretary be on the Megyn Kelly File show for at least 30 minutes. I believe I can reduce the risks, since I know Megyn and Roger Ailes very well, by ensuring that the Secretary will have an opportunity to answer tough questions on emails and other issues without interruption.

In fact, I believe it is in the interest of Secretary Clinton as well as Fox for the questions to be tough, something we should not fear as long as she has an opportunity to answer. I know she will do well with adequate preparation, and especially after yesterday's excellent statement taking full responsibility for mixing personal an official business on a single email device.

I still believe the issue of the wiping out of uthe private server still needs to be dealt with – e.g., simply stating that was done primarily to protect personal privacy on personal emails but she made the mistake of mixing personal with official on the server because she was using a single device, and she should have been more transparent shortly after she left office.

This interview has the potential to be a ratings and media bonanza. I have confidence she would hit a political home run and have a massive audience to deliver her message without a filter.

Of course there is a risk that Megan will try to show how tough she can be, even tougher than on Trump. I am assuming the worst case on that risk. But if we have a guarantee, which I believe We will get, that she will have an uninterrupted chance to respond to every question, and we have time to prepare, I think this could be a major plus and even a game changer in the various negative narratives about the Secretary being largely inaccessible and sometimes testy with the media.

It would be so much better to be able to talk to you on the phone about this and discuss the pros and cons. If you are willing and available, what would be the best time in the best telephone number?

With warmest regards, and thanks as always for your consideration of my ideas,

Lanny
He follows up four days later with the following:

Would love a chance to talk on phone - a few additional background points re conversation I had with Roger Ailes and Megyn some time ago on the subject of HRC pre - announcement.

It is unclear what was the ultimate fate of the "personal" proposal.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ecial-podesta-emails

I think Lannie Davis ought to be gone, more than Megyn Kelly.

He doesn't refer to "won't be tough on Hillary," merely a potential guarantee the Hillary will have "an uninterrupted chance to respond to every question..." There is nothin ominous about that. Guests on O'Reilly ought to exact that guarantee!

Davis has always struck me as the epitome of why the Clintons ought never to hold a position of trust or confidence, unctuous, oily, smug.

Ah, but that's been one of the problems with TV journalism. Every talking head will insist that they have to manage time. Unfortunately that always means that it's next to impossible for a person being interviewed to get out a coherent reply that actually says anything of substance.

In Hill's case, though, she got to blather on until the truth was gently buried in the noise.

Gregg Jarrett: An "avalanche of evidence" may now bury Hillary

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...ow-bury-hillary.html

Americans who lived through the nightmares of both the Watergate and Lewinsky scandals recall vividly how every day seemed to produce new evidence of wrongdoing. The drip, drip of deceptions and lies finally overflowed into a cascading pool of criminality and disgust.

The first scandal culminated in Articles of Impeachment. The other an impeachment trial. Is America now hurtling toward the same political abyss? It looks like it. So, fasten your seat belts and brace for impact.

Sources tell Fox News’s Bret Baier that the FBI has uncovered an “avalanche of evidence” in the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” calling it a “very high priority.”

Armed with newly discovered email evidence and additional documents revealed by WikiLeaks, these sources say that agents will likely try to get Huma Abedin and others to cooperate in an effort to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

It is a stunning development. But that’s how avalanches happen. Suddenly, you’re buried before you know it.

If this is true, and if Clinton is elected president in a few days but thereafter indicted, several scenarios could unfold.

She could resign before or after inauguration, leaving President Tim Kaine sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office.

President Obama could pardon her before he departs that same office.

Clinton, as president, could try to invoke broad constitutional immunity from prosecution, delaying her criminal trial until after she leaves office. Or she could pardon herself.

However, all of that may not matter much if a Republican House of Representatives moves to impeach her. Neither immunity nor pardons apply to the ultimate constitutional remedy of impeachment.

Thus, Americans will again be forced to suffer through another impeachment horror show. But Hillary may not be able to beat the rap the way her husband did back in 1999 when he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

What began as an investigation into the mishandling of classified documents… has now morphed into suspicions of rampant corruption involving Clinton’s charity. Specifically, that she used her position as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors who lavished money on her foundation and personally enriched the Clintons. And the case against her is accelerating.

It was inevitable, I suppose, that her emails would intersect somehow with the incredible wealth amassed by the Clintons since they left the White House. There’s always a paper trail. Or pesky emails.

Or, in the case of Richard Nixon, those damnable tapes.

Two Investigations Merge

Hillary Clinton used her unauthorized, private email server not only to conduct State Department business involving thousands of classified documents, but it appears she also used the server for some of her foundation’s communications. The FBI has devoted more than a year to investigating whether the Clintons illegally leveraged their foundation for personal gain -- that is into tens of millions of dollars in potential self-dealing and so-called “pay-to-play”.

As I pointed out in a previous column, all of this, if proved, could constitute bribery, fraud, and illegal use of a non-profit charity which smacks of racketeering.

What’s that? Operating a criminal enterprise. It is often associated with organized crime. (See “mafia”) There is also the related matter of perjury. And obstruction of justice. The same charges that were leveled against Bill Clinton back in the day.

Importantly, the newly discovered Weiner/Abedin electronic devices appear to contain email evidence relevant to both the classified documents case and the Clinton Foundation case. In addition, sources confirm that laptops belonging to Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, are now in the possession of the FBI and are being “exploited for more evidence.” The floodgates are open.

While the foundation probe is now center stage, a reinvigorated look at whether Clinton mishandled classified documents has obviously been resurrected. It is possible that FBI Director Comey could reconsider his opinion of Clinton’s legal “intent” under the Espionage Act and reverse himself in his recommendation on prosecuting Clinton. Sources say there is a 99 percent chance that up to 5 foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed Clinton’s emails and stolen them, putting a lie to President Obama’s claim that Clinton did not jeopardize national security.

The Clinton Foundation

As "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace pointed out in the final debate, “emails show that donors got special access” to Clinton while Secretary of State. While that is surely unseemly or improper, it is illegal only if Clinton used her position to confer a benefit in exchange for money. That is, if donors rewarded Clinton with cash.

So, here is an example of what might be illegal. It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS. Bill then got paid $ 1.5 million dollars and their foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank. If the money was a reward for Clinton’s work on behalf of UBS, then that could be considered bribery under federal law. And racketeering.

Another example: it has been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Clinton Foundation. Again, if it can be proven there was a quid-pro-quo, it would be illegal.

This is where the WikiLeaks hacked emails come into play. Messages show that charity official Doug Band, while raising money for the foundation, also steered millions of dollars to Bill Clinton. The cash came from foundation donors who had business before Hillary’s state department. Band’s emails, in which he brags about his prowess in funneling up to $66 million to Bill, make explicit how the Clintons appear to have used their foundation for personal profit.

Organized crime and Illegal syndicates tend to use legitimate-looking businesses as a “front” to try to fool law enforcement. Often, they devise a “dual purpose” company -- one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the backdoor. There is little doubt that the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity. But if there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, and if the foundation was merely a conduit, then prosecution could be pursued under federal anti-corruption statutes.

Did DOJ Obstruct The FBI?

It’s beginning to look that way. Even after Comey announced in July that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton, the investigation into her foundation was still being actively pursued by some agents within the FBI. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department became angry over this and agents were told to “stand down.” Whether that happened is disputed.

However, it appears that FBI agents wanted to examine emails on non-government laptops that were part of the Clinton classified documents case. They felt there might be evidence that the foundation was being used illegally by the Clintons, as noted above. But Justice Department prosecutors allegedly stopped them from doing it.

Why? Was Justice protecting Clinton? Can we be assured that the renewed investigation of Clinton won’t be obstructed by an attorney general with allegiances to both Hillary and Bill Clinton?

Time For an Independent Counsel

Given these reports of DOJ’s interference, there are serious and legitimate doubts about the integrity of the government’s ability to investigation Clinton.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was compromised from the beginning. She was first elevated to the position of U.S. Attorney by Bill Clinton. She met privately with him just days before a decision was made as to whether his wife would be prosecuted.

As if that were not enough, Lynch’s boss, President Obama, defended Clinton publicly last April on "Fox News Sunday" by declaring, in essence, she did not break the law. He made the same argument during an earlier “60 Minutes” interview. He prejudged the outcome of the case.

This sent a pretty clear message to those in charge of just how the president wanted the question of prosecution to turn out. Now, it appears that Lynch’s Department is heeding that message by actively obstructing the FBI’s investigation.

The attorney general has failed or refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor to ensure that these investigations are fair and impartial. President Obama could demand one, as well. He likely will not. His conflict of interest is as glaring as Lynch’s.

After all, the president has been campaigning vigorously for Clinton to succeed him. Why would he now jeopardize the chance of preserving or even burnishing his legacy? Donald Trump is vowing, if elected, to unwind much of what Mr. Obama has accomplished.

Therefore, it is up to Congress to reauthorize the Independent Counsel Act to accomplish the same. It would direct the attorney general to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to appoint one. No choice.

Sadly, this may be the only way the public’s trust can be restored.

They'll definitely go after Huma for Aiden and Abedin the enemy.