Wikileaks Releases Nearly 20,000 Hacked DNC Emails

How were they helping Clinton in an official capacity?

What I'm still not hearing from this is what sort of help specifically in violation of the rules where they giving to Clinton.

There is a certain argument that it's not fair to Sanders that they liked Clinton more but that isn't the same thing as actual corruption.

 

By offering advice on what questions to have press and others put to Sanders, by suggesting which groups to bring out various Sanders positions in order to help Hillary do better. By using their media contacts to play more favorably to Hillary and less so to Bernie. Those are the ones I've seen from the recent release.

Like I said one of the earlier email releases showed one of the DNC officers working to actually raise money for Hillary.

If you think a ship should be run that loosely to where that is all okay, then I don't know what to say.

I think to me, if personnel working for the DNC wants to help one candidate over another they should resign. If someone wanted to not be as strict as that, they should at least make sure that any suggestions, and support they have for one candidate over the other should be done on their own time, and not on official DNC email.

But to me, it seems beyond reason to allow officers at the DNC to use their DNC emails to advocate which groups Hillary should play towards, as well as different ways to hurt Bernie's campaign.

 

WikiLeaks dont care who gives them the info., They are just trying to stay relevant. Russia doesnt care if wikileaks attacks Putin as long as it helps the Russian agenda. Stop being a dumbass.

 

Yes, I'm calling it a mistake. A violation of policy, fine. I'll call it a violation of policy. Violations of policy are sometimes fire-able offenses, sometimes they are not. And following an investigation, she was not indicted.

Yes, it's a mistake that I'm sure she wouldn't come close to committing again.

Besides that, what else you got? I'll see your Clinton negative and raise you 100 Trump negatives.

 

What she did was a crime, the FBI director even said that much when he said that there wasn't evidence that they intended to break the law, he just said that a prosecutor wouldn't take the case. Sure, maybe that's good enough for Democrats to "stand by their man", but it's absolutely valid criticism. She broke the law and wouldn't be able to get clearance to work as a janitor in a SCIF or even be the president's personal secretary.....but people will still vote for her because partisanship.

 

Wouldn't taking out Hillary help Trump?

I don't think it's okay, but I don't think it's damning either. I would like some clear cut reforms, but if neither party will walk lock step in them, then these reforms only serve to damage their reputation rather than raise the bar.

For example, DWS should really resign, not only for her leadership but for her outright disgusting optics and presence. But she won't be forced to unless there is a real legitimate scandal in terms of civil or legal recourse. If only because standing down would be admitting the DNC has ****ed up... Something Trump knob slobberers should know or recognize from body memory.

Cynical, but if there's nothing in it for either party, a lazy electorate isn't going to prod the two into handcuffing themselves.

Hillary earned a lot of points in the Obama primaries for not fracturing the party. She maintains the record during 08 for garnering more votes in any primary ever for a loser....More than Bernie will ever dream to get in all of his runs COMBINED. She could've played Bernie b**** but instead worked to smooth over deep seated tensions among older traditional Democratic voters that opened up during the primaries.

I can see why the DNC has been eager to scratch her back over a longtime independent that single handedly cut the line and swept into populist fervor.

Is it alright? No, but has it ever, in recent memory, not been the case in either party? I guess Mondale, but Mondale led us to where we are. Even The Obama had to bend the knee after everything was said and done.

As far as Republicans are concerned, all they do is fall in line and swallow whatever garbage their leaders push into their fat greedy mouths. This year has been different in terms of leader selection, but I suspect lemming-like devotion will make voter turnout a closer race than it should.

Just watch the "Not Republican but rather Conservative voters who choose Republican" Sun Zoo that game of checkers and rationalize their Trump vote with the SCOTUS justices.

 

no doubt Wikileaks/Putin (same thing) has the emails from Hillary's server and will release them right before election day for maximum effect

 

I'm confused....

Do you work for the russian government or do you work for the HRC Troll Factory? Please advise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeak?src=hash">#DNCLeak</a>: DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online <a href="https://t.co/qwCck064P7">https://t.co/qwCck064P7</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FeelTheBern?src=hash">#FeelTheBern</a><br>More: <a href="https://t.co/QglX5I9wKN">https://t.co/QglX5I9wKN</a></p>&mdash; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757067627357360128">July 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Just kidding. We know you're Mr. Scarface!!!!



(just busting your chops...don't get mad)

 

If they had some of her emails that weren't part of those the FBI got and released then it would be devastating to her campaign but I highly doubt it.

 

You are aware that she inquired about this before setting it up, to see if she could have a system like Obama's, and when told of the various policies she would have to comply to with that, that she declined? You are also aware of Hillary's intense desire to avoid any and all FOI requests (which this system allowed her to do on numerous occassions while SoS? And that this is a continuing trend of Hillary's, going all the way back to when she was First Lady, and caught up in similar situations, probably most notably having the FBI files on various Republicans pulled for her, and in her possession? You are also aware of, as the incident with the Benghazi victim's mother pointed out, that her personal correspondence was often at odds with her professional stances (indicating her official positions were things she knew to be false), hence her desire to keep all this stuff under her control, and thereby creating the need to delete all her 'personal' email before letting anyone look through her email (and which also then ties in with her desire to avoid any and all FOI requests)?

This was no mistake. You'd have to be intentionally blind to Hillary's past actions and mindset to believe it was. She set this system up specifically to avoid scrutiny and the ability for anyone else to be able to obtain her emails.

Her being caught mishandling classified information may have been a mistake, but then it also indicates a high degree of incompetence or careless disregard on her part....hardly something that should just be casually dismissed.

That's not possible. Clinton's negatives are real, as they've already happened, and while she was in positions of power within the government. Nothing Trump has done comes even vaguely close. Essentially, all you'd have is things he said. Actions>>>> words by way more than 100 times. Even if they didn't, on just an itemized count, Hillary would probably still be ahead. There are probably 1,000 false statements she's made just on Benghazi and this email issue alone. So, she's way ahead in both quantity and degree of impact.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>BREAKING NEWS: Julian Assange states that he will "release a new set of documents that will ensure @<a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton">HillaryClinton</a>'s arrest." <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#DNCLeaks">#DNCLeaks</a></p>&mdash; TheAnonMessage (@TheAnonnMessage) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAnonnMessage/status/757306180976844800" data-datetime="2016-07-24T20:07:18+00:00">July 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

I call BS. If evidence of felonies wasn't enough to even bring charges against her then there's nothing he could bring that would "ensure" her arrest. He could have footage of her killing and eating babies and her political power would prevent an indictment.....and Democrats would call it a "vast right wing conspiracy"

 

You can keep beating the horse until after it's dead, but the truth is that some crimes are crimes regardless of intent, and some crimes are only crimes based on intent. This is why the IRS will not pursue charges against you if you do not pay your fair share of taxes unknowingly, but will pursue charges against you if there is evidence you tried to evade. They will not prosecute for a mistake, they will prosecute for an intent in that matter.

I am ending this stupid discussion on the matter on my end b/c you're going to believe what you're going to believe and I will, as well- and here is who backs my contention:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...linton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.

Even Fox News analysts contend she didn't break the law.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-legal-analysts-hillary-clinton-didnt-break-the-law/

“I’m going to say no, because at the time she did what she did when she used her own personal email, the law was very nebulous,” former prosecutor Jonna Spilbor said in response to Carlson’s question about Clinton breaking the law. “It didn’t say you couldn’t use your own email, it said any government use of email had to be preserved. So what did she violate?” she asked. As long as Clinton can still retrieve the emails in question, Spilbor said, “There’s no law broken.”

Carlson’s other guest, Arthur Aidala agreed, saying there may be ways to tell if Clinton is deliberately trying to hide communications. “Was there a crime?” he said. “You can’t be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time that you committed it.”

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for former secretary of state Colin Powell revealed that he too primarily used a personal email address during his tenure under Bush. Both his and Clinton’s time in the State Department predated changes to federal law that required officials to use government accounts for official communications, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.

 

This is true, and the crime she committed is a crime regardless of intent.....of course you'd know that if you read the statute which has been posted multiple times. I know that your partisanship prevents you from admitting this, so I won't push you further on it. Just know that you are basically arguing that OJ didn't do it.

 

Uhhmmmm... The time to do that would have been before the FBI and Comey finished their investigation.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

Will have to see what they are. Could be emails indicating 1) her personal system was indeed hacked, raising the level of severity of her transgression there, or, more likely (if indeed the statement is true) 2) emails indicating intent.

I'd be willing to bet there are indeed emails indicating her intent of using this system to thwart FOI requests. Damaging, but probably not criminal. But what if any of them indicate she was knowingly using this system to thwart processes for handling classified information?

That should be a given in her situation, anyway, but apparently it wasn't. But if there are emails out there indicating specifically that she knew she was handling classified information incorrectly, that could indeed change things. It could certainly lead to her being brought up on perjury charges, if nothing else.

 

[Premium Post]
From an election standpoint, the time to drop the big bombs is after Hillaroid is nominated. If done before, the Democrats might actually nominate someone electable with negatives below 65%.

I personally believe a domestic intelligence agency, or agencies, is behind these leaks. It's a well known fact that many people within the CIA and FBI despise Hillary and Obama, and the CIA has to be furious after Obama rejected their 2012 plan to remove Syrian President Assad -- a plan that could have stopped ISIS. It's payback time.

 

Really? I'm curious, given that this is symptomatic of everything she's ever done...why are you sure? I'd be willing to be she sets another system up just like it. As President, she'd be even more inclined to never want to have to comply with FOI requests, which is why she set that system up. Hillary has always been highly secretive, and wants no possible traces of anything she does left where someone else could stumble across them. That's why she has such low trustworthiness numbers, even from fellow Democrats. The one thing anybody can be 'sure' of is that that won't change...because it never has.

As for treating classified information carelessly...what indication is there that that would change, either? She had years to change it as SoS, and did the opposite. As President, she'd probably feel even more above the law. Would would make this even more interesting is if she loses her security clearance (which she should), and therefore technically couldn't even see much of the very information a President needs to see. Think she wouldn't break some of those policies in that situation, especially as she so clearly doesn't concern herself with such things already?