jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2016 21:28:29 GMT -5
It's like some people are in another universe...
-Lying that she was told she could use a private server -Lying that she never sent any confidential emails -Lying about being broke and in debt when she and her husband left the White House -Lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia (this was back in the '08 campaign - I will always remember that because it was such an egg in the face moment when video showed her getting off the plane to a calm and peaceful scene) -Here's one many don't know: she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt Everest...except the man didn't actually climb the mountain until AFTER she was born
The woman is a compulsive liar...corrupt to the bone...sick and twisted...power-hungry and evil...she would step on her own daughter if she thought it could get her more power and/or the presidency.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 25, 2016 21:38:31 GMT -5
It's like some people are in another universe...
-Lying that she was told she could use a private server -Lying that she never sent any confidential emails -Lying about being broke and in debt when she and her husband left the White House -Lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia (this was back in the '08 campaign - I will always remember that because it was such an egg in the face moment when video showed her getting off the plane to a calm and peaceful scene) -Here's one many don't know: she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt Everest...except the man didn't actually climb the mountain until AFTER she was born
The woman is a compulsive liar...corrupt to the bone...sick and twisted...power-hungry and evil...she would step on her own daughter if she thought it could get her more power and/or the presidency.
Same goes for Trump...except he would SLEEP with his own daughter.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 25, 2016 21:43:29 GMT -5
What did you read that was of special note in the e-mails? Did you discover the "punchline" so to speak? Here is one I discovered: ... DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment. ... How dare they ask that MSNBC pull a commentary segment off the air! Wait. It is a request to their communications department to get a video copy of something that was currently airing on MSNBC. From:FreundlichC@dnc.org To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 18:27 Subject: Video Request: msnbc right now Can we pull the commentary segment right now on msnbc? Talking about the DNC and the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign With rush transcript please once it wraps up. Christina Freundlich DNC Deputy National Press Secretary 314-302-0602 Bills, how about these:
1) Morning Joe From:mirandal@dnc.org To: PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 08:10 Subject: Morning Joe Fucking Joe claiming the system is rigged, party against him, we need to complain to their producer. Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
2) Phil Griffin Meeting Briefing From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: BonoskyG@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-02 22:28 Subject: Phil Griffin Meeting Briefing Attached and below DNC COMMUNICATIONS BRIEFING To: Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz From: Luis Miranda CC: Ryan Banfill; Kate Houghton; Tracie Pough Date: May 2, 2016 What: Off the Record Meeting with Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC When: Tuesday May 3, 2016; 10:00 AM Where: 30 Rockefeller Center Format: Off the Record Meeting in Phil’s Office Who: YOU, Phil Griffin Topic: Relationship Building / Town Hall Dial-in: N/A Staff: Mark Paustenbach, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, 202-841-1091 Contact: Savannah Sellers, Savannah.Sellers@nbcuni.com, (858) 774-7406 TIMELINE: Arrival Time: 9:45 AM Makeup: N/A Hit Time: 10:00 AM Cleared: 10:30 AM TOPLINE: This is an opportunity to say hello and touch base on the timing and setting for a voting rights town hall (agreed to during the NH debate negotiations); and to stress that we want to have greater collaboration with their team on having the Democratic Party represented on their shows. MSNBC has largely moved to having their contributors and talent do most of the on-air commentary and we don’t get many opportunities to have the Party represented. While Mika won’t be there, you should point out that you’re reaching out to re-engage with her. Our relationship with NBC/MSNBC is severely frayed given what they perceive as a snub with the last debate, and CNN getting favored treatment. Griffin may raise that concern, and ideally we could lower the temperature and seek common ground.
3) RE: Tv coverage of protest great From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: HelmstetterT@dnc.org, RegionalPress@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-12 11:41 Subject: RE: Tv coverage of protest great Yes, but going forward, when our allies screw up and don't deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it.. we don't want to own a bad picture: Following [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/595261015731740673/uvXc_cII_bigger.jpg]Zeke MillerVerified accountþ@ZekeJMiller<https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller> 1h Three person protest outside the RNC. Sad! [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiQZmmEUgAAyeKl.jpg] · RETWEETS4 · LIKES8 · [Danny Freeman] <https://twitter.com/DannyEFreeman> [ Brian Duncan] <https://twitter.com/zeekfilmaker> [David Marnell] <https://twitter.com/waysjunior> [Ben Haygood] <https://twitter.com/benhaygood> [Mark Leibovich] <https://twitter.com/MarkLeibovich> [laurenfritts] <https://twitter.com/laurenfritts> [Lionel Mandrake] <https://twitter.com/Hopsmad> [pff] <https://twitter.com/1966strat> [Political Rationale] <https://twitter.com/Jimbean87055631> -----Original Message----- From: Helmstetter, TJ Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:38 AM To: Regional Press Subject: Tv coverage of protest great Shockingly good coverage despite abysmal turnout. CNN and MSNBC using prominently. Fox News covering new developments in Benghazi.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 25, 2016 22:04:10 GMT -5
Here is one I discovered: How dare they ask that MSNBC pull a commentary segment off the air! Wait. It is a request to their communications department to get a video copy of something that was currently airing on MSNBC. From:FreundlichC@dnc.org To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 18:27 Subject: Video Request: msnbc right now Can we pull the commentary segment right now on msnbc? Talking about the DNC and the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign With rush transcript please once it wraps up. Christina Freundlich DNC Deputy National Press Secretary 314-302-0602 Bills, how about these:
1) Morning Joe From:mirandal@dnc.org To: PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 08:10 Subject: Morning Joe Fucking Joe claiming the system is rigged, party against him, we need to complain to their producer. Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
2) Phil Griffin Meeting Briefing From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: BonoskyG@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-02 22:28 Subject: Phil Griffin Meeting Briefing Attached and below DNC COMMUNICATIONS BRIEFING To: Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz From: Luis Miranda CC: Ryan Banfill; Kate Houghton; Tracie Pough Date: May 2, 2016 What: Off the Record Meeting with Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC When: Tuesday May 3, 2016; 10:00 AM Where: 30 Rockefeller Center Format: Off the Record Meeting in Phil’s Office Who: YOU, Phil Griffin Topic: Relationship Building / Town Hall Dial-in: N/A Staff: Mark Paustenbach, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, 202-841-1091 Contact: Savannah Sellers, Savannah.Sellers@nbcuni.com, (858) 774-7406 TIMELINE: Arrival Time: 9:45 AM Makeup: N/A Hit Time: 10:00 AM Cleared: 10:30 AM TOPLINE: This is an opportunity to say hello and touch base on the timing and setting for a voting rights town hall (agreed to during the NH debate negotiations); and to stress that we want to have greater collaboration with their team on having the Democratic Party represented on their shows. MSNBC has largely moved to having their contributors and talent do most of the on-air commentary and we don’t get many opportunities to have the Party represented. While Mika won’t be there, you should point out that you’re reaching out to re-engage with her. Our relationship with NBC/MSNBC is severely frayed given what they perceive as a snub with the last debate, and CNN getting favored treatment. Griffin may raise that concern, and ideally we could lower the temperature and seek common ground.
3) RE: Tv coverage of protest great From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: HelmstetterT@dnc.org, RegionalPress@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-12 11:41 Subject: RE: Tv coverage of protest great Yes, but going forward, when our allies screw up and don't deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it.. we don't want to own a bad picture: Following [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/595261015731740673/uvXc_cII_bigger.jpg]Zeke MillerVerified accountþ@ZekeJMiller<https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller> 1h Three person protest outside the RNC. Sad! [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiQZmmEUgAAyeKl.jpg] · RETWEETS4 · LIKES8 · [Danny Freeman] <https://twitter.com/DannyEFreeman> [ Brian Duncan] <https://twitter.com/zeekfilmaker> [David Marnell] <https://twitter.com/waysjunior> [Ben Haygood] <https://twitter.com/benhaygood> [Mark Leibovich] <https://twitter.com/MarkLeibovich> [laurenfritts] <https://twitter.com/laurenfritts> [Lionel Mandrake] <https://twitter.com/Hopsmad> [pff] <https://twitter.com/1966strat> [Political Rationale] <https://twitter.com/Jimbean87055631> -----Original Message----- From: Helmstetter, TJ Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:38 AM To: Regional Press Subject: Tv coverage of protest great Shockingly good coverage despite abysmal turnout. CNN and MSNBC using prominently. Fox News covering new developments in Benghazi. First: people not liking the coverage they are getting and complaining. And? Second: people wishing to develop a better relationship with the media that could help their cause. And? Third: people concerned about image. And?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 3:37:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure about #3. The "And?" in 1) and 2) is the DNC cultivating a favourable relationship with the media, as well as the implication that a relationship exists already. It doesn't sit well with people that the DNC can (and apparently does) phone up producers and executives to negotiate coverage and complain about guests, etc. I'm going to sit the fence on this one. To me it seems like a no-brainer that the DNC would try to negotiate more coverage and more favourable coverage (assuming media relations is a part of their mandate). At the same time, in an ideal world, news producers would tell them to sod off in 1) and "you'll get what you get, so sod off" in 2). While this might have happened, the implication at least is that these staffers believed complaining/lobbying would avail something. Regarding your row with VB on the "pulled interview" e-mail: he's saying that "Mika", who was apparently talking about this e-mail (i.e. "this very thing"), held that "pulled" meant the DNC wanted replays of the segment in question pulled from rebroadcast (and a transcript of the segment for damage assessment purposes, I'm assuming). I see no evidence to support this interpretation, but I also see no evidence to support your interpretation that "pulled" simply means "issued a copy of". I don't know who "Mika" is, or whether "pulled" can mean "issued a copy of" in media parlance. I can believe it, since a "pull" means something similar in coding. I'd tend to agree with your interpretation, for what little that's worth.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 3:47:21 GMT -5
Incidentally, the punchline of Reply #14 is that the woman who wants to "cuss out Sanders supporters" and who characterizes their desire/attempts to reform the superdelegate process as "another lunacy" is Donna Brazile, the new interim DNC chair.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 26, 2016 4:24:49 GMT -5
If people from other countries can interject their opinions then I think a person from this country has a right. Regardless of their political affiliation
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 26, 2016 7:09:18 GMT -5
I'm just curious about one thing. I am a moderate independent. So I don't understand some things.
Why was it okay for the two previous Sec's of State to use their personal email accounts, but Sec Clinton should go to jail for it?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 26, 2016 8:39:24 GMT -5
It's like some people are in another universe...
-Lying that she was told she could use a private server -Lying that she never sent any confidential emails -Lying about being broke and in debt when she and her husband left the White House -Lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia (this was back in the '08 campaign - I will always remember that because it was such an egg in the face moment when video showed her getting off the plane to a calm and peaceful scene) -Here's one many don't know: she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt Everest...except the man didn't actually climb the mountain until AFTER she was born
The woman is a compulsive liar...corrupt to the bone...sick and twisted...power-hungry and evil...she would step on her own daughter if she thought it could get her more power and/or the presidency.
How do you know no one told her she could use a private server including former Sec. of States?
Some people like to exaggerate including Donald, from a RL point of view she probably wasn't broke and in debt when she left the WH, but perhaps it felt like it to her so using the new standard of Republican "truth" this can be true. Leaving the sniper fire to be false, but again if she felt she was under sniper fire it becomes a new Republican truth.
I don't know why she couldn't have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Was it required he had to climb Mt. Everest before her parents could name her after him?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2016 8:46:26 GMT -5
I'm just curious about one thing. I am a moderate independent. So I don't understand some things. Why was it okay for the two previous Sec's of State to use their personal email accounts, but Sec Clinton should go to jail for it? Because Hillary and Bill Clinton are guilty of killing more than 637 people who knew secrets about them and their business dealings along with committing 834,292 other crimes against humanity, including the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and plotting with John Wilkes Booth in the asassination of Abraham Lincoln. That's why.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 9:01:58 GMT -5
I'm just curious about one thing. I am a moderate independent. So I don't understand some things. Why was it okay for the two previous Sec's of State to use their personal email accounts, but Sec Clinton should go to jail for it? It's not OK. But they weren't caught doing it and the evidence is long gone.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 26, 2016 9:34:07 GMT -5
... Regarding your row with VB on the "pulled interview" e-mail: he's saying that "Mika", who was apparently talking about this e-mail (i.e. "this very thing"), held that "pulled" meant the DNC wanted replays of the segment in question pulled from rebroadcast (and a transcript of the segment for damage assessment purposes, I'm assuming). I see no evidence to support this interpretation, but I also see no evidence to support your interpretation that "pulled" simply means "issued a copy of". I don't know who "Mika" is, or whether "pulled" can mean "issued a copy of" in media parlance. I can believe it, since a "pull" means something similar in coding. I'd tend to agree with your interpretation, for what little that's worth. Mika Brzezinski is a co-host of a morning talk show. Evidence: To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 18:27 Subject: Video Request: msnbc right now An email sent to the "Comm_D" of the DNC with a subject line of "Video Request: msnbc right now" seems to clearly be a request for a video of something showing on msnbc at 6:38 pm on May 18 of this year from the Comm D. of the DNC.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 26, 2016 9:45:00 GMT -5
I'm just curious about one thing. I am a moderate independent. So I don't understand some things. Why was it okay for the two previous Sec's of State to use their personal email accounts, but Sec Clinton should go to jail for it? It's not OK. But they weren't caught doing it and the evidence is long gone. It was not a jail-able occurrence then though. Only because of the numerous investigations have laws changed for future Sec. of States. Why is it so hard for people to understand? We have laws so when we prosecute, people are only jailed for breaking laws. What is up with all the people especially Trump and Bernie supporters who FEEL we should ignore the rule of law and just jail someone so they can FEEL better?
Its like a good portion of the US has gone mad and wants a dictatorship. Hope they are cool with it when their preferred dictator comes for them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 9:54:47 GMT -5
... Regarding your row with VB on the "pulled interview" e-mail: he's saying that "Mika", who was apparently talking about this e-mail (i.e. "this very thing"), held that "pulled" meant the DNC wanted replays of the segment in question pulled from rebroadcast (and a transcript of the segment for damage assessment purposes, I'm assuming). I see no evidence to support this interpretation, but I also see no evidence to support your interpretation that "pulled" simply means "issued a copy of". I don't know who "Mika" is, or whether "pulled" can mean "issued a copy of" in media parlance. I can believe it, since a "pull" means something similar in coding. I'd tend to agree with your interpretation, for what little that's worth. Mika Brzezinski is a co-host of a morning talk show. Evidence: To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 18:27 Subject: Video Request: msnbc right now An email sent to the "Comm_D" of the DNC with a subject line of "Video Request: msnbc right now" seems to clearly be a request for a video of something showing on msnbc at 6:38 pm on May 18 of this year from the Comm D. of the DNC. A sensible explanation, Watson BUT who is to say "Video Request" isn't simply "request related to a video"--specifically, a request to pull that video from subsequent rebroadcast? (I agree with your assessment. I don't see anything awry with the e-mail, except possibly the fact that the DNC and MSNBC are tight enough that the DNC can request footage and have the network promptly meet their demands. Maybe it works that way with the RNC too. I don't know.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 10:11:44 GMT -5
It's not OK. But they weren't caught doing it and the evidence is long gone. It was not a jail-able occurrence then though. Only because of the numerous investigations have laws changed for future Sec. of States. Why is it so hard for people to understand? We have laws so when we prosecute, people are only jailed for breaking laws. What is up with all the people especially Trump and Bernie supporters who FEEL we should ignore the rule of law and just jail someone so they can FEEL better?
Its like a good portion of the US has gone mad and wants a dictatorship. Hope they are cool with it when their preferred dictator comes for them. The case has been made that what Ms. Clinton did was contrary to the law as written and that she'd have been prosecuted and harshly punished had she been an individual of lesser influence. The case has also been made that the FBI and Justice Department did not err in their application of the law or show partiality towards Ms. Clinton, and that Americans ought to accept that ruling. Alas, I am in the former camp. The language in the statutes themselves is clear. The recent precedents in similar cases are clear. Mr. Comey's explanation of why he declined to recommend prosecution makes no sense at all and clearly controverts the regulations he cites. The case is riddled with conflicts of interest, shady meetings, and unorthodox behaviour. The fact that the Justice Department is the Justice Department and we should generally trust the rulings of the Justice Department isn't sufficient basis for me to ignore all of this. You obviously feel differently, and I respect your opinion. You would do well to acknowledge that I, as well as "Trump and Bernie supporters", indeed believe strongly in the rule of law and that we believe people ought to be convicted based on sound judgments pertaining to codified law. Most of us simply don't accept that Ms. Clinton (or past Secretaries of State, for that matter) were soundly judged based on codified law, which is our prerogative as rational, questioning individuals. This certainly isn't the only case where this has happened, but it happens to be a recent and high-profile one.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 26, 2016 11:33:12 GMT -5
Mika Brzezinski is a co-host of a morning talk show. Evidence: To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 18:27 Subject: Video Request: msnbc right now An email sent to the "Comm_D" of the DNC with a subject line of "Video Request: msnbc right now" seems to clearly be a request for a video of something showing on msnbc at 6:38 pm on May 18 of this year from the Comm D. of the DNC. A sensible explanation, Watson BUT who is to say "Video Request" isn't simply "request related to a video"--specifically, a request to pull that video from subsequent rebroadcast? (I agree with your assessment. I don't see anything awry with the e-mail, except possibly the fact that the DNC and MSNBC are tight enough that the DNC can request footage and have the network promptly meet their demands. Maybe it works that way with the RNC too. I don't know.) The request was sent to the Comm_D of the DNC. It was not sent to MSNBC. With the money that the DNC has, I find it hard to believe that they don't have the facility that records all news programs as they air. I am thinking that Occam's razor applies here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 13:57:22 GMT -5
A sensible explanation, Watson BUT who is to say "Video Request" isn't simply "request related to a video"--specifically, a request to pull that video from subsequent rebroadcast? (I agree with your assessment. I don't see anything awry with the e-mail, except possibly the fact that the DNC and MSNBC are tight enough that the DNC can request footage and have the network promptly meet their demands. Maybe it works that way with the RNC too. I don't know.) The request was sent to the Comm_D of the DNC. It was not sent to MSNBC. With the money that the DNC has, I find it hard to believe that they don't have the facility that records all news programs as they air. I am thinking that Occam's razor applies here. Ah. Well... the good news is that you've convinced me. The bad news is that you didn't need to because I agreed with you before the arc started.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 26, 2016 14:17:32 GMT -5
The request was sent to the Comm_D of the DNC. It was not sent to MSNBC. With the money that the DNC has, I find it hard to believe that they don't have the facility that records all news programs as they air. I am thinking that Occam's razor applies here. Ah. Well... the good news is that you've convinced me. The bad news is that you didn't need to because I agreed with you before the arc started. I know. It is just that I read the label and then read the email and there is such a disconnect. For example this one: DNC member killing horses for insurance money. Sounds bad right? So here is where the story starts: From: Cox, Clayton Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:35 AM To: Vet_D Subject: Donor Vet Hello- Can we please vet George Lindemann, Jr. to give to the DNC and attend a POTUS event? Thank you! Clayton And here is where it ends: From:ReedA@dnc.org To: RivardC@dnc.org, Bobby_Schmuck@who.eop.gov, MARSHALL@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-09 13:54 Subject: RE: Donor Vet
I vote fail....again. wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 14:22:28 GMT -5
Ah. Well... the good news is that you've convinced me. The bad news is that you didn't need to because I agreed with you before the arc started. I know. It is just that I read the label and then read the email and there is such a disconnect. For example this one: DNC member killing horses for insurance money. Sounds bad right? So here is where the story starts: From: Cox, Clayton Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:35 AM To: Vet_D Subject: Donor Vet Hello- Can we please vet George Lindemann, Jr. to give to the DNC and attend a POTUS event? Thank you! Clayton And here is where it ends: From:ReedA@dnc.org To: RivardC@dnc.org, Bobby_Schmuck@who.eop.gov, MARSHALL@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-09 13:54 Subject: RE: Donor Vet
I vote fail....again. wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578 Where are you getting the headline from?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 26, 2016 14:24:11 GMT -5
I know. It is just that I read the label and then read the email and there is such a disconnect. For example this one: DNC member killing horses for insurance money. Sounds bad right? So here is where the story starts: From: Cox, Clayton Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:35 AM To: Vet_D Subject: Donor Vet Hello- Can we please vet George Lindemann, Jr. to give to the DNC and attend a POTUS event? Thank you! Clayton And here is where it ends: From:ReedA@dnc.org To: RivardC@dnc.org, Bobby_Schmuck@who.eop.gov, MARSHALL@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-09 13:54 Subject: RE: Donor Vet
I vote fail....again. wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578 Where are you getting the headline from? Whoops. Sorry. Here: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-/EDIT: headline isn't quite the right word EDIT AGAIN: and another whoops. I thought I had used the word headline so was responding to my misuse. Fingers are going too fast on this. It just makes me frustrated that there is no integrity in this. There are a couple emails I have read that are flat out inappropriate but most of this is just BS.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 14:44:24 GMT -5
Never heard of them. I agree with you 100% that the label is complete bunkum. The e-mail is a bit difficult to follow because of the formatting, and since they're leading with it, I suspect they're confused about what it actually says. But yeah, the label is bunk. I wouldn't even bother with the rest. The site I like, zerohedge.com, had a list of five leaked e-mails it considered "damning". I agreed with three of the five. The other two were 'meh'. The two by Ms. Brazile would also upset me if I was a Sanders supporter. Frankly, some Sanders supporters do deserve a swift kick in the rear, but if the DNC chair is supposed to be impartial, those e-mails were anything but.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 14:46:40 GMT -5
Where are you getting the headline from? Whoops. Sorry. Here: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-/EDIT: headline isn't quite the right word EDIT AGAIN: and another whoops. I thought I had used the word headline so was responding to my misuse. Fingers are going too fast on this. It just makes me frustrated that there is no integrity in this. There are a couple emails I have read that are flat out inappropriate but most of this is just BS. the right wing blogs count on people "following the script". the script is, essentially "trust us, we read this stuff, and this is what it says". if you buy that premise (which is actually the same crap Trump sells daily) then your outrage is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. of course, since the premise is false, the outrage is COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED- but that is not how it works these days. feelings are the new truth.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 26, 2016 18:16:29 GMT -5
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 26, 2016 18:31:31 GMT -5
It's like some people are in another universe...
-Lying that she was told she could use a private server -Lying that she never sent any confidential emails -Lying about being broke and in debt when she and her husband left the White House -Lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia (this was back in the '08 campaign - I will always remember that because it was such an egg in the face moment when video showed her getting off the plane to a calm and peaceful scene) -Here's one many don't know: she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt Everest...except the man didn't actually climb the mountain until AFTER she was born
The woman is a compulsive liar...corrupt to the bone...sick and twisted...power-hungry and evil...she would step on her own daughter if she thought it could get her more power and/or the presidency.
How do you know no one told her she could use a private server including former Sec. of States?
Some people like to exaggerate including Donald, from a RL point of view she probably wasn't broke and in debt when she left the WH, but perhaps it felt like it to her so using the new standard of Republican "truth" this can be true. Leaving the sniper fire to be false, but again if she felt she was under sniper fire it becomes a new Republican truth.
I don't know why she couldn't have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Was it required he had to climb Mt. Everest before her parents could name her after him?
Am I the only one who actually READS the news?
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clinton%e2%80%99s-email-practices/ar-BBttnFT?li=BBnb7Kz
concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 26, 2016 21:08:34 GMT -5
How do you know no one told her she could use a private server including former Sec. of States?
Some people like to exaggerate including Donald, from a RL point of view she probably wasn't broke and in debt when she left the WH, but perhaps it felt like it to her so using the new standard of Republican "truth" this can be true. Leaving the sniper fire to be false, but again if she felt she was under sniper fire it becomes a new Republican truth.
I don't know why she couldn't have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Was it required he had to climb Mt. Everest before her parents could name her after him?
Am I the only one who actually READS the news?
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clinton%e2%80%99s-email-practices/ar-BBttnFT?li=BBnb7Kz
concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”
No, but you fell into the usual trap of not realizing what you actually wrote, which does not mention the caveat of legal approval.
"Lying that she was told she could use a private server"
Which as written, means no one told her she could use a private server. I judged that statement to be a lie.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 27, 2016 19:02:50 GMT -5
No, but you fell into the usual trap of not realizing what you actually wrote, which does not mention the caveat of legal approval.
"Lying that she was told she could use a private server"
Which as written, means no one told her she could use a private server. I judged that statement to be a lie.
Always the Clinton apologist...you'd get along with many people at CNN
www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553
According to the report, some State Department technology staff said they were instructed to not talk of Clinton’s email set-up after they raised concerns about the unusual arrangement. One employee told investigators that he or she "raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements,” the document states.
But they were told to drop it: "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 27, 2016 20:29:44 GMT -5
No, but you fell into the usual trap of not realizing what you actually wrote, which does not mention the caveat of legal approval.
"Lying that she was told she could use a private server"
Which as written, means no one told her she could use a private server. I judged that statement to be a lie.
Always the Clinton apologist...you'd get along with many people at CNN
www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553
According to the report, some State Department technology staff said they were instructed to not talk of Clinton’s email set-up after they raised concerns about the unusual arrangement. One employee told investigators that he or she "raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements,” the document states.
But they were told to drop it: "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”
Its dead horse beating time!
But alright for fun let's pretend we are in an alternate universe. Emails from Clinton, Powell, and Rice were carefully saved in Federal archives. Did any of these emails save the US from future events? Did 9/11 not happen simply because of a saved email? Does some policy wonk through reading Powell's and Clinton's email get divinely inspired and figure out a way to defeat ISIS and stop the next mass attack in Europe?
Or do they mostly sit there, take up space, and maybe once in a blue moon some wonk or wonkette reads a few and nothing really changes?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 28, 2016 19:15:03 GMT -5
jkapp, the thread is about Bernie Sanders, not Opt4FT. Let's keep it that way. Thanks. mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 30, 2016 5:40:05 GMT -5
"this very thing" what the fuck "this very thing"? "This", at least my "this" is a request to the communications department for a video of something that was aired. A copy of a video with transcript as quickly as possible. LoL! Bills doesn't think "Can we pull the commentary segment right now on msnbc?" means "Can we pull the commentary segment right now on msnbc?" Holy crap man, how bought and paid for are you?? Apparently enough so that you're willing to not know the English language in order to follow your masters... I wonder what would happen if they said "woof boy woof!" FWIW, I vouch for billis' interpretation. The e-mail is sent from a DNC staffer to the DNC media department, and other contextual clues indicate that "pull" means "pull a recorded copy of the speech out of our database". He's got this one right.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2016 8:27:21 GMT -5
FWIW, I vouch for billis' interpretation. The e-mail is sent from a DNC staffer to the DNC media department, and other contextual clues indicate that "pull" means "pull a recorded copy of the speech out of our database". He's got this one right. Oh yeah...I see the context now. ... Glad you are able to see it.
|
|