WIKILEAKS BOMB=> Clinton Camp Discussed Deleting Emails Despite Knowing It Was Against the Law

Gateway Pundit ^ | 10/12/2016 | Jim Hoft

[God luvs America]

A new Wikileaks email revealed Hillary Clinton confidant Phillipe Reines discussed deleting emails despite knowing it was against the law. Clinton later deleted over 33,000 subpoenaed emails.

HRC confidant P. Reines discusses strategies they can "use…as the excuse" for not turning over all her emails despite receiving a subpoena pic.twitter.com/ZzWapiienk

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 12, 2016

[blueunicorn6]

Democrats are Democrats before they are Americans.

Remember that when you are dealing with one.

[pgkdan]

All they did is jeopardize National Security, destroy evidence, violate FBI and Congressional subpoenas and obstruct justice. There’s not a reasonable prosecutor in the world who would prosecute any one for any of that.

[Jack Hammer]

Laws?

We don’t need no steenkin’ laws!

[Williams]

Pure criminality and people will elect her?

[Quilla]

Post of the day. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so disheartening.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Of course they broke the law..but the media doesn’t care, the media IS the Clinton campaign..and the Clintons can do WHATEVER they want, murder whoever they want and get away with it because they ARE the Clintons

[WildHighlander57]

Whole thing; mentions trust in institutions of us govt except the military is at a low point... WikiLeaks Shop Donate Return to search View email View source Re: Tomorrow From:tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-06-22 18:19 Subject: Re: Tomorrow Yes. Will send asap On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:17 PM, John Podesta wrote: > I'm at a Silicon Valley fundraiser tonight and likely to get back into > email land. Can you forward me whatever our last q&a or briefing document > is on the topic.. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Lindsay Roitman" > Date: Jun 22, 2015 1:07 PM > Subject: Fwd: Tomorrow > To: "John Podesta" > Cc: > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Erika Rottenberg > *Date:* June 21, 2015 at 9:20:19 PM PDT > *To:* Stephanie Hannon , "Ann O'Leary" < > aoleary@hillaryclinton.com> > *Cc:* Lindsay Roitman > *Subject:* *Tomorrow* > > Hi Ann and Stephanie -- > > Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow night. I suspect it will be > broad ranging. > > Few things: > > 1. are the two of you and john planning on spending about 15 mins > chatting about the inside of the campaign, and policy broadly, and then > opening up to Q&A for about 45 mins or doing all Q&A? I Actually think > that it'd be great for y'all to hit on some key policy items first and i > know folks would enjoy the inside glance at the campaign. > 2. I plan to do an intro and Jeff will close with a very brief how to > get involved. I'll then close with a special toast and treat. > > I have not reached out to John - -please let me know if you think I should. > > Couple of questions that came in: > > > 1. you're obviously amongst friends, but here's the one i referred to > (can't remember which of you i talked about it with, if not both). It's > from someone that wasn't goign to come, and i encouraged him to come. he > comes at the issue slightly differnetly than what I've dsicussed with both > of you (Ok, one thing to use personal email, but why the "twisted truth" > (not my words) on why - with the two problematic areas being (a) emails to > bill (when they were to bill's staff) and (b) i only used one device -- BB, > when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB and ipad. As Ann and I > discussed, hopefully that's a timing issue and whilst in state, she only > used one. :) > > *For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased > right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all > struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with > answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email > addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was > viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure > documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and > delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to > weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of > thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc. > > 2) someone wants to ask a very specific question about updating export > control laws - and why they've haven't been updated since (??) as they > prevent american businesses selling abroad (she's GC of a consumer drone > company). Going to the 20,000 foot level, you'lll do well to talk about > needing to ensure regulation that's designed to protect consumers - yet not > so much that it prevents innovation, like what happens here in SV, which > has been the economic bright spot of our economy. The goverenment of the > 21st century will need to be more nimble, and quicker to respond to rapidly > changing busiensses, yet also ensure that it's not rash, and it regulates > for not just for today but the future. too > > 3) we'll see whether asked - but I would suspect something on the balance > of 4th amendment and cyber - and the US govt's request for companies to > provide a backdoor to encryption -- we discussed that yesterday. > > 4) Number three leads to a more general and i think thoughtful question - > -which permeates every aspect of our country - from the economy, to the > government to institutions like health care, defense, education and the > justice system. > > Trust of the American public in American institutions : A poll was just > released showing that trust in Congress, the presidency, the Supreme > Court, big business, Wall Street, etc. is at historic lows. That does not > bode well for the country (and in fact the military seems to be the only > institution that Ameicans trust, which is evocative of a third world nation > and not of the world's leading nation, for now). > > > http://www.gallup.com/poll/183605/confidence-branches-government-remains-low.aspx?utm_source=position2&utm_medium=related&utm_campaign=tiles > > ------------------------- > > The issues that Reid and I teed up for john when he was at the tech > roundtable with Steph and Amanda at LinkedIn were: > > > - surveillance and national security - the proper balance (it is not > an either or -- it is an 'and') > - patent reform (less of an issue with s ct decision) > - net neutrality, and, of course, > - email issue > > There should be a good crowd, but unfortunately a number of folks are out > of town, and in terms of GC's, a number have annual meetings and the like. > Nonetheless, there will be a reasonable showing - prob about 50 folks > (though about 70 have said they're coming). They range from tech folks to > GC's to law firm counsel to non profits to STanford folk and even one union > leader (SEIU) may show. > > > Steph, in terms of recruiting - -there are a few people that might be > helpful - and each of them is a wonderful human being. Though I don't know > that any are looking, they're defnitely worthwhile talking to: > > > - Madeline Fackler, who was recently CIO for Johnson and Johnson. She > and her atty husband split their time between here and NYC. > - Ian McNish - one of the very early infrastructure folks at LinkedIn > - he joined when the company was still in a garage. He's been at Box for > the last couple of years advising them on IT, infrastructure and Ops. He > may be looking for something BIG to be a part of. Tireless, passoinate, > brilliant person. Catch will be his wonderful girlfriend, also from > linkedin, now heads up communicatoins/PR at GogoBot. (she too will be here > - adn they'll both stay for the afterparty. they're a hoot) > - Ian McCarthy - consumer digital media. also early LI employee, and > has been at a number of startups. Terrific guy. > - Unfortunately folks who were responsible for "growth" and some of > the data scientists didn't respond, and i didn't have time to > followup......we should set up some time to talk offline if you want. > > Hope this helps, and please do let me know if i can be of any help, though > i'm out of pocket for most of tomorrow (talkign on cybersecurity at > stanford directors college). > > Cheers, > > erika > 650.417.5722 > > > >

[Chgogal]

INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT

[SueRae]

It should bury her. But in this day and age, who knows..

[tomkat]

Seriously ? ?

[OldNewYork]

Glad Trump underlined during the second debate that Clinton was deleting emails even after the subpoena. I hope this release has traction.

[dragnet2]

Bookmark

[dragnet2]

Has Comey commented on these Clinton, “intentions”?

Crooks abound.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Trump was right. If he's elected she very well could be going to jail, unless Obama pardons her before he leaves office. He probably would, because she would implicate him.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“this shows intentionality - well above recklessness - which landed Martha Stewart in Jail.”

Yes, but Trump had a potty mouth 11 years ago..

[Cheerio]

No bombshell - the general population just issued a collective yawn. DJT has some locker room talk and Obama in 2008 exposes himself to giggling female campaign staff and the world goes nuts about Trump being the immoral one unfit to run for President.

President Obama sexually harasses female staff

[StormEye]

"Hell, money was paid straight to Comey. He got $15 million."

When did this happen?
Who paid it to him?
Has anyone investigated this?

[wastoute]

2013. Comey was a Board member of HSBC.

[tumblindice]

OK, an admission/confession. If we only had more to go on ... a flashing arrow sign: “I DID IT!”

[tiki]

Something Trump hasn’t said that I know of when Hillary and the media and the administration blame Russia for this hack that would have no hack if the Beast had not broke the law and used unsecured email servers.