wikileaks 14

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult

Conspiracy anyone?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24438

“Peter Nicholas (WSJ) is doing a story for Friday on caucus >>> organizing efforts and the Sanders campaign’s theory that caucuses will be >>> good for them in the same way that they were for Obama. We’ve pushed back >>> with our theory of the case, including our strong organizing effort in Iowa >>> and beyond. >>> >>> >>> - Per CTR, Amy Chozick is working on story for this weekend about >>> how the GOP will attack Hillary, will likely include focus group data >>> suggesting that trustworthiness and being out-of-touch will be top targets. >>> >>> >>> - Maggie Haberman is doing a write-through of her story on Hillary >>> Clinton’s claim that she had never been subpoenaed for tomorrow’s paper >>> which will include the statement we put out this afternoon. >>> >>> >>> - Michael Scherer (TIME) is working on a story delving into the >>> claim that Hillary Clinton was under no obligation to turn over 55,000 >>> pages of emails. >>> - Steven Holmes (CNN) is working on a piece with the premise that >>> the black vote is the firewall for Hillary Clinton and Sanders is unlikely >>> to make major inroads there. >>> >>> >>> - Annie Linskey (Boston Globe) is writing for Friday about new >>> fundraising hosts getting involved in this campaign, specifically females. >>> >>> >>> - Jeremy Diamond (CNN) is doing a piece about the politics of the >>> BDS movement. It will place heavy focus on the nuances and forces at play >>> around Hillary Clinton’s letter that was sent to presidents of major Jewish >>> organizations condemning BDS. >>> >>> >>> - Huffington Post is doing a piece on our treasurer Jose Villareal >>> — will likely focus at least partially on him sitting on the Walmart board.”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24675 FALLOUT FROM LEAKED EMAILS - A really good read. Re: Leaks From:pir@hrcoffice.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-03-09 22:09 Subject: Re: Leaks My reaction was more than a little because I don’t want the next thing we read to be that Cheryl & my (and Heather’s) names were part of this, then not. I’d also like you to know though that last night I suggested very strongly to her in writing and then on the phone that if she disagreed with their recommendation — which at that time she was doing — I would not relay that back, that he/they/one of them deserved the right to make their case directly to her to either change her mind or know they couldn’t, that it can’t keep being me or Cheryl with the, HRC said X, HRC told us Y. That doing so will only lead people to say If only, and that she should call Joel… Believe me it did not go over well with her. All sorts of crazy responses, my favorite being, Well he can call me whenever he wants. But I’m happy I did, because as you know she called him first thing this morning. I’m going to give myself a pat on the back because I believe she needs to work with them directly. I’m probably as happy about it as he is. So while our exchange might not make it seem so, and my too-often caustic nature doesn’t help, I want this to succeed far more than you know. And I firmly believe that doing so means I shouldn’t be 50% in 50% out. Should be 100/0 or 0/100. It’s clear you don’t think it should be 100% in. That’s a bitter pill to swallow. Not because I want to, but because how much I respect you and how hard it is to accept that you have determined that my downsides have exceeded my upsides. 0% in is an extreme, but I want to be as close to that as possible. So it being tough to accept after nearly 13 years of waking up everyday working for her, you and I are in agreement. Things like this will occasionally make that tough, especially at the outset, but it will be far far easier than everyone thinks. I have told each person I’ve met with — John A., Jim, Jen, Kristina, who were great in reaching out — that if she wants to be President, I want to help her do so. And I am more than prepared to define help as stepping back & away to allow a new team to gel & function without someone saying, She doesn’t like this, she won’t go for that. Who cares what’s happened. The past didn’t work out too well and there’s far less downside to reinventing the wheel than people always say. Maybe there’s a better wheel. Or at worst, you end up with the same wheel but needed to go through that process yourself to come to that conclusion. I am completely serious on that point and have said it to Jen & Kristina on a near-daily basis. She picked the right press team, they don’t need me as training wheels. They need to be able to succeed the way they will, but occasionally fail along the way. Once we are past the worst of this, my participation should be dialed way back down to where you decided it to be, with clear boundaries, which honestly, is where I need it to be for myself. From: Philippe Reines Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:38 PM To: John Podesta Subject: Re: Leaks Ok. From: John Podesta Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:16 PM To: Philippe Reines Subject: Re: Leaks I don't condone leaks, but she has a very tough job to do tomorrow. Do you really think it helps get her in the right head space to tell her she can't trust anyone she just brought on board? Why are you fanning this with her? CNN thinking Andrea Mitchell is getting an interview is about the least of our problems. I am happy to fire someone for leaking whether they did or they didn't just to make the point, but let's try to get through the next few days. On Mar 9, 2015 2:26 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote: John, With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. ‎This has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense. Not to mention I'm following up on a topic last night where you yourself felt it enough of a problem to have warned the Secretary her people yap. I didn't whip you up. You took that into consideration when discussing a 24 hour delay. That never should have been a factor. Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when her team is looking funny at each other. And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%‎ of our conversations is better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price of doing business. Again, with all due respect, your reaction to me is unfair in that's it's stronger than any admonition anyone else has received who is actually doing something wrong. I agree though that being at each others' throats will get us nowhere, and if you want me to keep it to myself, ok, done. But it's the underlying problem that's going to be the problem, not me stating the obvious. With that, I'm going to sit queitly in the corner until Cheryl calls me to admonish me for sending this reply and digging myself into an even deeper hole with you than I already was. For those keeping score, that will be two more admonishment than the culprit(s) have received. Philippe From: John Podesta Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:51 PM To: Philippe Reines Cc: Cheryl Mills; H Subject: Re: Leaks Philippe, You got to stop this. The press is trading in rumors that can easily originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere. John On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote: Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?" ‎The Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me. Original Message From: Nick Merrill > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:04 PM To: Craig Minassian Cc: Matt Mckenna - gmail; Philippe Reines Subject: Re: CNN + PIR This is nuts. On 3/9/15, 3:59 PM, "Craig Minassian" > wrote: >This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna >(who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that >HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails. > >Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the >source or Madre may pay the price. > >Sent from my iPhone

Re: July 8th Nightly Press Traffic Summary
					From:aelrod@hillaryclinton.com
					To: jlehrich@hillaryclinton.com
					Date: 2015-07-09 12:15
					Subject: Re: July 8th Nightly Press Traffic Summary
				

					oh and yes, jose is aware

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Adrienne Elrod 
wrote:

> John- she is filing it today. Tony/research are helping us out together
> pushback. Any thoughts you might have would be great. Definitely an oppo
> research dump of a story.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Jesse Lehrich 
> wrote:
>
> looping Adrienne, who I believe has been in touch with Jose
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:51 AM, John Podesta 
> wrote:
>
>> Does Jose know HuffPo piece is coming?
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Jesse Lehrich 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *July 8th Nightly Press Traffic Summary*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Peter Nicholas (WSJ) is doing a story for Friday on caucus
>>>    organizing efforts and the Sanders campaign's theory that caucuses will be
>>>    good for them in the same way that they were for Obama. We've pushed back
>>>    with our theory of the case, including our strong organizing effort in Iowa
>>>    and beyond.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Per CTR, Amy Chozick is working on story for this weekend about
>>>    how the GOP will attack Hillary, will likely include focus group data
>>>    suggesting that trustworthiness and being out-of-touch will be top targets.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Maggie Haberman is doing a write-through of her story on Hillary
>>>    Clinton's claim that she had never been subpoenaed for tomorrow's paper
>>>    which will include the statement we put out this afternoon.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Michael Scherer (TIME) is working on a story delving into the
>>>    claim that Hillary Clinton was under no obligation to turn over 55,000
>>>    pages of emails.
>>>    - Steven Holmes (CNN) is working on a piece with the premise that
>>>    the black vote is the firewall for Hillary Clinton and Sanders is unlikely
>>>    to make major inroads there.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Annie Linskey (Boston Globe) is writing for Friday about new
>>>    fundraising hosts getting involved in this campaign, specifically females.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Jeremy Diamond (CNN) is doing a piece about the politics of the
>>>    BDS movement. It will place heavy focus on the nuances and forces at play
>>>    around Hillary Clinton's letter that was sent to presidents of major Jewish
>>>    organizations condemning BDS.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Huffington Post is doing a piece on our treasurer Jose Villareal
>>>    -- will likely focus at least partially on him sitting on the Walmart board.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Other outstanding stories include:
>>>
>>> o Ruby Cramer on our grassroots organizing
>>>
>>> o Anita Kumar (McClatchy) on where we have organizers and how we've
>>> spent our money during Q2
>>>
>>> o Mike Memoli on our email listbuilding
>>>
>>> o Phil Rucker on HRC talking about gun violence prevention
>>>
>>> o Maggie Haberman/Pat Healy on the costs of Hillary's progressive
>>> proposals
>>>
>>> o Annie Karni on the progression of our media strategy
>>>
>>> o CNN's long-form story about Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders' appeal to
>>> minority communities.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Jesse Lehrich* | Rapid Response Communications
> Hillary For America
> 781-307-2254 | @JesseLehrich
> gchat: JesseLehrich
>
>

-- 

Adrienne K. Elrod
Spokesperson
Hillary For America
*www.hillaryclinton.com *
@adrienneelrod

Re: Leaks

					From:pir@hrcoffice.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-09 22:09
Subject: Re: Leaks

My reaction was more than a little because I don’t want the next thing we read to be that Cheryl & my (and Heather’s) names were part of this, then not.

I’d also like you to know though that last night I suggested very strongly to her in writing and then on the phone that if she disagreed with their recommendation — which at that time she was doing — I would not relay that back, that he/they/one of them deserved the right to make their case directly to her to either change her mind or know they couldn’t, that it can’t keep being me or Cheryl with the, HRC said X, HRC told us Y. That doing so will only lead people to say If only, and that she should call Joel… Believe me it did not go over well with her. All sorts of crazy responses, my favorite being, Well he can call me whenever he wants. But I’m happy I did, because as you know she called him first thing this morning. I’m going to give myself a pat on the back because I believe she needs to work with them directly. I’m probably as happy about it as he is. So while our exchange might not make it seem so, and my too-often caustic nature doesn’t help, I want this to succeed far more than you know. And I firmly believe that doing so means I shouldn’t be 50% in 50% out. Should be 100/0 or 0/100. It’s clear you don’t think it should be 100% in. That’s a bitter pill to swallow. Not because I want to, but because how much I respect you and how hard it is to accept that you have determined that my downsides have exceeded my upsides.

0% in is an extreme, but I want to be as close to that as possible. So it being tough to accept after nearly 13 years of waking up everyday working for her, you and I are in agreement. Things like this will occasionally make that tough, especially at the outset, but it will be far far easier than everyone thinks. I have told each person I’ve met with — John A., Jim, Jen, Kristina, who were great in reaching out — that if she wants to be President, I want to help her do so. And I am more than prepared to define help as stepping back & away to allow a new team to gel & function without someone saying, She doesn’t like this, she won’t go for that. Who cares what’s happened. The past didn’t work out too well and there’s far less downside to reinventing the wheel than people always say. Maybe there’s a better wheel. Or at worst, you end up with the same wheel but needed to go through that process yourself to come to that conclusion. I am completely serious on that point and have said it to Jen & Kristina on a near-daily basis. She picked the right press team, they don’t need me as training wheels. They need to be able to succeed the way they will, but occasionally fail along the way.

Once we are past the worst of this, my participation should be dialed way back down to where you decided it to be, with clear boundaries, which honestly, is where I need it to be for myself.

From: Philippe Reines
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:38 PM
To: John Podesta
Subject: Re: Leaks

Ok.

From: John Podesta
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:16 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: Re: Leaks

I don't condone leaks, but she has a very tough job to do tomorrow. Do you really think it helps get her in the right head space to tell her she can't trust anyone she just brought on board? Why are you fanning this with her? CNN thinking Andrea Mitchell is getting an interview is about the least of our problems. I am happy to fire someone for leaking whether they did or they didn't just to make the point, but let's try to get through the next few days.

On Mar 9, 2015 2:26 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote:
John,

With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. ‎This has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense.

Not to mention I'm following up on a topic last night where you yourself felt it enough of a problem to have warned the Secretary her people yap. I didn't whip you up. You took that into consideration when discussing a 24 hour delay. That never should have been a factor.

Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when her team is looking funny at each other.

And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%‎ of our conversations is better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price of doing business.

Again, with all due respect, your reaction to me is unfair in that's it's stronger than any admonition anyone else has received who is actually doing something wrong.

I agree though that being at each others' throats will get us nowhere, and if you want me to keep it to myself, ok, done. But it's the underlying problem that's going to be the problem, not me stating the obvious.

With that, I'm going to sit queitly in the corner until Cheryl calls me to admonish me for sending this reply and digging myself into an even deeper hole with you than I already was.

For those keeping score, that will be two more admonishment than the culprit(s) have received.

Philippe

From: John Podesta
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:51 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Cc: Cheryl Mills; H
Subject: Re: Leaks

Philippe,
You got to stop this. The press is trading in rumors that can easily originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere.
John

On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote:
Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?"

‎The Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me.

  Original Message
From: Nick Merrill >
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Craig Minassian
Cc: Matt Mckenna - gmail; Philippe Reines
Subject: Re: CNN

+ PIR

This is nuts.

On 3/9/15, 3:59 PM, "Craig Minassian" > wrote:

>This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna
>(who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that
>HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails.
>
>Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the
>source or Madre may pay the price.
>
>Sent from my iPhone

Re: Leaks

From:pir@hrcoffice.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-09 22:09
Subject: Re: Leaks

My reaction was more than a little because I don’t want the next thing we read to be that Cheryl & my (and Heather’s) names were part of this, then not.

I’d also like you to know though that last night I suggested very strongly to her in writing and then on the phone that if she disagreed with their recommendation ? which at that time she was doing ? I would not relay that back, that he/they/one of them deserved the right to make their case directly to her to either change her mind or know they couldn’t, that it can’t keep being me or Cheryl with the, HRC said X, HRC told us Y. That doing so will only lead people to say If only, and that she should call Joel… Believe me it did not go over well with her. All sorts of crazy responses, my favorite being, Well he can call me whenever he wants. But I’m happy I did, because as you know she called him first thing this morning. I’m going to give myself a pat on the back because I believe she needs to work with them directly. I’m probably as happy about it as he is. So while our exchange might not make it seem so, and my too-often caustic nature doesn’t help, I want this to succeed far more than you know. And I firmly believe that doing so means I shouldn’t be 50% in 50% out. Should be 100/0 or 0/100. It’s clear you don’t think it should be 100% in. That’s a bitter pill to swallow. Not because I want to, but because how much I respect you and how hard it is to accept that you have determined that my downsides have exceeded my upsides.

0% in is an extreme, but I want to be as close to that as possible. So it being tough to accept after nearly 13 years of waking up everyday working for her, you and I are in agreement. Things like this will occasionally make that tough, especially at the outset, but it will be far far easier than everyone thinks. I have told each person I’ve met with ? John A., Jim, Jen, Kristina, who were great in reaching out ? that if she wants to be President, I want to help her do so. And I am more than prepared to define help as stepping back & away to allow a new team to gel & function without someone saying, She doesn’t like this, she won’t go for that. Who cares what’s happened. The past didn’t work out too well and there’s far less downside to reinventing the wheel than people always say. Maybe there’s a better wheel. Or at worst, you end up with the same wheel but needed to go through that process yourself to come to that conclusion. I am completely serious on that point and have said it to Jen & Kristina on a near-daily basis. She picked the right press team, they don’t need me as training wheels. They need to be able to succeed the way they will, but occasionally fail along the way.

Once we are past the worst of this, my participation should be dialed way back down to where you decided it to be, with clear boundaries, which honestly, is where I need it to be for myself.

From: Philippe Reines
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:38 PM
To: John Podesta
Subject: Re: Leaks

Ok.

From: John Podesta
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 7:16 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: Re: Leaks

I don't condone leaks, but she has a very tough job to do tomorrow. Do you really think it helps get her in the right head space to tell her she can't trust anyone she just brought on board? Why are you fanning this with her? CNN thinking Andrea Mitchell is getting an interview is about the least of our problems. I am happy to fire someone for leaking whether they did or they didn't just to make the point, but let's try to get through the next few days.

On Mar 9, 2015 2:26 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote:
John,

With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. ?This has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense.

Not to mention I'm following up on a topic last night where you yourself felt it enough of a problem to have warned the Secretary her people yap. I didn't whip you up. You took that into consideration when discussing a 24 hour delay. That never should have been a factor.

Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when her team is looking funny at each other.

And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%? of our conversations is better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price of doing business.

Again, with all due respect, your reaction to me is unfair in that's it's stronger than any admonition anyone else has received who is actually doing something wrong.

I agree though that being at each others' throats will get us nowhere, and if you want me to keep it to myself, ok, done. But it's the underlying problem that's going to be the problem, not me stating the obvious.

With that, I'm going to sit queitly in the corner until Cheryl calls me to admonish me for sending this reply and digging myself into an even deeper hole with you than I already was.

For those keeping score, that will be two more admonishment than the culprit(s) have received.

Philippe

From: John Podesta
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:51 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Cc: Cheryl Mills; H
Subject: Re: Leaks

Philippe,
You got to stop this. The press is trading in rumors that can easily originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere.
John

On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote: Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?"

?The Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me.

Original Message
From: Nick Merrill >
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Craig Minassian
Cc: Matt Mckenna - gmail; Philippe Reines
Subject: Re: CNN

+ PIR

This is nuts.

On 3/9/15, 3:59 PM, "Craig Minassian" > wrote:

>This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna
>(who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that
>HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails.
>
>Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the
>source or Madre may pay the price.
>
>Sent from my iPhone

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24675 FALLOUT FROM LEAKED EMAILS - A really good read.

That's a doozy of an email.

On Mar 9, 2015 2:26 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote:
John,

With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. This has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense.

[Ed. LOL! Even the HRC team knows the press are dolts!]

...

Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when her team is looking funny at each other.

[Ed. Knowing how many people around HRC have ended up dead, I think I'd fear her looking at me funny, too.]

And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%‎ of our conversations is better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price of doing business.

I'm sure we'll be reading about the most sensitive 10% in the near future.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.