Posted on 10/13/2016 7:09:57 AM PDT by ncfool
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6660
1) I can see why you might not want to *say* who the turnover was > to,
but it seems to me omitting this may be misinterpreted and certainly >
will trigger another round of questioning.
This may defeat the whole point > of the exercise. The statement could be read to imply we turned over the >
thumb drive and server to the State Department—which we didn’t (“There >
they go again—misleading, devious, non-transparent, tricky etc.”). I would > recommend saying “to the Department of Justice.” > > > > 2) Maybe it’s only me, but “hand over” seems a little pejorative—how > about just “turn over”? > > > > <>BR<
*David E. Kendall* > > *Williams & Connolly LLP* > > 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 > > (P) 202-434-5145 | (F) 202-434-5029
So now David Kendall will be disbarred? /s
.... HA .... More like be appointed to the AG position in the new Hillary administration.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7288
This is a very interesting series of emails concerning Gowdy’s request for server started from a request for information by a CNN flunkie.
This includes on the record information and off the record guidance for CNN to slant the news piece. In addition it is more cover-up with a RICO like conspiracy level.
Also seeing hrcoffice.com email addresses. You really have to wonder at all the email addresses and I like following them. Seeing the prouse@barackobama.com address the other day tells me every part of the administration had private email addresses to circumvent foia rules and conduct their real business.
But I guess we all knew that already.
Podesta wanted the message corrected to say that the thumb drive went to the DoJ, not the State Dept.
Everyone wants to be a citizen journalist, and few have the internal skepticism for the job.
Can you explain that. I got lost in the chain.
From what I read some of them wanted to imply (but not outright say) that the thumb drive was turned over to the State Dept. Others wanted to specify that it went to the DOJ (presumably on subpoena).
People trying to hard.
We have everything already that shows how She obstructed Justice and how she and Obama caused the rise of ISIS.
Kendall seems to be close to the smoking gun... will there be powder burns...
Yes, I've been amazed at how so many people have been falling for this kind of crap over the past few days.
There was one flying around a few days ago saying that Clinton had used a American pejorative for blacks in reference to Muslims, and many were bereft of any critical thinking skills.
The "proof" was a screenshot of the message, carefully positioned so you couldn't see the context of the message: it was an editorial forwarded to Clinton, and she simply asked a staffer to print it. There have been a lot of these -- I guess she prefers to read long messages on paper.
I found the original message on Wikileaks. As I dug into it, I found that it was originally written in Hebrew for publication in Israel, and was voluntarily translated by someone in Australia. It made me wonder: why would an Australian choose that word?
Google Translate to the rescue! I found the original article online and translated it. The word in question literally translates to "Arab rat". It's apparently a Hebrew pejorative, but I don't know how offensive it may be considered to be.
Yesterday, there were alleged screenshots of John Podesta's Outlook account floating around. But, no one bothered to follow the trail back to the origin (8ch), where the originator admitted that he fabricated them with MS Paint.
The moral of this story: don't believe everything you read.
And, if you don't know how to validate the origin of something, then don't post it. Instead, ask for help.
“every part of the administration had private email addresses to circumvent foia rules and conduct their real business”
Yep, and that’s why Obama is covering her behind even though he personally hates her. If he doesn’t, she could take him down with her.
Podesta wanted it to be changed to the DoJ, because that was more accurate.
And, it avoided the perception that the statement was misleading.
Why does it make a difference?
Saying it "went to the State Dept." implies it was business as usual. But, saying it "went to the DoJ" implies a criminal investigation.
How about Jason Chaffetz having his gmail address printed on his official card?
(The GOPe is as corrupt as the Dems, unfortunately.)
There is one in breaking news that only contains a carefully cut image and it claims an email says that Hillary was funding Isis. Yet even the cut begs to be investigated as misleading. If you read the whole email then it says no such thing. Yet it still sits in breaking news. The email does contain valuable information. But someone made it up to be something it was not. I am in full skeptic mode now.
Thanks.
Do you know what the final statement was? Did they take Podesta’s advise?
I believe the final statement is the one at the TOP of the email, which includes his edit.
You could probably find it online.
This sort of leak is ‘in the weeds’ for most voters. Assange said that he has emails that are so powerful, that revealing them could result in half the government going to jail. That’s the sort of leak we need to see now.
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.