Wikileaks 15 Just Released

a reply to: butcherguy

I've only been seeing maybe one or two most juiciest ones on average a day, make it to the official twitter feed.

The "TRUMP ISIS VIDEO?!?!

Relatively minor, but this shows Hillary has no clear cut position without thorough vetting and anything she utters is scripted.

Huma:

Hrc just called to check in on draft statement. Needless to say, she's >> anxious to look at it. what do you think timewise you need to have >> something realistically?

Nick Merril:

I told her that or collective thought (without John's input) was that we wait for the natural opportunity which is at the Q&A with Walter Isaacson on Friday evening.
...
She (eagerly) wants to see the statement. I told her I was waiting for the WH to call, which Jen just did. Dan I'll call you to read that out now.

They're talking about her position on executive action and it's in 2014 way before she announced. This also shows that podesta has more control of the Hillary puppet than most think.

Podesta chimes in:

I think at a minimum, she needs to tweet out support today or tonight; then can give more extended answer with Walter. Details will be out before Weisel so I think that's an option too. Ad JP

/podesta-emails/emailid/25648

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The "TRUMP ISIS VIDEO?!?!

I keep posting this image but it seems no one cares lol.
This is the biggest drop


Note : expecting another terror attack in november lol.

Okay, so maybe they didn't want a white man killing a black man as their lead? At first glance it was like they were cheering it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: six67seven

Right.

This goes beyond just The Donald and The Hillary, its about the Clinton's undemocratic POWER STRUCTURE. For someone to be int eh career game so long to know every angle how to play the system into ones hands for total exploitation, for one couple to hold the White House once, get impeached, and use their power structure to get aback in again should be criminal in its own right. The INTENT.

This all really proves that a person should only be allowed to hold office once whether its as POTUS or as their spouse.

If she couldn't get back in again she wouldn't have even went for the Senate, I'd have wagered in hindsight. She would have gone away like all the rest of them.

That is a very valid point and one I agree with, especially given the fact they run the Clinton Foundation, and the scope at which that foundation is intertwined with many many other countries and government. It really doesnt make any sense, given the broad confilct of interest, that she is eligible.

But again, the level of corruption is so incredibly deep not just with her and her family and foundation but within government itself, she remains and is free.

It makes my stomach churn. We must go anti-establishment! There is no other choice in my mind.

lol

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You hit on a recurring theme we are seeing with much of what has been revealed. It's not new news, as we are all aware of it. But seeing it in writing is proof.

Clinton is a creation. Everything she says and does has been determined by those who control her. And everything they do is to meet a goal, which is gaining power. Nothing they do has anything to do with what is best for the American people.

You can see the difference with Trump. He does something no "politician" would do - goes off "script". He says what he thinks, and does what he believes is in the best interest of Americans. He does not care if what he says is not the party line. That is why so many Republicans are freaked out by him. Trump has them all frantic because he does not follow their script.
Trump is no one's creation.

originally posted by: Belgianbeer

Note : expecting another terror attack in november lol.

I'm not reading it that way. It just sounds like "November 2016" is a reference to the election to me.

And another Big Fat Nothing Burger..

a reply to: IAMTAT

Hm:

We weren't planning to, but with the new development think we should. We could do a tweet today. Does she know Lynch? If so, we could make it more personal or do it as a statement . Copying in Jesse too.
...
She knows Loretta. Not an extremely close relationship and don't remember last time they connected. >>>> She was in running to be Spitzer LG years ago. Hrc wanted Leecia Eve, others pushed Lynch. Regardless, definitely a cordial relationship.

/podesta-emails/emailid/25414

You don't suppose this "cordial relationship," had anything to do with the investigation do you?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: IAMTAT

Hm:

We weren't planning to, but with the new development think we should. We could do a tweet today. Does she know Lynch? If so, we could make it more personal or do it as a statement . Copying in Jesse too.
...
She knows Loretta. Not an extremely close relationship and don't remember last time they connected. >>>> She was in running to be Spitzer LG years ago. Hrc wanted Leecia Eve, others pushed Lynch. Regardless, definitely a cordial relationship.

/podesta-emails/emailid/25414

You don't suppose this "cordial relationship," had anything to do with the investigation do you?

Investigation of what? "Trafficking"?

a reply to: introvert

I don't know, I saw that and am really curious. Looking for more right now.

The origin of the chain is Podesta:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John Podesta wrote: >>>>>> We doing anything on this today?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

I don't know, I saw that and am really curious. Looking for more right now.

The origin of the chain is Podesta:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John Podesta wrote: >>>>>> We doing anything on this today?

Since it is in regard to Hillary, I assume you actually mean the email investigation. In that case, that would be a negative. The FBI conducted the investigation, not the AG.

To those that every time they respond along the lines of "still nuthin'", what to you would be 'something'? In a paper trail comms format, where not everybody in the array is in 'the loop' on everything, what do you really EXPECT them to openly talk about murdering people, or what?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

To those that every time they respond along the lines of "still nuthin'", what to you would be 'something'?

Well, actual proof of something would be nice. Throughout this entire wilikileaks issue, we have been splitting hairs and trying to make things in to nefarious conspiracies, but still nothing comes out of it.

In a paper trail comms format, where not everybody in the array is in 'the loop' on everything, what do you really EXPECT them to openly talk about murdering people, or what?

Except for the rabid anti-Clinton zealots, no one has suggested anyone was murdering people.

What will it take for those that froth at the mouth over these emails to admit that there's nothing to them yet?

a reply to: introvert

The FBI conducted the investigation, not the AG.

And the FBI worked hand in had with the DoJ; who do you think gave out the immunity deals? Those would not have been struck had it not been for the FBIs need for information.

If you don't think the DoJ had any bearing upon the direction of the investigation, you're either quite naive or duplicitous.

Speaking of the immunity deals, Comey made specific effort to stress that the Mills' & Samuelson's immunity was limited to what might be found on the laptops; I would presume the Combetta's immunity was similarly limited. This means any information obtained outside the scope of what was in those agreements was fair game.

I don't recall seeing you post much in the stonetear threads, so I am not sure what you think about the conversations which were uncovered that showed that Mills (according to Comey) instructed Combetta to attempt to alter digital records and when unable to do so, destroy them via bleachbit that just happened to coincide with the issuance of a congressional subpoena.