wikileaks podesta drop 19!

great info im finding - here is an email containing how they are gonna cover up hillary having classified material on her emails.

# 33278

RE: Script From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-08-22 02:42 Subject: RE: Script Agree – addressed all of these points in my edits. *From:* Brian Fallon [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2015 12:06 AM *To:* Jennifer Palmieri *Cc:* Robby Mook ; Mandy Grunwald ; Margolis, Jim ; Dan Schwerin ; John Podesta *Subject:* Re: Script Realizing Jen is making edits presently, I have three flags: 1. I also dislike the current reference to her 2007 Blackberry. As written, it seems like a strained attempt to make her seem relatable. If the point of it is to say that she was used to having only one email when she was a senator, and simply wanted to continue that arrangement when she became Secretary, then the Blackberry reference would make sense bc it would help explain how she made this decision in the first place. But it needs to be rewritten to be understood that way. 2. This line - "‎This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been classified at the time is fine" - is problematic. We should not think it is fine to find something that "should have been classified at the time." Our position is that no such material exists, else it could be said she mishandled classified info. We need to clarify to make clear we mean that it is fine to perform redactions today, but in doing so it doesnt mean that the material was classified at the time it was sent. 3. In this line - "Some will be serious, some will be personal or mundane" - the word "serious" reads ominously/ suggestive of wrongdoing. I would say something like "some will give a real window into the day-to-day workings of the State Department..." On Friday, August 21, 2015, Jennifer Palmieri wrote: Yeah – I am trimming down more. *From:* Robby Mook [mailto:[email protected] ] *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2015 11:29 PM *To:* Mandy Grunwald *Cc:* Jennifer Palmieri ; Margolis, Jim ; Dan Schwerin < [email protected] >; John Podesta ; Brian Fallon < [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Script Voila. But sounds like Jen has more edits. Hello. I'm sure you are hearing a lot about my emails when I was Secretary of State. So I want to take some time to try and explain what's going on to you directly, in one place, at one time, as best as I can. In 2007, when I was a U.S. Senator, I got my first Blackberry. I used it to keep up with the news, with friends & family - like anyone else. When President Obama asked me to serve as Secretary of State, ‎ it seemed simpler to have just one email address. After all, my predecessors at State had not relied on Department email. In hindsight, though, this has proven anything but simple. There's a difference between what we are allowed to do and what's smart to do. I shouldn't have used separate personal and government accounts. I should have set a standard that others‎ were expected to meet. To do it all again, I would have used two email addresses. But I can't do it all again. I can only tell you it was a mistake, regret it, explain it, and help the State Department and others fix any challenges it caused. That's what I did. Now I want to explain what I didn't do. I didn’t keep my email secret. Whenever I emailed, it was from my address. Whenever people emailed me, it was to ‎my account. Work, personal, whatever. I also didn't do this to skirt rules. And I didn’t do it to avoid having my records preserved. When the State Department asked former Secretaries of State who served since email was widely used to help fill out the archival record, I did so, printing 55,000 pages of email including anything related to my work at the State Department. To get a sense of how outdated some of the government’s archiving practices are, we had to print all 55,000 pages because that's what the rules demand. Believe me, printing more than 30,000 email instead of handing them over electronically isn't something anyone does by choice. That's 30,000 more emails than every other former Secretary produced combined. No one else has produced their emails so far. I'm the only one. And yes, there were 30,000 more messages that were completely personal and had nothing to do with official business. I do believe transparency in government is important. And by this point, there isn't much you don't know about me. My finances are out there. My medical history is out there. You know how much I've made, where I've gone, what I'm allergic to. Now I want to address the most serious aspect. When it came to classified information, I certainly never used my Blackberry. And that had nothing to do with using a personal email address. If I had been [email protected] I could not have used it for classified information either. At the State Department, mobile devices aren't used to communicate secrets. Almost everything of a classified nature was presented to me via paper or in person. When I traveled, elaborate steps were taken. ‎Secure phones were set up, secure tents were constructed. I took my responsibilities in safeguarding our nation's secrets seriously. So did my team did. Everyone at the State Department did . ‎This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been classified at the time is fine. I don't want anything released to the public that puts us at risk. And we’re all learning that different agencies have very different views and procedures about what should be classified and what shouldn’t. As Secretary I was proud of what we accomplished. I was proud of the thousands of people who've dedicated themselves to public service‎ - including those who came into State with me and left with me. I was proud of them then, I'm proud of them now. After nearly a year of offering to come to testify to Congress at any

"2. This line - "‎This process of looking backwards to see if something
should have been classified at the time is fine" - is problematic. We
should not think it is fine to find something that "should have been
classified at the time." Our position is that no such material exists, else
it could be said she mishandled classified info. We need to clarify to make
clear we mean that it is fine to perform redactions today, but in doing so
it doesnt mean that the material was classified at the time it was sent."

32881

this one is from donna brazile

Hello All, Tomorrow, the Bernie 2016 African-American Outreach team will host a Twitterstorm for "Twitterstorm Tuesday!" *Please join us from 12pm - 1pm EST. Tomorrow's theme is education and will be using the hashtag "#FeelTheBern"*

they list a bunch of suggested twitter comments and basically donna giving warning to the hrc camp that this is going on

the dnc isnt supposed to play favorites