What are the Podesta emails and what do they show?
Ive now read hundreds of the Podesta emails, as well as upward of 60 stories from across left-wing, mainstream, and conservative media outlets about what they entail.
I should stress that what Ive found is far from all bad. Dozens of these emails show Clintons team genuinely striving to discover the correct position on an issue. Many of them show real, determined efforts to find the right solution to some public policy crisis. In general, especially compared to the vicious infighting that characterized her 2008 presidential run, you come away from the Podesta emails thinking that Clinton has assembled an admiringly loyal group of aides that believes in the candidate and the mission of the campaign. Theres some backbiting, but you could imagine far, far worse.
Then theres the other stuff the emails Podesta presumably wish never leaked. To help make sense of what weve learned, Ive broken out the interesting new bits into what I think can be more-or-less characterized as four distinct categories:
Questions around the Clinton Foundation: This is the smallest category of emails. But a surprising revelation about Qatari officials and a newly discovered Clinton Foundation audit help validate fears that foundation donors likely received "special access."
Clintons ties to Wall Street, big donors: Hundreds of other emails also highlight Clinton and her teams much-discussed connections to Wall Street and big money. They reveal a Clinton certainly more sympathetic to these unpopular actors than she would presumably be on the campaign trail.
How the Clinton campaign machine works: The emails also provide a virtually unprecedented look inside the architecture of the Clinton campaign how proposals get passed up to the candidate, for instance. They show the campaign heavily weighing "political" considerations before endorsing certain policies, but also interested in seeking real solutions.
Political gossip and Clinton-world squabbling: This category includes a lot of normal office whining and sniping about Clinton-world enemies. Its certainly interesting, especially for political junkies. But it also has the least relevance for discussions of public policy.
Vox reached out to the Clinton campaign for comment, and spokesperson Glen Caplin replied that they are "still not authenticating any individual emails." The campaign also referred foundation-related questions to the foundation itself, and referenced several times that the leaks were tied to a "Russian attempt to influence our election." As it has to other reporters, the Clinton campaign did not dispute the accuracy of any of the individual emails.
We should be clear that these Podesta email leaks have nothing to do with the multiple other "Clinton email" scandals percolating over the past few years. So they arent, as some news outlets have incorrectly reported, related to the FBI investigation into Clintons private server or allegations that she went around transparency laws.
Instead, since these emails emerge from the private account of Clintons campaign chair, they tend to tell us far more about candidate Clinton than they do about Secretary of State Clinton.
Storyline No. 1: Leaked emails confirm Clinton Foundation blurred public/private lines
There is, however, one exception to that general rule: the Clinton Foundation.
Since the campaign began, the Clinton Foundation has been at the center of an intense debate. The most extreme critics, like Donald Trump, have alleged that Clinton used the state department to transactionally reward the charitys donors (theres no evidence for that). Meanwhile, the campaign and foundation have fallen back on one consistent defense that theres been no proof of a quid pro quo between donor and foundation.
The Clinton Foundation really did do inarguably life-saving work. But good government experts have argued that the Clintons accepted private donations in a way that they should have known would have created dangerous conflicts of interest. This more nuanced attack faults the Clinton Foundation for dangerously blurring the distinction between private and public.
The Podesta leaks back up that story.
One way it does so is by uncovering a private audit conducted by a widely-respected New York City law firm. The review concluded that the Clinton Foundations board had failed to oversee potential conflicts of interest, and that some donors expected "quid pro quo benefits." "Interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift," the audit found.
Its not clear they received them. but either way the audit is a striking confirmation that even the attorneys hired by Clinton recognized the danger in the relationship between donor and foundation.
Then theres another disclosure emerging from the Podesta emails: that Qatari officials sought to present Bill Clinton with a $1 million gift on his birthday on during his wifes tenure as secretary of state. As the New York Times noted, this revelation suggests that foreign governments were able to gain an audience with Bill Clinton in exchange for a check. (The Times couldnt confirm if the $1 million check was ever cashed.)
The last revelation in the leaks about the foundation may also be the most unusual: Chelsea Clinton apparently was running around raising the alarm bell over possible conflicts of interest, suggesting the Clintons themselves were aware of the potential problems. (Politicos Kenneth Vogel has a detailed blow-by-blow of Chelseas concerns over the overlapping roles of a consulting firm named Teneo.)
Nothing here represents a major revelation. If you werent bothered by the Clinton Foundation before, this probably isnt going to trouble you. But if you were, having an audit and Chelsea Clinton share your fears will fuel the sense that something suspicious was afoot here.
what hillary said about trade and borders is actually a good thing if she said it. i'm not that fussed lol. not to mention that these sources are still ambiguous.
__________________ "Probably my worst quality is that I get very passionate about what I think is right." - Hillary Clinton.
"I don't feel no ways tired. I've been too far, from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy! I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me! "- Rev. James Cleaveland yesterday, today, and tomorrow - the fight continues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwRkNWx-n0 love and kindness:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHp69F7vrLU
I bring up a legitimate concern, which was your jump-to-conclusion and you reply with an insult. Next time calm yourself and try to be civil if you want people to read the fluff you post.
There is no jump to conclusion. You idiot. And after constantly calling me dumb, i find it very rich to pretend youre insulted. Youre not good at German humour. Stop it.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
youve insulted me plenty of times. Which part of my post:
QUOTE=15975028]Originally posted by Its2016 we've learned from Wikileaks, that you said this. And I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”
Trump: Thank you.
Wallace: That's the question. Please, quiet, everybody. Is that your dream? Open borders?
Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy.
>but but, muh speech, she was talking about something else
>muh russia
KMC Community Forums
Oct 21st, 2016 09:22 PM
