Oct. 13, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
55:35
3450 The Truth About The Hillary Clinton Wikileaks Scandal
Wikileaks has begun releasing emails from Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, which provide a very interesting look into the Democratic Nominees campaign and raising some significant questions. In an attempt to deflect criticism regarding the information contained within the leaked emails, the Clinton Campaign has promoted the baseless assertion that Russia and Vladimir Putin are behind the leaks and working to actively sabotage Clinton’s campaign. What is the Truth About The Hillary Clinton Wikileaks Scandal?Saudi Arabia Funding ISIS: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774Driven to Suicide?: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3332#efmAdAAmBBill Clinton’s History: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2301Compliant Citizenry: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599Department of Homeland Security: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2751Conservative Catholicism: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4364Department of Justice Collusion: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4178Email/Server Legality: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4099Email Subpoena: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391Sanders Hits: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1193Attacking Sanders: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3990Joe Biden: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5690Democratic Debates: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688About Trump: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664Hillary's Health: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2953#efmAAvACJTim Kaine: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986Boston Globe: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180Media Collusion: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4402NYT Coordination: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213Town Hall Debate Questions: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
Now, of course, a lot of people in the Trump campaign or in the Trump camp are hoping for a big media strike coming out of the WikiLeaks Podesta email trove that is going to take out our campaign.
I think that there is, but it's not one big.
It's a whole series of smaller ones, which to any person of conscience would signal the end of any particular forward march of that campaign.
But it is not like an Arizona crater style.
It's more like water wears away the stone.
There is a drip, drip, drip.
But for some of this stuff, it is truly jaw-dropping, which we'll dive into right now.
So for those who don't know, and there's probably very few of you, but who knows who's going to be watching this.
Hello, space aliens.
Please don't use too big a probe.
WikiLeaks has begun releasing emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John...
Podesta, who has been in politics for five decades, to which one can only say, it burns.
So it provides a very interesting look into the Hillary Clinton campaign and raises some interesting and hair-raising questions.
Now, in an attempt to deflect criticism regarding what's in these actual leaked emails, the Clinton campaign has promoted the baseless claim that Russia and Vladimir Putin are behind the leaks and working to sabotage Clinton's campaign.
Apparently, they'd rather work with Donald Trump.
Now, given that Clinton keeps wanting to talk about starting a war with Russia for cyberterrorism...
A hot war for a typing war, it seems.
I can understand why, but there's no evidence.
Just please know, there's no evidence that Russia is doing all of this stuff.
So Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who currently has all his dangling...
Dangling participles floating in the wind.
He said, I've been involved in politics for nearly five decades.
This definitely is the first campaign that I've been involved with, in which I've had to tangle with Russian intelligence agencies who seem to be doing everything that they can on behalf of our opponent.
WikiLeaks has published quite a bit of information which Russia has really disliked over the years and they have had a 10-year record of never releasing false or fake documents or information.
When information of course benefits the Clintons or somebody on the left it's called a leak.
They're whistleblowers.
It's exposing corruption.
If it hurts someone on the left it's a hack by foreign governments with nefarious impulses and they probably taunt bears in circuses and everything.
See that framing is really really important.
Of course blaming Russia is not an argument.
Russia Unless their technology has significantly improved and that it can implant finger-moving devices into the wetware brainstem of your soulless leftist body, it did not control your fingers when you typed these emails and there's zero evidence of their involvement with WikiLeaks.
This probably is a bit of a self-inflicted injury or what they call, in soccer, an own goal.
So, let's start with the biggie.
Saudi Arabia funding ISIS. Hmm.
So Hillary Clinton emailed Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta on August 17, 2014.
Quote, While this military paramilitary operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Hmm.
Governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Funding and arming terrorists.
And, you know, maybe Hillary Clinton is really, really upset at Qatar and Saudi Arabia arming and funding terrorists because that's her job, not their job.
That's her job.
Hey, man, you're moving into my turf.
I'm the one who funds and arms terrorists, not you.
Now get back to your own corner.
Or I'm calling a burner because I watched The Wire once.
I did.
It's a good show.
She went on to say, This effort will be enhanced by the stepped-up commitment in the Kurdish regional government.
The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sydney world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.
Don't you know.
So, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, arming and funding terrorists, that's how I take it.
And hey, interesting question.
Do you know who else Qatar and Saudi Arabia has provided financial support to?
Not just the terrorists who behead people and burn people in cages and slaughter children and create sex slaves and rape people to death and so on.
Not just those lovely people.
They have also provided financial support to the Clinton Foundation.
See, Qatar has denoted between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
While Saudi Arabia has given Hillary and Bill Clinton's foundation upwards of 25 million dollars.
I don't think there's any word on how much they've actually funded ISIS. But it doesn't really matter.
So this woman, the Clintons, are knowingly taking money from governments that fund terrorism.
They have not said we're going to return it.
They have not said we're shocked and appalled.
They're saying quite clearly here in her email, she knows that they're funding terrorism.
So maybe they can cut us a check too.
Two for one!
That to me, headshot.
That's a kill shot.
Right there.
Right there!
You say anything about women's rights while taking money from Saudi Arabia?
Are you kidding me?
You say anything about gay rights while taking money from Saudi Arabia?
Are you kidding me?
Look, I know people out there, you want government money.
But please, dear Lord above, think of your conscience, think of your integrity, think of your soul.
The people offering up this money have lots and lots of blood on their hands and on their dollars.
This is not clean money.
How is it working for the Clintons?
Well, it can make you a bit of a lead foot when facing water.
Former Clinton advisor Doug Bond to Cheryl Mills and John Podesta, December 8th, 2011.
Late last night, Laura Graham called me as she couldn't reach my brother or her shrink.
She was on Staten Island in her car, parked a few feet from the water's edge with her foot on the gas pedal and the car in park.
She called me to tell me the stress of all of this office crap with WJC and CVC, that's Bill Clinton, I assume, and Chelsea Clinton, as well as that of her family had driven her to the edge and she couldn't take it anymore.
I spent a while on the phone with her, preventing her from doing that, as I have a few times in the past few months, and was able to reach Roger and her shrink.
Bruce said the stress of specifically the office had caused his very serious health issues, as you both know.
But I'm sure Chelsea is more concerned with a mostly false story in the distinguished New York Post...
About MF Global and Taneo, not her role in what happened to Laura slash Bruce, what she's doing to the organization, or the several of stories that have appeared in the New York Post about her father and a multitude of women over the years.
So, apparently this woman suicidal, face in the water, foot on the gas pedal, ready to drive in and end it all.
So either she was sane and was driven suicidal by working in this environment, or she was crazy to begin with, but they hired her anyway.
There's no fork in the road there that leads to any kind of good place.
Bill Clinton's history.
Hey, I wonder if that's going to be a problem.
Journalist Brent Budowski, John Budeska, January 1st, 2016.
Quote, I had a multi-email exchange with someone in the media this morning, a name you would know, who was telling me That there are people close to the Clintons who say Bill's sex life could be damaging to her.
I responded that I totally disagree with that.
That Bill's presidency and his personal appeal are huge asses.
And that I do not believe people who are the closest to the Clintons believe what this person in the media is hearing from somebody.
Now, okay.
I mean, there's a lot to be said about this.
And you can check out my interview with Roger Stone and read his book, The Clintons' War on Women.
It's not his sex life that is the problem.
Saying that Bill Clinton's sex life is the problem is like saying that a bank robber has a job.
No, it's not his sex life.
It's not affairs.
It's not the fact that he inserted a cigar into Monica Lewowski's vagina and then smoked it.
It's not that he exploited his power as a president to use a lowly intern as his own geisha slash handkerchief for wiping himself off.
It's not the sex life.
The voluntary stuff is gross enough.
It's the fact that he's been accused of rape.
And abuse.
And harassment.
It's not a sex life.
And what's interesting here, so of course we'll reframe it as a sex life, but there's no moral horror here.
It could be damaging to her.
That's really the only thing.
And here's the thing too.
I mean this is sort of a by the by.
I'll just drop this in.
The choice to focus on Donald Trump saying the word pussy 11 years ago Really opens the floodgates.
I mean, what a terrible move.
What a terrible move to make.
You know, if the rumors are true that it came out of Republicans, unbelievably gross.
We'll get to that another time.
But what, I mean, the comedian...
Who was just joking about Bill Clinton...
Sorry, Bill Cosby.
Sorry, my Bill C's getting mixed up here.
The comedian, Hannibal Buress, I think his name was, was just making jokes about Bill Cosby being a rapist.
And that's changed everything.
You know, his new show was cancelled.
He's now in, you know, endless legal limbo and so on.
So Hillary Clinton deciding to run brings all of Bill Clinton's past allegations of sexual abuse and rape to the forefront...
And then, with Donald Trump, of all people who, you know, punches back harder than he's punched at, this was going to bring this to the forefront.
His whole legacy, his reputation, everything, perhaps even his freedom, might be compromised by her ambition and her desire to sling whatever self-detonating mud she can at Donald Trump and saying, well, it's really terrible that he used the word pussy.
And that opens the whole floodgates to Bill Clinton's history.
It's not his sex life.
I mean, that's gross enough, even if we just look at all the consensual stuff.
It's the abuses.
That is the problem.
Journalists went on to say, I never asked journalists about their sources.
I know you would be among them.
I also know that for some times there were people purportedly close to the Clintons pushing the line that the less Bill Clinton, the better.
Which again, I have always strongly disagreed with and still do.
My point in this note is that whoever is peddling this crap from somewhere within the Clinton camp is having the effect of encouraging the media to give the issue more prominence.
They are hurting both Clintons.
I always stay out of interest stuff like this.
Both Clintons would be well advised to advise the people in their orbit to shut the hell up about this.
Even if I thought Bill Clinton was a liability, I would never in a million years write it or say it to the media.
But I think he is a huge asset.
And I also think some of the people they pay do not perform a service to them.
So again, this is all kind of...
In my opinion, it's all just calculations.
No moral issues here.
Was he wrong in these reported abuses?
For sure, he settled the lawsuit with Paula Jones for, what, $850,000 for sexual harassment.
He was disbarred, prevented from practicing law for five years.
He was impeached.
I mean, there was a lot of stuff that went on.
So it's just about, is it a liability?
Is it not?
Rather than, are there any moral considerations to any of this?
So, let's get to the comments about the Compliant Citizenry.
Now, some people have taken this to be purely negative.
I'm going to argue it could be taken another way, which doesn't actually make it a whole lot better, but we'll get to that in a second.
So, former National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Bill Ivey.
That's a...
A clinging vine.
To John Podesta on March 13, 2016.
Quote, Trump masters TV. TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his harebrained ideas.
Free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman, and we're off and running.
JFK Jr.
would be delighted by all of this as his George magazine saw celebrity politics coming.
The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time, but now looks prescient.
George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip like people.
But what we are dealing with now is dead serious.
How does this get handled in the general?
So for those who are young, JFK Jr., a famous picture of him saluting his father's body, was a very good-looking guy who flunked the bar several times.
The hunk funks!
And he died in a plane crash some years back.
And he had a magazine called George, which didn't do very well, and they're just talking about this.
You see, for the left, this is interesting, just a little sidebar here.
But for the left, you see, celebrities are really, really terrible if they're on the right and popular.
As you may have noticed, the left uses celebrities all the time.
That's right!
That's right!
I am looking at you, Robert De Niro!
Can't enjoy your movies anymore, you...
And, yeah, they've got all these celebrities out there.
There's celebrity dinners.
You always know which celebrities are for the left.
And so they love celebrities, unless the celebrities are on the right, in which case...
It's so, so classé, so gorscht.
I can't even believe it.
And so this is just important to recognize that they just don't like...
Celebrities on the right are shallow.
Celebrities on the left are very useful propaganda helmets.
So...
Bill Ivey went on to say, Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer and not a celebrity in the Trump-Kardashian mold.
What can she do to offset this?
I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not.
And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics, and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.
The unawareness remains strong, but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.
This problem demands some serious, serious thinking.
And not just poll-driven, demographically inspired messaging.
So yeah, equate Trump with Kim Kardashian.
I'll tell you where my brain goes.
Kim Kardashian.
Sex tape.
Alicia Machado.
Unable to vet the people you're using to support your campaign.
Please don't bring any more Middle Eastern migrants in without any papers.
That's just my particular leapfrog of ideas.
But yeah, the idea that Trump and Kardashian have something in common.
I don't think so.
And so a lot of people have said, well, you know, they're very happy that there's a dumb and unaware and compliant citizenry.
I think you could make the case, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics, and he could say, well, just as a society as a whole, you know, as an unaware and compliant citizenry.
The unawareness remains strong, but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.
Now, that's interesting.
So they don't mind the unawareness as much, but they sure don't like the compliance fading away, right?
People becoming less compliant.
And for that, Bill, I would like to take no small amount of credit.
You know, with a quarter of a billion views and downloads, I like to think I've given people the tools, the skepticism, the good humor, the reason, the evidence, the philosophy to become a little bit less compliant to this squid brain matrix that they're trying to lock us all into.
Like a dungeon death chamber of unawareness.
So, yes, this unawareness remains strong, but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.
The other thing, too, of course, if...
I don't know if this guy's on the left.
I'm going to assume he is, because of who he's talking to and about, but...
You know, if the left is complaining that the citizen is unaware and compliant, well, who's in charge of the educational system?
Pretty much the left.
Certainly at higher education and through the teachers' unions who generally donate to Democrats all the way through from kindergarten onwards.
So I don't know if they actually want it, but they sure aren't doing much to stop it.
And the only thing they seem to be bothered about is a lack of compliance.
You're welcome, world.
The Department of Homeland Security.
Now, this is very, very instructive.
Homeland Security expert Stephen Flynn to Susan Rice on November 2nd, 2008, quote,"...I cannot understate how badly broken the Department of Homeland Security is.
It would also be reckless to understate how damaging it will be to an Obama presidency should it be seen as inept in responding to a major terrorist incident or catastrophic natural disaster." We're not ants!
We're not worms in your garden.
Right?
His first concern is not a major terrorist incident or catastrophic natural disaster, I would argue.
But boy, it would really be bad optics, you know?
If there are bodies floating in New Orleans, yeah, okay, there are bodies.
That's not really, really great.
On the other hand, the optics of those bodies floating in New Orleans, really terrible.
And this amoral, how does it look?
How does it look?
How does it look?
You know what Ayn Rand used to call social...
Metaphysics, you know, I don't care what is right.
I care what people perceive as right.
The perception is all.
This, to me, is very, very catastrophic thinking.
He went on to say, A frail homeland security bureaucracy of 218,000 people.
Hey, well that's interesting.
7,000 more, one per dollar.
You've got yourself a Hillary Clinton speech.
218,000 people who are suffering from low morale and contentious congressional relationships and a national state of unpreparedness.
When tested and the federal homeland security apparatus breaks, and it will, President Obama will own the failure.
See?
Just optics.
Just doesn't matter how many people die if it fails.
The optics.
He went on to say...
DHS has managed to frustrate or alienate every constituency that is essential to its mission.
State and local homeland security officials, police and emergency responders, industry working groups from all the critical infrastructure sectors, the other federal departments and agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, foreign counterparts in Canada, Mexico and EU, and the myriad congressional members and committees and subcommittee staffs that have oversight responsibilities.
I gotta tell you, I almost admire that.
I mean, the fact that you can frustrate or alienate every single person and group that you come in contact with, domestically, at every layer of government, overseas, jellyfish hate them, Pterodactyls are coming back to life to squawk and regurgitate ancient prehistoric vomit under their heads.
They've managed to upset everyone.
Space aliens have targeted just this place alone.
The galaxy is offended.
That is a special, special kind of talent to just be so abrasive that there's absolutely no one on the planet you've come in contact with who likes you.
Good job.
I'm sure everyone feels more secure.
He finished off by saying, all of DHS's major acquisition programs are plagued by technical problems, cost overruns, and missed deadlines.
That will require immediate managerial attention.
So, again, I don't know what the full context of all these emails is, but just from this stuff, it's like, there's a huge problem.
We really don't want that problem to attach to us and make us look bad.
I think there may be more to it than that.
And again, all these people who are in the government, who see how the government doesn't work, who want more government.
You know, this is a government department that's really, really terrible.
Everybody hates it and it can't do a terrible job and people are probably going to get killed because it's so bad.
So let's have the government take over health care.
How does this work in people's brains?
I don't know.
I can't figure it out.
Susan Rice replies, obviously this raises a range of concerns about Steve and the possibility that this will leak, among others.
So, the leak is the problem, apparently, not the fact that there's this incredibly dysfunctional, massive government apparatus.
Conservative Catholicism apparently was in the target, and you just...
There's always been a bit of a suspicion that people on the left are fairly contemptuous of organized religion, you know, because it's a competitor to the state.
Senior Fellow at American Progress John Halpin emailed a message titled, quote, Conservative Catholicism, end quote, to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri on April 11th, 2011.
Quote, Ken, Alawada's latest piece on Murdoch and the New Yorker, starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic.
Friggin' Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan, where John the Baptist baptized Jesus!
Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic, many converts, from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.
It's an amazing bastardization of the faith.
They must be attracted to the systemic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.
See, just to break scene, break character...
John seems to be really, really concerned about severely backwards gender relations.
But I don't know what his stance is, but I know what the left's stance is in general.
What do the Democrats think about bringing lots of people in from the Middle East?
Hey, how are gender relations in the Middle East?
Would you characterize them as severely backwards compared to, say, conservative Catholicism?
I wonder.
I wonder.
Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri responded, quote, I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.
John Holpin responded, Excellent point.
They can throw around Thomistic Thornton, subsidiarity, and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about.
Wow.
I wonder if he does.
We may never know.
Department of Justice.
Collusion?
Question mark?
I mean, okay, let's just dig into this.
So Clinton campaign spokesman and former Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon on May 18, 2015, quote, DOJ just filed a briefing saying the government proposes releasing HRC's cache of work-related emails in January 2016.
Clinton aid.
Cheryl Mills responded.
Get out!
Exclamation mark question question question.
Brian Fallon on May 19th, 2015.
DOJ folks, inform me there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judges thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today.
Now, I'm no lawyer.
I'm no legal expert.
I don't know that if the DOJ is working on something that the folks at the DOJ are supposed to inform you about what's going on and give you a window into the judge's thinking about this.
Again, I'm no expert, and if you are a lawyer or know more about this, please let me know in the comments below.
That doesn't seem right to me at all.
I wonder if the average person, when the DOJ is working on stuff to do with them, can get this kind of information.
I'm going to guess not.
So according to Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller, quote, the email shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server.
The Department of Justice must release all communications with the Clinton campaign and her allies as soon as possible in order to definitively prove their investigation was completely above board.
Yeah.
I will not be holding my breath for that one.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, emails showing the Department of Justice was giving Hillary Clinton's campaign inside information about an ongoing investigation into her email server is deeply disturbing and raises even more questions about Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Instead of facing consequences for her actions like others have, she's been protected at every turn by the Obama administration so she can continue the failed policies of the last eight years.
Email server legality.
So, I don't know, this is like watching a naive child wander into a propeller blade, but former LinkedIn General Counsel Erica Rottenberg said, Email to Clinton Chief Technology Officer Stephanie Hannon and Clinton Senior Policy Advisor Anne O'Leary, June 21, 2015.
Okay, one thing to use personal email, but why the twisted truth, not my words, on why with the two problematic areas being A, emails to Bill, when they were to Bill's staff, and B, I only used one device, BB, BlackBerry I assume, when two weeks earlier it was an iPhone, BB and iPad.
As Anne and I discussed, hopefully that's a timing issue, and whilst in state she only used one.
Smiley face.
Boy, nothing says professionalism like an emoticon.
She went on to say, for my question, it's basically some variation of, not quite phrased right yet, I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys and we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date.
While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friend's circle can understand how it was viewed as okay, secure, appropriate to use a private server for secure documents, and why, further, Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in.
It smacks of acting above the law.
And it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.
Yeah, it does smack of that, Erica, doesn't it?
What can I tell you?
It smacks hard of that.
It smacks so hard as a forefinger and a thumb imprint on the cheek of the planet.
Let's talk about this subpoena.
So March 14th, 2015.
The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation.
The committee also has issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents.
March 4, 2015.
That's quite a long time ago now.
Clinton aide, Philip Bryant to Cheryl Mills.
Should just tweet, no need for this.
Happy for you to have what I gave state.
If they can't, I will.
Bring a dolly.
Cheryl Mills replied, seriously?
He said, back to her, not as flippantly and maybe just from Nick's mouth, but rather than going around and around on how to release the 55k, let's just be for what's happening and use this as the excuse.
Because we can say, even if state has equities, not providing them would put her in legal jeopardy.
Or we say, happy for them to have it, happy for the public to read them, as soon as state is comfortable.
But let's somehow take advantage of this.
Cheryl Mills to Philip Rines and other Clinton associates.
Can we implement this in the next hour?
Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook to Cheryl Mills.
Just for clarity, this House subpoena is just for Libya, right?
We were discussing releasing everything, no?
Cheryl Mills to Robbie Mook.
Right to both.
On March 4th, 2015, at 8.35pm, Hillary Clinton tweeted, I want the public to see my email.
I asked state to release them.
They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
I'll let you mull around that particular runaround and how his suggestions ended up floating up to her statement.
Ah, Bernie Sanders, still feeling the DNC burn.
So Clinton campaign research director Tony Carrick sent an email to many Clinton associates titled, Please review Sanders' hits on October 28, 2015.
Quote, Attached are some hits that could either be written or deployed during the next debate on Sanders.
Note, these do not include the college and $20 trillion cost of his plan since policy is working on them.
Per HRC's, Hillary Clinton's request, we are doing a deeper dive on Sanders' agriculture record to see if there was anything that could be problematic to Iowa.
Writer Brent Budowski sent an email titled Bernie, Elizabeth, and de Blasio to John Podesta on March 13, 2016.
Quote, beyond this, Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she does often.
I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November.
And she and Benenson and others have no idea of the damage she does to herself with these attacks, which she does not gain by making.
And inside they're saying, yeah, she's saying things that are not true.
She does a lot of that.
Does she have any particular moral problem?
No.
You see, it's just, it's not good strategy.
I guess if it is good strategy, it's fine.
But it's not good strategy.
And so she shouldn't do it.
He went on to say, instead, the smart move would be to look for issues where she can dovetail with Bernie.
One I am definitely going to suggest would be to take his proposal for a free public college education paid for by a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation and add one new dimension.
That to receive this benefit, young people should devote one year to some form of community or public service.
There is no reason Hillary cannot not support this.
It's a lot of negatives, but...
So, you know, what is that?
Just hijack Bernie's position?
Just come up with positions to attract to Bernie's people, attract Bernie's people and so on?
And what, a year?
Community of public service?
Are you kidding me?
So the government takes money from taxpayers by force, uses it to fund education, and in return, people work for the government for free.
Yeah, that's a pretty good deal.
I guess I can run a farm if I'm a bank robber and pay people who work on my farm with money taken from a bank.
Oh well, only amateurs rob banks.
Real professionals run banks.
There's much more theft in that.
So, uh, Brent went on to say, Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump.
She has huge, endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.
Even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even-money bet to beat, and this scares the hell out of me.
Sorry, it's tough with the voice.
So, yeah, just take whatever positions you can to help attack Sanders and adopt his positions and, yeah, throw in one year of having to work for the government.
Sure.
Why not?
It's not like that would be bad for the economy, taking people out of college when they're just out of college and having to work on useless government crap rather than being productive in the economy.
Yeah, that's how you spell recovery.
S-L-A-V. Anyway.
Joe Biden.
This is sad.
This is very sad.
So Vice President Joe Biden's son, Beau Biden, died after a battle with brain cancer on May 30th, 2015.
He was only 46 years old, and that's just a great tragedy.
Now, Biden, of course, went back and forth on whether to run for President of the United States, but ultimately decided against it, saying that his heart and head wouldn't be in it due to grieving, obviously, his son's death.
But...
Maybe that wasn't the real reason.
Former Joe Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain to John Podesta on October 14, 2015.
Thanks for inviting me into the campaign and for sticking with me during the Biden anxiety.
You are a great friend and a great teacher.
It's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise, and I'm definitely dead to them.
But I'm glad to be on Team HRC and glad that she had a great debate last night.
Thanks, John.
So this is a little bit of tea leaf reading, but look at this, the Biden anxiety.
Something was going on that was making Biden anxious.
He says, it's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise.
What role would his chief of staff play in the Biden demise?
Hard on him.
Did they have something on him?
Was he threatened with something?
Were there negative consequences?
And he says, and I'm definitely dead to them.
So he did something that really alienated his former team.
And he played a role in the Biden demise.
We'll probably never know.
But you go to those restaurants where you're like, oh, the food looks good, but a bit of a funny smell.
Well, that's my experience of that paragraph.
Hillary Clinton in August 2015.
Vice President Biden is a friend of mine.
He and I were colleagues in the Senate.
I worked with him as First Lady.
I worked with him in President Obama's first term.
And now I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him.
I think he has to make what is a very difficult decision for himself and his family.
And he should have the space and opportunity to decide what he wants to do.
It's been really hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise.
And I'm definitely dead to them.
Let's just drop that dialogue into The Sopranos and see if it seems out of place.
Here's a little thought experiment for you.
Democratic debates.
All right.
How were they decided on, right?
So this is the debates.
Democratic consulting firm Dewey Square Group founder Charlie Baker sent a DNC debate proposal to Clinton Associates John Podesta, Robbie Mook, at Ron Klain, April 27, 2015.
Quote, Through internal discussion, we concluded that it was in our interest to 1.
Limit the number of debates and the number in each state.
2.
Start the debates as late as possible.
3.
Keep debates out of the busy window between February 1st and February 27th, 2016, Iowa to South Carolina.
Four, create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over.
Five, encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats.
And six, ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.
So this is part of a whole strategy which Seems pretty obvious to me, which is that there was just kind of a momentum prayer that was going on with Hillary Clinton in this whole thing, which is, well, you know, she's been in public life for 30 years.
She's been to the White House before.
She's been a senator.
She's been secretary of state.
She's good at fundraising.
She's got the support of the financial industry.
She's got a whole bunch of money in the bank.
She's recognized.
She's known.
She's got the women's vote.
She's got the minority vote.
Let's just...
Keep her out of sight.
Have her not talk to the press too much.
Make the debates as late as possible.
Keep as few debates as possible.
Not have more debates than are absolutely necessary.
Let's just have the momentum of her whole public life.
Sweep her into the White House.
And let's not have her out there too much doing stuff with the folks.
And I think you can see how this really follows that whole model and might well have worked.
Except for Donald J. Trump.
Might have worked.
How Team Clinton feels about Trump.
Remember, we're talking about people on the left.
So it's not about what they think.
It's how they feel that matters.
Let's find out.
New York Times political correspondent Patrick Healy to Bill Clinton Press Secretary Angel Urena and Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy on February 29, 2016.
Quote, We're told that President Clinton, like Mrs.
Clinton and some other Dems, thinks that Trump would be a formidable opponent in the general election, and that Dems are in a form of denial if they dismiss Trump as a joke who would be easily defeated in November.
President Clinton, like others, thinks that Trump has his finger on the pulse of the electorate's mood, and that only a well-financed, concerted campaign portrayed him as dangerous and bigoted will win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election.
We're told that President Clinton, like Mrs.
Clinton and many other Dems, thinks the single greatest weapon against Trump is Trump's own instinct to make outrageous, divisive, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential.
He, Mrs.
Clinton, and the campaign all agree that they will need to seize on opportunities to paint Trump as extremist and recklessly impulsive.
So you see, everything that's been going on since last summer.
Now, this, of course, was written in February, but I'm sure that the ideas were there before.
Everything that's been going on is all part of this strategy.
Not an argument.
Don't have an analysis about the actual pluses and minuses, the numbers or anything like that.
You know, like Trump was saying, well, we can help 12 times as many refugees by keeping them in the Middle East and having them settle there.
Nobody ever.
Rebutts that.
Nobody ever talks about it.
Nobody ever deals with it.
It's just, he's scary.
He's dangerous.
And then Hillary Clinton has the nerve to say, my friend, Michelle Obama, who in 2008 said Hillary was unfit to be anywhere near the White House, my friend said, well, when they take the low road, you take the high road.
Oh, passive aggressive, hair gel monster.
Because they're not taking the high road.
I mean, just, he's scary.
He's dangerous.
And how, you know, outrageous, divisive, even hateful comments like, I don't know, half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables that are irredeemable, sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, horrible human beings.
Yeah.
Because that's what people on the left do.
You know, whatever the left accuses you as a good person of doing is what they're doing.
It is not an accusation against you.
It's a confession of their approach.
Gross.
The WikiLeaks scandal.
progress near attendant to John Podesta January 16th, 2016.
Maybe David Brock actually is a Republican plant.
Hard to think of anything more counterproductive than demanding Bernie's medical records.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Very, very interesting.
So, why would it be so massively counterproductive to demand Bernie's medical records?
Well, of course, if he produces them, as I'm sure he would have, or maybe he did, I don't know.
But the natural boomerang question then would be, okay, I've produced my medical records, let's see yours, Hillary.
And what do they know?
It's hard to think of anything more counterproductive.
You know, mud wrestling, releasing fiery bats out of Bernie Sanders.
Nothing is more counterproductive than demanding Bernie's medical records because of the inevitable result that Hillary would have to produce hers.
I wonder what they know that we may never know.
Lobbyist Eric Mullen emailed John Podesta a message titled Bob Glennon on July 15, 2015.
Won't stop assuring Senators Brown and Heitkamp at dinner now that HRC has personally told Tim Kaine he's the vice president.
A little unseemly.
All right, so let's do a little bit of backstory.
So Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
So she was the co-chair of the 2008 presidential run that Hillary had.
Of course, she lost the nomination to, one, B. Hussein Obama.
So she wanted to lock down the nomination for the 2016, right, for this year's run.
So Hillary was able to get Debbie in charge of the DNC. And hopefully, of course, I assume she was hoping to manipulate it from within.
Now, to get this to work, they not just only had to get the existing DNC chair to resign, but also get them to recommend Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the position.
Now, in order to get someone to step down, you have to offer them something that's better or more prestigious than being head of the Democratic Party.
Now, Donna Brazile was in line to get the position, but she was just the interim chair after the previous head left.
She served only a month.
The previous chair...
Of the DNC prior to Debbie Washerman Schultz was Tim Kaine.
So you've got to offer them something better in order to have them step down so that you can get your person in and manipulate the DNC as we've seen with its blatant favoritism of Hillary Clinton and bias against Bernie Sanders that this is probably what went on as the quid pro quo under the table.
We'll of course never know, but that would be my guess.
The Daily Caller said, The Globe's op-ed editor Marjorie Pritchard to John Podesta on July 16, 2015.
Just wondering if we are still on for that piece.
Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval.
It would be good to get it in on Tuesday when she's in New Hampshire.
That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story.
Please let me know.
So that's a reporter or an op-ed editor.
Working with the campaign to coordinate stories to help Hillary Clinton.
Once more, I'd really like to thank the mainstream media for helping so many discontented and alienated people who are tired of not being informed but rather manipulated coming to this channel and to other great channels on the internet for crazy little things called facts.
More media collusion.
Clinton Director of Speechwriting Dan Schwirin sent an email called Tax Hit for Chris Hayes to many Clinton associates on January 11, 2016.
HRC is going to call into Chris Hayes' show this afternoon to do her tax hit.
How does this look to you guys?
The email contained a practically word-for-word breakdown of what Hillary Clinton would read on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes, including stand-in prompts for Hayes' questions, raising significant concerns about objectivity and collusion.
So this is like a phone interview, so she could sit there and read a script and she wouldn't show on camera.
It's just a phone interview.
Joel B. Pollack at Breitbark said, John Howard of CNBC and the New York Times, who moderated one of the Republican presidential primary debates last year, corresponded often with Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, even congratulating her on primary wins, according to emails released by WikiLeaks.
On October 28th, Harwood would go on to moderate the third Republican primary debate and delivered a performance so obviously biased that even liberal commentators had to admit he had proven conservative suspicions correct.
Harwood did not ask about Clinton's emails.
So, theater.
Not arguments, not debates, not facts.
Theater.
Coordination with the New York Times.
Normally such a beacon of impartiality.
Vice President of Communications for the New York Times, Danielle Rhodes, quote, In early July, after much back and forth with the campaign and reluctance on my part, I decided to take the campaign up on its offer of an off-the-record conversation with Clinton.
I figured I would use the opportunity at Bretton Woods to ask Clinton directly for an interview, or at least to let me do part of our conversation on the record.
She chose the latter.
Danielle Rhodes emailed Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri on July 7, 2015.
I wanted option to use the following.
Obviously wouldn't use all, but a portion.
These exchanges were pretty interesting.
Would love the option to use, I've eaten moose too.
This is, I think, her quoting Hillary.
I've eaten moose too.
I've had moose stew.
Yeah, in Alaska, moose stew.
So that's why I always got a big kick out of Sarah Palin with all of her.
We're cooking up some moose stew here.
Jennifer Palmieri responded, From last two questions, fine to use everything from the paragraph starting and to get serious for just a minute till the end of the interview as on the record, with the exception of this passage, which I ask you to leave out, and gay rights has moved much faster than women's rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon somebody in the future will unpack.
Pleasure doing business, she said.
So it would appear that...
The Clinton campaign communications director is editing or suggesting edits to an interview that Hillary did with Danielle Rhodes.
Pleasure doing business, she says.
Just make all these changes.
You can use this.
You can't use that.
Dear God, I mean, is there not even a pretense of journalistic independence anymore?
For the record, I have never had anybody from Clinton campaign or Trump campaign edit anything that I'm doing whatsoever.
Debate questions.
Fascinating stuff.
Former CNN contributor and current head of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, on March 12, 2016, tipping the Clinton campaign off about questions for the CNN town hall with Bernie Sanders.
From time to time, I get the questions in advance.
Here's one that worries me about HRC. Okay, from time to time, I get the questions in advance.
That seems important.
I mean, imagine if you're doing an oral exam, and I'm not talking about applying for a job with Bill Clinton.
You're doing an oral exam, and you know the questions ahead of time.
Or let's say that you're doing an oral defense of your thesis, and you know the questions ahead of time.
We know the questions ahead of time for any test.
Does that mean that you really have your knowledge tested, or your capacity to memorize has been tested?
So she went on.
Here's one that worries me about HRC. Death penalty.
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty.
31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty.
According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free.
Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That's 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed.
Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
So that's called leading the witness, and that's saying, well, with this information, and this is just as an old yes minister about how to get the exact answer you want from a poll, but the questions that lead up to the answer, the question that has the answer you want, you just submit the leading up questions, and so on.
But it's great to see the left really, really concerned with people being, who dying, who are innocent, which certainly does nothing to explain their stance on abortion, say, but that's the topic for another time.
Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri responded, Yes, it is one she gets asked about.
Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
But Syeda, can you send her answer on death penalty?
So, as predicted, Clinton was indeed asked about her stance on the death penalty during the following day's town hall event in Columbus, Ohio.
It was a town hall event.
And it seems like she got the questions, or at least one of the questions, ahead of time.
After these revelations, Donna Brazile issued a statement, quote, As a long-time political activist with deep ties to our party, I supported all of our candidates for president.
I often shared my thoughts with each and every campaign, and any suggestions that indicate otherwise are simply untrue.
Well, that clears nothing up.
Thank you.
Good job.
Fog.
Auga.
Auga.
Hell breach.
CNN Vice President of Communications Barbara Levin said, To be perfectly clear, we have never, ever given a town hall question to anyone beforehand.
Good.
Well, that's...
I'm sure that's enough for everyone then.
Clears it right up.
Look, I mean, we're going to stay on this.
This stuff is coming out.
But these are just my thoughts and opinions.
You know, obviously...
Think for yourself.
These are just my thoughts.
It's kind of amoral, right?
I mean, people on the right do struggle with the ethics of particular things.
People on the left, it seems like there's just this, how does it look?
How's it going to appear?
How's it going to spin?
How's it going to go?
It's not, is there any right or wrong?
What's our moral compass?
It's just, what can we get away with?
What do we have to lie to?
We've got a public face.
We've got a private face.
We can spin it this way.
We can spin it that way.
It's like, bleh!
Stop it!
Stop it!
Just tell people the truth about what you believe!
Unless what you believe is so reprehensible and vile...
That you have to put up this fog all the time.
I just like it when people state directly what they believe and then I can make a decision.
But all of this, how do we spin it?
How do we cover it up?
How do we move it?
I'm not going to release my transcripts.
You can't see my health care.
It's gross.
And look, these are people who want to be in charge of your life, of your health, of your future, of your children's education.
These are the people who are in charge of your children's education.
And we wonder why people are coming out with barely any ability to read, to write, to think, to process emotional difficulties, to process opposition.
This is why we've got these hysterical snowflakes, the cry bullies who curl themselves into a fetal ball while calling in fascistic airstrikes on those who oppose them or upset them.
I mean, this is horrifying stuff.
These are the people who want to be in charge of you.
And this is what they're doing behind the scenes.
They're just managing you.
They're just managing you and controlling you.
They don't want to tell you the truth about what they want.
They don't want to tell you the truth about their plans.
What do you want to hear?
What do you want to hear?
And what can I tell you that you want to hear so you'll give me the power?
And this is not...
Power corrupts.
And the more power, the more corruption in general.
Now, those who get into politics to minimize power is a different species, a different breed.
But these people, they don't want power to do good.
They want to pretend to be good in order to gain power.
That's really, really important.
I think they're just addicts to political power.
They've adapted, you know, like animals adapt to their local environment.
And some animals become a little over-specialized so the local environment can't take any changes.
Mammals better than reptiles that way.
So, they're addicts.
They're addicts to political power.
They get the dopamine hit from getting political power.
That's what they're in search of.
And they really like it when people kiss the ring because they hold all this government money and government power and they want it to be able to hand it out so people come to them and they have value because of all the stolen stuff they can hand out to everyone else.
Not because they've created or produced something real in the world.
Right?
They just have power.
The power to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
And that's what gives them value.
Is their wielding of the power of coercion, the power of money printing, the power of taxation, the power of regulation, the power of the state.
That is what they're addicted to.
I don't know if you've ever watched Dr.
Phil.
I haven't in quite a while, but I watched a few some time back.
And these parents would come in with kids, and the kids would be addicted to some crazy stuff, heroin or glue or something.
And the kids would be like...
Dragging themselves through parking lots, looking to, you know, hand out blowjobs in return for 20 bucks to buy, you know, scabs all over their bodies.
And it's just a mess.
It's just a mess.
And Dr.
Phil would generally have the same advice to the parents.
And he'd say, look, you're in way over your head.
You don't know how to fix this.
You need professional help.
And we've got to take your kid right out of the situation.
You know, we're going to send them off to some...
Recovery center or some rehab center in the middle of nowhere where they're going to hug horses and get better.
Well, when it comes to people who are addicted to political power, and this is on the left and the right, people who want, who will just say anything to try and tickle your happy bone in order to get power over you.
What do you want to hear?
What do you want to hear?
Okay, I'll tell you that.
Or what is Bernie Sanders saying?
Do they like that?
Okay, let's say that.
Whatever we got to say.
Whatever we got to say.
They're addicts.
They're addicts to power.
And Dr.
Phil used to say to people whose family members were addicts, you're done.
