Yeah, I read them and I came away liking her more.

Irritating that this is getting downvoted. I too felt the same way -- the "revelation" that she's a pragmatist acting in good faith did nothing to make me dislike her.

If you hate marijuana, sure

Collusion with the media and a debate moderator should chill anyone. Add to that the fact that the DNC basically anointed her by not giving Sanders a fair shake... democrats were told who to vote for using the media to give them the illusion of free choice.

Put another way, the emails revealed that it's very possibly that Trump will be President because Clinton had corrupted the DNC.

Yeah, the media really did her a favour by talking about emails all the time. Totally in the tank for her.

> Collusion with the media and a debate moderator should chill anyone.

That is really the only significant dirt that came from that leak. The Sanders stuff was overblown.

Have you read the leaks? What parts do you think are overblown?

From what I've read, it appears the DNC directly violated their own bylaws by (strongly) preferring one candidate before the primary. Repeatedly and flagrantly.

If the DNC isn't even accountable to itself, how should American voters feel about them having control over the duopoly of private parties which are allowed to select presidential candidates? At best, their actions were revealed to be grossly unethical. At worst, criminal.

How could a private organization violating their charter extend to criminality?

Most of the leaks showing the DNC "favoring" Clinton came after it was clear she was going to win the primary, and most of DNC wanted to focus on the general election. On top of that, individual staffers having a preference for the person they are very close to over the guy who joined the party just to run shouldn't be that surprising, but I haven't seen any evidence that it translated in substantial action to tilt the field in favor of Hillary. I'll concede the debate question issue was a bad look, but again, what advantage was conferred by telling the HRC team that a debate in Flint would feature a question about the Flint Water Crisis?

The debate question was given to the Clinton camp by Brazile when Brazile wasn't working for the DNC. The closer you look at the emails, the more you realize that there's no there there.

The issue is it was clear Clinton was winning before the race was over based on polling, superdelegates, and what states were remaining. The DNC wanted to discuss (privately) how to limit damage to HRC from Sanders attacks before the general.

These sort of private discussion are totally reasonable for an organization like the DNC to have before the primary was 100% over cause they could see the writing on the wall. I didn't read every leak or anything like that but what I did see was mostly of this nature. This of course pissed off Sanders supporters (the point of the leak in the first place) but it really wasn't that bad imo.

The Brazile thing was though and I'm amazed she's not hiding in a cave somewhere in disgrace.

> The issue is it was clear Clinton was winning before the race was over based on polling, superdelegates, and what states were remaining.

And the reason for that was because she was heavily pushed as the candidate by CNN, MSNBC, etc while the same media ignored Sanders. That it only became clear later that this media had relations with the Clinton campaign and DNC beyond just the personal biases of pundits is cause for concern IMO.

No way, the media knew the Clintons? I mean she just came out of nowhere!

Is everyone here forgetting the millions given by foreign nations?? The outright collusion with media? The lack of sensitivity to LGBT rights? The fact that they never discussed how to actually solve the Nation's problems, only worked on crafting a message to the public, and having "public and private" policies? The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately? Or most chilling of all, the cryptic codespeak used in several emails?

> Is everyone here forgetting the millions given by foreign nations??

Not terribly, since we can see where a lot of it went and we're not terribly upset with the outcomes?

> The outright collusion with media?

Yeah emails that emails went emails really emails well emails, right emails?

> The lack of sensitivity to LGBT rights?

Clinton has a mixed track record on LGBT rights, but I trust her infinitely more than I do Trump, because her recent track record is much better. If you think she'd get a free pass for screwing over the community, you're dead wrong.

> The fact that they never discussed how to actually solve the Nation's problems, only worked on crafting a message to the public, and having "public and private" policies?

It.. uh... was an election campaign, dude. They're talking about being elected. But also, there ARE a ton of emails in there talking about the policy messaging. Mostly how to frame it to different people, as framing matters.

> The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately?

If Russian connections were a problem Trump would be forced to step down in favor of Pence, now wouldn't he?

> Or most chilling of all, the cryptic codespeak used in several emails?

Did you use your pizzagate decoder ring to figure out where they hid the girls yet?

At this point, I'd only like to know why you're making personal attacks on someone you've never met in order to support and defend a politician who's committed federal crimes -- one who you've likely also never met.

Might be time to step back and take a deep breath, my friend.

Have you actually read the emails in question? I've referenced them elsewhere in this thread.

I've read most of the Wikileaks materials. I've taken them with a grain of salt because there is strong evidence that Assange does not have control of Wikileaks, and therefore it's very difficult to trust the entirely of the corpus.

Even if I take all of them as 100% verified, I am certainly not "chilled" the way you are. Nor do I think having IT fuckups should be a federal crime. Given how shit both R and D party security is, I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure.

And the only aspersion I've thrown your way is that this allegation of "codespeak" is rubbish and lead people to dangerous actions on the grounds of "PizzaGate". I don't agree with your picture of reality, but I think you're an adult capable of recognizing this and therefore should be responsible for your viewpoints in a public discussion forum you choose to engage in.

If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't reply. You wouldn't be responsible for your actions.

> Given how shit both R and D party security is...

Ummm, since we're now talking about the private email server (still absolutely illegal, regardless of justification), we're not talking about DNC leaks here, so this has nothing to do with "D" and "R".

That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division.

> I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure.

WOW!!! Are you listening to yourself?! That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt:

* http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/JW-v...

* http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...

* http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v...

Then, of course, there was this quote:

> Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that.

But, "you suspect".

How about this: I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. Those emails are out there, many of them possibly on the Weiner laptop or elsewhere, and time will tell if there will ever be any justice served for these Federal crimes.

> That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division.

Which is a token gesture and we all know it. Most private companies have better cybersecurity than the "STATE DEPARTMENT."

> That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt:

Email servers ... seeing hack attempts via direct and content-driven means? WOW. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO STATE OFFICIALS! MY EMAILS CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER SEEN MALICIOUS LINKS.

> I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed.

I hope that you extend this righteous anger to Pence and the Trump campaign for doing everything they can to keep campaign planning materials hidden by (curiously) successfully invoking attorney-client privilege.

    > I'd only like to know why 
    > you're making personal
    > attacks

I don't see any personal attacks? He's mocking your delusional and dull talking points, not you.

> Did you use your pizzagate decoder ring to figure out where they hid the girls yet?

I miss detox "week".

You mean the conservative control week?

The vast majority of stories that ban filtered were about proposed human rights abuses by Trump's advisory board, and subsequent details about how foreign intelligence agencies helped the conservative candidate without the hobble of campaign finance laws or ethical considerations.

Or are you mad I'm here, being pugnacious and irreverent about the more absurd allegations leveled against various candidates (which I have done on behalf of Trump as well, if you check my post history far enough).

What, exactly, do you miss? And if so, why then did you click into this thread and read into something nested 3 deep?

I submit if you cast a vote in this country you should not be afforded the luxury of looking away from the results of that vote.

No, I am not mad you are criticizing conservatives, nor do I think we should be ignorant of politics. I was struck by the nastiness of that part of your comment, that it was a personal, dismissive insult.

So was implying that arbitrarily assigned "code words" were evidence of a child abuse ring which was so hyped to a group of people that it lead to a physical confrontation with an armed individual in public.

"Code words" is pizzagate talk, even if you're not aware of that. It's the literal phrasing echoed throughout twitter and gab used to justify arbitrary accusations.

I'm not sure how you can treat that kind of nasty and totally senseless fear mongering with anything but irreverence.

All that tells me is she was a politician playing the political game. Or do you think it is mutually exclusive to play politics and caring about doing good things with power? Do you think emails between Sanders campaign staff would not be discussing talking points and tactics if their campaign emails were leaked?

I'm upset enough that our politicians take monstrous amounts of money from corporate lobbyists... let alone foreign nations in questionable areas!! That part is unforgivable.

Justify it however you want, there was some very chilling revelations in those emails. I want politicians solving problems, not building press angles.

>there was some very chilling revelations in those emails.

The most chilling part was that having your pizza restaurant mentioned in the emails can lead to lunatics showing up with guns to threaten your staff.

I keep hearing vague mentions of corruption and chilling revelations from these email leaks, but i have never once been given a link to a particular email thread demonstrating this. Care to share a link?

What millions? The same collusion that had all media screaming about emails all the time? The default support for LGBT rights? What family connections to Russia?; were they in the same league as with Putin is doing with Trump? What codespeak are you talking about? You mean policies you don't personally like?

What millions? How about these:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22030#efmABAADK...

What Russia family connections? How about these:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 (see page 61 of the attachment)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1127

Why the concern if there's nothing to be concerned about? (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225, https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/370)

Regarding codespeak... it's starting to go mainstream. Google what Ben Swann's been up to.

The Clinton Foundation donations were shown to be benign and not give any additional access to the Clintons. The Clinton foundation is a reputable charity that actually does good.

Or do you think that anytime money is mentioned bad things are happening? So then how do you feel about Trump?

Does simply having 'Russia' show up in a word search mean something sinister?

If you're like this about Clinton (much ado about nothing, exaggeration of any tiny mention of anything), why aren't you absolutely nuclear about Trump, who has actual solid links to actual corruption and potential treasonous behaviour?

Shown by who?

The Clinton Foundation does good? Like they did in Haiti, right??

It's okay, you just haven't dug deep enough. The key is understanding where the proposed pipelines are located. Hint: they're in line with various overthrown governments; not coincidental.

Note that I'm not saying you should dig any deeper, as it's not exactly productive time and this is the job of the investigators, but it's interesting to watch play out.

Best question lately is "Where is Eric Braverman?"...

> The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately?

Remind me, which side of that election is now alleged to have been talking to FSB the whole time?

First off, arguing "against the other side" has nothing to do with these emails and is offtopic. We're referencing what was discovered in the leaked emails. And inside, you can find documented proof of the Uranium One thing and their concerns over it.

You may consider it a fallacy, but I am making the point that Trump supporters attacking Hillary over Russia policy smells of the old "attack your own weakness" strategy of American politics, often attributed to Karl Rove and the like.

When the alternative is Hitler, you pick Hillary.