People keep quoting the email in question, but it was from 2015 and had to do with leaks to the Washington Post and other news outlets. Nothing to do with wikileaks, and it was a year too early lol
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082
Re: Wash Post story -- Sorry to write this on a Saturday night
From:[email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-22 21:20 Subject: Re: Wash Post story -- Sorry to write this on a Saturday night
I agree--when we have press staff, this will be MUCH easier. And I would love an example being made. On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:12 PM, John Podesta wrote: > Agree. Happy to talk to the David's. Call me crazy, but I think if we can > survive the next month, it will be possible, maybe even straightforward to > get our arms around this once there is an actual campaign. I'm definitely > for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real > basis for it. > > JP > --Sent from my iPad-- > [email protected] > For scheduling: [email protected] > > On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Joel Benenson wrote: > > John, > > We are in massive agreement that we need a strategy and process
>>126870428
Good point. It was still a...suspect thing to say to put it lightly.
It's a declaration of intent between mook and podesta in plain english, but no, it's not a smoking gun and yes the timestamps make a difference
If you were a lawyer representing someone who was killed and found them saying something vague in the past that somewhat implied murder, you would bring it up at trial.
Or you'd be the worst goddamn lawyer on the face of the earth.
>>126870751
* found a suspect
>>126870751
but if you read the entire chain they are talking about firing people. "jobs off the table" for any leaks.
>>126870428
The point is the making an example of leakers
>>126870633
Did you read the entire exchange? I suggest you do. Couldn't paste it all here
They were talking about not hiring consultants
>>126870750
read the entire exchange. couldn't paste it all here. it isnt what you think it is
>>126871427
by firing consultants...
>>126872270
im thinking they contracted the consultants and any leaks meant they wouldnt get a job with the campaign. So yes firing those consultants that had their names in the paper 48 hours later. they were dealing with attention whore consultants who liked seeing their own name in print. And also liked the attention the personal attention reporters were giving them.Ive heard its like a drug to leakers to be fawned over its why so many leak anonymously their reward is in the personal attention they get from the reporter. Id want to make an example out of one of those types too.
Bumping for Seth Rich
>>126870428
its not about saying he meant rich specifically, but it shows the sentiment and will to "make an example" of leakers is there.
>>126876502
but if you go to wikileaks and read the entire exchange, they weren't talking about murder or anything like that. get real. just read it all for yourself
I dont know who killed seth rich or why, but using that email as evidence is stupid.
Justice for Seth Rich - Justice for America
John Podesta and the DNC murdered Seth Rich using SEIU. It's settled science.
>>126877589
yeah, they say they would fire them/keep them out of the job for talking with the press, but leaking the emails is infinitely worse resulting logically in an infinitely worse example
bump
S o. M a n y. Q u e s t I o n s . . .
>>126880745
is there any confirmation on that. i saw the cumpanda remarks during pizzagate and expected since many of the kids had rings around their eyes from tiredness, and at times (not on the pictures) bruised eyes from the abuse, that they would be the cumpandas.
how long was seth rich affiliated with those? was he maybe a cumpanda?
>>126870428
>being this new that you take /pol/ conspiracies seriously
Bump for Seth Rich