Quantcast
Connect with us

Hacked emails show Clinton aides surprised at 2015 email revelations

Published

on

Two aides in charge of running Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign were taken aback as news broke in March 2015 of Clinton’s use of private email for her work as U.S. secretary of state, according to stolen emails published on Thursday by WikiLeaks.

The late-night exchange between Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, and John Podesta, the campaign chairman, happened within hours of the New York Times breaking the news that Clinton exclusively used a private email account in a way that may have broken records rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Did you have any idea of the depth of this story?” Podesta wrote to Mook at 10:27 p.m. on the night the Times story appeared online, according to an exchange published by WikiLeaks.

A few hours later, at 1:32 a.m., Mook wrote back: “Nope. We brought up the existence of emails in research this summer but were told that everything was taken care of.”

The exchange took place hours before the Associated Press reported for the first time the following morning that Clinton’s email system was run off a private server Clinton kept in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York.

The exchange appears to show that even Clinton’s most senior aides were initially unprepared for the scale of revelations about Clinton’s email practices, which would end up dogging her campaign all the way through to the final weeks leading up to the Nov. 8 election. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, remains the front-runner in opinion polls over Republican opponent Donald Trump.

Many voters have pointed to the unauthorized email system, which stymied attempts by the public to seek Clinton’s emails through open-records laws, as a reason they find Clinton untrustworthy. Trump has repeatedly attacked her over her emails, saying Clinton should be in prison because she sent and received classified government secrets through the server.

ADVERTISEMENT

After a yearlong investigation, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said in July that Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” with classified information, but that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

The same night of the Mook-Podesta exchange, Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton confidante, wrote to Podesta to express her frustration, according to other emails stolen from Podesta’s account and published in daily batches this month by WikiLeaks, a publishing organization that advocates extreme government transparency.

“Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago?” Tanden wrote, criticizing Cheryl Mills, a lawyer working for Clinton and Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department. “So crazy.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Podesta replied with a single word: “Unbelievable.”

“I guess I know the answer,” Tanden, an outside adviser who does not have a formal role in the campaign, responded. “They wanted to get away with it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Podesta also suggests in the exchange that other Clinton aides withheld information about the emails, although it is unclear if he meant from the public or other colleagues.

“Speaking of transparency, our friends Kendall, Cheryl and Phillipe sure weren’t forthcoming on the facts here,” Podesta wrote. David Kendall is another lawyer working for Clinton, and Philippe Reines, whose first name Podesta appeared to have misspelled, is a Clinton adviser who handled her news coverage at the State Department.

Tanden and spokesmen for Clinton’s campaign did not respond to questions. The campaign has generally declined to comment on or authenticate specific emails, although it has not pointed to any instances of doctored messages. Glen Caplin, a campaign spokesman, has said the Russian government is behind the hacking of Podesta emails in an effort to influence the U.S. election.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nearly five months after the news of Clinton’s private email first broke, Tanden again wrote to Podesta to link the arrangement to unfavorable public polling that week.

“Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email?” she wrote. “And has that person been drawn and quartered?”

(Editing by Jonathan Oatis)


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Elections 2016

Vietnamese women strive to clear war-era mines

Published

on

Inching across a field littered with Vietnam war-era bombs, Ngoc leads an all-women demining team clearing unexploded ordnance that has killed tens of thousands of people -- including her uncle.

"He died in an explosion. I was haunted by memories of him," Le Thi Bich Ngoc tells AFP as she oversees the controlled detonation of a cluster bomb found in a sealed-off site in central Quang Tri province.

More than 6.1 million hectares of land in Vietnam remain blanketed by unexploded munitions -- mainly dropped by US bombers -- decades after the war ended in 1975.

At least 40,000 Vietnamese have since died in related accidents. Victims are often farmers who accidentally trigger explosions, people salvaging scrap metal, or children who mistake bomblets for toys.

Continue Reading

Elections 2016

Chief Justice John Roberts issues New Year’s Eve warning to stand up for democracy

Published

on

In a progressive welcoming move, Chief Justice John Roberts issued his New Year's Eve annual report urging his fellow federal judges to stand up for democracy.

"In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public's need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital," he wrote. "We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump’s next 100 days will dictate whether he can be re-elected or not — here’s why

Published

on

According to CNN pollster-in-residence Harry Enten, Donald Trump's next 100 days -- which could include an impeachment trial in the Senate -- will hold the key to whether he will remain president in 2020.

As Eten explains in a column for CNN, "His [Trump's] approval rating has been consistently low during his first term. Yet his supporters could always point out that approval ratings before an election year have not historically been correlated with reelection success. But by mid-March of an election year, approval ratings, though, become more predictive. Presidents with low approval ratings in mid-March of an election year tend to lose, while those with strong approval ratings tend to win in blowouts and those with middling approval ratings usually win by small margins."

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image