Hillary Clinton

Top 10 Things We Learned From Hillary Clinton Campaign's Emails

Between the WikiLeaks revelations, FOIA requests, and FBI investigation, there are important details among the noise.

|

Not just a nothingburger.
Mariel Calloway/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Hillary Clinton's supporters—and many mainstream media pundits who wouldn't DARE admit to holding any political points of view of their own—have been pushing the narrative that the details revealed in the hacked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta amount to little more than a hyped-up nothingburger served up by the Russian government.

The Clinton campaign won't confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails, but working on the assumption that they would vigorously deny them if they were forgeries, there are indeed some noteworthy items of information to be gleaned from the emails, as well as from recent FOIA requests related to Clinton's private email server, and the slow trickle of information coming out of the FBI regarding its investigation into Clinton's server.

We've rounded up the ten most interesting recent revelations into the Clinton machine below:

1. John Podesta thinks Bitcoin is too "libertarian" to be associated with the Clinton campaign.

In 2015, Podesta passed along a tip he received at a fundraiser about a digital currency called Ven, which on its website states that part of its value "includes carbon futures, so the more Ven in circulation, the more carbon assets held in reserve."

This apparently was music to Podesta's ears, as he wrote in an email to Clinton campaign tech staffer Teddy Goff:

I don't send all the crazy ideas I hear about at fundraisers your way, but this seems interesting and legit. Essentially digital currency with a green angle as opposed to bitcoin's libertarian Ayn Rand schtick.

2. State Department officials called themselves "the Shadow Government" and wanted to dictate how the FBI released Clinton-related documents, according to "an unidentified person" interviewed by the FBI. Via CNBC:

One revelation in the documents came from an interview with an unidentified person who suggested that Freedom of Information Act requests related to Clinton went through a group sometimes called "the Shadow Government."

"There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," the FBI's interview summary said.

That group, according to the summary, argued for a Clinton document release to be conducted all at once "for coordination purposes" instead of on a rolling basis as would normally be the case. But the "Shadow Government" did not get its way, and the agency in charge decided for a rolling release, the FBI summary said.

3. CNN pundit-turned-interim DNC chair Donna Brazile may have shared a town hall question with Clinton campaign in advance.

In an email titled, "From time to time I get the questions in advance," Brazile shared a question related to the death penalty that she wrote, "worries me about HRC." Brazile denies sharing advance questions to the Clinton campaign and told Politico that the leaked emails are part of Russian government efforts "aimed at interfering with our election, and that WikiLeaks is part of that effort."

4. Clinton said in 2014 that she was against marijuana legalization "in all senses of the word."

One of the leaked emails revealed concern among the Clinton campaign that Clinton's staunch prohibitionism and "gateway drug" talk might need a "scrub," or a revision going forward to maintain consistency with past pronouncements, no matter how dumb.

5. Even senior Democratic Party advisers worry that a $15 minimum wage could be a job-killer.

Neera Tanden, the head of the staunchly pro-Clinton Center for American Progress, cautioned the Clinton campaign last year about supporting raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour.

Reason's Peter Suderman explains:

As Sean Higgins of The Washington Examiner reports, an April 2015 email from Tanden to four senior Clinton staffersresponding to a list of policy proposals states that "Substantively, we have not supported $15—ysou will get a fair number of liberal economists who will say it will lose jobs." (The email was obtained through an illegal hack, and published by Wikileaks.)

It's worth taking a moment to put this in context: Tanden, a former Obama administration staffer, is the head of one of the largest and most powerful liberal policy institutions in Washington, and she is a leading figure for a top position in a Hillary Clinton administration. She's writing to a group of top Clinton campaign staffers, including Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman and a former president of the Center for American Progress himself, Campaign Manager Robby Mook, and Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, all of whom with intimate knowledge of the liberal policy consensus. And not only does Tanden state that many liberal economists would object to a $15 minimum wage because it would result in job loss, no one else on the thread appears to push back in any way.

As a humorous bonus, Tanden joked in one of the leaked emails that the term "Red Army" could refer to the "the base of the Democratic party."

6. Former MoveOn.org director Tom Mattzie wrote of planting questions with reporters.

In a 2007 email to John Podesta, the self-described clean energy entrepreneur wrote, "We are already implementing a plan for 'tough questions' that we plant or bait reporters to ask that draw the Republicans closer to Bush, etc." Apparently confirming the veracity of the email, Mattzie explained on Twitter that "We were testing expected attacks by Republicans" on both Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary.

7. Clinton errs on the side of law enforcement and government when it comes to privacy, secrecy, and spying on citizens.

Reason's Scott Shackford noted that in one 2015 email exchange, "Podesta openly acknowledged Clinton's attitude of deference to authority," when the Clinton campaign boss wrote, "Her instincts are to buy some of the law enforcement arguments on crypto and Snowden type issues."

8. The Clinton campaign knew all along that she was inventing history to justify her support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Dan Schwerin, director of speechwriting, wrote in a 2015 email exchange with a number of senior Clinton campaign staffers:

I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.

As Scott Shackford also noted, these emails "make it clear that the Clinton campaign understood that she was wrong about the history of DOMA, but she also was not likely to admit it or their role in supporting the legislation." Shackford explains:

Both Clintons have tried to argue that their support of DOMA as an attempt to prevent a possible Republican effort to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. They were trying to shift blame for their own support for DOMA to Republicans. The problem was that there was no Republican push for a constitutional amendment during Clinton's administration.

9. Hillary Clinton believes highly problematic U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS.

In a very interesting email where the Democratic nominee lays out a detailed eight point foreign policy memo for Podesta, Clinton writes, "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."

This memo offers an unfiltered glimpse into Clinton's well-regarded reputation for detail-oriented wonkery, but also for her credulous faith in the conventional wisdom, as demonstrated by faith that by arming just about every anti-ISIS group in the region (including the practicaklly undefinable "Free Syrian Army"), ISIS would be on the run in no time at all.

10. The White House not only knew about Clinton's private email server well before they admitted to it, it actively interfered with the handling of FOIA requests.

Thanks to a FOIA lawsuit, we now know that despite President Obama's previous statements that he and White House staffers were unaware of Clinton's use of a private email server while she was serving as his chief diplomat, as well as his "guarantee" that the executive branch wielded "no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI," they were very much aware in early 2015 and took active steps to shield Clinton from the fallout.

The Wall Street Journal's Byron Tau reported that the White House communications director coordinated with the State Department "to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton's email arrangement." The Observer's Michael Sainato also noted, "Obama's administration has intervened to delay several FOIA requests until after Election Day to shield Clinton from further scrutiny."

NEXT: No, Independents Aren't Just a Bunch of 'Closet Partisans'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. … and the squirrel is tossed into the room full of hungry dobermans.

    1. I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. Go to this web site and click Tech tab to start your work…. http://www.ImdbCash.tk

  2. So the election isn’t rigged, just the coverage of it? And the Clintons really should steer clear of attaching the word “shadow” to anything they want to do.

    1. I don’t know if ‘rigged’ is the right word, actually it almost certainly is not. The Democratic nomination may be something to that effect. That video by O’Keefe is pretty damning to say the least. The question is, can they pull that off in a national election. They’ve certainly indicated that they are willing to try it.

      1. They certainly don’t seem shy about committing voter fraud based on those O’Keefe videos. And it certainly sounds like it is something they have had in place for a long time now. Certainly explains the left’s hysteria over requiring voter ID.

        1. Exactly. You have to have an ID to drive or get on a plane. But not to vote? I have exactly zero idea why else they have an issue with that. Anyone can get a free photo ID, at least in some states.

          1. …or buy alcohol, cash a check, get past the bouncer at a club, apply for credit or pick up an order at Home depot….

            1. …or get a job, visit a foreign country, buy cold medicine, open a bank account, use a credit card (sometimes)…

              1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

                go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

            2. Or to apply for government benefits…don’t forget that.

              1. Yep to all the above.

                1. Or to vote in virtually every country other than the US. The ink stain they put on your finger is to insure you only vote once.

          2. Voting should be moved to April 15th. All votes are to be sent in as part of your tax forms.

            1. Best idea I’ve heard yet, actually.

            2. And no tax withholding. You get it all when you earn it, and write big check once a year. Better plan ahead!

          3. My deceased grandparents were still on the voting rolls a few years ago? let’s see if they vote again.

            1. I’ll be curious to see if my mom is on the voting rolls. Of course, the old farts who run the polling place seem to know everybody (the town has maybe 600 voters), so they’d probably know if somebody was trying to vote for her in person.

              1. In several states, you can look up people on the voting rolls? just google your state + “voter lookup”.

              2. My father passed away in 2004. He was still on the voting rolls when I voted in the primary earlier this year. As voters come in to vote, their names are highlighted on the voter roll, to indicate they have already voted. My father’s name had been highlighted earlier in the day.

        2. The Dems are adamantly opposed to any kind of ballot security. They oppose cleaning up the voter rolls, they oppose photo ID, etc.

          There is no good reason for that, other than they have a vote fraud operation that they want to protect.

          1. Yeah, they oppose it in the name of racism. Because colored folk aren’t allowed to get IDs. Why just the last time I was at the DMV, I saw the KKK rounding up any of them who even tried.

            You can put 1 and 1 together here and come up with a solid 2.

            1. Exactly what I would expect a racist libertarian to say!

              /Tony

            2. Yeah, it’s somehow racist or discriminatory against the poor to expect them to go to the trouble of obtaining an ID when it comes to voting, but they lNEVER mention that so many other everyday things require people to present a valid ID.

              If they were sincere, you would think they’d be arguing against IDs in general. For example: “That supermarket refuses to sell beer to some black people because they don’t have ID — those racist KKKapitalists!”

              But no. No prog ever says such a thing. Only when it comes to voting is this argument trotted out. It’s highly suspicious, to say the least.

              1. They should just put the person’s photo on their EBT/Access/Wic/Medicaid card that way it could double as a photo ID. But of course that would somehow be way too much of a burden.

                1. They have to show ID to get those cards in the first place, so moot point.

                2. That’s a great idea.

                  If Reason thinks this is the Top Ten list of Wiki and Clinton/DNC that is only proof that the #never Trump Kochs have passed the word. Can’t blame the writers for wanting to keep their job I guess.

                  I would think that #1 would be Clinton admitting that she has a public position and a separate private position on the issues. In other words she admits to being a phoney liar and can’t be trusted on her positions to the public.

                  Any ideas on other thing learned that should fit on a top 10 list ?

                  1. #2 That the DNC and other Democrat organizations are corrupt and aggressively cheat ? Hoa can you put it past them to vote fraud when they admit to doing it ?

                    Why aren’t heads rolling here ? I don’t mean a couple of scapegoats having to get new jobs in Democrat Land. Where id the FBI and DOJ ? This calls for a special prosecutor.

                    Reason claims that Podesta preferring Veno to BitCoin is the #1 item to come out of Wiki ?

                    They think were are stupid I guess.

    2. “Rigged” is such a loaded word.

      They prefer “massaged.”

      1. Too loaded with past sordid Dem baggage. The new Orwellian term is, “facilitated.”

  3. Donald Trump’s Rivals Completely Let Him Off the Hook on Violence Surrounding His Campaign

    GOP frontrunner says violence at his rallies is because of anger over trade deals, female reporter “made up” story about being manhandled by campaign manager.

    Anthony Fisher, when are you going to retract your false claims that Trump was responsible for violence at his rallies when we now know it was instigated by Democrat operatives working for the Clinton campaign and DNC?

    1. Those videos still need to be vetted, and are probably Russian forgeries, anyway.

      1. Fisher is a journalist and, as Twittermeister Iowahawk points out, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

        1. I’m stealing that line, it’s too good not to.

        2. Oh my god, that’s priceless.

        3. Wonderful quote. it needs much wider dispersal. And yes, I will steal it to.

    2. Is sucker punching someone getting escorted out of a rally ok now because the person may have been a paid instigator? And you can say “Trump didn’t tell him to do that!” but he did offer to pay his legal fees. All of the instigators look bad, but that doesn’t mean Trump and his supporters have been saints.

      1. When confronted with a run-down of recent quotes where Trump literally encourages violence against protesters at his rallies, going so far as to “promise” to pay for the legal fees of any of his supporters who “knock the crap” out of dissenters, Trump replied:

        We have some protesters who are bad dudes, they have done bad things. They are swinging, they are really dangerous and they get in there and they start hitting people. And we had a couple big, strong, powerful guys doing damage to people, not only the loudness, the loudness I don’t mind. But doing serious damage. And if they’ve got to be taken out, to be honest, I mean, we have to run something.

        At this point, Tapper or one of Trump’s opponents on the stage could have jumped in and pointed out that there is not a single documented case of violence attributed to a protester at a Trump event. Instead, Tapper allowed Trump to trail off into a spiel about how police are “taking tremendous abuse in this country and they do a phenomenal job.”

        Until Monday, which was two days ago. That’s what I’m talking about, Tulpa 2.0.

        1. Tapper or one of Trump’s opponents on the stage could have jumped in and pointed out that there is not a single documented case of violence attributed to a protester at a Trump event.

          Which is just a flat-out lie. I remember seeing pictures of Trump supporters who had been beaten, and of cars that had been vandalized, at Trump events.

          1. Did those happen before March 11th?

            1. Did those happen before March 11th?

              Doesn’t matter. You’ve got a guy on film openly bragging about using mentally ill homeless people to incite violence at Trump rallies. Just because you don’t like Trump, don’t use that as an excuse to wave away what would be considered felonious behavior.

              1. I’m not excusing that. I’m talking about fishers article that was published march 11th.

        2. How would Trump not still hold responsibility for violence by his people, particularly given his rhetoric and actions in their support (such as offering to pay legal fees for the suckerpuncher)? The other side doing it doesn’t mean he’s off the hook.

          Also, the general strategy described by Foval wasn’t attacking Trump supporters, it was protesting at his rallies so that his supporters would attack them or otherwise react negatively:

          “I mean, honestly, it’s not hard to get some of these a——- to pop off,” Foval purportedly says at one point in the video. “It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into their rally, in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt. Or ‘Trump is a Nazi,’ you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them out to punch you.”

          Violence in reaction to that isn’t ok just because it’s what they were hoping for.

          One area where the Dem operatives can be fairly blamed for violence is the Chicago protest/riot (I think another woman in the video admits they planned that). But that hadn’t happened when that article was written – it actually happened later that day, so if anything Fisher should have modified the article at that time. There was already evidence of violence by protesters before this video came out – it just hadn’t happened before the 11th (as far as I know) and there wasn’t proof that it was formally planned instigation by the other side.

          1. *11th of March

          2. That would be a good defense if the Reason Foundation was deciding whether to terminate Mr. Fisher. But that’s not good enough to make me continue donating to Reason.

            1. Uh … ok? I don’t donate to Reason either. The article probably should have been edited after the Chicago protest, even before the video, but I just don’t see how the video exonerates Trump or his supporters.

              1. Because running an operation to deliberately provoke Trump’s supporters and incite violence and fake being attacked if the provocations were unsuccessful means nothing? Really?

              2. *pokes Cali in the chest with finger*

                Then explaining it to you is pointless.

                *pokes Cali in the neck with finger*

                You halfwit.

                *pokes Cali in the eye with finger*

                1. The commentators here regularly condemn people who assault Nazis, the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. for saying offensive things (or holding offensive signs) during marches. And in many cases, those groups do desire such a reaction to gain sympathy and to sue – WBC especially were masters at milking that for their benefit. And yet suddenly when Trump supporters do it to left-wing protesters, it’s ok and akin to reacting to someone physically poking your eye?

                  1. It’s different because Trump supporters react based on logic and rationally choose to suckerpunch, rather than having a feelz-based reaction like the proggies who assault Westboro Baptists.

                  2. They weren’t just holding signs and wearing t-shirts, they were actually initiating violence of their own and doing their best to get in Trump supporter’s faces and provoke a reaction. Assault happens before physical contact is actually made. Assault and battery includes physical contact. I don’t get why some here are so eager to excuse this behavior.

                    1. There wasn’t one instance where “this” happened Wtf. There were plenty of instances of people just holding signs or saying things at trump rallies and sometimes they were assaulted for that. I’m not excusing their behavior I’m saying it doesn’t justify the cases where trump supporters assaulted them just for protesting. I’m not talking about the times the protesters initiated the violence.

                    2. You don’t seem to understand the difference between assault and battery.

          3. How would Trump not still hold responsibility for violence by his people, particularly given his rhetoric and actions in their support (such as offering to pay legal fees for the suckerpuncher)? The other side doing it doesn’t mean he’s off the hook.

            The other side deliberately provoking his supporters and actively inciting violence actually does mitigate Trump’s talk. Especially since we now know the “suckerpuncher” may have been deliberately provoked.

            1. How? Why is Trump’s rhetoric suddenly ok? Reread how Foval describes “provoking” Trump supporters. Wearing Planned Parenthood t-shirts, “Trump is a Nazi” signs, etc. Are you seriously saying it’s ok to assault people who do or say that just because the organization that hired them (unbeknowst to the ones doing the assaulting – and possibly even the protesters themselves. I doubt Foval described the job to them that way when hiring them) wanted to make Trump supporters look bad?

              1. Foval’s operatives were doing a lot more than just wearing t-shirts and carrying signs. They were deliberately provoking assaults and also instigating violence of their own. They don’t get to complain about the violence at Trump rallies when they were the ones deliberately causing it.

                1. I don’t give a shit about foval. I’m not letting trump supporters off the hook for assaulting people for provoking them with speech. It’s not a one or the other situation. You can recognize that the dem operatives initiated violence in some instances while trump supporters did so in others.

                  1. Your error is to equate 1) some people who as individuals initiated violence, which no doubt has happened on both sides, with 2) violence planned and instigated by a campaign. Only Hillary has done #2.

                    1. It’s not an error. He’s purposely ignoring it.

                  2. ‘I don’t give a shit about foval’

                    But you should.

      2. One now can’t even be sure if both the one doing the punching and the one being punched have been paid to do so.

        Suppose that someone said to a pair of true believers “One of you pretends to be a Trump supporter and throws the punch gets $500, and gets $1,000 more and legal support if the police harm you. The one who takes the punch gets $1,500.” Sounds like a pretty easy proposition for a lot of people, given that it ought to be fairly easy to find martyrs for the cause of Hillary’s coronation who also like getting paid. Might even find enough recruits from those who don’t even care about the politics as long as they get paid.

        1. I don’t see why Foval wouldn’t have admitted that, given everything else he admitted to. When he describes what they do, he’s explicit about it being an attempt to provoke Trump supporters, there’s nothing about him hiring other people to pretend to be Trump supporters.

          1. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. Nothing’s off the table when you’ve already resorted to tactics like that.

            The Democrats’ playbook for 2016: Find friendly media and load their blunderbusses for them. If that doesn’t work, find mercenary media who can be bribed to fire blunderbusses you loaded for them. If that’s too expensive or media in an area may be hostile to you directly manipulating them, hire agitators to start shit where the media’s already at so it can look like they’re covering something really happening “organically” and have plausible deniability if they don’t mind the taint of being tipped off where to point the cameras.

            Anyone who exposes any of that eats chaff fired out to deflect attention to something else wherever possible and blame (to the Russians this time, apparently). Anything that can’t be proven directly is just right-wing conspiracy theories. At this point, we’ve seen tip of the iceberg our national Titanic is headed for and denying that there’s anything else under the water would be folly.

            1. It could be. And maybe it was in some instances, but it seems highly unlikely all were plants. And the video doesn’t say that. That’s all I’m saying

              1. A smart ‘hood doesn’t give away their blackest of secrets in an afternoon, they’ll just give you a taste to know they’re serious business.

                It seems like you’re giving the guy a lot of benefit of the doubt considering he’s now on the record as being employed specifically to incite riots by a major political party.

                Last time I checked, that’s actually illegal. I guess it’s ok though, since his boss is ultimately Hillary Clinton. Working for her is basically a golden ticket. Good work, if you don’t have a conscience.

                I think you’ve got a shot with her Cali, you seem pretty amoral. ‘That’s all I’m saying’ seems to be cover for saying ‘nothing to see here people’. That, or the specific point you’re trying to make is so tiny that it might as well be a map of the universe with a pinprick that says ‘you are here’.

      3. Is sucker punching someone getting escorted out of a rally ok now

        Wearing a Klan hood around a black man typically isn’t a smart thing to do, no matter how left wing you consider yourself to be.

        1. I was talking about the old white guy who punched a black protester.

          Also, again libertarians regularly defend (rightly) the free speech rights of the kkk and condemn people who attack them, but now it’s no big deal if a leftist gets assaulted by a trump supporter for (stupidly, I’m not defending the idiots actions) wearing a kkk outfit to mock trump?

          1. Non sequitur.

            I can finally say it myself and mean it: fuck off, Tulpa.

            1. I asked if it was ok and he responded with that comment. What is the implication in that context? Also virtually no one, least of all RRR, posts those comments in the threads where leftists assault kkk/nazi types and anyone who did so would be accused of defending the violence. I’m not tulpa for that, or for daring to disagree with other commenters here.

              1. Moonwalking through to the notion that libertarians are OK with violence towards one group while mouthing platitudes about free speech in favor of another detestable group is what makes you Tulpa.

                It’s not like we’re a stupid bunch who can’t see concern trolling for what it is.

                1. I’m not making any blanket statement about libertarians or commenters on reason. I’m saying that some people here are reacting differently than they would if we were talking about leftists punching people for saying things that piss them off. RRR would never post that comment in a thread about leftists assaulting kkk members in reaction to someone asking if it was ok. How exactly am I supposed to interpret the other people who are arguing that trump supporters didn’t initiate any violence? They clearly did at times and that doesn’t change just because the person pissing them off may have been paid to piss them off.

                  1. RRR would never post that comment in a thread

                    Putting words in someone else’s mouth and inferring motivations of someone you don’t know, all the while pretending as if you’re partially on the side of libertarians is also Tulpa. It’s Tulpas all the way down.

                    I can’t find the article now (or maybe it was commentary on a links post), but there was an article here sometime back where leftists did attack Klansmen at one of their public rallies and there was plenty of condemnation to go around in the comments.

                    1. You don’t seem to have room to throw stone about assuming what people believe. I’m basing it on his past post history that’s how hardly a crazy thing to do on the internet.

                      I’m not saying people thought the klansmen we’re good guys I’m saying that there was not a “well what did they expect they had it coming” attitude in the comments as rrr expresssed. The leftist attackers were rightly condemned unequivocally as the trump supporters who escalated things to violence should be. And in the cases where trump protesters initiated the violence the same thing applies.

                  2. How is it so clear ?

                    Because you want it to be so ?

                    That’s c;ear to me.

                    1. There are examples on video

          2. There is a very real difference between a political party hiring people with explicit instructions to incite a riot wherever they’re able to do so and isolated cases of fights between ideologically opposed individuals.

            If you don’t see that, you’re either being myopic out of Trump Derangement Syndrome (common around here) or you’re being disingenuous. I don’t know which one it is, but I’ll do you a solid and assume you’re just dealing with your own case of TDS and would otherwise spot the clear difference.

            That being said, personally I suspect Zero Sum is 100% right about you.

            1. I think you’re a bit closer to the truth of the matter, as I am being at least a little bit tongue-in-cheeky. Still, being a twisty idjit on at least one topic and squirming like a Tulpa when called on it might be a symptom of a Tulpfection and it’s at least a good idea to have that checked out before it becomes a full-blown case.

            2. Also, forgot to mention… not only did they hire them to incite riots, but they claim to have trained agitators to do so with better effect. That’s even more fucked up.

              1. Regardless of any other fact, the idea that a political party would deploy people for the express purpose of disrupting opposition rally’s and create riots and fist fights is detestable.

                If Trump’s people are so deplorable that they’ll stoop to violence, they don’t need a bunch of trained and scripted peon’s to go out and pick fights with them; they will seek it out without provocation. However, it might not be in front of rolling camera’s.

                Thus, the tail wags the dog.

      4. There he goes again.

    3. Foval admitted to hiring John McGraw?

      1. Why do you say “you ARE’ instead of ‘I AM’?

        Is it because thats what libertarians shout at you after reading a few of your posts?

        1. I’m not positive, but I think I mentioned that he sounded like a progressive at one point but it’s hard to keep track in all honesty. People change handles at the drop of a hat around here, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said that to more than one person. Especially if I’ve only ever read one post from that person before.

        2. This sort of tribalism is at the heart of progthink. You have been outed.

  4. Shadow governement? phft The Stonecutters would have succeeded in their place.

    1. Well they do control the British crown, and they keep the metric system down.

    2. I wouldn’t mind being ruled over by the Stonecutters; at least they understand the value of celebrating important milestones via BBQ!

  5. I like how CNN’s portrayal of her emails merely proved that Hillary Clinton “runs a tight ship”.

    1. It proves that she’s the most qualified ever!

      1. And what a policy wonk ?

        Best policy wonk eva.

    2. And on her ship, all regular people are chained up below deck.

  6. So basically, they’ve lied about everything.

  7. I got bored just reading the top 10. No wonder nobody cares about Wikileaks.

    1. The Top Ten you read here are not the true Top Ten by any objective opinion.

      1. No kidding. This list doesn’t contain many of the more damning things I’ve seen in the few emails I’ve read.

  8. One of my favorites (no link to the email, only a Daily Mail story)

    Longtime Clinton fundraiser Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild was reportedly furious when she read an unflattering email about her written by Neera Tanden, the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, the think tank started by Podesta before he joined on at the campaign.

    ‘I have to [see] that crazy Lade De Rothschild person,’ Tanden had written in an email to Podesta, her old boss in April 2015.

    The next month, Rothschild hosted a $100,000 her ticket dinner to raise money for the former secretary of state.

    Insult your giant donors!

    1. In Neera Tanden’s defense, Lady De Rothschild is as nutty as a bag of peanuts sold by a vendor near the elephant exhibit at the zoo.

      1. She’s a Hillary supporter, of course she is nutty.

    2. I still can’t figure out how the Democratic party lost working class people. I’m open to theories.

      1. They didn’t push mandatory GMO labeling and renewable energy hard enough.

      2. Taxes. Also unions are not what they used to be. The democrat base now consists of the government dependent, assorted special snowflakes, government employees, and wealthy city dwellers on both coasts, many of them in academia.

        1. And yet what is left of the “rank and file” will vote Democrat till death, and from what I hear it may not stop at that…

          1. It’s always a goal of the left to end the middle class. You can’t have utopia with all those wreckers, hoarders, an kulaks.

          2. For the Democrats, “Get Out the Vote” means “Bring out your dead”.

            1. ‘The monster is coming, it must be elected president, bring out your dead’

        2. And the people who want to be govt dependent but haven’t gotten there yet (free college, free healthcare, guaranteed living wage, free child care), and the people who want nongood speech criminalized.

        3. And most of the big city blacks, who have done so well under Democrat patronage.

    3. ha! that crazy capitalist.

      after all these emails have come out, it appears that Hillary’s real economic positions are not so bad.

      1. I know. There’s even more to that than what’s listed here.

        From what I’ve found so far:

        1) Actually likes free trade (not surprising, given her husband’s career), but just realizes the TPP was polling poorly.
        2) Is truly skeptical of minimum wage, but realizes that was polling well.
        3) Kind of wanted the Republicans to dismantle Obamacare so she wouldn’t be tasked with polishing that turd herself.
        4) Mainly has adopted the liberal environmental platform to put Republican’s in an anti-science box. She is secretly 100% pragmatic and knows not to talk to much about spending on green issues.

        1. This makes me feel a little better. Like Trump making his clothes in India, it shows they are mostly playing crazy on TV and not true believers.

          1. Agreed. Hillary’s “secret” positions, though some are flawed, are vastly better than anything she or Trump are openly peddling. I briefly reconsidered my decision not to vote for her. Then I remembered that she is a power-hungry, lying crook, who climbed to power by destroying the lives of the victims of her husband’s multiple sexual assaults and, once in power, used it to punish her political enemies and enrich herself by selling state favors to anyone willing to pay, including the Saudis and the Russians.

            1. Totally.

              They actually reveal that she has no principles too.

              But at least I can console myself after she wins the presidency that she’s not a complete idiot in private.

            2. Well said.

              What else floats? “Very small rocks?”

    4. This is America. I don’t care what those grovelling, forelock-tugging British do, but we don’t use titles. She’s Mrs Rothschild in the states, not Lady Rothschild.

  9. Can’t imagine why GOP rank and file wanted Trump over this idiot. #1, at least Trump will mention these, #2, what does Rubio know the GOP is hiding?

    Rubio warns GOP to stay silent on WikiLeaks hack
    “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us,” he said.

    1. What a moron. “Tomorrow it could be us” only matters if the Dems won’t use leaked RNC emails against Repubs. You have to be a truly world class idiot to believe that.

      1. Tomorrow it will be them. It should be a declarative statement. There is no avoiding it. They should probably start to operate as if that was a fact, rather than a scare quote, since that would give them the moral freedom to capitalize on Democrat malfeasance.

        Obviously, this will not be something they do.

        If there’s one thing the government definitely has no idea how to do, it’s cybersecurity. Perhaps a few departments have idea’s on what that would look like, notably groups like the CIA and NSA, but the government itself? No. Not a single clue among them.

    2. Well at least he openly admitted it. And there’s your problem. None of them will willingly expose the corruption of the others for fear they’ll be next. It’s pretty much them against us now.

      1. Bingo. Rubio probably owes a few favors given how quickly he rose.

        1. Can’t claim credit but this morning someone posted that he might have some emails coming out in connection with this and is laying preactive ground work.

    3. Holy fuck.

      First of all, secure your shit you morons.

      Second, don’t send incriminating shit over email.

      Third, what are you doing that you don’t want revealed?

    4. “Tomorrow it could be us”

      Only if you’re doing some shady, illegal bullshit too. Is there something Marco would like to tell us?

      1. I suspect the junior Senator from Florida may have sent an email or two to the former Secretary of State that he would really, really like to “unsend” right now.

  10. You missed the real angle on Hillary’s interaction with the FBI:

    Her people offered to trade cushy overseas assignments if the FBI would reclassify email

    1. A clear offer of quid pro quo.

      1. True fact:

        The offense of bribery is committed when the offer is made. It doesn’t have to be accepted.

        1. Obama’s DOJ will get right on that, I’m sure.

        2. I guess we’ll need to wait until after she’s elected to find out if those same officials end up working overseas then, eh?

    2. It doesn’t matter, Donald Trump once said something sexist.

    1. I wonder, does this count as evidence of voter fraud? Because I keep hearing it’s not a problem because there’s no real evidence, never mind that the evidence isn’t actually looked for.

      1. Evidence or not, it damages the already low confidence people have in the electoral system. That’s a dangerous path to go down. If the Democrats had any, any ethics at all, they would lead the charge on prosecuting Foval and Creamer just to reassure people that the system is not completely rigged.

        1. If the Democrats had any, any ethics at all

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…gasps for breath…..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        2. Yeah, if it’s a close election that Trump loses, combined with this shit there could be some serious problems.

            1. I’m hearing this from Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats alike. That’s starting to sound an awful lot like a majority of ‘burn-it-down-itarians’.

              Then again, in the 1960’s the same fuck’s that are ruining us today were going on and on about how the system was going to change when they came of age. So in my view, the odd’s of this whole ‘burn it down’ thing happening are pretty close to zero.

      2. You missed the new talking point:

        There have been billions of votes cast, but only a few proven cases of voter fraud.

        So nothing to see here, moveon.

        1. Only a few proven cases because you aren’t going to find what you’re not looking for. I suspect a serious investigation would turn up quite a bit more.

          1. Only a few proven cases because you aren’t going to find what you’re not looking for.

            Yeah, kind of makes you wonder how deep the investigators actually looked before determining, “Nothing to see here.”

          2. What is there to even seriously investigate, one wonders? What type of evidence would constitute clear and wide spread voter fraud?

            In my view, it’s probably less obvious ‘voter fraud’ scheme’s like giving people a ride and a meal by groups like Acorn. That’s also illegal if I recall correctly, yet no one really gives much of a shit about it even when it’s a retirement home with a high number of people who probably don’t have their own power of attorney.

            It’s like it’s the ‘ok’ kind of voter fraud just because the group itself isn’t directly tied to either party even though something to the tune of 100% of the votes cast through such a scheme would be considered vote buying. These same people would probably shit their pants if Trump paid people $1000 per vote, even though there’s no actual contract requiring them to vote for Trump. Merely a ‘suggestion’, so to speak.

            Rule of law indeed.

    2. Even better:

      Creamer, the operator who organized the violence, visited the White House over 300 times, met with Obama over 40 times. Most recently, in June of this year, while he was organizing violence.

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/10…..342-times/

      1. Clearly a Russian misinformation campaign, Look over there! RUSSIA!!

    3. You know, if the media wasn’t so unabashedly acting as operatives for the Democratic Party, these fuckers would be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on rails.

    4. Posted it earlier today, the guy openly admitted to at least attempts to commit voter fraud, and indicated they are going to keep on doing it. So long as they don’t get prosecuted, it doesn’t matter, according to that douche bag. He should be investigated, but we know who owns the FBI now.

    5. Creamer is already a convicted felon [bank fraud], and his wife [Rep. Jan Shakowsky, D IL] is a progressive hack from the get go. A Libertarian’s nightmare if there ever was one.

      1. Convicted of bank fraud and Democrat Rep, match made in heaven. Or maybe hell.

    6. Breaking News….beep….beep….beep…beep

      Preo-Hillary names new director Bob Creamer…..

      Pro Organizer Scott Foval hired today by Americans United for Change….

      And the world turns.

  11. Memo: Google’s Eric Schmidt Working Directly With the Clinton Campaign
    Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is working directly with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to a memo contained within an email released by WikiLeaks.

    “Discreet conversations” of forming “working relationships” with companies such as Facebook and Apple were also facilitated as early as October 2014, the memo stated. This is at least six months prior to when Clinton announced her candidacy for president….

    1. And Gary Johnson is trying to get in a game rigged like this one.

  12. Brazile denies sharing advance questions to the Clinton campaign and told Politico that the leaked emails are part of Russian government efforts “aimed at interfering with our election, and that WikiLeaks is part of that effort.”

    So she’s claiming (some of) the emails are forgeries? Interesting, and very difficult for her to prove.

    1. A question for the tech savvy. Is there a solid way to authenticate the emails?

      1. I suspect that, if you have the actual original emails in electronic form, you could verify them, but I don’t know.

        If all you have is paper copies (like Hillary releases), its impossible to know if they have been made up or altered.

        But, Brazile makes the claim some are forgeries, she needs to back it up.

        1. I’m not saying the emails are fake, but how would you prove they were fake or real? It seems if you are accusing someone, you have the burden of proof. If someone created an email I didn’t send, how would I prove it was fake?

          1. You’re right Florida, if we’re going to be logically consistent.

            I would use the fact that other people involved with the leaked emails have unintentionally corroborated that at least some of them are real. This doesn’t mean they all are, or that they are true in their total contents, but the burden of proof in this case would be on the prosecution IMO. Everyone deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty, even (or especially) scum.

          2. Boring, mundane things = real

            Exciting revelations = probably fake

            Really, if the Russians had forged the emails to take Clinton down, one would think they’d drop some truly sensational that would result in real legal problems or turn voters off in there ? details of bribes, admissions of corruption, grand schemes to betray supporters (e.g., transferring large amounts of parkland to oil companies or logging companies), instructions to murder people, child porn, etc.

        2. After Journolist, there is a credibility problem with a lot of journalists.

      2. The only way to be sure* is if they were signed with a digital signature using a trusted key and signing algorithm of sufficient strength. It’s very unlikely internal DNC communications were digitally signed, though.

        A record of the emails being sent to/received by the servers in question, as well as the presence of copies of those emails in the senders’/recipients’ mailboxes, would be pretty compelling from a legal perspective, but those would take a subpoena to obtain and much of the evidence is likely being destroyed as we speak.

          1. Note: Just about anything can be spoofed/undermined with sufficient determination and media cover. Even a digital signature is only as good as the people evaluating it.

        1. Asterisk was meant to be linked with an Aliens reference but I forgot to include it.

        2. The only way to be sure* is if they were signed with a digital signature using a trusted key and signing algorithm of sufficient strength. It’s very unlikely internal DNC communications were digitally signed, though.

          Some of the emails have DKIM headers. From what I know of DKIM (not a lot), you should, with some exceptions, be able to cryptographically verify those messages. Note that DKIM only attests to the authenticity of the domain/provider, not the individual user; but that really shouldn’t matter, unless you think Microsoft, Google, AOL, et all. have been hacked or are “in on it”.

          1. Caveat I just remembered: some (many? most?) older emails may be signed with keys that have since been rotated. DKIM is designed for verification at the time of receipt, not long-term, so keys don’t need to be kept the same for a long time.

            1. If you rotate the key, you’re supposed to change the selector. I can pull keys from DNS for both the DKIM headers in the email you linked, for example, although I didn’t validate the signature to see if the keys are actually the same.

        3. ^This. Thanks, kbolino.

      3. I think you could match headers against server logs to prove that a given email actually passed through a given server at a given time, but that only tells you that the emails were really sent. It doesn’t prove who sent them, and I’d be shocked if the Donna Brazile’s of the world wouldn’t maintain that Russian hackers hacked the originating servers and stole login creds in order to impersonate the senders.

  13. Single biggest thing we learned:
    Powerful lying hag can commit felonies and not get prosecuted.

    1. And still get elected President. Can’t wait to see what she does when she holds that power.

      1. From a safe distance, or at least as safe as possible…

        1. A high orbit.

  14. Fake scandal obviously /s

  15. 8. The Clinton campaign knew all along that she was inventing history to justify her support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

    Dan Schwerin, director of speechwriting, wrote in a 2015 email exchange with a number of senior Clinton campaign staffers:

    I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.

    As Scott Shackford also noted, these emails “make it clear that the Clinton campaign understood that she was wrong about the history of DOMA, but she also was not likely to admit it or their role in supporting the legislation.” Shackford explains:

    Both Clintons have tried to argue that their support of DOMA as an attempt to prevent a possible Republican effort to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. They were trying to shift blame for their own support for DOMA to Republicans. The problem was that there was no Republican push for a constitutional amendment during Clinton’s administration.

    Trying to deflect and obscure your support of DOMA doesn’t sound like she’s admitting she was wrong. It sounds like she is trying to have her gay cake and eat it too.

  16. So now will the criticisms cease that Reason isn’t saying enough terrible stuff about Hillary?

    Oh, probably not.

    1. Nope. There’s much more than this out there on Hillary and the DNC that Reason hasn’t reported on yet. The fact that this is Reason’ second or third article (I believe) on some truly devastating leaks that have been coming out for weeks doesn’t reflect well, especially considering the others were on side issues (Rand Paul, Hillary’s opposition to pot, which was known before the leaks), and not on the main show.

      1. Maybe, Reason isn’t really supposed to be an anti-Hillary propaganda machine?

        Maybe the various and sundry authors that comprise Reason’s editorial staff write articles on the things that interest them, even if they aren’t what you would consider the most important issues on the planet?

        1. Because revelations of voter fraud, corruption, inciting violence, etc. during a presidential election aren’t important? I can’t think of too many reasons why someone would consider these things unimportant.

          1. If it has nothing to do with free minds and free markets it has nothing to do with Reason.

            Nothing in those emails is against pot, assex or Messcans. So there.

          2. The Kochs are #never Trump.

            Doesn’t that explain it sufficiently ?

        2. Maybe, Reason isn’t really supposed to be an anti-Hillary propaganda machine?

          OK, but if that’s true, then they’re not really supposed to be an anti-Trump propaganda machine either.

          1. They know what drives clicks. Stop clicking on, and commenting in, Trump articles and you’ll see a reduction in Trump bashing articles.

            You get more of what you click on. This goes double for me, since I clearly know better?

        3. Reporting on these leaks is automatically “anti-Hillary propaganda”?

          What worries me is precisely that Reason writes on what interests them, and that they seem relatively uninterested in corruption and abuse of power, at least by some politicians.

          1. “Reporting on these leaks is automatically “anti-Hillary propaganda”?”

            No.

            But I see a lot of people complaining that Reason isn’t doing more to attack Hillary. Well FFS, Reason isn’t a part of the anti-Hillary collective. It’s not a part of any propaganda collective. That is why I like the place.

            “What worries me is precisely that Reason writes on what interests them, and that they seem relatively uninterested in corruption and abuse of power, at least by some politicians.”

            Well, maybe they don’t think they can cover those issues any better than others are doing.

            Or maybe they write clickbait stories in order to justify their jobs. Which is kinda bad, but it is the way that Internet journalism is nowadays.

            Or maybe they write stories that focuses on what is new and trending – government corruption is more or less a daily constant, but Trump’s daily verbal diarrhea is more or less what makes this particular campaign different than the others.

            Or maybe it is, as you suggest, that they *really don’t care* about government corruption.

            I would think that before we assume bad motives on the part of Reason writers, that we attempt to examine multiple possibilities.

            1. Well, maybe they don’t think they can cover those issues any better than others are doing.

              It would be hard to do worse than ignoring it as hard as you can, which seems to be what others are doing.

              Or maybe they write clickbait stories in order to justify their jobs.

              Sounds like “don’t much care about corruption”.

              Or maybe they write stories that focuses on what is new and trending

              Hard for me to imagine what’s newer than massive email dumps showing comprehensive corruption and abuse of power. Its the “trending” stuff that is so annoying – what’s the value to the reader/public of following the herd.

          2. Or maybe they know that no one with Hillary sympathies are reading Hit and Run in the first place, whereas there are a worryingly large number of people here voting for Donald Trump as opposed to merely voting against Hillary Clinton.

            1. Or maybe they know that no one with Hillary sympathies are reading Hit and Run in the first place, whereas there are a worryingly large number of people here voting for Donald Trump as opposed to merely voting against Hillary Clinton.

              Besides the “tail wagging the dog” aspect of that idea, they’re not doing a very good job of putting forth convincing arguments.

              But I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think what the commenters want or “need” rarely factors into their choice of writing topics. At least, not for most of the writers.

              1. The Kochs are #never Trump.

                The Kochs support Reason.

                It’s that simple.

            2. I think this is part of it as well.

              Perhaps some readers want some “comfort journalism” – comforting reassurance that Reason is on the “correct team” by publishing articles that say the “correct things”.

              1. Perhaps Reason management is so sick with fear of having Trump cooties that they won’t comment on a major US political party’s dabbling in election rigging Brownshirtery.

            3. Good point Sug, never thought of that. And I’ve been tempted by the Donald, almost wish I had a pussy so he could grab it. (it’s a joke peeps, I don’t wish for just one pussy)

        4. Fair enough, but as a reader I already know Trump is a scummy piece of shit, so story after story about that doesn’t really grab my interest, especially when they’re stories like, “Trump is a whiner!”

          I also know Clinton is a vile, corrupt, evil piece of shit, but am continually astonished that wide swathes of the voting public are in denial about that. So, I think it’s important for media outlets that aren’t schilling for her to put evidence proving that out to the public as much as possible. Especially when they’re about actual events or deeds, not just “Clinton is bitchy to people!”

          1. ^This. If the commentary on Trump were new, insightful, or interesting, I think there’d be less complaining. But it’s all petty and repetitive. I mean, you’re right: This morning, we got the article “Trump is a Whiner!” but still nothing on a systematic plan to incite violence at Trump rallies and commit massive voter fraud by people illegally coordinating with the DNC and Hillary (though to be fair here, election law is an anti-liberty clusterfuck) and meeting regularly with the President while doing so.

          2. I also know Clinton is a vile, corrupt, evil piece of shit, but am continually astonished that wide swathes of the voting public are in denial about that.

            Moreover, as Wikileaks and the mass media demonstrates you have to go back to 2005 to find that Trump made some inflammatory sexist comments which pretty much everyone knew or could’ve imagined him saying. Whereas subpeonas, federal investigations, and iterative lies and coverups only scratch the surface of what Clinton has done in the last 5 yrs.

      2. Mr Dean, don’t hold your breath waiting for those stories to appear.

        Reason writers are just hanging around, hoping to be noticed by the “big boys”

        They really have no real love of liberty or libertarian principles.

        Once they get picked up by the Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Huff Post, etc… They are more then happy to suck on the statist quo.

        Radley Balko seems to be the only one who maintained some resemblance of libertarian thought. Weigel, Welch, Sudermann, and the rest … not so much

    2. They’ve already said too many mean things about Saint Donald.

    3. We’ll tell them when it’s been enough! You’re not my real dad!

    4. I’m not sure if anyone is saying that Reason never reports bad stuff about Hillary. But in my opinion, the coverage has not even been close to balanced. There’s typically several hit pieces on Trump here every day. I bet it’s at least 10 to 1. And I laugh at anyone who says there’s just not that much to report on Hillary. It’s a fucking journalism gold mine.

      1. Why *should* it be balanced between the two?

        1. Because this is supposed to be a libertarian site, and not another shill for the Democrats?

          1. “Because this is supposed to be a libertarian site, and not another shill for the Democrats?”

            “Not criticizing Hillary as much as I think they should be criticized” =/= “shilling for Democrats”

            1. Sure, that’s exactly what I said. At least make a gesture toward honesty.

              1. Where is the shilling for Democrats? Oh right, by not criticizing Hillary as much as you think they ought to.

                1. Fuck off, you dishonest twat.

                  1. Classy! Did you learn that at Breitbart?

                    1. Oh, okay, go back to DU and Kos. Idiot.

                2. I’m sympathetic with anyone who looks at these candidates and settles on “Anyone but X” and thus casts a vote for Y.

                  I’m not sure I get how that turns supposed non-partisan Libertarians into fragile defenders for Y.

              2. No, you said “shill for the Democrats”. Paraphrasing you is not lying, you dumb fuck.

        2. Of course the coverage shouldn’t be balanced if one is a JournoList Block Yomomma butt boy like you.

        3. I think it shouldn’t be balanced, frankly.

          I think there should be many more stories about Hillary’s corruption in office and abuse of power, because those are core libertarian issues.

          I think there should be many fewer stories about Trump being rude, abrasive, and handsy with women, because those aren’t core libertarian issues.

          1. See, you just want Reason to be a shill for Trump by criticizing Hillary!!

          2. I think there ought to be more discussion about government corruption *more generally*, regardless of whether it comes from Hillary or not.

          3. This right here.

            Trump being crass is a private matter. There is no public policy based in crassness.

            Hillary’s corruption is, most definitely a public matter as it involves her use of the government as weapon, cover, and revenue source.

            It is incredibly sad that so many here are unable to grasp this.

          4. I don’t know, judging from some of the more colorful frequent commenters I’d say that being rude and abrasive are core libertarian concepts and that being handsy with women might be a tangential thing.

            ^_-

            I wonder how many people just read that as tan-genital now…

          5. What R C Dean said.

      2. Mr / Ms Hyperion, Reason Magazine is just following the herd,

        In 2009 the PEW Foundation published their “excellence in journalism” report on the 2008 presidential election. In it they disclosed that for every one positive story on McCain campaign, there were four negative stories.

        The reporting on the the Obama campaign was the mirror image; that is, for every one negative story on Obama, there were four positive stories generated.

        In that report they stated that MSNBC had NO NEGATIVE stories on Obama for the last two weeks of the election.

        If it matters to anyone – Faux News was about 1 positive story to 1.4 negative stories for BOTH McCain and Obama.

        I can’t wait to see the PEW report covering the 2016 election.

        1. “Mr / Ms Hyperion, Reason Magazine is just following the herd”

          Mr. Hyperion, Ms Hyperion is still a socialist at least 2 days a week.

          ‘Following the herd’ around here is referred to as ‘cocktail parties’.

        2. Anyone who uses the expression “Faux News” immediately discredits anything they are saying and outs themselves as illiterate.

          1. Mr Derp

            Please read my entire post – in context, irony is not dead ;~)

    5. Don’t be silly. You must have heard people around here constantly whining about SJWs that if you give them an inch they’ll want a mile. A good portion of the commentariat is the same way.

    6. Hi Tulpa.

  17. We also learned that the Clinton campaign employs thugs to instigate violence and shut down Trump’s speeches.

    “Operatives working for the Democratic National Committees sent agitators to Donald Trump rallies in an attempt to cause violence ? an effort that was supported by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    Scott Foval, National Field Director for a non-profit organization named Americans United for Change, told an undercover reporter, “The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the shit.

    What is this “shit” the Foval Group executes? Foval points to Shirley Teeter, a 69-year-old woman who dominated the airwaves after she said she was assaulted at a North Carolina Trump rally.

    “She was one of our activists,” Foval said to the undercover reporter”

    . . .

    Two of Creamer’s underlings in the video, Zulema Rodriguez and Aaron Black take credit for organizing the March Chicago protest which made Trump cancel his rally and left police officers injured.

    Rodriguez told an undercover reporter, “So, [Black] and I did the Chicago Trump event where we shut down like all the yeah.” Rodriguez also said, “I just had a call with the campaign and the DNC, every day at one o’clock.”

    . . .

  18. “When Foval spoke about the events he organizes he said, “There’s a script of engagement. Sometimes the crazies bite and sometimes the crazies don’t bite.”

    “When they’re outside the rally, the media will cover it no matter where it happens. The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic,” Foval continued.

    “Hidden Camera Video Shows Democrats Sent Agitators To Trump Rallies”
    The Daily Caller

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10…..p-rallies/

    1. Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times

      A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump’s rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show….

      1. Not news worthy. Did you hear that Trump once said something that might be construed as misogyny?

      2. Yeah, pair those two statements together:

        “Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried ? and succeeded ? to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama 47 times, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.

        . . .

        Scott Foval, the national field director for Americans United for Change, explained how the scheme works.
        “The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the shit,”
        Foval told an undercover journalist.

        One example of the “shit” Foval executes was an instance in which a 69-year-old woman garnered headlines after claiming to be assaulted at a Trump rally.

        “She was one of our activists,” Foval said.

        Creamer’s job was to “manage” the work carried out by Foval.

        http://dailycaller.com/2016/10…..342-times/

        Watergate was over a dirty tricks campaign.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

        1. Oh fuck, this shit makes Watergate look like choir practice.

          1. Oh, I’m sure James Comey has already offered these guys full immunity in exchange for . . . a promise to destroy any incriminating evidence they might have.

            And Obama can always pardon them.

            And Hillary can pardon them if she becomes President, too!

            Nah, this isn’t Watergate. This hardly even happened at all. And who’s going to report on it anyway? It doesn’t even make the top 10 list at Hit & Run!

  19. Nixon at least had the dignity to resign.

    1. Only because the Republicans at that time were willing to hold one of their own accountable.

      1. ^^This needs to be remembered.

  20. So can we get obama to testify?
    How are there no charges on any of it?

    1. Charges?! Who’s going to bring charges? The FBI?! Obama’s DOJ?!

      1. I have it on good authority that that Jim Comey fellow is a straight-shooter. A man of integrity!

    2. So can we get obama to testify?

      One of the people beaten at a Trump rally should file a civil suit against Creamer’s operation and the DNC, and subpoena Obama to testify. Under oath and on camera.

      1. I have heard that cement shoes can be quite uncomfortable.

      2. Too bad the person filing would commit suicide by shooting himself in back five times.

  21. “The Observer’s Michael Sainato also noted, “Obama’s administration has intervened to delay several FOIA requests until after Election Day to shield Clinton from further scrutiny.”

    Most transparent administration ever.

  22. The Clinton campaign’s willingness to instigate violence at Trump speeches had a profound impact on the way his campaign was portrayed in the media, too.

    Exhibit One is Mr. Fisher’s post from March:

    “The last contender given an opportunity to call out Trump’s rhetoric as an inciting factor in the recent violence . . .

    [Tapper] let Trump tap-dance his way out of any responsibility for inciting violence . . .

    . . .

    The Trump movement goes far beyond just nasty rhetoric, but is instead now manifesting itself violently.

    . . .

    If last night is any indication of how Trump’s rivals and the media plan on holding Trump accountable for how his words influence the actions of his supporters, it’s a fair bet to say that “a little bit more” violence is what we’ll see.”

    “Donald Trump’s Rivals Completely Let Him Off the Hook on Violence Surrounding His Campaign”

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..e-campaign

    Much of the violence the media was condemning was orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. There’s no way Fisher could have known that in March. We learned about it, in recent days, in part, because of Wikileaks, and it should have made the top ten list.

    1. There’s no way Fisher could have known that in March.

      It was perfectly obvious that this was a Dem operation from day one.

      We didn’t get proof until recently, but I think everyone with two brain cells to rub together knew it anyway.

      1. “One example of the “shit” Foval executes was an instance in which a 69-year-old woman garnered headlines after claiming to be assaulted at a Trump rally.

        “She was one of our activists,” Foval said.

        This lady, at the very least, was highly suspect.

        The guy she accused of hitting her was practically blind. There’s a video of him getting knocked over by her on YouTube, and the witnesses all said that she knocked him over.

        I’m also highly suspicions about the whole Michelle Fields situation. What she did could be interpreted as the same thing–claiming someone assaulted her to make the Trump campaign appear violent.

        Now Michelle Fields is working for The Huffington Post and publicly giving Hillary advice on how to beat Trump.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlxbAV_kL2o

        Someone should ask Michelle Fields if she’s ever taken money from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

        1. “Someone should ask Michelle Fields if she’s ever taken money from the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

          Under oath or undercover.

          1. We can ask her straight up.

            She might relish being the center of attention again for a while.

    2. I have heard a rumor that a trump campaign office was firebombed, but I am sure it is only a rumor. If it were true there would be lots of news coverage. I am sure Reason would write lengthy essays on the dangers of political party sponsored violence and the kinds of people that have engaged in it historically. I mean, it wouldn’t just make the top ten, it would be the top ten.

      1. Two now. One firebombed, one had bricks thrown through the windows.

  23. Shouldn’t one thing on the list should be that the DNC had a strategy in place to maximize the likelihood that Trump was HRC’s opponent (per the “pied-piper candidates” Podesta DNC memo)?

    After all, isn’t this a credible reason that we are now faced with the current shitshow?

    1. “Our hope is that the goal of a potential [Hillary Rodham Clinton] campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate,” declared the memo, entitled “Our Goals & Strategy.” The section subtitled “Operationalizing the Strategy” focused on what was called “Pied Piper Candidates,” specifically mentioning Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson. These figures were seen as attractive to the GOP’s ideological base, but were seen as easy to defeat in a general election.

      “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously,” emphasized the strategy document.

      This memo, it bears repeating, was created on April 7, 2015 ? two months prior to Donald Trump announcing his campaign, and not long after a conversation with Bill Clinton in which he offered passive encouragement to enter the race.

      1. Looks like some genius politics to me if they had a hand in it. It couldn’t have been done without the majority of Republican voters actually finding Trump to be presidential material.

        1. Hmmm, and the majority of Democrat voters actually found Clinton to be presidential material. Just think about that.

          1. Uh, if scientists tool a skin sample from her it would be classified as presidential material.

            1. This literally made me laugh out loud. Good job, Tony.

            2. If scientists took a stool sample, they’d say she’s full of shit.

        2. It couldn’t have been done without a mass defection of democrat voters storming the open primaries of the Republican party, you mean. But it’s understandable that you would want to whitewash the entire thing considering that a lot of Democrats voted for a Democrat within the Republican primaries.

          Democrats are so popular, there’s not even a Republican in the election this time around. So now it’s just between Evil Democrats and Racist Democrats. Or are we still pretending that Bush isn’t voting for Clinton? I get confused on who is what color these days.

  24. I feel like number 10 should be at the top.

  25. Top 10 Things We Learned From Hillary Clinton Campaign’s Emails – As Told by the Media

    1.Trump is a sexist
    2.Trump is a misogynist (something to do with massaging vaginas)
    3.Trump is homphobic
    4.Trump is Islamophobic
    5.Trump is a racist
    6.Trump is a big meanie
    7.Trump is a racist
    8.Trump is a rapist
    9.Trump is a racist
    10.Trump is in bed with the Kremlin (grabbed Putin’s pussy)

    1. Poor Trump. =( Prolly can’t even grab pussy anymore without being hounded.

      1. What do you know about grabbing pussy?

    2. I love the new Putin calendar. He’s a cat lover.

  26. I support the 15 dollar minimum wage because I hate poor people and minorities.

    1. I oppose increasing our income tax rates because I care more about myself than I do about other people.

      1. And yet, Bill Clinton increased taxes on the middle class.

  27. That is it? Thats the ten things you learned?

    What everyone else got is solid confirmation that the democrats and specifically Hillary Clinton are completely unprincipled and care only about power. That the democrat party is sociopathic.

    1. Eh, it’s a start. Don’t say too much, it will be considered yokeltarian whining.

      1. Well, I am a yokeltarian and I whine a lot.

        1. Lol, you are a Reasonoid.

          1. They are good people, mostly.

        2. Answer: Who is Dave Weigel?

    2. That they purposely instigate violence at their opponent’s speeches in order to shut them down.

      I wonder if Hillary will promise not to pay thugs to instigate violence at her opponents’ speeches once she becomes President?

      Because I don’t think I want a President that does shit like that.

      1. Well, once she’s President she will likely do a lot worse than that.

  28. If the e-mails aren’t real, why would Clinton have answered the question about her public and private policies during the debate with her Abraham Lincoln bit? She was very clearly admitting they were real there.

  29. State Department officials called themselves “the Shadow Government”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they really did view as a real shadow government.

    1. Doesn’t the UK have an actual thing called the “shadow cabinet?”

      1. Yes, it’s the opposition’s cabinet.

  30. We also learned it’s 1995 again.

  31. RE: 15$ Minimum wage, this is a bone for the Democratic rubes. It will never happen. People vote for who tells them what they want.

  32. Ironically the Clinton campaign is now the most transparent in the history of presidential elections.

    1. If you think that’s even a fraction of it, you are a fool.

      1. My claim stands. Nobody’s forcing Trump to release all the emails he’s ever sent. Nobody’s ever asked any presidential candidate to do that.

        1. Tony the commie – Fuck you and your claim.

          I stand by the facts that Hillary Clinton is a bigger war monger than Dick Cheney, she has been for every war since she begged Bill to bomb Serbia. She also supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

          So Tony – fuck your claim. The facts are clear.

          Hillary Clinton is a bigger war monger than Dick Cheney, she has been for every war since she begged Bill to bomb Serbia. She also supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.
          In short, Hillary Clinton is a racist warmonger and a sworn enemy of individual liberty.

        2. Tony, Tony, Tony….When was Trump a public servant? He’s a private citizen with private emails Hillary was/is a public citizen using private servers for public/private emails. How is it so hard to see the major differences?

    2. Your opponents exposing your transgressions is not exactly a sign of transparency. But I’m sure you already know that.

      Still, I congratulate you continuing the Orwellian tradition of redefining words when the current definition becomes inconvenient.

      If you guys can successfully redefine transparency as “our actions get exposed eventually by other people trying long and hard to cut through all our secretiveness and bullshit” rather than “were honest with people about our actions and intentions”, well more power to you.

      Just don’t be surprised when everyone else hates you for it.

  33. It still does not deny the facts that Hillary Clinton is a bigger warmonger than Dick Cheney and supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.
    A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a racist warmonger and sworn enemy of individual liberty.

  34. RE: Top 10 Things We Learned From Hillary Clinton Campaign’s Emails
    Between the WikiLeaks revelations, FOIA requests, and FBI investigation, there are important details among the noise.

    There is a bright side to all this.
    If Heil Hitlary doesn’t get elected, at least she’ll be able to get a job scrubbing computers.

    1. Like, with a cloth ?

  35. Somewhat OT:

    Did anyone else notice that when Wikileaks released the “Collateral Damage” video, they were beloved by “progressives” for making the Bush administration look bad? But now, Wikileaks is lower than whale shit because they released some stuff that makes Obama and Hillary Clinton look bad. Funny how that works.

  36. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  37. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this link

    ???????????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  38. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  39. But why won’t Reason cover Clinton’s corruption!!

    Oh wait…

  40. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  41. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  44. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

    see……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  46. clinton is far and above the most corrupt politician in our history. a true sociopath. given a chance, her and those who pull her strings will undoubtedly bring this country to it’s knees and decapitate it

  47. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.