John Podesta's good friend Peter Kadzik is in charge of Clinton email probe at DOJ

[Anonymous]

Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

[Anonymous]

Good thing Hillary can rely on the slimy media to ignore this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

Note that this email was sent FROM Kadzik’s gmail account - not his official government account.
Why do you think he did this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

Note that this email was sent FROM Kadzik’s gmail account - not his official government account.
Why do you think he did this?

you're right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

Note that this email was sent FROM Kadzik’s gmail account - not his official government account.
Why do you think he did this?

The same reason HRC set up her private server.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

Unitl it affects you and it will be too late?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

Unitl it affects you and it will be too late?

Amazing that someone does not care that our SECState and and next president put national security at risk: was helping to run a corrupt charity: was offering pay to play to donors;covering up evidence; and much, much more.

Meanwhile, her crony -Terry McAuliffe-was "recruiting" the wife of the FBI agent who was in charge of the investigation to run for office--and donated $700K to her campaign; WJC met with the Atty General on the tarmac--and we only found out about it by a lucky reporter; Kadzik was feeding DOJ information to Podesta--and if this little bit of info was found on email--no telling what else he was feeding Podesta through other channels.

And, please remember, that McCabe went to Comey with the Weiner information (it appears from news timelines) AFTER it was reported that his wife's connection with McAuliffe.

So, you don't care? Have you no ethics at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

Unitl it affects you and it will be too late?

You can still vote for Hillary, but to say that you don't care about this exposure of Washington corruption? That's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

How is this "leaking"? None of this information is confidential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

Unitl it affects you and it will be too late?

Amazing that someone does not care that our SECState and and next president put national security at risk: was helping to run a corrupt charity: was offering pay to play to donors;covering up evidence; and much, much more.

Meanwhile, her crony -Terry McAuliffe-was "recruiting" the wife of the FBI agent who was in charge of the investigation to run for office--and donated $700K to her campaign; WJC met with the Atty General on the tarmac--and we only found out about it by a lucky reporter; Kadzik was feeding DOJ information to Podesta--and if this little bit of info was found on email--no telling what else he was feeding Podesta through other channels.

And, please remember, that McCabe went to Comey with the Weiner information (it appears from news timelines) AFTER it was reported that his wife's connection with McAuliffe.

So, you don't care? Have you no ethics at all?

Notice the silence. Typical Clintonites without basic ethics.
So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

How is this "leaking"? None of this information is confidential.

It says "heads up". Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wikileaks just revealed that this guy was leaking info to the Clinton campaign in 2015

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

From: *Peter Kadzik* <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta <[e-mail]>


There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

How is this "leaking"? None of this information is confidential.

Seems like he was giving information ahead of time. Why would he do that? Just 'cause he's a nice guy? If so, that nice guy can recuse himself. Otherwise, he might be giving the Clintons information about THIS investigation ahead of time. We know what happened last time.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I honestly don't know how anybody can defend this anymore.

We're not defending it. We're just saying we don't care.

Unitl it affects you and it will be too late?

You can still vote for Hillary, but to say that you don't care about this exposure of Washington corruption? That's crazy.

Fine. I don't care as it pertains to what I'm doing next Tuesday. Better?

And to the other PP, I don't see how it could affect me personally. Because I'm not paranoid.