Secret Emails From Possible Clinton Team Leaked
[su_right_ad]Emails among likely Hillary Clinton campaign workers knows as the “Mook Mafia” have been leaked.
The listserv, which one member said reaches more than 150 fellow campaign veterans, has been a means for Robby Mook (pictured) and a close friend Marlon Marshall to stay connected with many of the operatives who would likely populate a Democratic presidential campaign in 2016. Mook and Marshall have both been mentioned as possible Hillary Clinton campaign managers.
Copies of a cache of the emails obtained by ABC News, and revealed publicly for the first time, show Mook and Marshall demonstrating an aggressive tone in rallying their friends behind political causes, in exchanges that are often self-mocking and sometimes border on being profane.
They include rallying cries to, in Mook’s words, “smite Republicans mafia-style,” and, to quote Marshall, “punish those voters.” Mook sometimes calls himself “Deacon” in the emails, while Marshall, now a senior White House aide, refers to himself as “Reverend” in many of the exchanges.[su_csky_ad]
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 7:56 am
“smite Republicans mafia-style,”
Can’t wait to see the reaction to using such obvious violent terms and how many acts of violence this will be attributed to……. or will it?
OldLefty November 15th, 2014 at 8:25 am
Isn’t it the same old same old?
How is it different from the “Visceral givers”, or Karl Rove’s;
Tactic #2: Attack Your Opponent’s Strengths.
“Rove’s tactic of attacking an opponent’s strengths forces his opponent to back away from the very qualities that makes them an attractive candidate.”
Tactic #3: Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of.
“‘You say that I don’t love you! I think it is you who does not love me!’”
Tactic #4: Go Negative, Then Cry Foul.
“campaign typically “goes negative” early, using scare tactics or lifting comments out of context. Once the opponent retaliates, the Rove camp calls public attention to their “dirty” campaign tactics.”
Tactic #5: The “Big Lie”.
“Ironically, it is the very magnitude of a “big lie” that makes it believable. The response of the voters can be summarized as follows: “Well, there must be some truth in the assertion, or they wouldn’t be able to say it. Where there’ smoke, there’s fire.””
Or the “black baby” push polling in the 1999 SC primaries?
Or the former Sen. George Voinovich goes on record telling … “If Obama was for it, we had to be against it. “He [McConnell] wanted everyone to hold the fort.
All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
And they had a meeting at the Caucus Room , Frank Luntz, and senior GOP members worked out a plan on Inauguration day, 2009, to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be reelected.
Or the Arkansas Project, (which many lowlifes simply called “The Scam Scaife Project)?
Outrage????
Please.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 5:44 pm
First, I’m addressing just the ‘violent’ rhetoric, just that.
Second, “how is it different” is exactly my point. If it isn’t different, shouldn’t it be slammed when anyone uses it, not just the ‘other’ side? I was raised right is right, wrong is wrong, regardless.
OldLefty November 15th, 2014 at 6:25 pm
We KNOW how people talk in private.
So the question is…should EVERYONE ALWAYS assume that they are being recorded ANYWHERE they speak?
I tend to think that’s where technology will take us.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
So in my view, it is either always ok for either side to use it, or always wrong.
“I tend to think that’s where technology will take us.”
Ohhhh, I so agree w/you here. And especially if you are playing on a national level for any reason(politics, actor, sports person, etc). That guy w/the racism remarks on a private call comes to mind, and there over the last few years many examples of such.
Take recording a call for example… in some states it is 1 party, some it is 2 party, but does it matter? Once the recording is out, the damage is done and very little follow up/prosecution is done any how.
OldLefty November 15th, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Also the law is behind the technology.
Remember the local news footage, (classic) of people falling on ice in winter, and they had to get the person’s permission to use it?
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, but THEN you had reasonable expectation of privacy from mass media who was the only entity who had access to mass media.
Now, if someone one take humiliating video of someone falling, etc and posts on the internet????
Should the servers have the same liability as the the networks did?
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 6:52 pm
“Also the law is behind the technology”
100% agree, maybe even 110% if allowed 🙂
“Remember the local news footage,”
Even local paper. As a kid, some friends and me raked a whole block of leaves into my yard, HUGE pile… local paper photog saw it… went inside, had my mom sign a form that it was ok to take & publish in paper my pic on top of the pile.
You raise some good questions too. Take your example, embarrassing video or photo of 1 person:
How much liability belongs to(and possible punishment as well) the following:
1. Person taking photo/video
2. Person uploading
3. ISP service, is it a violation of their TOS to do so?
4. Server of where file resides
Some good & serious discussion/action needs to take place…
OldLefty November 15th, 2014 at 7:02 pm
And…. Younger people don’t seem to value privacy.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Good point and from what I’ve seen in print & interviews, pretty much true, as a demographic. And that leads to a society-wide effect eventually. As they get older and into leadership positions and make/influence laws, will privacy as was known be completely gone. That article not to long ago about the idiot w/upskirt photos comes to mind. And even though change happens every generation, I think some changes aren’t in the best interests… I would have liked to see that guy go to jail for a bit, to me it was just wrong.
OldLefty November 15th, 2014 at 7:19 pm
the idiot w/upskirt photos
___________
Yeah, that REALLY bothered me.
What if you neglected to close your window in the summer in an apartment where others can see in if they really try and have the zoom lens?
There was a movie (Lifetime) about someone who had put cameras in a families home.
About Susan Wilson, a Louisiana woman, who was video taped in her own home by a neighbor. Her case helped make video voyeurism a crime in nine U.S. states. Originally, she had no legal recourse as video voyeurism was not considered by those who wrote previous voyeurism legislation.(From Wiki).
So again, the law is always behind.
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
exactly
dave-dr-gonzo November 15th, 2014 at 10:33 am
“Any outrage coming?” Only from extremist winger hate radio bloviators who don’t understand the concept of hyperbole.
As for the voters? They’re doing a perfectly good job of punishing themselves. So are the very Republicans they voted in (limiting voters’ health options, stripping women of reproductive rights, letting frackers destroy aquifers, letting bankers and insurers rape your pocketbook, destroying the American middle class).
fancypants November 15th, 2014 at 2:23 pm
The more I hear from both sides of the isle The better ” Democrips ” and ” Rebloodlicans ” sound. Not a bad read either..
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Unbelievable.
So let me get this straight about ‘understanding hyperbole’…
A repub uses a political map to show ‘target’ strategy(which was used first in a dem campaign btw) and they get called in on it because of a later shooting even though no connection was made, none. When the dem used it, it was hyperbole, when repub, it is ‘violent’.
But, when words such as: “smite Republicans mafia-style,”, “destroy republicans” that’s ok? What do you do, check to see what side used the wording then make up your mind?
It is either ok for both to use hyperbole(frankly I think all the examples in this thread is hyperbole) or it is not ok for either side to use it. If you protest the usage for one side using it, then you must protest the other side’s using it, or the really is the definition of being a hypocrite.
When 2 sets of standards are used, real dialog doesn’t happen on the issues, just focuses on the hypocrisy.
tracey marie November 15th, 2014 at 12:12 pm
ask Gabby
Spirit of America November 15th, 2014 at 5:59 pm
So you feel it was wrong for the dems to use such language?
Tommy6860 November 15th, 2014 at 8:24 am
How classy will Hillary be if she offers this idiot a position to her more than likely campaign for the presidency. The more I know… grrr!