Hillary must be straight forward about the latest email leak

[helpisontheway]

Her surrogates are saying they don't know if the messages are authentic. Podesta said he has nit had time to look at them (not exact quote). I think it makes her look like she is not being truthful. If the information is correct then it is better to own than to look like she is being deceptive. We don't need the media making a big deal about this. We need Trump 's video(and hopefully awful debate) to stay in the spotlight.

[TheDebbieDee]

1. With regard to Hillary Clinton, to some people, EVERYTHING she does

makes her look deceptive!

People are going to want to have a Congressional hearing on these leaked emails as well - I'm surprised that the idea of Congressional hearings on her unauthenticated speech notes has been called for yet!

[stopbush]

2. No. The public can't keep track of the emails. They have no way of

knowing what is new or old. Her best strategy is to brush it aside, say that she's been open and has turned over tens of thousands of emails, that she has been exonerated by the FBI and that it's time to move on. She can throw in a few words about the desperation of the Rs who are recycling settled science in an effort to divert attention from their horribly flawed candidate.

[justiceischeap]

4. OP is talking about leaked Wall St. speech emails. nt

[JoePhilly]

9. Nobody cares. The GOP insane attacks about ...

... emails is commonly known to be overblown nonsense by all but the most rapid Trumper.

Most people stop listening as soon as that word is uttered.

Eye rolls usually follow.

[Foggyhill]

3. Seriously!

There is barely anything there
And you think she needs to "come clean"
And you'll promise to be believe her release is more authentic than something coming from some random hacker...
If sort of doubt that...
Anyone who doesn't trust her by now are unmovable

[yardwork]

5. She hasn't had time to read them.

[awake]

6. +100

She may also add that one need to be careful in believing "leaks" made by the Russians

[yardwork]

7. Correct. It's not her responsibility to read every word of leaked documents.

[scscholar]

8. Or verify their authenticity

Daily KOS already found proof their fake. She should call them out on that.

[csziggy]

10. She can explain but most people won't listen

I found this Mother Jones article by Kevin Drum very interesting:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/which-i-take-second-look-hillary-clintons-paid-speeches

It's a follow up to an earlier article in which Drum makes this point: "And this time it's not even Clinton's email. It's email from John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman and longtime Clinton/Obama major domo. Actually, wait: it's not email from John Podesta. It's from Tony Carrk, but got hacked from Podesta's account because Carrk sent it to a bunch of Clinton campaign folks." http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/new-email-dump-reveals-hillary-clinton-honest-and-boring

So the stuff being distributed is not in Hillary Clinton's words. It is an email of somebody else's notes: "The important thing is that apparently this poor Carrk fellow was tasked with reading through all of Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to see if she had said anything that might be embarrassing if it got out. Carrk found about a dozen things, and attached headlines representing the worst possible spin he could think of."

This is Democratic research on Sec. Clinton's speeches trying to find the worst that can be used against her. I agree with Drum - if this is worst stuff in the speeches, there is nothing there to worry about.

As a separate issue: On one of the shows I was listening to in the last couple of days a point was made about the "Clinton team's resistance to releasing the speeches" as it was characterized by one of the panel. Another panel member said that Sec. Clinton could not release the speeches since the notes on the speeches that had been leaked by Wikileaks were not her to release. From what I remember, he said the originals were not transcripts of speeches, but were notes someone had taken of the speeches and belonged to that person. I was not really paying attention and have no idea whether I was watching TV or radio or which program it was on. But if what I heard was correct that explains a lot.

[Foggyhill]

11. Yeah this "too complex" (sic) for those that distrust her

She could release full video with subtitles
And they still would not be satisfied

One think I'll notr is how idiotic people in responding to phishing, cause that's how 90% of these accounts are compromised

[politicaljunkie41910]

12. Maybe they haven't had time to weed through them. She does have a debate to prepare for.

There could be words in there which change the meaning of the original intent, which means whomever authored the email would have to read through all of them and compare them with their own copy, assuming that they still have them. I just read another post, (the one linked to the Mother Jones article) and from the ones they read, they said that they were boring and didn't contain any ticking time bombs. That doesn't mean that the same is true for every one of them. There could be something buried in there, so she should err on the side of caution and take her time before she makes a statement. I heard a couple of the emails read this morning at the outdoor debate site. One was one of the Wall St. speech text. I thought to myself, who talks like that? But you never know. Unless she's had time to go over all the hacked emails, I'd wait until the weekend is over when she and her team have had a chance to go through them all carefully before making a public statement.

For her to say that I've been busy preparing for tonight's debate and haven't had time to review them sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Besides, Trump still hasn't released his Tax Returns and I don't hear the media pressing him for them. Why should we get worked up over those emails while Trump's campaign is busy imploding?