Posted on 11/06/2016 5:10:21 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: pir@hrcoffice.com, nmerrill@hrcoffice.com, jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com, robbymook@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-04 16:46
Subject: Fwd: Just the messenger
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Neera Tanden" ntanden@gmail.com
Date: Mar 4, 2015 1:23 PM
Subject: Just the messenger
To: "John Podesta"
Andrea Mitchell took me aside for 3 minutes to complain when story broke on Monday night she was prepping for Netanyahu but she couldn't get any response til 6:45 am when morning shows had already decided to lead.
Not sure who to give this to, but don't yell at me.
It’s a snake pit.
Poor Andrea... Even her favourite political couple doesn’t keep their most vocal cheerleader a heads up on important stories. Disappointing, but I’m sure she was next on the list of people to give a ‘heads up to’... Likely right after Anthony Weiner.
Maybe it’s me — and I know the emails have inherent context on the day that they are sent, but I read these things and I am stunned by how unclear they are.
First: If the communication is on government computers, and could be subpoened, you might want to be vague to introduce some deniability. I get that. But, if you set up a private server, so that your communications will remain secret, then the vagueness seems less required.
Anyway, Mitchell was looking for response? From whom? And about what? Netanyahu? Hillary?
I grant that the people sending and receiving these emails probably understood what was being said MOST of the time. But I’ve seen enough business email to understand how easy it is for confusion to kick in. I’m pretty sure the top levels of government were regularly going off in the wrong direction because of emails that were just badly written by self-important fools who assumed that “everyone knows what I mean”.
It seems that Andrea Mitchell was perturbed that the Hillary campaign did not get her the line they wanted her to take with Netanyahu.
But you are correct, it is not perfectly clear.
Much can be gained from context, if there are more related emails, or a pattern of this sort of communication.
Their writing is reflective of how muddy their thinking is.
Breaking news on March 3, 2015 (Tuesday)
Business and economy
Target Corporation, a major U.S. retail chain, announces cuts that will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, part of a revival plan adopted by CEO Brian Cornell. (press release)
Law and crime
Former CIA director and U.S. Army officer David Petraeus pleads guilty in federal court to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. (Reuters vis MSN)
Politics and elections
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the United States Congress over the nuclear program of Iran. (BBC) (The New York Times)
It’s a snake pit.
***************
A snake pit that will rule the country if Hillary is elected.
“Maybe it’s me — and I know the emails have inherent context on the day that they are sent, but I read these things and I am stunned by how unclear they are.”
It’s not just you! I too have found these emails to be barely coherent - and I don’t mean just the strange abbreviations. I think these Liberals all have a similar thought pattern, however, which helps them understand the meaning. Much like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZyoUn7Vk
Conservatives are more likely to think and write in full sentences. Liberals are emotional crybabies, and although they can be very intelligent, they use their emotions to unlock verbal or written cues.
Well, we’re getting these emails as individual pages. We’re not seeing the ongoing discussion as we would in our various email apps. Its more difficult to follow.
Two, a lot of these written on the fly on phones, or pads. Phones scream for brevity which begets vagueness, especially for those of us outside the loop.
Must be tough when a puppet doesn’t get her talking points before the hit.
Pray America wakes
The significance is how closely Andrea Mitchell is tied into the Clinton campaign. But this is widely accepted already by most conservatives who follow her reporting closely.
Democrats probably are oblivious to her bias because they see it as simply reporting good facts about Hillary or bad facts against Trump.
Well Neera, you should have just told that wrinkled up fossil to STFU!
Libs are like the Borg. They’re already all on the same sheet of music, so little more than grunts are required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.