Image 01 Image 03

Podesta to Mills: ‘Dump all those emails’ After Hillary Server Expose

Podesta to Mills: ‘Dump all those emails’ After Hillary Server Expose


The New York Times sent a bombshell through Hillary Clinton’s close circle when it reported that she used a private email system during her tenure as secretary of state. That same day, March 2, 2015, Hillary campaign chair John Podesta told longtime aide Cheryl Mills the group needed to dump those emails:

Podesta Dump Emails

It is unknown what he exactly meant by “dump.” It appears, though, he meant Lanny Davis, a close confidant and special counsel to President Clinton. Davis had pushed Hillary to release her emails.

Before he sent the Mills email, Podesta emailed aide Robby Mook and asked if he had “any idea of the depth of this story.” Mook claimed they “brought up the existence of emails in resrach (SIC) this summer but were told that everything was taken care of.”

However, five days later Mills sent an email to Podesta that the group needed “to clean this up” after President Obama said he learned about Hillary’s email system form the news like everyone else. Mills pointed out that Obama had emails from Hillary’s address and they did not come from a address.

Other emails released by Wikileaks have shown that the campaign did an extensive job to frame statements to steer Hillary from responsibility and keep the press in the shadows. Yet, some close to the campaign did not appreciate this approach, including Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress:

Neera Tanden Hillary Email

Tanden Hillary Email Scandal

Tanden even went off on Podesta over the person “who told Hillary she could use a private email.” Tanden told Podesta that Hillary’s aides did not want to turn over anything because “they wanted to get away with it.” She insisted that if the archives request the emails, Hillary complies immediately and therefore avoids subpoenas. She also implied to Podesta that aid Cheryl Mills was behind the mess.

UPDATE 11-2-2016 (by WAJ): The Clinton campaign says the “dump them” language meant to release the emails, which of course was not done:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The ABSENCE of stuff is evidence of bad-doing in every court in which I practice.

Spoliation of evidence is a VERY serious wrong, and will get you sanctions that INCLUDE striking of any defense you MIGHT have offered.

One thing…ironically…that will come out of this is that emails will be MUCH less used. Which is too bad.

    DouglasJBender in reply to Ragspierre. | November 1, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    “…[E]mails will be MUCH less used…by dishonest people with something to hide.”

    Fixed for you. Monetary remuneration is not required, but would be accepted. (Please mail check to: “The Douglas J. Bender Foundation for Charitable Giving, Humanitarian Aid, and Other Stuff”.)

You’re doing a great job on all these revelations, Mary. Thanks.

I believe it is true that all of our public emails are living forever in an NSA server farm in Provo Utah. All of Hillary’s deleted emails. All the emails you and I have sent in the last 7 or 8 years.

Will the legal profession clean itself up? These things to not happen overnight in a vacuum.

In the context of being cognizant of Lanny’s interview comments, it’s not beyond plausible for his use of the term ‘dump’ to mean ‘disclose’. I don’t personally believe that to be what Podesta meant, but it would be an arguable point.

‘It is unknown what he exactly meant by “dump.”’

Oh, it’s pretty darned obvious what he meant by “dump” in this case.

When I set our new users up, I always tell them “Every email you send or receive on our system is archived, including pictures of cute cats with misspelled captions. Write like you expect everything you send to wind up on the front page of the New York Times.”

I feel vindicated.

    Ragspierre in reply to georgfelis. | November 1, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    VERY sound advice…!!!

    tom swift in reply to georgfelis. | November 1, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Oh, it’s pretty darned obvious what he meant by “dump” in this case.

    Not at all.

    The question is, what did Podesta think he meant? Did he mean dump it out where just about everyone can access it, like a core dump or an ammo dump? Or did he mean dump it in the trash (where you and I know that most everyone can then access it, but does John “I Fell For the Most Obvious Phishing Scam on the Planet” Podesta know it?)

According to Politico, Platte River Networks subcontracted Datto Inc. to back up Mrs. Clinton’s data in their own cloud. The contents of that cloud server were delivered to the FBI as of October 2015.

The contents of the Datto hard drive are believed to contain all of Hillary Clinton’s backed up electronic communications from her time as Secretary of State.

Judicial Watch FOIA request for contents of Datto hard drive that was turned over to the FBI

But, but, evidence of intent just can’t be found here! Sherlock Holmes couldn’t find evidence of intent. Not a smidgen of intent.

The FBI seems to be dumping everthing regarding every Clinton investigation, going back to Vince Foster. With loving attention to the Marc Rich pardon.

His use of the term “dump” makes me suspect that he has only a superficial understanding of computers. He sees a picture of a trash can on his screen and thinks he can somehow dump it with a simple click. It also explains their casual attitude about cyber security.