Should the Clinton campaign have pre-emptively leaked the Podesta e-mails?

[Beet]

In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released. They must also have known Wikileaks had them. At that time, they should have tried to reach out to the hackers to work out a deal. Perhaps monetary compensation in exchange for a promise to keep the data confidential, secured by the identities of the hackers. That would have been a longshot, but it should have been tried.

Plan B should have been to pre-emptively leak the material all in one dump early in the campaign. For instance, after the Dallas shootings in early July, the incident dominated the headlines. Releasing them then would have kept the story competing with the other. They would have taken a one-time polling hit, but would have the advantage of being positioned as more of an underdog going into the GE.

[uti2]

In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released. They must also have known Wikileaks had them. At that time, they should have tried to reach out to the hackers to work out a deal. Perhaps monetary compensation in exchange for a promise to keep the data confidential, secured by the identities of the hackers. That would have been a longshot, but it should have been tried.

Plan B should have been to pre-emptively leak the material all in one dump early in the campaign. For instance, after the Dallas shootings in early July, the incident dominated the headlines. Releasing them then would have kept the story competing with the other. They would have taken a one-time polling hit, but would have the advantage of being positioned as more of an underdog going into the GE.

The only thing the leaks did was damage progressive turnout, but Hillary was ignoring progressives to begin with. She could've run as a progressive and put Bernie on the ticket, and focus on the base ( downballot performance would've been better in this scenario), while ignoring the GOP, and the FBI would've had no effect like Benghazi had no effect in 2012. Instead, her strategy was based on courting republicans, the FBI killed off the courtship strategy.

[emailking]

In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released.

How would Podesta know his gmail had been hacked? Unless they did something obvious to leave a trace.

[Beet]

In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released.

How would Podesta know his gmail had been hacked? Unless they did something obvious to leave a trace.

The Smoking Gun reported in late June of a late March "broad spear phishing" attack using a fake gmail login page ensnared a Clinton volunteer. Presumably the same kind of attack that went to Podesta. That's the absolute latest they could have known

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hfa-gmail-attack-723571

Edit: Original June 16 SecureWorks report:
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign

[catographer]

In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released. They must also have known Wikileaks had them. At that time, they should have tried to reach out to the hackers to work out a deal. Perhaps monetary compensation in exchange for a promise to keep the data confidential, secured by the identities of the hackers. That would have been a longshot, but it should have been tried.

Plan B should have been to pre-emptively leak the material all in one dump early in the campaign. For instance, after the Dallas shootings in early July, the incident dominated the headlines. Releasing them then would have kept the story competing with the other. They would have taken a one-time polling hit, but would have the advantage of being positioned as more of an underdog going into the GE.

The only thing the leaks did was damage progressive turnout, but Hillary was ignoring progressives to begin with. She could've run as a progressive and put Bernie on the ticket, and focus on the base ( downballot performance would've been better in this scenario), while ignoring the GOP, and the FBI would've had no effect like Benghazi had no effect in 2012. Instead, her strategy was based on courting republicans, the FBI killed off the courtship strategy.

Clinton ended up adopting more progressive positions because of Sanders. How did she "ignore" progressives? Also I'm socially progressive and she satisfied me entirely.

[Cashew]

That would have been a good idea in hindsight.

It doesn't matter how good an idea it was, as her pneumonia secrecy proves shows the ridiculous lengths they will go to cover something up, no matter how damaging the behavior is.

[krazen1211]

There wasn't even anything bad in the emails, other than that Hillary, Podesta and company didn't like the voters.

But we already knew that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

what and reveal their demonic pizzeria slash child prostitute smuggling ring slash Marina Abramovic appreciation gang?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What if the leaker *was* a member of the Clinton campaign?