Download raw source

MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.84.202 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:54:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CY1PR17MB0204846B909439CF1325591BDFC80@CY1PR17MB0204.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> References: <CY1PR17MB0204846B909439CF1325591BDFC80@CY1PR17MB0204.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:54:24 -0500 Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Message-ID: <CAE6FiQ9FAHufmbZV-k-39i44adVqB+79cCpbL1Ri0eh5pZSYXw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Confidential From: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> To: Brent Budowsky <brentbbi@webtv.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114013bec689d80528fe8242 --001a114013bec689d80528fe8242 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I am confident this isn't coming from the staff. I am pretty confident it is not coming from consultants, but am always nervous about being fully certain about what they are up to. But "people close to the Clinton's" is a very wide lot in my view. Reporters who have a story line can almost always find a "people close to the Clinton's" to give them what they want. More generally, I do think you are right on this, but very difficult to police. On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Brent Budowsky <brentbbi@webtv.net> wrote: > I had a multi-email exchange with someone in the media this morning---a > name you would know---who is telling me that there are people close to the > Clintons who says WJC's sex life could be damaging to her. I responded > that I totally disagree with that, that WJC's presidency and his personal > appeal are huge assets and that I do not believe people who are the closest > to the Clintons believe what this person in the media is hearing from > somebody. > > I never ask journalists about their sources. I know you would be among > them. > I also know that for some times there were people purportedly close to the > Clintons pushing the line that the less WJC the better. Which again I have > always strongly disagreed with and still do. > > My point in this note is that whoever is peddling this crap from somewhere > within the Clinton camp is having the effect of encouraging the media to > give the issue more prominence. They are hurting both Clintons. I always > stay out of intra-staff stuff like this, both Clinton's would be well > advised to advise the people in their orbit to shut the hell up about > this. Even if I thought Bill Clinton was a liability I would never in a > million years write it, or say it to the media, but I think he is a huge > asset and I also think some of the people they pay do not perform a service > to them. > > Sent from my iPad --001a114013bec689d80528fe8242 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am confident this isn't coming from the staff. I am pretty confident = it is not coming from consultants, but am always nervous about being=C2=A0f= ully certain about what they are up to. But "people close to the Clint= on's" is a very wide lot in my view. Reporters who have a story li= ne can almost always find a "people close to the Clinton's" t= o give them what they want. More generally, I=C2=A0do think you are right o= n this, but very difficult to police.<br><br>On Sunday, January 10, 2016, B= rent Budowsky <<a href=3D"mailto:brentbbi@webtv.net">brentbbi@webtv.net<= /a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .= 8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I had a multi-email exchan= ge with someone in the media this morning---a name you would know---who is = telling me that there are people close to the Clintons who says WJC's s= ex life could be damaging to her.=C2=A0 I responded that I totally disagree= with that, that WJC's presidency and his personal appeal are huge asse= ts and that I do not believe people who are the closest to the Clintons bel= ieve what this person in the media is hearing from somebody.<br> <br> I never ask journalists about their sources.=C2=A0 I know you would be amon= g them.<br> I also know that for some times there were people purportedly close to the = Clintons pushing the line that the less WJC the better.=C2=A0 Which again I= have always strongly disagreed with and still do.<br> <br> My point in this note is that whoever is peddling this crap from somewhere = within the Clinton camp is having the effect of encouraging the media to gi= ve the issue more prominence.=C2=A0 They are hurting both Clintons.=C2=A0 I= always stay out of intra-staff stuff like this, both Clinton's would b= e well advised to advise the people in their orbit to shut the hell up abou= t this.=C2=A0 Even if I thought Bill Clinton was a liability I would never = in a million years write it, or say it to the media, but I think he is a hu= ge asset and I also think some of the people they pay do not perform a serv= ice to them.<br> <br> Sent from my iPad</blockquote> --001a114013bec689d80528fe8242--