Politics

WIKILEAKS: John Podesta Briefed On “Gross Negligence” Before FBI Removed Phrase

Published

9 years ago

January 9, 2018

(Via Zerohedge)

Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta, received an email from an advisor which brought up the phrase “gross negligence” in regards to the FBI’s email investigation before the FBI agent in charge of the probe removed the phrase from her exoneration statement, according to WikiLeaks.

Podesta Emails #45924 (WikiLeaks)

In a March 2016 email from former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy to Clinton campaign chairman Podesta’s Gmail account, Flournoy included links to two articles concerning the FBI email investigation; one from the Washington Post which minimized Clinton’s actions, and a legal analysis from retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in which he suggests Clinton was “grossly negligent or worse” and may be in serious hot water. (h/t Mike)

First, let’s again examine the statutory language:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The only other question I perceive that stands in the way of Clinton having violated Section 793(f) is whether it was through gross negligence that she permitted the information relating to the national defense to to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to someone who shouldn’t have gotten it.

It was not ordinary negligence that caused Clinton to permit highly sensitive information to be removed from its proper place and onto Clinton’s private email servers. This strikes me as gross negligence at a minimum. Clinton herself had warned others about the prospect of private email accounts being hacked.

Nor was it ordinary negligence to deliver highly sensitive information to someone lacking a security clearance (in this case, an inveterate gossip). Such imprudence, again, seems grossly negligent or worse. -Powerline Blog

While Mirengoff’s assessment was that Hillary Clinton engaged in grossly negligent behavior, Tina Flournoy did not agree – citing the Washington Post article minimizing Clinton’s actions:

“The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.” -Tina Flournoy to John Podesta (WikiLeaks)

Perhaps Podesta decided to run this past Hillary Clinton’s friends at the FBI, as counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok – who headed up the Clinton email investigation – then removed the phrase “gross negligence” from Clinton’s exoneration statement.

To summarize, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy sent John Podesta an email to his Gmail account on March 9, 2016 – with a Washington Post article containing a link to an opinion by a retired D.C. attorney who thinks Clinton committed Gross Negligence. Former FBI Director James Comey’s original draft from May 2, contained the phrase, and at some point over the next eight weeks, Peter Strzok – the man who headed up the investigation, removed it – materially changing the legal significance of Clinton’s actions, effectively “decriminalizing” her behavior when Comey gave his speech on July 5, 2016.

One wonders if the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has reviewed this tidbit of information as part of their upcoming report about to be submitted to the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Congressional investigators – which in all likelihood, assuming their findings are in alignment with recent bombshells, will be the basis for the appointment for a second special counsel and much, much more.

Politics

Rob Sand Must Be Audited Along with LGI

Published

2 days ago

November 4, 2026

Populist Wire Editorial Board

Rob Sand won the Iowa governor’s race as the state’s auditor. That dual role demands immediate scrutiny of his own office and of LGI, the family business run by his wife, Christine Lauridsen Sand. Taxpayers have a right to know whether any public contracts, grants, or favorable treatment flowed between the auditor’s office and the company while he held statewide power. Iowa does not get a free pass on conflicts simply because the winner is a Democrat.

America First means accountability for officials who oversee public money. Sand built his career on auditing others. The same standard now applies to him and to LGI. Any overlap in finances, vendor relationships, or use of state resources must be examined by independent review before he takes the governor’s office. Working families in Iowa already face water-quality issues, budget pressures, and education concerns. They should not also wonder whether family business interests influenced decisions made in the auditor’s office.

An audit of Sand’s tenure and of LGI is the minimum required for confidence in the transition. If irregularities appear, they must be referred for further investigation. Sovereignty and basic fairness require that the next governor faces the same transparency he once claimed to enforce. Iowa voters deserve nothing less before he is sworn in.

Politics

2028: America First Dark Horse Must Rise

Published

2 days ago

November 4, 2026

Populist Wire Editorial Board

The 2026 midterms cleared the field. Democrats took Congress after voters punished high gas prices and the Iran war. Establishment heirs now carry that baggage. JD Vance’s odds slipped overnight. Marco Rubio remains tied to the same foreign-policy circle that produced the conflict. Neither can lead a clean America First recovery. The candidate must be anyone but Vance or Rubio.

That dark horse must run on sealed borders, an end to forever wars, energy independence, and trade that puts American workers first. Traditional values and biological reality in policy cannot be treated as optional. The midterms showed the cost of foreign entanglements and elite priorities. Working families want their government focused on home, not distant conflicts or cultural experiments. Only a figure free of prior establishment ties—and free of Vance or Rubio—can make that case without apology.

The next two years will decide whether the movement stays pure or dilutes into another round of managed decline. A dark horse who rejects globalist deals, defends sovereignty, and speaks plainly to the base can consolidate the realignment before 2028. The country does not need another caretaker from the current circle. It needs someone new who will finish what America First started.

Politics

Democrats Gave Ground on Their Wackiest Issues to “Win”

Published

2 days ago

November 4, 2026

Populist Wire Editorial Board

The midterm results show Democrats winning by dialing back the cultural extremes that defined their last several cycles. In Texas, James Talarico walked back earlier progressive positions on transgender issues to make himself viable in a state that rejected those policies for decades. Elsewhere, candidates who once embraced open borders, defund-the-police rhetoric, and identity-first messaging softened or ignored those planks and focused on costs, the Iran war, and gasoline prices. The public had already rejected the full agenda; the party simply stopped advertising the parts voters hated most.

America First voters never accepted boys in girls’ sports, men in women’s shelters, or sanctuary policies that prioritize non-citizens over citizens. Polling and prior elections already showed those positions as losers outside the coastal core. By muting them in red and purple districts while hammering inflation and foreign wars, Democrats could appeal to working-class Hispanics, independents, and some traditional Democrats who had shifted right. The strategy worked for one night because the economic pain was acute and the alternative was a party tied to high gas prices. It does not mean the underlying cultural preferences of the country changed.

Once in power, the same figures and progressive caucuses will push the old agenda again—Medicare for All, ending enforcement, and cultural mandates. The temporary ground they gave was tactical, not principled. Working Americans still want secure borders, biological reality in policy, and government that puts citizens first. The midterms proved the left cannot win by leading with its most extreme ideas. They also proved those ideas remain the party’s destination once the ballots are counted.