Abby Martin Exposes Hillary Clinton Chair John Podesta

With his brother Tony at the Podesta Group, John is also one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in the world. The Podesta family weaves their business through John’s DC think tank Center for American Progress, where policies are made for their corporate sponsors.
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    Screenshot Youtube

    Screenshot [Youtube]

    With the Wikileaks release of thousands of emails belonging to John Podesta, very little is known about Podesta himself.

    While he is treated as just a well-meaning Clinton supporter who has had his privacy unjustly exposed, he is actually one of the most powerful people in Washington, who has operating mostly behind-the-scenes.

    He’s the chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and was the man advising the last two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.



    With his brother Tony at the Podesta Group, John is also one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in the world. The Podesta family weaves their business through John’s DC think tank Center for American Progress, where policies are made for their corporate sponsors.

    Podesta’s emails show that the so-called “progressive” wing of the establishment is really just a neoliberal insiders club of the rich and powerful. In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin exposes political operative John Podesta’s political rise and network of shady corporations, brutal dictatorships and media collaborators.

    Watch the prelude to this exposé, where Abby exposes Hillary Clinton’s business of corporate shilling and war making.

    FOLLOW // @EmpireFiles & @AbbyMartin

    WATCH // YouTube.com/EmpireFiles

    This article originally appeared on Media Roots and was used with permission. 

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, Editors Picks, National, Top Stories and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Bob Barton

      Dangerously strong pheromones created the need for Unplanned Parenthood.

    • Pingback: Der Junge von Aleppo : ein Jahr danach – Syrien …()

    • Cowicide

      The insane pseudo-liberals that threw Bernie Sanders under the bus in exchange for a corrupt shill like Hillary Clinton won’t look at the evidence here and will instead say Abby Martin is simply a Russian plant and turn their brains off. No wonder Hillary Clinton lost to a megalomaniac like Trump. Until we true progressives take over the DNC or run it into the ground and foster a truly progressive third party, we’ll be stuck to repeat history in the hands of corporatist Democrats and the moronic, neoliberal Hillary supporters that attacked someone like Bernie Sanders who was a true progressive.

      Idiots.

      • posercom

        Bernie Sanders was a shill for Hillary Clinton. He is also a war hawk and Israel first politician. By the way; socialism sucks.

        • Cowicide

          We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    • Pingback: Abby Martin Exposes Hillary Clinton Chair John Podesta -()

    • Bob Beal
    • MCTomkat

      I wouldn’t trust *either one* around my kids.

    • lupusposse

      It strongly appears that the comment column here has been hijacked for a private dispute.

      Please monitor the column and erase the hijackers, now and in the future.

    • Jun 29, 2016 – Neoconservatives Endorse Hillary Clinton for President Because They Know She’s One of Them

      Neoconservatives like Iraq warmonger Robert Kagan aren’t endorsing Hillary Clinton for president merely because they want rid of Donald Trump, but because she’s one of them, writes Trevor Timm at The Guardian.

      http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/neoconservatives_endorse_hillary_clinton_for_president_because_they_know_sh/

    • DiskoTechJam

      When did Abby Martin start sourcing her information from the National Review @ 3:27? Not saying that I necesarrily disagree with some of her conclusions, but Martin should not be relying on a partisan journal that spends it’s time smearing Planned Parenthood.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441820/planned-parenthoods-history-abortion-services-provide-death-not-empowerment

      • Krishna E. Bera

        almost any source is good, if the info can be confirmed as truth

        • DiskoTechJam

          I completely disagree, and there are number of reasons why this source in particular is worrisome.

          1. The article’s headline and central claim is a strawman. The article intimates that Clinton lied about 17 Agencies supporting the claim that Russia was responsible for the hacks, instead insisting that only the “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies.” The problem is that this is an misrepresenation of the fact that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an individual agency, but rather a “a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI.” A release from the DNI is generally understood to be representative of the work of it’s members. I understand the criticism, and Clinton’s statement is also misleading, but misrepresentation is not a proper way to address that criticism.

          2. While the evidence provided in the joint statement is practically non-existent, NR uses this as a spring board to present it’s on completely unfounded assertion about what this all means,

          “My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential
          election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.”

          This is pure conspiratorial speculation. First of all, shoveling blame on the Obama administration for politicizing US intelligence is partisan crap. The Intelligence community has been politicized from the begining, if not for partisan purposes than merely to perpetuate it’s own existence. There is no way of knowing at this point if the motivation came from the Obama administration or from an internal source in the Intelligence community that wishes to position itself for a cyberwar with Russia which would, coincidently, heavily involve the intelligence community. Second of all, “the Clinton campaign asked for it… [and] the Obama administration was happy to comply” is again nothing but conspiratorial speculation that imagines Hillary Clinton as the puppet master of Washington. At best this is misleading, at worse it is a reductive and dangerous in suggesting that the intelligence community peachy clean apart from the evil corrupting forces of Clinton and Obama.

          3. While I would not claim that a journalist should be responsble for every statement made by it’s sources, as someone who follows up on an article’s citations, I’m deeply disapointed by the weakness of this reference. There are other sources which could have presented the issue with more nuance and sophistication. Furthermore, by using the National Review, she does shed a certain amount of legitimacy on NR which frankly the publication does not deserve. A cursory glance at Fred Fleitz’ other writings for the NR reveal that he thinks Snowden is a “a Traitor and a Fraud, Period” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440113/edward-snowden-report-house-intelligence-committee-confirms-he-shouldnt-be-pardoned), that diversity at the CIA might damage National Security (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431742/obamas-cia-overvalues-diversity-undervalues-security), and that concerns over NSA spying programs are “fearmongering” and “baloney” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418663/christie-right-rand-pauls-fearmongering-nsa-surveillance-baloney-fred-fleitz). I understand the argument that “almost any source is good, if the info can be confirmed as truth,” but in this case, the article was mainly speculation and conjecture with zero evidence. Combined with the NR’s generally partisan and reductive writing, it would have been better substituted for a more substantive article from a more trustworthy source.

          • GALT

            And your point is “Hillary will save us”?

            Your criticism of a “source” does nothing to change who or what
            Hillary Clinton IS……or what will happen when or if she is elected.

            So, again, your point is?

            • DiskoTechJam

              Huh? I never said “Hillary will save us.” Please do not use quotations when you are not actually quoting someone, that is incredibly inflamatory and misleading.

              My point seems pretty clear to me, the reference is weak evidence from a disreputable source. Martin should not be relying on such sources as it weakens the overall effectiveness of the legitimate point she is trying to make and wrongly lends credence to bad journalism.

              If you want to actually respond to my criticism, that’s one thing, but I don’t know anything about this strange imaginary conversation you seem to be having with yourself about Hillary saving us. I never said that.

              • GALT

                Where does it say you said that ” (?) ”

                You weren’t being quoted, you were being questioned,
                although apparently asking it “twice”, made no impression,
                as the meaning of the all the “words” as well as the “punctuation”
                seems to have eluded you.

                BTW whether you like it or not NR is a “source” regardless of
                whether you agree with their “agenda” or not…..and to disparage
                Abby Martin as a “journalist” is something only a “shill” for
                the political duopoly would do.

                But to be CLEAR, since you confuse easily, whatever your “point”
                turns out to be…..it has the same validity as the attempted
                deflection of “wiki leaks” or that one should vote for Hillary,
                “because TRUMP…….”!

                If you are concerned with the state of “journalism”, then you have
                “miles to go before you sleep”…..and Abby Martin is NOT someone
                who should concern you…..but I am certain we shall all find your
                response amusing if you are foolish enough to offer one.

                • DiskoTechJam

                  Wow. I seem to have struck a nerve.

                  “You weren’t being quoted, you were being questioned…”

                  Alright, that’s a fair point, still seems a bit like scare quotes to me though, you are trying to pin a statement on me that is not at all represented in what I actually said.

                  “although apparently asking it “twice”, made no impression, as the meaning of the all the “words” as well as the “punctuation” seems to have eluded you.”

                  Yeah, I’ll go ahead an reiterate this point. I do not support Hillary Clinton or think that she will save us. My main criticism was in no way a defense of Hillary Clinton, I was just stating my dissapointment that Martin would link to a National Review Op-Ed as if it was a legitimate news source.

                  “BTW whether you like it or not NR is a “source” regardless of whether you agree with their “agenda” or not…..and to disparage Abby Martin as a “journalist” is something only a “shill” for the political duopoly would do.”

                  ok, um, I really did not disparage Abby Martin as a journalist, I just criticized one source that she used, if anything I was mainly critical of the writing from the source. To quote my original post, “Not saying that I necesarrily disagree with some of her conclusions, but Martin should not be relying on a partisan journal that spends it’s time smearing Planned Parenthood.” I broadly agree with her point here, I’m just saying that I don’t think that she should be sending her readers/viewers to the National Review. It would be like if she started sourcing from Breitbart or Infowars. It’s a fairly benign criticism, I don’t really think it’s fair to characterize it as disparaging. I’ve been watching Martin since she was on RT and will continue to value her work, that doesn’t mean she’s above criticism though.

                  “But to be CLEAR, since you confuse easily, whatever your “point” turns out to be…..it has the same validity as the attempted deflection of “wiki leaks” or that one should vote for Hillary, “because TRUMP…….”!”

                  I really don’t understand how my criticism of a single source amounts to an endorsement of Clinton. You’ll have to parse out your logic a little more because I’m not following.

                  “If you are concerned with the state of “journalism”, then you have “miles to go before you sleep”…..and Abby Martin is NOT someone who should concern you…..but I am certain we shall all find your response amusing if you are foolish enough to offer one.”
                  Ok, excuse me, I didn’t realize Martin was above minor criticsm.

                  • GALT

                    “I didn’t realize Martin was above minor criticsm.”

                    Now I am quoting you…..and your “motive” for posting, all
                    those words.

                    Given the content of the information in Abby’s piece, and the nature
                    of your concerns, Shakespeare is resting peacefully, secure of his
                    place in literature and his understanding of the human animal.

                    So, again……your point would be?

                    You can repeat yourself again….but it would seem
                    “Much Ado About Nothing.”

                    • DiskoTechJam

                      “What?”

                      • GALT

                        As previously stated: Your criticism of a “source” does nothing to change
                        who or what Hillary Clinton IS……or what will happen when or if she is elected.

                        Translation: You are a pointless waste of time, ours and yours…..clearly
                        you need to focus on something meaningful, so here are some “important”
                        questions you can help us with, or yourself, since having the time to waste
                        on that which is “meaningless”…..you surely must know the answers to these
                        questions.

                        1.) In order to become “employed”, the employee is required to
                        complete a w-4 as a condition of employment by law?

                        2.) Of the four types of law authorised by Article Three, two of
                        them are no longer available to “citizens”…..and because of this
                        citizens no longer have “rights”, but rather “benefits, privileges and
                        immunities” which are subject to change at any time, by any branch
                        of government. How would this be possible without amending the
                        constitution?

                        3.) In 1955 the Federal Reserve Note was “redeemable in lawful
                        money” which suggests that IT is NOT “lawful money”…..shortly
                        thereafter, this “redeemability” was removed from the “note”….
                        how was THIS possible?

                        4.) The longest, most successful con in American History and which
                        is still working was perpetrated by Thomas Jefferson….his actions,
                        which transformed slavery to the chattel/breeding form which dominated
                        the southern economy, also initiated the Texas revolt, the Mexican American
                        War and the Civil War…….what inspired the actions and what were they?

                        5.) What were the major causes of the American Revolution, listed
                        in order of importance and what event was the primary source
                        of these causes?

                        Of course you may continue your rather weak “Vinnie Barbarino”
                        impression….since you no doubt MUST have the last “word”….
                        punctuation is optional.

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “Translation: You are a pointless waste of time, ours and yours…..clearly
                        you need to focus on something meaningful, so here are some “important”
                        questions you can help us with, or yourself, since having the time to waste
                        on that which is “meaningless”…..”

                        Well, you are trolling the internet, so I don’t know, that might be the pot calling the kettle black there.

                      • GALT

                        Sorry to burst your “last bubble” but I am hardly a troll
                        HERE…..and having viewed your sparse “disqus” posting career,
                        you have clearly majored in the “inane and irrelevant” which
                        makes your concern for “journalism” even more laughable,
                        while you have little regard or understanding of “facts” or
                        their “implications”…..and finding yourself confronted with
                        those that affect your very existence to its core, you respond
                        like the typical “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”, who
                        must rely on “logical fallacy” to maintain the “irrelevant flow
                        of babble” that is the “opinion entitlement” delusion in the
                        democracy that is the internet.

                        Still, your closing comment does contain the proper answer
                        to the above questions…..” so I don’t know “…..which is
                        another quote of you, unintentionally but “truthfully” responding
                        to the “questions” asked.

                        As a “w.i.f.i.” you are dismissed….although as is typical the
                        fact that you are done will probably require you to flail
                        once again before it sinks in, as such is the nature of
                        the kingdom of the inane and irrelevant.

                        “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls
                        the past, controls the future.”

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        You are still……. DISMISSED.

                        As any inane and irrelevant distraction should be and
                        as you continue to insist on being. ( as indicated below )

                        “willfully ignorant, functional illiteracy” is not a permanent
                        condition…..unless one insists on remaining clueless.

                        Abby Martin has any number of ways available for you
                        to contact her and if you imagine that the information
                        regarding Podesta is reliant on one “source” then you are
                        a complete idiot.

                        BTW the “point” ( for the non wifi ) is that NO AGENCY
                        corroborated that any russian elements were involved…..
                        so what you get is “seems consistent with”…..which is
                        meaningless…..and NONE of it changes, the factual
                        content or implications of the “emails”……regardless of
                        how many agencies actually “failed” to implicate the
                        “russian government”.

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

              • vacuumation

                The National Review isn’t any less partisan than The Nation/Salon/Slate/RawStory and other ‘liberal’ publications are. You seem to have a problem with the National Review purely on the basis that they said something about you didn’t like about Planned Parenthood, which is totally irrelevant to the subject here. (And it makes sense they would talk about PP – it’s an entity that gets federal funding for aborting babies.)

                • DiskoTechJam

                  That’s a fair point, but my problem with the National Review goes well beyond partisanship. I’ve referenced four article here. One that attacked planned parenthood and a woman’s right to control their body, one that declared Edward Snowden to be a fraud and a traitor, one that said diversity in the CIA was a potential threat to national security, and one that claimed opposition to NSA spying programs was baloney. I would also point to NR’s long unfortunate history advocating for a politically correct white supremacy (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/28/national-reviews-ugly-civil-rights-history/195638). These are all issues that I can’t imagine Abby Martin would support.

                  Now obviously, anywhere that you link to is going to have plenty of views presented that you do not agree with (this video and lots of Martin’s reporting makes liberal use of mainstream sources WSJ, NYT, etc..) However, in this case, the article that is used is pure speculation with outright misleading information about the 17 agencies claim (which I lay out above) which unfortunately Martin repeats in this video. I would say she should have relied on a better source, but I have had trouble finding this specific claim about the 17 agencies in a more reputable source. Furthermore, I would say that whenever you are choosing sources it’s better to seek out dissimilarity than simply parroting the echo chamber (“conservative” outlets criticizing “conservative” figures is better than “liberal” outlets criticizing “conservative” figures). The echo chamber is what transformed speculation about the DNC hacks into conspiratorial Russian plots (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/). In this case, Martin seems to be plucking her facts from the conservative echo chamber.

                  P.S. The Hyde Amendment prevents Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding for abortions.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

                  • GALT

                    Wow you got a fact right. ( Hyde Amendment )

                    Your intercept link doesn’t work.

                    And besides being inane and irrelevant, your logic fails.
                    Besides being completely irrelevant, potential “russian”
                    involvement in the “hacks” is from the left ( faux left for
                    Hillary) not the right…..and if you are seeking the “truth”
                    about the opposition, your not going to find it amongst
                    the opposition, what you find is spin. ( and favorable facts,
                    should they exist )

                    If one is seeking the potentially negative, one will find it
                    among the “opposition”….

                    Of course, in today’s world most seek “confirmation bias”
                    from “choir preachers” who in this instance…..ended giving
                    Trump all the press coverage, because nothing positive
                    could be said about Hillary.

                    The “electorate” wants change….they have no clue regarding
                    what kind of change or what the “problem” IS…..and they are
                    easily distracted and want someone to blame, to avoid accepting
                    responsibility for their own part.

                    As demonstrated, your distraction, is pointless….as well as
                    inane and irrelevant.

                    You are still DISMISSED. ( no response required or possible,
                    Vinnie. )

                    • DiskoTechJam

                      “WHAT?”

                      I am honestly having a really hard time following what you are saying. Sorry.

                      • GALT

                        You’re a “w.i.f.i.”……how could you possibly understand ANYTHING?

                        But you will keep babbling…..

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        and babbling…..

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        and babbling……

                        The “w.i.f.i.” is compelled to continue since being exposed
                        as irrelevant is “shattering”…..yet the “talking monkey” must
                        have the last word…..and just one word, at that. Just think of
                        how much fun you will have exposing the “sources” and
                        “journalistic integrity” regarding your “new president”?

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        Watch the monkey!

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        The monkey is on string….watch the monkey!

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

                      • GALT

                        Such a clever little monkey…..pulling string, again!

                      • DiskoTechJam

                        “WHAT?”

          • lraivala

            Rebuttal:
            1. First off, the ODNI or the CIA release did not and does not represent the consensus of the group, the Director of the FBI came out almost immediately and rebuked that claim and even went so far as to say this is not a consensus among us. So I do not know where you got your intelligence briefing from, but it is clearly wrong.
            2. Speculation as to who or whom may have hacked the DNC bozo’s gmail account with him giving the password to them freely. There is no way, and i mean not a single way that anyone whether they are in the intelligence agencies or not, can with any accuracy say who it was. If what you think is even remotely possible, then you should contact these same agency and tell them who hacked into OPM’s database and stole over 20 million current and former federal employees Personal Information, Or better yet, get a hold of Yahoo and tell them who hacked their servers over the course of 5 years and stole more than a billion user account info, as they can’t seem to even narrow it down to a country, let alone a single entity. And for the record, if they cannot do it, why hasn’t these so-called national security agencies stepped forward to tell them who did it? Hint: Because unless you actually catch the person or persons with their hand in the cookie jar you will never catch them.
            3. Fred Fleitz summation is totally accurate. You do not need to see the fox in the hen house to determine the fox killed all of the chicken’s now do you? Whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero for divulging to the American people they were actively being monitored or not is something that will never be settled. But, with any corruption being exposed to the little peons like us, no matter how it is exposed should be the major concern to us, not whether the info was hacked or taken by ill gotten means. Water Gate was a prime example of ill gotten info that brought an administration down. Yes, they stumbled upon this info in an ill gotten manner. What everyone should be alarmed at is the content and context of what was revealed and that is a DOJ working or communicating directly with a person who was actively being investigated by a member of that so-called consortium of intelligence agencies.
            That is what scares me the most, is that people do not care about what is in the emails and the direct link to what they were doing. But rather the fact that some dope allowed someone to con him into giving them their personal email account password.

            Can you imagine any law enforcement agency contacting the person under investigation and letting them know what the next step is they were taking in their investigation of them. Simply mind numbing to think people can even remotely condone the actions the emails are suggesting that took place.

        • TecumsehUnfaced

          I’ve had my attention awoken to a certain situation many times by perusing a source of uneven quality. Subsequent checking determines its veracity, not whether or not you generally agree with the source.

          This is very simple. Kids do it, but in America our education system works to stop it. Our ruling elite don’t want trouble-makers.

    • Pingback: Abby Martin Exposes Hillary Clinton Chair John Podesta | D!SRUPT()