What Everyone is Missing About the WikiLeaks Podesta Emails



With WikiLeaks’ massive dump of emails tied to John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton who now serves as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, most news outlets focused on Podesta’s link to Mrs. Clinton, the current Democratic presidential candidate. But what few noticed is how Podesta’s emails may help us learn how President Barack Obama may have picked individuals for his top administration positions.

According to the emails published by WikiLeaks, Podesta, a former counselor to President Barack Obama who, in 2008, served as co-chair of Obama’s transition team, received an email on October 6, 2008, from Michael Froman, the current U.S. trade representative. At the time, Froman was a top executive at Citigroup.

Just a month before the election, an email from Froman with the subject “Lists” carried three attachments: A list of “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, … plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates;” “a similar document on women;” and an outline of 31 cabinet-level positions, how they “might be put together,” and who would fill them.

In the email, Froman reassures Podesta the lists “will continue to grow, … but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”

But looking back, it’s clear that at least the cabinet list ended up being the most valuable document, considering that most of the names “scoped out” by Citigroup’s Michael Froman went on to be picked by the Obama administration.

As explained by the New Republic:

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more.”

While this email was sent on October 6th, the exchanges between Podesta and Froman suggest the lists had been floating around long before that, proving that, as many had long suspected, this was just the tip of the iceberg; we now know executives were pulling the strings long before Obama was even elected.

Up until that point, candidate Obama had advertised himself as an anti-corporatist candidate, promising he would arrive at the White House and rid Washington of the “revolving door curse.” Nevertheless, Obama apparently set his promise aside before he was even elected, allowing a top Citigroup executive to pick the top names of his administration long before said executive joined his transition team.

With more revelations coming from the massive WikiLeaks’ dump, this small footnote seems to be getting little attention from mainstream media. This is, perhaps, because it paints President Obama in a bad light. Regardless, it’s important to note that what many call crony capitalism is alive and well in Washington and that the Democratic candidate from 2008 — much like the Democratic candidate of 2016 — may have promised to stand firm against big corporations and their influence while in office, only to act completely differently behind the curtain.

Yes, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a disaster. But he’s not that different from Mrs. Clinton.

And as we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, the old batch of Democratic top leaders and cronies continue to run the show, propping up the same politicians of yesteryear whose promises have already been broken repeatedly and whose policy positions remain flexible, just waiting for the highest bidder. Will we fall for it this time?

COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network

Subcsribe for new articles direct to your inbox

Enter your best email below

Join 21,444 other subscribers


  1. Let’s get this out of the way up front. Donald Trump is not a libertarian. He is not a classical liberal. He is not a conservative.

    Donald Trump is a great businessman because he adapts to the situation. He takes advantage of every legal and strategic means to accomplish his goal of growing a thriving real estate and branding empire. He does not worry about things he cannot control. Too many libertarians, on the other hand, do worry about these things. They attempt to live in a world that does not exist. Libertarians should think like Trump.

    First, there is no compelling reason to vote for Johnson as a libertarian. He is not a protest vote for liberty. He is a center left statist attempting to appeal to statist voters as an alternative. In reality his appeal to these voters is not about him, it’s because his name is not Clinton or Trump. Voting for Johnson sends a message that it’s perfectly fine for libertarians to enable statists to take over their party. It’s counterproductive at best, seditious heresy at worst. Here is a former Governor who used his veto pen so often the ink nearly ran out, including a prohibition on the use of Medicaid money for abortions. Now he has a government solution to nearly every problem and not only supports the Obamacare status quo but advocates using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood. There is a list of 2 dozen similar statist positions too long to describe. Whatever happened to this man is not good for libertarians. He has taken a 180 degree turn. With no compelling case for a protest vote, we now have two choices; Clinton and Trump.

    Trump, however, is a pragmatist. He sees what is happening and he reacts to it, and his goal is clearly to represent the interests of the United States, not global interests. He wants to shut down trade deals that are protectionist at their core. This makes it impossible for organizations like Carlyle Group and Bain Capital to bring in big profits outsourcing industries. So the Bush and Romney family oppose him. He wants to shut down the free movement of people into the United States making the border so secure it mirrors the Great Wall of China. This interrupts the North American Union and other attempts at political integration. The Council on Foreign Relations therefore opposes him. He wants to be rational about NATO allies who do not contribute to their own defense but yet expect the United States to instantly come to their aid when threatened. Now the Neo Conservatives oppose him. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve and opposes the bailouts and corporatism. Now Wall Street opposes him. He wants to stop aggressive foreign wars that are not necessary (cleaning up Clinton’s ISIS mess he correctly views to be necessary). Now the defense industry opposes him. He is politically incorrect, takes things personally when attacked, and responds aggressively when confronted. Now the Social Justice Warrior community opposes him. He appeals to African Americans as an alternative to a Democratic Party which takes them for granted and has never helped them. Now the hard core conservatives oppose him. His enemies are the right enemies, and that is reason enough for me. But there is a stark contrast in his opposition that creates an even more compelling reason to support him.

    Hillary Clinton is essentially the leader of a criminal crime family. She is dangerous, perhaps more dangerous than any other recent President including her husband, because of the growth and consolidation of the family’s power.

    Her foundation is taking money from foreign powers in exchange for access and favors made possible by her positions and influence in government. Enemies who investigate her or threaten her empire die mysteriously, dozens of times. She is a pathological and serial liar who does it so easily I believe she is a truly diagnosable psychopath. Her megalomania has no bounds, attempting at all times to increase her wealth, influence, and power. Worse still, she is brazen about it. She makes nearly no attempt to hide her criminal activities. When Debbie Wasserman Schultz was exposed as a corrupt DNC Chairwoman, illegally and unethically working in Clinton’s favor against Bernie Sanders and was pressured into stepping down because of it, Hillary immediately hired her onto the campaign. When she defended a child rapist and he was acquitted by her attacks on the child as a slut, she bragged about it. When discussing African Americans she called them super predators which must be brought to heel. When her husband was accused of rape and assault of women she openly attacked their credibility, yet has said women must be believed when they make such accusations. She loudly advocated for a drone strike on Julian Assange who was exposing State Department corruption under her direction. The list goes on and on. She is so arrogant that she makes no attempt to even hide her corruption. A psychopath of this magnitude can never be trusted. She is extremely dangerous as President.

    Her policy agenda needs little discussion, though it is worth mentioning that she loudly supported NAFTA and TPP. She loudly supports increasing taxes. She is an obnoxious feminist seeking always to elevate women to higher status and privilege through use of government force. She is thoroughly anti-Christian and supports all manner of restrictions on religious liberty when it applies to Christians. She is proudly supportive of globalist agendas.

    It is far too dangerous to allow her to become President without doing whatever we can to prevent it. We must live in reality. We must adapt to the situation that exists, rather than the delusion of a Libertarian Party victory or the hope that Johnson will somehow become a born again libertarian, particularly with ‘Co-President’ Bill Weld whispering in his ear.


    • Make $90 /day for working on-line from your home for few hours on a daily base… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All what is required is a pc, access to the internet, plus some free-time… http://korta.nu/NDe

  2. And just think, none of this and so much more wouldn’t be occurring if, among other things, the constitutional framers had not banned Christian tests in Article 6 by which mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated.

    For more, see online Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

Comments are closed.