It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton Campaign Confiscates Cell Phones From Donors

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Relax people, this is not as bad as the headline says !!

But it is ironic to say the least.

According to a leaked Podesta email, some Clinton staff people were trying to figure out a formula for "press" allowance at fundraising events.

After some back and forth, they decided if 500 or more people were involved, they would give the "OK" for press.

100 was no good apparently because of "confined" space, and maybe those small events are some "special" donors?

So they suggested taking away cellphones from donors at small events because of fear of "LEAKS" of all things.

I would think they should be more worried about the international leaking going on for the past few months.

Lots of leaks in the Clinton buckets. Ironic.

Mini-Brownshirt tactics.

Clinton Campaign Confiscates Cell Phones From Donors


The Hillary Clinton campaign controls how the press covers her fundraisers and even asked donors to turn in their cell phones so “unapproved” images wouldn’t get leaked to the press, according to Wikileaks emails obtained from Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta.

Clinton confidant Huma Abedin exchanged these emails with aide Kristina Schake in April 2015. Schake outlines specific conditions that would allow the donors and press at Clinton events to bring cellphones and cameras for the purposes of manipulating public perception of Hillary’s favorability.

She wrote:

“Here is a draft policy for input: less than 100 people – NO cellphones, NO press.

Over 100 people, YES cell phones, and ONE print pooler will be escorted in for her remarks only and then escorted out. NO TV cameras.

Over 500 people in a public space – YES cell phones, OPEN press (all press access including TV cameras).”

So a Clinton event with less than 500 people gets virtually no coverage because it would showcase Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm for their candidate.






posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

BUT THE POLLS!!!!!



Trump fills large venues with people who can't get in. Hillary can't fill a small venue to save her sorry hide.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
So thIs is kind of like how Trump makes people he hires sign non-disclosure agreements? He even makes his wives sign non disclosure agreements, imagine all the rape allegations he's trying to keep secret.

What's he so scared of?
edit on 11-10-2016 by RedMenace16 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: xuenchen

BUT THE POLLS!!!!!



Trump fills large venues with people who can't get in. Hillary can't fill a small venue to save her sorry hide.


Yeah.. I thought they had the Presidency LOCKED UP TIGHT. Why would their campaign be so petty at this point?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedMenace16
So thIs is kind of like how Trump makes people he hires air people he's in a relationship sign non-disclosure agreements?

What's he so scared of?


A truly brilliant observation !!




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
He sure does fill up stadiums, zero ground game, Clinton has 300 campaign offices vs Trumps 90, come election time you will see what happens when you're ground game is non existent.

What's the point of filling up stadiums if you don't capitalize on that? Trump is lazy and the GOP was running most of the few ground game operations up until this weekend after the Trump tape debacle.

And if you want a source for my numbers I have no source because I made it up and I'm working for Soros and the Illuminati.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Man, sourcing Alex Jones? Come on man, it's not funny anymore.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Man, sourcing Alex Jones? Come on man, it's not funny anymore.


Oh I'm so sorry.

I didn't know Jones wrote the emails.




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Then just quote the emails, no Wikileaks links obviously. You're giving Alex Jones creditability.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Then just quote the emails, no Wikileaks links obviously. You're giving Alex Jones creditability.


Why not?

You are just trying to play tricks to muddy the truth! So what AJ reported on it. You even admitted we can't link to Wikeleaks on ATS!

The link to the email as at the source, click on it and educate yourself rather than trying to scream INFOWARS BLAAAAAAAA....

Seriously, did you even read the source material which linked to WikiLeaks or did you just have a knee jerk reaction because it was an Infowars article?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Another sensationalized thread. You are on a roll today. Did you miss the first part of your source?


The Hillary Clinton campaign controls how the press covers her fundraisers and even asked donors to turn in their cell phones so “unapproved” images wouldn’t get leaked to the press, according to Wikileaks emails obtained from Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Man, sourcing Alex Jones? Come on man, it's not funny anymore.


That's why he doesn't mention the source on ATS posts he just links to the BS propaganda article.

I've noticed he does that a lot and most of his posts are misleading out of context quotes.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

People are missing the punchline.

They're worried about leaks when they are the biggest victim of leaks.

Get it?



A lot of nit-picky and nervous people lately.

Calm down and think !!




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RedMenace16



Relax.

It's only an election.

It's only an election.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No. It's blatant manipulation of the facts. Expected but still wrong.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Maybe they think somebody might catch a pict of her scratching the side of her eye, and spam it across the net saying she is going blind. Or already blind.
From Syphilis.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Maybe they think somebody might catch a pict of her scratching the side of her eye, and spam it across the net saying she is going blind. Or already blind.
From Syphilis.


That is a valid concern.




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Then just quote the emails, no Wikileaks links obviously. You're giving Alex Jones creditability.


Why not?

You are just trying to play tricks to muddy the truth! So what AJ reported on it. You even admitted we can't link to Wikeleaks on ATS!

The link to the email as at the source, click on it and educate yourself rather than trying to scream INFOWARS BLAAAAAAAA....

Seriously, did you even read the source material which linked to WikiLeaks or did you just have a knee jerk reaction because it was an Infowars article?


You should try to venture out of Breitbart and Alex Jones for a day or two, you're gonna be the star of your own Truman Show.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: xuenchen

BUT THE POLLS!!!!!



Trump fills large venues with people who can't get in. Hillary can't fill a small venue to save her sorry hide.


That's something of a good question actually, except that a small venue is a small venue. That then needs to address the question of revenue, since the keyword here is donors. Personally I would have no intention of paying anyone, especially in politics anything except on spec, if there is actually something to offer grounded on past proclamations, and well documented.
Since there are now two given nominees, neither having great past histories, why should you pay to see them at all unless you want to make a donation in advance.
The Trump camp has charged an entry fee, $200 is documented for a large rally in New Jersey in May, however it's hard to find an entrance fee into a Hillary rally, the venues of which have always been deliberately small in the main, which also means that any excess is not likely to get in anyway, also documented.
So, that's what you are left with, a sense of curiosity, since the venues need to be paid for by someone, and they don't come cheap as common sense will tell you, as Bernie Sanders might tell you.
There's the thing, Bernie's gone, was popular, had huuge Trump like rallies that cost a fortune,(perhaps the norm in American elections in the past) while his fund raising probably saved his bank account somewhat, but still Clinton managed to pull off the nomination with near no Razzmatazz, and is in the black, almost as if nothing ever happened.
Have you got an explanation for that?
Has anybody?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Yes. Hillary had more votes in the primaries. You're welcome.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join