This wikileaks email has been under evaluated. It would be much harder for John Podesta to explain this email chain. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/44232
This is my interpretation of the email chain.
Conversation between
Tara E McGuiness (TM)
&
John Podesta (JP) & Jennifer Palmier (White House communications director for the Obama Administration)
Mar 1 5:10 PM John Podesta Emailed: Leslie Dach and Tara McGuinnes
Is the better part of valor to postpone to later in the week? Easy for me one way or the other since I don't have to go out.
"Discretion is the better part of valor" Discretion is the better part of valor definition. Caution is preferable to rash bravery. Said by Falstaff in King Henry the Fourth, Part One, by William Shakespeare.
John Podesta with his tricky words implying that there needs to be discretion.
Tara G Responds Mar 1 5:23
We are easy either way
TG at 5:29 PM
Call me 202-244-XXXX
TG at 6:12 PM
En route. What is the house # again?
Then the next day John P sends a reply
Thx for coming out. Always happy to babysit.
Who the fuck was John Podesta Babysitting? Tara's daughter? pictured on her twitter handle?
https://twitter.com/taramcguinness
Why did the email chain start with
Suffice to say we will not make it tonight, I am sad to say. Have to settle for the pasta john gave us at Christmas. Really sorry to miss.
Honestly I don't think pasta would be that good 3 months later. Why hasn't this been brought up earlier? Did we miss this? This is damning.
My interpretation and only an opinion here is that Tara was trading a night with her daughter for some fresh pasta C3+P16+P16, a yeast/peptide cocktail used for treating age and disease.
view the rest of the comments →
Kacey ago
Yes grandparents babysit kids. But really, John Podesta. People with that kind of money and power are busy folks, unlikely to babysit eh? They hire nannies to watch the kids. This man who is a mover and shaker in Washington DC is going to take time to watch someone else's kids? Unlikely.
Are_we__sure ago
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
You are making an argument from incredulity which means you are arguing against something simply by claiming you can't see how it would happen.
This email is not describing a long venture. Why would you need a nanny? It seems like one visit. What does having money and power have to do with it? It's about somebody's preference. I know a really rich guy who spends his money on tortoises. Does that make sense to you? Answer: It doesn't matter, it just is true.
After something has happened, it's probability of happening is 100%. For example, it seems really unlikely that someone would leave a bar at 1:30AM and then instead of going home walk the streets for hours making phone calls. But that's exactly what Seth Rich did the night he was murdered and the evidence of his phone calls shows this. So the likelihood he would do that that night is 100%. It no longer matters at all how unlikely it was the night before it happened or if I can understand this. It happened. And my own personal disbelief of why he would do this doesn't matter
DarkMath ago
AreWeSure what's the name for the type of argument where you have jack shit to defend yourself with but you're definitely guilty and have to say something, anything to maintain the appearance you're not getting desperate?
For example maybe you've run a decades long Crack Cocaine business making money off the suffering of poor black people in say Los Angeles or Detroit and the heat is on big time so you start talking shit.
God I miss the 1980s so much it hurts.
:-D
@Kacey