Considering how doing things the proper way led to the Obamacare website kerfuffle in the first place, this is the type of corruption I'd actually want more of.

Since the guy questioned "how legit it is", the insinuation I get from Wikileaks that this project was some kind of shady government spying project.

Edit: to be clear, based on the e-mail it could literally be anything. But I guess the main point is to show how tightly SV is integrated into the inner workings of government.

Actually, that wasn't the case, whatever the competence of the contractors (and the lead company did a fantastic job on the Medicare Part D (prescription plan) subsite, which I have been using for a decade now), they were faced with a no win situational where major changes were being made right up to the week or half month before launch, requirements in general were delivered too late, CMS, which tried to play the general contractor role for which they didn't have the expertise, among other things required them to use a non-RDMS database with a paradigm they weren't even familiar with, I can go on and on and can dig up contemporaneous HN posts with more details.

Bottom line/TL;DR, the higher quality "dream team" people retained to "unfuck the Obamacare website" would have inevitably failed if they'd been in the same position prior to its launch, it's only after it became a crisis that anyone had a chance to make it work.

In my opinion, the whole email thing is making a mountain out of a molehill to rile up Trump supporters and give them some irrational reason to oppose the other side. It's groupthink at its finest. The sexual predator stuff is the same thing on the other side, both issues are totally irrelevant.

I'm voting for Hillary because she is far better suited for the position, and her platform isn't based on bullying and boasting of impossible plans.

I've also read, without sufficient verification, that the names of 4 CIA agents were burned, and in general it's clear it's a counter-intelligence nightmare of catastrophic and unprecedented proportions.

ADDED: Getting back to the email in question (which I found in full at https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36617) there's no way of telling if anything nefarious was implied, it's all the way back to mid-2014, so unless the structure was set up so illegal coordination would be required, and which sort of structure was to be set up was in the air, it's unlikely illegal "illegit" was implicated.

More likely Schmidt was generally ignorant of the details of these sorts of things and wanted to make sure the structure would be set up so nothing like that would come into play. And we haven't heard of anything like it with whatever his org eventually became, but it's something to be careful about, as the Project Veritas sting videos demonstrate.

She could have accidentally forwarded a top secret email to her bowling club mailing list and I still wouldn't think she was less qualified. It's just irrelevant in the bigger picture.

I think Trump is not qualified at all and I don't think he will do a better job. The president is not a dictator and they can't bs or bully their way into getting changes made. If he can manage to accomplish anything he says, which I doubt he can, it will end up making life worse for a lot of people.

I get his rhetoric, the government isn't perfect and some things aren't working well, but he's not going to be able to fix any of it. He's just pointing fingers at red herrings to get people to back him.

No, against all advice with anyone with a clue about security, and the law, she set up her own private email server and transacted all her email State Department business on it, including the transmission of HIGHLY classified information.

Every bit of what I said in the above paragraph is a matter of public record.

That's still not enough to make me want to vote for a pushy business guy whose platform consists of impossible claims and juvenile name calling.

Not germane to my comments, unless you want to widen the scope of our discussion.

Me, I'll just note that Trump doesn't palpably want to start a shooting war with Russia, and in general, Hillary's warmongering (e.g. "We can, we saw, he died"; you do know we're fighting 5 undeclared wars right now?) and her general way of "doing business" that goes all the way back to her first real job, a stint on the Watergate Investigating Committee, from which she was terminated with extreme prejudice, which along with failing the D.C. Bar exam forced her to accept Bill's outstanding offer of marriage and exile herself to 1970's Arkansas, makes her an existential risk to the United States if she becomes President.

Foreign policy is, by law going back to the Constitution, largely the remit of the President, so it's an area where it doesn't matter that "The president is not a dictator and they can't bs or bully their way into getting changes made.", the Commander in Chief can most certainly get an earnest shooting war started (I've in fact gotten into arguments about whether the replacement for the SAC could legally and in practice refuse to her resorting to the nuclear football). And as the email server debacle shows, Hillary is not one to worry about long term consequences.

You do own a paper copy of Nuclear War Survival Skills, I assume? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills you need a paper copy to get the dimensions of the Kearny Fallout Meter correct.)

And it sounds like he gave good advice.