LEAKED AUDIO OF SEN. JOE MANCHIN CALL WITH BILLIONAIRE DONORS PROVIDES RARE GLIMPSE OF DEALMAKING ON

[Etherealoc1]

Last edited Thu Jun 17, 2021, 11:53 AM - Edit history (3)

Source: The Intercept


Audio of Joe Manchin in the meeting
hosted by the group No Labels, an operation co-founded by former Sen. Joe Lieberman was leaked.

The call included investors and corporate executives and the
meeting was led by Nancy Jacobson, the co-founder of No Labels.

Voting reform, infrastructure, were some of the topics Manchin was discussing with the group.


Read more: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/

---

Also posted at Daily Kos.

[flying rabbit]

1. Interesting. Nt

[Etherealoc1]

10. After listening to the recording

I couldn't believe Manchin willingly
knows McConnell is blocking everything because of his stance on
the filibuster and that in itself could
derail President Biden’s agenda.

[sheshe2]

2. The Intercept. nt

[JohnSJ]

5. Exactly

[sheshe2]

7. Several threads based on them tonight.

I never read the links. Worthless.

[questionseverything]

16. Listen to the recording

It’s dark money and passing voting reform

About how desperately they want the filibuster kept

[PSPS]

12. Huh? It's an authentic audio recording.

[TomWilm]

17. I also just blank out any news contradicting my own views ...

Reality can be so confusing .

[Blue Owl]

3. Inside the mansions of Joe's mind

[Etherealoc1]

9. For sure

Hell bent on proving the Democrats
wrong under the guise of bipartisanship.

[AllyCat]

4. Will look for another source. Intercept is not reliable.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. Sounds like Manchin is less hard and fast about the filibuster than is reported

Open to requiring talking filibuster, lowering threshold to 55, requiring 41 to sustain, rather than 60 to break...

He also sounds a bit frustrated at the Republicans if he's begging donors to pressure them.

[Etherealoc1]

8. Yep

but he's said this before, flip flopping
on the issue.

[mahina]

11. The Franken/ Ornstein plan! Hooray!!!

[monkeyman1]

13. go back to when joe m. daughter ceo jack-up insulin pen's 600% !! bring that up ???

[Duppers]

20. Had forgotten about that, so Thanks!

👍

[Cheezoholic]

14. Everything about this raises my eyebrows

While the content of the recording is worrisome, to me is how this content, be it legitimate or not, was obtained. I find it curious that this comes out the same week that it was discovered the other guys DOJ was secretly spying on so many. Which is justified and which isn't? Granted this recording apparently didn't get leaked from a government source investigating a crime, but still, isn't this spying for personal and to some extent political gain? Did this come from an external hack of a wireless router at their home or office? That's a crime. Or did it come from an internal source close to one of the participants, whether it be an employee, internal from an IT person. While that may not be a crime it can result in severe civil penalties beyond loss of employment. I understand journalists have sources and those sources are very important to getting to the truth at times. I guess my point is this whole thing is very suspicious. Politicians have these private calls all the time. This one just happened to pop up? I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to hack Gohmert or Brooks (his passwords are on his car dash) home wireless, criminally. I'm sure many of those private calls contain much more damning information than this one. It's one thing to be in the room and then leak the information or even be in the room and secretly record then leak the information, you were invited so risk is always prevalent. It's another to violate peoples privacy via hijacking networks or cellphones or PC's etc. if that's how it was obtained. If we are upset about the previous DOJ's behavior, we should be upset about this reporters behavior, especially if this recording was obtained maliciously. What little privacy we have left needs to be protected no matter who you are.

[questionseverything]

15. Respect "dark money " 1percenters privacy?

Not sorry


When romneys 47 percent comment leaked were you “concerned “?

[Duppers]

21. Indeed, please.

[TomWilm]

18. Main difference is if it is official snooping or some private hit job

Even if you are just talking to another person, there is always the possibility that he would leak your words. Or just a carefully edited selected few totally out of context. Or that somebody else is listening behind the door. Only in your thoughts are you totally free.

Many times worse is the leaks, where your own government use their power to snoop on you. Especially when they secretly use this information against you.

In between this, the big political parties and companies hires black ops freelancers to find and spread the dirt. So does also the governments to be able to claim innocence.

My guess is this recent leak is just business as normal. Somebody on that Zoom call had a political interest in getting this out, and so they did.

Nobody on a bigger Zoom call can believe that they are talking in full privacy - so nothing was said, which was not planned to be spread anyway!

[reACTIONary]

19. How is this "spying" if ...

... it was leaked by a participant to the conversation? This entirely different from a surreptitious third party listening in... Let alone a third party that is law enforcement.

[ck4829]

22. K&R

Last edited Tue Jun 29, 2021, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Critical Race Theory

[Maxheader]

23. They'll throw it in your face...

Without a care in the world. ...