Subject: Re: Confidential
From: Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:28:49 +0000

What I tell media and others is that there are some who claim or imply they know the inner thinking of the Clintons but don't and be careful whose "inside" story they rely on or report. And that I have been so visible praising WJC and stating what a huge asset he is that I would have definitely heard if the inside view disagreed.

And that the only people who care about the sex issues at a time of economic concern and ISIS are Republicans, some television producers and ratings desperate execs and Ruth Marcus types under pressure to generate page views.

But normal people with important things on their minds don't give a rats ass about Lewinsky. And I have offered a dozen people to bet with me if they think Donald will be elected and not one will take the bet because they know these issues help and do not hurt Hillary with women.

But someone purporting to speak on her behalf is definitely---and stupidly--peddling this line.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: John Podesta
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Brent Budowsky
Subject: Re: Confidential

I am confident this isn't coming from the staff. I am pretty confident it is not coming from consultants, but am always nervous about being fully certain about what they are up to. But "people close to the Clinton's" is a very wide lot in my view. Reporters who have a story line can almost always find a "people close to the Clinton's" to give them what they want. More generally, I do think you are right on this, but very difficult to police.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
I had a multi-email exchange with someone in the media this morning---a name you would know---who is telling me that there are people close to the Clintons who says WJC's sex life could be damaging to her.  I responded that I totally disagree with that, that WJC's presidency and his personal appeal are huge assets and that I do not believe people who are the closest to the Clintons believe what this person in the media is hearing from somebody.

I never ask journalists about their sources.  I know you would be among them.
I also know that for some times there were people purportedly close to the Clintons pushing the line that the less WJC the better.  Which again I have always strongly disagreed with and still do.

My point in this note is that whoever is peddling this crap from somewhere within the Clinton camp is having the effect of encouraging the media to give the issue more prominence.  They are hurting both Clintons.  I always stay out of intra-staff stuff like this, both Clinton's would be well advised to advise the people in their orbit to shut the hell up about this.  Even if I thought Bill Clinton was a liability I would never in a million years write it, or say it to the media, but I think he is a huge asset and I also think some of the people they pay do not perform a service to them.

Sent from my iPad