Presumptuous Politics

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Emails show Clinton campaign expressed concerns about Sanders' rise

WASHINGTON – Allies of Hillary Clinton felt threatened by the power of Sen. Bernie Sanders' candidacy and wondered about getting some signal of support from President Barack Obama in the heat of the Democratic primaries, according to the latest emails in a hacked trove from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Ahead of the Illinois primary in March, liberal operative Neera Tanden asked Podesta, who formerly worked on Obama's transition in 2008, if the president could give any kind of indication that he was supporting Clinton over Sanders.
Tanden asked Podesta whether Obama could "even hint of support of Hillary before Tuesday?"
Obama stayed officially neutral in the primaries until Clinton clinched the nomination in June.
Tanden wrote: "Maybe they don't want to do this, but the stakes are pretty damn high in this election for him."
The email exchange was contained in more than 1,500 emails released Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. The notes were stolen from the email account of Podesta as part of a series of high-profile computer hacks of Democratic targets that U.S. intelligence officials say were orchestrated by Russia, with the intent to influence the Nov. 8 election. Russia has denied the allegations.
In a separate June 2015 email, the Clinton campaign worried that some state affiliates of the nation's largest labor union, the National Education Association, were set to endorse Sanders even though the national union had not yet made an endorsement.

More on this...

On June 22, 2015, Clinton's labor outreach director Nikki Budzinski emailed other campaign officials to let them know "NEA is concerned their VT affiliate could do a Tuesday (next week) recommendation of endorsement (with potential press release). This is not confirmed. The bigger concern is that RI and MA might go with VT as well."
Carrie Pugh, the NEA's political director, had similar concerns and shared them with Clinton campaign officials.
Budzinski said the move in Vermont "doesn't pose serious concern for the NEA overall endorsement" but called it an "optics problem" coming before a major meeting of NEA representatives.
"I am working with Carrie Pugh on options to head this off," Budzinski wrote.
The NEA ultimately endorsed Clinton in October 2015 despite some complaints that leaders hadn't taken Sanders seriously enough and should have waited.
In an email to Podesta in January, Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg weighed in by urging that Clinton better position herself relative to Sanders on the issue of reforming big money politics and special interest giveaways.
The memo hints that Clinton, a prolific fundraiser and longtime Democratic Party insider, had her doubts.
"Her concern about authenticity and credibility on this issue is understandable but not right," Greenberg said.
"There is nothing more important politically than Clinton getting ahead of money and politics," the pollster said. "It is a pre-requisite for getting heard on change and government activism, for competing and beating Sanders and establishing a key contrast with the Republicans."
And both Podesta and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio warmed to the idea of setting up a "People's PAC" intended as a vehicle for Clinton to direct support toward liberal Democrats in the House and Senate — and potentially draw Sanders' supporters to Clinton.
The idea was floated in a March 2016 email from Huffington Post contributor Brett Budowsky to Podesta, which Podesta forwarded to de Blasio, who responded that the liberal PAC "has a lot of merit."
The People's PAC never came to pass.
"I think it's a good idea but think that our team will see it as a resource diversion," Podesta wrote to de Blasio.
In an email on Jan. 22, 2016, Erika Gudmundson, with Chelsea Clinton's office, discusses ways that the campaign could help Chelsea Clinton draw distinctions between her mother and Bernie Sanders as the campaign grew more competitive.
"The tone has changed — would be great to highlight for her where contrasts should be made," Gudmundson wrote.

Sources: Clinton emails would have been 'whitelisted' for Obama BlackBerry

President Obama’s high-security BlackBerry used a special process known as “whitelisting” that only allowed it to take calls and messages from pre-approved contacts, two former senior intelligence officials with knowledge of the set-up told Fox News – pointing to the detail as further proof the White House knew Hillary Clinton’s private account was used for government business.
As the administration now acknowledges, Obama and Clinton emailed each other while she was helming the State Department. If received on his BlackBerry, the “whitelisting” safeguard means Clinton and other contacts would have had to be approved as secure for data transmission – covering everything from emails to texts to phone calls. The Obama BlackBerry would have also been configured to accept the communications.
“Think of whitelisting like a bouncer in the VIP line at the party. If you are on the list you get in, if you are not, you get bounced to the pavement,” said Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer (CTO) for the DIA, and now a partner with strategic consulting and engineering firm Cognitio.
“Whitelisting happens by design. The IT professionals who whitelist devices at places like the White House only add the email addresses authorized by management. To do otherwise would be to violate policy in ways that could introduce threats to the system,” he added.
A second former intelligence official, who asked to speak on background, described the same process for the president’s BlackBerry, adding the timing is important. If clintonemail.com were “whitelisted” before March 2015, it would further undercut administration statements.
President Obama initially claimed in March 2015, when the details of Clinton’s secret server were first made public by the New York Times, that he only learned about the system from news reports, along with everyone else. Press Secretary Josh Earnest later walked that back, but maintained at the time that while Obama knew about Clinton’s email address, he was not aware of how the address and server had been set up.
While there is a difference between a private server and email address, if the president's BlackBerry were configured to accept the Clinton address, it would have been clear to those handling the request that clintonemail.com was not a government account.
Both Gourley, and the second former intelligence official said typically these request comes from the White House Chief of Staff or a deputy, and are directed to the Secret Service and the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), which is a military unit assigned to the task.
Earnest dismissed questions Wednesday about their March 2015 statements.
"The president's explanation in March of 2015 and my explanation of what the president knew in March of 2015 hasn't changed, and the truth is this is just critics of Secretary Clinton and President Obama recycling a conspiracy theory that has already been debunked," Earnest said.
Emails hacked from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s account and posted by anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks have provided additional details about the problems Obama’s initial statements caused in March 2015.
One of Clinton's top aides urged colleagues to "clean this up" after Obama claimed he only learned of Clinton's private email system from news reports. According to one March 7, 2015 email, Cheryl Mills challenged the president’s statement to CBS News.
"We need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov," Mills wrote to Podesta just before midnight.
In emails released by the State Department earlier this year, Mills also asked Lewis Lukens, who was the executive director of the State Department’s executive secretariat, about getting one of the highly secure BlackBerrys for then-Secretary Clinton.
“so I have now read up more on POTUS bb which appears not really to be a bb but a different device) is there any solution to her being able to use encrypted bb like the nsa approved one he has in the vault, and if so, how can we get her one,” she wrote. The request was never granted.
Less than a month after Clinton became secretary of state, and the personal email domain that she would use exclusively for government business was registered, Hillary Clinton's team aggressively pursued changes to existing State Department security protocols so she could use her BlackBerry in secure facilities for classified information, according to new documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Anyone who has any appreciation at all of security, you don't ask a question like that," cybersecurity analyst Morgan Wright told Fox News. "It is contempt for the system, contempt for the rules that are designed to protect the exact kind of information that was exposed through this email set up."
Current and former intelligence officials grimaced when asked by Fox News about the use of wireless communications devices, such as a BlackBerry, in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) -- emphasizing its use would defeat the purpose of the secure facility, and it is standard practice to leave all electronics outside.
A former State Department employee familiar with the Clinton request emphasized security personnel at the time thought the BlackBerry was only for unclassified material, adding their concerns would have been magnified if they had known Clinton's email account also held classified material.
"When you allow devices like this into a SCIF, you can allow the bad guys to listen in," Wright added.
FBI records show that President Obama used at least one pseudonym to exchange emails with then Secretary of State Clinton. The State Department withheld eight email chains that totaled 18 messages between the president and Clinton which remain confidential under the Presidential communications privilege.
Asked if the President’s BlackBerry was configured to accept the clintonemail.com address, a spokesperson for the Secret Service referred questions to the White House Communications Agency and the White House Military Office. Fox News is attempting to follow up with both.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Hillary is a joke Cartoons

Gregg Jarrett: The perpetual cloud of dirt and scandal that hovers over Hillary Clinton

“Pig-Pen” and his perpetual cloud of dirt.
It follows him wherever he goes and engulfs whatever he does. The beleaguered character in the comic strip “Peanuts” cannot seem to rid himself of the dirt, despite his best efforts. At times, he seems oblivious to the cloud. Or in denial.
Remind you of Hillary Clinton? Metaphorically, that is.
The dirt cloud of scandal has followed Clinton incessantly for years. Not just a single, isolated scandal… but several. Travelgate, Whitewater, cattle futures, Benghazi, private email server, Clinton Foundation, Wall Street speeches, you name it.
It’s one ignominious incident after another. And all of them are of her own making.
Clinton tends to stretch the bounds of propriety, dangling her foot over the legal lines. And her actions beckon political calamity. Thus, the interminable cloud.
But why? Doesn’t she ever tire of the swirling dust and dirt? Her critics claim she feels entitled or driven by greed.
You’ve heard the other claim: that laws are a mere nuisance which don’t apply to her.
Most people shaken by scandal, dial it back. But the hits keep on coming for Clinton.
She’s been likened to a runaway train that can’t (or won’t) activate its brakes. Whatever her reasons, the non-stop drama of controversies have taken a toll: 67 percent say Clinton is lying about how she handled her emails, and two-thirds believe she is downright dishonest.
Her latest scandal kicks up dirt on the FBI for its bewildering (see also, “stupefying”) decision to recommend that Clinton not be criminally prosecuted under the federal Espionage Act for mishandling classified documents and jeopardizing national security as Secretary of State. It seems that Clinton’s close friend shoveled truck-loads of money to the wife of the FBI deputy director overseeing the agency’s investigation of Clinton.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe was the money man. Through political groups he controls, he saw to it that Dr. Jill McCabe received more than $ 675,000 for her state senate race, according to The Wall Street Journal. It just so happens that her husband, Andrew McCabe, is second in command at the FBI and, as such, likely played a key role in allowing Clinton to escape criminal prosecution. No one has yet proven that Clinton’s fingerprints are on the bags of money. But her longtime friend and ally, Gov. McAuliffe, doesn’t deny he engineered the cash.
A little history lesson is in order. McAuliffe was Bill Clinton’s chief fundraiser back in the day.
He’s a guy who had the magic touch with money.
He could conjure up hundreds of millions of dollars without breaking a sweat.
He personally secured the loan so Hillary and Bill could buy their 11 room Dutch colonial in stately Chappaqua, New York.
Since money is the mother’s milk of politics, he’s a nice friend to have when you get in a jam.
The biggest jam of Hillary Clinton’s life was (and is) the email scandal. More than 2,000 classified documents were found on her personal server in the very home McAuliffe helped her buy – clearly an unauthorized place under the law.
She was facing an indictment for serious crimes which would end her bid for the presidency. Even worse, if convicted she might well be residing in a prison instead of the White House.
Did McAuliffe come to Clinton’s rescue yet again? Is that what the cash to Dr. McCabe was really for? To influence her husband’s investigation of Clinton? Dirtier things have happened in politics.
The FBI issued a statement denying corruption by insisting that McCabe did not begin his oversight of the agency’s investigation of Clinton until after his wife’s campaign ended.
Really?
We are supposed to accept that when he was head of the Washington field office (and later when he was promoted to the agency’s number 3 position) he had nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal probe? Hard to believe.
And even if that is true, what difference does it make that his wife’s campaign had ended? She still got the money. She was still beholden or grateful to Clinton’s close friend and the Democratic party for their financial support of her, wasn’t she?
As her husband, Deputy Director McCabe can hardly be described as an indifferent bystander. Spouses tend to support one another. That is exactly why ethics advisers at the bureau told him to recuse himself from public corruption cases during his wife’s senate race.
The conflict of interest is glaring. But that conflict does not suddenly and magically end at the conclusion of his wife’s campaign.
At the very least, the appearance of impropriety should have been enough for McCabe to disassociate himself from the criminal investigation of Clinton. Moreover, FBI Director James Comey should have demanded it. That they declined to do so adds even more suspicion to those who believe “the fix was in” not to prosecute her.
At least 5 people received immunity in connection with the case. Others took the Fifth.
Clinton herself couldn’t manage to recall much of anything during her relatively brief interview with the FBI. Her name and date of birth seemed about all she could add to the discussion. It’s a wonder she even remembered being Secretary of State.
Days later, Director Comey held a news briefing in which he laid out a case of how Clinton was grossly negligent under the Espionage Act (although he called it something else –“extremely careless”), but announced he would recommend to the Department of Justice no prosecution. FBI agents and lawyers were furious, according to reporting by Fox News.
Comey’s decision makes no legal sense… which only fuels the belief that something or someone else triggered the outcome.
All along Clinton seemed confident she would not be criminally charged. Did she know something we didn’t know?
The strange case of the McCabes may hold the answer. Or maybe it is only one of several political machinations that were brought to bear.
The whole sordid episode is just another chapter in the cloud of dirt and scandal that hovers over Hillary Clinton.
It never goes away.
Like “Pig-Pen”. Without the comedy.

Emails show Clinton camp scrambling over 2015 threat of Biden run

Newly revealed emails detail how Hillary Clinton's allies scrambled last year to head off a brewing presidential bid from Vice President Biden -- showing just how close he came to running and the role an ex-Biden aide played in the "demise" of that idea.
Biden was well-known to have considered challenging Clinton, the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, to be the party’s standard-bearer before taking himself out of the running a year ago.
However, the hacked emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta that have been released by WikiLeaks pull back the curtain on how seriously Biden was planning for a campaign – and how seriously Clinton’s staffers took that threat.
BIDEN WISHES HE COULD TAKE TRUMP 'BEHIND THE GYM'
The first mention of a Biden run in the Podesta emails came on June 11, when former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Eleni Kounalakis told Podesta that a wealthy Bay Area broker “swears Biden is running. He said he took him on Air Force Two, and he’s getting emails.”
Podesta then referenced the recent death of Biden's 46-year-old son Beau, who had cancer.
“Some speculation that Biden will run because of Beau’s loss,” Podesta wrote back. “I think that would be a little crazy and sad but you never know. I like him and grieve for him and hope he doesn’t do it for his sake.”
The Biden speculation jumped into high gear for Team Clinton after Maureen Dowd wrote an Aug. 1 column for The New York Times in which she said Beau, before he died, had pushed his dad to run for president. The column angered many in the Podesta-Clinton orbit, though it didn’t immediately seem to change the calculus.
“I think he’ll hang back unless she explodes and that won’t happen just because your friends at the [New York Times] wish it so,” Podesta wrote to CNBC’s John Harwood the same day the Dowd column came out.
But by mid-month, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden emailed Podesta with news that a hedge fund manager reported “that Biden (or his people – unclear to me who) are calling asking for support. Not doing a hard sell.” Podesta indicated he had heard the development, as well.
Just days later, on Aug. 23, Podesta advised New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio about how to answer potential Biden questions, adding a pro-Clinton spin: “Great guy, serious, grieve with him on the loss of his son, he has to make up his own mind whether to run, no big clamor out there for additional candidates.” Podesta on Aug. 24 told an inquiring Harwood that he now was “not sure” if Biden was leaning toward running.
Biden’s campaign appeared to be gearing up by the end of the month, when, on Aug. 28, a former White House staffer informed Podesta that Democratic consultants out West were being calling by Biden’s Chief of Staff, Steve Ricchetti, asking them to be regional coordinators or consultants for a campaign.
On Sept. 2, Podesta emailed Tanden: “Heard he is now telling union Presidents he is running.”
At that point, Clinton aides seemed to go from information-gathering to a more pro-active approach.
Podesta told Clinton in a Sept. 21 email that he had lunch with President Obama and discussed Biden. He didn’t reveal via email “the color of the conversation,” preferring to speak on the phone. But he did tell Clinton the news was “Nothing that can’t wait.”
Podesta next moved to shoring up those already likely to support Clinton. He spoke to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and told top Clinton aide Huma Abedin on Sept. 23 that Garcetti “won’t commit until Biden is definitive. Probable outcome is he stays neutral followed closely by he endorses Biden.”
Podesta went directly to Clinton regarding ex-UBS CEO Robert Wolf.
“Most importantly, Biden is courting him hard,” Podesta wrote. “He has told Biden he is with you, but Biden has pushed him to reconsider if he gets in or at least stay open to that possibility. Because Robert is known as an Obama confidante, he would probably be seen as a bellwether of Obama’s preference and there is no question that Biden would market it that way if he were to defect. He’s not just one more Obama fundraiser. I think he believes you would be the better President so I think he’s solid, but not rock solid.”
Wolf emailed Podesta 10 days later providing him with an agenda for a meeting the two were scheduled to have. Item 3 is “VP Biden update.”
On Oct. 12 Podesta forwarded an email from a Chicago “super-volunteer” with updates on the area to a group that included Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. Podesta noted Chicago is “probably a place Biden will try to play so we should pay some attention.”
It’s unclear what happened next, but, just three days later, the Biden threat appeared vanquished. Ron Klain, a former Biden chief of staff who is now an operative for the Clinton campaign, emailed Podesta with a cryptic note of thanks.
“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise – and I am definitely dead to them -- but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night,” Klain wrote.
Six days later, on Oct. 21, Biden, with Obama by his side, gave a news conference from the White House declaring he wouldn’t run.
Clinton, in a statement, said: “I am confident that history isn’t finished with Joe Biden.”

Numbers game: Trump battles media and polling establishment in insisting he can still win

Kurtz: Trump vs the 'phony polls'

Donald Trump, who loved to tout the polls when he was winning, is now accusing the media of pushing “phony polls.”
But even some of his own people aren’t backing him up.
Trump says he’s winning this election, even though most public polls show him losing nationally and in many of the key battleground states. The coverage is all about how big Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory will be and how she’s now turning her attention to helping Democratic congressional candidates. “Victory in Sight,” said a New York Times headline.
Here’s why it matters. Trump is right that if the country believes the race is essentially decided, some deflated Republican voters may stay home. (Of course, some Democrats may also stay home if an ultra-confident Clinton camp acts like this thing is in the bag.)
But for Trump’s allegations to be true, the surveys by New York Times/CBS, Wall Street Journal/NBC, Washington Post/ABC, Politico/Morning Consult, Fox News, CNN, Quinnipiac and others would have to be distorted.
There are three polls—L.A. Times, Rasmussen and IBD—that have given Trump a national lead of 1 to 3 points in recent days, or a virtual tie. So they would have to be right and the other surveys wrong.
All this plays into Trump’s broader argument about a crooked system. “When the people who control the political power in our society can rig investigations like [Clinton’s] investigation was rigged, can rig polls -- you see these phony polls -- and rig the media, they can wield absolute power over your life, your economy and your country and benefit big time by it,” he said the other day in Florida.
But his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, has acknowledged her candidate is “behind” in the polls. Ed Rollins, head of a Trump Super PAC and a Fox News contributor, said yesterday that “if the election were today, he’d lose and lose big time…They know it.”
The Electoral College projections are more damaging for Trump. Fox’s map gives Clinton 307 electoral votes, more than the 270 she needs to win.
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball gives Clinton 352 votes.
Nate Silver’s 538 gives Clinton 338.9 votes (I love the specificity).
And each new survey generates a new round of stories. Just yesterday, the New York Times said its poll had Trump trailing by 7 in North Carolina, without which it’s extremely difficult for him to win the White House. Another headline said, “Could Clinton Win Texas? Democrats Say Maybe.” (It’s still highly unlikely.)
“Florida Spirals Away from Trump,” says a Politico story, with Clinton leading there in 10 of the last 11 public polls.
Now some caveats are in order. Individual polls can be off. Democrats can be oversampled. Fewer people have land lines or want to spend time talking to pollsters. Trailing candidates can surge.
And outside events can intervene. The news that ObamaCare premiums will rise an average of 25 percent, and that consumers are being left with fewer insurance options, gives a strong argument to Trump and other critics of the federal program.
Are such issues enough to change the dynamic of what is now a two-week campaign, with the conventions and debates behind us? It’s an uphill climb for Trump.
And by the way, many trailing candidates in both parties, in an effort to fire up their base, question the polls or declare that the only poll that counts is on Election Day (a little less true in this age of early voting).
The difference is that Trump is saying the majority of polls aren’t just wrong but deliberately off base.
And he has a receptive audience. In a Reuters survey, almost 70 percent of Republicans said a Hillary win would be the result of rigged voting or voter fraud. In an ABC poll, 84 percent of Trump supporters say the same. (That is, if these polls can be believed.)
Whether Trump is trying to shake up the race or give himself a post-defeat rationale, he’s made the media’s polling—usually taken for granted as a rough barometer of public sentiment—a major issue in the home stretch.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Trump cuts off fundraising events for Republican Party

Trump frustrated by lack of support from GOP establishment?

Donald Trump's campaign has ended fundraising events meant to support the Republican Party's get-out-the-vote efforts in next month's elections.
Aides to the Republican nominee told Fox News that Trump Victory, the joint fundraising committee for the GOP and the campaign, held its most recent fundraiser on Oct. 19 and no more such events were scheduled.
The move, which was first reported by The Washington Post, cuts off a key money source for Republicans hoping to keep hold of both houses of Congress.
"We’ve kind of wound down," Trump national finance chairman Steven Mnuchin told the Post. "But the online fundraising continues to be strong."
By contrast, the Post reported that Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign has scheduled 41 fundraising events between now and Nov. 4. The former secretary of state was scheduled to make her last personal fundraising appearance Tuesday in Miami.
Mnuchin told the paper that the real estate mogul was focusing on making his final pitch to the voters at a campaign events rather than raising money in the final two weeks of the race.
"We have minimized his fundraising schedule over the last month to emphasize his focus on political [events]," Mnuchin said of the candidate. "Unlike Hillary, who has been fundraising and not out and about, he has constantly been out and about."
According to the Post, the Republican National Committee had collected $40 million through Trump Victory as of Sept. 30.
RNC spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the organization "[continues] to fundraise for the entire GOP ticket."
Meanwhile, Politico reported Tuesday that the Senate Leadership Fund, a Super PAC with ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was putting $25 million into seven Senate races deemed crucial in determining the balance of power on Capitol hill.