DoJ Just Entered the Huma Email Case and the Next Scandal

Posted on October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 by Denise Simon

John Podesta’s Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ’s Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails

Zerohedge: Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner’s notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton’s personal server, moments ago the US Justice Department announced it is also joining the probe, and as AP reported moments ago, vowed to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in the Clinton case.

The Associated Press

✔ @AP

BREAKING: Justice Dept. says it’ll dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in Clinton case.

4:16 PM – 31 Oct 2016

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

Just the Facts‏@JTF_News 3h3 hours ago

#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.

So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik… Kadzik… where have we heard that name

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, “Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary’s Benghazi Hearing” in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton’s Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement “is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.” As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik’s role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta’s, and thus the Clinton Foundation’s inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

Kadzik’s current role

In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.

Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.

Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

* * *

And now it seems that Kadjik will be in charge of the DOJ’s “probe” into Huma Abedin’s emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find “anything” of note.

Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

Terrifying Immigration Numbers, and Court Decision

Posted on October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 by Denise Simon

Hundreds of Migrants Pitch Tents on Paris Streets as Calais Camp Shuts

(REUTERS) – The number of migrants sleeping rough on the streets of Paris has risen by at least a third since the start of the week when the “Jungle” shanty town in Calais was evacuated, officials said on Friday.

Along the bustling boulevards and a canal in a northeastern corner of Paris, hundreds of tents have been pitched by migrants – mostly Africans who say they are from Sudan – with cardboard on the ground to try and insulate them from the autumn chill.

While the presence of migrants there is not new, it has grown substantially this week, Colombe Brossel, Paris deputy mayor in charge of security issues, told Reuters.

“We have seen a big increase since the start of the week. Last night, our teams counted 40 to 50 new tents there in two days,” Brossel said, adding there was now a total of 700 to 750.

This means there are some 2,000-2,500 sleeping in the area, up from around 1,500 a few days before, she said.

“It’s not a huge explosion in numbers but there is a clear increase,” she said. “Some of them come from Calais, others from other places.”

JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty

After years as serving as an illegal base camp for migrants trying to get to Britain, the “Jungle” at Calais was finally bulldozed this week and the more than 6,000 residents of the ramshackle camp near the English channel were relocated to shelters around France. More here.

Sessions: ‘Critical alert,’ 817,740 illegals crossed last year

In a bid to put the issue of illegal immigration back into the presidential debate, outspoken critic Sen. Jeff Sessions on Monday issued a “Critical Alert” warning of a potentially historic surge of over the border.

“We are simply overwhelmed,” his statement said. In it he estimated the Fiscal Year 2016 illegal crossings at 817,740.

“There is a crisis at our southwest border — one that in many ways exceeds the crisis we saw just two years ago, one that further undermines the integrity of our immigration system, but one that the most of the media has elected to ignore,” said Sessions, an advisor to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is currently detaining more than 40,000 aliens, with internal predictions indicating that the number could reach 47,000 in the coming months.

In fiscal 2016, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 408,870 illegal aliens at the southern border; a number 23 percent higher than in fiscal 2015.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, was quoted as saying just half of illegals are caught crossing the border.

Calculating illegal entries based on that formula, 408,870 illegal aliens evaded detection in fiscal 2016, for a total of approximately 817,740 illegal entries into the United States last year.

Sessions said the border crisis demands a new president and approach to reforming immigration starting with a closed border.

*****

In part from Breitbart: Border Patrol Agent and NBPC President Brandon Judd spoke exclusively with Breitbart Texas and condemned the leadership of the Border Patrol’s parent agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for allegedly “keeping this information secret” ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“We are at breaking point. We have the highest number of illegal aliens in custody in history in Border Patrol’s RGV Sector and this information has been kept from the American public,” said Agent Judd. “The talk of amnesty has once again created pull factors and encouraged people from all over the world to cross Mexico and then cross our porous southern border to illegally enter the U.S. We are simply overwhelmed.” (See CBP’s response below.)

Agent Judd told Breitbart Texas that Americans should vote their conscience, but they should do so with all of the information available. “This is an issue of the federal government restricting crucial information from the public ahead of a presidential election and it is unacceptable. Americans deserve to know the truth. Our Border Patrol agents deserve for Americans to know what they are really facing. Too many Border Patrol agents have given their lives and left loved ones to grieve for CBP leadership to play these types of political games ahead of such an impactful election.”

Agent Cabrera said CBP were in fact concealing the gravity of the current border crisis. “One side in this coming election is downplaying illegal immigration and concealing this information only serves to help that agenda,” said Agent Cabrera.

Breitbart Texas reached out to the RGV Sector PIO for the Border Patrol and did not receive a response, though not much time was given to the agency. (See update below. A strong denial of the agents’ claims was issued by CBP to Breitbart Texas after publication.)

Historically, CBP, Border Patrol’s parent agency, has had to correct false assertions and denials. Perhaps the most glaring example occurred in June 2014 when an official CBP Twitter account directly accused this reporter of publishing a false report, only to later admit the report was accurate and true.

CBP has released numbers indicating near-record apprehensions; however, the assertions from the agents in the NBPC pertain to people who illegally entered the U.S. and are currently in custody in Border Patrol facilities. Agent Judd stated, “There is a significant difference between apprehension numbers and numbers in custody in our facilities. These record numbers in custody indicate that these are people who are not voluntarily returning. This indicates that these people will, under current policy, be released into our communities and given amnesty. This record number of people currently in detention is significant because the RGV Sector is dealing with the Gulf and Los Zetas cartels. This means our agents are busy babysitting record numbers in facilities instead of patrolling the border and stopping these murderers, kidnappers, and drug smugglers.” More here.

*****

Judge rebukes administration over few admissions for Syrian Christian refugees

FNC: A federal judge has rebuked the Obama administration over the lack of Syrian Christians being admitted from the war-zone, calling it a “perplexing discrepancy” that only 56 of 11,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. in fiscal 2016 were Christian.

The rebuke came in a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center – a liberal human rights group that advocates for immigrants and asylum-seekers — seeking information on certain terror groups.

As first reported by attorney and former FEC member Hans von Spakovsky for The Daily Signal, while the court found in favor of the government, Judge Daniel Manion addressed the refugee issue and took aim at the Obama administration over how few Christians had been admitted to the U.S.

“It is well‐documented that refugees to the United States are not representative of that war‐torn area of the world. Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one‐half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian,” he wrote.

According to government figures, of the almost 11,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States in fiscal 2016, only 56 were Christian.

RELATED: ‘GROSS INJUSTICE’: OF 10,000 SYRIAN REFUGEES TO THE US, 56 ARE CHRISTIAN

“To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy,” Manion noted.

The numbers are disproportionate to the Christian population in Syria, estimated last year by the U.S. government to make up roughly 10 percent of the population. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have fled the country, while many have been targeted and slaughtered by the Islamic State.

Manion qualified his remarks by saying that his point “is not to suggest that any refugee group is more or less welcome: quite the contrary” but warned the Obama administration against failing to provide states with enough data on the people coming in.

In the case, the NIJC was requesting the identities of Tier III terrorist organizations, which are not publicly available. The administration argued that Tier III terrorist organizations “tend to be groups about which the U.S. government does not have good intelligence, making it essential that [DHS] be able to obtain information about them during screening interviews that are as focused and complete as possible.”

Manion noted that potential ties to a Tier III organization like a Christian militia may be why the government is not letting in as many Christians, but that it was impossible to tell since the information is not publicly available.

“It is at least possible that incidental affiliation with some Christian militia could lead an immigration officer to deny entry to Syrians on this basis. That would be a dubious consequence,” he wrote.

A State Department spokesperson told FoxNews.com in September that religion was only one of many factors used in determining a refugee’s eligibility to enter the United States.

Southern Poverty Law Center Just Added More Names

Posted on October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 by Denise Simon

A New Blacklist From the Southern Poverty Law Center Marks the Demise of a Once-Vital Organization

15 prominent writers and thinkers are labeled “anti-Muslim extremists”—Why?

By Lee Smith

Tablet: Late last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which became deservedly famous in the 1980s for combating violent white-power hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, published a list of 15 individuals it labels as particularly threatening anti-Muslim extremists. It is sad but telling that the SPLC’s so-called field guide to Muslim-haters is not a list of violent extremists—who certainly do exist—but is instead a blacklist of prominent writers whose opinions on a range of cultural and political issues are offensive to the SPLC. The SPLC blacklist list contains practicing Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, foreign-policy think-tankers like Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes, and right-wing firebrands like David Horowitz—none of whom could be reasonably described as anti-Muslim bigots.

I spoke to Nawaz on the phone in London to ask for his reaction. “A bunch of first-world, comfortable liberal Americans who are not Muslims have decided from their comfortable perch to label me, an activist who is working within his Muslim community to push back against extremism, an anti-Muslim extremist.”

On the face of it, it’s difficult to understand why Nawaz was listed as such. As he told me, he’s a proud Muslim. “I learned Arabic in order to read my holy book,” he said. “In an Intelligence Squared debate, I defended the proposition that Islam was a religion of peace. This was the same week that the man who attempted to bomb Times Square was sentenced so it wasn’t the friendliest New York audience. I hosted Morgan Freeman in a mosque for his documentary The Story of God.”

Nawaz takes the SPLC blacklist seriously, he told me, because he believes that it has put his life in danger. “They’ve put a target on my head,” he said. “This is what putting people on lists does. When Theo Van Gogh was killed in the Netherlands, a list was stuck to his body that included Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s name. It was a hit list. When Bangladeshi reformers were hacked to death by jihadist terrorists, they were working off lists. Only fascists produce lists.”

It’s not easy to understand how the SPLC got here. The organization started in 1971 as a civil-rights law firm designed to combat white-supremacist groups. In 1981 it won a civil suit against the Klan for $7 million that bankrupted the United Klans of America. In 1991, it used the same tactics to win a $12 million judgment against the White Aryan Resistance. It won a $6.5 million case against the Aryan Nations in 2001. Co-founder Morris Dees’ career was dramatized in a TV movie, Line of Fire.

For SPLC’s efforts against violent white supremacists, its members were frequently targeted for reprisal. Yet now, the SPLC is putting bounties on the heads of Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, who are opposed to Muslim extremism. Where the SPLC was once able to win legal battles through careful, often dangerous research that could stand up in court, the organization now identifies the Center for Security Policy, a hawkish right-wing think tank, as a hate group, right alongside the Ku Klux Klan. Where the organization once pushed for freedom for all regardless of race or creed, now it aims to silence those whose opinions it finds objectionable. In doing so, it makes it hard for any impartial observer to place much confidence in future claims about groups and individuals that may actually be dangerous.

Perhaps in spite of the number of white supremacists who have moved into the light with the nomination of Donald Trump, the SPLC no longer has the resources to tackle those who threaten violence and act on it. Instead, it’s spending its time on Google and Twitter—and hoping to raise money by going after writers and intellectuals who get its goat.

What’s more troubling are the suggestions contained in the report that the SPLC no longer thinks that political violence and hate are a bad thing, or even real—as long as the people committing such acts are Muslims. Complaints against radical Islamist violence, the report bizarrely suggests, are

propaganda, the vast majority of it completely baseless, produced and popularized by a network of anti-Muslim extremists and their enablers. These men and women have shamelessly exploited terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis, among other things, to demonize the entire Islamic faith.

Sadly, a shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested.

Interestingly, the document fails to list the man who, according to this description, is the world’s most influential anti-Muslim extremist—President Barack Obama, who told the Atlantic that young people in the Middle East are only thinking about how to kill Americans.

Obama isn’t a violent anti-Muslim extremist any more than the 15 people named here. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an outspoken critic of Islam and has a compelling personal narrative that reflects the story of millions of women and men who have suffered in the name of Islam. David Horowitz is a pugnacious right-wing intellectual who often engages in sharp propaganda. Daniel Pipes is a fierce adversary of Islamic extremism and a knowledgeable scholar of the Middle East. There is much to disagree with in what they and others identified in the SPLC write or argue. I find the work of a small number of the people listed in the report to be puerile. But neither they, nor anyone on this list, deserve to be listed alongside white supremacists who threaten or actually employ violence.

In reality, the SPLC’s field guide has little to do with real anti-Muslim extremism, the red-hot center of which these days is not America but Syria—where so-called secular dictator Bashar al-Assad has teamed up with Iran and Russia to slaughter nearly half a million Sunni Arabs. The SPLC document is simply an enemies’ list, of the kind that fascists, Stalinists, and other totalitarian thinkers can’t help producing. So it’s hardly surprising that the ghost of Stalin makes an appearance. In a paper nominally highlighting anti-Muslim sentiment, David Horowitz is chided for questioning why one professor identifies Paul Robeson as a “model of [American] patriotism.”

That the SPLC document seeks to re-litigate the case of Paul Robeson, who openly admired Stalin, is evidence that the field guide is simply a blunt instrument used to attack the enemies, personal and institutional, of the paper’s four contributing institutions—Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community, and ReThink Media. (Regarding the Robeson issue, perhaps it’s the pet project of SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok who has contributed to the People’s World, a publication affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States of America.)

Nor does the SPLC hide the fact that the purpose of its publication is to blacklist and silence its enemies. The field guide recommends to its consumers in the media that they, “research the background of extremist spokespeople and consider other sources, and if they do use anti-Muslim spokespeople, point out their extremism.”

Why is a liberal organization like the SPLC now using fascist tactics to blacklist enemies? Maajid Nawaz believes the organization has targeted him for a very specific reason. “The left is no longer about advancing progressive values,” he said. “For them, it’s now about tribal identities, and any internal critique is seen as treachery.” Nawaz also believes there may be another reason—the activists at the SPLC, he suggested, “may be influenced by Islamists themselves.” And there is evidence in the paper to suggest that Nawaz’s contention may have some truth to it.

The field guide attempts to rewrite history of the Muslim Student Association, for one. In its dossier on Horowitz, the SPLC complains that he

placed an ad in an April 2008 issue of a campus newspaper, The Daily Nexus, claiming that the Muslim Student Association was “founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of Al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring jihad into the heart of American higher education.” In fact, it had worked with Jewish campus groups, according to faculty members.

Whether or not some chapters of the MSA worked with Jewish campus groups (while the University of California at Irvine chapter shouted down guest speaker Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in 2011), it’s established that Brotherhood members played a role in founding the MSA.

Even more telling is the rationale for blacklisting Nawaz. Among others, he “tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad—despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted ‘to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.’ ”

That Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in an effort to change the minds of Muslims who might automatically declare such an action to be blasphemy is the act not of an anti-Muslim extremist but a Muslim reformer. That the SPLC itself accuses him of blasphemy belongs not to the tradition of an American Civil Rights organization, but rather to the ideology of a religious fundamentalist organization, of the type that inspired the ISIS cadre that executed the staff of Charlie Hebdo.

The fact is that more than 40 years after its founding, the Southern Poverty Law Center is now aggressively defending the kind of violent supremacists it had once sought to prosecute, and attacking types like Nawaz it had once defended against violence. The suggestion that the organization has in fact switched sides will likely cause violent extremists of all shades and types to breathe a sigh of relief. It is also sign that there is something deeply wrong with our political culture.

****

In 2015:

(CNSNews.com) – John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security, announced Wednesday that the Justice Department is creating the new position of domestic terrorism counsel to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic extremism.

Carlin praised groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center “that dedicate themselves to examining what the threat is, observing it, and reporting on it,” adding that the work of the SPLC was “very important.”

The SPLC says it places groups — including conservative, Christian groups — on its “Hate List” based on their beliefs, not their propensity for violence.

“Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate — anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs,” Carlin told a gathering at George Washington University. The discussion was co-hosted by SPLC. “When it comes to hate and intolerance, no single ideology governs.”

Carlin was asked about the value of SPLC’s work in helping DOJ deal with the threat of domestic terrorist extremism.

“I can say, based on our briefings, that as I said in my opening remarks, we very much think that the domestic terrorism threat is a real and present threat that demands to be addressed in new, creative ways,” he replied emphasizing that “Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups in this space are very important.”

The SPLC’s website features a “hate map” that lists the conservative. Christian Family Research Council (FRC) as a “hate group” because of its defense of traditional marriage. The “hate map” was cited by convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins in his decision to attack the FRC in 2012 when he shot and wounded a security guard before being subdued. More here from CNS

WikiLeaks: Hillary/Podesta and Army Discussions Include Destroy GOP

Posted on October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 by Denise Simon

*****

Working document:

To: Interested parties

RE: DNC Structure

STRUCTURE

I would suggest you consider two staffing structures for the DNC:

CEO onlyIf this is the chosen structure, I would recommend finding a new CEO.
Under this scenario, the CEO would be accountable for all functions of the DNC—money, general election, and party/convention affairs. She or he would need to hire a General Election Director to help with general election planning and programs, but would remain ultimately accountable to the Chair for everything in the building.
CEO and General Election DirectorI would then suggest hiring a General Election Director, who would report directly to the Chair on all general election matters (a job scope is attached), including all budgeting, spending, and cash flow for the joint fundraising committee with the campaign. This would be “your person” at the DNC and she or he would work directly with your campaign manager on organizing a general election strategy and getting battleground state parties and the DNC up to snuff. This person would be the final decision maker at the DNC on how the joint committee money is spent and would do so in coordination with your campaign.
In this scenario, I would suggest keeping Amy Dacey as CEO and make her responsible for all party affairs and meetings, the convention, and basic DNC operations (compliance, the building, etc). I suggest keeping Amy because she is already familiar with the rhythm and functions of the DNC, such as the Rules and Bylaws process, the quarterly party meetings, and the convention. These functions are important to the DNC as an institution, especially to the DNC members, but they aren’t particularly important to you if you decide to run. Keeping Amy at the DNC would also allow White House to have someone in the building to look after their needs, such as polling.

Recommendation: I would recommend the second option, since party affairs and the convention are incredibly time consuming and would probably distract from general election planning (i.e. you don’t want the person in charge of figuring out how to win Florida and Ohio taking a week to look at convention sites). You also don’t want the politics of the DNC itself to disrupt or derail your general election effort.

STAFFING OPTIONS

Options for Chair

Stephanie Shriock, President of EMILY’s List
Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Michigan
Ted Strickland, former Governor of Ohio
NEED OTHER OPTIONS

CEO or General Election Director

Kelly Ward, current Executive Director of DCCC
Mitch Stewart, 270 Strategies, former Battleground States Director for OFA 12
Jeremy Bird, 270 Strategies, former Field Director for OFA 12
Marlon Marshall, former Dep. Field Director for OFA 2012
Buffy Wicks, current ED of Priorities, USA

Other key staff:

Finance Director: recommend keeping Jordan Kaplan
Data and Technology Director: recommend keeping Andrew Brown
Communications and Research: recommend assessment; potentially bring in some enhanced research capacity
Voter protection director: recommend a new Voter Protection Director
Political Director: recommend a new Political Director

TIMING

I would suggest aiming to have a General Election Director in place by the beginning of December, so he or she can attend immediately to some urgent voter protection and research matters. The role could be announced at the December Executive Committee meeting.

A new Chair is slightly less urgent in my opinion. I would certainly make the change by the February DNC meeting, but would probably defer to the White House on what timing they prefer.

Executive Committee December 5-6, Hollywood, FL

Full Meeting Week of Feb 18 (tent), Washington, DC

General Election Director

Job Scope

General election analytics and planning
1. Analytics and polling in each battleground state to identify the actual battleground map
2. Identify off year-work (probably voter registration) that should be done to support the 2016 strategy
3. Start creating turnout and support models for the general election

General election data hygiene and systems
1. Analytics capability for matched data (user capacity, candidate confidentiality)
2. VAN/NGP technical updates
3. Update key tools: make a plan, commit to vote, voter registration, polling place look up, etc.
4. Coordination with campaigns on who is completing what engineering projects; ensuring that all systems will be compatible in the general election

Opposition research
1. Identify next steps on opposition research
2. Ensure all collection and record request work has been completed
3. Setting up a permanent tracking structure (whether that involves purchasing tracking or doing it in house)

Technology and digital
Complete all necessary updates to internal database tools like voter protection incident tracking

Coordination with allies
1. Coordination on state ballot referenda
2. Aligning around general election goals/plan/targeting/best practices
3. Ensuring data systems will be compatible, where possible

Identifying staff for general election field and state organizations

Ironing out state party operational issues
1. Helping
2. Transfer down MOUs for battleground states completed in the off year
  1. Indemnification
  2. Approval of direct mail
  3. Administrative overhead
  4. Using SPP for accountability re: the items above?
3. Aligning state party staff with critical projects (voter protection, registration, etc)

Joint fundraising account money management and supervision

Voter registration projects in battleground states (where needed)
Oversee budget for the program

Coordination with Voting Rights Trust on litigation
Florida
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Ohio
Nevada (Reid coordination)
Michigan?

Coordination with voter protection ballot referenda program
1. Ohio (State Director and team)
2. Florida (State Director and team)
3. Michigan?
4. Colorado?
5. Missouri?
6. Arizona?

Political and research work for voter protection
1. State FOIA project
2. Plaintiff recruitment
3. Earned media and political advocacy management (esp. Florida)
4. Coordinating with Perkins Coie staff on state legislative threat monitoring
  1. Voting law changes
  2. Electoral vote allocations (esp PA and WI)

*****

To: Interested parties

Re: Threat assessment

PRIMARY ELECTION

Message
1. Higher concerns
  1. Authenticity
    1. Emily’s List: “Panelists have about whether HRC is personally trustworthy: tells the truth, levels with people, is sincere in her motivations”.
  2. “Relatability”
    1. Emily’s List: “When voters think about HRC’s positives, they do not instinctively think about what she cares about…when pressed panelists say they do not necessarily think of HRC as “relatable” and tend to describe her personally as more ‘cold’ than ‘warm’”. But respondents are quick to say they do not have a feel HRC as a person. They are intrigued by details like ‘she shops at Target’”.
    2. Emily’s List: “The focus groups make clear, however, that winning the voters’ trust on the economy is not only a matter of having a plan. A successful candidate must also show that s/he personally understands the struggles and concerns voters experience in today’s economy and that s/he is on their side”
  3. Not a clear/credible vision, including clarity on Obama
    1. Emily’s List: “It will be essential for her to articulate a more specific economic agenda that translates these normative values and broad policy directions into a credible plan of action.
  4. Wall Street/elitism
    1. Policy and rhetoric on Wall Street (Emily’s List: 22% “Hillary Clinton won’t stand up to the big banks”)
    2. Personal income and finances
    3. Foundation fundraising and business connections
    4. Campaign finance; superpac affiliation
  5. How to respond to superpac attacks
    1. Do you need to respond?
    2. How do you respond when there is no opponent?
    3. Role of outside groups vs. campaign
2. Lower concerns
  1. Benghazi (only because of upcoming hearings)
    1. Emily’s List: “Benhgazi raises questions about HRC that relate more to lingering questions about her candor than about the event itself. Voters do not know the details of the incident (other than the fatal outcome) and are not especially eager to learn all the complicated facts…Benghazi can serve as a proxy character issue”.
  2. Immigration
    1. Need to be firm and unequivocal
    2. Will there be a compromise that is unpopular with Hispanics?
  3. Use of military force: remains very unpopular with Democrats
    1. Need Simas numbers
  4. Grand bargain: what if Obama cuts a budget deal that’s unpopular with Democrats?

Timing
1. Oxygen for competitors
  1. Waiting too long gives competitors time to get the media spotlight and build credibility
  2. Risk of a reactionary launch
2. Lack of infrastructure to manage GOP attacks in Q1 and Q2
3. Losing talent to other campaigns/jobs
  1. People will start to accept other jobs after Thanksgiving
  2. New DCCC and DSCC leadership and senior staffs; many attractive Senate and House races
4. Losing time on technology
  1. Long term projects like mobile canvassing tools, volunteer engagement ap, etc.
5. Fundraising opportunity cost: losing time in Q2

Geography
1. Iowa
  1. Starting out on the right foot will be key to ice out the competition. This could be challenging if opponents get in early and pick up any steam.
  2. Potential for caucus goes to want to “make it a race” if there’s a perception that the campaign is not fully invested. Primary opponents will always be more accessible and exciting to the left no matter what.
2. South Carolina and early southern primary states: if there’s an African American primary opponent

Demography
1. African Americas (if there’s an African American primary opponent)
2. The 2008 Obama primary coalition: younger, better educated, less partisan primary, male voters are less supportive, but still very winnable

Source: Emily’s List Dec 2013	Support HRC Regardless	Consider others, but prefer HRC	Consider HRC, but prefer others	Likely to support others

Men	29%	39%	15%	6%
Women	40%	46%	6%	5%

18-34	23%	45%	19%	5%
35-49	37%	45%	11%	3%
50-64	36%	44%	6%	7%
65+	43%	39%	6%	5%

Whites	33%	46%	9%	5%
AA	42%	41%	10%	3%
Hisp	40%	36%	10%	6%

Strong D	42%	43%	8%	3%
Weaker D	22%	42%	14%	9%

Political
1. Potential opponents: Biden, Warren, Patrick, O’Malley, Sanders
2. Clumsy launch politics
3. Messy labor endorsement process

Operational
1. Clear leadership and decision making; clarity on who speaks for the campaign
2. Unhelpful chatter and leaks

GENERAL ELECTION

Message
1. Same issues as the primary, as well as…
2. A better GOP candidate than Romney (better profile, more credibly moderate)
  1. Risk of losing more downscale whites in places like PA and OH
3. National environment (largely not controllable)
  1. President Obama’s approval rating/direction of the country
  2. Perceived success/failure of foreign policy at the time

DemographySince we don’t have a lot of polling, it’s most helpful to look at the breakdown of Obama’s vote and figure out how to offset likely changes. Big picture, we have to assume slightly lower performance and turnout among the key “Obama coalition” groups (young people and minorities), which will need to be made up with stronger performance among whites.

Obama won by driving up turnout and support among key minority groups and getting enough whites to break 50%. Your math to 50% could look similar, but one potential “threat” is that you match Obama’s performance with white voters but don’t achieve his level of turnout or support with other groups.

White voters: Obama was the first president to win the presidency with less than 40% of the white vote (39%). This was possible because whites are shrinking as a proportion of the electorate, but also because he organized very strong African American turnout and boosted traditionally high levels of support even higher. These proportions with African Americans will likely dip for you, meaning that you will need over 40% of the white vote nationally.
The GOP candidate will also be a key factor in this equation: Romeny’s profile as a defender of Wall Street and outsourcer helped to suppress support among downscale whites in Pennsylvania, for example. His positions on abortion helped to move persuadable white women to Obama. All these variables will need to be accounted for in determining the win number in each state.
African Americans: African American performance is a key factor in states like Ohio and Florida , where Obama pushed turnout disproportionately high. We have to anticipate 89% African American support, whereas Obama was in the mid 90s. We also have to anticipate a drop in African American turnout. Romney would have won Ohio, for example, if African American turnout had been at “normal” levels.
Hispanics: Hispanics are equally key in some states for determining the win number. They performed at or above 70% for Obama nationally. We have to anticipate closer to 65%, although the rhetoric and immigration stance of the GOP candidate will be a major factor. Correctly predicting Hispanic turnout in Colorado, for example, will determine how much we need to worry about a potential rightward swing in the Denver suburbs.
Young people: level of support and turnout are both major unknowns and need to be examined early. Your level of support is softest with young people, but that could just be because they know the least about you. Extreme GOP views on gay marriage, global warming, and/or birth control could swing and motivate young voters.
That said, we have to assume a drop in performance and turnout among young voters. The Emily’s List general election poll from last year predicts that you can get 50% or more of voters 65 and older, while Obama only got 44%, which could make up the difference.
Asians: exit polls showed that Asians performed 70/30 for Obama, but this could move closer to 60% next year since their level of support for Democrats appears to have dipped in 2014. This needs to be researched further.

Geography
1. Lean Democratic states to watch
  1. Wisconsin: was harder for Obama in 2012 due to Paul Ryan, but Walker’s performance was higher than expected last week. This requires further research.
  2. Pennsylvania: probably stable, but should be monitored, since downscale whites could sour even more depending on the national mood.
2. Battlegrounds to watch
  1. Colorado: Denver suburbs troubling, GOP carried Jefferson Co. this year.
  2. Virginia: African American turnout appeared to be disproportionately high last week, but Warner still performed poorly in suburban counties like Loudon, Prince William, Chesterfield.
  3. Iowa: rural and white, could get worse depending on performance with whites overall and national mood.
  4. Ohio: Obama won with black turnout in 2012; need to identify a path to winning more whites.

The 2016 electorate will look completely different than 2014, which was even lower than 2010. That’s why states like Nevada, where Democrats were beaten badly this year, remain favorable for 2016. The breakdown of the battleground has been covered in other documents, but I’ve noted a few states below that could become harder next year based on what we saw in last week’s election returns.

Changing rules
1. Harsher voting restrictions in GOP controlled battleground states
  1. Florida (Gov has announced a bill already), Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan
2. Changes in electoral vote allocations (there are only rumors now)
  1. Ohio, Michigan, Florida

Financial
1. Full concentration of GOP resources from Day One
2. GOP general election spending begins earlier than

****

To: Cheryl Mills

Re: Legal Options for launching a potential campaign

SUMMARY

If you decide to run, a number of core functions need to be in place for a successful campaign launch, which have been outlined in previous materials. Ideally, every aspect of the campaign will ramp up as quickly as possible, but three tasks will take a particularly long time and will drive the overall timeline:

Researching and testing your message
Developing a brand and logo
Designing and testing your website and mobile ap

All three tasks are highly intertwined and contain a series of constituent steps, which should be carefully sequenced. As demonstrated by the attached timeline, they will collectively take approximately 19 weeks to complete. The first five weeks can take place do not require any funding or structure, but the last 14 will require some sort of funding mechanism. I would recommend that a CTO, Digital Director, and Media Director are hired within the first four weeks to help shepherd the process.

The launch will require a full leadership team, as well as staff in the early 4 primary states and support staff at headquarters. The attached timeline has them starting a month before the launch and I suggest a formal exploratory be set up a month out to pay for them (and the equipment and overhead that will come with them!).

WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED

Message

As we have discussed before, a campaign is fundamentally an organization built to do one thing—communicate a message. The proposed message development process is a series of focus groups, polls, and web tests to develop a narrative, messages, responses to attacks, and even a tagline for the campaign. This process will allow you to hear directly from voters about their mood and what they want from a president. It will also allow you to explore how you can articulate your vision and policy proposals. Lastly, it will help us to put together a path to victory in the primary and general, including key target groups.

Branding and Logo

Based on how you decide to present your candidacy based on the research process, we will engage design firms to develop a logo and branding scheme for all campaign materials that reflect the kind of candidate you are and the audiences we are trying to reach. The brand will dictate what colors, fonts, and moods should be used to design the site and mobile ap.

Website and Mobile Ap Design

Four separate firms will each create three designs for your site using the branding and logo concepts. We will choose one design (or an amalgamation of many) and go through a cycle of edits and feedback to get it exactly right. We will probably want to do some sort of photo shoot and record a video for the site as well.

WHEN TO START

Attached are three alternative timelines. The first begins in December, the second in January and the third in February. All three have the same 19-week timeline and sequence.

I would suggest establishing a date you want to launch and then work back from there. For example, if you want to launch your campaign at the beginning of the second quarter, you should start the ramp up process in December.

Keep in mind that this process will take over four months, which is a long time to keep potential opponents iced out. For example, the winter DNC meeting (which will take place in mid February) traditionally includes a beauty pageant for declared or prospective candidates. You will undoubtedly be asked to speak and we have to assume for planning purposes that Sanders and/or O’Malley will be declared and actively running by that time. Once a launch date is set, it will be worth thinking of what can be done from a communications standpoint to keep the opposition frozen out, even if you won’t declare for a few months.

BUDGET AND SPENDING

As described above, candidate-specific design work will begin in the fifth week of the ramp up process, at which point you will need either personal resources, or an exploratory committee to fund work.

If personal funds are used, spending can be limited to polling, focus groups, web tests, design firms, and some modest staff overhead. The budget below is approximately $1.3 million, but I would assume this will cost $2-3 million due to unforeseen expenses.

Polling and Focus Groups: $800,000

Logo and branding $100,000

Digital design: $200,000

Staff Overhead $200,000

Even if personal funds are used, there will inevitably need to be an exploratory period of about a month for the sole purpose of hiring staff and getting them ready to execute the launch plan. On the day you declare your candidacy, the campaign will need a fully functioning finance, communications, political, and operations/compliance staff. There should also be skeletal staff in the four early states. Overhead for the last month will likely be $3-4 million.

****

More here including the timeline.

Another item to destroy the GOP and includes SEIU operatives:

From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] more [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2007-12-03 19:20 Subject: Revised PowerPoint

Here is a revised PowerPoint based on my discussion with Christine. The script is okay as is but will need to reviewed again if there is any plan to go into more depth on differences between the (c)(4)s and what they will be doing. Please use this version for any additonal changes or updates. Main differences to keep in mind for the presentation or other changes: – The Fund for America has been removed from the corner of all of the slides. – The connections between the Fund for America, the messaging, and the mobilization is not explicit in the org chart (dotted lines removed). – “Building a Permanent Progressive Majority” starts and ends the presenation. – References are all tied to “progressive” voters, issues or targeted states. Thanks, Christine, for your help. Take care – John

Four FBI Probes Related to the Clintons

Posted on October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 by Denise Simon

How far behind in the investigation process is another dive into Sidney Blumenthal et.al?

Four FBI Probes Related to the Clintons Sharyl Attkisson

The following information is compiled from allegations contained in news reports and in public interviews by current and former law enforcement officials. All of those involved have denied any wrongdoing.

The FBI reportedly has 4 active probes related to the Clintons. Here’s how they dovetail.

1. Clinton Foundation: Four FBI field offices– New York, Los Angeles, Little Rock and Washington DC– have been involved in a lengthy probe of the Clinton Foundation charity. “Pay to play” allegations include the charity soliciting donations from corporations and foreign countries in exchange for access and policy considerations from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which she denies. Emails published this month by Wikileaks reflect consternation among various Clinton allies about the possible appearance of conflicts of interests. Chelsea, the Clintons’ daughter, worried about blurred lines between the charity and the for profit business of one of her father’s aides. In emails, the aide, Douglas Band, discussed how he’d arranged millions of dollars in income for Bill Clinton from foundation donors. He referred to the arrangement as “Bill Clinton, Inc.” Chelsea pleaded with her parents’ confidants to help get the charity’s house in order, and she enlisted outside lawyers to look at the foundation’s business practices. Emails indicate some interviewees told a team auditing the Foundation that donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift[s].” Various FBI and Department of Justice officials have clashed over whether the probe into the charity is worthwhile. In February, senior Justice Department officials reportedly refused to authorize subpoenas, formal witness interviews or a grand jury in the case, believing the evidence was not compelling. In September, FBI investigators on the Clinton Foundation case asked to see the Hillary Clinton emails, but prosecutors reportedly denied them permission.

2. Anthony Weiner sexting: Weiner is the ex-Congressman who resigned in 2011 amid a sexting scandal. He’s married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. He withdrew from the race for New York mayor in 2013 amid another sexting scandal. And in August this year, he was caught allegedly sexting women again, sometimes with his infant son shown in photos. Abedin announced her separation from Weiner after the latest revelations. The FBI began a probe into whether Weiner had traded sexually explicit texts with a minor, and in the process of examining his computers, investigators ran across evidence of Abedin emails sent to and from Clinton’s insecure private server(s), which the FBI had previously investigated. The FBI Clinton email team met with the FBI Weiner team and they agreed the newly-discovered material was potentially relevant. FBI Director James Comey notified Congress on Friday.

Anthony Weiner, husband of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under FBI investigation in a sexual texting case.

3. Hillary Clinton email: In July, FBI Director Comey said that Hillary Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in the mishandling of classified emails on private servers as secretary of state, but that there was no basis under which to charge her with a crime. However, the revelations of new Abedin emails that could be relevant to the investigation have returned the status of the case to “open.”

FBI probe of Hillary Clinton email is still active

Read Devlin Barrett’s article in the Wall Street Journal

4. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe: Longtime Clinton ally, former Clinton Foundation board member, and former head of the Democratic National Committee, McAuliffe is also said to be under FBI investigation (led by the Washington Field Office). His lawyer has reportedly said the FBI probe is focused on whether McAuliffe failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity. There are also reports that the FBI is looking into six figures in campaign contributions from a Chinese businessman who also pledged $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while the donor was a member of China’s government, the National People’s Congress. Foreigners are prohibited from making political contributions in the U.S., but can donate personally if they have a green card, which the donor reportedly has.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a former Clinton Foundation board member, reportedly under FBI investigation

There are also questions surrounding McAuliffe’s campaign donations to the wife of a top FBI official, Andrew McCabe, as these various probes have moved forward. The Wall Street Journal reports that McAuliffe’s political action committee gave McCabe’s wife, Jill, $467,500 in late 2015 for her state senate race (which she lost). The FBI’s McCabe has reportedly been triaging for the two teams investigating the Weiner-Abedin email and the Clinton Foundation probes where they intersect. One official told the Wall Street Journal that on August 12, a senior Justice Department official called McCabe to express displeasure at learning New York FBI agents were still on the Clinton Foundation case. “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation,” McCabe reportedly asked. “Of course not,” reportedly answered the official, after a pause.

The FBI’s Andrew McCabe and wife, Jill

McCabe reportedly recused himself from a separate McAuliffe matter due to McCabe’s wife’s political contributions from McAuliffe, according to the Wall Street Journal. The McCabes and McAuliffe have denied any conflicts of interest or other wrongdoing.

Preorder The Smear

Watch Full Measure on TV Sundays and replays online anytime