If Hillary Wins, Who Will be in the White House….

Posted on November 4, 2016November 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

We cant predict who will be part of her cabinet staff, but given those who worked in the White House during Bill Clinton’s administration and now for the Hillary campaign, you can bet it will be similar chaos and creepy people.

So, given those that are part of Hillary’s public campaign team and her clandestine operations team let us examine some names and the additional histories of these people. Note, how these people are recycled from decades of socialist political beltway occupation.

****

In April of 2015 a list of people was cultivated by Politico: Hillary Clinton has used her extensive Rolodex and front-runner status to assemble a who’s who of power brokers for her fledgling campaign.

The vast political network contains an important mix — veteran Clinton allies with intimate knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses, and newcomers from President Barack Obama’s orbit well aware of how he was able to triumph over her in 2008.

The campaign is seen as having pulled off a successful launch of her campaign in mid-April, using a digital blitz to re-introduce Clinton as an advocate for Americans trying to improve their economic and social standing.

Now that Clinton is officially a presidential candidate, the core group of dozens of staffers will operate out of two full floors at 1 Pierrepont Plaza in Brooklyn Heights, her new campaign headquarters. The more polished apparatus will help Clinton’s advisers as they cultivate Clinton’s persona as an appealing candidate in tune with middle-class priorities, while trying to contain controversies, including her use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state and the foreign money that has flowed to the Clinton Foundation.

Here’s a guide to this cycle’s Clinton power map. Though not a comprehensive list, it’s a look at the most influential players in her 2016 presidential campaign.

THE CAMPAIGN

• John Podesta, the trusted aide to both Bill Clinton and Obama, is campaign chairman. Podesta has had close ties to the Clintons for years: He was former President Clinton’s chief of staff in the White House and later the founder of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that is home to plenty of Clinton allies, including Neera Tanden, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidante and the president of CAP. Podesta is also well-regarded in Obama’s orbit: He stepped down earlier this year as counselor to Obama and previously led his 2008 transition team. His presence could help integrate longtime Clinton allies and newer former Obama staffers, and he is often described as the “adult in the room.”

• Robby Mook, the Democratic operative who steered close Clinton friend and 2016 booster Terry McAuliffe to victory in the 2013 Virginia governor’s race, is campaign manager. Mook, in his mid-30s, is known for a calm, measured demeanor, an aversion to the spotlight and an interest in data. He worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, helping her win in Nevada, Ohio and Indiana during the Democratic primary, and has also served as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

• Joel Benenson, who was Obama’s pollster — and helped him hone his message against Clinton in 2008 — is on board as Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster.

• John Anzalone and David Binder will work with Benenson as top pollsters; Anzalone may focus on early states. Both are also alums of Obama’s orbit.

• Jim Margolis, who also worked for Obama, serving as a senior adviser to him in 2012, is Clinton’s media adviser. He has also been a consultant for a host of Democratic senators, including outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

• Tony Carrk, formerly of the CAP action fund, is set to direct research.

• Marlon Marshall, an influential Obama White House aide, is expected to be Clinton’s director of state campaigns and political engagement.

• Jennifer Palmieri, formerly the White House communications director, will take on the same role for the Clinton campaign. She also has previous ties to the Clintons: She worked in the Clinton White House and at CAP.

• Charlie Baker, a veteran Democratic strategist, is chief administrative officer and is an influential voice in Clinton’s orbit.

• Marc Elias will be general counsel to the campaign. He chairs the political law practice at the prominent law firm Perkins Coie and also served as general counsel to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

• Amanda Renteria, a former Democratic candidate for Congress in California and the Senate’s first Latina chief of staff — she worked for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) — is expected to serve as political director. Brynne Craig, who was McAuliffe’s political director and more recently Clinton’s scheduler, may be tapped as deputy political director.

• Dennis Cheng, who previously served as chief development officer at the Clinton Foundation, is expected to be finance director. Other key players in Clinton’s orbit with ties to the foundation include Craig Minassian, the foundation’s chief communications officer, and Kamyl Bazbaz, daughter Chelsea Clinton’s chief spokesman.

• Garry Gensler, a former Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman, is chief financial officer. Gensler is a former Goldman Sachs executive who has also worked to regulate Wall Street, a balance that may be helpful for Clinton, who enjoys support from many wealthy Wall Street donors, but who is also seeking to strike a populist note on economics.

• Mandy Grunwald, a longtime Clinton ally who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign as well as for Bill Clinton during both his campaign and administration, will be a senior media consultant.

INNER CIRCLE

• Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides, is deeply trusted and highly influential in Clinton’s orbit and is vice chairwoman of the campaign.

• Cheryl Mills has worked for the Clintons for years, from the White House to the State Department to the Clinton Foundation. She was general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and regardless of whether there’s ultimately an official title on the campaign, hers will be a key voice.

• Jake Sullivan is a senior policy adviser on the campaign and previously served as a deputy policy director on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. He was also a critical player on her State Department team. He recently gained a higher profile for his role in facilitating the groundwork for a preliminary nuclear deal with Iran. Clinton’s two other senior policy advisers, who along with Sullivan are helping to shape the campaign’s agenda, are Maya Harris, formerly of CAP, who has a specialty in human rights, and Ann O’Leary, who was Clinton’s legislative director when she was in the Senate and has expertise in early childhood education.

• It’s unclear what role Bill Clinton will play in his wife’s campaign, but he is clearly a prominent voice, could be a major asset to her and brings with him a cadre of friends and advisers.

• Other trusted voices in Clinton’s orbit, who may not have official roles in the campaign, include Philippe Reines, Clinton’s former spokesman and a fiercely loyal aide; Neera Tanden at CAP; Tom Nides, the Morgan Stanley executive who was Clinton’s deputy secretary of state; and Minyon Moore at the Dewey Square Group.

COMMUNICATIONS

• Kristina Schake, a former top aide to first lady Michelle Obama, will be deputy communications director.

• Brian Fallon is set to be national press secretary after working as a top spokesman at the Department of Justice and for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

• Nick Merrill, who worked with Clinton at the State Department and has been shepherding the Clinton team’s day-to-day press interactions since Clinton left Foggy Bottom, will serve as traveling press secretary. He was most recently working in her private office with a handful of other staffers, including Dan Schwerin, a Clinton speechwriter who played a key role in facilitating Clinton’s most recent memoir, “Hard Choices.”

• Karen Finney, who most recently was an MSNBC host and previously worked for both Clintons, will be a senior spokeswoman and a strategic communications adviser.

• Jesse Ferguson, formerly a spokesman for the DCCC in Washington, will manage daily press interactions and also be a national press secretary. Other D.C. figures, including Tyrone Gayle from the DCCC and Ian Sams and Rebecca Chalif of the Democratic National Committee, are also expected to be involved in communications. Also expected to be involved, likely in a rapid-response capacity, are Josh Schwerin, formerly of the DCCC and the McAuliffe campaign; Jesse Lehrich of American Bridge; and Adrienne Elrod, who previously handled media at the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record. Oren Shur, previously of the Democratic Governors Association, will handle paid media. In the states, Lily Adams will be playing a key role in Iowa communications; Harrell Kirstein will do the same in New Hampshire.

DIGITAL

• Teddy Goff, who led Obama’s digital operation, is expected to be a top digital adviser. Like Goff, Andrew Bleeker, another Obama digital alum, may also consult from the outside.

• Stephanie Hannon, a former Google executive, is chief technology officer.

• Katie Dowd, who worked for Clinton at the State Department and Clinton Foundation, is set to be digital director.

• Jenna Lowenstein will be deputy digital director. She was previously vice president of digital engagement at EMILY’s List.

GROUND GAME

• Adam Parkhomenko, the founder and executive director of Ready for Hillary — the super PAC that spent about two years urging her to enter the race — will be director of grassroots engagement. Look for other Ready for Hillary allies and alums to have roles in the campaign as well. Harold Ickes and Tracy Sefl, longtime Democratic operatives who were involved with Ready for Hillary, are also expected to have ties to the campaign in some capacity.

• Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, who helped spearhead Obama’s 2012 field and in-state efforts, are expected to advise Clinton as outside consultants.

IOWA

• Leaders of the Clinton effort in the Hawkeye State include Matt Paul, a veteran Iowa Democratic operative who is set to manage her Iowa effort; Michael Halle, who was a top adviser on McAuliffe’s team; Troy Price, who has been brought on to do political work; and Michelle Kleppe, an Obama campaign alum who will run the field operation.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

• In the Granite State, Mike Vlacich, who led New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s 2014 reelection campaign, will be state director. Kari Thurman, who was Shaheen’s political director, is also expected to be on board, among other hires.

NEVADA

• Emmy Ruiz, who ran general election operations for Obama in Nevada in 2012 and who worked there for Clinton in the 2008 primary, is expected to again play a leading role in Nevada for Clinton in 2016.

SUPERPACs

• Jim Messina and Buffy Wicks, top former Obama operatives, are running Priorities USA Action, a liberal super PAC that was created to boost Obama in 2012 and is now dedicated to Clinton. Along with Messina, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is also a co-chairman. Jonathan Mantz, a longtime Clinton ally, is the organization’s senior finance adviser. He was Clinton’s 2008 finance director.

• David Brock is the founder of American Bridge, a Democratic super PAC. Within Bridge, Burns Strider runs Correct the Record, the rapid response-focused arm.

*****

Deeper dive on some of her team:

Podesta: Received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1976. Podesta worked as a trial attorney for the Department of Justice’s Honors Program in the Land and Natural Resources Division (1976–77), and as a Special Assistant to the Director of ACTION, the Federal volunteer agency (1978–1979). His political career began in 1972, when he worked for George McGovern’s presidential campaign, which lost in 49 states. Podesta held positions on Capitol Hill, including Counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas Daschle (1995–1996); Chief Counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee (1987–1988); Chief Minority Counsel for the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks; Security and Terrorism; and Regulatory Reform; and Counsel on the Majority Staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee (1979–1981). In 1988, he and his brother Tony co-founded Podesta Associates, Inc., a Washington, D.C., “government relations and public affairs” lobbying firm. Now known as the Podesta Group, the firm “has close ties to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration [and] has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin. FBI Director James Comey was also the top lawyer of record for Lockheed Martin.

Mook: In 2013, Mook left the DCCC and was named the campaign manager of Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign. That year, Politico named Mook one of their “50 Politicos to Watch.” Mook led McAuliffe’s campaign to victory. In January 2015, Clinton hired Mook and Joel Benenson as strategists

Marshall: He was a White House liaison to the State Department in 2009 before joining the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee, and later the president’s reelection campaign before a return stint at the White House.

Palmieri: Served as the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and was the White House chief of staff for Leon Panetta.

Cheng: Formerly chief of protocol at the State Department, graduate of the London School of Economics and worked the databases for the Clinton Foundation and the State Department for the richest zip codes for individual and corporate fundraising and donations.

Mills: Founded her own company Black Ivy Group, building business in Africa. She was part of the defense team for Bill Clinton during his impeachment and was the representative for the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission.

Tanden: Worked with Hillary on Hillarycare and later for Kathleen Sebelius to pass Obamacare. She is anti Israel and former president of the Center for American Progress.

Bird: Worked for Howard Dean and John Kerry campaigns and served for Obama on his Organizing for America campaign. Jeremy also founded Battleground Texas, an operation to change the political landscape in the State moving it from a red state to a purple or blue state. He also launched V15 the wide and international mission and well funded operation to unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Wicks: Worked with Code Pink, ANSWER and coordinated with United Farm Workers of America teaching Alinsky tactics to campaign workers.

Brock: Founder of Media Matters for America but early in his career he earned the mantle of political assassin for TrooperGate and Anita Hill. He later changed sides and became a paid confidant for Sidney Blumenthal and is a happy recipient of George Soros money. American Democracy Legal Fund, launched by Brock is a funded organization to file constant lawsuits against Republicans on accusatory violations of campaign finance fraud and ethics violations.

Dinesh D’Souza Went to Jail for this, What About this Operation?

Posted on November 2, 2016November 2, 2016 by Denise Simon

Hat tip to OpenSecrets.org

Primer:

What is Dark Money?

Dark Money refers to political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. Depending upon the circumstances, Dark Money can refer to funds spent by a political nonprofit or a super PAC. Here’s how:

Political nonprofits are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors. When they choose not to, they are considered Dark Money groups.
Super PACs can also be considered Dark Money groups in certain situations. While these organizations are legally required to disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited contributions from political non-profits and “shell” corporations who may not have disclosed their donors, in these cases they are considered Dark Money groups. More here.

Boston law firm accused of massive straw-donor scheme

Last Updated Nov 2, 2016 12:04 PM EDT

CBS: Hillary Clinton’s campaign is returning thousands of dollars in donations linked to what may be one of the largest straw-donor schemes ever uncovered.

A small law firm that has given money to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Harry Reid, President Obama and many others is accused of improperly funneling millions of dollars into Democratic Party coffers. The program was exposed by the Center for Responsive Politics and the same team of Boston Globe investigative reporters featured in the movie “Spotlight.”

The Thornton Law Firm has just 10 partners, but dollar for dollar, it’s one of the nation’s biggest political donors, reports CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil.

But according to the firm’s own documents – leaked by a whistleblower — days or even hours after making these donations, partners received bonuses matching the amount they gave.

“Once the law firm knew that we had these records, they didn’t deny that this was the case,” said Scott Allen, Boston Globe’s Spotlight editor.

“If you give a donation and then somebody else reimburses you for that contribution, that is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of the law at the state and federal levels,” Allen added.

Federal law limits partnerships, like the Thornton Law Firm, to a maximum donation of $2,700 per candidate. But campaign finance watchdogs say the firm used its individual partners as straw donors, allowing it to funnel money to campaigns well above that legal limit.

“Straw donor reimbursement systems are something both the FEC and the Department of Justice take very seriously, and people have gone to jail for this,” Center for Responsive Politics editorial director Viveca Novak said.

The Spotlight team and the Center for Responsive Politics looked at donations from three of the firm’s partners from 2010 to 2014. The trio and one of their wives gave $1.6 million, mostly to Democrats. Over the same period, they received $1.4 million back in bonuses.

A Thornton spokesman said the bonuses are legal because they came out of each partner’s ownership stake in the firm. In other words, they were paid with their own money.

In a statement, the firm said:

“We would like to make it clear that the Thornton law firm has complied with all applicable laws and regulations regarding campaign contributions. Ten years ago, it hired an outside law firm to review how it wanted to handle donations to politicians. It was given a legal opinion on how it should structure its program and then it hired an outside accountant to review and implement the program. It was a voluntary program which only involved equity partners and their own personal after-tax money to make donations.”

Through its employees, the firm gave to Democrats running in some of this year’s most hotly contested races — ones that could determine control of the U.S. Senate.

ctm-1102-straw-donor-boston-law-firm-democrats-politics.jpg — Thornton Law Firm donated to Democrats running in some of this year’s most hotly contested races — ones that could determine control of the U.S. Senate

CBS News

Massachusetts Republicans are calling for an investigation.

“In the end, it’s about restoring integrity to a process that folks are already extremely wary of,” Massachusetts Republican Party chair Kirsten Hughes said.

Allen said he’s not “confident at all” that this is an isolated program at Thornton.

“We’ve had a number of parties coming forward to us saying, ‘Hey, they do this at our place too.’ So the issue is always, can you prove it?” Allen said.

CBS News has learned the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center will file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission Wednesday.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has received nearly $130,000 from the firm since 2007, told the Boston Globe she will not return any money unless investigators find the donations were illegal.

Final Report: How Latinos have Reshaped the Electoral Map

Posted on November 1, 2016November 1, 2016 by Denise Simon

Mexican-Americans Are Reshaping the Electoral Map In Arizona — And The U.S.

Graphics by Ella Koeze

Irma Maldonado in her dorm room at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix.

All photographs by Caitlin O’Hara

PHOENIX — In an office suite not far from the airport, Irma Maldonado, 18, expertly role-played what she’d be doing on the city’s streets in half an hour: knocking on the doors of residents and exhorting them to vote. But not everything was a game. Before a group of young canvassers headed out for the day, a team leader at the community organizing group LUCHA mentioned that someone had earlier pulled a gun on two members of the team.

“Everything was OK,” the organizer said, but Maldonado and the 15 or so other teens and 20-somethings were given safety whistles before hitting the streets.

Maldonado has a personal stake in America’s immigration debate, which has been making headlines throughout the election, particularly because of Donald Trump’s description of Mexicans as rapists and his desire to have Mexico pay for a border wall.

“Before going into high school — it was the summer of 2012 — my mother decided to self-deport to Mexico” with her two youngest children, Maldonado said. Maldonado, who was born and grew up in New Mexico, had a hard time adjusting to life in Nayarit, Mexico, a small state on the Pacific coast north of Puerto Vallarta, especially given that she hadn’t known her family’s status. “I think it was right when we had to move when I actually realized that my mom wasn’t actually legal here in the United States, when I was 14 years old,” she said. Her father, who has a green card, continues to work in New Mexico; Maldonado now is a first-year nursing student and lives with her 23-year-old sister in Arizona. Her mother and brother remain in Mexico.

Mexican-Americans such as Maldonado may help determine the political future of Arizona — and the nation — in a landmark election year. In an August survey, respondents were asked if Trump and Clinton made their respective parties more welcoming or more hostile to Latinos. Nine percent of Mexican-Americans said Trump made the GOP more welcoming; 74 percent said he made it more hostile. By contrast, 59 percent said Clinton made the Democratic party more welcoming; 9 percent said more hostile. An October poll by Latino Decisions found that 17 percent of Latino voters nationwide said they support Trump or are leaning toward him; 70 percent supported Clinton.

In Arizona, a state long dominated by Republicans, Clinton and Trump are in a virtual tie, according to a Monmouth University Poll released last week. Latino voters, who make up a fifth of the state’s electorate, are supporting Clinton over Trump by 35 percentage points. And critical to the electoral vote, only 9 percent of Latino voters who support Trump are in battleground states. Overall, 13 percent of the eligible voters in battleground states are Latino.

Arizona “was this strong, powerful red,” said Pita Juarez, 29, the communications director for the One Arizona coalition, an umbrella group of 14 advocacy groups, including LUCHA, that is working to boost Latino voter turnout. “Just today, we saw on FiveThirtyEight … it’s a light blue. And that’s something that I thought, really, I would never see.” (Arizona has gone back and forth between light blue and light red in FiveThirtyEight’s forecast over the last few weeks. Currently, Trump has a slight edge in the state’s forecast.)

Gabriel Sanchez, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico and a principal at the opinion research firm Latino Decisions, said Latinos are more enthusiastic about voting this year than in 2012, having been mobilized by Trump’s comments targeting Mexicans. He added that the Republican Party will have a hard time winning over Mexican-Americans in subsequent elections unless it supports comprehensive immigration reform.

Like black millennials, younger Latinos show much weaker enthusiasm for Clinton than their elders. According to the October GenForward survey, conducted over the first half of the month, 44 percent of Latinos ages 18-30 plan to vote for Clinton and 8 percent will vote for Trump, with 10 percent going to third-party candidates. Nineteen percent said they didn’t plan to vote, and 12 percent were undecided.¹GenForward, a survey by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, queries 18- to 30-year-olds and oversamples for Latino and nonwhite respondents, in this case with a total cohort of 1,832 respondents.

Irma Maldonado in math class and walking to her dorm room at Grand Canyon University.

Mark Hugo Lopez, director of Hispanic research at the Pew Research Center, said that much of the growth in the Latino electorate in coming years will be from U.S.-born Latinos entering adulthood. Like other cohorts of younger voters they tend to be more supportive of bigger government, in contrast to older Mexican-Americans, who are more likely to hold conservative views. “Mexican-Americans are more likely to be Catholic than other groups of Latinos,” he said. “They are also more likely to be third or higher generation than other U.S. Latino groups and as a result to have served in the military. Both of these characteristics correlate with conservative views on many issues.” He noted that George W. Bush won at least 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.

Mexican-Americans constitute 63 percent of the 57 million U.S. Latinos. Some Mexican-Americans can trace their heritage in New Mexico and other regions later acquired as U.S. territory back to the 1600s and earlier, while others are recent immigrants. Of the 35.8 million people of Mexican descent in the U.S., 68 percent are native born, and more than a quarter of those born in Mexico have become U.S. citizens. Separate estimates from the Pew Research Center indicate there were 5.8 million unauthorized Mexican citizens in America in 2014, 52 percent of the total unauthorized immigrant population. The Census Bureau considers Latinos in the U.S. to be an ethnicity, not a race, and thus Latino respondents can also mark any or multiple races; about a quarter identify as Afro-Latino. But only 1 percent of the population of Mexico is Afro-Latino, according to a recent census in that nation, the first to count the category.²The Census surveys of the diverse Latino population continue to evolve. One experimental survey design for the 2020 Census avoids using the terms race and ethnicity in the phrasing of the question entirely.

Nationwide, 11 percent of eligible voters are Latino, but in Arizona, 22 percent of eligible voters are. The state is currently going through a fierce local battle involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio that is arguably fanning the fires of Latino voter turnout as much as the national election.

Arpaio is an outsize figure who has served as Maricopa County sheriff for 23 years; run jails where the men must wear pink underwear and striped uniforms; and organized citizen border patrols with actor Steven Seagal. Arpaio also has a December court date on a contempt charge for violating a 2011 injunction against stopping people on the suspicion that they were not in the country legally. (He alleges the prosecution is politically motivated because of his support for Trump.) And just one week from now, Arpaio faces perhaps an even bigger challenge: a re-election bid with polls showing him trailing his challenger by 15 points.

LUCHA’s canvassers are campaigning against Arpaio, and there are indications that his presence on the ballot is motivating new voters. In Maricopa County, Democratic voter rolls rose by 13 percent since 2012, according to figures released in August, compared to a 7.6 percent increase for Republicans. And many Latinos register as independents but lean Democratic.

Some of the young activists who are canvassing for LUCHA are undocumented, according to One Arizona’s Juarez, and in other areas around the country with significant Latino populations, immigrants who are not yet on a path to citizenship are playing a role in the political process. One of them is Yessica Vasquez Moctezuma, 25, a bank teller, who will graduate this fall with a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Texas at San Antonio. She has been in the United States for 19 years, which means she was undocumented until 2012, at which point an executive order qualified her for temporary but renewable DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) status.

Vasquez Moctezuma is frank in her assessment of her family’s legal status, since her parents are not eligible for DACA and continue to work without documentation.

“We are breaking some laws just by being here illegally, but we bind to the laws here,” she said. “We pay our taxes every year, like any other citizen would.” She worries that her parents, who have paid into the Social Security system — which receives an estimated $12 billion a year from undocumented immigrants and their employers — will never receive benefits and will never be able to truly retire. Still, she said, “This is why I studied political science, because I love the government here. I feel like in so many ways it’s so great.”

For her part, Irma Maldonado said she is excited about voting in her first presidential election. After remaining undecided until early October, she decided to vote for Clinton. But she added, “Honestly, this election, a lot of people are not that pumped to vote. It’s really kind of sad.” The number of Mexican-American and Latino voters who show up on Nov. 8 could determine the outcome in her state, and possibly in the nation.

Illegals are Covered Under Obamacare, Words Matter

Posted on November 1, 2016November 1, 2016 by Denise Simon

7 Years ago, Barack Obama delivered a speech declaring that Obamacare would not insure those that are here illegally. Congressman Joe Wilson yelled, ‘you lie’. Well Joe Wilson was right all along, so he deserves the apology.

CRS: The degree to which foreign nationals (noncitizens/aliens)1 should be accorded access to certain benefits as a result of their presence in the United States, as well as the responsibilities of such persons given their legal status (e.g., immigrants, nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens), often figures into policy discussions in Congress. These issues become particularly salient when Congress considers legislation to establish new immigration statuses or to create or modify benefit and entitlement programs.

The 111th Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), which has been amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) and several other bills. (ACA refers to P.L. 111-148 as amended by P.L. 111-152 and the other legislation.)2 The ACA created new responsibilities (e.g., the requirement that most people in the United States obtain health insurance) and new benefits (e.g., tax credits to help certain people purchase health insurance), and it addressed the eligibility and responsibility of foreign nationals for these provisions. One issue that has arisen during debates to amend provisions in the ACA and during discussions of immigration reform is the eligibility of foreign nationals for some of the ACA’s key provisions.

This report opens with a discussion of several different statutory and regulatory definitions of lawfully present. On the surface, alien eligibility for provisions under the ACA appears straightforward. In general, those who are lawfully present are eligible, and those who are not lawfully present are not eligible. However, due to differing definitions of “lawfully present” and the interaction between the treatment of noncitizens under tax law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the ACA, the eligibility of individuals with certain immigration statuses for these provisions can become more complicated.

This report then analyzes the eligibility of foreign nationals for key provisions in the ACA that have restrictions based on immigration status: the requirement to maintain health insurance, the ability to purchase insurance through an exchange, and eligibility for the premium tax credit and cost-sharing subsidies.3 It includes consideration of the implementing regulations and the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.4 This report concludes with information on the alien-status verification process.

***

Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

The following section discusses alien eligibility for the following provisions under the ACA: the health insurance mandate, the exchanges (the Marketplace), and premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies. In general, aliens are separated into two groups for eligibility purposes under the ACA: aliens who are “lawfully present in the United States” are eligible for these provisions, while aliens who are not “lawfully present in the United States” are ineligible.

Definition of Lawfully Present

One of the complexities of alien eligibility for the ACA stems from the difficulty of defining who is considered lawfully present. The regulations implementing the ACA define lawfully present to include immigrants, asylees/refugees, nonimmigrants, and most other noncitizens who are known to the U.S. government and have been given some type of permission to remain temporarily in the United States. (For the full list, see Appendix A.) “Lawfully present” was first defined by regulation in this context for the purposes of eligibility for the high risk pools for uninsured people with pre-existing conditions.5 Since then, all regulations regarding the ACA have referenced that definition for the health insurance mandate, the exchanges, and the premium credit and cost-sharing subsidies.6 The definition of lawfully present for the ACA is identical to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) policy definition of “lawfully residing” for Medicaid and CHIP eligibility7 and is similar to the definition of “lawfully present” for Social Security eligibility.8

Nonetheless, “lawfully present” is not a term that is widely used within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA divides foreign nationals into two general types of legal statuses for admission to the United States: immigrants and nonimmigrants. Under the INA, other aliens may have permission to be in the United States, but they do not have an immigration status. The term “lawfully present” in the INA is only defined in regards to noncitizen eligibility for Social Security.9 The INA also defines the term “unlawfully present” specifically for purposes of determining inadmissibility, but that definition is not equivalent to the definition of “lawfully present” for purposes of the ACA.

There are noncitizens who have temporary permission to remain in the Unites States under narrowly defined circumstances such as those with temporary protected status (TPS),11 withholding of removal,12 Deferred Enforced Departure,13 and parole14—often referred to as the “quasi-legal population.” This “quasi-legal” population is counted by researchers at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and at the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project—the two main entities that estimate the unauthorized alien population—as part of the unauthorized (illegal) population. Although these “quasi-legal” migrants comprise a small percentage of the total noncitizen population, most are considered “lawfully present” for the purposes of the ACA.15 (For a discussion of these estimates, see Appendix B, “Estimates of the Noncitizen Population in the United States.”)

***

Tax Treatment of Noncitizens

For purposes of the ACA, understanding the U.S. income tax treatment of noncitizens may be important for several reasons, including that any noncitizen who is a nonresident alien—which is a tax law term—is not subject to the individual mandate.22 Also, some might be interested in understanding the tax liability of noncitizens in light of the fact that the IRS may face difficulty in enforcing the mandate against any taxpayer (citizen or resident alien) who does not receive a tax refund.

For federal tax purposes, foreign nationals are classified as resident or nonresident aliens.23 These terms are used in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) but do not exist in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).24 As a result, the specific immigration statuses under the INA do not align directly with the terms resident and nonresident alien.25

In general, an individual is a nonresident alien unless he or she meets the qualifications under either residency test:

 Green card test: the individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during the current year, or

 Substantial presence test: the individual is present in the United States for at least 31 days during the current year and at least 183 days during the current year and previous two years (counting all the qualifying days in the current year, one-third of the days in the prior year, and one-sixth of the days in the earliest year).

There are several situations in which an individual may be classified as a nonresident alien even though he or she meets the substantial presence test. For example, an individual will generally be treated as a nonresident alien if he or she has a closer connection to a foreign country than to the United States, maintains a “tax home” in the foreign country, and is in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the year.27 Another example is that an individual in the United States under an F-, J-, M-, or Q-visa—students, teachers, trainees, and cultural exchange visitors—may be treated as a nonresident alien if he or she has substantially complied with visa requirements.28 This treatment generally applies to foreign students (most foreign students are on F visas) for their first five years in the United States and to teachers and trainees for the first two years. (You can read the full report here if you can stand it.)

Russian Operations Inside the United States

Posted on November 1, 2016November 1, 2016 by Denise Simon

This site has posted countless articles on Russia clandestine operations around the world and the blueprint for what Putin’s ultimate objective may be. Putin not only affects the United States but the UK spy chief is declaring the same thing.

MI5 head: ‘increasingly aggressive’ Russia a growing threat to UK

Exclusive: In first newspaper interview given by a serving spy chief, Andrew Parker talks of terror, espionage and balance between secrecy and privacy

Andrew Parker said Russia was ‘using its whole range of state organs and powers to push its foreign policy abroad in increasingly aggressive ways’. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA

Denial is a dangerous conditions and facts matter.

During the last months of the United States presidential campaigns, much has been investigated and written about how Moscow has injected itself into the process least of which is hacking….and the Kremlin does have global hacking operations without dispute.

Hillary and her team are targeting Donald Trump for his Russian connections and that is followed by Harry Reid saying the same. Intelligence briefings are given weekly to key members of Congress that have chairman positions on certain committees and Trump has been included in those. Two media outlets, Slate and the New York Times have provided some deep summaries of investigations between Trump and a Russian bank surrounding a server. White Hats performed these studies.

Then there is Hillary herself and at least two events for which she colluded with Russia. Secretary Clinton approved the Open Skies Treaty with Moscow but worse she was the marshal of the agreement with the Kremlin and an IT company called Skolkovo. This company is a high tech espionage operation. Due to WikiLeaks we cannot leave out Hillary chief campaign architect, John Podesta for his investments with Russian oligarchs.

Do we have such a short memory that we have deported countless Russian spies back to the motherland?

Brooklyn Resident And Two Russian Nationals Arrested In Connection With Scheme To Illegally Export Controlled Technology To Russia Defendants Used Brooklyn-Based Front Companies to Procure Sophisticated Military and Satellite Technology on Behalf of Russian End-Users

It must be noted with distinction that the FBI is the only agency that assigns agents to run covert operations to track foreign operatives. It is also noted that James Comey has stopped short of his own declaration as to whether Russia is involved in missions inside the United States when several other agencies have published statements that Russia has operations inside the United States. What Comey may be covering is a real time and ongoing mission to track and trace more than one case dealing with Russian intrusion and he does not want that cover blown. That is how it works.

Two U.S. Diplomats Drugged In St. Petersburg Last Year, Deepening Washington’s Concern

2015: FBI: We Busted A Russian Spy Ring In New York City

Ex-aide to Putin died of blunt force trauma at D.C. hotel, medical examiner says

Now, lets go back to Putin himself and the recent changes he has made to his own intelligence agencies, obviously we need reminders.

****

Vladimir Putin resurrects the KGB

The new agency revives the name of Stalin’s secret police and will be larger and more powerful than today’s FSB.

By Owen Matthews

Politico/MOSCOW — Soon after he was first appointed prime minister back in 1999, Vladimir Putin joked to an audience of top intelligence officers that a group of undercover spies, dispatched to infiltrate the government, was “successfully fulfilling its task.”

It turns out Putin doesn’t do jokes. Over Putin’s years in power, not just the Kremlin but almost every branch of the Russian state has been taken over by old KGB men like himself.

Last week news broke that their resurgence is soon to be topped off with a final triumph — the resurrection of the old KGB itself. According to the Russian daily Kommersant, a major new reshuffle of Russia’s security agencies is under way that will unite the FSB (the main successor agency to the KGB) with Russia’s foreign intelligence service into a new super-agency called the Ministry of State Security — a report that, significantly, wasn’t denied by the Kremlin or the FSB itself.

The new agency, which revives the name of Stalin’s secret police between 1943 and 1953, will be as large and powerful as the old Soviet KGB, employing as many as 250,000 people.

The creation of the new Ministry of State Security represents a “victory for the party of the Chekists,” said Moscow security analyst Tatyana Stanovaya, referring to the first Bolshevik secret police. The important difference is that, at its core, the reshuffle marks Putin’s asserting his own personal authority over Russia’s security apparatus.

Putin, who in 2004 said that “there is no such thing as a former KGB man,” has always had a complicated relationship with the FSB.

On the one hand, Putin has allowed the FSB to absorb pieces of the old KGB, chopped off when Boris Yeltsin tried to dismantle the once all-powerful Soviet security apparatus in the early 1990s. Under Putin, the FSB regained control over Russia’s borders, border troops, and electronic intelligence gathering. At the same time, former KGB men began their takeover of every institution of state, as well as Russian businesses.

But at the same time, Putin has made several attempts to reform and control the FSB. In 2007 he put his close ally Viktor Cherkesov in charge of the Federal Anti-Drug Agency and tasked it with investigating the murky business dealings of top FSB officers. When Cherkesov’s clean-up failed, Putin built up another rival security agency, the Investigative Committee, and tasked it, rather than the FSB, with investigating high-profile political murders like those of journalist Anna Politkovskaya and opposition politician Boris Nemtsov.

“The aim in all cases seems to be to replace old-guard Putin allies with younger, more loyal and less independent figures.”

Now, however, Putin seems to have put that divide-and-rule policy into reverse and is instead consolidating power into a pair of super-agencies: the National Guard — created in July, that united internal security troops under the Kremlin’s control — and now the new Ministry of State Security. Putin will personally control these super-agencies.

“On the night of September 18 to 19 … the country went from authoritarian to totalitarian,” wrote former liberal Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov on his Facebook page.

Further evidence of Putin’s gathering of power into his own hands is an ongoing purge launched over the summer that has already claimed the heads of the Federal Narcotics Service, Federal Protection Service (Putin’s bodyguard), the Federal Migration Service and Russian Railways, as well as the president’s Chief of Staff and personal confidant Sergei Ivanov.

The aim in all cases seems to be to replace old-guard Putin allies with younger, more loyal and less independent figures. The same pattern has been repeated among regional governors — four of whom have recently been sacked, and two replaced by Putin’s personal bodyguards.

Protect the regime

The creation of the Ministry of State Security is part of a “project aimed at replacing old allies with new ones,” said independent Moscow-based analyst Stanislav Belkovsky. Putin “dislikes being surrounded by people who feel untouchable because of their personal closeness to him. He doesn’t want to have anything to do with his old friends, he wants people who can execute his will.”

He’s even selected a hatchet man — Sergei Korolev, head of the FSB’s economic security department — to prosecute and eliminate any independent voices in the new Security Ministry, said Belkovsky.

The deeper significance of all these purges and reshuffles goes beyond just Kremlinology. They are clear signs of a regime bracing for trouble. Ever since oil prices began to tumble in 2013, the Kremlin has been preparing for unrest and discontent — primarily with the help of distractions such as annexing Crimea and the campaign in Syria. But Putin is preparing an iron fist too.

“I can’t remember a time when so many security service guys ascended to power at once” — Dmitry Gudkov, State Duma

“The KGB, it should be remembered, was not a traditional security service in the Western sense — that is, an agency charged with protecting the interests of a country and its citizens,” wrote security analyst Andrei Soldatov, founder of the Agentura.Ru website. “Its primary task was protecting the regime. Its activities included hunting down spies and dissidents and supervising media, sports, and even the church. It ran operations both inside and outside the country but, in both spheres, the main task was always to protect the interests of whoever currently resided in the Kremlin.”

That’s precisely what the Kremlin needs today as inflation remains in double digits and Russian business remains cut off from international financial markets and investment by Western sanctions over Ukraine.

“I can’t remember a time when so many security service guys ascended to power at once,” Dmitry Gudkov, an independent State Duma deputy, wrote of the summer’s purges on his Facebook page. “We don’t know anything about these people’s management expertise. Preparing the guns for battle, closing ranks — this is what these appointments are all about. [The Kremlin] can’t trust anyone but those in uniform.”

‘Terminator 2’

And there’s a final, more personal reason for Putin’s purge and revival of the Ministry of State Security.

“In some ways, this is a sign of Putin’s strength, because he feels confident enough to full, personal, authoritarian rule,” said Belkovsky, who advised the Kremlin in the mid-2000s. “It’s also a sign of weakness because the reason behind it is to defuse the possibility of a palace coup.” Putin is a “man of systems and institutions” according to Belkovsky and, as such, knows his allies are also the greatest threats to his rule.

In creating the super ministry, Putin is completing a full 25-year circle. When Boris Yeltsin came to power in 1991 in the wake of a hardline coup against Mikhail Gorbachev largely sponsored by the KGB and its boss, Vladimir Kryuchkov, Russia’s new leader attempted to create a security agency that would not meddle in politics or society and confine itself strictly to law enforcement.

Yeltsin failed. According to Soldatov, by the mid-1990s “various component parts and functions of the old KGB had begun to make their way back to the FSK, like the liquid metal of the killer T-1000 android in “Terminator 2” … slowly reconstituting itself after having been blown to bits.”

Now those bits have finally coalesced into a full-fledged replica of the original — but with one important difference. The new Ministry of State Security has been designed specifically as a guarantor of Putin’s rule.

Whoever heads the new ministry will certainly be an important political player — but it’s clear that the true head of both the Russian state and its new, consolidated security organs will be Putin himself.

That hasn’t happened since the rule of Yuri Andropov, KGB head-turned general secretary between 1982-84. He presided over a collapse in oil prices, a war in Afghanistan designed to boost the regime’s popularity that quickly turned disastrous, and finally an accelerating economic crisis that no amount of repression or propaganda could prevent from snowballing into collapse and revolution.

Putin is hoping that this time round, harsher repression and smarter propaganda will save him from the same fate.

***

Moscow Rules of Espionage Go Global—If You Think It’s KGB, It Is

As Russian spies play rough, ignoring Putin’s war against the West will only make it nastier