The Hillary Morocco Money Thing was Real with Twists

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

While there is the matter of Hillary and Bill with the Morocco thing, we cannot dismiss lil miss Michelle Obama and her relationship with the King as noted in the summer of 2016.

King Mohammed VI hosted an iftar meal in honor of the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, on Tuesday night in Marrakech.

Using vague words, twisting sentences and altering priority of facts is all part of damage control within the Hillary inner circle.

When it comes to the Hillary event with this Morocco King, wow even the press operating on a tip or two gets places on a spinning wheel. The Clinton Foundation and it seems the Hillary inner circle as well as the State Department certainly placed their attention on the King. Why:

King Mohammed VI More from Forbes

2015 Africa’s 50 Richest Net Worth
$5.7 Billion

****

Inside the Clintons’ Moroccan money ‘mess’

Aides publicly downplayed Clinton’s role, while privately doing damage control and working to keep foreign money.

A portrait of Moroccan King Mohamed VI is on display as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with Foreign Minister Saad Eddine Othmani in Rabat, Morocco, in 2012 on her whistle-stop diplomatic tour. | AP Photo

Politico: Hillary Clinton’s top advisers downplayed her involvement in arranging a lavish Clinton Foundation conference in Marrakech last year, but behind the scenes they acknowledged her pivotal role and worked to minimize fallout from it.

After media inquiries about the role of Clinton and the king of Morocco in setting the stage for the conference, Clinton confidants, including her husband, Bill, scrambled to craft a new foreign contribution policy that looked tougher but still let them accept the Moroccan cash, according to hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.

The picture that emerges from the emails — as well as from interviews with a half dozen people familiar with the foundation’s inner workings and other contemporary reporting — shows Clintons’ confidants becoming acutely sensitive to criticism of the foundation’s foreign fundraising around the time Clinton was preparing to launch her presidential campaign.

The Moroccan saga also provides a window into the Clinton teams’ internal decision-making process on thorny ethics issues, as well as the occasionally less-than-forthcoming manner in which they deal with scrutiny.

It’s an approach that is familiar to longtime Clinton watchers and one that will be tested immediately if Clinton emerges victorious on Tuesday in her closer-than-expected race against Republican Donald Trump. Congressional Republicans have vowed to launch a series of investigations from Day One of a Clinton presidency, possibly starting even before she’s sworn in, including into whether she accorded special treatment during her time as secretary of state to donors who wrote huge checks to support her family’s foundation, its meetings, operations or endowment.

When it comes to Morocco, there’s no evidence that Clinton provided special treatment to the royal family or companies in which it’s invested as a result of their donations to her family’s foundation.

But there is evidence that Clinton’s aides sought to downplay a long and lucrative relationship between her family and that of Moroccan King Mohammed VI, even as her aides were trying to bring in a huge sum of cash through the monarch. And human rights watchdogs contend that the relationship played a role in the Clinton State Department — and the Clinton Foundation — turning a blind eye toward abuses by authorities in the Moroccan-occupied territory of Western Sahara.

Clinton’s own State Department advisers in 2011 flagged human rights concerns and the Western Sahara push for self-governance as among the “issues of sensitivity with Morocco when it comes to the Western Sahara,” according to an email released this year by the State Department in response to Freedom of Information Act litigation.

The Marrakech meeting of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative (or CGI) promised to increase attention on this thorny relationship, given that it was scheduled for early May 2015 — less than a month after Clinton would announce her candidacy. The timing sparked a vigorous debate among Clinton’s aides about whether she should go, which was revealed by emails hacked from the Gmail account of Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and disseminated starting last month by WikiLeaks.

Clinton’s right-hand aide, Huma Abedin, argued forcefully that her boss was obligated to attend the CGI conference because “her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this.”

Buttressing Abedin’s argument, the Morocco meeting was included in a 2014 internal foundation memo released by WikiLeaks about “Secretary Clinton’s Foundation work.”

After a bit of pushback from other aides questioning the wisdom of Clinton’s attendance, Abedin in a January 2015 email made the financial case for Clinton going to Marrakech, suggesting that she had helped arrange a massive contribution for the foundation from the king of Morocco.

Referring to Clinton by her initials “HRC,” Abedin wrote that the meeting “was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it.”

On the other side of the debate was Robby Mook, who would go on to become Clinton’s campaign manager. He argued that Clinton needed to back away from her commitment to attend the CGI meeting in Marrakech, as well as other foundation events and paid speeches, while also distancing herself from the foundation, as a whole.

“We really need to shut Morocco and these paid speeches down,” Mook emailed Podesta in February 2015. A few days later, he emailed Podesta and Abedin a Wall Street Journal article about ethical questions arising from an increase in foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. The article did not mention the Morocco meeting or its funding, but Mook, alluding to Clinton’s impending campaign launch, asserted “This is why Morocco would be such a problem — more of this the first week she’s out selling her story.”

The following week, Mook in a memo to Podesta, Abedin and ex-Clinton State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills flagged what he called “Foundation vulnerability points.” While he did not expressly single out the Marrakech CGI meeting, it would seem to have triggered several of the vulnerabilities he listed, including “Money from foreign governments” and “Overseas events with foreign leaders or government,” as well as “lavish/high-end hotels for events” and Clinton “attending Foundation events.”

After the vulnerability memo, the WikiLeaks email trail on the Morocco meeting fell silent.

That changed on April 7 — just five days before Clinton would announce her candidacy. POLITICO, acting on a tip about the role of Clinton and the king in arranging the conference and a $1 million sponsorship from a Moroccan-government-owned phosphate company active in Western Sahara called OCP, emailed a foundation spokesman with a number of questions. Did Clinton plan to follow through on her commitment to attend the conference and would the foundation continue holding overseas conferences during a then-imminent Clinton presidential campaign, POLITICO asked.

The spokesman immediately forwarded the email to top aides to the Clintons. Within minutes, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff Tina Flournoy sent an email with the subject line “Morocco” to Podesta and Mills. “We have press calls on their contributions,” she wrote.

The spokesman responded to POLITICO’s inquiry saying “it’s unlikely that Secretary will attend,” but requesting not to be named in the resulting story revealing OCP’s $1 million sponsorship.

The anonymous spokesman did not answer follow-up questions about the king’s role in arranging the donations.

In fact, the spokesman tried to cast doubt on reporting that Clinton and the king discussed the possibility of a foundation meeting in Morocco, and that Abedin was involved in “subsequent high-level planning conversations.”

Later, when asked to explain the discrepancy between their initial answers and Abedin’s characterization in the WikiLeaks emails, Brian Cookstra, a different foundation spokesman, bristled. “It sounds like you are suggesting we misled you which is a serious accusation, and it’s not accurate,” Cookstra said. “We stand by our original answers on this,” he said, explaining, “we have no record of” Clinton and the king “discussing this personally.”

However, emails released by the State Department suggest a personal relationship between Clinton and the king, showing Clinton and her staff arranging conversations with the king and other Moroccans. But Cookstra said “Discussions handled by her office may have been exploratory — they were before the meeting was set or the location was finalized, and do not constitute the kind ‘high-level planning conversations’ the CGI staff undertake for every meeting.”

The anonymous spokesman in the days before Clinton’s announcement also ignored POLITICO’s questions about whether the foundation would continue accepting foreign donations and holding overseas events during her campaign.

Instead, the WikiLeaks email show that Clintons’ aides began a debate about crafting a new policy that would bar the foundation from holding overseas conferences or accepting foreign donations during Clinton’s presidential campaign — with a couple notable exceptions.

“CGI will no longer conduct CGI-International events nor accept any funding from foreign government hosts of such events after the already-scheduled events in May (CGI-Morocco) and June (CGI-Greece) of 2015,” read a draft of a document containing several “Foundation Policies Adjustments.” The draft, which was emailed to top Clinton aides seven hours after POLITICO’s initial inquiry and was among the documents included in the Podesta Gmail hack, also indicated that Hillary Clinton would resign from the foundation’s board and “will no longer be available to fundraise for the Foundation’s programs and activities.”

Among the first questions about the draft came from CGI chief Bob Harrison, who emailed the group, “What about the Morocco money?”

“Morocco money exception is included in there,” responded foundation executive Maura Pally.

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton did not attend the CGI conference in Marrakech, sending her husband and daughter in her stead.

The king was traveling during the CGI conference and did not attend, but POLITICO revealed that he loaned one of his palaces to Bill and Chelsea Clinton to stay in during their time in Marrakech. The conference included a mix of plenary sessions in which corporations pledged to spend millions on humanitarian causes — including expanding access to clean water access and education in the Middle East and Africa — and an extravagant Moroccan feast with a hookah lounge and a nine-piece band playing traditional Moroccan Gnawa music at a five-star resort on the outskirts of Marrakech.

Cookstra said the king did not donate any money to the foundation and never has, despite once having been listed on a donor roll as having pledged as much as $500,000 to help build Bill Clinton’s presidential library (the foundation says the donation never came through).

Officials at the Moroccan Embassy in Washington did not respond when asked whether the king had originally committed the $12 million referenced in Abedin’s email. They also didn’t answer questions about the role of Clinton or the king in initiating the meeting or whether the king expected Clinton to attend the meeting, and skipped it himself because she did.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions about whether the conference was Hillary Clinton’s idea, whether the king had committed $12 million or why Clinton’s aides weren’t more forthcoming originally when asked about the roles of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and the king in initiating the meeting.

“We’ve addressed what you’ve asked,” Cookstra said.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

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.)