DNC EVOLUTION TO THE RIGHT
BY LUCY M WARNER
OCTOBER 17, 2016


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-goldman-sachs-speech-transcripts-in-latest-podesta-email-dump/

Clinton's Goldman Sachs speech transcripts in latest Podesta email dump
CBS/AP
October 15, 2016, 6:10 PM

Play VIDEO -- WikiLeaks emails show Clinton campaign tried to change Illinois primary date
Play VIDEO -- Clinton aide's hacked emails keep pouring out
Play VIDEO -- WikiLeaks reveals how the Clinton campaign handled Obama in 2008


WASHINGTON -- Hacked emails released in daily dispatches this past week by the WikiLeaks group exposed the inner workings of Hillary Clinton’s campaign leading up to her 2015 announcement that she would seek the presidency, and through this year’s primary.

The thousands of emails were hacked from the accounts of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

U.S. intelligence officials have blamed the Russian government for a series of breaches intended to influence the presidential election. The Russians deny involvement.

Clinton’s campaign, for their part, have not authenticated any individual emails, including those with the reported transcripts from Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches. Instead, they compared it to the Watergate scandal and slammed Donald Trump for “cheering on a Russian attempt to influence our election.”

“We’re witnessing another effort to steal private campaign documents in order to influence an election,” Glen Caplin, a Clinton spokesperson, said Saturday in a statement. “Only this time, instead of filing cabinets, it’s people’s emails they’re breaking into and a foreign government is behind it. Oddly, Trump continues to defend Putin and deflect blame.”

Among the revelations on Oct. 15 from Podesta’s hacked emails:

GOLDMAN SACHS TRANSCRIPTS:

In one email from earlier this year, Podesta received three transcripts for speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton had given in 2013.

Some of the more notable excerpts are below:

Ironically, Clinton once told an audience at Goldman Sachs: “You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don’t have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there’s that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it’s important to have people with those experiences.”

Clinton joked that “this is all off the record, right?” before launching into a discussion about WikiLeaks: “So, all right. This is all off the record, right? You’re not telling your spouses if they’re not here...Okay. I was Secretary of State when WikiLeaks happened. You remember that whole debacle. So out come hundreds of thousands of documents. And I have to go on an apology tour. And I had a jacket made like a rock star tour. The Clinton Apology Tour. I had to go and apologize to anybody who was in any way characterized in any of the cables in any way that might be considered less than flattering. And it was painful.”

Clinton weighed in on Syria and how a no-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians”: “My view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can’t help themselves. They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else... But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone -- Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to takeout all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk -- you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”

WALL STREET SPEECHES

The campaign asked former President Clinton to cancel a planned speech to a Wall Street investment firm last year because of concerns the Clintons might appear to be too cozy with Wall Street just as the former secretary of state was about to announce her White House bid.

Clinton aides wrote that Hillary Clinton did not want her husband to cancel the speech, but was eventually convinced that canceling was the right step.

Campaign manager Robby Mook said he realized canceling the speech would disappoint both Clintons, but said, “it’s a very consequential unforced error and could plague us in stories for months.”

Clinton’s paid speeches have been an issue throughout the campaign, particularly Hillary Clinton’s private speeches to Wall Street firms.

Mr. Clinton was scheduled to speak to Morgan Stanley executives in April 2015, a few days after his wife was set to launch her bid for president.

“That’s begging for a bad rollout,” Mook wrote in an email from March 11, 2015.

JUANITA BROADDRICK:

A January 2016 email from Clinton’s personal lawyer, David Kendall, to Podesta gave a breakdown of the history of allegations made by Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Mr. Clinton of raping her in the late 1970s.

Broaddrick was among the three past accusers of the former president who attended last week’s debate in St. Louis at the invitation of Trump. Mr. Clinton has denied the rape accusation made by Broaddrick, which was never adjudicated by a criminal court.

The documents in the WikiLeaks release include the affidavit that Broaddrick signed saying that Mr. Clinton did not assault her and the independent counsel’s history of the Paula Jones case in which Broaddrick later received immunity from any prosecution for perjury if she changed her story.

“Voila! She did, disavowing her sworn affidavit and sworn deposition testimony,” Kendall wrote in the email to Podesta. He concluded, “Please let me know if there’s anything else I can provide about this slimefest.”

HOW TO REPLY:

Clinton’s campaign was slow to grasp the seriousness of the email controversy and believed it might blow over after one weekend.

Two days after the AP report, her advisers were shaping their strategy to respond to the revelation.

Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill optimistically suggested that the issue might quickly blow over.

“Goal would be to cauterize this just enough so it plays out over the weekend and dies in the short term,” Merrill wrote on March 6, 2015.

It did not, and instead became the leading example of Clinton’s penchant for secrecy, which has persisted as a theme among her campaign critics and rivals throughout her election season. Clinton did not publicly confirm or discuss her use of the email server until March 10 in a speech at the United Nations, nearly one week after AP revealed the server’s existence.

STAR POWER:

As Clinton’s campaign geared up in 2015, her aides hoped to procure some star power to give her a boost - someone sensational, but not too sensational.

Less than two weeks before her formal launch speech in New York, her scheduling director asked for a list of celebrities willing to help and said the campaign wanted options “somewhere between a high school band and Lady Gaga.”

Aides quickly gave the go-ahead to using actress Julianne Moore as a surrogate and said she “might be good for launch pre-program,” referring to the part of the event before Clinton was to speak. Former campaign aide Diane Hamwi said “Girls” creator Lena Dunham “will do whatever, though bit more edgy.” She floated other celebrities including actors Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jesse Taylor Ferguson, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey.

In another email, Hamwi listed musical performers who would likely help if in New York: Nick Jonas, Jon Bon Jovi, Christina Aguilera, John Legend and Alicia Keys, among others. Though she misspelled her first name, Hamwi said singer Katy Perry would “find a way to be here” for the event. Clinton’s aides seemed particularly excited about the possibility of getting the band The Roots.

But Clinton’s scheduling director, Alex Hornbrook, also had a bit of bad news: “There is no budget to fly anyone in.”

It turns out both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wanted the endorsement of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” star Larry David, who portrayed Sanders on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”

In an October 2015 email, campaign chairman John Podesta asked aides if David was supporting either candidate. Clinton’s campaign reached out to Hollywood director and producer Rob Reiner, who said David wasn’t endorsing “because he is going to keep playing Bernie on SNL.”

The email said that Sanders’ campaign contacted David after his initial Sanders’ skit on SNL “to ask him to endorse and he declined.”



EXCERPTS -- “You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don’t have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there’s that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it’s important to have people with those experiences.” . . . . Campaign manager Robby Mook said he realized canceling the speech would disappoint both Clintons, but said, “it’s a very consequential unforced error and could plague us in stories for months.” . . . . “Goal would be to cauterize this just enough so it plays out over the weekend and dies in the short term,” Merrill wrote on March 6, 2015. It did not, and instead became the leading example of Clinton’s penchant for secrecy, which has persisted as a theme among her campaign critics and rivals throughout her election season. . . . . Though she misspelled her first name, Hamwi said singer Katy Perry would “find a way to be here” for the event. Clinton’s aides seemed particularly excited about the possibility of getting the band The Roots. But Clinton’s scheduling director, Alex Hornbrook, also had a bit of bad news: “There is no budget to fly anyone in.” . . . . It turns out both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wanted the endorsement of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” star Larry David, who portrayed Sanders on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” In an October 2015 email, campaign chairman John Podesta asked aides if David was supporting either candidate. Clinton’s campaign reached out to Hollywood director and producer Rob Reiner, who said David wasn’t endorsing “because he is going to keep playing Bernie on SNL.”



These excerpts struck me as being most significant, though there’s no truly damning admission that I saw. The closest to that is the paragraph about her desire to have more “successful” – read “very wealthy” – businessmen run for office because they have “a certain level of freedom.” I take that to mean that they have a battery of attorneys on hand and are relatively untouchable. She goes on to say “I think it’s important to have people with those experiences.” This to me sounds like a coy way of saying “in my social group.” One more phrase that I will mention: “Clinton’s penchant for secrecy.”

First, on secrecy. Hillary is either less successful in keeping her affairs secret or more open than someone like Richard Nixon. Nixon had it under wraps until one person of good conscience in his administration decided he just couldn’t stand it and contacted the press. He was also more aggressive than she has been about his underhandedness. He took pride in his use of “dirty tricks,” which was his chosen phrase.

She, however, has not been nearly as honest or forthright as I think someone in office should be. I think her secrecy is as much a personality factor as a political technique; many who hate her use terms to describe her like “ruthless,” but she has succeeded in appearing, on the surface at least, much more decent than Nixon.

Those who hate her are not for the most part her former Democratic followers – before the rise of a true Progressive in Bernie Sanders – but the whole Rightwing field. From the beginning they seemed to hate her for her personality and views. She was definitely a “Women’s Libber” back when that was an unacceptable female characteristic. Nowadays it’s truly par for the course. She has not changed, and today as then, I champion her in that view.

About secrecy on matters of state, it is very important in some cases. “Loose lips sink ships,” is the old catchphrase from an era when a wife at home received mail from her hubby with words cut our or blacked out. It wasn’t merely a mandate, but enforced physically from the top down. Now we are facing the USA PATRIOT ACT and, while we grouse about wiretapping, some of us, including myself, feel that FINDING AND IDENTIFYING a dangerous radical and stopping him before he can attack is very important.

So, while I do not want our freedom of thought to disappear under a veil of government secrecy, I do want bombers to be caught and imprisoned or if they have killed already, being considered for a death penalty. I am undecided about the death penalty as a practice, however, because it is usually the very poor, the ethnically and racially unpopular, the uneducated, the mentally ill, and occasionally the politically “dangerous” individual who is executed; and in too many cases, the trial was either ineptly handled or in violation of the civil rights of the criminal.

I don’t believe Hillary would sign laws that deprive us of freedom on political grounds or racial/religious grounds, and it was clear to me that Richard Nixon was not only capable of that, he was actively pursuing it as a goal. In short, while I don’t like her private server for State Department purposes, or her complicity in cutting Bernie Sanders off at the knees, it is sufficient for me to vote for her only this one time in order to hold back the ravening wolves of the Far Right, which is more important than electing Bernie. I do say that sadly.

This clinging to the wealthy is one of the primary things that have disturbed me about her during the various revelations of these last couple of years. That, however, isn’t as serious to me as the forcefulness with which she and the other complicit Democrats yanked the strings to prevent Sanders from running against her. The rumor that some of Hillary’s “goons” went to Jane Sanders and physically threatened her is, I hope, probably not true, but if it is and I ever see proof of it I will be writing letters to have her put on trial for what is probably a felony.

The fact that I can’t be totally sure that she absolutely wouldn’t do something that low, really bothers me a great deal. There were several actions taken to literally force him from the race, which I have no doubt were made because they knew he was formidable, not inferior as they wanted to make him seem.

She really didn’t need to do that, because he had promised near the beginning not to run on a third party ticket, which is the only factor that I believe she had a right to be concerned about. Bernie Sanders had a perfect right to contest the Democratic nomination up to the last minute of the convention. That’s what a nomination convention is for – not the opportunity to put on an elaborate and highly staged show for the public consumption.

The cynical will say, “Well that’s politics,” but I say that the nomination is a sacrosanct part of a fair and democratic process and needs to be governed by rules applying to all parties and candidates nationwide as specified in the US Constitution. That means we need either an overarching law with teeth in it, or a Constitutional Amendment, which is harder to achieve. At this point in time, each party makes its’ own rules, and fairness isn’t necessarily part of their decision making process. Our government is fair only if the nomination of a candidate – and up to that point, the proper casting and counting of ballots in the primary – is fair.

After this Democratic Convention, I began to feel that the idea of each state’s right to define how the nomination process will be conducted should be modified either in ways laid out in the Constitution or a Federal law governing elections, and should include matters like requiring that there be no caucuses, the defining of what voters have to do at the voting place to ensure that their vote will be cast and counted, etc. For us to be a Republic/Democracy it isn’t enough for us to say so repeatedly, but to operate in a democratic fashion from the bottom to the top. At the bottom is where the electorate is, and it is most important that all get their rights and participate. After that, the string pulling by those at the top should be controlled by law.

There should also be changes in the personal requirements of all who run for President, Congress or the Senate, to include at least four years at an accredited college and a valid degree from such; ideally that degree should be in law, economics, political science, international relations, labor relations, history, business or some other subject which has a direct bearing on being President of one of the leading nations of the free world. A double major including two of those subjects would be an even better requirement than just one, especially if business or philosophy is the primary choice. Those two subjects should be a part of the candidate’s background as they promote the development of a healthy and ethical individual, however, and any candidate should be both mentally healthy and ethical. In addition, there should be no candidate nominated who doesn’t know at least a basic number of a large body of important facts, perhaps indicating the he or she does read the news on a daily basis, took a Civics course somewhere along the line, and has read materials beyond those found in college coursework to improve and update their true educational level. To have learned something twenty years ago is not enough. “I can see Russia from my house,” for instance, is NOT a description of an acceptable level of international experience, nor is Trump’s assertion that he has “done business” with Russians. We really need to “get serious” in this country and make changes before the Barbarians move in on us and destroy our nation. A large collection of nuclear weapons is insufficient to deal with our future problems, as I envision them.

The Presidency and legislature have become highly partisan and literally polluted by the money involved; due particularly to the fact that lobbyists cause too strong an effect on what laws are written and how. To have them function as advisers would be sensible, but not as ghost writers, which is unthinkable to me. Nor should a highly biased business group inform the legislature on how they should act. Control by moneyed interests is a part of our life today, but we should put more limitations on that by law. There should, in particular, be more academics such as scientists and college professors as well, who are not climate deniers or right leaning theorists of any kind.

Finally, a man or woman’s religion should neither be required for government service, nor considered in the selection of a nominee. I understand that the public may desire a certain religious persuasion in a candidate, but it shouldn’t be a requirement for his/her qualification as the party’s nominee nor find its’ way insidiously into the initial selection process over the candidate’s legitimate skills, professional memberships, educational degrees and other such qualities.

Likewise, the fact that a candidate is not a member of any party should not preclude his running. Our “party system” is getting bloated with the overly strong influence in all governmental interactions. In high school we studied about the abuses of Tammany Hall Democrats, and unfortunately we have come much too close to having the same situation in this time period. European countries typically have between three and some half a dozen different parties and candidates per election, and often after the election they have to “form a government.” No party gets as much as 50 percent of the vote, usually, but those at the top will win. That’s complex, but it prevents one party from totally taking over the government in a way that frightens me.

Our system is similar to a football game, whereas theirs is more like a horserace. We might find it confusing at first, but we would get used to it pretty fast and start voting on principles rather than purely personal or party identity. With multiple parties it is much more difficult for any party to grasp the other by the throat and strangle him, metaphorically speaking, which is of course what happened here in July, among the Democrats. Pollsters like to ask whether or not America is “on the right track,” and to me what is happening now is NOT on the right track.

The Founding Fathers from the beginning fought against the formation of highly politicized parties of the type we have today. They wanted a greater approximation of a true consensus. Our hidebound stubbornness today is especially a cause of problems in the legislature, as deadlocks over specific party positions occur almost daily, and they cause a severe and crippling inefficiency and unfairness in the lawmaking process. I was out in the yard one day a couple of years ago taking a mental break from work and listening to my radio in a live broadcast of the goings on surrounding the passage of a budget, and it was so frustrating to me that I wanted to scream. We need to get away from the idea that an election or the writing of laws should be like a gang war.