podesta_email_00524.txt

podesta-emails 6,692 words email

D6 P21 P17 V15 P22

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Thursday February 19, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Wall Street Journal: “Clinton Foundation Defends Acceptance of Foreign Donations” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-defends-acceptance-of-foreign-donations-1424302856>* ​"In its statement, the foundation said: 'The Clinton Foundation has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on our website for anyone to see. The bottom line: these contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.'" *Washington Post: “Clinton foundation’s global network overlaps with family’s political base” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html?tid=sm_tw>* “Since its creation in 2001, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has raised close to $2 billion from a vast global network that includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other wealthy interests, according to a Washington Post review of public records and newly released contribution data.” *Politico: “GOP group calls on Clinton Foundation to return foreign donations” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/gop-group-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-115294.html?ml=tl_1>* “One day after a report revealed that the Clinton Foundation has abandoned its near-prohibition of raising new money from foreign governments, Republican opposition research firm America Rising is calling on the organization to return funds from international sources and to promise to stop accepting them.” *National Journal: “When a Clinton 'Ally' Isn't an Ally At All” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/when-a-clinton-ally-isn-t-an-ally-at-all-20150218>* [Subtitle:] “Dozens of freelancing Democrats are posing as Clinton confidantes, and it’s mess-making for her real team.” *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Conservative group hits Jeb for giving award to Hillary” <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/233176-conservative-group-hits-jeb-for-giving-award-to-hillary>* “A conservative group is launching a campaign calling former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) 'unelectable' because he gave presumed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton an award in 2013. In the minds of ForAmerica, a conservative group founded by Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, that one appearance is enough to disqualify him from a 2016 bid entirely.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Three-quarters say the first-woman-president thing doesn’t matter. They’re wrong.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/three-quarters-say-the-first-woman-president-thing-doesnt-matter-theyre-wrong/>* “There's also this: People are really bad at deducing precisely what is important to their vote. Just because they say something isn't important doesn't mean it isn't.” *Bloomberg: “Fake Hillary Clinton and the New Social Media Rules of Truth” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/fake-hillary-clinton-and-the-new-social-media-rules-of-truth>* “The world of new media is different, in barrier and also in tone. The game is getting in on the meme. The one who wins on Twitter is the fast, the fluid, the so-damn-biting that the mic gets dropped.” *Articles:* *Wall Street Journal: “Clinton Foundation Defends Acceptance of Foreign Donations” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-defends-acceptance-of-foreign-donations-1424302856>* By Peter Nicholas and Rebecca Ballhaus February 18, 2015, 6:40 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Charity has received funds from governments of U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Oman and Canada, among others The Clinton Foundation on Wednesday defended its practice of accepting donations from overseas governments, amid concerns from some ethics experts that such contributions are inappropriate at a time when Hillary Clinton is preparing to run for president. A Wall Street Journal review of donations to the Clinton Foundation in 2014 showed the charity received money from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman, among others. The donors included Canada’s foreign affairs department, which is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. The foundation had agreed to stop raising money from foreign governments in 2009, after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. That step was in deference to Obama administration concerns about the propriety of taking money from other nations while Mrs. Clinton served as America’s top diplomat. Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in early 2013, and the foundation later dropped the ban. Mrs. Clinton is an important figure in the foundation, serving as a marquee fundraiser for what is now officially called the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Some ethics experts questioned whether it is appropriate for the foundation to accept funds from foreign governments at a time when Mrs. Clinton is preparing for an all-but-certain presidential bid. In its statement, the foundation said: “The Clinton Foundation has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on our website for anyone to see.” “The bottom line: these contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.” In its account of the donations from foreign governments, the Journal quoted several independent analysts who said the foundation should restore its ban on such contributions, out of concerns that foreign governments would attempt to curry favor with Mrs. Clinton. Republicans on Wednesday chided Mrs. Clinton over the contributions. “The alarming rate at which these contributions are now coming in presents a massive conflict-of-interest problem for her,’’ said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. ”When that 3 a.m. phone call comes, do voters really want to have a president on the line who took truckloads of cash from other countries? Absolutely not." A spokeswoman for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush , who is preparing a campaign for the White House, declined to comment on whether the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting contributions from foreign governments. But she noted that Mr. Bush, “as part of seriously exploring a potential run for president,” had stepped down as chairman of his foundation, and that his foundation doesn’t take donations from foreign governments or entities. America Rising, a Republican opposition research group, on Wednesday called for the Clinton Foundation to restore its ban on foreign contributions and return the donations it has received from foreign countries and entities, including nonprofits where foreign government donations constitute the majority of their funds. They also requested that Mr. Clinton return the speaking fees he has earned from foreign governments and stop accepting them. “The potential conflict of interest for someone in Clinton’s position requires they return the money, and the ethical lapse to accept the money in the first place calls into question Hillary Clinton’s judgment,” the group said in a statement The United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million, 2014 according to disclosures on an online Clinton Foundation database. The German government—another first-time donor—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000. Saudi Arabia, a previous donor, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation’s creation. An unspecified portion of the money came in 2014. Other donors to the foundation last year included Jonathan Lavine, an investment adviser in Boston and previous donor to Mrs. Clinton’s campaigns, gave between $500,000 and $1 million together with his wife through a foundation they created. Several prominent Silicon Valley figures gave to the foundation for the first time last year. Ann Doerr, the wife of venture capitalist John Doerr , gave between $50,000 and $100,000. A foundation started by Sean Parker , the co-founder of Napster, gave between $500,000 and $1 million. Newsmax, a conservative news organization, last year pledged $1 million to the Clinton Foundation over a five-year period, according to a spokesman for Chris Ruddy, the organization’s CEO. Mr. Ruddy has been friends with the Clintons since 2007. Through a spokesman, he said the donation wasn't tantamount to an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton’s potential campaign, though he thinks she would “make a great presidential candidate.” *Washington Post: “Clinton foundation’s global network overlaps with family’s political base” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html?tid=sm_tw>* By Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger, and Steven Rich February 18, 2015, 9:30 p.m. EST Since its creation in 2001, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has raised close to $2 billion from a vast global network that includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other wealthy interests, according to a Washington Post review of public records and newly released contribution data. The total, representing cash and pledges reported in tax filings, includes $262 million that was raised in 2013 — the year Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped down as secretary of state and began to devote her energies to the foundation and to a likely second run for president. The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving. The Post review of foundation data, updated this month on the group’s Web site to reflect giving through 2014, found substantial overlap between the Clinton political machinery and the foundation. Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run. The Clintons have relied heavily on their close ties to Wall Street, with donations from the financial services sector representing the largest share of corporate donors. And many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million. The prevalence of financial institutions, both foreign and domestic, as major donors is likely to stir more unease in the Democratic Party’s liberal base, which is pushing Hillary Clinton to adopt a more populist and less Wall Street-focused economic agenda. The role of interests located in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Argentina may spur questions about the independence of a potential commander in chief who has solicited money from foreign donors with a stake in the actions of the U.S. government. *‘A philanthropy, period’* Foundation officials said the organization’s fundraising success reflects its track record of accomplishment. They said many other foundations have a similar international donor base. “The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropy, period,” said Craig Minassian, the group’s chief communications officer. “We take pride in our programs, our efficiency, and our transparency. As with other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives the support of individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world because our programs are improving the lives of millions.” Minassian said it was a “false choice to suggest that people who may be interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support philanthropic work.” Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, declined to comment. The foundation, which Bill Clinton created soon after leaving the White House in 2001, has become one of the world’s fastest-growing philanthropies. It consists of multiple charitable initiatives that deal with climate change, HIV drug access and economic development in poor areas. One program, led by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, seeks to improve the lives of women and girls. The foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs. Major donations have come from figures such as Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of the conservative Web site Newsmax.com and a onetime critic of Bill Clinton. Foundation tax records show that it reported raising $1.69 billion in cash and pledges between 2001 and 2013, the last year for which documents are available. As of the end of 2014, donations reached nearly $2 billion, foundation officials confirmed. The scope of the foundation’s finances show the unparalleled fundraising power of one of the world’s most important political brands. “To be raising $250 million a year, certainly puts them in the top ranks of U.S. nonprofits in terms of fundraising,” said Steven Lawrence, director of research for the Foundation Center, which studies philanthropy. Lawrence said the Clintons’ ability to draw support from overseas — a coveted goal for many U.S. charities and university endowments — was especially unusual. “It’s all about building networks and connections,” Lawrence said, adding that donors are likely attracted both personally to the Clintons and to the highly regarded philanthropic work of their foundation. The donor list shows that the foundation has relied most heavily on seven donors that have each given more than $25 million, including a foundation established by a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra; the national lottery of Holland; and Chicago-based Democratic donor Fred Eychaner. Other major donors giving at lower levels run the gamut of industries and interests, such as the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, beverage giant Coca-Cola, and the governments of Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Foundation officials say some of their public support comes from competitive grants that are also available to other charities. *Concerns in late 2008* The foundation’s fundraising sparked concerns in late 2008 when President-elect Barack Obama was preparing to nominate Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. Some Republicans, raising the prospect of conflicts of interest, criticized the fact that the foundation’s donors were kept secret. The Clintons struck a deal with the Obama administration to begin posting lists of its contributors online and to accept some restrictions on support from foreign governments. As part of the deal, the Clinton Global Initiative, which brings together world leaders, industries and charities to discuss global issues, was split from the foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department. In 2013, after she stepped down as secretary of state, the foundation and the global initiative were reintegrated. The newly published donor list is the first to provide a public accounting of the cumulative giving to both groups. In posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies. But that transparency has limits. The foundation identifies its donors within broad ranges — $1 million to $5 million and greater than $25 million, for instance. And the foundation tallies the giving of each donor only cumulatively, making it difficult to track trends in giving over time. As a result, it is not possible to determine how much particular donors contributed in the months since Hillary Clinton joined the foundation in 2013. Still, the organization has stepped up its solicitation efforts in anticipation of soon losing one of its chief fundraisers to the campaign trail — building a $250 million endowment designed to provide some long-term stability. The recent efforts have at times looked like a political campaign. A contest offered foundation donors the chance to win a free trip to New York to attend a Clinton gala and have a photo taken with the former first couple. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton hosted a “Millennium Network” event in 2013 aimed at cultivating a younger generation of philanthropists. According to an invitation, there were six tiers of donations, ranging from $150 for individuals to $15,000 for a couple seeking a photograph with Hillary Clinton. The Post review found that the foundation provided another way for the Clintons’ longtime political donors to support the family’s endeavors between election campaigns. The analysis relied on a list of bundlers compiled by the advocacy group Public Citizen using campaign disclosures and news reports. Each donor had generally raised at least $100,000 for her 2008 campaign. Susie Tompkins Buell, for instance, a close Clinton friend and 2008 fundraiser who has given to Ready for Hillary, has donated as much as $10 million to the foundation from her charitable fund. Haim Saban, the billionaire creator of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and one of the Clintons’ most-prolific political givers, has donated as much as $25 million to the foundation. Buell and Saban did not respond to requests for comment. The overlap between the Clintons’ political network and their charitable work was apparent Friday, when Dennis Cheng stepped down as the foundation’s chief development officer ahead of his expected role as a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. *U.S.-regulated donors* Some major foundation donors are corporations that are regulated by the U.S. government. Tenet, a health-care giant that has been investigated in the past for overbilling Medicare, has given $1.75 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2012 to fund local health programs, such as one promoting more HIV testing in the Palm Springs, Calif., area, where the company has a major hospital. “We really believe in their health-care model — the community-based model,” said Daniel Waldmann, Tenet’s senior vice president for public affairs. The newly updated foundation donor list shows that, despite the restrictions on foreign-government support imposed during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, the foundation continued to rely heavily on non-U.S. sources. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the foundation has now lifted the foreign-government restrictions. The data shows that some major donors represent international interests that have faced scrutiny from the U.S. government. All three Clintons, for instance, have attended meetings and private events with Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who has faced formal complaints in the United States for unfair trade practices. Spokesmen for the Clintons and Pinchuk waved away any suggestion of a conflict between the donor’s regulatory concerns and the charitable contributions to the foundation. “No assistance with any business issues has now or ever been sought from the Clinton Foundation or its principals,” said Thomas Weihe, a spokesman for the Kiev-based Pinchuk Foundation. He said Pinchuk supported the Clinton effort because of the foundation’s record and the “unique capacity of its principals to promote the modernization of Ukraine.” *Politico: “GOP group calls on Clinton Foundation to return foreign donations” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/gop-group-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-115294.html?ml=tl_1>* By Gabriel Debenedetti February 18, 2015, 5:58 p.m. EST One day after a report revealed that the Clinton Foundation has abandoned its near-prohibition of raising new money from foreign governments, Republican opposition research firm America Rising is calling on the organization to return funds from international sources and to promise to stop accepting them. The group is warning against the prospect of countries that in some cases have given $1 million or more to the foundation having a “special” relationship with a Clinton administration. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that nations including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Canada have recently donated to the foundation. “The potential conflict of interest for someone in Clinton’s position requires they return the money, and the ethical lapse to accept the money in the first place calls into question Hillary Clinton’s judgment,” the group will say on Wednesday in its release announcing these requests. Neither Hillary Clinton’s spokesman nor a Clinton Foundation spokesman responded immediately to requests for comment. While Clinton lies low ahead of her campaign launch, Republicans have been criticizing her work as a public official and a private citizen. The Journal report reflected one Republican line of criticism — that Clinton’s foundation ties to foreign regimes could cause her political difficulties — and a similar fear among some of her allies and defenders. The organization — which was started by former President Bill Clinton as he left the White House and was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013 — has caused Hillary Clinton political headaches before. It agreed to stop actively seeking out new money from foreign governments, and to have increases in existing donations vetted, when she stepped into the secretary of state role in 2009. And it has again been the focus of Republican scrutiny since she left the State Department in 2013. Many of Clinton’s public appearances in that year and 2014 were under the foundation’s umbrella, as the former senator and first lady has been involved with its philanthropic initiatives while preparing for her likely presidential bid. America Rising will demand that the organization “return all donations from foreign governments, including regional or local government entities since 2013 and pledge never to solicit or accept them.” It is also asking the foundation to return funds received from nonprofit organizations that are themselves mostly funded by foreign governments or officials, and to return money from foreign officers. It is asking Bill Clinton to give back his own speaking fees from international governments as well. The Journal article specifically pointed to the United Arab Emirates, which it said gave the foundation between $1 million and $5 million last year, as a recent first-time donor. The paper also reported that the Clinton Foundation received money from Oman, Australia, Germany, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands. *National Journal: “When a Clinton 'Ally' Isn't an Ally At All” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/when-a-clinton-ally-isn-t-an-ally-at-all-20150218>* By Emily Schultheis February 18, 2015 [Subtitle:] Dozens of freelancing Democrats are posing as Clinton confidantes, and it’s mess-making for her real team. There are Clinton "insiders" and Clinton "allies." Clinton "loyalists" and Clinton "confidantes." People "familiar with Clinton's thinking" or "in Clinton's orbit." No doubt, Washington is filled with Democrats who have worked for, advised, donated money to, or rubbed elbows with Hillary or Bill Clinton over the duo's three decades in politics. But as the former secretary of State prepares a 2016 campaign, these "allies" are posing a problem for Clinton's real team. Ever eager to voice opinions on everything from the timeline of Clinton's announcement to her 2016 message to how her "hipster black-rimmed glasses" fit with the optics of a Brooklyn-based operation, self-labeled advisors are going rogue. And by freelancing, they're taking the Clinton story out of Clinton's hands, even as she tries to build a team that's more leak-proof and less willing to air dirty laundry than in 2008. "There are three parties to this equation: we're one, the source is two, and the media is three. And arguably we have the least amount of influence on any of this," said longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines. He conceded, though, that there's no real way for her team to control it: "We just have to sit back. We just have to grin and bear it." The issue is singularly frustrating for people who work and have worked in Clinton's press operation and dealt with the issue first-hand—enough so that several of whom, like Reines, were willing to give rare on-the-record interviews for this story. "This is a constant problem," said Howard Wolfson, who served as Clinton's communications director in 2008. "There is an enormous number of people who have had, or claim to have had, an association with the Clintons over the years—and many of them claim to have some degree of knowledge of her plans or activities that they don't in fact have." Unlike on the Republican side, where a crowded field makes candidates and their staffs happy to dish to reporters about big hires, early-state plans, and behind-the-scenes machinations, movements to and within Clinton's growing operation are closely held. Indeed, Republicans have used a running tally of the "no comment" responses from the Clinton camp to paint the former senator and first lady as out-of-touch—"OFF THE RECORD: no comment," read the headline on one recent Clinton-related release from the Republican National Committee. So with Clinton's staff keeping public comments to a minimum, the quasi-"insiders" largely have the floor to themselves. Certainly, former staffers eagerly offering up their own takes or speculation isn't unique to Clinton, but for her it's magnified by the amount of time she and her husband have spent in the public eye. There are decades' worth of former staffers to contend with: there are the Arkansas people, the Clinton White House advisers, New York Senate staffers, 2008 campaign aides, Clinton Foundation associates, and State Department aides, among others. Asked how the campaign could get a handle on all the anonymous outside chatter, Reines placed much of the blame back on the media for being willing to grant anonymity to sources who don't know what they're talking about. Unless the unnamed "advisers" stop talking to reporters, or reporters stop quoting them, Reines added, there's no way to get the issue under control. "What gets lost is there are no consequences for [the source or the media] when they're wrong—there just aren't," he said. "If you were to go back and look at the last three, four, five, six months of coverage about Secretary Clinton, you're going to see certain reporters who cover her closely whose accuracy rate is less than 50/50." Any reporter covering the Clinton beat knows it's tough to navigate the sphere known as Clintonworld. A source who offers up good information for one story might be totally wrong on another, and most Democrats are understandably squeamish about talking on the record about anything Clinton-related because nearly all of them are hoping for jobs with her. (More than a dozen people contacted for this piece said they were happy to discuss it—but only on background.) The thing is, a Clinton "ally" could be anyone: a top donor or former staffer in the know, sure, but also a Democratic strategist on the outside who is just sharing an opinion, wants to feel important, or is hoping to settle a score. What's more, it's far harder for the campaign to chastise someone for saying things they shouldn't—or stop telling that person privileged information—if they're quoted anonymously and you don't know for sure who said what. "Any time someone actually says their name and publishes a quote, it's easy for the campaign to call them up and say, 'Please don't do that anymore,'" said Michael Trujillo, who served as a senior staffer for Clinton's 2008 campaign in California, Texas and North Carolina. But with anonymous quotes, you don't know where they're coming from. (Reines warned it's not difficult to figure out: "It's not like you read something and say, 'Oh my gosh, that could have been 97 people.' You tend to know. Not 100 percent of the time, but ... I think sources would probably shrivel up if they knew that when these things happen, there's usually a four-minute conversation about, 'Oh, that was probably X ... I think people would be mortified. I don't think they realize how much that happens.") Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton's White House press secretary in the 1990s, also pegged the problem not to the campaign but to reporters who "hyperventilate" about 2016. "I love Mrs. Clinton and hope she decides what is best for her. But anyone that would quote me 'on background' would be misleading their audience because I have no real idea what they are thinking," he wrote via email. "I believe 75% (conservatively) of what I read about the political strategy inside the Clinton camp is from people who want to be in the 'inside circle' but probably aren't." The dynamic in 2008 is just a preview of what the chattering "allies" will be like this time around. Trujillo said more than once he and his team were stunned at news reports about Clinton's plans in each of those states—which often had sources who were in direct contradiction with what was actually happening inside the campaign. "To read that in the paper and know it was the complete opposite ... it's never helpful, it's never asked for," said Trujillo, now a Los Angeles-based senior adviser for Ready for Hillary. "You're not being helpful by pontificating on what she is or isn't going to do." So what's the eventual Clinton campaign to do? No one reached for this story had a good answer. Some suggested the outside "allies" would be given less status once it's clear who's actually involved in the campaign and who isn't. Others said John Podesta, the expected campaign chairman, might be able to instill order among the older generations of Clinton loyalists, many of whom he's worked with in the past. Ben LaBolt, the press secretary for the Obama 2012 campaign, said the eventual Clinton campaign needs to make it very clear to reporters who's actually on the campaign and in the know—and who isn't. "Campaigns should bend over backwards to limit the number of people that speak officially for the campaign and to make sure the media understands exactly who serves on that team," he wrote in an email. "Otherwise, you're forced to apologize for, correct or condemn statements by people who don't actually have anything to do with the campaign." But sometimes, Wolfson said, the 2008 staff took a step back and just laughed about who some anonymous sources could have been. "In the '08 campaign, we used to laugh and say, 'Okay, that was the shoe-shine guy.' 'That was the guy who ran the sandwich shop down the street,'" he said. "There was, in my experience, a very elastic and loose definition of who constitutes a 'Clinton loyalist,' 'Clinton insider,' 'Clinton confidante.'" The reporting and speculation about her intentions and campaign plans, Reines said, often baffle even Clinton herself: "When you're talking to the person whose life is being written about and they're like, 'Where do they get this stuff?' It's really sobering." *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Conservative group hits Jeb for giving award to Hillary” <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/233176-conservative-group-hits-jeb-for-giving-award-to-hillary>* By Ben Kamisar February 19, 2015, 5:00 a.m. EST A conservative group is launching a campaign calling former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) “unelectable” because he gave presumed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton an award in 2013. In the minds of ForAmerica, a conservative group founded by Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, that one appearance is enough to disqualify him from a 2016 bid entirely. “Anytime Jeb calls Hillary 'Obama 2.0,' any criticism he makes of her awful record as Secretary of State, any time he shows how much of an extremist she is on the issues, will be completely dismissed when she reminds everyone that he gave her an award for public service,” Bozell said in a statement. “Jeb has absolutely no credibility to criticize her because he has already anointed her as a great public servant; and he inexplicably did so almost a year to the day of the Benghazi massacre," he continued. "He will lose, and the public will have to suffer at least another four years of Obama’s policies – and anything worse she has in store for America.” As chairman of the National Constitution Center, Bush gave Clinton a lifetime achievement award for public service and her work on women’s rights. A video released by ForAmerica shows footage of Bush thanking Clinton and her husband, President Bill Clinton. "We are united by love of country and public service,” Bush says. The video then shows text calling Hillary Clinton “responsible for the security of the American embassy in Benghazi” and noting that the 2012 attack on the embassy that left four Americans dead “occurred on her watch.” The event occurred one night before the first anniversary of the Benghazi attacks. Bush has finished near the top of most national polls of Republican voters, but some of the party’s more conservative figures argue that he is too moderate for their liking and will struggle to win the base and nomination. Most potential candidates, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ala.), Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.), and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) are expected to run well to the right of Bush, who has been hit by conservative Republicans over his support for Common Core education standards and immigration reform. *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Three-quarters say the first-woman-president thing doesn’t matter. They’re wrong.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/19/three-quarters-say-the-first-woman-president-thing-doesnt-matter-theyre-wrong/>* By Aaron Blake February 19, 2015, 6:30 a.m. EST Breaking: Hillary Clinton, if she were to run for and win the presidency, would be the first female U.S. president. And, if you believe the polls, almost nobody who has any control over that really gives a rip. New polling from Quinnipiac University on Wednesday showed about three-quarters of people in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia said that distinction made no difference to their 2016 vote. And the majority who said it did were Democrats. Basically no Republicans said it made them more likely to back Clinton, and only about one in 10 independents agreed -- the same percentage who said it makes them less likely to back her. In other words, these are probably just folks who claim to be independent but vote reliably for either party. A Washington Post-ABC News poll a few weeks back showed basically the same thing, with just slightly more independents saying the first-woman-president thing was something that made them more pro-Clinton. But there's also this: People are really bad at deducing precisely what is important to their vote. Just because they say something isn't important doesn't mean it isn't. The same goes for endorsements. Nobody likes to think their vote is based on such easy shorthand, but sometimes it is. Case in point: the first-black-president thing. Turns out, back in 2008, almost nobody said it was a big deal -- even less than the first-woman-president thing today. A Gallup poll conducted in June 2008 found 78 percent of African Americans and 88 percent of whites said Obama's race had nothing to do with their vote. (The question wasn't framed as "first black president," for what it's worth, but it stands to reason that's how almost everyone interpreted it.) By the end of the campaign, just 9 percent were saying Obama's race made them more likely to vote for him, and 6 percent less likely -- basically a wash. And given much of the "more likely" crowd were African Americans (who vote almost universally Democratic anyway), it's hard to say whether it had any measurable effect on swing voters. But then you get to turnout. That's where this mattered. Obama's status as the potential first black president pushed black turnout to unprecedented levels and helped him win the presidency (and reelection in 2012). Here's how turnout looked in recent elections -- noting the upticks in 2008 and 2012. [CHART] Which is where the first-woman-president thing comes into play for Clinton. No, it might not sway as many swing voters as women's groups might like, and there is probably a countervailing effect of people still hesitant about installing a woman in the presidency. Where it could really help Clinton is if it spurs higher turnout among women -- who tilt Democratic -- and particularly among lower-turnout unmarried and college-educated women -- who tilt much more Democratic. Here is turnout for unmarried women. [CHART] These extra votes won't uniformly go to Clinton as much as the black vote did for Obama -- and we might not ever get a truly accurate first-woman-president polling response -- but they would go a long way toward helping her re-create the so-called "Obama Coalition." And if 2008 is any indication, the first-fill-in-the-blank-president thing doesn't exactly hurt among swing voters either -- whether they know it or not. *Bloomberg: “Fake Hillary Clinton and the New Social Media Rules of Truth” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/fake-hillary-clinton-and-the-new-social-media-rules-of-truth>* By Emily Greenhouse February 18, 2015, 9:09 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Fast and loose, in fact and on line. At 11:45 a.m. on Valentine’s Day, Saturday, Senator Rand Paul tweeted, "Hillary Clinton's new Valentine's Day Pinterest board is worth a look. Check it out and please RT!" As Paul advertised, the link took people to a Pinterest page purporting to belong to Hillary Clinton. Instead, it had been put together by Paul's camp. There was a "Power Couple" board, with shots of the Clintonian Mr. & Mrs., an "Inspirational Quotes" slot, and—because Paul knows what women like—a "White House remodel" board, with pictures of a heart-shaped pool and a stylish office with a desk resembling a doily. Then there was the holiday card, all in pink: Clinton's face, open-mouthed, with the words "I've Benghazing at you!" in a red heart beside her. In presidential politics, it’s a fairly rare genuflection toward policing the truth. In 2004, a number of Vietnam War veterans turned against one of their kind. They called themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and they ran ads, as a tax-exempt 527 group, saying that John Kerry, then a candidate for president, was “no war hero,” that he “lied to get his Bronze Star.” One spot opened with the men stating, solemnly, that they had served with Kerry. But the the New York Times reported, “None of the men served with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat.” Swiftboating fast became a verb: a shorthand synonym whose meaning was extended to cover unjust or untrue political attacks, however petty or trivial. In the next presidential election cycle, Barack Obama accused his opponent, John McCain, of engaging in “swift boat politics,” after the McCain campaign accused Obama of sexism for his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig," claiming the comment referred to vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The charges and counter-charges were ugly, but allowed, and it's doubtful that we’d recognize our national politics without mudslinging, misattribution, and misrepresentation. Hyperbole has become the norm—how else could the public be trusted to grasp basic political points? In television and newspaper ads, facts may seem slack, but the spirit is accurate. To someone, at least. The world of new media is different, in barrier and also in tone. The game is getting in on the meme. The one who wins on Twitter is the fast, the fluid, the so-damn-biting that the mic gets dropped. Much has been made already of Rand Paul’s use of social media; Politico called him “the first true Twitter candidate.” In just the last weeks of January, Paul published a “secret tape” of a fake phone call between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, and posted tweets (initially misspelled) showing friendship bracelets exchanged between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. His Valentine’s-themed fake Pinterest page seemed a natural extension of that, the du jour-ness, the jumping on the trend. Swiftboating, maybe, but swiftboating is savvy branding. But Paul hit a dam in the water Sunday when Pinterest deleted Paul’s ‘parody’ account. The fake Hillary Clinton account, a spokesperson for Pinterest said, violates the company’s acceptable use policy, which makes it impermissible to "impersonate or misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.” A site like https://www.pinterest.com/fakebarackobama/ is labeled as a parody, and https://www.pinterest.com/randpaulreview “makes clear that it is administered by someone else.” But not this. The company representative noted that Pinterest has “disabled other accounts that appear to impersonate individuals and our policies on this are nearly identical to other services.” Twitter and Facebook have similar positions on parody accounts. A spokesperson for Twitter said that the social network has disabled accounts claiming to be (or to be affiliated with) politicians, that weren’t real. Which means that so long as Rand Paul is tweeting as Rand Paul, he can keep posting made-up letters and images of friendship bracelets, leaving it to fate or followers to determine whether he’s joking. This is an interesting modern condundrum, a hairsplitting of truth—which, we know, is already in short supply in politics. The rule seems to be: falsehood is acceptable, as long as it is uttered by a verifiable human. Possibly, social media networks should streamline their swiftboat policy. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )