podesta_email_01767.txt

podesta-emails 6,979 words email

D6 P17 P22 V11 V9

-----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 December 11, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Bloomberg: “Chris Christie Would Lose Badly to Hillary Clinton in New Jersey, Poll Finds” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-11/chris-christie-would-lose-badly-to-hillary-clinton-in-new-jersey-poll-finds>* “Clinton is the only candidate listed who gets a positive favorability rating, 58—35 percent. The Republicans all have negative scores in New Jersey.” *FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Resurrects Distorted Version Of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Testimony” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/10/fox-resurrects-distorted-version-of-hillary-cli/201835>* “Fox News hosts criticized a distorted version of Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, falsely suggesting that the former secretary of state had been indifferent to the cause of the attack.” *New York Times: “Torture Report Puts Presidential Hopefuls in Quiet Mode” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/us/politics/torture-report-puts-politicians-in-quiet-mode.html>* “On Wednesday, Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor and potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was hardly eager to revisit the torture issue. Among presumptive candidates in both parties — including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush — he had company in his reticence.” *Associated Press: “Delays Plague Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Files” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_STATE_DEPARTMENT_FILES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* “The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign.” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Why Does Hillary Want to Be President, Anyway?” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-why-does-hillary-want-to-be-president-anyway-1418258533?mod=trending_now_5>* [Subtitle:] “So far it looks like Mrs. Clinton would have at least as many problems in 2016 as she did in 2008.” *MSNBC: “Ted Cruz rips ‘Obama-Clinton’ foreign policy in 2016 preview” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-rips-obama-clinton-foreign-policy-2016-preview>* “In a potential preview of the 2016 presidential contest, Senator Ted Cruz lit into the ‘Obama-Clinton foreign policy’ in a speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.” *Politico: “Poll: Clinton leads among wealthy voters” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/poll-hillary-clinton-support-millionaires-113471.html?hp=l5_4>* “In a CNBC survey of the wealthy released on Wednesday, 31 percent of those with assets of $1 million or more said that they would vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.” *People: “PEOPLE Magazine Rounds Up the 25 Most Intriguing People of 2014” <http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-year-end-2014-most-intriguing-people>* “Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute to the poet, author and activist, telling PEOPLE: ‘We're a better country today because of Maya Angelou. Our country's struggles, triumphs and progress over the past century are written all over her life.’” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Why Elizabeth Warren is liberals’ dream 2016 candidate, in 49 seconds” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/why-elizabeth-warren-is-liberals-dream-candidate-in-49-seconds/>* “Speeches like the one Warren gave Wednesday will just fuel chatter about why she should challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton in two years. And she knows it.” *The Hill opinion: Lanny Danny: “Why I am ready for Hillary” <http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/226723-lanny-davis-why-i-am-ready-for-hillary>* “With Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee in 2016, it’s time. And it will happen.” *Articles:* *Bloomberg: “Chris Christie Would Lose Badly to Hillary Clinton in New Jersey, Poll Finds” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-11/chris-christie-would-lose-badly-to-hillary-clinton-in-new-jersey-poll-finds>* By John McCormick December 11, 2014, 6:02 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] Half of New Jersey's voters don't want to see Christie run for president. A Jersey Guy in the White House? Fuggetaboutit. New Jersey voters say that America isn't ready for one of their own as the commander-in-chief, and would pick Hillary Clinton over their state's governor, Chris Christie, by a margin of 11 points, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday. A slim majority in the survey say Christie wouldn't make a good president, while half of the state's voters don't think the U.S. is ready for a "Jersey Guy" in the White House. New York neighbor Clinton would, for now, beat all of the prospective Republican 2016 candidates in the state. Fifty-three percent of the state's voters said Christie wouldn't make a good White House occupant, while 40 percent say he could do the job. Even among Republicans, a fifth hold the view that he isn't presidential material. The trepidation over electing Christie president might have something to do with an open question about his potential candidacy: Whether his brash style would be accepted in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where politics tends to be more genteel. Christie made national news in October when he told a constituent who was critical of New Jersey's response to mega-storm Sandy to “sit down and shut up.” By a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, the state's voters say they wouldn't like to see Christie run for president. If he does, 62 percent say he should resign as governor. “If Christie does run—and his New Jersey neighbors say he shouldn’t—he should quit his day job,” Maurice Carroll, assistant director of the poll, said in a statement. In late January, Christie is scheduled to return to Iowa, where the nomination voting will start in early 2016. The moderate Republican will speak at an event that has so far attracted RSVPs from only the most conservative of prospective GOP presidential candidates, as well as Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Electing a president from New Jersey wouldn't be unprecedented, although it's rare. Grover Cleveland is the only New Jersey native to become president, while Woodrow Wilson served as the state's governor and president of Princeton University before occupying the White House, according to the state's website. On the question of whether Americans are ready for a Jersey president, 49 percent of the state's voters say no and 43 percent say yes. Men are nearly evenly divided, while women are more doubtful, 51 percent to 41 percent. Younger voters think the nation could be open to the idea, while those 35 and older disagree. "The last Jersey guy who got elected president did not carry the state in his 1916 reelection," Carroll said in a reference to Wilson. "This poll shows we haven't changed in the last century." If Christie and Clinton run, she would beat him at this point 50 percent to 39 percent. In New Jersey, she would also easily beat former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Clinton is the only candidate listed who gets a positive favorability rating, 58—35 percent. The Republicans all have negative scores in New Jersey. "She beats all the probable Republican candidates, including the governor," Carroll said. "He does better than the other Republicans but he still loses his home state." New Jersey voters give President Barack Obama a negative job approval rating in the survey, with 46 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. That's slightly better than the same poll found in August. Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac interviewed 1,340 registered voters for the survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. *FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Resurrects Distorted Version Of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Testimony” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/10/fox-resurrects-distorted-version-of-hillary-cli/201835>* By Emily Arrowood December 10, 2014, 3:11 p.m. EST Fox News hosts criticized a distorted version of Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, falsely suggesting that the former secretary of state had been indifferent to the cause of the attack. On December 10, the hosts of Outnumbered recalled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 2013 congressional testimony in a discussion on the day's hearing of the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi. Co-host Andrea Tantaros alleged Clinton said, "It doesn't really make a difference what happened on that night" of the attack, and continued, "whether it was men out for a walk." Co-host Kennedy agreed, suggesting Clinton's "strange and insulting line of reflection" evidenced indifference to the lives lost in the attacks. Kennedy went on, "[I]t actually makes a very big difference. If you've got a systemic problem with Al Qaeda who's ready to attack a vulnerable U.S. embassy, then yeah, that's vastly different than a couple people that just get together with some incendiary devices." That's an egregious stretch of Clinton's remarks. During her congressional testimony, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked Clinton about the State Department's role in editing Obama administration talking points to remove a reference to the Benghazi attackers' motive. In response, she dismissed the relevance of debating who edited a government memo, saying, "[T]he fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" She emphasized, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." Fox figures have tirelessly attempted to scandalize Clinton's innocuous response, even jumping off the remarks to imagine her hypothetical assassination. The distortion has proved too egregious even for other members of the right-wing media -- Weekly Standard writer (and Fox contributor) Stephen Hayes called out his fellow conservatives for misrepresenting her remarks, saying Clinton's critics have "badly mischaracterized the now infamous question." According to Hayes, Clinton's "question, which came in the middle of a heated back-and-forth with U.S. senator Ron Johnson, was not so much a declaration of indifference as it was an attempt to redirect the questioning from its focus on the hours before the attacks to preventing similar attacks in the future." *New York Times: “Torture Report Puts Presidential Hopefuls in Quiet Mode” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/us/politics/torture-report-puts-politicians-in-quiet-mode.html>* By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Michael Barbaro December 10, 2014 WASHINGTON — In 2002, not long after President George W. Bush named him the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, Chris Christie emphatically and unexpectedly denounced torture as a means of gathering evidence. “I cannot believe, given the history of this country, that no matter what the threat to our country that we would forsake our protection of liberties to the extent that we would advocate torture as a way of getting evidence,” he said then, adding, “You have to be coolheaded in times of crisis to be able to not go too far.” But on Wednesday, Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor and potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was hardly eager to revisit the torture issue. Among presumptive candidates in both parties — including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush — he had company in his reticence. Most of the possible presidential candidates have not plunged into Washington’s debate over the Senate Intelligence Committee’s withering report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s brutal interrogation tactics — and some are ducking questions entirely, illustrating the delicate politics of national security. One senator who did agree to talk, Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, criticized the public release of the Senate report but also decried torture as an interrogation technique. Asked specifically about the use of waterboarding and rectal feeding, which were both documented in the report, Mr. Rubio said he did not want to discuss “specific methods” but suggested that he did not support such practices, noting that they have been discontinued. “And I’m not advocating that we continue those practices.” But Mr. Rubio struck the same theme as many in his party, condemning the report and its release for being “conducted in a way that was partisan and unfair.” Releasing it, he said, “puts in danger the lives of Americans.” Few would-be candidates want to be seen as defending torture, particularly in the aftermath of the graphic techniques depicted in the panel’s findings. At the same time, Republican candidates in particular do not want to be seen as soft on terrorism. The report puts one Republican, Mr. Bush, in an especially unenviable position, because it resurrects the most controversial policies of his brother’s administration. For Mrs. Clinton, the challenge is different: She must balance her desire to be seen as tough on national security against pressure from her party’s liberal wing to not only condemn the gruesome tactics but punish those involved. The report provides an opportunity for potential Clinton challengers to stake out a position to her left — and one Democrat, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, took it. While Mrs. Clinton has previously said she did not want to see the officials who conducted the interrogations prosecuted, Mr. O’Malley, in an interview, called on the Justice Department to name a special prosecutor to investigate. “I think there needs to be some accountability so this doesn’t happen again,” he said. The likely Republican candidates and their advisers recognize that their party base still has a hawkish impulse when it comes to terrorism, especially given the warnings that the publication of the report could prompt new threats on Americans. “Look at the polling, and elected Republicans pretty much reflect where their constituents are: largely supportive of the C.I.A. program with little interest in the details, a small minority opposed as a matter of principle, but no one shedding any tears for the terrorists who got roughed up,” said Michael Goldfarb, a neoconservative strategist. Yet Mr. Christie’s refusal to weigh in — the governor said in a brief interview that it would not be “responsible to comment” on a report he had not read — irritated Mr. Goldfarb, who said in a post on Twitter that the governor was “irresponsible” in avoiding questions Wednesday about the interrogation methods. For presidential hopefuls outside Washington, there is little upside in commenting, said Kevin Madden, who advised Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. Mr. Romney did not comment. Three other Republican governors — Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John R. Kasich of Ohio — also declined to comment on the report. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, issued a statement calling the report “a highly partisan attack on the previous administration” that “puts Americans at grave risk as it fuels propaganda efforts of radical Islamic terror groups and sympathizers already trying to destroy our nation.” But among senators who might run for president, there was more pressure to respond, Mr. Madden said, because it is “part of their day-to-day job.” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, on Wednesday delivered a blistering attack on President Obama’s foreign policy — while linking Mrs. Clinton to it. “Today, the consequences of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy is that our friends no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer fear us,” he said in remarks prepared for a speech at the Heritage Foundation. Of the likely Republican candidates, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, may have the most difficult balance. Approached outside his office on Wednesday, he would not answer questions. Mr. Paul’s libertarian-leaning followers disdain the aggressive Bush-era national security policies, but the Kentuckian has been careful on foreign policy to not appear as out of the Republican mainstream. The awkwardness of his position was on display after the report was released Tuesday. Speaking to Politico, he said, “I think we should not have torture,” and he generally praised government transparency, but questioned whether releasing gruesome details would be “beneficial or inflammatory.” Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, last week gave a speech calling for a more assertive and muscular American foreign policy, but he has not spoken out on the interrogations. His silence on the report stands in contrast to his quick response on Facebook to Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration. Mrs. Clinton has been nearly as quiet. Her memoir from serving as Mr. Obama’s first-term secretary of state included only a single sentence on torture, and the words “torture” and “interrogation” are not in the index. In remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations over the summer, however, she called for the release of the report, saying, “The American people deserve to see it,” but she also noted that she opposed prosecuting “people who were doing what they were told to do.” Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who calls himself a Democratic socialist, denounced the tactics described in the report and said in an interview that he was especially disturbed by the Senate panel’s conclusion that the C.I.A. misled the White House and Congress about them. “If anyone is lying to elected officials, they should be fired immediately,” he said. Jim Webb, the Democratic former Virginia senator, was more cryptic. He posted on Twitter about the report, posing questions: “Were these acts individual, institutional, or national policy? Did intelligence committee use its oversight power?” *Associated Press: “Delays Plague Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Files” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_STATE_DEPARTMENT_FILES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* By Stephen Braun December 10, 2014, 2:42 p.m. EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year. The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material. The State Department denied the AP's requests, and rejected the AP's subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics. In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the 2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Barack Obama. She has made scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances. On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips. Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits, said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly five months ago. The State Department is among the U.S. government's worst-performing federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential administration have delayed the release of files about the party's leading contender for 2016. But the agency's delays, unusual even by government standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long. "There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for people to accuse them of it," said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, a research organization. The department "is stonewalling us," said Citizen United's president, David Bossie. He asserted that "these decisions are being made with Hillary Clinton's intentions at heart," but acknowledged he could provide no evidence of political interference. Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched figures in the Clinton administration, said his group's film unit wants the records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the Citizens United court decision. The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from Clinton's overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the State Department's control. "These were Air Force flights and crews but State has the records?" he said, adding that his group has submitted 15 Clinton-related requests in the past six months. The AP's requests go further back. The AP requested copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department's decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton's and the agency's roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010. State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department's heavy annual load of FOIA requests - 19,000 last year - in saying that the department "does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities." He said the department takes requests "first in, first out," but noted that timing depends on "the complexity of the request." He declined to comment on Citizen United's suit. In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its own delays responding to AP's records requests without offering any explanation for the delays. "We sincerely regret the delay," said Lela H. Ross of the Office of Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency's requests. The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency's "complex and lengthy administrative FOIA process." Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date. The agency's pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race. At stake is the public's access to thousands of documents that could help understand and define her activities as the nation's chief diplomat under Obama. Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files about Clinton's private and public life. Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia's Miller Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews with key players from the Clinton White House. The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department. An inspector general's report in 2012 criticized the State Department's practices as "inefficient and ineffective," citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full number of files that people requested. *Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Why Does Hillary Want to Be President, Anyway?” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-why-does-hillary-want-to-be-president-anyway-1418258533?mod=trending_now_5>* By Karl Rove December 10, 2014, 7:42 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] So far it looks like Mrs. Clinton would have at least as many problems in 2016 as she did in 2008. There have generally been two reactions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’s Dec. 3 statement at Georgetown University that America should try to “empathize” with our nation’s “enemies.” One camp holds that Mrs. Clinton simply chose the wrong word to express a banal thought—that the U.S. must understand its enemies. The other camp says her State Department record demonstrates she herself lacks the empathy to know how to deal with America’s adversaries or allies. Both responses are true, yet I have another observation about her speech: It is further evidence Mrs. Clinton is at best a mediocre presidential candidate. She was lackluster in 2008 and worse today. The stiff, off-putting style is familiar. What’s more surprising is how sloppy, ill-prepared and tone-deaf she has become. If Mrs. Clinton intended to say we must understand our adversaries—their motivations, methods and goals—she should have said so. If her speechwriter’s draft was unclear, she should have ordered a rewrite. If she can’t summon warmth and wit now, how will she display a winning personality in her umpteenth hundred event, assuming she becomes a candidate? The empathy quote was memorialized on video. It may come back to haunt her: Sounding like President Obama on foreign policy isn’t going to help her win in 2016, when the world is likely to be more chaotic and American interests even more threatened. This is not Mrs. Clinton’s first political misstep this year. There was her early summer book tour where she explained she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House, nearly unable to afford their “houses,” and then went off on an NPR reporter who was trying to help her explain away her former opposition to gay marriage. Campaigning for Democrats in the midterms was no better. On Oct. 24 in Boston, she uttered the inanity, “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” By the way, there are few grateful Democrats whose campaigns she helped since almost all of them lost. After the election, more mistakes. At a Nov. 21 black-tie gala in New York, Mrs. Clinton endorsed Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration by suggesting the events’ servers and food preparers were in the country illegally, as were most construction workers. Reporters have largely overlooked Mrs. Clinton’s blunders, but it is not inconceivable that at least some of them may start holding her accountable to the standard they apply to gaffes uttered by Republican hopefuls. Meanwhile, Hillary’s operation promises to be entertaining. There have been news reports of infighting among her proto-campaign high command (never a good sign) that included the leak of emails thought to be embarrassing to an aspirant for campaign manager (never a good precedent). Most telling—and damaging—she still has no core message. This is 22 months following her resignation as secretary of state. She suggested to Charlie Rose on July 17 that she might focus on what to do “to tackle growth, which is the handmaiden of inequality.” That sounds less like a message than a tactic to placate the Democratic Party’s populist Occupy Wall Street wing with a pale imitation of Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Even her husband frets she doesn’t have a message. Former President Clinton recently told CNN that “we’ve reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn’t run for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique contribution you can make and you can outline that. Now that the book is done, she wants time to think about that and work through it. I think so much of politics is background noise, and we don’t need the background noise anymore.” The next presidential election is in 23 months. But no amount of time is likely to be enough for Mrs. Clinton to make herself a much better candidate. She is who she is and cannot change. In 2008 she could not articulate a compelling purpose for her run and stressed only her inevitability and entitlement. So far, it looks like Hillary 2.0 will have at least as many problems as Hillary 1.0. It’s hard for a political party to win three consecutive terms in the Oval Office. Since 1952, only George H.W. Bush was able to do it for his party after Ronald Reagan ’s two terms. Unfortunately for Democrats, Mr. Obama is no Reagan—and as they may soon find out, Hillary is no Bush 41. *MSNBC: “Ted Cruz rips ‘Obama-Clinton’ foreign policy in 2016 preview” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-rips-obama-clinton-foreign-policy-2016-preview>* By Benjy Sarlin December 10, 2014, 6:35 p.m. EST In a potential preview of the 2016 presidential contest, Senator Ted Cruz lit into the “Obama-Clinton foreign policy” in a speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation on Wednesday. “Today, the consequences of the Obama-Ciinton foreign policy is that our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us,” Cruz said. In closing his remarks, Cruz added that he was “hopeful and optimistic that two years form now we will see a very different president whose word can be trusted by friend and foe alike.” Cruz and former Hillary Clinton are both considered potential, perhaps probable, presidential candidates in 2016. The latter’s time as secretary of state under President Obama would play a central role in her campaign, for good or ill, making Cruz’s remarks a good indicator of how he and other Republican candidates might take her on. The senator suggested Obama and Clinton had too much “empathy” to effectively confront the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) even as the president, with Clinton’s support, oversees a campaign of airstrikes to destroy the group. “In the Obama-Clinton foreign policy all members of the international community are equal, be they nations or not, and should be dealt with respectfully and with empathy,” he said. “Let me be very clear: When it comes to radical Islamic terrorists who are crucifying Christians, who are beheading children, what our foreign policy needs is not additional empathy. It needs clarity and force and resolve to defend the United States of America.” Cruz devoted the most attention to the administration’s handling of Russia and Iran, mocking Clinton for declaring a “reset” in relations with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. He called on the administration to provide arms to Ukraine to battle Russian-backed separatists, withdraw from the START missile treaty with Russia the Senate ratified in 2012, and install new missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. Russia’s economy is currently backsliding into recession thanks to weak oil prices and a suite of international sanctions organized by Obama. Cruz waved away the administration’s efforts to punish Putin with only a passing mention, saying they “had no discernable effect.” He accused the administration of playing into Iran’s hands by engaging in negotiations over its nuclear program, instead proposing instituting new sanctions attached to a demand that the country dismantle any semblance of a nuclear program unilaterally. “Here’s a hint: if a nation calls you the Great Satan, it ain’t good,” he said. Cruz tied the Iran sanctions to reports in the Israeli press, recently dismissed by the State Department as “unfounded,” that the United States was considering sanctions against Israel over its announcement of new settlements in Palestinian territories. “It’s difficult to imagine a more stunning indictment of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy than the notion that they might believe we should be sanctioning the nation of Israel and lifting sanctions on the nation of Iran,” he said. In a Q&A with audience members afterwards, Cruz also weighed in on the recent bombshell report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that accused the CIA of engaging in, and covering up, a widespread program of torture against detainees. Cruz said torture is “wrong, unambiguously” and Congress was right to ban the practice, but accused the Democratic Senators behind the report of harming America’s image abroad by releasing it. “It endangered Americans across the globe and the risk of retaliation, of violence is real,” he said. “But even more broadly it demonstrates an approach that has characterized this administration for six years, which is that everything everything everything is George W. Bush’s fault.” *Politico: “Poll: Clinton leads among wealthy voters” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/poll-hillary-clinton-support-millionaires-113471.html?hp=l5_4>* By Kendall Breitman December 10, 2014, 1:39 p.m. EST Millionaires are ready for Hillary. In a CNBC survey of the wealthy released on Wednesday, 31 percent of those with assets of $1 million or more said that they would vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came in second place with 18 percent, followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with 14 percent. Thirty-eight percent of female millionaires support Clinton for president, while 27 percent of males expressed support for the potential candidate. Other potential contenders named in the survey included Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Bush took the lead for support among Republican millionaires, gaining 36 percent of the support among the group. Democrats overwhelmingly support Clinton, with 72 percent of Democratic millionaires supporting the former secretary of state while Warren only gained the support of 14 percent. Twenty-three percent of Independents also supported Clinton, while Christie followed closely behind with 19 percent. The poll also found that 74 percent of millionaires didn’t donate any money to any candidate in 2014 and only about 4 percent donated amounts over $1,000. Democrats reported giving more money to candidates than Republicans. The CNBC poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. *People: “PEOPLE Magazine Rounds Up the 25 Most Intriguing People of 2014” <http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-year-end-2014-most-intriguing-people>* [No Writer Mentioned] December 10, 2014, 3:25 p.m. EST Director, actress and mom-of-six Angelina Jolie may top PEOPLE magazine's list of 25 most intriguing people – but she isn't the only newsmaker who made headlines in 2014. On the big screen, Reese Witherspoon, 38, turned books into blockbuster hits (producing both Gone Girl and Wild) and Chris Pratt, 35, exploded into stardom with summer's megahit Guardians of the Galaxy. Meanwhile, Matthew McConaughey, 45, made a more than alright, alright, alright comeback in his Oscar-winning role in Dallas Buyers Club – and everyone's BFF Jennifer Lawrence, 24, continued her leading-lady status in the high-grossing Hunger Games franchise. And, of course, PEOPLE's Most Beautiful cover girl Lupita Nyong'o, 31, effortlessly took the red carpet by storm during awards season – and took home an Oscar for her emotional role in 12 Years a Slave to boot! On the small screen, Orange Is the New Black's Laverne Cox, 30, made history as the first openly transgender person to be nominated for an acting Emmy. TV titan Shonda Rhimes, 44, turned Thursday nights into ShondaLand, adding How to Get Away with Murder to a lineup that already included longtime hit Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. And 40-year-old Jimmy Fallon, who took over the hosting duties on The Tonight Show, became the king of late night with his post-prime time hilarity. Behind the scenes, comedian and 30 Rock star Tracy Morgan, 46, is still bravely fighting to recover from the injuries sustained in a car crash in June. And not-so-behind the scenes, hearts broke everywhere when London-based attorney Amal Alamuddin, 36, took longtime bachelor George Clooney, 53, off the market and became Mrs. Clooney during a glamorous September soirée. PEOPLE also remembers beloved luminaries we lost in 2014, with friends and family sharing memories. Among them: The great Maya Angelou, who died on May 28 at the age of 86. Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute to the poet, author and activist, telling PEOPLE: "We're a better country today because of Maya Angelou. Our country's struggles, triumphs and progress over the past century are written all over her life." *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Why Elizabeth Warren is liberals’ dream 2016 candidate, in 49 seconds” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/why-elizabeth-warren-is-liberals-dream-candidate-in-49-seconds/>* By Chris Cillizza December 10, 2014, 3:21 p.m. EST In case you've been hiding under some coats this week, liberals are keyed up on the idea of recruiting Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016. Warren showed why in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, protesting the inclusion of a measure that would loosen restriction on derivative trading in a $1 trillion spending bill Congress is expected to approve this week. It's worth watching the entire speech -- it's less than eight minutes from beginning to end -- but if you are either super busy or an easily distracted millennial, pay particular attention to the first 49 seconds of this clip. Here's the key line: "I come to the floor today to ask a fundamental question -- who does Congress work for? Does it work for the millionaires, the billionaires, the giant companies with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers? Or does it work for all of us?" Warren's anti-Wall Street, populist rhetoric, heavily focused on reducing or eliminating income inequality, sits at the core of the Democratic base's belief system at the moment. In a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, almost six in 10 Democrats (58 percent) agreed with the idea that economic and political systems are stacked against them. As WSJ's Neil King notes, that sense of a rigged system is far from a Democrats-only belief; "51 percent of Republicans; 55 percent of whites; 60 percent of blacks; 53 percent of Hispanics; as well as decent majorities of every age and professional cluster, including blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and retirees," all hold it, according to King. But, the sense of not only a widening gap between haves and have-nots but also a sort of a built-in institutional unfairness to it runs extremely strong within the Democratic base. That goes double when the very likely nominee for the party in 2016 is neither a) a populist or b) anti-Wall Street. Speeches like the one Warren gave Wednesday will just fuel chatter about why she should challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton in two years. And she knows it. *The Hill opinion: Lanny Danny: “Why I am ready for Hillary” <http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/226723-lanny-davis-why-i-am-ready-for-hillary>* By Lanny Davis December 10, 2014, 7:52 p.m. EST Last week, on Dec. 4, I helped organize a Ready for Hillary fundraiser in Montgomery County, Md., in the immediate suburbs of Washington, D.C. The organization, an independent grassroots committee, has been at work for the past year gathering millions of names and small donations in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — that is, just in case she decides to run in 2016. When I began working on this event, I was not sure many prominent statewide or local elected officials would be willing to sign up on the invitation as members of the host committee, especially because the outgoing Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley, has made it apparent that he is running for president. But what happened surprised me. Many of the major Maryland statewide elected officials signed up, including the attorney general, state treasurer and state Senate president. Early in the week at a Baltimore event, so did Maryland’s two popular U.S. senators: Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin. In Montgomery County, also leading the host committee were the current popular and recently reelected African-American county executive, Ike Leggett; the revered former county executive Sidney Kramer; and six out of seven members of the county council, including the incoming council president. The guest of honor was the congressman representing the location of the fundraiser (Potomac), Rep. John Delaney. The congressman offered three facts about Clinton — the reasons she should be our next president. First, Clinton’s record and vision for America’s future focuses on economic growth and job creation — and, particularly, on addressing economic challenges still faced today among the working poor and the broad middle class across the nation. Second, she is a progressive Democrat who knows how to work with the private sector and with Republicans to find solutions. This is what she did again and again, Delaney pointed out, when she served in the Senate from 2001 to 2009. And third, she is by far the most qualified of all potential candidates, Democratic or Republican. No one has Clinton’s combination of years in public service and experience at the state and federal levels, combined with her international and national security/anti-terrorism experience during four years of able service as secretary of State. In a dangerous world, she implemented her “smart power” approach: avoiding over-reliance on U.S. military intervention and, rather, using the “soft power” of America’s economic strength, trade and human rights and democratic values. I would add a fourth attribute of Clinton that may be, in terms of electability and ability to govern, most important of all: She is one of the kindest, warmest, most empathetic and caring people in public life today. Some people don’t see these qualities in her. I have known Secretary Clinton for more than 45 years. I know that in 2016 more and more people will come to know her as she truly is. Proof that this has already begun to happen can be found in her consistently high ratings on personal characteristics in virtually every poll in recent years. Just this past Monday, the respected Bloomberg Politics poll, with a statistically large national voter sample, showed Clinton with significant leads over every Republican presidential aspirant on the four crucial personal / electability questions: Who “cares about people like you?” Who “shares your values?” Who “has a vision for the future?” And who is “a strong leader?” Finally, there is the issue of gender. Do I believe that people should vote for her solely because she is a woman? No. But should she be supported because she is the most qualified candidate with a vision for the future of America and the ability to get things done — and she is also a woman? Yes. I have a daughter and two granddaughters. I want to give them a good answer to the question they and many women and girls in America ask: How come there have been women presidents and prime ministers in countries all over the world but never once in America? Up to now, I have not had a good answer. Now I have one: With Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee in 2016, it’s time. And it will happen. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · December 15 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton discusses closing gender data gaps with Michael Bloomberg (AP <https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/542345675493892096>) · December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html> ) · January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired <http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm> ) · January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html> ) · 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 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)