News Clips 5.6.15

podesta-emails 47,646 words email

P17 D6 P22 V11 P19

-----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----- *H4A Press Clips* *May 6, 2015* SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS The NYT/CBS poll released yesterday found Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and as a stronger leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics. The poll is being pointed to as evidence that recent coverage on Clinton's email server and the fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation have not dented Clinton's standing. Yesterday in Nevada, Hillary Clinton met with DREAMers and defined her stance on how to fix the broken immigration system, saying that we need to find a “full and equal path to citizenship”. This was described as bold and giving the activist more than they asked for in articles and on social media. Yesterday Hillary for America released and launched a Briefing webpage with a video debunking ‘Clinton Cash.' The page was generally well received by media and praised for being aggressive not abrasive. The video was picked up and used by several different TV news outlets throughout the day. Coverage also noted the Clinton campaign's acceptance of the DNC proposal to host six debates during the primary campaign. A spokeswoman for Governor O'Malley, however, is quoted in most stories raising questions about the DNC's exclusivity demand. LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS ABC had a short segment on Huckabee's announcement and included Hillary Clinton’s upcoming immigration round table. CBS had a more in depth segment about Huckabee, stating that he is touting taking on HRC in 2008. A CBS poll found that Americans are split on HRC's trustworthiness. CBS and NBC both discussed the campaign's pushback on Clinton Cash and included parts of Brian Fallon's video and referred to The Briefing. NBC noted that Huckabee took a swipe at HRC by saying that he does not have a global foundation to live off of. SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS................................................................. 1 LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS................................................................. 1 TODAY’S KEY STORIES............................................................................ 4 *Under Fire, Clinton Camp Pushes Back, Amps Up* // Real Clear Politics // Alexis Simendinger - May 5, 2015 4 *Hillary Clinton Gains Favor, Times/CBS Poll Says* // NYT // Jonathan Martin and Megan Thee Brenan - May 5, 2015 9 *Hillary Clinton Just Won Over Much Of The Skeptical Immigrant Activist Movement* // Buzzfeed // Adrian Carrasquillo and Ruby Cramer 12 SOCIAL MEDIA........................................................................................ 15 *America's Voice retweeted Hillary Clinton (5/5/15 6:54pm) @americasvoice:* This is HUGE. RT @HillaryClinton “We should put in place an accessible way for parents of DREAMers & others to be eligible for the same deferred action as their children.” 15 *Chris Moody (5/5/15 9:29am) @moodyHillary:* Clinton's campaign launched a version of Obama's AttackWatch, but without sounding angry and insane..................................................................................................................................... 15 *Dara Lind (5/5/15 7:29pm) @DLind:* I am stunned. Hillary actually did _more_ than advocates were asking her for. *http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/85572 <http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/85572>*.................................................................................. 16 HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE................................................................... 16 *Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says* // NYT // Jonathan Martin and Megan Thee-Brenan – May 5, 2015 16 *NH Dem Primary Poll* // WMUR Granite State Poll // Andrew E. Smith, Phd - May 5, 2015 19 *For Hillary Clinton's Campaign Manager, It All Began in Vegas* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – May 5, 2015 19 *Hillary Clinton Draws Distinction With GOP on Immigration* // TIME // Sam Frizell - May 5, 2015 21 *Hillary Clinton To Unveil Path To Citizenship Immigration Plan* // NPR // Tamara Keith - May 5, 2015 22 *Hillary Clinton’s Nevada play* // POLITICO // Gabriel Debendetti - May 5, 2015.................. 24 *Clinton Pledges to Take Immigration Actions 'Even Further'* // MSNBC // Andrew Rafferty and Andrea Mitchell – May 5, 2015 26 *Clinton to reach out to Latinos in NH* // New Hampshire Union Leader // Dan Tuohy - May 5, 2015 27 *The Note: High Bar For Hillary on Immigration* // ABC News // Jim Avila and Serena Marshall - May 5, 2015 28 *Hillary Clinton revives hibernating '80s 'sleaze factor'* // USA Today // James S. Robbins - May 5, 2015 28 *Clinton camp on defense about her trustworthiness* // CNN // Jeff Zeleny - May 5, 2015.... 30 *Clinton 'War Room' Pushback And The 'Invent Your Own' Media Campaign* // NPR // Jessica Taylor - May 5, 2015 32 *Clinton camp pushes back on book, Benghazi with new Web site* // WaPo // Anne Gearan - May 5, 2015 34 *Here's Hillary Clinton's latest pushback against the 'dud' allegations in 'Clinton Cash'*// Business Insider // Colin Campbell - May 5, 2015 36 *Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer Admits He's Wrong On Bogus Clinton "Veto Power" Claim* // Media Matters // Eric Hananoki - May 5, 2015 37 *‘Clinton Cash’ Flashback: The Clintons Pressured Kazakhs To OK Uranium Deal* // Daily Caller // Chuck Ross - May 5, 2015 39 *Clinton Cash author: I like Marco Rubio* // Politico // Nick Gass – May 5, 2015................... 41 *Will the Benghazi Committee Block Clinton From Testifying About…Benghazi?* // Mother Jones // David Corn - May 15, 2015 43 *Warren and fellow ‘sheriffs of Wall Street’ waiting for more from Clinton* // Boston Globe // Deirdre Fernandes - May 5, 2015 45 *Lawyer says Hillary willing to testify once to U.S. Benghazi panel*// Reuters // Susan Cromwell - May 5, 2015 45 *Hoping to highlight good works, Clintons find controversy instead* // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger - May 5, 2015........................................................................................................................................ 46 *Bill Clinton says nothing ‘sinister’ in foreign gifts to charity* // Bloomberg // Justin Sink - May 4, 2015 50 *Chelsea Clinton pushes back on scrutiny of family foundation* // USA Today // Catalina Camia - May 5, 2015 50 *Hillary Clinton's Campaign Declares War Against 'Clinton Cash'* // National Journal // Emily Schultheis - May 5, 2015 51 *A Swing and a Miss* // Slate // Jamelle Bouie - May 5, 2015.................................................. 52 *What you don’t know about the “Clinton Cash” author* // American Bridge 21st Century // Brad Woodhouse - May 5, 2015 54 *Clinton, Democratic presidential opponents to debate six times* // CNN // Mark Preston - May 5, 2015 57 *The Democratic presidential debates are great news for Hillary Clinton* // Washington Post // Chris Cillizza – May 5, 2015 58 *Hillary Clinton's rope-line antagonist* // POLITICO // Hadas Gold - May 5, 2015................. 59 OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE....................................... 62 *Asking Martin O'Malley To Explain Baltimore* // The Atlantic // James Fallows – May 5, 2015 62 *Bernie Sanders' "socialism" may have mainstream appeal //* LA Times // David Horsey – May 5, 2015 62 *Warren met privately with 'Draft Warren' supporters* // POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 5, 2015 64 *Elizabeth Warren: Trade bill could “tear down” Wall Street oversight* // POLITICO // Zachary Warmbrodt - May 5, 2015 66 *Democrats Take Fire for Exclusivity Clause in Official Debates* // TIME // Zeke J Miller – May 5, 2015 67 GOP......................................................................................................... 68 *Huckabee Joins Race With Tacit Contrast to Clintons* // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg - May 5, 2015 68 *Huckabee, allies aim to raise $60 million* // CNN // Sara Murray - May 5, 2015................. 70 *Mike Huckabee and the Continuing Influence of Evangelicals* // NYT- The Upshot // Nate Cohn – May 5,2015 72 *The populist 1 percenter* // Politico // James Hohmann – May 5, 2015................................. 73 *Rand Paul, Finally, To Open That Office in Silicon Valley* // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher - May 5, 2015 77 *The power players behind Carly Fiorina's campaign* // POLITICO // Katie Glueck - May 4, 2015 78 *Carly Fiorina Says She Would ‘Roll Back’ Net Neutrality Rules* // TIME // Charlotte Alter – May 5, 2015 79 *Fiorina: Clinton "pandering" on immigration* // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – May 5, 2015 80 *Marco Rubio to raise cash in Bellevue Thursday* // Seattle Times // Jim Brunner – May 5, 2015 81 *Marco Rubio says the United States is not modernizing its nuclear weapons* // Politifact // Amy Sherman – May 5, 2015 82 *Clinton Cash author: I like Marco Rubio* // POLITICO // Nick Gass - May 5, 2015................. 84 *Chris Christie's Other Problems* // National Journal // Charlie Cook - May 5, 2015............ 85 *College Course Marco Rubio Teaches Prominently Features Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Guru* // Daily Caller // Eric Owens - May 5, 2015 87 *Rand Paul’s Donations Show His Small-Town Appeal* // NYT – The Upshot // Derek Willis – May 5, 2015 89 TOP NEWS.............................................................................................. 90 DOMESTIC........................................................................................... 90 *Passing budgets and modest bills, Congress slowly increases productivity* // Washington Post // Paul Kane – May 6, 2015 90 *California board approves emergency water rules* // USA Today // Ian James - May 6, 2015 93 *E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds* // NYT // May 5, 2015 94 *U.S. Trade Gap Widens on Surging Imports* // WSJ// Eric Morath – May 5, 2015................. 96 INTERNATIONAL................................................................................. 99 *Germany, Too, Is Accused of Spying on Friends* // NYT // Alison Smalemay – May 5, 2015 99 *Obama Administration Approves First Ferry Service to Cuba* // The Associated Press // May 5, 2015 102 *40 Migrants Reported Dead After Dinghy Burst at Sea* // WSJ // Liam Moloney - May 5, 2015 103 OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS........................................................... 105 *What the Clintons Can Learn From Ben Franklin's Foreign Money Scandal* // Daily Beast // Zephyr Teachout - May 5, 2015 105 *'House of Cards' star wants a Bill Clinton cameo* // The Hill // Judy Kurtz - May 5, 2015... 107 TODAY’S KEY STORIES Under Fire, Clinton Camp Pushes Back, Amps Up <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/05/under_fire_clinton_camp_pushes_back_amps_up_126495.html> // Real Clear Politics // Alexis Simendinger - May 5, 2015 Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is not yet a month old, and in the space of a day, her team paired a new online war room with cheery social media invitations to supporters to win a personal candidate phone call for Mother’s Day. In the Clinton world, the simultaneous melding of pushback politics (aimed at opponents and the news media) and sunny outreach (to likely voters and donors) is not unusual. Among 2016 campaign veterans who helped Bill Clinton win the White House twice, and watched Hillary Clinton lose to Barack Obama in 2008, the tools this time may be digitally fresh but the tactics are old hat. “Republicans seem to only want to distort Hillary Clinton’s record,” her campaign chief said Monday. Referring to uncapped and undisclosed donations from corporations, individuals and unions permitted by law, her campaign complained, “It is clear they have a two-fisted strategy to try to undermine her, using unlimited dark money on the one hand and taxpayer funds on the other.” On the eve of championing immigration reform in Nevada on Tuesday, and a campaign fundraising blitz through California later this week, Clinton also confirmed through her attorney that she’ll soon testify to a House investigative committee about the 2012 Benghazi attacks and her missing emails. On the sidelines, her campaign team on Monday announced a new Web portal they titled “The Briefing,” designed as a repository for counter-messaging to rebut critics in real time. A new book titled “Clinton Cash” – in bookstores Tuesday – inspired her campaign chairman, John Podesta (who served as a chief of staff to President Clinton and White House counselor to President Obama), to describe how the Web-based Hillary war room will operate. In a Monday night post on Medium, a site barely three years old, Podesta told readers “The Briefing” will serve the former first lady as a place for “facts” about her record and her “positive policy agenda.” “It will serve as a hub that allows Hillary for America to cut through the partisan noise over the next 18 months and directly communicate with voters,” he wrote. “While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged.” The book Podesta assailed as “debunked” and full of errors, and which Bill Clinton indirectly denounced during an NBC News interview broadcast Monday, asserts that foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state point to conflicts of interest and “questions of judgment.” Written by Peter Schweizer, a Republican author, political consultant and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, the book is billed by the publisher as an “exposé” that describes a “pattern of behavior” that Schweizer believes warrants additional independent investigation. The complete title: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” According to Podesta, “the book has zero evidence to back up its outlandish claims.” On Monday, President Clinton defended donations, including those from foreign governments that have supported global projects to the Clinton Foundation since he left the White House. “There has been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down,” he asserted while traveling in Africa. The former commander-in-chief also defended lucrative earnings from speeches and said he would continue getting paid to talk to groups while his wife makes her White House bid. “I gotta pay our bills,” he said, noting that he donates “a lot” of the family income each year to projects supported by the foundation. He said the nonprofit’s recent decision to limit donations from foreign governments to a small roster of countries was not an acknowledgement of mistakes. “It’s an acknowledgement that we’re going to come as close as we can during her presidential campaign to following the rules we followed when she became secretary of state,” he explained. Among those commitments is public disclosure of “all” foundation donors each quarter. As with Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, the foundation has also used its website to attempt to correct information it finds to be in error. In a letter reprinted on the site last week, Clinton Foundation Board Chairman Bruce Lindsey questioned news reporting and countered a quote used in a New York Post article. “The fact is that no money raised for the Clinton Foundation goes to the Clintons personally, ever,” he wrote. “The Clintons draw no salary from the foundation and derive no financial benefit from the foundation.” Separate from foundation and paid-speaking controversies, Hillary Clinton is expected to be back on Capitol Hill within weeks to testify to a Republican-dominated panel about the Benghazi tragedy, her emails, and other topics. In a letter Monday to House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy, David Kendall, attorney for the Clintons, advised lawmakers the former secretary of state will testify publicly one additional time, and “stay as long as necessary to answer the committee’s questions,” during the week of May 18 or at a later date. Nearly a month into a primary season in which Hillary Clinton is the Democratic favorite against socialist/independent/Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (the party’s second declared entrant in the race), she remains the GOP’s top political target, after Obama. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Monday found that the controversies surrounding her candidacy have not undermined her strength with her base. “Support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken,” the Journal reported, adding that negative evaluations nevertheless increased in recent weeks. Compared with her 2008 campaign, Clinton in April was rated more easygoing and likable in the poll – an achievement her campaign advisers are working hard to maintain – but she is also perceived as less honest and straightforward than the last time she presented herself to voters. At Rancho High School in Las Vegas on Tuesday, the former New York senator will reiterate her support for a pathway to citizenship and showcase the potential benefits for migrant families and the economy. She’ll speak with a select young audience from a student body that is 70 percent Hispanic. Immigration is an issue that divides Republican presidential candidates, offering Clinton the opening to spotlight contrasts with the large GOP field. For example, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who helped draft a comprehensive reform measure and then abandoned the effort, supports legal status (but not citizenship) with restrictions, such as barring access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. “She will say that the standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” said a Clinton campaign official on background. “She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hard-working people with merely a `second-class’ status.” Clinton has endorsed President Obama’s executive actions to defer deportation for up to 4 million people who may qualify for Department of Homeland Security enforcement waivers. From Nevada, Clinton will head to San Francisco to raise money for her campaign on May 6; to Los Angeles for a fundraiser May 7; and to Silicon Valley May 8 to meet donors at the home of eBay CEO John Donahoe and wife Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, an intellectual property attorney who was Obama’s first U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Later this month, Clinton will campaign in South Carolina, continuing her campaign’s focus on early primary states and exchanges with potential voters in smaller settings. Her first large campaign rally is expected to take place sometime in May, at an as-yet undisclosed location. Clinton 'War Room' Pushback And The 'Invent Your Own' Media Campaign // NPR // Jessica Taylor - May 5, 2015 The Hillary Clinton campaign went into overdrive Tuesday trying to minimize the damage from a new book that delves into Clinton Foundation fundraising — and they're not using the typical channels to do so. On the same day that the controversial new book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, was officially released, the Democrat's presidential campaign largely went around the traditional media in favor of new media tools. Though campaigns have been trying to bypass the media filter for years, it's an advent of a new era in politics. The Clinton campaign is embracing several new technologies and platforms to get their message out more directly to voters, and it's a tactic her potential rivals are sure to employ, too. "It's almost media 3.0," said Tobe Berkovitz, a professor of political communication at Boston University. "If 1.0 was dealing with the press and 2.0 was trying to circumvent the press and going to friendly sites, 3.0 is, 'Why even bother with that? Just invent your own.'" Through a new section of its campaign website called, "The Briefing," and a post on the platform-sharing site Medium, Clinton's campaign went on offense against Schweizer and his suggestions that foreign donations to her family's foundation influenced her time at the State Department — all without the candidate addressing it head on. A two-and-a-half-minute video posted on the new site from campaign spokesman Brian Fallon derides Schweizer as a GOP operative, who was a former adviser to 2008 vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and a close friend of the Koch brothers. He also noted that research by ABC News and even Fox News revealed there was no "smoking gun." "The book is already being debunked far and wide," Fallon said."It's full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence. And it's missing the most important thing of all: facts." Campaign Chairman John Podesta also explained the campaign's strategy in a memo posted to Medium: "While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged. That's why we are building a new one-stop shop to provide the facts about Hillary Clinton's positions and her record. We are calling it 'The Briefing.' You will be able to find information and it will serve as a hub that allows Hillary for America to cut through the partisan noise over the next 18 months and directly communicate with voters. This forum will provide the public with direct access to the facts on the positive policy agenda that Hillary will unveil over the course of campaign, as well as the facts needed to debunk false attacks." This isn't the first time since she announced last month that Clinton's team has utilized these new platforms, especially to target Schweizer. Though his book was just released on Tuesday, details have been leaking out for weeks and other media organizations like the New York Times have used his research to further investigate specific claims. Team Clinton has turned to Medium before, with Fallon releasing a statement on the Times story that alleged donations to the Clinton foundation were tied to the government's approval of uranium mining company to the Russian government: "Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton's State Department pushed for the sale's approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal." Last week, the Clinton campaign also released a Vine of comments Schweizer had made at a 2014 Koch brothers summit, where he told fellow conservatives "we cannot let up." The use of new media in favor of more traditional media isn't a surprising strategy from the Clinton campaign, given Clinton's decades-long distrust of and tension with the media. It's also not a new tactic, with campaigns' rapid-response teams trying to get their message out at any cost and through any channel. And given the way more and more people, especially younger voters, consume news, it might be the most efficient as well. The embrace of these new platforms is one that both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are likely to use even more this cycle. Clinton's campaign insists it is not bypassing the media in the new approach, but is instead using multiple platforms to get their message out. "Our campaign will work with the oldest of media outlets and the newest of technologies to reach voters," Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told NPR in emailed statement. "It would be a false choice to say it's one or the other. There is so much misinformation flying around that, whether it's through the press or on social media, it's important for voters to be able to access the facts directly, so they can assess for themselves and help beat back the partisan attacks." It's also a way for the campaign to release a controlled, scripted narrative instead of having Clinton herself answer questions about the issue. National Journal noted last week she has only answered a total of seven media questions since she became an official candidate. She twice dismissed allegations in Schweizer's book as "distractions" but she did not answer the charges directly. The one unscripted response came from former President Bill Clinton in an interview with NBC News Monday that the family foundation had "never done anything knowingly inappropriate" in accepting money from foreign governments for their charitable foundation. The foundation has reinstated a ban on donations from all but six foreign countries now, but the former president said that move was "absolutely not" an acknowledgement that accepting previous donations was a mistake. For the Clinton campaign, this approach is "much better than actually trotting Hillary out somewhere and have her answer what might be tough or aggressive questions," Berkowitz said. "Release the video, and then you release the hounds." Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said it's the right approach for the Clintons. "What I see happening is a classic Clinton-style war-room operation utilizing all the new media that are out there," Manley said. "I think they deserve a lot of credit for utilizing new things like Medium, but I also respect that they're not going to leave any charge unanswered." Clinton is far and away the Democratic frontrunner for president, and she still beats most of her possible GOP rivals in hypothetical head-to-heads too. But amid questions about the Clinton foundation and an earlier controversy about her use of a private email server instead of a government account while she was at the State Department, her polling numbers have suffered. Since March, Clinton's unfavorable rating has risen six percentage points while those who said she was honest and straightforward has dropped 13 points in a year, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week. Clinton has been under sustained assault from Republicans on the campaign trail and Capitol Hill. And she will continue to be with hearings and testimony coming about the terrorist attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya. "I think every bit is going to help, but the Republicans have an amazing ability to drudge up all sorts of crazy conspiracies about the Clintons," Manley said. "These kind of tools can only take you so far, but, at some point, she's going to have to start addressing some of these things herself." Hillary Clinton Gains Favor, Times/CBS Poll Says <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?_r=0> // NYT // Jonathan Martin and Megan Thee Brenan - May 5, 2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters. Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and as a stronger leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president. Republican voters showed the most openness to considering SenatorMarco Rubio of Florida and former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas andJeb Bush of Florida among their party’s presidential contenders, the survey found. Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state. And the number of Americans who think Mrs. Clinton has strong qualities of leadership has risen by eight percentage points, to 65 percent from 57 percent, in that same period. Still, Mrs. Clinton begins this campaign with fewer voters saying she possesses such qualities than did in July 2007, near the outset of her first presidential bid. Mrs. Clinton already has one primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and more Democrats are likely to enter the race, but her party seems particularly unbothered by questions relating to the emails and to the foundation that she, her husband and their daughter oversee. While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by. Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation, and only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decisions while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Just 9 percent of Democratic voters said they would not consider voting for Mrs. Clinton. ”I think the whole thing is political and it’s going to wash away eventually,” Herbert Levengard, 83, a Democratic retiree from Maryland, said in a follow-up interview. “There are always going to be people who mess around and look for things to yell about, but I don’t care.” Mrs. Clinton is also helped in her own party by the enduring popularity of former President Bill Clinton: Seventy-six percent of Democrats have a favorable view of him and only 4 percent view him unfavorably. Democrats also assume that Mr. Clinton — who memorably said in his 1992 presidential bid that he and Mrs. Clinton represented “two for the price of one” — would play a substantial role were Mrs. Clinton to win the White House. Seven in 10 Democratic voters said he would have a great deal or some influence on Mrs. Clinton if she became president. If Democrats seem largely content with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House, Republicans are not quite as certain about electing a third member of the Bush family president. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters view George W. Bush favorably, but almost 70 percent have not yet formed an opinion of his brother Jeb, a likely presidential candidate. The Republican primary is largely unformed, with many Republicans indicating openness to a variety of candidates in a large and still growing field. There is positive news for Jeb Bush, though. Forty-nine percent of conservative Republican voters think his stance on the issues is about right. While Mr. Bush has faced initial questions about whether he is sufficiently conservative to win a Republican primary, only 22 percent of Republican voters said his views were not conservative enough. Further, 60 percent of Republican voters said having the right experience was more important in a presidential candidate, while only 27 percent said they thought offering fresh ideas was more valuable. What could also help Mr. Bush — along with the other governors or former governors seeking the GOP nomination — is that 73 percent of Republican voters said they preferred candidates with experience outside Washington. “I would really prefer a candidate who has been a governor,” said Vinton Ernest, an 85-year-old Republican retiree in Las Vegas. “Running a state is just as difficult as running a government. It’s just multiplied when you’re running the country.” Still, Mr. Rubio, 43, a first-term senator, seems to have more room to gain in popularity than Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Bush: Only 17 percent of Republicans said they would not consider supporting him, while 26 percent said they would not back Mr. Huckabee, and 23 percent ruled out supporting Mr. Bush. Republican voters were least resistant to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin: only 13 percent said they would not consider voting for him. At the opposite extreme, 42 percent of Republicans said they would not consider voting for Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Over all, Democrats enter the next presidential campaign with a better image than Republicans. Forty-three percent of Americans said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party while only 29 percent said the same of the Republican Party. But as Democrats seek to retain the White House for a third consecutive term, they do so as many Americans are dissatisfied with the country’s direction. Sixty-three percent of Americans said the country had gotten off track, and 66 percent said the economy was growing worse or staying the same. The candidates will make their case to an increasingly polarized electorate: Two-thirds of Democrats support legalizing same-sex marriage, while about the same percentage Republicans do not think same-sex marriages should be legal. In addition, 69 percent of Republicans say small-business owners who provide wedding-related services should be able to refuse, on the basis of their religious belief, such services to same-sex couples. But 58 percent of Democrats think the businesses should be required to provide those services. On immigration, 46 percent of Republicans said illegal immigrants should be required to leave the United States, while only 16 percent of Democrats said the same. And while 71 percent of Democrats said illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the country and apply for citizenship, just 38 percent of Republicans said they should be allowed to remain in America and pursue citizenship. The poll was conducted by telephone, on landlines and cellphones nationwide, from April 30 to May 3 with 1,027 adults, of whom 868 were registered to vote. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and registered voters. Hillary Clinton Just Won Over Much Of The Skeptical Immigrant Activist Movement <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-just-won-over-much-of-the-skeptical-immigran#.nhbO0nXjV3> // Buzzfeed // Adrian Carrasquillo and Ruby Cramer Activists challenged Hillary Clinton to go left on immigration — something the Obama administration fought them on — and they didn’t expect much. But at one small event in Nevada on Tuesday, Clinton surprised them all. LAS VEGAS — Hillary Clinton tacked hard to the left on immigration at a campaign event here in North Las Vegas, outlining an aggressive and detailed policy agenda that called for a path to citizenship, protections for parents of children brought to this country illegally, and full-scale changes to the immigrant detention system. Clinton’s proposals for the immigration system— and the government’s approach to undocumented immigrants — would expand President Obama’s efforts, and go even further. It was a noticeably progressive vision from Clinton, who has been a target of the activist community since leaving her post at the State Department. Last year, when she refused for weeks to articulate her stance on Obama’s executive actions, protestors trailed her events, staging a series of loud and unannounced disruptions. Her comments on Tuesday afternoon, made at a small “roundtable” discussion with students in the library of Rancho High School, are among her most thorough on domestic policy since the start of her presidential campaign last month. Six DREAMers — or undocumented youth brought to the country as children — sat alongside Clinton at the Nevada event, her first in the key primary state. Each was a student at Rancho High and a recipient of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that Obama launched through executive action. When she opened the discussion, Clinton told the students she would like to “do more on behalf of parents of DREAMers who are not necessarily included” in the current deferred action plan — to the consternation of activists who pushed strongly for that measure to be included in Obama’s actions last year. As president, Clinton said, she would do everything possible to “avoid family breakup” — a “terrible experience” that isn’t “smart” or “right.” Calling for full changes to the detention system, Clinton advocated broadly for “more humane treatment” — and specifically for a “higher level of care” for children, LGBT people, and others who could be considered more vulnerable in large facilities. Clinton also promised to support and expand Obama’s executive actions, pushing to allow more undocumented immigrants the right to apply for work permits and protections. She repeated her call to Congress for a comprehensive bill and a “full and equal” path to citizenship. But if Congress does not undertake legislative changes, Clinton said she would pursue more executive actions herself. “I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” she said. The appearance in Nevada instantly rippled through the community of activists at the heart of the immigration debate — many of whom followed the event by video and social media. They said on Tuesday afternoon that Clinton showed she would draw sharp contrasts to Republicans who have been more receptive to immigration changes, including former governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio. “This is big,” said Frank Sharry, an activist who leads America’s Voice and worked closely with the Obama administration on their 2014 executive actions. “Obama’s executive actions cover some 5 million people, but leave out at least as many,” he said. “She’s saying she’ll devise a process for them to apply — DREAMers’ parents, LGBT families, and others with strong ties [to the country] will be able to get relief” from deportation. Erika Andiola — a DREAMer activist whose high-profile return from Congress, where she was staffer, to Arizona to fight her mother’s deportation garnered national headlines — said Clinton’s comments were an encouraging sign. If, as Clinton suggested, she would move to protect the parents of DREAMers, Andiola’s mother could be protected from deportation, she said. “This is a really great step recognizing what she could do,” Andiola said. “I’m happy that this first step was greatly taken, now it’s about making sure that accountability is there.” Cristina Jiménez, with the group United We Dream, said that the 2016 election may stand out as the first time in history that the country will be able to have a substantive debate on immigration policy and executive actions. “Full and equal citizenship for our communities, the protection of existing executive actions on immigration and a commitment to expand that relief were good to hear,” she said. Still, many activists mentioned Bush, the former Florida governor who supports “earned legal status” — rather than Clinton’s endorsement of “full and equal citizenship.” Activists have said they will continue to pressure Bush on immigration — a demand he may find difficult to entertain in the midst of a competitive Republican primary. Some, like Ali Noorani with the National Immigration Forum, who works with evangelicals and law enforcement, attributed Clinton’s move to pressure not just from the left, but also from the right. “It’s great that Hillary is demarcating and differentiating herself between Jeb and other Republicans,” he said. “But she’s moving because leading Republicans are moving. She’s moving because there is real pressure, not necessarily pressure from the left, but pressure from the right. That’s the difference here.” He dinged both parties, adding that in 2008, Democrats had no reason to move to the left on immigration and Republicans have not been responding to the nation’s interests at all, until recently. Clinton’s mention of family detention issues, which Noorani previously called a “scar” of the Obama administration, showed him she is responding to is the fact that conservative faith leaders believe families should stay together, even if they’re in deportation proceedings. “Somebody in her world is giving her a sense of how to approach this,” he said. That could be her political director, Amanda Renteria, who was working the phones speaking to immigration leaders even before the campaign was announced, to understand what community leaders wanted to see from Clinton. That ask included many issues, like asking for an end to local police working with immigration enforcement agents in their jails. But it also called for Clinton to move away from her at times wooden, awkward tones on immigration last year during her book tour to a place with a more welcoming, inclusive tone focused on families, activists said. Of course, cautious optimism from activists doesn’t mean they are hanging it up and going home to put up Clinton 2016 lawn signs. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network, or NDLON, hardly had a positive word for Clinton, though they acknowledged her comments were surprising. “It is also an indication the Clinton campaign is concerned about the prospect of a pro-reform candidate winning the GOP nomination,” Chris Newman said. He argued that by “moving so far to the left so quickly, she has inadvertently increased pressure on the Obama administration to take additional significant action on deportation and detention in his remaining two years.” Jiménez already had a new ask, as well, calling on Clinton, if elected, to take immediate executive action. “Saying that executive action will happen only if Congress fails to act could set up a long blame game between the president and Congress which we’ve seen before,” she said. Clinton concluded the event with a vow to the DREAMers to her left and right. “I pledge to you that I will do everything I possibly can to make this an issue in the campaign,” she said, “but more importantly, when I’m president, to put it at the top of my priority list.” It was a promise that Betsaida Frausto, one of the participants, said she will take to heart. Frausto is a recipient of DACA. She has the highest grade average of her peers — a 4.8 — and said she dreams of going to Yale and becoming a doctor. “Before, my future was unknown,” Frausto said after meeting Clinton. “Now I feel more secure. At the bottom of my heart, I know that she gets it.” “If there’s a person who can help, it’s her.” SOCIAL MEDIA Jorge Ramos (5/5/15 8:25pm) ‏@jorgeramosnews: <https://twitter.com/jorgeramosnews/status/595746195500310529> Hillary just took a stunningly aggressive stance on immigration reform http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/8557271/clinton-immigration-obama?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=article%3Atop&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter America's Voice retweeted Hillary Clinton (5/5/15 6:54pm) @americasvoice: <https://twitter.com/americasvoice/status/595723239856467970> This is HUGE. RT @HillaryClinton “We should put in place an accessible way for parents of DREAMers & others to be eligible for the same deferred action as their children.” Chris Moody (5/5/15 9:29am) @moodyHillary: <https://twitter.com/moody/status/595581136333594625> Clinton's campaign launched a version of Obama's AttackWatch, but without sounding angry and insane. Carolyn Ryan ‏5/5/15 6:38pm @carolynryan: <https://twitter.com/carolynryan/status/595719284019568640> Despite barrage of tough stories, Hillary Clinton remains strong in polls. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html Dara Lind (5/5/15 7:29pm) @DLind: <https://twitter.com/DLind/status/595732021126762496> I am stunned. Hillary actually did _more_ than advocates were asking her for. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/85572 HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html> // NYT // Jonathan Martin and Megan Thee-Brenan – May 5, 2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton at Columbia University in New York last week. Credit Michael Appleton for The New York Times Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters. Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president. Republican voters showed the most openness to considering Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Jeb Bush of Florida among their party’s presidential contenders, the survey found. Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state. Americans’ Views on the 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Issues See what Americans think about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Republican candidates and issues like the health care law and same-sex marriage. And the number of Americans who think Mrs. Clinton has strong qualities of leadership has risen by eight percentage points, to 65 percent from 57 percent, in that period. Still, Mrs. Clinton begins this campaign with fewer voters saying she possesses such qualities than did in July 2007, near the outset of her first presidential bid. Mrs. Clinton has one primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and more Democrats are likely to enter the race, but her party seems particularly unbothered by questions relating to the emails and to the foundation that she, her husband and their daughter oversee. While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by. Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation, and only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decisions while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Just 9 percent of Democratic voters said they would not consider voting for Mrs. Clinton. ”I think the whole thing is political and it’s going to wash away eventually,” Herbert Levengard, 83, a Democratic retiree from Maryland, said in a follow-up interview. “There are always going to be people who mess around and look for things to yell about, but I don’t care.” Mrs. Clinton is also helped in her own party by the enduring popularity of former President Bill Clinton: Seventy-six percent of Democrats have a favorable view of him, and only 4 percent view him unfavorably. Democrats also assume that Mr. Clinton — who memorably said in his 1992 presidential bid that he and Mrs. Clinton represented “two for the price of one” — would play a substantial role were Mrs. Clinton to win the White House. Seven in 10 Democratic voters said he would have a great deal or some influence on Mrs. Clinton if she became president. Continue reading the main story If Democrats seem largely content with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House, Republicans do not seem quite as certain about electing a third member of the Bush family president. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters view George W. Bush favorably, but almost 70 percent have not yet formed an opinion of his brother Jeb, a likely presidential candidate. The Republican primary is largely unformed, with many Republicans indicating openness to a variety of candidates in a large and still growing field. There is positive news for Jeb Bush, though. Forty-nine percent of conservative Republican voters think his stance on the issues is about right. While Mr. Bush has faced questions about whether he is conservative enough to win a Republican primary, only 22 percent of Republican voters said his views were not conservative enough. Further, 60 percent of Republican voters said having the right experience was more important in a presidential candidate, while only 27 percent said they thought offering fresh ideas was more valuable. What could also help Mr. Bush — along with the other governors or former governors seeking the G.O.P. nomination — is that 73 percent of Republican voters said they preferred candidates with experience outside Washington. “I would really prefer a candidate who has been a governor,” said Vinton Ernest, an 85-year-old Republican retiree from Las Vegas. “Running a state is just as difficult as running a government. It’s just multiplied when you’re running the country.” Still, Mr. Rubio, 43, a first-term senator, seems to have more room to gain in popularity than Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Bush: Only 17 percent of Republicans said they would not consider supporting him, while 26 percent said they would not back Mr. Huckabee and 23 percent ruled out supporting Mr. Bush. Republican voters were least resistant to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin: Only 13 percent said they would not consider voting for him. At the opposite extreme, 42 percent of Republicans said they would not consider voting for Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Over all, Democrats enter the next presidential campaign with a better image than Republicans. Forty-three percent of Americans said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party while only 29 percent said the same of the Republican Party. But as Democrats seek to retain the White House for a third consecutive term, many Americans are dissatisfied with the country’s direction. Sixty-three percent of Americans said the country had gotten off track, and 66 percent said the economy was growing worse or staying the same. The candidates will make their case to an increasingly polarized electorate: Two-thirds of Democrats support legalizing same-sex marriage, while about the same percentage of Republicans do not think same-sex marriages should be legal. In addition, 69 percent of Republicans say small-business owners who provide wedding-related services should be able to refuse, on the basis of their religious belief, such services to same-sex couples. But 58 percent of Democrats think the businesses should be required to provide those services. On immigration, 46 percent of Republicans said illegal immigrants should be required to leave the United States, while only 16 percent of Democrats said the same. And while 71 percent of Democrats said illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the country and apply for citizenship, just 38 percent of Republicans said they should be allowed to remain in America and pursue citizenship. The poll was conducted by telephone, on landlines and cellphones nationwide, from April 30 to May 3 with 1,027 adults, of whom 868 were registered to vote. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and registered voters. NH Dem Primary Poll <http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2015_spring_demprim050515.pdf> // WMUR Granite State Poll // Andrew E. Smith, Phd - May 5, 2015 DURHAM, NH –Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner in the 2016 New Hampshire Primary although support for her has dipped somewhat in recent months. Her favorability ratings among Democratic primary voters have dropped significantly since February. These findings are based on the latest WMUR Granite State Poll,  conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Seven hundred and six (706) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed by landline and cellular telephone between April 24 and May 3, 2015. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.7 percent. Included were two hundred twenty-nine (229) likely 2016 Democratic Primary voters (MSE = +/-6.5), two hundred ninety-three (293) likely 2016 Republican Primary voters (MSE = +/-5.7), and six hundred and twenty-seven (627) likely 2016 presidential election voters (MSE = +/- 3.9 For Hillary Clinton's Campaign Manager, It All Began in Vegas <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-05/for-hillary-clinton-s-campaign-manager-it-all-began-in-vegas> // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – May 5, 2015 A few days before that year's Nevada caucus, among the most rancorous of primary battles of 2008, the head of Hillary Clinton’s state team went to the emergency room. Robby Mook wasn’t ill, but one of his field organizers—a junior staffer he’d known for a few months—was. Though the campaign was at one of its busiest moments, Mook was determined to show the woman that he was there to support her. When he got to the hospital, a recognizable face was already in the waiting room: his counterpart on Barack Obama’s campaign, David Cohen, who’d been friends with the woman for years. “It was days before the caucus and there we were, sitting together waiting and joking around about both being there,” said Cohen, who had met Mook only once before that night. “I was struck—it was the height of the campaign and he could’ve just stayed in the office or sent someone else. But he was like, ‘Nope, I know where I’ve got to be.’” That was just one hint of the kind of campaign leader Mook, who was 27 during most of his 11 months as Clinton's Nevada state director, had already become. After helping Clinton to a split decision in Nevada—she won the popular vote while Obama won the delegate count—he moved on to lead her winning state operations in Ohio and Indiana. He's since refined his skills, leading Jeanne Shaheen’s 2008 successful Senate campaign in New Hampshire, Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee through the 2012 cycle. As Clinton makes her first trip of the campaign cycle to Nevada on Tuesday for a roundtable on immigration reform and a fundraiser hosted by Las Vegas Sun president and publisher Brian Greenspun, the memory of Mook's role in her 2008 campaign remains fresh. And the way that Mook ran Nevada operation—his first presidential-level leadership role—offers a clue toward the way he’ll approach the next 18 months: focused on teamwork, discipline and keeping costs low. He’s described by people who’ve worked for and against him as someone who approaches the platonic ideal of the campaign manager: a skilled strategist, talented field organizer and able manager. But one person who won't be the source of a description of him is Mook himself. As a general rule, he doesn't talk to reporters, let alone agree to interviews for profiles of himself. Eight years ago, as a young out-of-stater with two cycles of experience under his belt, Mook could have rubbed Nevada’s Democrats the wrong way. He didn’t. “He wasn’t a snotty-nosed kid that didn’t know what he was doing,” said Rory Reid, the well-connected lawyer and son of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who was the Clinton campaign’s state chairman in 2008. His work was “very methodical and effective” and his demeanor was “gentlemanly,” Reid said. “Most political operatives are not frequently described as likable. They tend to be bombastic and foul mouthed and objectionable in many ways, and he’s not that. He’s very unassuming and focused.” The 2008 race was the first time Nevada held caucuses on such a large scale, and organizing for them was a complex and challenging undertaking. Mook was the “mastermind,” said Alisa Nave-Worth, the 2008 campaign’s Southern Nevada political director. He directed the communications strategy, created a how-to-caucus website that got out ahead of other campaigns and helped build a vast network of endorsements. Mook was also aggressive in pushing for what he needed from headquarters in Virginia. “When he felt we needed something from the folks at national, he got on the phone and was very clear,” said Pam duPré, the northern Nevada political director. “He had reasons lined up—why we needed a surrogate, more money, more people.” The operation was thrifty, and that started from the top. Mook and his field director Marlon Marshall would stay in duPré’s house when visiting the Reno area, and out-of-state surrogates were put up in supporters’ homes or inexpensive hotels. Now that he’s running the whole campaign, the rules are even tighter: no business cards for staff, and they are urged to take the bus when traveling between New York and Washington. Mook is even-keeled, resisting the impulse to get too excited when something goes well or to get discouraged by a setback. Throughout 2007, the Clinton campaign pushed hard for the endorsement of the Culinary Union’s Local 226, which represents workers on the Las Vegas Strip. When the union chose to back Obama, the near-universal response among Clinton supporters was “oh my gosh, we’re in trouble,” Reid said. Bill Clinton lashed out at the “establishment organization” for siding with Obama while the rank-and-file “insurgents” backed his wife. Mook stayed calm. “He just looked at me and said, ‘let’s win those caucuses,’” Reid recalled. Field workers buckled down, Bill and Chelsea started reaching out to voters, and Clinton won 7 of the 9 caucus sites along the Strip. “I’ve never once seen him angry,” said Emmy Ruiz, the 2016 Nevada state director, who worked with Mook throughout the 2008 Nevada campaign as a field organizer. Mook’s unruffled approach also translated into the way he managed his staff, choosing to intervene and then move on when he saw conflict. “Other campaign people can be like, ‘if it means I’m spending 60 fewer seconds on voter contact, I’m ignoring the issue,’” duPre said. “Robby wasn’t like that. He would simply shift his focus very briefly, take care of whatever he had to take care of, and get back on track.” Mook makes it clear to his teams that “you have to be personally invested in the people around you,” Nave-Worth said. He’s also a proponent of “mandatory fun”—meals, drinks and retreats—to help build those bonds. In late 2007, aware that many staffers wouldn’t be able to get home to their families for Christmas and wouldn’t be able to spend the day calling voters, Mook engineered a party for 200. “All the senior staff basted turkeys,” recalled Nave-Worth, whose mother hosted the group at her Las Vegas home. “We went outside in the cold and cooked some on the grill.” Ruiz, the first field organizer the Clinton campaign hired back in 2007, is now doing Mook's old job as state director. “He invested in my development, and I'm not the only one,” she said, pointing to Brynne Craig, a 2008 Nevada field organizer who is now deputy political director, as another beneficiary of Mook’s mentoring. Asked for a weakness, duPré said that Mook was “always walking around talking on his phone,” a Samsung smartphone with a keyboard. “He didn’t sit still very often and he had to sit still sometimes to plug in his phone.” And, she added, “I hope he eats well and gets enough rest. I hope he’s following his own advice.” Hillary Clinton Draws Distinction With GOP on Immigration <http://time.com/3847991/hillary-clinton-immigration/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true> // TIME // Sam Frizell - May 5, 2015 Republican policies would create a "second-class status" for immigrants, she argued Hillary Clinton drew a sharp distinction Tuesday between herself and the 2016 Republican hopefuls on immigration reform, and called for a full path to citizenship for people who came to the U.S. illegall “Today, not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential is clearly consistent in supporting a path to citizenship,” the former Secretary of State said in prepared remarks before a roundtable at a high school in Nevada. “When they talk about ‘legal status,’ that is code for second-class status.” Calling immigration a family and an economic issue, Clinton said she supported expanding programs for so-called Dreamers to help parents of immigrant children stay in the United States. Clinton raised eyebrows in June when she said that the unaccompanied minors fleeing violence in Central America should not be allowed to stay in the U.S. “to send a clear message.” Immigration activists expect Clinton to firmly embrace comprehensive immigration reform as a central part of her platform in 2016. In response to a question from one of the roundtable participants, Clinton said she would make immigration reform one of her first initiatives if elected. “We should put in place a simple, straightforward and accessible way for parents of Dreamers and others with a history of service and contributions to their community to make their case and to be eligible for the same deferred action as their children,” she said. Hillary Clinton To Unveil Path To Citizenship Immigration Plan <http://www.npr.org/2015/05/05/404483267/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-path-to-citizenship-immigration-plan> // NPR // Tamara Keith - May 5, 2015 Hillary Clinton is expected Tuesday to lay out her plan for a path to citizenship for many who are presently in the United States illegally. Meanwhile, her campaign is ramping up its efforts to get ahead of the scandal stories involving a new book about the Clinton Foundation and the upcoming Benghazi hearings. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Immigration is the key topic for Hillary Clinton today, and it's the purpose for her visit to Las Vegas. She visited Rancho High School where 70 percent of the student body is Hispanic. She called for a path to citizenship for the 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It is at heart a family issue, and if we claim that we are for families, we have to pull together and resolve the outstanding issues around our broken immigration system. BLOCK: Clinton made her pitch on the same day the book "Clinton Cash" hit stores. It raises questions about foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. NPR's Tamara Keith is in Las Vegas, and she joins me now. And, Tamara, what's the dynamic here for the Clinton campaign on the question of immigration? TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: The Latino vote is critical to the Democratic coalition, and in particular, in Nevada, an energized Hispanic electorate can be the difference between winning and losing for Democrats. And Clinton's team sees immigration as a wedge issue. Republicans are running in primaries where they will likely take positions on immigration that many Latino voters will disagree with. Think Mitt Romney's self-deportation comments in 2012. And what Clinton is trying to do here is draw a contrast between herself and Republican candidates, many of whom do not support a path to citizenship. She's not going out on a limb in terms of Democratic voters, but it also sends a signal to the Latino activists that she's on their team on this one. BLOCK: Now, I also mentioned the book that comes out today, "Clinton Cash." It's been raising a lot of uncomfortable questions for both Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton. How are they - how are they responding to that? KEITH: Bill Clinton did an interview from Africa where he was doing foundation work with NBC, and he described the book as basically a political hit job. He said that the foundation never did anything knowingly inappropriate, and he touted the transparency of the foundation. But then he also said that he feels like the Clintons are held to a different set of rules - that are rules for the Clintons and there are rules for other people, and that they are held to a higher standard. Now, lots of people out there believe that the Clintons play by their own rules, so this was seen as somewhat tone deaf. He also said that he wasn't planning to stop giving these big speeches where he's paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single speech because he, quote, "has to pay the bills." BLOCK: So Bill Clinton pushing back about allegations about the foundation. What about the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton's campaign? KEITH: They've launched something called The Briefing, and they're describing it as your go-to source for the facts you need to set the story straight. They just announced it today. You know, in 1992, the Bill Clinton campaign had a war room, and they really innovated this concept of political rapid response. Now Hillary Clinton's campaign is doing something very similar, though with all of the modern technology of Internet videos and web posts and Twitter. Here's Brian Fallon, who's a press secretary for the campaign, in a web video they put out today about that "Clinton Cash" book. BRIAN FALLON: It's full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence and it's missing the most important thing of all - facts. Let's just take a look at a few of the craziest conspiracy theories. KEITH: And that term conspiracy theories, you know, that is sort of an echo to Hillary Clinton's line about the vast right-wing conspiracy. And I think that they are planning to try to downplay any criticism of Clinton or the Clinton Foundation as part of conspiracy theories. BLOCK: At the same time, Tamara, there's now word this week that Hillary Clinton has agreed to testify before a House committee. She's going to be testifying about the Benghazi attack when she was secretary of state, also about her private email server. So questions about things other than the campaign will continue to swirl around her. KEITH: A good friend of hers recently told me that Hillary Clinton has a remarkable ability to compartmentalize, and I think that that's exactly what the campaign is trying to do here. They want to as much as possible let the candidate be the candidate while at the same time, not letting any attack go unanswered. BLOCK: OK, NPR's Tamara Keith following the Clinton campaign in Nevada. Tamara, thanks. KEITH: You're welcome. Hillary Clinton’s Nevada play <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-nevada-play-117644.html> // POLITICO // Gabriel Debendetti - May 5, 2015 Hillary Clinton’s return to Nevada, the site of one of her toughest battles with then-Sen. Barack Obama, is designed to project a sense that she’s taking the Democratic nominating contest seriously, even in the absence of stiff competition. But Tuesday’s visit is also about November 2016, when her ties to Hispanic voters and union members could prove pivotal for her presidential ambitions — and to Democratic hopes of recapturing the Senate. In what has become a familiar format for the former secretary of state’s campaign stops, Clinton will convene a roundtable of locals at Rancho High School here, where she will focus on immigration reform and call for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, according to a campaign official. It’s just a quick swing through the state — a trip that will take place against the backdrop of the much anticipated release of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by conservative author Peter Schweizer. Nonetheless, Clinton’s team sees ample opportunity in the one-day visit: the candidate can draw a contrast with Republicans on immigration reform while personally laying the groundwork for a caucus organization that Nevada Democrats hope translates into broader voter registration and interest. With a largely static Electoral College map and a limited number of states truly in play in 2016 — not to mention an open Senate race to replace retiring Minority Leader Harry Reid — few places are more important than Nevada next year. “What she’s able to do there is go to an early state which will clearly be important to her in the presidential process even though she won’t have much of a primary,” explained Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, a senior advisor to Clinton in 2008 who worked on the campaign’s Hispanic outreach effort. “It gives her the opportunity to say, ‘Look: I’m not taking this for granted.’” Eight years ago, Nevada hosted one of the most bruising fights of the primary contest, featuring a split among the unions that are central to the state’s organizing infrastructure and a resulting tussle over the shape of the caucus itself. While Clinton walked away with more votes than Obama, the president-to-be claimed more delegates to the convention. But this time around Clinton’s likely primary opponents have little presence here, and her own campaign is run by operatives who know Nevada well: her 2008 state director Robby Mook now serves as her national campaign manager, her top organizing official Marlon Marshall worked alongside Mook here that year, and her highest-ranking staffer in Nevada is Obama’s 2012 state director and Clinton 2008 field organizer Emmy Ruiz. As in the other prominent caucus state of Iowa, Clinton’s team insists it is best served by building a highly-structured field organization from the start, which it has already begun to do. “In order to win in Nevada, they’re going to have to do real, concerted organizing,” said Yvanna Cancela, the political director of the Culinary Union 226 Local — Nevada’s largest and most influential union, which endorsed Obama over Clinton eight years ago. “2014 wasn’t necessarily a Republican wave. It was a massive not-voting on behalf of the populations they want to turn out. In order to change that behavior, they’re going to have to invest and organize an infrastructure that moves those folks to the polls.” The campaign has started its union outreach in a state where organized labor holds major sway, Marshall told POLITICO. That’s helped assuage concerns of Democrats who recognize that the battle for Reid’s Senate seat will be among the most expensive and closely-contested in the nation — and who want the Clinton campaign to ramp up quickly. “What I learned in the general election of 2008 was that having the organizing from the primary helped,” Marshall explained. “Focusing on building infrastructure really helps Democrats up and down the ballot.” Still, GOP leaders, including the Republican National Committee’s new political director, Nevada veteran Chris Carr, are also keeping an eye on Clinton’s efforts in the state, aware that it represents not only an important early-voting contest, but a useful six electoral votes come November — votes that have gone Democratic in the last two presidential elections. Republicans have cause for optimism: After the 2014 elections, they control the levers of state government, including the governorship and both state legislative chambers. Clinton will aim to rally a key part of the state’s Democratic base — Hispanic voters — with her comments about immigration on Tuesday: she will tell voters at the school, which has a roughly 70 percent Hispanic student body, that the country “cannot settle for proposals that provide hard-working people with merely a ‘second-class’ status,” according to a campaign aide. The former senator and first lady was extremely popular among Hispanics in 2008, garnering two times as many Latino votes as Obama during their drawn-out primary contest, and is now seeking to rekindle that relationship. But the immigration landscape has changed since then, and Clinton has occasionally faced tough questions about her precise immigration position from DREAMers who were brought into the United States illegally when they were children. Her remarks on Tuesday are intended to send a clear message of support to them. “The Hispanic voters are really looking to her to see what is going to be her stance on immigration,” said Cardona. “They understand that she has supported [comprehensive immigration reform] in the past, that she has voiced support for President Obama’s executive action. But I think they want to hear what she would do if she was elected.” By staking out a liberal position on immigration early Clinton could avoid criticism from possible primary challengers, but the real aim is to draw a hard line between Democrats and Republicans who are opposed to broader immigration reform and Obama’s 2014 executive action. “From a political standpoint it is incredibly smart for her to be doing this early and in such an intimate way, one-on-one with Latino voters,” said Cardona. “I guarantee you the contrast with her Republican opposition could not be starker.” Clinton Pledges to Take Immigration Actions 'Even Further' <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/clinton-willing-take-immigration-actions-even-further-n354281> // MSNBC // Andrew Rafferty and Andrea Mitchell – May 5, 2015 Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton pledged Tuesday to take further executive actions if Congress fails to pass comprehensive immigration reform and accused Republicans of advocating to give undocumented workers "second class status." "If Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further," Clinton said during a campaign stop in Las Vegas. Clinton said it is time for "a path to full and equal citizenship" and dismissed competing proposals that would give undocumented immigrants a limited time-frame to remain in the country legally. And Clinton said that if she is elected president she would expand DACA provisions to include parents who had deep roots in the United States. The former secretary of state made the remarks after meeting with youths at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, which is 70 percent Hispanic. The roundtable included one student from Rancho HS, Betsaida Frausto, a junior who has a 4.8 grade point average, is taking three Advanced Placement classes, and wants to go to Yale to become a doctor. She also heard heartwarming stories from the students, including several who come from "mixed" families — where one parent and/or a sibling are legal and the rest of the family are not and are faced with deportation. Clinton told them it is foolish to talk about deporting 11 million people, saying we are a nation of immigrants and we have to solve this issue. "I don't understand how anyone can look at these young people and think we should break up more families or turn away more hard workers with talent to help us build the kind of country we all want to see," Clinton said. "So I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for your families across our country." President Barack Obama took executive actions last year that would give temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. The orders, which are currently being challenged in court, resulted in a political showdown with Congressional Republicans who said the president had overstepped his Constitutional authority. While the orders led to contentious showdowns in Washington that threatened to shut down the Department of Homeland Security and delayed the confirmation of Obama's attorney general nominee this year, polling shows the rest of the country largely approves the orders. An MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll released last month found 57 percent of Americans and 78 percent of Latinos approved what the president did. How to deal with the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants has already proved to be a key issue in the early stages of the 2016 campaign. Many in the Republican party have slammed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as "amnesty" that threatens American workers and ignores the law. "Today not a single Republican candidate either announced or potential is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship, not one," Clinton said at Rancho High School. "When they talk about legal status, that is code for second class status." Clinton to reach out to Latinos in NH <http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150505/NEWS0605/150509656> // New Hampshire Union Leader // Dan Tuohy - May 5, 2015 While Hillary Clinton focuses on immigration Tuesday in Nevada, her campaign this week will be reaching out to the Latino community in New Hampshire to talk about her reform ideas. The Democratic presidential candidate, in Nevada, will talk about the need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that provides “a path to citizenship,” upholds the law and protects border and national security, according to the Clinton campaign. Clinton’s goal is to bring “millions of hard-working people out of the shadows and into the formal economy so they can pay taxes and contribute to our nation’s prosperity.” Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign is in the process of organizing a “Latino Americans for Hillary” house party in Manchester and reaching out to Latino-owned businesses in Manchester and Nashua. The campaign also plans to confer with immigration reform advocates and Latino residents in New Hampshire. The Note: High Bar For Hillary on Immigration <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-returning-place-called-hope/story?id=30810633> // ABC News // Jim Avila and Serena Marshall - May 5, 2015 She is the presumed favorite of the Latino vote and today in Las Vegas Hillary Clinton is expected to double down on this gateway issue for Hispanic voters, ABC’s JIM AVILA and SERENA MARSHALL note. A Clinton official telling ABC News she plans to focus on a path to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration reform. Latino leaders consulting her campaign tell ABC News Clinton is looking for a way to clearly contrast herself from republican candidates for president by embracing the full path to citizenship rather than proposing a second class of Americans who can work in the United States but not enjoy the protection of citizenship. Clinton is also expected to promise to extend the dreamer program to undocumented parents of children born in the United States Latino groups will be listening today for a timetable for implementation of these changes. President Obama has been faulted with moving too slowly during his first term when he had a democratic majority and failed to pass immigration reform. Latino groups also say they will listen for consistency in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, concerned that what happens in Vegas today on immigration doesn't just stay in Vegas but is promised in Iowa and other primary states Hillary Clinton revives hibernating '80s 'sleaze factor' <http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/05/sleaze-factor-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-column/26653627/> // USA Today // James S. Robbins - May 5, 2015 In the wake of revelations regarding the questionable nexus between Hillary and Bill Clinton's family foundation and those who benefitted from her tenure as Secretary of State, their defenders say there is no proof of misdeeds, no verifiable quid pro quo, not a shred of evidence against them. True so far, at least none that weren't deleted. However there is a pattern of dubious behavior, and certainly an appearance of impropriety. The sheer scale of the money involved is daunting. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations and speaker's fees on the one hand, with contracts and agreements worth multi-millions of dollars being doled out on the other. The fact that Mrs. Clinton has not already been written off as politically dead says a lot about how perceptions of the role of money in politics have changed. The Clintons' troubles bring to mind "the sleaze factor," an expression used by Walter Mondale early in the 1984 presidential campaign to describe what he called "a tawdry record of unethical conduct" in the Reagan administration. It was rooted in allegations of misconduct among several members of Reagan's team. Mondale said that almost every week, "another rotten apple falls out of the tree." Mondale took aim specifically at then-Attorney General nominee Edwin Meese, who was being investigated by the Justice Department for a potential violation of the Ethics in Government Act. In particular, questions had arisen over a $15,000 interest-free loan from his assistant Edwin Thomas to Meese's wife, Ursula, that Meese had not reported on his financial disclosure form. Thomas, his wife and son later went on to receive Federal appointments. One editorial from the time summarized the charges against Meese as "suspicious-looking loans from people who later received White House favors [and] financial dealings that were either unreported or misreported." That could be used as boilerplate for an article about the Clintons today. Meese was cleared of wrongdoing, only to fall afoul of the Wedtech scandal three years later, an affair the New York Times called "too indecent and too predictable." Again, useful boilerplate. Reagan's National Security Advisor Richard Allen was also hit with the sleaze charge. He was hounded from office principally because of an envelope containing $1000 cash that was left behind in his safe when he moved offices. The money was an honorarium that Allen's longtime friend Tamotsu Takase, husband of Japanese journalist Chizuko Takase, had tried to present to Nancy Reagan for an interview before the inauguration. Allen, then a leader of the transition team, intercepted the envelope and gave it to his secretary, who put it in the safe. He then forgot about it. Allen was cleared of criminal wrongdoing for taking — that is, not spending, not using, just storing, then abandoning — the cash. However he was eventually hounded out of office for having accepted two Japanese wristwatches from Takase, valued at $135 each, which were personal gifts for him and his wife. Allen also admitted it may be been possible that Takase "brought me a bottle of sake … he always brings me a bottle of sake.'' This amounted to sleaze? It sounds positively quaint compared to the relentless efforts of the Clinton money machine. Liberal commentator Tom Braden thought the sleaze factor would be a major campaign theme. He said the names of the Reagan officials under suspicion such as Meese and Allen "do not conjure the image of openness, candor, honesty and fair-mindedness that Americans respect." These are also words one would not immediately associate with the name Clinton. The sleaze charge did not change the outcome of the 1984 election, in which Mondale was trounced. And Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis in his book Scandal noted that "Democrats paid dearly in the Clinton years for this careless use of the charge 'corruption.'" But not all charges are baseless. If Mrs. Clinton wins the White House, it would be useful to swear in a special prosecutor the day of the inauguration, just for the sake of convenience. It will be one busy office. Clinton camp on defense about her trustworthiness <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/hillary-clinton-family-legacy/index.html'> // CNN // Jeff Zeleny - May 5, 2015 Washington (CNN)A month after launching Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, with every moment of her announcement video and reintroduction tour to voters carefully crafted, her campaign team now finds itself consumed by fending off a familiar, yet far more elusive, adversary: The Clinton legacy. As she visits Nevada on Tuesday and calls for a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally, her advisers are trying to keep old fires from becoming political obstacles with staying power. Questions about donations to the family's foundation, along with Bill Clinton's defiant comments this week, have alarmed Democrats who hoped she could start her campaign on fresh footing. Aides to Clinton still insist she will run the race on her own terms without distraction from whirlwinds of controversy. Yet strategists acknowledge sufficient concern by an erosion of trust and credibility that they are forcefully fighting back. One way is through a new blog, "The Briefing," which is notably not devoted to Clinton's platform for 2016, but rather simply fact-checking attacks against her. "While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged," John Podesta, the campaign chairman, said in a message intended to allay any worry among supporters. "That's why we are building a new one-stop shop to provide the facts about Hillary Clinton's positions and her record." It's a key challenge of her candidacy: Shoring up her perceptions of trust and credibility. The campaign, through its own surveys and focus groups with voters, is closely studying a decline in her approval since she entered the race last month. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found only a quarter of registered voters said they viewed her as honest and straightforward, down 13 percentage points from last summer. But she still fares stronger when facing a Republican rival. But a central question facing Clinton in her second presidential bid is whether she and her new team of advisers can answer questions and fight allegations openly -- in a far different media climate -- without reverting to a familiar Clinton defensive crouch that all criticism is automatically partisan and no legitimate inquires could exist. As Bill Clinton's first televised interview of the campaign still reverberated Tuesday, several top Democrats told CNN they were taken aback by his tone and they wondered anew whether his words could be a detriment to his wife's campaign. Some Democrats said they cringed when he brushed aside questions about collecting $500,000 for delivering a speech by saying: "I've gotta pay our bills." "There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," Bill Clinton told NBC News in Nairobi. He also criticized what he characterized as "political" attacks on the foundation. His comments raised more skepticism of the charges included in a book that was released on Tuesday, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich." Inside the Clinton campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, aides were widely pleased with the disciplined rollout of her announcement tour and the campaign's aggressive rebuttals to the book, written by conservative author Peter Schweizer. But now, advisers acknowledge they are bracing for an even more challenging -- and uncertain -- second month of her campaign. Clinton could be called as soon as May 18 to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in its investigation of the attacks that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012. She also will be questioned over the use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. It will be an unusual scene for a presidential candidate: Raising her right hand and swearing an oath to testify during a televised congressional committee. The proceedings have already taken a partisan tone on both sides. Podesta fueled Democratic suspicion in his message to supporters this week, arguing the inquiry by Republicans is part of a "two-fisted strategy to try to undermine her." To be sure, Clinton's trust and credibility are at the forefront of the Republican campaign against her. Republican presidential candidates are spending less time trying to link Clinton to Obama these days than they do raising questions about whether she's trustworthy. "I think that Bill Clinton is saying what Hillary Clinton has said on many occasions: 'Just trust us,'" Carly Fiorina said as she announced her candidacy Monday. "Trust is earned through transparency." Republicans are hoping to take a page from the winning Democratic playbook of 2012: Define Clinton in a negative light early by chipping away at her credibility. It's similar to how the Obama campaign rushed to define Mitt Romney, which stuck with him for the duration of the race. Clinton advisers downplayed that comparison. They said the trust question was not simply about whether voters trusted Clinton, but whether they trusted her to do the right things for them. Democrats close to Clinton believe the best antidote to the Republican attacks is to step up her own campaign and begin to aggressively outline what she stands for and why she wants to be president. She has intentionally downsized the early stage of her campaign, holding only a handful of appearances. The only stop on her public campaign schedule this week is in Nevada on Tuesday, leaving her Republican critics to fill the vacuum of silence. Clinton 'War Room' Pushback And The 'Invent Your Own' Media Campaign <http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/05/05/404500775/clinton-war-room-pushback-and-the-invent-your-own-media-campaign?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews> // NPR // Jessica Taylor - May 5, 2015 The Hillary Clinton campaign went into overdrive Tuesday trying to minimize the damage from a new book that delves into Clinton Foundation fundraising — and they're not using the typical channels to do so. On the same day that the controversial new book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, was officially released, the Democrat's presidential campaign largely went around the traditional media in favor of new media tools. Though campaigns have been trying to bypass the media filter for years, it's an advent of a new era in politics. The Clinton campaign is embracing several new technologies and platforms to get their message out more directly to voters, and it's a tactic her potential rivals are sure to employ, too. "It's almost media 3.0," said Tobe Berkovitz, a professor of political communication at Boston University. "If 1.0 was dealing with the press and 2.0 was trying to circumvent the press and going to friendly sites, 3.0 is, 'Why even bother with that? Just invent your own.'" Through a new section of its campaign website called, "The Briefing," and a post on the platform-sharing site Medium, Clinton's campaign went on offense against Schweizer and his suggestions that foreign donations to her family's foundation influenced her time at the State Department — all without the candidate addressing it head on. A two-and-a-half-minute video posted on the new site from campaign spokesman Brian Fallon derides Schweizer as a GOP operative, who was a former adviser to 2008 vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and a close friend of the Koch brothers. He also noted that research by ABC News and even Fox News revealed there was no "smoking gun." "The book is already being debunked far and wide," Fallon said."It's full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence. And it's missing the most important thing of all: facts." Campaign Chairman John Podesta also explained the campaign's strategy in a memo posted to Medium: "While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged. That's why we are building a new one-stop shop to provide the facts about Hillary Clinton's positions and her record. We are calling it 'The Briefing.' You will be able to find information and it will serve as a hub that allows Hillary for America to cut through the partisan noise over the next 18 months and directly communicate with voters. This forum will provide the public with direct access to the facts on the positive policy agenda that Hillary will unveil over the course of campaign, as well as the facts needed to debunk false attacks." This isn't the first time since she announced last month that Clinton's team has utilized these new platforms, especially to target Schweizer. Though his book was just released on Tuesday, details have been leaking out for weeks and other media organizations like the New York Times have used his research to further investigate specific claims. Team Clinton has turned to Medium before, with Fallon releasing a statement on the Times story that alleged donations to the Clinton foundation were tied to the government's approval of uranium mining company to the Russian government: "Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton's State Department pushed for the sale's approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal." Last week, the Clinton campaign also released a Vine of comments Schweizer had made at a 2014 Koch brothers summit, where he told fellow conservatives "we cannot let up." The use of new media in favor of more traditional media isn't a surprising strategy from the Clinton campaign, given Clinton's decades-long distrust of and tension with the media. It's also not a new tactic, with campaigns' rapid-response teams trying to get their message out at any cost and through any channel. And given the way more and more people, especially younger voters, consume news, it might be the most efficient as well. The embrace of these new platforms is one that both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are likely to use even more this cycle. Clinton's campaign insists it is not bypassing the media in the new approach, but is instead using multiple platforms to get their message out. "Our campaign will work with the oldest of media outlets and the newest of technologies to reach voters," Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told NPR in emailed statement. "It would be a false choice to say it's one or the other. There is so much misinformation flying around that, whether it's through the press or on social media, it's important for voters to be able to access the facts directly, so they can assess for themselves and help beat back the partisan attacks." It's also a way for the campaign to release a controlled, scripted narrative instead of having Clinton herself answer questions about the issue. National Journal noted last week she has only answered a total of seven media questions since she became an official candidate. She twice dismissed allegations in Schweizer's book as "distractions" but she did not answer the charges directly. The one unscripted response came from former President Bill Clinton in an interview with NBC News Monday that the family foundation had "never done anything knowingly inappropriate" in accepting money from foreign governments for their charitable foundation. The foundation has reinstated a ban on donations from all but six foreign countries now, but the former president said that move was "absolutely not" an acknowledgement that accepting previous donations was a mistake. For the Clinton campaign, this approach is "much better than actually trotting Hillary out somewhere and have her answer what might be tough or aggressive questions," Berkowitz said. "Release the video, and then you release the hounds." Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said it's the right approach for the Clintons. "What I see happening is a classic Clinton-style war-room operation utilizing all the new media that are out there," Manley said. "I think they deserve a lot of credit for utilizing new things like Medium, but I also respect that they're not going to leave any charge unanswered." Clinton is far and away the Democratic frontrunner for president, and she still beats most of her possible GOP rivals in hypothetical head-to-heads too. But amid questions about the Clinton foundation and an earlier controversy about her use of a private email server instead of a government account while she was at the State Department, her polling numbers have suffered. Since March, Clinton's unfavorable rating has risen six percentage points while those who said she was honest and straightforward has dropped 13 points in a year, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week. Clinton has been under sustained assault from Republicans on the campaign trail and Capitol Hill. And she will continue to be with hearings and testimony coming about the terrorist attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya. "I think every bit is going to help, but the Republicans have an amazing ability to drudge up all sorts of crazy conspiracies about the Clintons," Manley said. "These kind of tools can only take you so far, but, at some point, she's going to have to start addressing some of these things herself." Clinton camp pushes back on book, Benghazi with new Web site <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/05/clinton-camp-pushes-back-on-book-benghazi-with-new-web-site/> // WaPo // Anne Gearan - May 5, 2015 The Clinton campaign is expanding its defense of the candidate against allegations of alleged influence-peddling and questionable financial dealings at her family foundation, unveiling an online tutorial Tuesday to counter what the campaign calls Republican smears. Polls suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton is being damaged, if only slightly, by the continuing controversy surrounding a book released Tuesday, “Clinton Cash,” outlining possible improprieties while she was secretary of state. On a new Clinton-backed Web site called “The Briefing,” campaign press secretary Brian Fallon says the book by conservative author Peter Schweizer is “full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no evidence.” A pro-Clinton group called Correct the Record is also slated to go live later Tuesday with its own Web site, defending the candidate's record on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The campaign has been pushing back hard against the reported contents of the book called “Clinton Cash” ahead of its release and against related news coverage of ties among the Clinton Foundation, donors and foreign governments. Fallon calls the book’s charting of some of those ties “crazy conspiracy theories,” and invites supporters to share the Web video and sign up for updates. The video follows a Monday memo from campaign chairman John Podesta that previewed the online and social media campaign against the book’s charges and wider criticism of former president Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Podesta said critics of Hillary Clinton have a “two-fisted strategy” to undermine her that includes a newly announced hearing into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, while Clinton was secretary of state. “While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged,” he said. The various claims “will not be the last false set of allegations” Clinton faces over the 18 months to the general election, Podesta wrote. That assumes that Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, which she is the heavy favorite to do. The fact-checking site will give the campaign a way to address supporters about things they may be hearing and seeing in the media without going through the media itself. The campaign will collect e-mail addresses of those who visit the site, which also includes a link to donate. “You and I both know that Republicans will latch on to whatever far-flung theories they can find in order to try and distract from Hillary's record of fighting for everyday Americans,” campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an e-mail to supporters Tuesday. “The Briefing will be your regular download on what you can do to help fight back against attacks like these.” Also Tuesday, Correct The Record's new Web site will be devoted to undercutting Republican claims about Benghazi and advancing the Democratic argument that Clinton played no direct role. Called “Benghazi By The Numbers,” the site includes facts and figures about the multiple Republican-led investigations into Benghazi as well as the independent State Department review that found bureaucratic errors but no scandal. “In interviews, testimony and in her book, Secretary Clinton has taken responsibility repeatedly,” Correct The Record said. “Clinton fully and publicly answered questions before Congress.” Here is a sampling of the site’s compilations: “10: Number of congressional committees that have participated in Benghazi investigations. 32: Number of congressional hearings, public or private, held on the Benghazi tragedy according to publicly available hearing transcripts, congressional reports, and committee websites and fact sheets. 54: Approximate number of hours spent to date in publicly available hearings about the tragedy in Benghazi. 2,780: Number of questions asked in public hearings held on the Benghazi tragedy.” The Web site also claims, "Past investigations of the tragedy have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours. The newest committee has already cost taxpayers more than $2.5 million to date, and has been on course to cost more than $6 million." Clinton is scheduled to testify as early as May 18 before a Republican-led special committee looking into Benghazi and questions about the security and propriety of Clinton’s e-mail system. The State Department plans to soon release edited versions of some 300 Clinton e-mails turned over to the committee. Here's Hillary Clinton's latest pushback against the 'dud' allegations in 'Clinton Cash' <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-latest-pushback-against-clinton-cash-2015-5>// Business Insider // Colin Campbell - May 5, 2015 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign released another video on Monday blasting the book "Clinton Cash" for its unproven allegations against her. "'Clinton Cash' was billed as a bombshell before being exposed as a dud," Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told Business Insider. "The media has examined the conspiracy theories in the book and found it to be completely lacking in evidence supporting its outrageous claims." The book has been generating waves of headlines since April 23, when a series of media outlets published critical investigations based on author Peter Schweizer's work. Schweizer accuses Clinton of doling out State Department favors to people who gave to her family foundation or paid speaking fees to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. However, Schweizer has admitted he has no "direct evidence" of corruption. The new Clinton video — titled "No Evidence" — doubles down on that point. It features a highlight reel of reporters noting the lack of indisputable proof behind Schweizer's claims. The video is part of a new Clinton rapid-response effort against the "Clinton Cash" allegations and other, future attacks. Her team released another video blasting the "debunked" book earlier on Monday and vowed to aggressively respond to partisan hits against her candidacy. "While 'Clinton Cash' has already been debunked, we are clear-eyed about the fact that this will not be the last false set of allegations flung our way," wrote John Podesta, the campaign's chairman. "We will stand ready to fight for a better future for everyday Americans and to swat back these unfair attacks from those invested in protecting a status quo that is stacked in favor of those at the top." Schweizer has not responded to Business Insider's requests for comment on criticism against him, but he has repeatedly defended the seriousness of the allegations in his book. Indeed, he has previously claimed his work presents enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of Clinton's behavior at the State Department. "The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said in a recent ABC interview. "Here's the analogy I would give you. It's a little bit like insider trading. ... They look at a pattern of stock trades. If the person has access to that information and then they do a series of well-timed trades. That warrants investigation. I think the same thing applies here." Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer Admits He's Wrong On Bogus Clinton "Veto Power" Claim <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/05/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-admits-hes/203528'> // Media Matters // Eric Hananoki - May 5, 2015 In an interview released on the day of his Clinton Cash book launch, Peter Schweizer admitted he overreached in attacking Hillary Clinton's purported role in approving a Russian uranium deal. Schweizer is a Republican activist and consultant with a long history of errors and retractions. His latest book, Clinton Cash, is being released today and claims the Clintons helped foreign donors through State Department decisions. The book features over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions. During an April 26 appearance on Fox News Sunday promoting the book, Schweizer falsely claimed that then-Secretary of State Clinton "had veto power" to stop the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency from purchasing Uranium One. Schweizer has suggested Clinton approved the deal as a favor for Clinton Foundation donors. Schweizer's "veto" claim is false. As Media Matters and others have noted, the State Department was just one part of a nine-agency review panel that oversees such decisions. And members can only make recommendations to the president, not unilaterally "veto" deals. Furthermore, as TIME reported, there's "no indication of Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations." To the contrary, one official involved in the process said Clinton "had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case." During a May 5 Politico podcast interview, Schweizer admitted that "veto is probably not the best word" and "what I meant by veto power was as we explain the process, you know, if somebody objects it kicks in the special investigation." Despite his shoddy history and admission of getting a key detail of the uranium decision wrong, Schweizer lashed out at Media Matters for "trying to muddy the water and obscure the facts in a way that's not particularly enlightening." Schweizer also defended his 1998 book Disney: The Mouse Betrayed. Media Matters noted that the book attacked The Walt Disney Company for what he deemed its "endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle from a company that had traditionally been family-oriented." Schweizer told Politico that "I'm very proud of because one of the results of that book -- the book talked about the fact that Disney did not do criminal background checks. They had a problem with pedophiles. The book came out and Disney afterwards changed their policy. And I was proud of the fact that we highlighted that." From Politico's podcast interview with Schweizer: GLENN THRUSH (Politico senior writer): I want to ask you about Media Matters and sort of this, the barrage of attacks that you've gotten from Clinton-aligned groups and the Clinton campaign itself. SCHWEIZER: Sure. THRUSH: As somebody who is taking money from groups with a political interest, do you think Media Matters is legitimate to sort of scrutinize you? Do you think anyone has gone over the line in terms of kind of the public statements they've made about the book? SCHWEIZER: I don't know -- statements about the book, no. I do think there's some particularly strange and bizarre tweets that Paul Begala and others have put out. Kind of reminds me of middle school, frankly. With, you know, the level of commentary. But no, I don't think that -- THRUSH: Any particular one that Begala did? SCHWEIZER: I'll just leave it at that. THRUSH: No, come on. Come on, come on. SCHWEIZER: People can go through -- THRUSH: I'm not letting you off the hook. SCHWEIZER: Well, I had written a book on Disney back in 1998, which actually I'm very proud of because one of the results of that book -- the book talked about the fact that Disney did not do criminal background checks. They had a problem with pedophiles. The book came out and Disney afterwards changed their policy. And I was proud of the fact that we highlighted that. But, you know, Begala was putting out tweets about, you know, "Well I went to Disney when I was, you know, 13 years old and I'm still straight." You know, it was the most ridiculous, boneheaded stuff and you just have to kind of chuckle at it. But you know, to get to your point, there's no problem with looking at the work that I've done and the research that I've done and have a vigorous conversation. THRUSH: And they've come across a couple -- you've had to reel a few things back. Less in the way of outright errors, than in sort of a couple of overstatements like for instance on the Uranium One thing you've said that Hillary had veto power on that -- you've modified that a touch. SCHWEIZER: Yeah, what I meant by veto power was as we explain the process, you know, if somebody objects it kicks in the special investigation -- but veto is probably not the best word. But no, I mean, my view is that, you know, what David Brock is doing though is obscuring the facts, not really confronting and dealing with them. I have no problem with somebody saying, you know, we disagree with him on the way that CFIUS is characterized. What they are doing though is, I think, trying to muddy the water and obscure the facts in a way that's not particularly enlightening. And look, at the end of the day, you know, my question would be does David Brock have anything negative to say about Hillary Clinton and I think the answer is no because he is basically an extension of the campaign, so, you know, we have to keep that in mind. ‘Clinton Cash’ Flashback: The Clintons Pressured Kazakhs To OK Uranium Deal <http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/05/clinton-cash-flashback-the-clintons-pressured-kazakhs-to-ok-uranium-deal/> // Daily Caller // Chuck Ross - May 5, 2015 In 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton cancelled meetings with Kazakh officials in an apparent attempt to force the country to approve a lucrative uranium mining deal that would benefit a Clinton associate, a Kazakh energy executive said in a 2009 interview. Former Kazatoprom executive Mukhtar Dzhakishev’s videotaped interview has been reported before — in 2010 by The Washington Post. But it flew under the radar until author Peter Schweizer’s revisited it in his new book, “Clinton Cash,” which was released Tuesday. Dzhakishev said that in 2005, Clinton pressured Kazakhstan to approve a deal being sought by UrAsia Energy, a Canadian company whose main investor was mining magnate Frank Giustra. Giustra is a close associate of Bill Clinton’s and a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. According to Schweizer’s translation of Dzhakishev’s interview, Kazakh prime minister Karim Massimov “was in America and needed to meet with Hillary Clinton, but this meeting was canceled.” “And they said that those investors connected with the Clintons who were working in Kazakhstan have problems. Until Kazakhstan solved those problems, there would be no meeting, and all manner of measures would be taken.” Dzhakishev said he was then instructed by Massimov to fix the problem. He also said that he was contacted by Tim Phillips, an adviser to Bill Clinton at the time, who told him that there would be no meeting with Hillary Clinton until the Kazakhs removed a major roadblock hindering the deal. According to a Feb. 2010, Washington Post article, the hold-up centered on a law that the Kazakh government had recently passed concerning deals between private companies for natural resources. According to The Post’s interpretation of Dzhakishev’s interview, he said that “investors who currently work in Kazakhstan and have ties to Clinton have problems and meetings will be resumed only after Kazakhstan resolves the problems.” He also said that he got an earful from Phillips. “I called them, and they came. I met them in Astana and then Clinton’s aide, Tim Phillips, began to scream that this deal involves Democrats and is financed by them, and that we were hampering the deal.” Phillips did not respond to The Post at the time. Clinton and Giustra have long denied that the Clintons used their power to influence the deal. But the deal was secured in Sept. 2005 after Giustra and Clinton flew to Kazakhstan on Giustra’s private jet. There, Clinton met with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Clinton spoke glowingly in public about the authoritarian Nazarbayev, and days later, the uranium deal was approved. UrAsia and Giustra profited handsomely, and the company eventually merged with Uranium One. Uranium One, in turn, was packed with Giustra associates and was eventually taken over by Russia-controlled Rosatom. The takeover, which was approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department and other federal agencies, gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium produced in the U.S. In its 2010 article, The Post considers that Dzhakishev’s account is questionable. Dzhakishev was accused of embezzling funds from Kazatoprom and removed from the company in 2009. However, as Schweizer notes, leaked diplomatic cables show that U.S. ambassador Richard Hoaglund believed that Dzhakishev was receiving harsh treatment because he was allied with a political foe of President Nazarbayev. “In a portion of the video that could cast doubt on his account, Dzhakishev misstated the size of Giustra’s donation, saying it was $300 million, and voiced vague suspicions of a scheme to manipulate world uranium prices,” The Post reported. But according to Schweizer, who hired Dr. David Meyer to translate Dzhakishev’s interview, the Kazakh said that Giustra made $300 million on the UrAsia transaction. Regardless, Dzhakishev has proven more truthful than Giustra and Clinton in at least one regard. Dzhakishev told The New York Times that in Feb. 2007 he met with Clinton and Giustra at Clinton’s Chappaqua, N.Y. home. He said that Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting to discuss Kazakhstan’s desire to purchase a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a U.S. company which supplies nuclear energy technology. According to The Times, both Clinton and Giustra initially denied that such a meeting occurred. Giustra admitted to The Times after being asked about the discrepancy: “You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom. Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” A Clinton spokesman told The Times: “Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.” Clinton Cash author: I like Marco Rubio <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-author-i-like-marco-rubio-117630.html?hp=l2_4> // Politico // Nick Gass – May 5, 2015 Enough with the doom-and-gloom candidates, says author Peter Schweizer. Glenn Thrush sits down with Peter Schweizer, the conservative author at the center of the Clinton Foundation firestorm. There needs to be optimism in the race for the White House, the “Clinton Cash” author told POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush in an hour-long interview ahead of his May 5 book launch, noting that he always liked President Ronald Reagan’s upbeat messaging. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would seem to fit the bill this time around, he said. Schweizer, who makes his home in Tallahassee, is also probing the finances of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “If your basic position is ‘everything’s going to heck in a handbasket, we can’t do anything about it,’ that’s going to throw a lot of people off. So I do think the optimism will be there,” Schweizer said. “The question is: Is that optimism backed up by real boldness? Because if you aren’t an optimist and you feel like we are struggling or facing challenges, it’s bold change that’s going to be required.” “You don’t want a grinder as president,” Schweizer said. “You don’t want somebody who’s doom and gloom.” Regarding the Clintons, Schweizer says he has been talking to congressional investigators about his findings, both in the House and Senate, and broached the possibility of more interactions with Republican staff. “I think you need to have congressional committees with subpoena power, and I think you need to have somebody with law-enforcement capability in power, either by DOJ or a federal prosecutor somewhere,” he added. He also revealed details about his process and cast himself as the head of a sprawling Florida-based research team that he described as as an eccentric group of diggers, “Columbo”-type investigators and 30-something computer experts. “I call them the Island of Misfit Toys, ‘cause we have all these different personalities,” he said. “We’ve got some people who have a background in hacking, they are not computer hackers now, but they can do research on the so-called deep web and find information that has not been sort of charted. It’s actually surprising how much information you can find, not going past a firewall doing anything illegal [but finding information] not catalogued by Google.” The Clinton book was funded by specific conservative donors, but not the Koch brothers, with whom he has had a long-term collaborative relationship. “We have received funding from the Kochs in the past, not for this project, but on a project-by-project basis,” he told Thrush. “We have other donors that to varying degrees made this project possible.” He went on to talk about his association with New York-based donor Rebekah Mercer. Schweizer also described his work for Sarah Palin’s PAC, saying he was drawn to her hawkish, assertive views on American foreign policy, but that he turned down her offer to go grizzly bear hunting in Alaska. Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” hits shelves Tuesday. Will the Benghazi Committee Block Clinton From Testifying About…Benghazi? <http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/benghazi-committee-gowdy-clinton> // Mother Jones // David Corn - May 15, 2015 Could the main obstacle to Hillary Clinton testifying about Benghazi be Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the special House committee set up to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans? Clinton and Gowdy have been in a tug-of-war for the past few weeks. At the end of March—following the news that Clinton, the leading Democratic 2016 candidate, had used a private email account when she was secretary of state and that her emails about Benghazi and all other official matters were not originally kept by the State Department—Gowdy asked Clinton to come before the committee for a private interview to discuss the emails she had exchanged concerning Benghazi and Libya. After such a session, Gowdy noted, the panel would schedule a time for her to testify publicly about the event itself. Last month, Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, responded and said there was "no reason to delay her appearance or to have her testify [about the emails] in a private interview." It was a clear sign that the Clinton camp would like to get her inevitable appearance before the GOP-created Benghazi committee over and done with. This move came just as Gowdy's committee signaled that it may not release its findings until soon before the 2016 election. Reacting to that news, John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, huffed that the committee's admission "Is the most telling evidence yet that their investigation is solely about playing politics in the 2016 presidential campaign." Then, on April 23, Gowdy fired back with a letter to Kendall insisting that Clinton submit to either a private "transcribed interview" or a public hearing to discuss her emails and other documents (but not to talk about the actual Benghazi attack). Only if that interview or hearing assured Gowdy that "all documents needed to have a constructive conversation with the Secretary are in the Committee"s possession" would he then hold a hearing with Clinton to examine what happened in Benghazi. That is, no public hearing on the substance of the matter until Clinton testified (privately or publicly) about the emails and convinced Gowdy that the committee now possessed all the related emails and documents. And that's the rub. Can Clinton, whose official emails were first kept on a private server and then vetted by her own aides before being turned over to the State Department, say under oath that she knows beyond doubt that every single Benghazi email she sent or received now resides within the committee's files? And will Gowdy ever accept an assurance from her that all her Benghazi emails made it to the State Department and were subsequently shared with the committee? This political dance played out at the end of last week. In an interview with USA Today's Susan Page, Gowdy indicated that he might be willing to accept Clinton's word if she said under other that all her emails have been provided to his committee. "If she were, under some theory, able to say, 'yes, I can promise you under penalty of perjury you have every single document you're entitled to,' that would probably shut off that line of inquiry," Gowdy said. "If she can, then it will be a short conversation." But Gowdy also left himself plenty of room to be unpersuaded by Clinton. He noted, "If she testified under oath [that all emails and relevant documents were turned over], I think my first question would be, 'Madame Secretary, with all due respect, how do you know that? Because you're not the one who went through the emails; your lawyer did." It looks as if Gowdy might be setting a trap for Clinton. (At least one conservative pundit sees it this way.) If Clinton cannot say with 100-percent certainty that Gowdy's committee has every digit of her data related to Benghazi, then she cannot testify on what happened—and the committee will drag out the proceedings further into the 2016 campaign season. Clinton is trying to avoid being so cornered. On Monday, Kendall sent a letter to Gowdy, asserting there was no need for two rounds of testimony. "Respectfully," he wrote, "there is no basis, logic, or precedent for such an unusual request." Clinton, he added, was prepared to come before the committee and stay as long as necessary to answer all queries about the Benghazi attack and her emails. Kendall reminded Gowdy that Clinton has already testified about Benghazi before other House and Senate committees (which, by the way, have found no wrongdoing or conspiracies on her part). In a not-so-veiled jibe at Gowdy, Kendall noted that Clinton "believes that the Members of the Committee are able to decide how much they will focus on the tragic deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, including what can be done to keep those who serve our country safe—and how much they will focus on how she e-mailed." After all this parrying, the question is, does Gowdy want to have Clinton testify about the what transpired in Benghazi (and Washington) and proceed with the investigation—the House GOPers have already spent more time investigating Benghazi than Congress devoted to the Iran-contra scandal—or does he want to play cat and mouse with Clinton far into the election cycle? By the standard Gowdy cited during his interview with Susan Page, Clinton will not be able to satisfy him about the emails. After all, given how she and her aides handled those records, there is no way for her to provide an iron-clad guarantee. But will Gowdy exploit that to drag out his inquiry and prevent Clinton from an appearance in which she presumably will defend her actions and swat aside the various Benghazi conspiracies (as she has previously done)? At this stage, Clinton is eager to address the core issues and move on, and Gowdy is focusing on the emails and establishing potential grounds to stop her from testifying publicly about the attack itself. If no deal is sorted out, the committee could end up blocking Clinton from testifying about the main event. That could look odd to some. But any delay—as politically brazen as it might appear—could well inconvenience Clinton more than the committee. Warren and fellow ‘sheriffs of Wall Street’ waiting for more from Clinton <http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/05/04/female-sheriffs-wall-street-waiting-for-more-from-clinton/CtyqNylP9yKptUHQu9lBUI/story.html> // Boston Globe // Deirdre Fernandes - May 5, 2015 The women dubbed the “New Sheriffs of Wall Street” aren’t prepared to deputize presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, just yet. Former top financial regulators Sheila Bair and Mary Schapiro, along with Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, said Clinton just hasn’t outlined clearly the financial regulatory policies she would pursue to protect American consumers and the economy. Bair, the former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., said she fears that Clinton will rely on the same economic team as Obama, which included many veterans of her husband’s President Bill Clinton’s administration. “I worry about it … . They’re very Wall Street friendly,” said the usually blunt Bair, who headed the FDIC during the financial crisis. The trio spoke at Harvard University Monday to celebrate the fifth anniversary of their Time magazine cover heralding the women’s efforts to police the financial sector. Schapiro, who headed up the Securities and Exchange Commission, said she’ll be watching how forceful Clinton is about protecting investors and the need for greater transparency from companies. Warren, who has been encouraged to run against Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said most Americans believe the financial sector could use more regulation. Clinton should ensure that the reforms put in place post-financial crisis aren’t watered down. “She has a real opportunity here,” Warren said. “The key is we’re moving forward, we’re not going back.” Lawyer says Hillary willing to testify once to U.S. Benghazi panel <http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150504/NEWS0605/150509677&source=RSS>// Reuters // Susan Cromwell - May 5, 2015 WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton is willing to testify once before a special congressional panel investigating the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, not twice as the panel's chairman has asked, her lawyer said on Monday. The attack has hounded former Secretary of State Clinton for years, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives investigative panel are digging deeper as she ramps up her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, chairman of the committee, said last month he wanted Clinton to answer questions at two public hearings about Benghazi and her use of a private email server while Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Clinton's lawyer David Kendall said that there was "no basis, logic or precedent for such an unusual request." In a letter to Gowdy, Kendall said Clinton was fully prepared to stay as long as necessary to answer all questions from the committee whenever she appears, but that she would not testify on two separate occasions "when one will suffice." Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed when militants stormed U.S. facilities in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Gowdy's select committee was established last year to investigate the attack, despite numerous other probes by congressional panels and the State Department. The earlier panels issued findings that generally criticized the State Department for not having adequate security at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, but concluded that the Obama administration's response to the attack was proper. Republicans say more inquiry is needed because Clinton's State Department failed to protect diplomatic personnel. Democrats say the panel is politically motivated and that Republicans are dragging out proceedings to undercut Clinton's candidacy. Kendall said Clinton has already testified for more than five hours before other congressional committees on Benghazi. Kendall's letter was released by the office of Representative Elijah Cummings, the senior Democrat on the Benghazi committee. A spokesman for Gowdy said the chairman would take Kendall's response into consideration and issue a statement "regarding the path forward." Hoping to highlight good works, Clintons find controversy instead <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hoping-to-highlight-good-works-clintons-find-controversy-instead/2015/05/05/5c0a7728-f32f-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?postshare=3251430858301167> // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger - May 5, 2015 Bill and Chelsea Clinton are convening foreign leaders here at a lush golf resort set in a palm grove this week to showcase their foundation’s charitable work. But the conference also highlights new controversies engulfing the Clinton family’s vast philanthropic enterprises as Hillary Rodham Clinton begins her presidential campaign. A liberal human rights organization and several Republican lawmakers, for instance, are criticizing the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation for accepting donations from a Moroccan government-owned mining company, whose seven-figure sponsorship of this week’s gathering came amid growing scrutiny of foreign-government donations. Meanwhile, some blue-chip companies that have long provided large donations to the Clinton Foundation are pulling back or reassessing their support. An Exxon Mobil spokesman said this week that the company has decided not to be involved in the Clinton Global Initiative this year. The oil company said its decision was unrelated to recent scrutiny of the foundation, but this is the first year it has not been a sponsor since 2009. Other sponsors, including Monsanto, are reevaluating their partnerships. This week’s flashy Morocco conference — a first-ever Africa and Middle East spinoff of the flagship CGI held each September in New York — underscores the foundation’s controversial fundraising practices, which have become a potential anchor on Hillary Clinton’s nascent campaign. In an interview with The Washington Post, Chelsea Clinton, the foundation’s vice chair, defended its work and suggested that scrutiny was politically motivated. “My family is no stranger to scrutiny and neither is the foundation,” she said. “It has been under intense scrutiny since inception. When you mix together the higher level of scrutiny around the foundation and then the political dimension, I’m not surprised.” The Morocco conference offers the latest examples of the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign entities. The event is sponsored by an array of global corporations, including the state-owned Office Cherifien des Phosphates, or OCP, which has given between $1 million and $5 million overall to the foundation and whose sponsorship of the Morocco conference was first reported by Politico. Human rights advocates — including several members of Congress — have criticized the company’s mining operations in the Western Sahara territory because they claim that OCP does not have the consent of the indigenous population there. The Moroccan government has disputed such charges. Nonetheless, U.S. Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) wrote the Clinton Foundation last month urging it to refuse the Moroccan contribution, citing human rights and fair-trade concerns. “This donation is an example of a blatant conflict of interest” for the Clintons, Pitts said in a statement. “Morocco would like nothing more than having a possible future First Family condone its illegal exploitation of natural resources.” The Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights has also expressed concern about the company. “To us what is concerning is that the donation may be . . . an attempt by Morocco to show that they can mine resources in the Western Sahara and can do so publicly and with impunity,” said David McKean, program officer with the group. Craig Minassian, spokesman for the Clinton Foundation, referred questions about the alleged violations to representatives of the company. Talal Zouaoui, a company spokesman, said contrary to the complaints of activists, the phosphate mining operation is closely connected to the local community. All profits from that mine are reinvested in the plant and the surrounding area, he said. Other sponsors of the Morocco event mirror the kinds of companies that have backed the Clinton Foundation for years — foreign companies with significant holdings and powerful CEOs. They include two of Morocco’s largest financial institutions, the Attijariwafa Bank and the BMCE Group, which is led by Othman Benjelloun, who ranks as Morocco’s richest man. Other money comes from AKWA Group, a Moroccan conglomerate that focuses on oil and gas, and Channel IT, a telecom company founded in Nigeria that has extended its reach to 19 countries in Africa and the Middle East. Channel IT — which hosted a welcome reception for CGI attendees Tuesday in Marrakesh — is led by wealthy entrepreneur Bassim Haidar, a regular at Davos who has signed on with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and bills himself “Lebanon’s First Astronaut.” With Hillary Clinton running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, scrutiny of her family foundation’s finances has become politicized. The Clinton campaign is aggressively attacking a new book, “Clinton Cash,” released Tuesday by conservative writer Peter Schweizer, which focuses on the nexus between the Clintons’ political lives and their philanthropic enterprises. Over the past week, Bill and Chelsea Clinton toured four African countries with a delegation of billionaires, lobbyists and business executives who have given generously to the Clinton Foundation and now are raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, blurring the line between politics and philanthropy. In the Post interview, Chelsea Clinton dismissed the suggestion that donors gave to the foundation — and came along on the Africa trip — to curry favor with her parents. “What people who choose to partner with us, whether it’s in a financial capacity or a programmatic capacity, expect to get is the work that we’ve seen on this trip,” she said during the visit to Kenya. “They expect to make a difference in stopping elephant poaching. They expect to make a difference in expanding secondary education for girls.” Chelsea Clinton added: “Whenever I have had a conversation with anyone, it’s always about the work. I’ve never had anyone talk to me about my parents in a political capacity for a foundation program.” Bill Clinton was defensive to the point of seeming testy in an interview with NBC News this week, saying the foundation had never done anything “knowingly inappropriate” when accepting donations from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia. For years, companies and wealthy individuals, as well as foreign governments, have clamored to be associated with the high-powered CGI conference in New York or its spinoff events. But Monsanto, a multinational agricultural company, is weighing whether to pull its sponsorship of CGI. “As with all of our strategic partnerships and collaborations, we continually assess their value to ensure we are investing in opportunities that will have the greatest positive benefits for society,” Monsanto spokesman Tyson Pruitt said. Spokesmen for two other previous CGI sponsors, Samsung and Deutsche Bank, refused to say whether they would sponsor the conference again this fall. Minassian said he was not aware of an exodus of sponsors. “We have not seen that,” he said, and he called reports of budget troubles “not accurate.” Chelsea Clinton said many employees have been confused by the scrutiny. “When you look at the 2,200 people who work at the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, it would be disingenuous to say it hasn’t affected people,” she said. “But it’s affected people insofar as they don’t understand why the world isn’t more interested in the work that they’re doing.” Republicans have harshly criticized the foundation for accepting millions in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. In response, the Clinton Foundation recently announced it would restrict donations from foreign governments except six Western nations. The foundation also canceled a planned CGI conference this summer in Athens, Greece, which was to focus on economic and social challenges in the Mediterranean region. Plans continue for CGI America, a domestic-themed conference that Bill and Chelsea Clinton are hosting in Denver from June 8 to 10 that will feature Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and Detroit Mayor Michael Duggan (D). After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton founded CGI, intending to create a new model for philanthropy in which he would leverage connections built in policies to play matchmaker between the public, private and nonprofit sectors. At each conference, corporate leaders get to mingle with world leaders, but they also make public commitments to fund targeted charitable programs. Clinton Foundation officials then monitor their progress in fulfilling the pledges. Some CGI supporters said they are proudly standing by the annual gathering. Richard Brown, the president of the Starkey Foundation, which helps provide hearing aids to those who cannot afford them, including many people in Africa, said: “We have witnessed CGI’s good work throughout the world and have committed our support for 2015.” Here in Marrakesh, CGI attendees checking in at the Palmeraie Palace, the luxury resort hosting the three-day conference, said they hoped the spotlight would shift to their charitable work, “I feel that we are above politics,” said Patricia Wyatt, president of Innovation:Africa, a U.S.-based group that tries to bring Israeli technologies, such as solar and drip irrigation systems, to rural African communities. But other attendees see the Morocco conference as an opportunity to make high-level connections. Faruk Taban, president of the Washington-based Turkic American Alliance, said he flew to Marrakesh to meet African business leaders and persuade them to become active in his group — and said that Bill Clinton’s role as convener “obviously was a big motivation to come.” “This is a networking event,” Taban said. “We try to establish connections and get the correct leverage to do our activities.” Bill Clinton says nothing ‘sinister’ in foreign gifts to charity <http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/mct/bill-clinton-says-nothing-sinister-in-foreign-gifts-to-charity/article_d0541535-90f2-5c32-b8b0-6ec2d88ea6d9.html> // Bloomberg // Justin Sink - May 4, 2015 WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton said criticism over his family foundation’s donations from foreign governments is politically motivated and there is no evidence to support suggestions that the gifts influenced Hillary Clinton’s behavior as secretary of State. “I asked Hillary about this and she said, you know, no one has ever tried to influence me by helping you,” the former president said in an interview with NBC News broadcast today. “No one has even suggested they have a shred of evidence to that effect.” There has been a “deliberate attempt to take the foundation down,” Clinton said. But he doesn’t believe there was “anything sinister in trying to get wealthy people in countries that are seriously involved in development to spend their money wisely in a way that helps poor people and lifts them up.” Donations to the Clinton Foundation have come under new scrutiny since the former first lady announced her decision to seek the Democratic presidential nomination. Chelsea Clinton pushes back on scrutiny of family foundation <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/05/chelsea-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations/> // USA Today // Catalina Camia - May 5, 2015 Chelsea Clinton defended her family’s foundation amid questions about donations from foreign governments, essentially agreeing with her father that the Clintons are subjected to a double standard. “My family is no stranger to scrutiny and neither is the foundation,” Clinton told The Washington Post. “It has been under intense scrutiny since inception. When you mix together the higher level of scrutiny around the foundation and then the political dimension, I’m not surprised.” The comments from Clinton, who serves as vice chairwoman of the global philanthropy, follow those that Bill Clinton made in an NBC News interview that aired Monday. The former president also defended the foundation’s donation policies and said criticism is “political” and “part of a very concerted effort to bring the foundation down.” The twin interviews come as Hillary Clinton steps up her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Several news stories have raised questions about foreign money donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State. In her Washington Post interview, conducted while Bill and Chelsea Clinton toured African countries on foundation business, Chelsea Clinton said foundation donors are interested in the charity’s good works and not politics. “Whenever I have had a conversation with anyone, it’s always about the work. I’ve never had anyone talk to me about my parents in a political capacity for a foundation program.” Hillary Clinton's Campaign Declares War Against 'Clinton Cash' <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-s-campaign-declares-war-against-clinton-cash-20150505?ref=t.co&mrefid=walkingheader> // National Journal // Emily Schultheis - May 5, 2015 "Clinton Cash" gets released Tuesday, and Hillary Clinton's campaign is going on the offensive to undercut the book and discredit its author before the message ever reaches readers' hands. With everything from a YouTube video to emails for supporters to Medium posts to a 42-page opposition research report from a Clinton-aligned group, the Democrat's team is throwing everything is has at Clinton Cash. The book, by conservative author Peter Schweizer, accuses Clinton of dirty dealings during her time as Secretary of State, alleging that she traded access and influence for foundation donations—including those from foreign donors. The accusations have been a headache for Clinton since before she announced her campaign, spawning headlines in major newspapers and shifting the national conversation about Clinton far, far away from her campaign message. When the accusations first surfaced, Clinton herself was largely quiet on the topic, dismissing it as an attempt to distract voters from more substantial issues. Since then, they've slowly ramped up their defense efforts: Clinton's campaign issued a lengthy condemnation of a New York Times story regarding a Canadian Clinton Foundation donor getting State Department approval to sell uranium holdings to a Russian company, and her allies launched a fact-check of the Schweizer's allegations when excerpts from the book were floated. Now, with the book's full release, Clinton's team going all out, suggesting they don't see the accusations as controversies that will burn themselves out, but rather as a fire they need to actively extinguish. For campaigns, pushing back on unflattering reports is pro-forma, but the team's effort goes above and beyond the standard plan. On Tuesday morning, Clinton's campaign launched what it's calling "The Briefing," a new section of its website paired with videos and posts on other social media platforms, that aims to combat what an email to supporters describes as "whatever far-flung theories [Republicans] can find in order to try and distract from Hillary's record of fighting for everyday Americans." In the 2.5-minute introductory YouTube video, Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon says the book is "full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence." Fallon goes through all the biggest allegations from the book, cutting to footage from various TV networks, all of which point out the lack of direct evidence or a "smoking gun." (The new Clinton website also lists "10 Things You Should Know" about the book, linking to media coverage of various sections of it.) "The bottom line is this: as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made decisions based on her commitment to protecting America's national security and standing up for freedom and dignity around the world, not the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation," Fallon says. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta posted to Medium about the new effort, pointing to "Clinton Cash" and the Benghazi proceedings on the Hill as proof that Republicans "seem to only want to distort Hillary Clinton's record." The new book is getting further pushback from the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record, which served as an unofficial rapid-response operation before her campaign was announced. In a 42-page report, Correct the Record goes line-by-line through the various allegations in Schweizer's book, including questions about the Foundation's involvement in the Russian uranium company purchase, Bill Clinton's dealings in Kazakhstan and questions over Clinton's support for a U.S.-India nuclear deal. The response is far different from two months ago, when Clinton — who then had not yet launched a full campaign and communications operation — waited eight days to hold a press conference following the revelation that she'd conducted State Department business on a private email server. With "Clinton Cash" in the news these last few weeks, her team has been pushing back pretty consistently, an approach that appears likely to be norm going forward. A Swing and a Miss <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/peter_schweizer_s_clinton_cash_fails_to_prove_anything_the_book_doesn_t.html'> // Slate // Jamelle Bouie - May 5, 2015 here’s a certain rhythm to Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, the most recent tome from conservative writer Peter Schweizer. Take his chapter on the Clintons and India—titled “Indian Nukes: How to Win a Medal by Changing Hillary’s Mind”—which makes the case that Hillary switched gears on an India-U.S. nuclear deal after donations from various Indian elites. After detailing the history of the bill, Clinton’s early skepticism, and Bill’s relationship with prominent Indian donors and officials, Schweizer makes a bold claim: Hillary had not been a supporter of the bill, and her closest aides were all opposed to it. But in September 2008, as the bill’s fate hung in the balance, Amar Singh made a visit to New York to see Hillary. Joining him for a private dinner with the senator was Sant Chatwal. Opposition to the bill had come primarily from Democrats. Hillary had supported the “killer amendment” two years earlier. According to Amar Singh, they had a two-hour dinner. In the days following, he was confident the deal would go through, based on what he heard. Having grown accustomed to the deal making and influence buying ways of the Indian parliament, he was open with the Indian media about what transpired in New York. (Hillary Clinton probably considered herself fortunate that his comments were never reported in American media.) The structure is clear. Schweizer makes several statements of fact—either through quotes or paraphrasing—but doesn’t ever build connective tissue between them. Instead, he lets them stand, and lets the reader draw the conclusion that Schweizer outlines in the very beginning: that Bill and Hillary traded influence for cash and donations. But for as much as he can make the Clintons look bad with lurid examples of iffy transactions—Chatwal, for instance, arranged a $450,000 speaking gig for Bill Clinton—Schweizer never gets around to giving definitive proof of illegal deals or unethical behavior. Take the India affair: Not only does Schweizer lack evidence of a tit-for-tat between Clinton and the Indian donors, but he gets key details wrong. He writes that in 2006 she was a “reluctant and questionable supporter of the bill,” but in June of that year—notes Politico—she issued a press release announcing her plan to vote for the legislation. Likewise, contra Schweizer, Clinton voted for two of the three “killer amendments” that put safeguards for nonproliferation on the agreement. It’s this missing evidence that consistently hurts the case for wrongdoing in Clinton Cash. You saw this in the follow-up from outlets like the New York Times on the uranium deal between the United States and a Russian state energy company. Both Schweizer and the New York Times detail donations and associations without showing a causal relationship between the Clintons and any particular deal. And Schweizer, in particular, ignores crucial context. Yes, the Clinton Foundation received donations from the same executives who would benefit from the sale. At the same time, Hillary was just one of a group of officials who reviewed the deal, and she didn’t have the power—as Schweizer claims—to “veto” the arrangement. That the federal government approved the deal after the donations doesn’t mean the donations had anything to do with the deal. To prove otherwise requires a much more exhaustive look at the details of the deal and of the relationships among all the characters. Schweizer doesn’t just rely on classic logical fallacies. He gets facts wrong as well. In the book’s chapter on Haiti—titled “Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style”—Schweizer notes that Bill was paid $600,000 for speeches by a company trying to secure a mobile phone contract in the country. He then notes that the company, Digicel, began receiving contracts from USAID, and that Bill gave a speech just weeks before Digicel received its first grant. But, as a Clinton spokesman told BuzzFeed, “neither the former president nor the Clinton Foundation was paid for two of the three speeches Clinton gave in Ireland, and that while the foundation did receive a donation following his Sept. 29, 2010 speech, Clinton himself was not compensated.” What’s more, the final speech was given a full year before the contract was awarded, and the company itself had a prior relationship with USAID. None of this looks good for the Clintons, and Schweizer might be right about what it means. But he hasn’t done the work to show it. Overall, Clinton Cash is best described as an exercise in question begging, in which you assume your conclusion in the premise of your argument. Schweizer believes that the Clintons are corrupt influence peddlers who have enriched themselves at the expense of America’s interests, and he’s written a book to justify himself. What hehasn’t done is written a book that proves his claims. Instead, all he has is a compendium of bad decisions and gross behavior that a more sober-minded writer could have used to make a real hit on the Clintons. As it stands, they will brush this off like they have most attacks from the right. Indeed, there’s a sense in which Schweizer knows that he hasn’t done anything to hurt his intended targets. “I realize how shocking these allegations may appear,” he writes at the beginning of the book. “Are these activities illegal? That’s not for me to say. I’m not a lawyer.” What you don’t know about the “Clinton Cash” author <https://americanbridgepac.org/what-you-dont-know-about-the-clinton-cash-author/> // American Bridge 21st Century // Brad Woodhouse - May 5, 2015 The author of “Clinton Cash,” the latest conservative hatchet job against Hillary Clinton, is a right-wing Republican operative who was an advisor to Sarah Palin and a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. But what you might not know about Peter Schweizer is that he has deep ties to the Koch brothers and the right-wing billionaire bankrolling Sen. Ted Cruz’s nascent campaign. He’s a current contributor to conservative blog Breitbart and is thepresident of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a right-wing research group. “Clinton Cash” has already been repeatedly debunked by reporters given early access to the accusations, which is no surprise given Schweizer’s history as a conservative researcher peddling misleading and false attacks that have discredited his work. American Bridge today released a video of FOX, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC anchors confronting Schweizer during his media blitz with the pesky fact that he doesn’t have any evidence for his theories. Even Schweizer admits that he found “no direct evidence” of any wrongdoing by Clinton. Schweizer’s publisher, HarperCollins, expressly discloses that the book “does not allege illegal or unethical behavior.” When reading the coverage swirling around “Clinton Cash” or the anti-Clinton book itself, consider Schweizer’s past: 1. Schweizer’s deep ties to Koch brothers As with just about any dubious attack on Democrats, the Koch brothers are inextricably connected to Schweizer. The Koch brothers might have funneled $1.5 million to Schweizer through donations from Donors Trust, which a former top IRS official has said the Kochs use as an anonymous pass through for their donations. In return, Schweizer has spoken to several Koch groups. In February 2014, he gave a speech to the Charles Koch Institute. In March 2014,Schweizer spoke to Regent University’s Koch Leadership Program for undergraduates. And according to The Nation, Schweizer spoke to the Kochs’ annual summer conference in June 2014. 2. Billionaire bankrolling Cruz campaign also funds Schweizer Robert Mercer is a key backer of Cruz’s campaign and is the primary donor behind the network of four Cruz-allied Super PACs that raised $31 million already. He’s also funneled at least $2.5 million to the Koch brothers’ Freedom Partners Action Fund and earned the title "ultimate behind-the-scenes kingmaker" during the 2014 midterm elections. The Mercer Family Foundation, which is headed by Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah Mercer, donated $1 million to Schweizer’s GAI in 2013 alone. Rebekah Mercer was also on the Board of Directors at GAI. And ever since Bob Mercer funneled $2.5 million to the Koch’s Freedom Partners Action Fund, they’ve been recruiting Rebekah Mercer to join their sprawling political network. As MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explained, "When you take a closer look at Mr. Schweizer's organization and who is backing him, it is a who's who of big right-wing funders.” 3. Schweizer attacked Clinton in 2008 book Schweizer wrote a 2008 book called “Makers and Takers” that was filled with personal attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton, but is trying to sell “Clinton Cash” as “bipartisan citizen action” in the intro to the book. He said Hillary Clinton had an “impressive record of public whining.” He argued that Clinton’s and other Democrats’ focus on income inequality meant they were obsessed with money and “preoccupied with material things.” He even attacked Clinton’s advice on raising children, saying “liberals who express little interest in having children of their own want control over how other people’s children are raised. As Hillary Clinton told Newsweek, ‘there is no such thing as other people’s children.’” 4. Conservative Foundation funneled $1 million to Schweizer while head was on GAI’s Board Rebekah Mercer served on the Board of Directors at Schweizer’s GAI as recently as 2013, when the Mercer Family Foundation she runs also donated $1 million to GAI. She’ the daughter of conservative billionaire Bob Mercer, who’s funneled millions to the Koch brothers and Ted Cruz, among other right-wing Republican candidates. Mercer even threw a cocktail party for Cruz at her New York City apartment the same day he announced his presidential bid. Close friends become even closer. 5. Schweizer’s prior claims have been repeatedly debunked Schweizer has had at least 10 serious issues where fact-checkers and media outlets have found significant errors questionable sourcing, or have forced retractions of his work. Among them: · “Bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101” -- In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that President Obama and then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, held zero one-on-one meetings. The Washington Post said Schweizer's story “bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101.” · “Bogus” -- In 2012, The Washington Post fact-checker deemed Schweizer's claim that President Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings “bogus.” Furthermore, he said, “we had nearly given this data four pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with three. It turns out, presidents receive intelligence briefings in different formats that Schweizer did not consider. BySchweizer’s standards, President Reagan would have missed 99 percent of his briefings.” · “Partisan Source” -- In 2012, Schweizer was exposed for his inflated allegations that President Obama’s major donors received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. FactCheck.Org excoritated his data saying, “We find that figure is both inflated and from a partisan source that Crossroads obscures with deceptive attribution.” · “Incorrect” -- In 2011, Schweizer was forced to retract his insider trading charge against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Providence Journal noted “numerous factual problems with Schweizer's allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn't a member of the committee in question at the time.” · “Inaccurate”-- In 2010, USA Today was forced to issue a correction on Schweizer’s op-ed. “Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.” · “The facts don't fit Schweizer's claim” – In 2006, KGO TV in San Francisco investigated Schweizer’s claim against Nancy Pelosi and found “the facts don't fit Schweizer's claim.” 6. Schweizer attacked Disney for supporting gay employees Some of Schweizer’s most egregious attacks are in his 1998 book, “Disney: The Mouse Betrayed: Greed, Corruption, And Children At Risk.” This book is so incendiary that Schweizer has scrubbed it from his website, which claims to list all of his writing under the section, “all books.” He accuses Disney of pushing a homosexual agenda, specifically by giving benefits to their gay employees, being too accepting of gay culture, and making heroines too feminist. Schweizer alleged that there was “collusion” between Disney and the “outrageous” acts of the LGBT community. Wildly, he suggested that Disney gave its gay employees unfair “special treatment” as it was cutting benefits of straight employees. 7. Schweizer co-authored book depicting theoretical U.S. wars In 1998, Schweizer wrote about the theoretical wars the U.S. would be fighting through the next decade in a book he co-authored, “The Next War.” He believed the U.S. would begin wars with both Japan and Mexico, and that Russians would successfully occupy most of Europe. (Map included!) Clinton, Democratic presidential opponents to debate six times <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/index.html> // CNN // Mark Preston - May 5, 2015 Washington (CNN)Democrats will announce Tuesday six presidential primary debates, giving long shots a potential opportunity to share the debate stage with frontrunner Hillary Clinton, CNN has learned. The Democratic National Committee has plans for debates to occur in the early-contest states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The two other locations will be decided at a later date. The DNC will set the criteria for debate inclusion and any candidate who participates in a separate debate outside of the sanctioning process will be barred from future DNC debates, a Democratic official told CNN. The official said that the DNC decided six debates was a reasonable number and in line with what the national committee sanctioned in 2008. The debate process won't begin until the fall, according to the official, because that is "when voters are truly beginning to pay attention." The Democratic debates will be sponsored by state Democratic parties, civic groups, and national and local broadcast media. Details including specific dates and broadcast networks for each debate will be announced at a later date, the official said. Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, are the two only announced candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb have all said they are seriously considering running for the Democratic nomination. Republicans have a much larger and more contested field of candidates. They will sponsor between nine and 12 primary debates beginning in August. The Democratic presidential debates are great news for Hillary Clinton <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/05/the-democratic-presidential-debates-are-great-news-for-hillary-clinton/> // Washington Post // Chris Cillizza – May 5, 2015 Democratic presidential hopeful and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton speaks with students and faculty of New Hampshire Technical Institute, Concord Community College, on April 21, 2015, in Concord, New Hampshire. T(Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images) Hillary Clinton got some much-needed good news on Tuesday when the Democratic National Committee announced that it would hold six presidential primary debates starting this fall. What?! you say. How can it be a good thing for Clinton to be in a bunch of debates (okay, six) with candidates who will see these skirmishes as their best (and, really, only) chances of knocking her front-runner block off? Sure, the debates will give every Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley an equal-ish platform to Clinton that they could never afford -- literally -- otherwise. But, viewed broadly, the debates are likely to do Clinton more good than harm. Remember that Clinton and her team want to make sure you and everyone else knows that she is not taking this nomination for granted -- despite the fact that the field running against her is not exactly the 1927 Yankees. What better way to show that she is willing to fight for the every vote than to stand on a debate stage six times with the other candidates? That leveling process is a net good thing for Clinton in a way it wouldn't be for virtually any other candidate. While this would be seen as "punching down" for most well-known candidates, Clinton badly needs to avoid the appearance of a coronation, and a bunch of debates is a very good way to do that. Then there is the fact that Clintonworld would like some positive media coverage during the primary and some credit for winning it. Clinton is, if the 2008 campaign is any evidence, a skilled and poised debater who will likely perform well in the six showdowns to come. Her debate performances will then provide a storyline that isn't about her e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation or how much she or her husband were paid to give speeches. Clinton and her top aides abhor process stories, but a series of pieces about her ability and agility on the debate stage would be the sort of process-y story they would welcome with open arms. Clinton also doesn't want the prevailing sentiment of the coverage, especially among Democratic voters, to be that she beat a bunch of nobodies and proved nothing in the process. An ideal Clinton primary win would be one in which she was challenged just enough to get credit for not just winning but for answering some of her critics in the process but not one so competitive that, well, she wasn't guaranteed victory. A series of debates lends credibility to Clinton's challengers that they might not be able to acquire otherwise. Then there is the general election consideration. Clinton has not been an active candidate for anything since mid-2008. She is rusty -- as any candidate would be who hasn't run for anything in seven years. Carefully stage-managed conversations with average people in early primary and caucus states is not the same thing as a freewheeling debate when it comes to getting your game legs under you for the general election. Clinton's people might not ever admit it publicly, but she undoubtedly needs practice before the three highly watched and highly meaningful general election debates against the GOP nominee. These warm-up debates will give her just that. Taken together, the debates are a very good thing for Clinton. They expose her to risk, sure, but the rewards for her campaign are far greater. Hillary Clinton's rope-line antagonist <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-2016-andrea-mitchell-117647.html> // POLITICO // Hadas Gold - May 5, 2015 In the usual scrum of reporters crowded around Hillary Clinton, sticking microphones, cameras and phones in the Democratic front-runner’s face on her campaign trips to early states, one face and voice in particular stands out. Over and over again she calls out: “Mrs. Clinton!” “Hillary!” “Ma’am!” It’s Andrea Mitchell, host of “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on MSNBC, a top correspondent for NBC News, and a veteran of the Clinton beat who will spearhead the network’s Clinton coverage for 2016 — years after driving coverage on big stories like Whitewater, Bill’s impeachment, and Hillary’s first forays as a candidate. Mitchell, 68, is back on the trail, acting more like a cub reporter hungry for her first scoop than a star television journalist with her own show or a Washington insider married to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan. She’s one of the most senior reporters covering the race, and one of the most outwardly aggressive, calling Clinton out, chasing her down, asking her questions — and occasionally getting a roundabout answer. Some sources suggest she’s getting under the Clinton camp’s skin, a rope-line irritant constantly shouting after the former secretary of state to answer questions. For Mitchell, it’s second nature. “Sometimes people use the term ‘aggressive’ pejoratively. It is not anything to apologize for. I love to go after stories. I’m passionate about whatever I’m covering. I’m competitive, and I think nothing could be more important than getting under the surface of a political campaign, especially one this important, this historic,” Mitchell said in an interview. As for constantly asking Clinton questions on the trail, even when she knows the Democratic front-runner is unlikely to answer, she explains: “It’s wanting to tell a story that’s more thorough and complex than a stage-managed event that the candidate is giving you, whether it’s Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush.” Mitchell followed Clinton’s campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire, and was in Nevada with her this week. “I think [reporting from the trail] is the only way to really understand the dynamics of a candidate, what she’s saying, or he,” Mitchell said. “You have to be able to hear the nuance, a change in what she says about trade, a hint that she’s expressing a different view on a policy, the way she interacts with voters. I wanted to see it.” One reporter on the trail relayed tales of spotting Mitchell jostling with other journalists waiting outside of an event, and making sure they were sidled up next to her since she was likely to get a question in. Others said she’s known to incessantly shout questions at Clinton and is often a figure in campaign pool reports. “Man, do I admire her,” New York Times reporter Amy Chozick said in an email. “Way too often journalists get rich and famous and stop doing the shoe-leather reporting that got them there in the first place, but Andrea is a workhorse yelling questions on the campaign trail with the rest of us.” Hillary Clinton reacts to applause from the crowd before speaking during the sixth annual Women in the World Summit, Getting Clinton to answer a question has been somewhat of a rare feat since her campaign started several weeks ago. She has yet to sit down to a formal interview since announcing her candidacy and according to National Journal, has only answered seven questions from the media – many of them non-answer answers. In New Hampshire, Mitchell actually got something of an answer about what Clinton thinks about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. “Do you have any concerns about the trade deals and whether that will hurt — ” Mitchell asked. Clinton initially ignored the question, raising her hand toward the press pool as though to pause them and continuing to chat with school officials. But a few moments later she responded, marking the first time she had personally weighed in on a fraught piece of legislation pitting the Elizabeth Warren-led left against President Barack Obama, centrist Democrats, and most Republicans. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security, and we have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive,” Clinton said. More dodge than answer, it was nonetheless more than anyone else had gotten her to say. Mitchell, meanwhile, is emerging as an ombudsman of sorts for the Clinton press pack. In Iowa, she spoke to fellow reporters about pushing for more access and information about Clinton’s campaign and schedule and making sure the pools included correspondents. “We had some private conversations while we were waiting for another one of these very controlled roundtables, because I think they thought that having a photo spray inside a cafe without … identifying who the people were, or where she was going or any chance for questions was going to be satisfactory press coverage,” Mitchell said. “I think they learned and to their credit they changed it by New Hampshire.” And Mitchell makes no apologies for her complaints about the Clinton campaign’s clenched-fist media management strategy. By her reckoning, the Hillary Clinton of 2015 has been even less available to the press than during her first run for president, in 2008, and much less accessible than any of the Democratic candidates in previous election cycles. “To think that a presidential candidate can be driving around a primary or caucus state without anyone knowing where they’re going but have us waiting for hours for a very controlled conversation with pre-selected voters, it’s just inviting media criticism,” Mitchell groused Mitchell has covered both Clintons for years, dating back to the early 1990s, when she covered former President Bill Clinton’s first run for president. It was actually Mitchell who asked Hillary the question that led to the infamous “tea and cookies” quote. The question had nothing to do with food. It was 1992, and Mitchell had staked out a good location at a diner hours before Clinton would be stopping by for a campaign photo-op. Mitchell, by then a seasoned political correspondent, surprised the future first lady with a question about Hillary’s law firm and an obscure Arkansas land deal, later known as “Whitewater.” Clinton responded acidly that she had chosen to pursue her profession instead of staying home in order to have “baked cookies and served teas,” a quote that opened Clinton up to criticism that she didn’t appreciate the everyday American housewife. “It was an example of how important it is to cover an event yourself, no matter how routine, rather than relying on a producer or other surrogate,” Mitchell wrote in her 2006 book “Talking Back.” “Unfortunately it gave me a reputation for being very aggressive, for getting in people’s faces — not a popular quality with candidates or their aides.” Mitchell then covered the Clinton White House (where she was deemed the “White House watchdog” and “pit bull” in a USA Today profile), Hillary’s 2000 run for Senate, and her 2008 run for president before breaking the news that she would be appointed secretary of state. “That’s some history,” Mitchell reflected. “I think in many ways that experience makes me more empathetic to how she’s reacting to certain situations.” In one memo released by the Clinton library about the press that would be traveling with Hillary to the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, Press Secretary Lisa Caputo outlined which reporters on the trip she thought had given Clinton positive treatment and would be helpful for Clinton to cozy up to, like Terry Hunt, Larry McQuillan, Claire Shipman and Martha Teichner and Ann Compton, whom Caputo deemed a converted “Hillary fan.” Mitchell, Caputo wrote, wasn’t a “Hillary fan” but one to contend with: “Andrea Mitchell, NBC – Former White House correspondent. She was replaced by Brian Williams, whom NBC is grooming to take over for Tom Brokaw. Andrea now covers the State Department. She is very aggressive and a very good reporter.” OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE Asking Martin O'Malley To Explain Baltimore <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/asking-martin-omalley-to-explain-baltimore/392441/> // The Atlantic // James Fallows – May 5, 2015 Just ten days ago, President Obama was one of several speakers at the White House Correspondents Dinner to deliver a casual slight to Martin O'Malley's not-yet-official 2016 presidential aspirations, based on the premise that no one had ever heard of him. Obama's joke was that Hillary Clinton had started off her campaign by going unrecognized at a Chipotle—and Martin O'Malley had gone unrecognized at a Martin O'Malley campaign event. Hardee har! [The unmentioned "meta" aspect of the joke is that most presidential candidates necessarily go through the humiliating "You're running for what???" stage of campaigning, notably including the ultimately nominated-and-elected Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.] It's a joke no one would make about O'Malley now. Protests over Freddie Gray's death were spreading in Baltimore even as the black-tie dinner took place 40 miles away in northwest Washington. Martin O'Malley—for eight years a Baltimore city council member, for seven years its mayor, for eight years until this January the governor of Maryland—came back to his city from an overseas trip, walked the streets, received both congratulations and criticism, and generally found himself at the center of the intersecting debates about inequality, opportunity, justice, and accountability that will certainly play a large role in the American politics of the next 18 months and the American realities of the era ahead. Bernie Sanders' "socialism" may have mainstream appeal // <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-bernie-sanders-socialism-20150505-story.html> LA Times // David Horsey – May 5, 2015 Finally, conservatives have a real socialist to go crazy about. Instead of concocting dark fairytales about how Barack Obama, a very conventional liberal Democrat, is a secret Marxist who wants to destroy the American way of life, they can shriek about Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who has never shied away from the socialist label. Bernie Sanders version of socialism is not all that radical Sanders is now the first person to challenge Hillary Clinton in the race to win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Clinton, though, is not his real adversary, Sanders says. He refuses to make disparaging comments about Clinton and insists he has never run an attack ad in any campaign and will not do so against her. Sanders wants to take on the billionaires, not Hillary. Nobody gives the 73-year-old Sanders a chance of stopping the Clinton political juggernaut, but some think he could make it veer to the left. If the Vermonter gets traction in debates and primaries with his unabashed progressive positions, Clinton might be forced to match at least some of his rhetoric. Would that be a bad thing for Democrats? Not if enough beleaguered middle class voters get a chance to consider what Sanders’ version of “socialism” entails and like what they see. Let’s consider some of Sanders’ wild ideas: Free college tuition. That is something that students can count on in many European countries and once was not uncommon in the United States. In what many consider the most golden era of the Golden State, California’s great public university system was tuition-free. In many other states, students paid only a few hundred dollars per year to go to top state colleges. Now, of course, American students are graduating with crushing student loan debts while many others cannot afford to pay in the first place. Sanders’ idea seems radical only in that it makes radically good sense. A $1 trillion program to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges. This would not only create thousands of jobs, it would finally address the country’s glaring infrastructure crisis that threatens freight mobility and interstate commerce. This sounds pretty pro-business — in a good way. Break up giant financial institutions. “If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist,” Sanders says. Unless you enjoyed the economic crash of 2008, this probably sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. Publicly funded elections. Instead of seeing the spectacle of candidates for president and Congress taking turns begging for money at gatherings of billionaires and corporate lobbyists, public funding for campaigns might encourage politicians to pay attention to those of us who don’t have the ability to buy influence in our government. This feels vaguely un-American only because it has been so long since money did not rule American politics. Higher taxes on the wealthy. Well, obviously, the schemes Sanders wants to enact would not be free. The money has to come from somewhere. The United States is a very rich country and should be able to do things like rebuild bridges, fix highways and insure that the next generation gets an education without being loaded with debt. The problem is that the vast majority of that wealth is held by a tiny few and a huge share of the new dollars coming into the economy are derived from the financial sector. Those financiers are really bad at creating middle class jobs, but they are experts at avoiding taxes. Getting more of the wealth spun from elaborate financial trickery to spend on the common good rather than on more mansions in the Hamptons may be a radical idea, but it’s not necessarily a bad idea. Government-run healthcare. Yup, this one really is socialism. It’s what they have in hellish commie wastelands like Germany, Denmark, Japan, Canada and the rest of the industrialized world. It’s also what Americans over the age of 64 have. We call it Medicare. Sanders is never going to be president. Most voters are not ready to approve his full program. Still, he will have done this country a great service if, through his blunt talk and grandfatherly presence, he gets more citizens to stop being distracted by scare stories and political labels and to start considering ideas on their merits. A 40-hour work week, a minimum wage and restrictions on child labor were once thought of as subversive, socialist doctrines, but they have turned out to be pretty good ideas for Americans — except maybe for the billionaires. Warren met privately with 'Draft Warren' supporters <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/warren-met-privately-with-draft-warren-supporters-117671.html> // POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 5, 2015 Elizabeth Warren says she has no intention of jumping into the 2016 race. But she recently met behind closed doors with members of the “Draft Warren” movement who are urging her to run for president. The Massachusetts senator held a private April 22 meeting with a small group of progressive leaders from across the country – including some vocal “Draft Warren” supporters who continue to hold out hope that she’ll enter the presidential race. In an hour-long meeting with her staff and a 30-minute meeting with Warren, the group of about a half-dozen top progressive activists — including three who were active in the Draft Warren movement — did not discuss the draft campaign. Instead, the conversation focused on issues of social and racial justice. They highlighted specific issues the senator can use to influence the presidential debate in 2016 and, they hope, push Hillary Clinton to the left on issues including police brutality, immigration reform, the privatization of prisons, and reducing naturalization fees to promote naturalization, among other issues. The meeting’s purpose was to see “how Elizabeth Warren, with her platform, could work with us to move a progressive vision for the country and really engage with communities of color,” said Jonathan Westin, director of New York Communities for Change, who attended. “That goes hand in hand with what she’s already doing. The language she is speaking is part and parcel of what we believe is wrong with this country.” An aide to Warren maintained that the senator did not know the group she was meeting with had any connection to the “Draft Warren” campaign until POLITICO informed her office. “The point of the meeting was to discuss economic and social justice issues,” the aide said. “As Senator Warren has said many times, she does not support the draft group’s efforts and is not running for President.” But Westin is a vocal supporter of the “Draft Warren” campaign who, as a co-chair of New York’s Working Families Party, voted for the political party to join the Draft Warren coalition last February. Just weeks before the sit-down with Warren, he wrote a blog post for MoveOn.org calling for her to run for president. His co-author on the piece, Katelyn Johnson, executive director of Chicago’s Action Now Institute, also attended the sit-down with Warren. “Elizabeth Warren is not the only candidate who could ensure a robust presidential primary, but she is the best,” they wrote. “[Warren] is the one who can truly give Clinton a run for the money and yes, even has a shot to win the nomination. We urge Warren to acknowledge the importance of this political moment and enter the race.” At the meeting with Warren, they were also joined by Daniel Altschuler, managing director of the Make The Road Action Fund, which is also on the advisory council of the Working Families Party and supports the “Draft Warren” movement. But no effort was made during the meeting to urge the senator to enter the race. “This was about someone who we want to be sharing the issues that are affecting communities of color and working class communities to make her the strongest possible champion on those issues,” Altschuler said. “The senator has been a tremendous champion on issues of the financial system run amok and income inequality. We think that a lot of the issues affecting our communities are tied to those big financial systems, we wanted to share some of the issues we’re working on.” Attendees said they did not discuss their presidential aspirations for Warren, but some in the group – which included Shabnam Bashiri from Rise Up Georgia; Bill Bartlett from Action United, a Pennsylvania group; and Brian Kettenring, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy – privately pointed out that November 2016 is a long time away and insisted there is still plenty of time for her to get in if she decides to do so. If Warren wanted the group to stand down, the meeting with some of its diehard supporters did little to advance that goal. “I would still love to see her run for president,” said Westin, speaking after the meeting. “Connecting with the grassroots groups is a very big piece of how we continue to amplify her message. People are getting away with murder — literally and figuratively, on Wall Street.” The “Run Warren Run” campaign was launched in December 2014, by Democracy for America and MoveOn and coordinates with Ready for Warren, another group urging the senator to run. In a letter to the FEC from her attorney last August regarding the Ready for Warren PAC, Warren said she “does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization’s formation or activities.” But the shared position of many who met with her last month is that Clinton needs a serious primary challenger. “The Democratic party needs a contested primary,” said Jennifer Epps-Addison, director of Wisconsin Jobs Now, who was also in the Warren meeting. “Black folks in our communities have been systematically attacked. It’s not simply about police brutality. Our goal in talking to Warren was to make those connections the same way we did during the civil rights movement.” She said her goal was to get Warren “to be talking about racial justice as part of her progressive message.” While she is not part of the “Draft Warren” movement, Epps-Addison added, “We feel that many Democrats are not speaking truthfully to the values that many of the base and voters are concerned about, including black folks.“ In the absence of a competitive Democratic primary, however, some progressives are hoping they can at least push Warren to be the party’s agenda-setter. “For Sen. Warren, you’re seeing her evolve from a very effective advocate on a set of issues into more of a movement leader and a party leadership role,” said Kettenring. “We’re all evolving and she is, too. That’s part of the dynamic at work here. Some of the people I know who were in the Draft Warren movement are people we work with and know, because they’re part of the broader progressive ecosystem. I’d say more of us are stepping up to define the terms of the debate.” Elizabeth Warren: Trade bill could “tear down” Wall Street oversight <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/warren-trade-bill-could-tear-down-wall-street-oversight-117670.html> // POLITICO // Zachary Warmbrodt - May 5, 2015 Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the next big threat to keeping Wall Street risk-taking in check is an upcoming fast-track trade bill — a top priority for President Barack Obama that has attracted liberal opposition. The Massachusetts Democrat said late Tuesday that giving the president greater leeway to negotiate trade deals for years to come is a dangerous proposition because of the chance that a Republican who wants to roll back Dodd-Frank, like Sen. Ted Cruz, could win the White House in 2016. “I very much hope that a Democrat wins the White House in 2016 and again in 2020. But what happens if we have a Republican president in 2016 or 2020? Ted Cruz has already said flatly, ‘We need to repeal Dodd-Frank,’” Warren said in a speech prepared for a Washington dinner hosted by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. “Republicans have been itching to tear down Dodd-Frank from the moment it passed.” Warren launched her latest salvo against the administration’s trade policy as Obama attempts to convince Congress, in particular fellow Democrats, to approve the trade bill to help him wrap up agreements he is negotiating with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe. Warren’s attempt to link the fast-track bill with Wall Street oversight, specifically Democrats’ signature 2010 Dodd-Frank law that sought to strengthen banking regulation after the 2008 crisis, will put some of her more trade-friendly colleagues in an awkward spot. “Let me put this as simply as I can: After fighting hard to protect Dodd-Frank for years, Democrats in the next few weeks could give Republicans the very tool they need to dismantle Dodd-Frank,” Warren said. “Anyone who supports Dodd-Frank and who believes we need strong rules to prevent the next financial crisis should be very worried.” Wall Street banks have kept a close eye on recent trade negotiations, particularly the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe, and have pushed for financial regulation to be part of the talks. Last month, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a joint statement that it is “vital” that the European trade agreement cover financial regulation. Big banks on both sides of the Atlantic are gearing up to use the agreement to “water down” regulations, Warren said. “A six-year fast track bill is the missing link they need to make that happen,” she said. Democrats Take Fire for Exclusivity Clause in Official Debates <http://time.com/3847335/democratic-presidential-debates-exclusive/> // TIME // Zeke J Miller – May 5, 2015 Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University on April 29, 2015 in New York City. Kevin Hagen—Getty Images Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University on April 29, 2015 in New York City. The Democratic National Committee is coming under fire for its takeover of the presidential primary debate process. Just minutes after announcing that it will only sanction six contests and that candidates who appear in any debate outside of those six will be barred from attending a sanctioned debate, Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for likely Democratic contender former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley criticized the small number of debates and the exclusivity requirement. “If Governor O’Malley decides to run, we will expect a full, robust, and inclusive set of debates — both nationally and in early primary and caucus states,” she said in a statement to reporters. ”This has been customary in previous primary seasons. In a year as critical as 2016, exclusivity does no one any favors.” The DNC said the six debate number was the jumping off point in 2004 and 2008 but it was quickly overridden by candidates and news outlets wanting more. In 2008, Democrats faced off more than 20 times before President Obama won the nomination. “The precedent that was set was six, but there was no mechanism controlling that,” said DNC Communications Director Mo Elleithee. “We’ve always said that we’d like to come up with a number and stick with it.” “Every now and then Republicans have ideas that aren’t so terrible, and this was one of them,” he added of the exclusivity clause. But an aide to one Democratic 2016 aspirant said they were taken aback by the exclusivity clause. “In the discussions that the DNC had with potential 2016 candidates, they explicitly said there would be no exclusivity clause and it was a shock to see that they included one in their press release today,” the aide said. “It was all an elaborate game where everything was worked out in advance with the Clinton people,” the aide alleged. Elleithee declined to detail the nature of internal conversations the DNC conducted with candidates and campaigns, including whether the exclusivity clause was a late addition to the parameters. “I have been involved in debate negotiations for various campaigns for nearly 20 years and they are almost always have some people who want more and some people who want fewer,” Elleithee said. Appearing on stage with Clinton would be a significant credibility boost to the likely Democratic field, which includes lesser-known figures like O’Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. Clinton aides understandably want to limit her opposition’s potential for a breakout moment on stage, while protecting a candidate who who occasionally struggled during the 2008 primary debates. Minutes after the DNC announced its debate plans, Clinton tweeted her support. Elleithee added that campaigns were given a heads up about the press release Tuesday morning before it was sent out. But a spokesman for likely presidential aspirant Jim Webb said the former senator’s team had not discussed the debates “internally or externally.” –Additional reporting by Sam Frizell GOP Huckabee Joins Race With Tacit Contrast to Clintons <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/05/huckabee_joins_race_with_tacit_contrast_to_clintons_126499.html> // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg - May 5, 2015 HOPE, Ark. — Mike Huckabee used his metaphor-rich hometown on Tuesday as a backdrop to launch his second bid for president — the setting drawing contrasts at once with former President Bill Clinton, who also hails from Hope, and President Obama, who ran for office on a platform of “hope” and “change” “We were promised hope, but it was just talk,” said Huckabee, a former Republican governor of Arkansas. “Now we need the kind of change that really can bring America from Hope to higher ground.” In a community college auditorium, Huckabee recalled his upbringing in the town that’s now home to roughly 10,000 people, where he said he “was raised to believe that where a person started didn’t mean that’s where he had to stop,” and where he ran in his first race, for student council in junior high school. “So it seems fitting that it would be here that I announce I am a candidate for president,” Huckabee said to cheers from an enthusiastic, conservative crowd of roughly 2,500, including those in overflow areas. At intervals, supporters chanted, “We like Mike” and waved signs supplied by the campaign. Huckabee, who proved a surprisingly strong candidate when he ran for president in 2008, still commands a substantial following among religious and social conservatives, having since then cultivated a national audience with a weekly show on Fox News and as a prolific author. But Huckabee has expressed frustration at the idea that he only appealed in 2008 to evangelical voters — a “misconception,” he told reporters in Washington last month. On Tuesday, he began in earnest to flirt with working-class voters, using his personal story to shape a narrative of social and economic mobility. “I grew up blue collar, not blue blood,” Huckabee said. Huckabee’s strategy has changed in other ways, too. Whereas he announced his previous bid for president during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” his campaign launch on Tuesday was decidedly less low-key, mimicking the flow of a party convention with multiple introductory speakers, including wife Janet Huckabee, and campaign videos. The program kicked off with a musical performance by the candidate’s friend Tony Orlando, the ’70s singer of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree” fame. Still, Huckabee is no frontrunner. He starts the race in sixth place among Republicans, the RealClearPolitics national polling average shows. Huckabee on Tuesday took pains to acknowledge, and even embrace, his standing as an underdog. “I never have been and never will be the favorite candidate of the Washington-to-Wall Street corridor of power,” he said. He added, striking an implicit contrast to the Bill and Hillary Clinton, that he does not have a “global foundation” to advance his name or offer financial security. Huckabee scarcely needed to allude to the Clintons — and not once did he explicitly invoke Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee — because the setting so obviously called the power couple to mind. “I still believe in a place called Hope,” Bill Clinton famously said as he accepted the Democratic nomination for president in 1992. Today, the town is something of a shrine to its most famous son. Huckabee’s own political arc has been inextricably linked to the Clintons. An introduction video Tuesday noted that he took office in “Bill Clinton’s Arkansas,” when Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature. Today, both sons of Hope have cut their immediate ties to the Natural State. The Clintons reside in New York; Huckabee’s primary residence is a beachfront home in Florida. Still, the hometown crowd came out strong for Huckabee on Tuesday, including Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who led the state party in the 1990s when Huckabee first won statewide office as lieutenant governor. Huckabee “led our state with conviction. He led our state with conservative values,” Hutchinson said in his remarks. “That is the type of leadership that we need on the national stage.” The surest early sign that Huckabee would run for president came in January, when he abruptly quit his Fox News show — a move that he and aides insisted he would not have made if he weren’t serious about waging another campaign. Since then, he has gradually laid the groundwork for a bid: publishing a new memoir, traveling to key presidential primary states and, last month, quietly forming an exploratory committee. Huckabee will hope to build on his success in 2008, when he defeated Mitt Romney to win the Iowa caucuses. “I have no presumptions that I’m a lock to win [Iowa] or that I go into it with this unbreakable position in favor,” Huckabee said last month. “But we have a good structure, a good organization, good contacts, a good network there, a good message there. And I do know how to win Iowa.” Early polling shows him in a competitive position in some of the pivotal states. The RCP average shows Huckabee in fourth among Republicans in Iowa and in South Carolina, with a solid 9 percent in each key primary state. Huckabee’s campaign team is also hopeful that he will perform well in the so-called “SEC primary” of Southern states on March 1, which will include Arkansas. Huckabee, allies aim to raise $60 million <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/mike-huckabee-campaign-fundraising-60-million/> // CNN // Sara Murray - May 5, 2015 Hope, Arkansas (CNN)Mike Huckabee is eyeing a more favorable calendar and stronger fundraising chops as the firewalls that will prevent his presidential bid from fizzling out early. After winning the GOP caucuses in Iowa in 2008 and hosting a Fox News television show for years, Huckabee has become a nationally recognized figure. Now the pressure is on for the Republican presidential candidate to prove he can raise money and notch top tier finishes in the early nominating contests. Huckabee's advisers acknowledged he will need a strong finish in Iowa, where Huckabee plans to spend much of this week campaigning. Then the race moves on to New Hampshire, which is less friendly territory for Huckabee and will largely be a fight among moderate Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. On Friday, Huckabee is scheduled to deliver an economic address in South Carolina, another state that where Huckabee could be competitive. But the field there is muddled by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is weighing a potential presidential run. Meanwhile, Florida's two favorite sons -- former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio -- will face off over the Sunshine State. But Huckabee sees an opportunity in a handful of Southern states that are looking to move their contests up to March 1. If the so-called "SEC primary" pans out, it could include a handful of states that Huckabee won in 2008. "The key is what kind of resources do you have beyond Iowa," said Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive of the social conservative organization The Family Leader in Iowa. After years in the public eye as a former presidential candidate and Fox News personality, "I don't think he can come in with $500,000 and say, 'I'm a real candidate,'" Vander Plaats added. Huckabee raised about $16 million in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, before dropping out of the race in March. This time around Huckabee expects to raise about $60 million between his campaign and his super PAC in the early stages of his campaign, an adviser said. A spokesman for Huckabee declined to name the donors who have pledged to support Huckabee, but there are signs the team isn't bluffing about their improved fundraising prowess. Ronnie Cameron, the chief executive of an Arkansas-based poultry producer who has given millions to conservatives, said he would back Huckabee. Huckabee used his announcement speech Tuesday to make a plea for some cash, too, saying he won't be relying on billionaires to back his campaign. "I will be funded and fueled not by the billionaires, but by working people across America," Huckabee said. But, "if you want to give a million dollars, please do it." That remark is already garnering negative press because, while outside groups can accept unlimited donations, the most a presidential candidate can accept from an individual is $5,400. Now that Huckabee is officially a candidate, he and his super PAC are no longer allowed to coordinate. Mike Huckabee and the Continuing Influence of Evangelicals <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/upshot/mike-huckabee-and-the-continuing-influence-of-evangelicals.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0> // NYT- The Upshot // Nate Cohn – May 5,2015 The religious right remains the largest voting bloc in the Republican Party, and that gives Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, the potential to play a big role in the presidential nominating contest. But Mr. Huckabee, who was set to announce his presidential bid Tuesday morning, will have a harder time winning Iowa than he did in 2008, when religious conservatives had serious reservations about the two main candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. This year’s conservative favorites do not have Mr. Romney’s vulnerabilities among evangelicals, like Mormonism or past support for abortion rights. Some candidates might be outright good fits, like Scott Walker, an evangelical Christian and the son of a pastor. Mr. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister who won the Iowa caucuses and five state primaries in 2008, has retained at least some of his support among evangelical Christians, averaging around 8 percent in the polls — as much as fresh-faced candidates like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Credit Illustration by Matt Dorfman and photo by Yana Paskova for The New York Times The similarity of Mr. Huckabee to Mr. Cruz or Mr. Paul extends far beyond their polling numbers. Each has championed the cause of one of the party’s large and distinctive factions — the religious right, the Tea Party and libertarians. In doing so, all three became the favorite of a large bloc of voters — and all but unacceptable to the rest of the party. Mr. Huckabee has received less news media attention than Mr. Cruz or Mr. Paul, but he has an equal chance to play a big role in the race. White evangelical Christians are about 40 percent of Republican primary voters, representing a majority of the vote in many of the party’s caucuses and in the Southern primaries. That gives an evangelical favorite an easy road to winning many contests. Most important, evangelicals also represent nearly 60 percent of Iowa caucus goers, which allowed cultural conservatives like Rick Santorum (in 2012) and Mr. Huckabee (in 2008) to carry the state. So a conservative candidate who hopes to win Iowa, like Senator Cruz or Governor Walker, needs to capture a significant slice of the evangelical vote. Mr. Romney’s failed bid in 2008 is a cautionary tale. He sought to become the main conservative candidate in the race, but ultimately failed to take Iowa because he could not get the support of evangelical Christians. Mr. Huckabee still has the potential to be a spoiler again. He could deny another conservative a large enough share of evangelical voters. He could even win himself. Mr. Huckabee remains a compelling retail politician with strong ratings. He led an NBC/Marist survey of Iowa as recently as two months ago. He has won Iowa before, after all. Of course, Mr. Huckabee did not go on to win the nomination in 2008. And he is unlikely to do so this time. He was pummeled outside the South. Money and organization were part of Mr. Huckabee’s challenge in 2008 in populous, expensive states like Illinois, Florida and California. My Upshot colleague Derek Willis found that just 7 percent of the top 250 Republican donors had contributed to one of Mr. Huckabee’s campaigns, a paltry figure that reflects the secular inclinations of top Republican donors. Continue reading the main story But the limits of Mr. Huckabee’s appeal were ultimately about his message and record. Fiscal conservatives were very skeptical of Mr. Huckabee, who raised taxes and increased spending as a governor. Pat Toomey, the former head of the Club for Growth and a current senator from Pennsylvania, said, “Mike Huckabee is no conservative.” Last month, Mr. Huckabee attacked conservative plans to reduce entitlement spending and said he wouldn’t vote for the Paul Ryan budget plan. The Club for Growth has already indicated its intention to oppose his bid again. Mr. Huckabee has not done much to broaden his appeal over the last eight years. He has, if anything, more fully embraced his populist brand of religious conservatism. He gave a recent interview with an Iowa talk-radio host in which he said the military, under President Obama’s leadership, “punishes” Christians and Orthodox Jews. He added that parents might want to ponder waiting until a new president is in charge before supporting their children to enlist. It was the kind of talk that could continue to make him a favorite of an influential wing of the party — someone who can lead polls and even win states, but who is opposed by much of the rest of the party and is therefore highly unlikely to win the nomination. Correction: May 5, 2015 Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated how Mitt Romney lost the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He was defeated by Mike Huckabee. He did not lose a narrow decision to Rick Santorum (that was in 2012). The populist 1 percenter <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/mike-huckabee-2016-wealth-117627.html> // Politico // James Hohmann – May 5, 2015 LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas—Mike Huckabee was not a millionaire when he ran for president in 2008, and liked to let people know it during his underdog campaign against wealthy rivals like John McCain and Mitt Romney. “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night,” he quipped. Now, after hosting his own Fox News show and a syndicated radio program, while authoring several books, the former governor is solidly – and, some would say, ostentatiously — a part of the one percent. There’s the 10,900-square-foot beachfront mansion he built on Florida’s Panhandle, worth more than $3 million. There are regular trips on private jets, often to elite events at which he has given countless paid speeches. On Tuesday, as he formally kicked off his second campaign for the presidency, Huckabee knows he must reassure his former supporters that he has not changed even as his pockets grew much, much deeper. His announcement, in the small town of Hope where he grew up poor, reflects a broader effort by his campaign to show that he’s still folksy and down-to-earth. “I think I’m the same person that I was,” the 59-year-old told POLITICO during an interview ahead of his announcement. “I haven’t, to my knowledge, changed a single belief or conviction. I believe everything I believed in 2008.” Last time, he won the Iowa caucuses and carried seven other states with a populist message that the little guy was getting trampled by the special interests. “Where my strength really came from was blue-collar working class people,” Huckabee recalled. “They didn’t have money but they had energy. They felt like no one else was there to speak for them or even knew who they were. I think they believed, and I think they still believe, that not only have I come from them – that’s who I am – but that I’ve never lost touch with what it’s like to be out there working harder and getting nowhere.” More than anyone else in the 2016 field, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the former Southern Baptist minister decries the influence of “corporatists” and “globalists” over the GOP. Still, hints of his fabulous new life bleed into his rhetoric. He raised eyebrows during a speech in New Hampshire two weeks ago, for instance, when he recalled a recent conversation with a Russian limo driver. “A couple of weeks ago I was in Los Angeles, and I was going to be on The Bill Maher Show,” he told hundreds of activists at the climax of a half-hour speech. “The driver comes and picks me up at the hotel and is taking me to the studio.” In short, the driver fled the Soviet Union in 1988 with his infant daughter and they’re now living the American Dream: the dad owns the car service company, and his daughter became a nurse. “I said, ‘Dmitri, you make more sense and talk better than 90 percent of the people we’ve elected to Congress,’” Huckabee told the crowd. “He said, ‘Well I don’t think I’ll ever have that platform.’ I told him, ‘Dmitri, you may not. Maybe you don’t want it. But I hope I can tell your story!’” Huckabee still tells his own up-from-the-bootstraps story, but it’s not quite the same as in 2008 – when he’d only been out of the governorship for a year and had a small bank account. During that campaign, in the days before the crucial Wisconsin primary, Huckabee was so strapped for cash that he went off the trail to deliver a paid speech in the Cayman Islands. “You’ve got to work for a living and pay your bills,” he said at the time. He attacked Romney that year for looking like “the guy who laid you off.” He held events at Pizza Ranches because it was free to rent space at the chain restaurant. In the years since, Huckabee has aggressively filled his coffers. A POLITICO report last July highlighted his penchant for using private jets. He’s racked up more than a quarter-million dollars in private air travel bills over the past few years and has routinely insisted that candidates or local parties that he’s coming to support pay the expense. The New York Times recently spotlighted dubious groups Huckabee has rented his campaign email list out to – from survivalists warning of coming food shortages to a group that says there’s a miracle cure for cancer hidden in the Bible (which people can find out about with a $72 subscription to their product). Huckabee recorded an infomercial for a sketchy diabetes treatment that scientists say is bunk. He enters the 2016 race with high expectations. Because he won Iowa last time, many pundits say the caucuses will be do-or-die for him this time. Not surprisingly, his first appearances after the Arkansas announcement are there. “A second or third place finish does not move him forward,” said Ed Rollins, the national chairman of Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, who has not endorsed him for 2016. A broader — and probably more important — question is whether a retread can stand out in a crowded field with fresher faces. Even his rollout has been partly overshadowed by dark horse upstarts like former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, both of whom announced on Monday. Leading social conservatives in Iowa say that Huckabee retains a big reservoir of goodwill, but that he cannot count on retaining his supporters from 2008. Many broke for Rick Santorum in 2012, who will run again. And this time, candidates like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have already been making an aggressive play for his base of support. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is traveling the early states making the case that the party needs to nominate a young, fresh face to contrast with Hillary Clinton. Huckabee notes that he was battling the Clintons for decades in Arkansas before anyone else even heard of them. Huckabee has acknowledged he probably needs to win Iowa again and should perform stronger in New Hampshire than last time. South Carolina, the first state in the South with a primary, could give him a boost if he gets momentum and enough money from the first contests. That makes March 1 central to his strategy. A handful of Southern states Huckabee won in 2008, including Arkansas, have coordinated to schedule an “SEC primary” that day. Ironically, though he’s now rich himself, it’s an open question whether Huckabee will be able to raise enough money to stay in the race through the SEC primary and beyond. He’ll get a lot of small-dollar gifts, but he has yet to demonstrate the ability to put together a high-dollar finance operation. “That’s not been solved, to the best of my knowledge,” said Rollins. Iowa GOP operative Nick Ryan, who ran the pro-Rick Santorum super PAC in 2012, will run the pro-Huckabee super PAC this time. A handful of big donors from the evangelical community could sustain the governor if they chose to do so in this post-Citizens United world, another change since he ran last time. One thing money cannot easily buy is the name recognition that Huckabee already has from his first run. He undeniably enters the race as a well-defined figure, and especially in the case of Iowa Republicans, remains well-liked, according to polls. Huckabee says he has not changed, but he knows campaigns have. He recognizes that he’s likely to be outspent but seems to have satisfied himself that he can raise enough money to be viable. He made clear that his campaign will more aggressively push back on attacks using social media and other platforms. “People asked me how to spell my name eight years ago,” Huckabee said. “They didn’t know what state I had been governor of or for how long. I’ve had a rather significant national platform … It’s not like I’ve been in hibernation for eight years. I’ve been more visible than when I was a candidate or an office holder.” Huckabee has mellowed a bit. His fifth grandchild is on the way. He says he learned a lot of lessons from the last campaign about “pace and rhythm” to inform how he’d approach another one. “You learn not to be overly alarmed at a single poll at any particular point, particularly early,” he said. “You learn not to be overly excitable about the flow of things because it changes so often and rapidly.” Huckabee’s inner circle is packed with loyalists from his 2008 campaign. His daughter, GOP operative Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will manage the 2016 campaign. The governor stressed that he doesn’t want to hire anyone just because they want to work on a presidential campaign. He needs them to believe in the cause. “You can’t win like that,” he said. “You’re better to have a very loyal group of people that are really with you that may be smaller in number than it is to have a huge crowd of people that you’re paying but who would leave you tomorrow if somebody came along.” If Huckabee gets traction, his record will get scrutinized. While still well-regarded by Republicans in Arkansas, there are elements that could be used to sow doubts on the right. Two years ago, he reportedly said the Common Core standards were “near and dear to my heart.” Now he decries them. In 2000, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who was serving time for burglary charges. In 2009, the convict killed four police officers in Washington State. There are also thousands of hours of recordings from his Fox News show and radio show for opposition researchers, including those in the GOP, to scour. He was perhaps the most prominent national Republican figure to rally to Todd Akin’s defense in 2012 after the national party abandoned him over his comments about “legitimate rape.” “He’s said a lot that hasn’t been scrutinized,” said Rollins, his former adviser. One of the things often missing in stories about Huckabee is how central the economic populism is to his message. He’s best known for provocative comments on gay marriage, abortion and social issues. But he’s trying to broaden his base of support beyond born-again evangelicals. “The narrative that I was almost like a monolithic candidate for the evangelicals was never the accurate reality,” he said in the interview. “If I had been, I probably would have been the nominee” in 2008. Huckabee is critical of “trickle-down economics,” as he calls it, using the parlance of the left. His willingness to raise taxes as governor has made him an enemy of the Club for Growth and other conservative groups. He is also against fast track and wants more safeguards in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. For his part, Huckabe e points out that he presciently warned about how fundamentally unsound the economy was throughout the 2008 primaries. “The Wall Street Journal ripped me a new one after the September 2007, Dearborn, Michigan, debate,” he said. “A year later, I was absolutely vindicated in what I said.” Rand Paul, Finally, To Open That Office in Silicon Valley <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rand-paul-finally-to-open-that-office-in-silicon-valley-20150504> // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher - May 5, 2015 May 4, 2015 It was almost eight months ago, on a swing through California, when Sen. Rand Paul declared he would open an office in Silicon Valley to tap into the brains and big bucks of the tech industry. "There's a lot of smart people in Silicon Valley," Paul told the San Francisco Chronicle in September, "and we want to use their brains to figure out how to win." His proclamation spurred an avalanche of news stories, think pieces, and analyses—about how Paul was a different kind of Republican, about how he was appealing to the next generation, about the potential for a libertarian-tech alliance. The problem: For the past eight months, no such Rand Paul outpost actually existed. That's about to change. As Paul returns to the San Francisco Bay Area this weekend for the first time in 2015, he plans to formally open an office there, his spokesman Sergio Gor confirmed. To be fair, Paul didn't promise when, exactly, the Silicon Valley office would be opening last year. "We're in the process of it," he told the Chronicle at the time. But since then, the Kentucky Republican has set up an office in Austin, the Texas tech hub where his digital strategist Vincent Harris is based, and launched his presidential bid. Paul has one public event on his San Francisco schedule so far, appearing at a "disrupting democracy" conversation with Lincoln Labs, a Republican-leaning tech group. Paul also has fundraising meetings scheduled in the donor-rich region. The power players behind Carly Fiorina's campaign <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/carly-fiorina-2016-campaign-staff-power-players-117606.html> // POLITICO // Katie Glueck - May 4, 2015 Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard, is the only female Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential race. Fiorina is running on a combination of her business background and a disdain for “crony capitalism.” She’s also embracing her outsider status and is playing up a reputation she has recently cultivated as the GOP field’s most frequent and tough critic of Hillary Clinton. Fiorina, who has never held elected office and struggles with name identification, faces an uphill battle for the nomination. But she has hired several well-respected operatives to help her political efforts. Her super PAC, Carly for America, had a fairly full staff at the time of her announcement, while her campaign staff is still expanding. Here’s a look at key players so far in Fiorina’s orbit: • Frank Sadler will be campaign manager. Sadler, who at one time worked at Koch Industries, also recently worked at the public affairs firm Cove Strategies, where American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp is a principal. • Sarah Isgur Flores will be deputy campaign manager. Flores is a well-regarded GOP operative who most recently worked at the Republican National Committee as deputy communications director. • Anna Epstein will serve as a spokeswoman. Epstein also previously worked at the RNC. • Amy Noone Frederick is senior adviser for strategy and outreach. Frederick, a GOP consultant, was most recently head of the 60 Plus organization, a senior citizens-focused group. • Lauren Carney, a longtime GOP consultant, is aiding Fiorina’s efforts in the Granite State from the campaign side. She and her husband, GOP strategist Dave Carney, are well-regarded in New Hampshire and have a consulting firm together. • Steve DeMaura is executive director of Carly for America, the super PAC boosting Fiorina’s bid. DeMaura is president of Americans for Job Security, a pro-business outside group. • Tom Szold is political director of the super PAC and is expected to remain there. He has New Hampshire knowledge after managing the unsuccessful campaign of congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia, who has endorsed Fiorina — and he also worked for the RNC in Iowa. • Kerry Marsh is New Hampshire state director for the super PAC. She held the same position for former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign, and is also the chairwoman of the Concord City Republican Committee. Bettie Lamontagne, a conservative activist in the Granite State, is also backing Fiorina (her husband, Ovide, was the 2012 GOP nominee for governor. Both were influential hosts on the 2012 presidential circuit in the Granite State) but isn’t expected to be on staff. • Mary Earnhardt is Iowa state director for the super PAC. The GOP consultant is a veteran of Iowa statehouse politics. • Katie Hughes is communications director at Carly for America. She is a senior account executive at CRC Public Relations, a conservative firm. Leslie Shedd, who previously worked for the Georgia GOP and on Capitol Hill, is press secretary. • Greg Mueller is a senior communications adviser to the super PAC. He is president of CRC Public Relations. • Keith Appell, also of CRC and a longtime conservative operative, is also senior communications adviser to the super PAC. He is a senior vice president at the firm. Carly Fiorina Says She Would ‘Roll Back’ Net Neutrality Rules <http://time.com/3847646/carly-fiorina-fcc-regulations-net-neutrality/> // TIME // Charlotte Alter – May 5, 2015 Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina speaks at TechCrunchÕs Disrupt conference on May 5, 2015 in New York City. Andrew Burton—Getty Images Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina speaks at TechCrunchÕs Disrupt conference on May 5, 2015 in New York City. And she wants the government to use technology to "re-engage" people Carly Fiorina said Tuesday in her first public appearance since announcing her candidacy for the GOP nomination that she would “roll back” the new rules on net neutrality. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO, arguably the presidential candidate with the most experience in the tech industry, came out swinging against the regulations in a talk at TechCrunch’s Disrupt event in New York City. “You don’t manage innovation, you let innovation flourish,” she said. “Regulation over innovation is a really bad role for government.” Other Republican hopefuls have also come out in recent months against net neutrality—or the idea that all web content is treated equally—perhaps in opposition to Obama or in order to protect campaign donations, despite the fact that 85% of Republican voters say they oppose the creation of Internet “fast lanes.” At other points during the talk, Fiorina pointed to her experience in the tech industry as a qualification for the Oval Office. “It is important to have someone in the White House who has a fundamental understanding of technology, and a fundamental vision of how technology could be used,” she said, adding that she hopes to use technology to “re-engage” people in politics. Fiorina also addressed the industry’s inequalities for women, noting that they are “caricatured differently, criticized differently, scrutinized differently, because we’re still different.” To that end, she noted that she was pleased Hillary Clinton is also running for the Democratic nomination. “Obviously I’m running to beat Hillary Clinton, but I think It’s great there there are women on both sides of the aisle running for the highest office in the land.” When the interviewer, a female journalist, asked Fiorina if she would consider a Vice Presidential slot, she bristled and replied: “Would you ever ask a man that question?” In the past, male presidential candidates like former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson have been asked whether they’re running for VP, and the idea has also been posed for former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a presumed Democratic candidate. After the journalist responded that she would, the candidate said, “I’m not running for something else, I’m running because I want this job, and I think I can do this job.” Fiorina: Clinton "pandering" on immigration <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton-immigration/> // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – May 5, 2015 Washington (CNN)Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton was "pandering" in her plan to go further than President Barack Obama on immigration policy. Fiorina, a Republican businesswoman who has emerged as one of the harshest critics of Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, said she first wants to see a more secure border. Fiorina also said she would also support a "path to legal status" for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States -- but only after the legal immigration system was fixed. "The people who worked hard to earn citizenship the right way are totally committed to this country," Fiorina told CNN's Erin Burnett immediately after Clinton spoke extensively about her own immigration platform in Las Vegas. "I think it isn't fair to say to people who've worked hard to earn the privilege of citizenship that 'Never mind. Never mind that you played by the rules. People who didn't get to have the same privileges that you do'." Fiorina, the only female candidate in the Republican field, also swatted away the notion that her general election argument would center only on her common gender with Clinton, though she acknowledged that would neutralize one potential Clinton attack. Carly Fiorina's political career Carly Fiorina's political career 15 photos Instead, she pointed to her tenure as chief executive at Hewlett-Packard, saying that experience distinguished her from the "professional political class." But her record there is not all rosy. Fiorina was eventually forced out as CEO, and she oversaw 30,000 job losses as head of the tech giant. "The only way you succeed as a technology company is by leading, not by lagging," Fiorina said, striking back at unflattering media coverage of her ouster and pointing to less covered parts of her accomplishments. And, she added, she took no pleasure in any of those firings. "The worst thing a CEO can do is to have to say to someone, 'You don't have a job,'" she said. "Everyone had to manage through tough times. And I think that's honestly what distinguishes leadership." She also weighed in on the attack in Garland, Texas, this week at an event showcasing controversial cartoons of Mohammed. "It clearly was provocative, just like white supremacists demonstrating is provocative," Fiorina said. She offered praise for how Obama characterized the gathering that provoked the violence. "I'm very pleased that the President came out and called this what it is, which is an attempted act of terror," Fiorina said. Marco Rubio to raise cash in Bellevue Thursday <http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/marco-rubio-to-raise-cash-in-bellevue-thursday-politics-nw-now/> // Seattle Times // Jim Brunner – May 5, 2015 Republican 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio will raise campaign cash Thursday in Bellevue. Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, plans to attend a 3:30 p.m. round-table discussion that will cost donors $2,700 per person or $5,400 per couple — followed by a reception at $1,000 per person. The events are to be held at Steelhead Partners, a Bellevue investment firm, according to a copy of the invitation. Hosts include the firm’s co-founder, Brian Klein, former state GOP chair Diane Tebelius, and local venture capitalist Matt McIlwain. No public events have been announced and organizers did not immediately respond to requests for more details. Rubio’s visit follows a similar low-key, money-raising stopover by a man who was his political mentor, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who also is traveling the country to raise money for 2016 presidential run — even though he has not declared as a candidate. Bush held a $12,500 per person fundraiser for his Right to Rise super PAC in Seattle last month. Rubio, 43, entered the 2016 race last month, repeatedly calling for “a New American Century” in an effort to contrast himself with the dynasties represented by 2016 rivals, including Bush and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Bush and Rubio topped a crowd of declared or likely GOP presidential contenders in a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll of Republican primary voters. While he’s not well known in Washington state, a Rubio presidency could spell trouble for the state’s legalized marijuana system, if his recent comments are any indication. In an interview last month with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Rubio was asked about Washington and Colorado’s legalized marijuana systems. Hewitt asked whether Rubio would “enforce the federal drug laws and shut down the marijuana trade?” According to a transcript of the interview, Rubio responded: “Yes. Yes, I think, well, I think we need to enforce our federal laws. Now do states have a right to do what they want? They don’t agree with it, but they have their rights. But they don’t have a right to write federal policy as well. It is, I don’t believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you’re sending a message to young people is it can’t be that bad, because if it was that bad, it wouldn’t be legal.” Marco Rubio says the United States is not modernizing its nuclear weapons <http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/may/05/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-united-states-not-modernizing-its/> // Politifact // Amy Sherman – May 5, 2015 U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., argues that the United States needs to do more to beef up its military to face down evil. Speaking at the Iowa Faith and Freedom summit on April 25, Rubio said that threats worldwide "require strong American leadership, which we cannot exert as long as we eviscerate military spending, which is what we are doing now. We are placing our nation at a dangerous position." Then he said this about the country’s nuclear stockpiles: "We are the only nation that is not modernizing its nuclear weapons." We wanted to know whether Rubio was correct that the United States isn’t modernizing its nuclear weapons, so we consulted with experts on U.S. nuclear policy. (We reached out to Rubio’s presidential campaign and Senate office and did not get a response.) Modernizing nuclear weapons Multiple experts told us that Rubio’s claim about nuclear weapons is wrong because ongoing and planned nuclear modernization efforts are extensive. The United States has been spending billions modernizing nuclear equipment -- and has plans to continue to do so. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s March 2015 report to Congress details plans to modernize nuclear equipment including various warheads over the coming years. A Congressional Research Service Report issued the same month covered similar topics. Modernization is happening for many different types of nuclear programs, said Matthew Bunn, an expert on nuclear proliferation and a professor Harvard University. (During the 1990s, Bunn was adviser to the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.) "First, while we haven’t deployed major new strategic systems in some time, we’ve been modernizing the ones we’ve got more or less continuously — new rocket motors and guidance systems for the Minuteman missiles, lots of rebuilt parts for the B-52s, etc., etc. We’re in the middle of a $10 billion modernization of the B-61 bomb," Bunn said. These modernization plans are not cheap. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in January that the administration’s plans for nuclear forces would cost $348 billion over the next decade. During the next three decades, the cost to maintain the nuclear arsenal and purchase replacement systems could rise to more than $1 trillion, according to a 2014 report by the The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The size of the U.S. stockpile has been declining since the 1960s and will decline further under the new START Treaty agreed to with Russia in 2011. But nuclear weapons can "live" for a long time. Several nuclear weapons introduced or upgraded in the 1990s or 2000s can be used for another 20 to 30 years, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. (Kristensen pointed to several upgrades in recent decades.) One analyst we spoke with had concerns that the upgrades aren’t happening fast enough. Tom Donnelly, a defense policy analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told PolitiFact that "we are not really modernizing our nukes very seriously" and that some projects are years -- even decades -- away and could could fall prey to budget cuts. But Benjamin Friedman, an expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that even if some modernization plans were canceled, "we would still be modernizing our nuclear arsenal or our nuclear weapons, just less of them. So any normal definition of ‘modernize,’ describes what the United States is doing with its nuclear weapons." Rubio compared the United States to the rest of the world without naming any other countries when he said "we are the only nation that is not modernizing its nuclear weapons." Rubio said that the United States was "the only nation" not modernizing its weapons, but Bunn, the Harvard professor, said comparing the United States on that basis with other countries is misleading. China, for example, is modernizing its arsenal, but its arsenal is also far smaller. The United States and Russia have over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, he said. "So I would say: (a) not true that we haven’t been modernizing at all; (b) IS (mostly) true that we haven’t bought any big new strategic delivery systems lately; (c) highly misleading not to mention that all nuclear powers other than ourselves and Russia have tiny nuclear arsenals compared to ours," Bunn said. Our ruling Rubio said that the United States "is not modernizing its nuclear weapons." Most of the experts we interviewed disputed Rubio’s statement. While the United States has reduced the number of warheads, it has also been modernizing nuclear equipment and has plans to continue to do so. We rate this claim False. Clinton Cash author: I like Marco Rubio <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-author-i-like-marco-rubio-117630.html?hp=l2_4> // POLITICO // Nick Gass - May 5, 2015 Enough with the doom-and-gloom candidates, says author Peter Schweizer. There needs to be optimism in the race for the White House, the “Clinton Cash” author told POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush in an hour-long interview ahead of his May 5 book launch, noting that he always liked President Ronald Reagan’s upbeat messaging. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would seem to fit the bill this time around, he said. Schweizer, who makes his home in Tallahassee, is also probing the finances of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “If your basic position is ‘everything’s going to heck in a handbasket, we can’t do anything about it,’ that’s going to throw a lot of people off. So I do think the optimism will be there,” Schweizer said. “The question is: Is that optimism backed up by real boldness? Because if you aren’t an optimist and you feel like we are struggling or facing challenges, it’s bold change that’s going to be required.” “You don’t want a grinder as president,” Schweizer said. “You don’t want somebody who’s doom and gloom.” Regarding the Clintons, Schweizer says he has been talking to congressional investigators about his findings, both in the House and Senate, and broached the possibility of more interactions with Republican staff. “I think you need to have congressional committees with subpoena power, and I think you need to have somebody with law-enforcement capability in power, either by DOJ or a federal prosecutor somewhere,” he added. He also revealed details about his process and cast himself as the head of a sprawling Florida-based research team that he described as as an eccentric group of diggers, “Columbo”-type investigators and 30-something computer experts. “I call them the Island of Misfit Toys, ‘cause we have all these different personalities,” he said. “We’ve got some people who have a background in hacking, they are not computer hackers now, but they can do research on the so-called deep web and find information that has not been sort of charted. It’s actually surprising how much information you can find, not going past a firewall doing anything illegal [but finding information] not catalogued by Google.” The Clinton book was funded by specific conservative donors, but not the Koch brothers, with whom he has had a long-term collaborative relationship. “We have received funding from the Kochs in the past, not for this project, but on a project-by-project basis,” he told Thrush. “We have other donors that to varying degrees made this project possible.” He went on to talk about his association with New York-based donor Rebekah Mercer. Schweizer also described his work for Sarah Palin’s PAC, saying he was drawn to her hawkish, assertive views on American foreign policy, but that he turned down her offer to go grizzly bear hunting in Alaska. Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” hits shelves Tuesday. Chris Christie's Other Problems <http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/chris-christie-s-other-problems-20150504> // National Journal // Charlie Cook - May 5, 2015 There was a lot of talk last week about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's presidential hopes suffering a mortal blow after two of his associates, including a former deputy chief of staff, were indicted on charges related to the "Bridgegate" matter, with a third pleading guilty. The only part I would quibble with is whether his hopes were still alive before the indictments or if they were, in fact, already dead for reasons mostly unrelated to the George Washington Bridge controversy. For the first 10 months or so of last year, there were a lot of heavyweight Republicans, many of them big donors, urging Christie to run. They were disproportionately corporate chieftains and Wall Street folks, mostly from the greater New York City area, looking for an establishment-oriented Republican, one more conservative than not, but clearly not from either the tea party or the social, cultural, and evangelical wing of the GOP. The first choice for most of these folks was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, but up until around Thanksgiving, the betting was that the son of one president and brother of another would pass up the race. The understanding was that certain members of his family were unenthusiastic about such a bid. In September and October, word from folks in Bush's orbit was that while it was still more likely that he would not run, the chances of him getting in were rising. Then around Thanksgiving that all changed, and it became increasingly clear that Bush was going to make the leap. Must have been something said over turkey and dressing. (RELATED: Bridgegate Is Back to Haunt Chris Christie's Potential 2016 Run) From the time a Bush candidacy started looking more likely, the wind came out of Christie's presidential sails to the point when he was effectively dead in the water. It was mostly because Bush filled a void that Christie planned to fill in himself. The bridge mess was just icing on the cake. Now things are rarely as simple as that. Christie's style was an acquired taste; I personally find the muscular moderate approach as interesting as it is rare. But it was never clear that the tough New Jersey-guy approach could sell in Iowa and other environs among those who aren't that into Philly cheesesteaks, Coney Island hot dogs, or more importantly, the politics of those who do love them. Also hurting Christie has been the successful campaign launch of Sen. Marco Rubio, adding another attractive face to the center-right breed of Republicans. Curiously, Rubio ran for the Senate against the establishment, as a tea-party conservative. But since coming to the Senate, his approach has been much more conventional, and more into the space that Bush and Christie were occupying than the world of Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, or Dr. Ben Carson, who entered the race this week. There is room for a non-establishment candidate, someone who is conservative, but not overly so—not of the tea-party or social conservative ilk. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker enjoyed a meteoric rise to co-frontrunner status, but seems to have leveled off as Republicans wait to see if he can play at this level, if he has the dexterity to deal with tough questions from the media, opponents, and GOP primary voters, in some cases on subjects that he is not particularly well-versed. A number of cringe-worthy moments diminished some of the star power that Walker seemed to be developing. News that Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder are leaning toward candidacies may further subdivide the non-tea party and social conservative space. Both governors' names were mentioned a lot early on but an—apparently erroneous—assumption built that if they weren't sending signals that they were running by February or March, they probably weren't going to run. If Walker were still going gangbusters, or Bush's nomination afait accompli, neither would be seriously considering the race. Snyder is very much a blank slate among Republican activists and political reporters outside of Michigan; few seem to know what to make of him. The political world and business leaders in Ohio are buzzing about a spot-on article in the new issue of The Atlantic, "The Unpleasant Charisma of John Kasich." Though my dealings with Kasich, when he was in the House of Representatives and running for the GOP nomination briefly in 1999, were entirely pleasant, he has a real reputation for having a short fuse, not suffering fools gladly, and being unfocused and undisciplined. On paper, Kasich's candidacy makes all the sense in the world, but the question is whether those potential flaws get in the way. The more conservative wing of the party certainly has its fights and divisions, but it is the center-right, establishment wing of the party that almost invariably wins the GOP nomination. Whoever emerges from the more ideological half of the party will have to demonstrate an elasticity, a potential for growth in support that has eluded all but Barry Goldwater in 1964. But as far as Christie is concerned, he would be well advised to just say that the Bridgegate matter has become an unnecessary distraction that has made his candidacy untenable, even if the true reason is something else. College Course Marco Rubio Teaches Prominently Features Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Guru <http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/05/college-course-marco-rubio-teaches-prominently-features-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-guru/> // Daily Caller // Eric Owens - May 5, 2015 Florida senator, 2016 Republican presidential hopeful and all-around busy man Marco Rubio has been moonlighting — at least until very recently — as an adjunct professor on the Miami campus of Florida International University. A course syllabus obtained by The Daily Caller shows that one of the three books Rubio assigned in his “Contemporary International Politics” class was written by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., a former aide in the administrations of both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and the man who coined the term “smart power,” which Hillary Clinton has made the centerpiece of her foreign policy. Nye’s 2011 book is entitled “The Future of Power.” Rubio’s course description for “Contemporary International Politics,” describes the class as an exploration of the “challenges and opportunities that the United States faces” “in the post-Cold War world.” Is U.S. power “in decline?” What are the contemporary issues that are shaping American foreign policy?” Clinton spoke about Nye’s theories of “smart power” during the 2009 Senate confirmation hearing prior to her appointment as President Barack Obama’s first secretary of state. “I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “We must use what has been called ‘smart power': the full range of tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural — picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.” “Smart power” means that military power must frequently take a backseat to negotiation, the ambitious former first lady explained. “With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy,” Clinton told her former fellow senators. “This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence, who was born a slave and rose to become one of the great voices of his time, declared that ‘in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.’ The same truth binds wise women as well.” Nye explained in a 2009 essay in Foreign Affairs that he created the term “smart power” to “counter the misperception that soft power alone can produce effective foreign policy.” The phrase means a combination of “both hard and soft power,” he wrote. In her own book about herself, “Hard Choices,” Clinton elaborates on her use of “smart power.” “Beyond the traditional work of negotiating treaties and attending diplomatic conferences, we had to — among other tasks — engage activists on social media, help determine energy pipeline routes, limit carbon emissions, encourage marginalized groups to participate in politics, stand up for universal human rights, and defend common economic rules of the road,” Clinton wrote. “This analysis led me to embrace a concept known as smart power, which had been kicking around Washington for a few years. Harvard’s Joseph Nye, Suzanne Nossel of Human Rights Watch, and a few others had used the term, although we all had in mind slightly different meanings.” In 2011, Nye wrote a hagiographic paean about Clinton in Time magazine’s list of “the most influential people in the world.” Nye called Clinton “tough.” With an eerie, world-historical lack of foresight, he praised Clinton’s action in Libya by saying: “[W]hen Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi threatened to massacre civilians in Benghazi, she was key in building support in the U.N. for the multilateral military action that is helping to protect those civilians.” A little over a year later, Islamic militants attacked a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, slaughtering an American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another American official. Nye, the former dean of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, served in the Carter administration in two different foreign policy roles. From 1993 to 1995, he served in the State Department under Bill Clinton as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and in another capacity as well. The other two book Rubio assigns students in his FIU course are “The World America Made” by liberal interventionist foreign policy historian Robert Kagan and “No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn” by Georgetown University School of Foreign Service professor Charles A. Kupchan. Rand Paul’s Donations Show His Small-Town Appeal <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/upshot/rand-pauls-donations-show-his-small-town-appeal.html?abt=0002&abg=0> // NYT – The Upshot // Derek Willis – May 5, 2015 Online fund-raising data from the first several weeks of Rand Paul’s presidential campaign suggests that much of his initial small-dollar support has come from smaller cities and towns. After starting his campaign on April 7 with a “Stand With Rand” online appeal, his campaign brought in its first $1 million in less than 30 hours, from more than 15,500 donations, according to data published on RandPaul.com and collected by The Upshot. He has far to go to match the success of his father, Ron Paul, in collecting money over the Internet. The initial flurry for Rand Paul faded quickly. It took an additional 16 days for the figure to double. Supporters of Ron Paul contributed $4 million in a single day in 2007, and in 2011 the elder Mr. Paul did a one-day “money bomb” online fund-raising effort that netted $1 million for his presidential campaign. Although Rand Paul has received hundreds of contributions from donors in cities such as Houston, New York, Los Angeles and Phoenix, a disproportionate number have come from donors in smaller cities and towns. More than a quarter of Rand Paul’s online donors list addresses in communities with populations of less than 10,000. According to the 2010 Census, about 15 percent of Americans lived in incorporated areas with populations of less than 10,000. That support reveals his appeal among rural donors (like those in his home state of Kentucky). At least 21 contributions have come from donors listing an address of Cumming, Ga., which has a population of about 5,500, although places with a Cumming mailing address, in the Atlanta metropolitan area, have a population of around 100,000. At least 15 donations are from Magnolia, Tex., one for every 105 residents in the Houston suburb. The two Pauls do share some of the same donor base: At least 2,000 of the donors to Rand Paul in April gave money to his father’s 2012 campaign, an analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows; the number is very likely higher because many small-dollar contributors do not appear on F.E.C. filings. The average donation recorded by the RandPaul.com site hovered around $60 during the first few weeks, although the site did not list the amount of each contribution, just the total number of donors and the total amount. That means that Rand Paul will be able to go back to many of these supporters during the primary season. Indeed, some of them have already given multiple times. Beginning on April 7 and continuing through Sunday, The Upshot was able to collect records of more than 28,000 online contributors to Rand Paul. That data, which represents at least $2.6 million, doesn’t include all of the contributions that the campaign has received (the campaign declined to release a total). In particular, it doesn’t include high-dollar fund-raising events where donors typically provide a check. The Upshot was able to match more than 25,000 records with census data to obtain population figures. Rand Paul started his campaign on April 7 with a “Stand With Rand” online appeal. The data doesn’t include all of the money that Rand Paul has raised online. The campaign briefly stopped showing donor information, and there were at least two periods of several hours each when The Upshot was unable to collect information. Most of the individuals displayed on the site won’t have their names recorded in F.E.C. filings, which require only disclosure of donors who give $200 or more in aggregate (the next filing deadline for most candidates is July 15). Not all of the information displayed on RandPaul.com appears to reflect actual donors, suggesting that, despite moderating donor names, the site is showing the names of a few people who fill out donation forms even if they don’t give money (or the transaction doesn’t go through). On the first day, the site displayed the names of “Fake Fakerton of Fake Town, R.I.” and “Hillary Clinton of Saint Clair Shores, Mich.,” among others. TOP NEWS DOMESTIC Passing budgets and modest bills, Congress slowly increases productivity <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/passing-budgets-and-modest-bills-congress-slowly-increases-productivity/2015/05/05/3071fa9a-f29a-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html> // Washington Post // Paul Kane – May 6, 2015 For just the first time in six years, Congress gave final approval to its annual budget resolution Tuesday — the latest in a slow but steady churn of progress that suggests maybe the new boss isn’t the same as the old boss. Later this week the Senate likely could pass a bipartisan bill to set up a congressional review of a potential nuclear deal with Iran, coming on the heels of a large bipartisan vote in the House and Senate for a bill to combat sex trafficking. A little over two weeks ago, the bipartisan leadership held a back-slapping ceremony to celebrate a new law that eliminated cuts to Medicare reimbursements for doctors. “This Senate is dramatically different than the last one in severable measurable ways,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in an interview last week. What Republicans tout as a sea change, however, Democrats view as a new Congress merely passing the low-hanging fruit of legislation, and even that can still look dysfunctional. Two months ago there was a near-shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, and it took more than a month to approve the legislation creating a fund for sex trafficking victims. Both of those largely bipartisan issues got caught up in separate contentious issues that bogged down the Capitol for weeks and weeks. The process has left some rank-and-file lawmakers saying that they’ve seen some substantial progress, only to see a return to old habits. “I think the jury is out,” said Sen. Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with Democrats and has been trying to bridge the partisan divide. “There are several other bills sort of waiting in line. We may end up being pretty productive, but I think it’s a little early to say at this point.” There’s no question that more is happening across the Capitol. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has adapted into a PowerPoint presentation the work of undergraduate students from Harvard, showing that more bills were introduced in the House during the first 100 days than in the same time of 2011 and 2013. Moreover, the House passed 62 bills in its first 100 days, more than the combined total in the first 100 days of 2011 and 2013. “With your help, things are different in Washington,” McCarthy wrote to his GOP colleagues on Friday. Of those 62 bills approved by the House, eight were signed into law. That’s not much different than the seven signed into law in the first 100 days of 2011 when Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans ran the House. One of those laws, the Medicare reimbursement plan was significant because it included some changes to the program as well as an extension of a popular children insurance program. The rest were largely ceremonial or extensions of existing laws. McConnell acknowledged that he has dialed back his expectations for big bipartisan accomplishments in the final two years of President Obama’s administration. He has, for example, cast aside hope for a comprehensive revision of the tax code. “I can’t see it being done, which is a shame, because it would be a perfect thing to tackle in the time of divided government,” McConnell said. “But I’m very skeptical that we can go forward on that.” Instead, the new focus is “emphasizing things worth doing that enjoy some bipartisan support,” McConnell said. He is going through a series of one-on-one meetings with Democrats to get to know them and their priorities better. McConnell recently huddled with Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and has an upcoming sit-down with King. Just a third of the way into this year, McConnell declined to give himself a full grade until the two-year Congress is complete. “I think it’s too early to make that evaluation but I think on the dysfunction issue, I think it is not too early to make an evaluation of that,” he said. Passing the budget is an example of easing the dysfunction. Not since 2009, when Democrats controlled Congress, have the House and Senate approved annual budgets and then reconciled the differences to pass a joint resolution from which the two chambers could work the rest of the year. A key example of dissipating gridlock came last week when Obama signed a modest energy efficiency bill into law written by a bipartisan pair of swing-state senators, Democrat Jean Shaheen (N.H.) and Republican Rob Portman (Ohio). In 2013 and 2014, facing a very difficult reelection, Shaheen wanted to pass the legislation to demonstrate her effectiveness. The legislation made it onto the Senate floor only to get bogged down by Republican demands for amendments on other energy issues, including the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Democrats, with many incumbents facing tough 2014 elections, shielded their incumbents from taking tough votes, so the Shaheen-Portman bill died. After Democrats lost the majority, the bill was approved unanimously at the tail end of a marathon budget marathon at 4 a.m. March 27. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who spent the previous two years trying to negotiate between McConnell and the Democratic leader, Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.), said basic politics has forced each side to stand down on some previously partisan stands. “McConnell, as much or more than anyone, realized that we can’t go to the voters in 2016 with a record along the lines of what just happened in the last six years,” McCain said. Some see the House as the continually unsteady pressure cooker of Congress. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a leading centrist, said he was losing faith in the first two months of the year with the focus on social issues, culminating in the near shutdown of DHS over immigration, but the next two months were relatively stable. On Thursday, however, the House voted largely on party lines to strike down a District law that banned discrimination against residents who use abortion services, a social issue that was reminiscent of the first few weeks in January. “Here we go again,” Dent said. Some lawmakers see success in tackling some big issues, such as the legislation to have a review of the potential Iranian deal, while major ones like drafting a new war resolution for Iraq have been avoided. “As long as we’ve got a war going on — nine months into the war come May 8, with no debate on the floor of either body — I’m not going to concede that we are shouldering our responsibilities,” Kaine said. “I’m seeing some positive signs, but we’ve got a war going on.” California board approves emergency water rules <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/05/california-water-restrictions-missed-targets/26928275/> // USA Today // Ian James - May 6, 2015 California's state water board on Tuesday approved emergency drought regulations that aim to slash water use in urban areas by 25 percent. The measures call for cities and water agencies to reduce water usage by amounts ranging from 8 percent to 36 percent. The State Water Resources Control Board drew up the rules to meet Gov. Jerry Brown's order for a 25-percent cut in urban water use statewide. It's the first time that California has ever put in place mandatory reductions in water use. The plan reflects just how bleak the state's water picture has become. The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada has shrunk to a record low. Groundwater levels have plummeted across much of California, and in some areas of the Central Valley, the wells of hundreds of families have run dry. Felicia Marcus, chair of the water board, called the cutbacks "a collective issue that we all need to rise to in this time of emergency." According to the latest figures released by the board, Californians reduced water use by just 3.6 percent in March as compared to the same month in 2013. That was a slight change from a 2.8 percent reduction in February, and significantly less than a 22 percent drop in December and a 7.3 percent reduction in January. Max Gomberg, a senior environmental scientist with the state water board, called the new mandatory measures a "desperate times approach." epa04696368 A 'River Closed' sign is posted on theThe Truckee River is closed after it dried up because there was no water from Lake Tahoe on April 8 in the Sierra Nevada mountains near Lake, Calif. The level of the lake is 6 feet below its minimal level of flowing into the Truckee River. The state water board will have the authority to issue fines of up to $10,000 against cities or water districts that don't reach their targets and that violate state orders. State officials, however, said they prefer to work with water districts to help them achieve reductions in water use right away. "We're going to be engaged with the suppliers from the beginning," Gomberg said during the meeting in Sacramento. Under the regulations approved by the board on Tuesday night, water agencies will have discretion in determining how they achieve their overall reduction targets. They will be able to choose, for instance, how much of the cutbacks are borne by commercial and industrial customers as well as by domestic customers. The regulations exclude the vast majority of farms in California. They also don't touch the use of recycled water. But properties such as golf courses that rely on water pumped from private wells are to be required to use 25 percent less water or limit watering to two days a week. Brown and other state officials have recommended that water districts meet their targets using approaches such as changing prices and enforcing restrictions on watering times. During Tuesday's meeting, the state water board for the first time released data on the actions that agencies have taken to enforce rules against wasting water, including issuing fines. The board said 290 of the 411 water suppliers provided data on their enforcement during March, and most of them issued 20 or fewer notices for incidents of water waste. Water agencies reported a total of 10,877 complaints of wasteful water use or violations of drought rules, as well as 8,762 warnings issued and 682 penalties assessed. Marcus and other state officials said they're focusing on ways to reduce the amounts of water used for lawns and other "ornamental" landscaping outdoors, which accounts for the biggest share of Californians' residential water use. They also are trying to move quickly to put the rules in place before the summer months, when the heaviest outdoor water use typically occurs. With the extreme drought now in a fourth year in California, Marcus said, the latest measures aim to "ensure urban resilience" if the drought persists for another year or beyond. "It is better to prepare now than to face much more painful cuts should it not rain in the fall," she said. "I do get all the fears and the concerns, but I do think this is a moment to rise to an occasion and an all-hands-on-deck kind of a moment." E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/health/epa-emissions-plan-will-save-thousands-of-lives-study-finds.html?referrer=&_r=1&gwh=180D4B8493B33CEF60B79866DE7D1764&gwt=pay> // NYT // May 5, 2015 New carbon emissions standards that were proposed last year for coal-fired power plants in the United States would substantially improve human health and prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths per year, according to a new study. The study, led by researchers at Syracuse and Harvard Universities, used modeling to predict the effect on human health of changes to national carbon standards for power plants. The researchers calculated three different outcomes using data from the Census Bureau and detailed maps of the more than 2,400 fossil-fuel power plants across the country. The model with the biggest health benefit was the one that most closely resembled the changes that the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a rule in June. Under that plan, reductions in carbon emissions for the plants would be set by states and would include improvements to the energy efficiency of, for example, air-conditioners, refrigerators and power grids. The health benefits of the rule would be indirect. While carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to a warming planet, they are not directly linked to health threats. Emissions from coal-fired power plants, however, also include a number of other pollutants, such as soot and ozone, that are directly linked to illnesses like asthma and lung disease. Researchers calculated that the changes in the E.P.A. rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness. The study was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. The largest declines in pollution — and consequent benefits to health — would happen in states in the Ohio River Valley, including Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have some of the highest levels of emissions, researchers said. Charles T. Driscoll, a professor of environmental systems engineering at Syracuse who was the lead author of the paper, said research began about a year before the E.P.A. proposed the carbon reduction plan. It was a coincidence that one of the researchers’ models so closely resembled the federal proposal. The model with the deepest cuts in emissions was based on the use of a carbon tax, but because energy efficiency was not part of that version, it prevented fewer premature deaths, researchers found. The third version, which assumed that plants would be revamped and modernized, an effort that some industry representatives favor, produced almost no change in air quality or health benefits. “The idea is to inform the federal and state governments that your state and federal policy matters,” Dr. Driscoll said. This summer, President Obama plans to unveil a final set of climate change regulations to curb planet-warming emissions from power plants in the United States. The climate rule, as proposed in draft form last year by the E.P.A., would cut carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The rule will chiefly target coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of carbon emissions. They would require every state to submit a plan to shift their energy systems from heavily carbon polluting sources of power, such as coal plants, to cleaner power sources. In making the case for the rule, the Obama administration has highlighted its indirect health benefits. Mr. Obama’s political advisers have made the bet that a policy presented as a move to reduce childhood asthma and other diseases will gain more public traction than a complex new energy policy designed to reduce global warming in the long term. Critics say the rule would increase the cost of energy, an outcome that would harm lower-income Americans. Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an energy industry association, said it was an overstatement to claim that the rule would prevent so many premature deaths, because the reductions would bring emissions levels well below what the E.P.A. has previously said could harm health. He said the administration had already claimed the same benefits justify other rules, which amounted to double counting. “It’s like Enron-style accounting,” he said, referring to the energy company that collapsed after revelations about flawed accounting standards. Dr. Leonard Bielory, a researcher at Rutgers University who was not involved in the study, said that it did manage to show that the rule would bring positive health effects, but that the extent was far from clear. “Are these the real numbers you’ll save?” he said. “That’s really a gray zone.” Dr. Driscoll acknowledged the hazards of precision in a modeling exercise, but said the paper tried to quantify the uncertainty. For example, the projection of 3,500 deaths prevented was an average of a much broader range of 780 deaths to 6,100 deaths. U.S. Trade Gap Widens on Surging Imports <http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-trade-gap-widens-on-surging-imports-1430829294> // WSJ// Eric Morath – May 5, 2015 WASHINGTON—A stronger dollar and an influx of pent-up imports into West Coast ports are pointing the U.S. economy toward its third quarterly contraction in its six-year-long expansion, reflecting choppy conditions that appear set to restrain growth throughout the year. The nation’s trade deficit expanded by 43.1% in March from February, the largest monthly widening since 1996, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. A record level of non-petroleum imports flowed into the U.S. after a labor dispute at West Coast ports ended, causing the seasonally adjusted trade gap to widen to $51.37 billion. That was significantly larger than economists had forecast, even with pressure from a strong dollar and weak global growth. As a result, revisions could push the official reading for first-quarter gross domestic product into negative territory from the paltry 0.2% annualized gain initially reported last week. “The underlying story remains the same: Growth faltered at the start of the year with very few signs of momentum,” said Sterne Agee economist Lindsey Piegza. After the trade report, economists at J.P. Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank cut their first-quarter GDP growth estimates to show a 0.5% contraction. Forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers lowered its reading by six-tenths of a percent to a 0.4% contraction. All three had previously estimated a tiny expansion for the quarter. The figures represent a setback for the U.S. economy, but it overcame a similar one that surfaced last year. Following a contraction in the first quarter of 2014, the economy grew at an almost 4% pace for the rest of the year. And employers added jobs last year at the best rate since the mid-1990s, raising hopes that the long-awaited breakout had arrived. Instead, the U.S. appears to have again hit the brakes at the start of the year. That exposes a host of concerns, including the drag on growth from a stronger dollar, persistent weakness among key trading partners in China and Europe and the reliance on U.S. consumers to drive the world’s economy. “It’s really a global challenge right now,” said Marc Skalla, president of Atlanta-based SASCO Chemical Group Inc., which makes chemicals for tires and other industries. The firm expects sales to grow by 20% this year, but the stronger dollar is squeezing export profits. A stronger dollar has “taken contracts that we worked on last year and completely changed them,” Mr. Skalla said. “We’ll feel it on the margins.” From mid-2014 through the end of March, the dollar appreciated by more than 20% against a weighted index of major currencies tracked by the Federal Reserve. The Fed index shows the dollar’s value has fallen somewhat since early April, a move that could cushion exporters from some of the fallout. The latest economic setback comes with plenty of caveats. Upcoming data on inventories and services could again recast the view of the first quarter. The domestic economy also appears to be relatively firm. Consumer confidence is rising, household spending picked up since the winter and lower oil prices are likely to boost many consumers and businesses this year. March’s trade gap was the largest of the expansion, driven by a rebound after ports on the West Coast returned to normal following a monthslong labor dispute. That helped imports post a record 7.7% improvement on the month. Goods imports from China were up 32% compared with March 2014. Meanwhile, exports only inched up 0.9%. The trade gap in February, when the labor dispute ended, was the smallest since late 2009. The three-month moving average for the trade gap, a measure that evens out swings, shows it expanded modestly from a year earlier. Imports at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together handle around 40% of the U.S. imported container traffic, reached near-record levels in March, which is typically one of the slowest months of the year at the ports. The Port of Los Angeles, the country’s busiest container port, said import volume grew 70% in March from February. Export volume, which typically makes up only about half the business at Los Angeles, wasn't as strong, growing 10% month to month and falling 23% from a year earlier. The Maritime Exchange of Southern California said the backlog of ships anchored at sea waiting for a port berth reached a peak of 36 ships the week of Feb. 26. The logjam had all but disappeared by late last week. Norfolk Southern Corp. ’s business in the first quarter reflected unusual activity related to the West Coast port issues, Chief Executive Charles “Wick” Moorman said, adding that unusually cold weather and the strong dollar are also factors in the import surge. By mid-March, the railway operator’s business started to return to normal, Mr. Moorman said. That repeats a pattern seen last year, when economic output turned negative in the first quarter and then snapped back quickly. “It feels a lot like it did last year,” he said. JACO Machine Works LLC, a Santa Cruz, Calif., firm that produces parts for medical equipment, scientific instruments and other applications saw a slowdown in orders from a German customer. “They tell me that European market is soft for them,” President Andy Smith said. In contrast, JACO has seen increased demand from California firms building medical devices and robots. “The first quarter wasn’t great, but I still see a strong domestic economy.” Despite the widening of the overall trade gap, the petroleum deficit continued to narrow in the U.S. Over the past several years, the amount of petroleum shipped to the U.S. declined while domestic production increased. The trade deficit for petroleum products fell to $7.67 billion in March, the lowest since June 2002. After climbing above $100 a barrel last June, benchmark oil prices plunged through the second half of 2014 and have stayed near $50 a barrel most of this year. From a year earlier, U.S. imports are up 1% and exports are down 3%. The more subtle change suggests the appreciation of the dollar hampers exports. In addition, slowing economies in parts of Europe and Asia have reduced demand for U.S. goods and services. How a turbulent global economy will shape the U.S. expansion is high on the minds of Federal Reserve officials. In a statement following last month’s policy meeting, central bankers acknowledged that economic growth slowed in the winter months. If central bankers see global developments holding back U.S. growth, they could wait longer to raise short-term interest rates from near zero. —Jeffrey Sparshott and Paul Page contributed to this article. INTERNATIONAL Germany, Too, Is Accused of Spying on Friends <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/world/europe/scandal-over-spying-shakes-german-government.html?ref=world&_r=0> // NYT // Alison Smalemay – May 5, 2015 BERLIN — About 18 months ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel was the wronged American ally whose cellphone number was among data sucked up by American intelligence as it kept watch on Europeans. “Spying among friends — that is simply not done,” she said after the discovery in autumn 2013, to a sympathetic domestic audience. Within the past two weeks, the tide has turned. Ms. Merkel is back in the spotlight over spying. This time it is Germany’s foreign intelligence service, known here as the B.N.D., that is being accused of monitoring European companies and perhaps individuals. Further, the reports said the spying was done at the behest of the National Security Agency, the United States intelligence organization. Critics have seized on the spying allegations, sensing a whiff of hypocrisy emanating from Berlin, given the German outrage over the American program. On Tuesday, Austria was the offended party, filing a legal complaint against the German and American intelligence agencies over suspicions that it was being spied on, Reuters reported. Ms. Merkel’s maxim about not spying on friends means “she must be measured by it,” said Stefan Kornelius, author of a biography of the chancellor and the foreign editor of the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Government officials are also scrambling to head off accusations by some German news outlets and opposition figures that Ms. Merkel’s government and some of her allies failed their constitutional duty to supervise the intelligence services and inform Parliament of the services’ activities. Gregor Gysi, the vocal leader of the former Communists and other far-leftists in the opposition Left party, accused Ms. Merkel of “treason.” The accusation was angrily rebutted on Monday by Gerhard Schindler, head of the B.N.D. He dismissed as “absolutely absurd” any suggestion that his agency was “a compliant tool” of the Americans. The details of what the German government did or did not do in collusion with the American government remain murky, caught up in the secrecy inherent in security matters. But the federal prosecutor is examining whether to begin a formal investigation. The regular parliamentary committee that oversees all intelligence services and a special parliamentary inquiry into the National Security Agency are also seeking more details and questioning key officials. The matter raises anew the questions that flared in 2013 with the release of American government documents by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealing the extent of American spying operations domestically and abroad. In the United States, Congress is now poised to reel in some of the surveillance measures that were adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But Germans reacted with revulsion when the extent of American spying on Europeans was revealed. Germany’s memory of the Nazi and Communist regimes that spied on their citizens gave the revelations a special edge. Mr. Snowden is more of a popular hero here than elsewhere in Europe, and anti-N.S.A. sentiment remains high. Continue reading the main story At the same time, attacks by Islamist militants and the threat of homegrown extremists have challenged the intelligence equation in Europe. The French government is expanding its intelligence services’ powers to combat terrorism. Ms. Merkel, asked on Monday whether her maxim about spying among friends still applied, said this was an “important” question and added, “I think the answer should be that it should not occur.” But she recalled that she had noted in 2013 that it was necessary to strike a balance between liberty and security, and that this “will continue to be my job.” “There is an innate tension,” she added. “We must improve what needs to be improved through reports to the parliamentary control bodies. But on the other hand, even if it is not so popular right now, it is part of their job for our intelligence services, especially the B.N.D., that they must and will cooperate internationally to protect the bodies and lives of 80 million Germans as best they can.” “First and foremost,” she said, that means cooperation with the National Security Agency. In 2013, Ms. Merkel — facing re-election, which she handily won for a third term — succeeded in tamping down what is known here as the N.S.A. scandal. But it never went away. Since starting work last year, the special parliamentary inquiry into the N.S.A. affair has summoned witnesses, including former United States intelligence officials, who painted what many Germans see as a damning picture of American surveillance practices. The current flare-up started on April 23 when Der Spiegel reported that since at least 2008, a division of the B.N.D. had helped the National Security Agency to spy on European and German interests, including the French-German enterprise European Aeronautic Defense and Space, now known as the Airbus Group. Besides raising eyebrows about the scope of the spying operation, and the targets, the report questioned whether the German intelligence service had failed to fully inform the Chancellery or Parliament about it. The government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, acknowledged, without providing details, that the government had been working for weeks with the foreign intelligence service to assure that the agency was in compliance with the reporting rules. “Technological and organizational deficiencies at the B.N.D.” were identified, he said, and the government gave “immediate orders that they be rectified.” In a statement, he said the government would continue to keep parliamentary committees informed about intelligence activities, including the accuracy of the emerging allegations. The government will also examine whether information given to Parliament in the past continues “to be accurate beyond any reasonable doubt,” the statement said. The statement said there was no sign of current or past “massive spying on German and European citizens.” But it omitted any mention of businesses or individuals, and whether they had been targeted. The most concrete indication that espionage might have occurred has come from Airbus, which filed a legal complaint last week against unnamed persons on suspicion of economic espionage and asked the German government for more information. Continue reading the main story Rainer Ohler, an Airbus Group spokesman, would confirm only that “we are in contact” with Berlin. Members of the German Parliament have suggested that Washington may influence how much the German government can reveal to Airbus. Thomas de Maizière, a close Merkel ally who ran her Chancellery from 2005 to 2009 and was thus responsible for the intelligence services, has dismissed the spying allegations. Mr. de Maizière, now the interior minister, said on Monday that he had been involved in decisions against deepening certain ties with the National Security Agency in 2008, in order to protect German interests. Mr. de Maizière is to testify this week before the parliamentary inquiry. Committee members have demanded that the government release a list of the data the B.N.D. gave to the National Security Agency. In the meantime, pressure mounts on Ms. Merkel. On Monday, her No. 2, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, leader of the center-left Social Democrats who govern with her conservatives in a coalition, took the unusual step of describing two conversations with her to reporters. Mr. Gabriel had asked, he said, whether there was anything to the swirling allegations, and believed her when she said there was not. But, he noted, “what we are witnessing now is an affair, a secret service scandal, which could set off a very grave tremor.” Obama Administration Approves First Ferry Service to Cuba <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/05/world/americas/ap-cb-cuba-ferries.html?ref=world> // The Associated Press // May 5, 2015 HAVANA — The Obama administration approved the first ferry service in decades between the United States and Cuba on Tuesday, potentially opening a new path for the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars in goods that travel between Florida and Havana each year. Baja Ferries, which operates passenger service in Mexico, said it received a license from the U.S. Treasury Department. Robert Muse, a lawyer for Baja Ferries, said he believed other ferry service petitions had also been approved. The Treasury Department said it could not immediately confirm that, but the Sun-Sentinel newspaper in Florida said approvals also were received by Havana Ferry Partners of Fort Lauderdale, United Caribbean Lines Florida in the Orlando area and Airline Brokers Co. of Miami. Muse said Baja had yet to request approval from Cuba, but added that he was optimistic the service would allow a significant increase in trade and travel between the two countries. The Cuban government made no immediate comment on the news and it is far from clear that it is willing or able to allow a major new channel for the movement of goods and people between the two countries. "I think it's a further indication of the seriousness of the Obama administration in normalizing relations with Cuba," said Muse, an expert on U.S. law on Cuba. "We're now going from the theoretical to the very specific." Before Cuba's 1959 revolution, ferries ran daily between Florida and Cuba, bringing American tourists to Havana's hotels and casinos and allowing Cubans to take overnight shopping trips to the United States. That ended with the revolution, and the more than 600,000 people who travel between the U.S. and Cuba each year depend on expensive charter flights. About 80 percent of U.S .travelers to Cuba are Cuban-Americans visiting relatives, and a large number travel with huge amounts of consumer goods unavailable in communist Cuba, from baby clothes to flat-screen TV sets. That cargo has become increasingly expensive and difficult to bring in recent years due to the high prices charged by charters and tightened Cuban customs rules. Muse said he believed ferries would allow lower-priced passenger and cargo service and provide a potential conduit for new forms of trade allowed by Obama when he announced a series of loopholes in the trade embargo on Cuba late last year. Among other measures, Obama allowed the import of some goods produced by Cuba's new private sector and allowed the virtually unlimited export of products to entrepreneurs. Ferries also provide a new route for U.S. travelers to Cuba, who also depend on the charter services. Travel from the U.S. has been rising since Obama's Dec. 17 announcement, and new pressure groups are pushing for Congress to end all travel restrictions and allow pure tourism, currently prohibited by law. Andrea Rodriguez contributed to this report. 40 Migrants Reported Dead After Dinghy Burst at Sea <http://www.wsj.com/articles/40-migrants-reported-dead-after-dinghy-burst-at-sea-1430828951> // WSJ // Liam Moloney - May 5, 2015 ROME—About 40 migrants drowned during a sea crossing from Libya to southern Italy over the weekend when one of the dinghies they were traveling in exploded or burst from the heat of the sun, according to other migrants who were traveling with them. Rescued migrants—sub-Saharans from countries such as Mali, Senegal, Ghana and Gambia—told the Save the Children aid group that they were making the crossing in two rubber boats. One carried about 100 migrants, while the other had around 137 on board. “There is still a lot of confusion about what happened, and it all has to be verified by the authorities but some migrants are telling us that around 40 drowned when one of the dinghies exploded or burst from the heat of the sun,” Save the Children spokeswoman Giovanna di Benedetto said over the phone from the Sicilian port of Catania. Migrants wait to disembark from a Malta-based Migrant Offshore Aid Station in Pozzallo, Italy, on Tuesday. A charity said that 40 migrants were feared drowned after their dinghy sank. Migrants wait to disembark from a Malta-based Migrant Offshore Aid Station in Pozzallo, Italy, on Tuesday. A charity said that 40 migrants were feared drowned after their dinghy sank. Photo: Associated Press At least 10 unaccompanied minors were among those rescued and put ashore in Catania on Tuesday, Ms. Di Benedetto said. She didn’t say if any minors were among those reported dead. The incident is believed to have taken place on Sunday. A spokeswoman for the Italian coast guard said that the authorities had no knowledge of the drownings reported to Save the Children. More than 8,000 migrants have been saved since Saturday and 10 have died, according to officials. The coast guard said that five dead bodies were found when rescuers on a merchant ship reached the rubber boats. Three bodies were found on a vessel in a different rescue. Two migrants drowned after going overboard in a third incident. Italy’s interior ministry expects to see as many as 200,000 migrants reach its shores this year, an increase from the more than 170,000 who came in 2014. The migrants are heading to Europe to avoid conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. Human traffickers use a lawless Libya as a base to send overcrowded boats on perilous journeys. More than 1,600 people are believed to have drowned in the Mediterranean this year as they attempted to reach Europe, the majority of them in April, according to Amnesty International. That’s a more than 50-fold annual increase over the same period. Calmer weather, typical in the Mediterranean in the spring and summer months, usually signals a surge in departures of vessels packed with migrants. Children disembark from the Italian Navy vessel 'Bettica' in the harbor of Salerno, Italy, on Tuesday. ENLARGE Children disembark from the Italian Navy vessel 'Bettica' in the harbor of Salerno, Italy, on Tuesday. Photo: Associated Press Calmer weather, typical in the Mediterranean in the spring and summer months, usually signals a surge in departures of vessels packed with migrants. The Italian Navy said on Monday that among the more than 2,000 migrants that it rescued over the weekend was a pregnant woman who gave birth to a girl on board its ship Bettica. The navy added that mother and daughter, named Francesca Marina, were doing well. Marina is a common Italian first name and it also means “navy.” Rescued migrants are also being put ashore in the southern Italian regions of Calabria and Campania to ease the pressure off Sicily which takes almost all those arriving. ‘Some migrants are telling us that around 40 drowned when one of the dinghies exploded or burst from the heat of the sun.’ —Save the Children spokeswoman Giovanna di Benedetto About half of migrants reaching Italy end up in reception centers in the poorer south of the peninsula—something that irks the central government as it feels the affluent northern Italy isn’t doing its part in helping out. After some 800 migrants died on a boat off Libya, European Union leaders agreed last month on a more robust response to the migration problem, including tripling the budget for EU patrols of Italy’s border. Rome is pleased with the extra cash, but political leaders in Italy have expressed disappointment over the modest help they are getting from other EU countries with the migrants once they arrive on Italian soil, and an unwillingness to distribute them among member states. OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS What the Clintons Can Learn From Ben Franklin's Foreign Money Scandal <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html?via=mobile&source=twitter> // Daily Beast // Zephyr Teachout - May 5, 2015 More than 200 years ago, we included in our Constitution a provision that forbids federal officers from accepting a gift of any kind whatever from foreign interests without first getting permission from Congress (Article I, Section 9, the so-called Emoluments Clause). We borrowed the provision from the Netherlands, where it was ridiculed for being overly fussy about corruption. But we put it in both our Constitution and in that document’s forerunner, the Articles of Confederation, as a defense against emulating the corrupt culture of Europe. The unlikely source of the provision was a snuff box. A few years before the constitutional convention, the King of France gave Benjamin Franklin a diamond encrusted snuff box after his diplomatic tour. Franklin did not appear to offer anything in return, but the gift nonetheless led to concerns that Franklin might be quietly corrupted by French interests—perhaps even without his knowing it. The Americans, rigidly rejecting European custom, believed that acceptance of a luxurious gift by someone in power was itself a threat. Perhaps Franklin would be more generous toward French commercial interests simply by the operation of normal human sympathies, which to tend to be more charitable toward those who give us gifts. The framers tried to put a check on those sympathies, or at least put a block in the relationship, by requiring that Congress approve any gifts to federal officials. Ironically, at the constitutional convention, Franklin was among the most outspoken in favor of anti-corruption provisions. His own lifelong experience with governments around the world had made him wary of the many ways in which officials could be tempted. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and Franklin weren’t wrong to be concerned about foreign powers attempting to use money to buy influence and favorable treatment. According to The New York Times, Bill Clinton received a $500,000 personal payment from a Russian bank as payment for a speech in 2010. (In some cases, Bill Clinton directs his speaking fees to the Clinton Foundation, though there’s no evidence that happened in this case.) This payment happened around the same time that Hillary Clinton’s State Department was participating in the decision-making process on the legitimacy of Russian takeover of American uranium interests (the decision was made by an inter-agency body on which State was represented, but was chaired by Treasury). Many people have raised concerns that this fee, like Benjamin Franklin’s snuff box, might have swayed Bill Clinton’s—and Hillary’s—general thinking toward Russian interests at the time. In effect, the troubling morality ofCitizens Unitedhas become the official morality of Clinton’s defenders. Over the past several years, Bill Clinton has been given millions of dollars for foreign and domestic speeches, with the greatest number of sponsors coming from the financial industry. At the same time, he solicited and received millions of dollars from foreign and domestic interests, including. Many of the donors and sponsors had interests that were affected by State Department policies, and all of the donors, past and current, have interests that would be affected by a Hillary Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton has not addressed the issue publicly, but some of her defenders have argued that without a smoking gun, or evidence of quid pro quo, there’s nothing to be concerned about. As the framers knew, we don’t need that in order to be concerned. It’s not surprising that the Clintons do not want to answer questions about foreign donations. So far, they have not addressed questions about the apparent conflict of interest, leaving the Clinton Foundation to respond. (They had company: Thomas Jefferson was so annoyed by the Emoluments Clause that he hid his own later gift from the King of France, a diamond-encrusted portrait; he had his aide take out the diamonds and sell them to pay down his debt. He was not, he wrote, going to humiliate himself by going before “the gridiron of Congress.”) But as citizens we must ask these questions. Some Democrats want to ignore the issue, but love of party, as well as love of country, requires us to demand more. I am a Democrat. I will vote Democratic in the general election. But I refuse to allow my party to be silent in the face of serious accusations of conflict of interest. There are two reasons for this. I expect that the GOP candidate will use this in 2016 to make explicit that Bill Clinton’s $500,000 went into his personal account, the one he shares with Hillary Clinton. Silence now doesn’t change the structure of the argument. Second, I care deeply about my party, but I believe the health of a party depends upon the openness of internal debate. I do not believe accusations of outside influence are fatal, but I believe refusing to talk about them might be. We do not have a snuff box clause for the spouses of public officials—they were not contemplated in the founding document. Instead, we have an election—a “gridiron” of sorts. Hillary Clinton cannot undo the past, but she can help explain it. First, she can answer any questions about how she and her husband talk about foreign policy and domestic policy in light of the need to protect against donors using access to influence. They are not naive and must be aware of the political motives of donors: how did they, and do they, address these conflicts? Unlike campaign donations, which Hillary Clinton has to pursue under our current system of privately financed campaigns, these were avoidable situations. How did the Clintons think about, and manage, the efforts of donors and sponsors to influence them? Hillary Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. But, ironically, her defenders are effectively using a Citizens Uniteddefense—if there’s no quid pro quo, there’s no problem. Access and influence are not corrupting. In effect, the troubling morality of Citizens United has become the official morality of Clinton’s defenders. She can also act now to limit the threat of future corruption. She has indicated the Clinton Foundation will limit foreign donations. But to be fair to her constituents, the Clintons should separate themselves entirely from the Foundation, and immediately stop raising money. As a spouse and daughter seeking major donations, former President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton are rich targets for anyone seeking influence and access to Hillary Clinton, whether the donor is foreign or domestic. Hillary Clinton should also refuse to allow donations to her family members from people with interests before her: not because all donations are corrupt, but because the temptation is too great to use the channel for influence. After the snuff box incident, Benjamin Franklin went on to become a leader in framing key anti-corruption provisions in the Constitution, one of the most radical of its time in demanding that we protect against appearances of corruption, because appearances can too often lead to reality. Hillary Clinton can do the same thing by coming forward with a full press conference, severing all familial ties to the Clinton Foundation, and proposing real, concrete solutions to the modern crisis of corruption. I’m glad she is opposed to Citizens United, but a constitutional amendment reversing that decision wouldn’t address the core problem of privately financed campaigns, and the ongoing conflicts the private financing system creates. 'House of Cards' star wants a Bill Clinton cameo <http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/241093-house-of-cards-star-wants-bill-clinton-to-make-cameo> // The Hill // Judy Kurtz - May 5, 2015 “House of Cards” star Michael Kelly has his pick for who he’d like to see make a cameo on the Netflix hit. “Probably Bill Clinton,” Kelly recently told ITK when asked who he’d love to see appear on the political thriller. So what role could the 42nd president — who has admitted he’s a major “House of Cards” fan and counts the series’ fictional president, actor Kevin Spacey, among his friends — possibly play? “I think Bill Clinton’s probably a pretty good actor. I think he could probably do anything,” Kelly said, before reconsidering. “I mean, it would be kind of hard, the whole willing suspension of disbelief, to not see him as Bill Clinton. But maybe he could come on and be Bill Clinton. That’d be pretty cool.” Kelly, who plays aide Doug Stamper on the show, also offered some other options for real-life political co-stars: “Either the Clintons, either the Obamas, I would love. I love [MSNBC 'Hardball’ host] Chris Matthews, but I already did something with Chris Matthews on ‘The Good Wife.’” But Kelly says of his top choices, “I would love the Obamas or the Clintons, either one of those. I’d be thrilled.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.