(10-06-2016 10:34 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/commen...ed_get_in/

Some shit is going down.

The internet is the best thing ever created.

(10-06-2016 10:43 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 10:34 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/commen...ed_get_in/

Some shit is going down.

There are leaks from today. I don't have time to look through all of them. I'll post this one just for the lol's.

Quote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Greg Propper [email protected] wrote: Taylor Swift comes out on stage. Talks about how far we have come.

All of a sudden.....Katy Perry comes out on stage, and talks about how much more work there is to do.

And that we have to all do it together.

And then they perform a duet!!!! AND MAKE UP!!!!!!!

thoughts?

Probably too crazy and too impossible....but never stopped us before, right!?!?!

^^ These are the kinds of faggots she has working on her campaign.

From: Thomas Moran <[email protected]>
Sent time: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:55 +0000
To: Sarah Henning <[email protected]>,
Terri McCullough <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Horoscope

I would like to report my New York Post horoscope for the week (and Capricia's??). Be prepared for this week y'all!

Gemini:
You will be the center of attention this week and you will enjoy it immensely. Family, friends and even total strangers will want to get close to you and you may have to ration your appearances in public. It’s exhausting being a star!



From: Lyn Utrecht <[email protected]>
Sent time: Mon, 9 May 2016 17:02:23 +0000
To: Shelly Moskwa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HillPAC


Re the sham PAC quote, HillPAC became active again after the presidential campaign was over so what campaign did it operate in support of? This is a sham premise.
Maybe I'm missing something.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 9, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Shelly Moskwa > wrote:

Adding Capricia and this is making me mad -- HP accomplished so much in such a short time. My thoughts are below.

Why did HillPAC contribute "less than 25%" of its money? HillPAC was a short, four month, full-speed-ahead effort, designed to create maximum impact the for all levels of the dem ticket, which it did in a very tight time frame under unique circumstances. Lets not forget that HP was rekindled on July 1 with NOTHING -- only $5000 in the bank - and after that managed to raise enough funds to accomplish hundreds of events, dozens of emails, hundreds of thousands raised, both directly and indirectly, for others. It could not have done so much in so little time without the valuable resource of the HCFP list, and therefore rented it for a multiple-use contract. In the fall of 2008, that list was fresh, energized, dedicated, etc, probably the best on the market (Obama's list wasn't for rent then). One can not buy or instantly create those attributes -- the organic value of the list, which was sown over many prior months, was invaluable to the effort of HillPAC. HP made direct contributions, which are apparent on the FEC report, but it also helped in other ways - it sent dozens of emails on behalf of other candidates, asking list members to donate directly to those candidates, to walk door-to-door for those candidates, to send emails to their friends and families about those candidates. It was a grass roots operation and effort as much as a financial/contribution effort, and the GR can not always be measured by the figures from an FEC report. Was HP the leanest operation around? Maybe not. But did it accomplish invaluable things for the dem ticket that no other politician was capable of at the time? Yes - no one else had the time, the political capital, and the ability to gather the same level of resources and put them to use.



On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Cheryl Mills > wrote:
Thanks

+ lyn, eric and Shelly

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Widen this chain as you see fit.
Below is my note to her and her response.
She doesn't have anything but it's not going to stop her, although I'll keep at it.

I bolded a portion below that we'll need an answer for.



Begin forwarded message:

From: Emily Kopp >
Date: May 6, 2016 at 8:32:38 PM AST
To: Nick Merrill >
Subject: Re: HillPAC

Thanks for your response. Are you saying you believe the Campaign Legal Center has a partisan bias?

I appreciate the clarification on some of these points. It did occur to me that the list rental could be an invoice issue. Though if HillPAC used the list for the November election, I think it's reasonable to expect the campaign to have made that charge sooner than January. Are you aware of any particular reason that delay might have occurred?

I'm aware that the campaign said in 2009 that the prices were determined through appraisals by outside consultants. My confusion is why HillPAC would pay three times as much to rent the list any other client, but contribute less than 25 percent of what it raised to candidates. That's also available via a cursory look at public records. Most leadership PACs devote closer to half their expenditures on contributions. If HillPAC did make greater use of the list, it appears it was not to the benefit of down ballot Democrats.

Let's discuss this further on the record when you have the chance.

Thanks again,
Emily

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Yes I'd like to talk. But I have to be honest, reading your questions it does not feel like you're coming to this objectively. To that end, let me make a couple of points off the record to demonstrate what I mean and we can go from there.

I've had a chance to look into the questions you sent, and there is nothing to suggest that HillPAC acted in any way but completely within the confines of it's mission and all rules and regulations. I'm happy to outline the details of that for you, but before I do, I'm concerned about what you just sent and your approach to this piece.

So a few points:

So far, your story is premised on the timing of a an invoice, and a series of questions that are answerable by publicly attainable information.

For example, to take your first two questions, if you look at FEC rules, you will see that the price for an email list is determined based on very specific guidelines with regard to assessing fair market value for that list. And that was of course done in this case, which you can see by looking at other rates for other lists out there. Further, the price discrepancy you cite is so because you're comparing an apple to an orange. As is also ascertainable via a cursory look at public records, the amount charged for a list is based on usage. So a one-time use is going to cost a different amount than a rental that includes several usages, both based again on fair market value, and again, demonstrably so if you look at other pricing structures of other lists.

Another example, to address your third and fourth questions, you suggest that staffers working for HillPAC were actually working for the campaign. Your evidence to back that up is that some worked for both entities simultaneously. But that actually confirms that clear lines were drawn. Employees were paid for their work and kept clear lines of responsibility between their different roles, as is common with public officials. And as far as FEC inquiries, I think if you looked you'd find that inquiries about spending are routine, and that both the FEC inquiries, responses to those inquiries, and the fact that no further action was taken is all available on FEC.gov.

Finally, the quote you cite below, is there a reason for those words, or is it just what it looks like, baseless rhetoric from a partisan?

I am happy to work with you, and I know we don't know each other very well, but this seems like trying to twist a series of routine activities by a PAC into something they are not, as I think is evident in the answers to my questions.

Please let me know how you want to proceed.

Nick


On May 6, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Emily Kopp > wrote:

Hi Nick -

Any update on this? Resending the questions I sent to Allison Wright and Capricia Marshall. You may also find it useful to respond to this quote from Brendan Fischer. He's an expert at the Campaign Legal Center.

"I don’t know I would call it a 'scam PAC.' But the evidence does suggest Hill PAC was used as a slush fund to subsidize Clinton’s presidential campaign, using money raised outside of the limits that apply to the campaign itself, rather than as a fund to support other candidates."

Thanks,
Emily



1. It appears that HillPAC paid for the Clinton campaign’s fundraising list on Jan. 28, 2009, but did not contribute to any candidates after that date. Did it use the list? How so?
2. It also appears HillPAC paid about three times as much as most other buyers. The Clinton Foundation, the Democratic National Committee and the Impact Center all paid $274,297.45, while HillPAC paid $822,492.35. Why did HillPAC pay so much more? Do you think it’s possible that payment could be seen as a contribution or debt relief payment?

3. I noticed that nearly all of the staffers of HillPAC were former staffers of the 2008 campaign. Some were even being paid by the campaign at the same time. Did all of the people being paid by Hill PAC have distinct duties related to HillPAC? Is it possible that some people were being paid for duties related to the campaign with HillPAC funds? A common criticism of leadership PACs is that they act as "holding PACs" for a politician’s staffers between gigs. Is that true of HillPAC?

4. The FEC wrote Hill PAC a few times asking for clarification on expenses related to catering, venues, printing and photography. I also notice HillPAC paid quite a bit in moving expenses. Is it possible that some of the campaign’s expenses were taken care of by HillPAC?



On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Emily Kopp > wrote:
Hi Nick -

Thanks for your email. Happy to talk when you have the chance. I work freelance and I haven't placed this one yet - maybe The Nation. Sorry I can't be more specific!

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Nick Merrill > wrote:
Hi Emily,

My name is Nick Merrill and I'm Secretary Clinton's press secretary. I'm writing with regard to the inquiries you've sent to some former HillPAC officials, and was hoping to catch up to discuss your questions. Would there be a good time today to talk? I am gathering information to address your questions, but am also hoping to know what outlet you're writing this for. I'm on the road a bit but let me know what works, and what your timing is.

Thanks very much.

Nick

--
Emily Kopp
c: 770-789-4628
@emilyakopp


--
Emily Kopp
c: 770-789-4628
@emilyakopp


Re the sham PAC quote, HillPAC became active again after the presidential campaign was over so what campaign did it operate in support of? This is a sham premise.


Maybe I'm missing something.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 9, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Shelly Moskwa <[email protected]> wrote:

Adding Capricia and this is making me mad -- HP accomplished so much in such a short time. My thoughts are below.

Why did HillPAC contribute "less than 25%" of its money? HillPAC was a short, four month, full-speed-ahead effort, designed to create maximum impact the for all levels of the dem ticket, which it did in a very tight time frame under unique circumstances.

Lets not forget that HP was rekindled on July 1 with NOTHING -- only $5000 in the bank - and after that managed to raise enough funds to accomplish hundreds of events, dozens of emails, hundreds of thousands raised, both directly and indirectly, for others.

It could not have done so much in so little time without the valuable resource of the HCFP list, and therefore rented it for a multiple-use contract. In the fall of 2008, that list was fresh, energized, dedicated, etc, probably the best on the market (Obama's

list wasn't for rent then). One can not buy or instantly create those attributes -- the organic value of the list, which was sown over many prior months, was invaluable to the effort of HillPAC. HP made direct contributions, which are apparent on the FEC

report, but it also helped in other ways - it sent dozens of emails on behalf of other candidates, asking list members to donate directly to those candidates, to walk door-to-door for those candidates, to send emails to their friends and families about those

candidates. It was a grass roots operation and effort as much as a financial/contribution effort, and the GR can not always be measured by the figures from an FEC report. Was HP the leanest operation around? Maybe not. But did it accomplish invaluable things

for the dem ticket that no other politician was capable of at the time? Yes - no one else had the time, the political capital, and the ability to gather the same level of resources and put them to use.

(10-06-2016 11:05 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  One semi MSM article already.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-grou...4242.html/

((David Brock))

Globalist Power Player Hosts $5,000-Ticket Clinton Fundraiser in London



http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/...gn-london/

It seems is a trend among globalist powerful people to have eyes of death and darkness.

(10-07-2016 01:08 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  Globalist Power Player Hosts $5,000-Ticket Clinton Fundraiser in London



http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/...gn-london/

It seems is a trend among globalist powerful people to have eyes of death and darkness.

That's not a figure at Madam Tussaud's somewhere?

Today is Friday. Nothing from Julian. Plenty from Guccifer though. He said, each week in Oct. he would release something. He mocked Comey for a Friday release. So that means, this week is a no go from him.

Pathetic.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-07...s-revealax

White House Intervened To Suppress Hillary 'Secret Server' Scandal, Leaked Emails Reveal

Last October, about 6 months after the New York Times first revealed the existence of the Hillary Clinton private email server, President Obama appeared on "60 Minutes" and denied any and all knowledge of her potentially illegal technology arrangements. When asked point blank whether he knew about Hillary's private email server, Obama responded, quite simply, "No."

Of course, we now know from the FBI's investigation notes that, in fact, that was a complete lie. As we noted back in September, Huma Abedin's interview with the FBI on April 5, 2016 revealed an email sent on June 28, 2012 from Obama, using an unknown pseudonym, to Hillary on her private email server. So, either Obama is so incompetent that he didn't recognize that Hillary wasn't using a ".gov" email account or he simply lied in the following interview. We'll let you be the judge.

But now, per a report last night from the Wall Street Journal, we know that, not only did the Obama administration know about Hillary's private email server they actually conspired, along with the State Department, to cover it up. New emails, obtained by the Wall Street Journal via a FOIA request by the Republican National Committee, reveal communications between the White House and the State Department coordinating over how to minimize the potential fallout from Hillary's email scandal so as to not impact her nascent presidential campaign. We're sure Bernie supporters must love that.

The first relevant exchange occurred between White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri and State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki. Shortly after, the March 2nd New York Times article on Hillary's private email server, Palmieri, who was known to be leaving the White House to join the Clinton campaign, emailed Psaki to request that John Kerry not discuss Hillary's email scandal on an upcoming interview with "Face The Nation" on March 15th. Apparently, Psaki was able to coordinate with CBS to make sure Kerry wouldn't be asked any "uncomfortable" questions and then wrote back to Palmieri that they were "good to go on killing CBS idea."

Ten days after the story broke, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri emailed State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki to ask, “between us on the shows…think we can get this done so he is not asked about email.” That apparently referred to Mr. Kerry, who appeared in an interview on CBS ’s “Face the Nation” three days later.

“Agree completely and working to crush on my end,” wrote back Ms. Psaki.

A day later, Ms. Psaki added, “Good to go on killing CBS idea.” She continued, “And we are going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there.” Mr. Kerry wasn’t asked on CBS about the email server, though it isn’t clear how Ms. Psaki could have guaranteed that.


Teased by Ms. Palmieri about her use of the phrase “swirl of crap,” Ms. Psaki wrote back: “Ha I mean—the challenging stories out there.”

And, of course, you can see from the transcript of Kerry's interview that he, in fact, was never asked a single question about Hillary even though other guests were questioned about the scandal later during the show.

Worse yet, Psaki, of the State Department, was seemingly rewarded for helping to "crush CBS idea" as she was given Palmieri's position at the White House once Palmieri departed to join the Clinton campaign.

Ms. Palmieri had previously announced she would be leaving the
administration to join Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in mid-2015, but was still at the White House when she sent the email. Other emails show Ms. Palmieri helped arrange for Ms. Psaki to move from the State Department to the White House communications job Ms. Palmieri was vacating.

Unfortunately the stories don't end there as other emails reveal coordination between the State Department and Hillary's attorney's all while the FBI was conducting an official investigation.

In another email coming from the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management, told Heather Samuelson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys, about new documents the State Department had posted concerning the former secretary of state.


Ms. Samuelson was one of the attorneys who reviewed Mrs. Clinton’s emails to determine which were government-related and which were personal before providing the official ones to the State Department. She was interviewed by the FBI as part of its probe and granted limited immunity in exchange for turning over her laptop as part of the investigation.


In another exchange, Mr. Kennedy told Ms. Samuelson that Politico was “running [a] story that State official said Secretary Clinton did wrong thing. Wildly inaccurate reporting.”

But, as outrageous as this story is, we're sure the mainstream media will simply bury it as yet another ring-wing attempt to "criminalize behavior that is normal" and promptly go back to demanding Trump's tax returns.

Hmm... look at what I found in the Atlantic Council section. The Atlantic Council section has some good dirt in there!

   

Looks like Israel completely takes American aid for granted, and yet without it they would be completely fucked. They ran out of bullets in 2014, and on many other occasions. Bibi ran a "No Palestine" deal, which makes compromise with the Arabs impossible if Bibi keeps his promises.

As if there was any doubt America fights Israel's wars, there can be no more doubt anymore.

The person who wrote this email came from this cute Jewess:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/exp...levie-orey

Quote:Full Bio

Rachel DeLevie-Orey is an Assistant Director with the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. Her work focuses on US-Cuban relations, Mexican reform, and the role of technology in elections. Rachel was a key player in the creation, execution, and dissemination of the first ever national poll on American public opinion of US-Cuba policy, a study which has since been cited in media outlets across the world as an important influencer in the policy discussion. Work on this issue has included op-eds, memos, and public events on the changing dynamics of the US-Cuba relationship. Rachel has been part of briefings for the State Department, the National Security Council, and members of Congress on issues including US-Cuba policy, Mexican energy reform, and the Colombian peace talks.

Previously, Rachel worked for Grunwald Communications, a political communications firm in Washington, DC. The firm creates TV and radio ads for Democratic candidates. Rachel’s campaigns included Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin.

This woman is EXTREMELY high up in the Jewish command structure, and therefore we can assume her grandfather must be even higher. The grandfather knows the scam run on America, and is worried it could end at any moment and jeopardize Israel.

These emails PROVE the Talmudic Jews know what they are doing, it's not a conspiracy theory it's a conspiracy fact.

Of course, the fact of conspiracy has not been unknown to me ever since I had the Jewish girlfriend, but seeing the emails from the Clinton Foundation to confirm this fact tells the public all they need to know.

Wall Street Journal and Fox are also running this story:

Quote:White House coordinated with State Department, Clinton campaign on email issue, documents show
Published October 07, 2016 The Wall Street Journal




Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.

Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.

In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.

The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.

Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs, and strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Issue One and an expert on ethics and campaign finance, said the email exchange would probably raise no legal concerns because federal law permits members of the White House staff to engage in some political activity.

Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement has dogged her campaign for months, with Republicans and other critics saying it shows a carelessness with government secrets and undermines her claim to good judgment. Donald Trump’s campaign posted a statement on his website last month saying the Obama White House knew Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server.

Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the arrangement was a mistake, but she has rejected the notion that national secrets were placed at risk. Her campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the new email disclosures.

The emails highlight the revolving door between the State Department, the White House and the Clinton campaign in early 2015 as Mrs. Clinton geared up to run for president.

When both the House and Senate joint committees are digging into you, that's alot more something, than nothing. Lynch no doubt, is prepping for the grilling of her life that's coming very very soon.

Oy Vey Orey
WB

(10-07-2016 10:34 AM)Samseau Wrote:  The person who wrote this email came from this cute Jewess:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/exp...levie-orey

Some video:

https://youtu.be/iNwv0lY_-Vo?t=10m52s

HOLY SHIT - that reddit thread was/is blowing up headlines already going up about how White House helped Hillary out.

https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+...fs&tbm=nws

Paul Joseph Watson churning out gold again.


Indefensible

Wikileaks just made a drop 1 hour ago. I need to go get some beverages and some more coffee. Someone may want to make a new thread.

Jesus.



https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32

Quote:From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-06-22 04:23
Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal

Dear Jake, I have sent several detailed notes on the Iran nuclear deal, and will avoid repetition. But with the June 30 deadline fast approaching (although it may be extended), and with Hillary certain to be pressed on whether she supports the deal and will urge Congress not to disapprove it, I wanted to share a few thoughts.

1. This could well be a voting issue for many moderates in the Jewish community. The mainstream organized leadership will almost certainly oppose the deal, along with Israel and all the Republican candidates, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and perhaps Egypt.

2. While we cannot be sure until there is a final agreement, it appears that many of the open issues since the preliminary accord, may be resolved in Iran's favor: (1) Enriched uranium will stay in Iran for dilution, rather than be sent to Russia or France for reprocessing. (2) Sanctions will not be phased-out commensurate with compliance, as the US Fact Sheet indicated after the last "agreement", but may come off more quickly. This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region. (3) It is not clear what Iran will be required to do on PMD, if anything. This was required of Iraq by the UNSC in September 2002. Iran should be held to the same standard. They have yet to answer 11 of the 12 IAEA questions, yet UN sanctions will be lifted. (4) Russia, China and Iran itself may be able to block "snapback" sanctions if there is a violation of the agreement. US companies will be disadvantaged compared to European companies, since many US non-nuclear sanctions will remain, while all EU sanctions are nuclear-related. (5) Military sites (Parchin) are likely to be off the table for inspections. (6) Iran will likely be able to do research on advanced centrifuges, which enrich more uranium more rapidly than the current generation. This would markedly reduce the breakout time in the last years of the accord. Presidenr Obama has conceded this point (e.g. David Sanger article in NYT, April 8, 2015) (7) Iran will have an industrial size nuclear program, and will be left as a "nuclear capable state". (8) Iran will be able to keep 1000 centrifuges at Fordo. (9) Nothing in the agreement will limit its support for terrorism.

3. That said, there are likely to be positive aspects to the agreement. (1) The Arak plutonium plant will be effectively dismantled. (2) There will be more intrusive IAEA inspections, since Iran will sign the Additional Protocol of thr NPT. (3) The number of centrifuges will be cut by 2/3. (4) Iran will be a year away from breakout. It would still need to develop a nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile. (5) Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium from 10 tons to 700 pounds. (6) Ten years is a long time and Iran's conduct may moderate.

4, Hillary cannot oppose the agreement given her position as the President's Secretary of State and should urge its approval by Congress under Corker-Cardin. But she can and should point out concerns with it (as she did, unfortunately from my perspective, on TPP/TPA). More broadly, she should appear more muscular I her approach than the President's. The statement I suggested a few months ago still would be appropriate. But she should also say the following: (1) As President, she would never consider Iran a strategic partner in the region. Quite the contrary, she would do all she can to oppose Iranian misconduct. (2) Our allies in the region must know that we will stand behind them and supply them with the means to defend themselves and avoid the region tilting to Iran, including bunker-busting bombs Bush and Obama refused to provide to Israel.. Defense treaties should be considered so any attack by Iran would be considered an attack against the US. (3) Bibi should be invited for early talks on how the partnership with Israel can be strengthened to combat Iran and Israel's other avowed enemies. (4) A common agenda should be forged with Israel and our Arab allies. (5) If the US itself believes Iran has cheated, as President, she would reimpose US sanctions, even if Russia-China-Iran say there was no violation. She would work to get the EU to also reimpose their sanctions. (6) It is just as unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon after the expiration of the agreement, as it is during the agreement, given the nature of the regime. Therefore, while she would not be president, all means should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Best wishes, Stu Eizenstat

(10-07-2016 05:20 PM)Adonis Wrote:  Jesus.



https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32

Quote:From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-06-22 04:23
Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal

Dear Jake, I have sent several detailed notes on the Iran nuclear deal, and will avoid repetition. But with the June 30 deadline fast approaching (although it may be extended), and with Hillary certain to be pressed on whether she supports the deal and will urge Congress not to disapprove it, I wanted to share a few thoughts.

1. This could well be a voting issue for many moderates in the Jewish community. The mainstream organized leadership will almost certainly oppose the deal, along with Israel and all the Republican candidates, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and perhaps Egypt.

2. While we cannot be sure until there is a final agreement, it appears that many of the open issues since the preliminary accord, may be resolved in Iran's favor: (1) Enriched uranium will stay in Iran for dilution, rather than be sent to Russia or France for reprocessing. (2) Sanctions will not be phased-out commensurate with compliance, as the US Fact Sheet indicated after the last "agreement", but may come off more quickly. This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region. (3) It is not clear what Iran will be required to do on PMD, if anything. This was required of Iraq by the UNSC in September 2002. Iran should be held to the same standard. They have yet to answer 11 of the 12 IAEA questions, yet UN sanctions will be lifted. (4) Russia, China and Iran itself may be able to block "snapback" sanctions if there is a violation of the agreement. US companies will be disadvantaged compared to European companies, since many US non-nuclear sanctions will remain, while all EU sanctions are nuclear-related. (5) Military sites (Parchin) are likely to be off the table for inspections. (6) Iran will likely be able to do research on advanced centrifuges, which enrich more uranium more rapidly than the current generation. This would markedly reduce the breakout time in the last years of the accord. Presidenr Obama has conceded this point (e.g. David Sanger article in NYT, April 8, 2015) (7) Iran will have an industrial size nuclear program, and will be left as a "nuclear capable state". (8) Iran will be able to keep 1000 centrifuges at Fordo. (9) Nothing in the agreement will limit its support for terrorism.

3. That said, there are likely to be positive aspects to the agreement. (1) The Arak plutonium plant will be effectively dismantled. (2) There will be more intrusive IAEA inspections, since Iran will sign the Additional Protocol of thr NPT. (3) The number of centrifuges will be cut by 2/3. (4) Iran will be a year away from breakout. It would still need to develop a nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile. (5) Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium from 10 tons to 700 pounds. (6) Ten years is a long time and Iran's conduct may moderate.

4, Hillary cannot oppose the agreement given her position as the President's Secretary of State and should urge its approval by Congress under Corker-Cardin. But she can and should point out concerns with it (as she did, unfortunately from my perspective, on TPP/TPA). More broadly, she should appear more muscular I her approach than the President's. The statement I suggested a few months ago still would be appropriate. But she should also say the following: (1) As President, she would never consider Iran a strategic partner in the region. Quite the contrary, she would do all she can to oppose Iranian misconduct. (2) Our allies in the region must know that we will stand behind them and supply them with the means to defend themselves and avoid the region tilting to Iran, including bunker-busting bombs Bush and Obama refused to provide to Israel.. Defense treaties should be considered so any attack by Iran would be considered an attack against the US. (3) Bibi should be invited for early talks on how the partnership with Israel can be strengthened to combat Iran and Israel's other avowed enemies. (4) A common agenda should be forged with Israel and our Arab allies. (5) If the US itself believes Iran has cheated, as President, she would reimpose US sanctions, even if Russia-China-Iran say there was no violation. She would work to get the EU to also reimpose their sanctions. (6) It is just as unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon after the expiration of the agreement, as it is during the agreement, given the nature of the regime. Therefore, while she would not be president, all means should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Best wishes, Stu Eizenstat

The bolded part... I literally can't even

Excerpts from her Wall Street Speeches:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Highlights:

Quote:*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

Quote:*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

The Trump Campaign needs to use that somehow. That's nasty!

(10-07-2016 06:00 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  Excerpts from her Wall Street Speeches:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927...

Yup saw that one as well. Should be a real eye opener to those quick to deny.
Should be...

Headlines from 927 :

*CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH*
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*
*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS*
*CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET*
*CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING*
*CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR*
*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE*
*CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE*
*CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES*
*CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE*
*CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER*

This one should pull some support from the Jill Stein types.....NOT!

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/118

Quote:From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-04-19 23:40
Subject: Re: NYT: Book Questions Clinton Donations

Yes - but if we want to have her express skepticism we can do so through a spox answer to question, using our QA.

> On Apr 19, 2015, at 9:19 PM, Robby Mook <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The enviros may latch onto this going forward. Have we discussed when she will come out against Keystone? After POTUS vetoes?

> > and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department. >

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225

Quote:From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-04-29 13:47
Subject: Fwd: It's out there

Fyi

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
*From:* Tony Carrk <[email protected]>
*Date:* April 29, 2015 at 11:25:34 AM EDT
*To:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]>, Brian Fallon < [email protected]>
*Subject:* *It's out there*

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/firm-c...anium-one/

Them turning on their own warms my soul.

(10-07-2016 07:35 PM)Adonis Wrote:  Them turning on their own warms my soul.

Butthurt liberals are hilarious. Way to go. The right move would have been to let it slide. He just had to let the whole world know that comment hurt his feelings badly. What a pussy.