Tuesday, October 11, 2016

What is in the Hacked Podesta Emails? Corruption Part 1

Anyone can go through these emails. You don’t have to take my word about what is in them. I haven’t had the time to go through every one of them, but enough to know any objective person who takes the time to go through them should never vote for Hillary Clinton.

They cover collusion with the media, Uranium One, the Department of Justice, her speeches, Bill Clinton and so much more. Supposedly the worst are yet to come.


From Bill Ivey


Date: 2016-03-13 17:06

Subject: From Bill Ivey

Dear John:

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens

United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money

isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the

electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats

and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas,

free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and

running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw

celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its

time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development

pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are

dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general?

Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump,

Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the

poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the

conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all

been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire

to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains

strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands

some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven,

demographically-inspired messaging.

Rubio's press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its

entirety, not just in nibbles. I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here

next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just

get to wave without a "hello."

I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be

simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

Sent with a handshake,


I guess the Mainstream Media will gloss over this, however it should scare every citizen to see someone from her staff admit they are conspiring to produce an “unaware and compliant citizenry.”
In this next email you will see a campaign giving “assignments” to Senate and House members BEFORE the Benghazi hearings. How can this happen? Was the fix in before the hearing even started?

Benghazi hearing / Hill roll out - this Thursday 8th

To:,,,,, more

Date: 2015-10-05 20:26

Subject: Benghazi hearing / Hill roll out - this Thursday 8th

Schiliro and team,

We spoke with John this morn about doing the Hill roll out of our

pre-hearing plans, later this week.

Columbus Day recess next week, this week is our only in-person chance for


HFA already has regularly scheduled weekly calls with:

House Chiefs (Mon. 11:30am)

Senate Chiefs (Tues. 12pm)

Senate Women (Tues 4pm)

John is joining tomorrow's Senate Women 4pm call (stepping out from the

DK/3:30pm mtg).

Bearing in mind we only have Schiliro until Thursday 12pm, and Thursday is

best day for Members - Amanda and Adrienne at HFA

are working now to coordinate with House/Senate on when/where would be best

for potentially 3 Thursday meetings (assuming need to do House/Sen


Hoyer's Whips meeting, Thursday 9am - Amanda checking w/his Chief, if

John/Phil could attend/present there.

Separately/in addition, we could host a smaller group of top House Members,

Crowley, Lowey, Schiff, etc. for more detailed discussion/assignments (at


Senate, separate meeting.

Schiliro, Phil B, Matt - your thoughts/guidance on proposed mtg plan ?

Palmieri/Reynolds - can we weave in some of our 'accomplishments roll out'


All - chime in, wanted to get this rolling since time is of the essence,

and for HFA travel planning:

Schiliro in DC Tues. 11am-Thurs 12pm

Podesta in DC, Tuesday, Thurs/Friday

Amanda in DC, Wedn/Thurs/Friday

Palmieri in DC Friday (Jen - could you be there Thurs?)

Fallon in DC Tuesday, rest of week tbd as needed



The following are excerpts from some of her paid speeches. These are excerpts her staff feel may cause her problems. I think these excerpts should cause her problems.

HRC Paid Speeches


Date: 2016-01-25 00:28

Subject: HRC Paid Speeches


Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put

some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should

give an extra scrub with Policy.

In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington

Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to

universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read


*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]


*Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room

Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To

Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that

word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that

are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment

about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history,

and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and

working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite

predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from

New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need

your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends

who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean,

politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been

that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's

watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you

know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both

a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in

evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean,

it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you

going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or

not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going

to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National

Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]



*Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For

The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And

Really Politicizing What Happened.”* “That was one of the reasons that I

started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally

yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this

everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the

conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been

avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what

happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you

know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from

happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do

it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to

fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just

wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.”

[Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is

That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of

Us.” *“Now,

it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play

in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function

effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to

command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's

transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if

the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem

for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear.

And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held

accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the

public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.”

[Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]



*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry

Itself.” *“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw

as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in

politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic

reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance

that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's

more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry

itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time

where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's

square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up

to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The

People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work

In The Industry.”* “I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are

looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages

and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.

There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is

bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?

And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people

who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that,

you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so

much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We

spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in

everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the

United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.”

[Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]


*Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run

For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The

Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. *“Secondly, running for

office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out

and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for

fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our

economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some

tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who

were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS

Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising

A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You

Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.”* “So our system is, in

many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer

than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject

themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected

president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out

there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that

it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has

been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's

very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public

business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you

do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose track, but I think I raised $250

million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President

Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of

this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this

kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you

know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're

kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run

for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having

other people supporting you because your opponent will have their

supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even

harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership

Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]


*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall

Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But

Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *In remarks at Robbins,

Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a

Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented

principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I

represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to

prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing

skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something

about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street

literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial

system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings

about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over

complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people

sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it

ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in

San Diego, 9/04/14]

*Clinton On Wall Street: “I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close

Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work

You Do And The People Who Do It.” *“Now, without going over how we got to

where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street

community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important

decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight

years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to

rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people

who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and

the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08,

you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the

world.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]


*Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led

Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets,

Positions, And Stocks.* “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what

Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington,

he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small

-- MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you

go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington.

Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political

situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led

successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets,

the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just

becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And

Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]


*Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be

“Moderate.” *“URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON:

Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON:

Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to

questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we

do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic

parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14]

*Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have

To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To

Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An

Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If

You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.”*

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than

experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you

heard from Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely,

we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we

have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can

be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And

what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats

alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I

think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what

is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that

you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in

this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know,

you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of

agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to

cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are

slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us

would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our

European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of

the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley,


*Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were

Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues,

And You Have To Have Growth.”* CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles

framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be

negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to

restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have

growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.

[Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]


*Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than

Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That

Was True Across The U.S. Government.”* CLINTON: But, at the State

Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming

efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S.

government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I

would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the

plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're

trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're

trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going

after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So

it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is

the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our

competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of

safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects

need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to

have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of

that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can

be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to

networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking

that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in

Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show

and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says,

well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh,

thank you so much. I mean, really, I don't know. I have a hard time

following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]

*Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against

The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To

A Blackberry.” *“I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully,

woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology.

When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let

most -- or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry.

You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there.

Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still

a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [Hillary

Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our

Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. *“I mean, probably the

most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're

the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean,

every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't

take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take

anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them

in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we'd

leave them on the plane.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted

To Have Handheld Devices.”* “You know, when Colin Powell showed up as

Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't

even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly

permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we

operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing

forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't

try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global

Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

*Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When

Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put

them In A Special Box. *“And anybody who has ever traveled in other

countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and

China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers. And

if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we

would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes.

Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody

about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we

would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what

we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the

purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there

are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you

could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re

sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We

have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing

it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.” [Goldman Sachs Builders

And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In

Technology, Saying “People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices

Because Of Security Issues.” *“Personally, having, you know, lived and

worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of

State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented,

hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our

personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in

government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the

State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was

embarrassing. And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile

devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to

try to push into the last part of the 20th Century in order to get people

functioning in 2009 and ‘10.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators

Summit, 10/29/13]                                


*Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course

It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes

Opposing Reasons…” *“So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and

of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and

sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think

our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to

really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more

closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at

tinePublic, 6/18/14]

*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.


*Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade;

We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade.


I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under

the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank

figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a

lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a

priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either

make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other

kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see

this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under

president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to

Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]


*Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And

“Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like

Waiting Times.” *“If you look at countries that are comparable, like

Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't

have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over

budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems,

like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because,

you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good

or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like

waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement

than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids,


*Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And

Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care

Like In Canada.* “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past.

The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during

World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer

healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early

1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And

after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there

was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that

model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for

healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the

early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our

program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to

get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary

means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were

eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding

partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided

some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what

we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was

successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based

system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go

anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's

administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were

very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your

insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And

so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based

system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in

getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still

have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get

subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a

major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose

employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on

their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't

provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still

struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have

insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a

great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue

to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether

employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call

the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we

do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take

it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we

also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that

system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward

with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that

whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of

legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really

take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving

forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have

here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]

Are the excerpts of these speeches that even her own campaign feels will cause trouble, what you want in a President? How about this next one?

Re: Conservative Catholicism


Date: 2011-04-11 21:10

Subject: Re: Conservative Catholicism

Excellent point. They can throw around "Thomistic" thought and "subsidiarity" and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about.

Jennifer Palmieri <> wrote:

I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.

----- Original Message -----

From: John Halpin

To: John Podesta <>; Jennifer Palmieri

Sent: Mon Apr 11 18:55:59 2011

Subject: Conservative Catholicism

Ken Auletta's latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin' Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.

It's an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

Even her campaign staff knew she was lying about her email server!

Fwd: Tomorrow


Date: 2015-06-22 18:07

Subject: Fwd: Tomorrow

Begin forwarded message:

*From:* Erika Rottenberg <>

*Date:* June 21, 2015 at 9:20:19 PM PDT

*To:* Stephanie Hannon <>, "Ann O'Leary" <>

*Cc:* Lindsay Roitman <>

*Subject:* *Tomorrow*

Hi Ann and Stephanie --

Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow night. I suspect it will be

broad ranging.

Few things:

1. are the two of you and john planning on spending about 15 mins

chatting about the inside of the campaign, and policy broadly, and then

opening up to Q&A for about 45 mins or doing all Q&A? I Actually think

that it'd be great for y'all to hit on some key policy items first and i

know folks would enjoy the inside glance at the campaign.

2. I plan to do an intro and Jeff will close with a very brief how to

get involved. I'll then close with a special toast and treat.

I have not reached out to John - -please let me know if you think I should.

Couple of questions that came in:

1. you're obviously amongst friends, but here's the one i referred to

(can't remember which of you i talked about it with, if not both). It's

from someone that wasn't goign to come, and i encouraged him to come. he

comes at the issue slightly differnetly than what I've dsicussed with both

of you (Ok, one thing to use personal email, but why the "twisted truth"

(not my words) on why - with the two problematic areas being (a) emails to

bill (when they were to bill's staff) and (b) i only used one device -- BB,

when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB and ipad. As Ann and I

discussed, hopefully that's a timing issue and whilst in state, she only

used one. :)

*For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased

right yet I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all

struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with

answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email

addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was

viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure

documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and

delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to

weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of

thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

2) someone wants to ask a very specific question about updating export

control laws - and why they've haven't been updated since (??) as they

prevent american businesses selling abroad (she's GC of a consumer drone

company). Going to the 20,000 foot level, you'lll do well to talk about

needing to ensure regulation that's designed to protect consumers - yet not

so much that it prevents innovation, like what happens here in SV, which

has been the economic bright spot of our economy. The goverenment of the

21st century will need to be more nimble, and quicker to respond to rapidly

changing busiensses, yet also ensure that it's not rash, and it regulates

for not just for today but the future. too

3) we'll see whether asked - but I would suspect something on the balance

of 4th amendment and cyber - and the US govt's request for companies to

provide a backdoor to encryption -- we discussed that yesterday.

4) Number three leads to a more general and i think thoughtful question -

-which permeates every aspect of our country - from the economy, to the

government to institutions like health care, defense, education and the

justice system.

Trust of the American public in American institutions : A poll was just

released showing that trust in Congress, the presidency, the Supreme

Court, big business, Wall Street, etc. is at historic lows. That does not

bode well for the country (and in fact the military seems to be the only

institution that Ameicans trust, which is evocative of a third world nation

and not of the world's leading nation, for now).


The issues that Reid and I teed up for john when he was at the tech

roundtable with Steph and Amanda at LinkedIn were:

- surveillance and national security - the proper balance (it is not an

either or -- it is an 'and')

- patent reform (less of an issue with s ct decision)

- net neutrality, and, of course,

- email issue

There should be a good crowd, but unfortunately a number of folks are out

of town, and in terms of GC's, a number have annual meetings and the like.

Nonetheless, there will be a reasonable showing - prob about 50 folks

(though about 70 have said they're coming). They range from tech folks to

GC's to law firm counsel to non profits to STanford folk and even one union

leader (SEIU) may show.

Steph, in terms of recruiting - -there are a few people that might be

helpful - and each of them is a wonderful human being. Though I don't know

that any are looking, they're defnitely worthwhile talking to:

- Madeline Fackler, who was recently CIO for Johnson and Johnson. She

and her atty husband split their time between here and NYC.

- Ian McNish - one of the very early infrastructure folks at LinkedIn -

he joined when the company was still in a garage. He's been at Box for the

last couple of years advising them on IT, infrastructure and Ops. He may

be looking for something BIG to be a part of. Tireless, passoinate,

brilliant person. Catch will be his wonderful girlfriend, also from

linkedin, now heads up communicatoins/PR at GogoBot. (she too will be here

- adn they'll both stay for the afterparty. they're a hoot)

- Ian McCarthy - consumer digital media. also early LI employee, and has

been at a number of startups. Terrific guy.

- Unfortunately folks who were responsible for "growth" and some of the

data scientists didn't respond, and i didn't have time to followup......we

should set up some time to talk offline if you want.

Hope this helps, and please do let me know if i can be of any help, though

i'm out of pocket for most of tomorrow (talkign on cybersecurity at

stanford directors college).




More to follow!

No comments:

Post a Comment