motonoggin

Leaks show DNC asked White House to reward donors with slots on boards and commissions by Alec Goodwin on July 26, 2016 The Wikileaks release of Democratic National Committee emails has roiled the first days of the party’s presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Rex Features) Email exchanges involving top officials at the Democratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House. The revelations give an inside look into how the Democratic Party attempted to leverage its access and influence with the White House to bring in cash. In an April 20, 2016 email, DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan canvassed what appears to be the committee’s finance department – its fundraising office – for names of people (mainly donors) to reward with federal appointments on boards and commissions. That email exchange yielded a list compiled by DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer andemailed to Kaplan on April 26 titled “Boards and Commissions Names_Final,” which listed the names of twenty-three DNC donors and insiders. Kaplan emailed the list to Amanda Moose,special assistant to the president for presidential personnel, later that day. In an email without a subject line, Kaplan wrote just one line: “For your review,” seemingly referring to a previous conversation or exchange. Then on April 28, Kaplan missed a call with Moose. He emailed Comer asking for Moose’s number that afternoon, presumably to call her back. Comer sent Kaplan the number. It’s unclear if Kaplan and Moose spoke. But the two may have spoken several days later; a May 3 email from Comer to Kaplan shows that Moose wanted to set up a “20 minute conversation” with Kaplan. None of the individuals on the list have been appointed to boards or commissions since the email exchanges took place almost three months ago. A few were named to slots in previous years. The White House strongly denied any link between financial support for the party and appointments. “Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz in an email to OpenSecrets Blog, “nor does it preclude you from getting one. We’ve said this for many years now and there’s nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that.” The people on the list weren’t just hefty donors to the DNC; many also gave big money to Obama. The practice of rewarding big donors with federal positions dates back to the times of the founding fathers. Bob Biersack, who spent 30 years at the Federal Election Commission and is a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, said that “Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape. This example shows that party fundraisers continue to see these appointments as an important tool in the donor maintenance process.” Most of the people on the list gave huge sums to the Democratic National Committee, as well as the party’s primary fundraising arms for its congressional candidates: the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Below is the full breakdown of donations made by individuals on the list from the beginning of the 2008 cycle through the end of June 2016. We included donations to candidate committees, PACs, super PACs and joint-fundraising committees. As the table shows, the people whose names were on the list for possible federal appointments are big donors to the DNC, hold important positions there, and/or are big donors to Obama. Many on the list bundled for the Obama campaign and are bundlers for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Notably, the individuals on the list gave significant sums to Clinton and none to Bernie Sanders. Wade Randlett, CEO of General Biofuels and a big donor to the DNC as well as its House and Senate fundraising counterparts, was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations in 2014. Another on the list — Shekar Narasimhan — was appointed to Obama’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in 2014. David Shapira, CEO of supermarket company Giant Eagle, wasnominated to be on the board of governors of USPS by Obama in 2014, but the nomination was blocked by Congress. In the emails leaked by WikiLeaks, Kaplan wrote “this is the last call for boards and commissions; if you have someone, send to Comer – full name, city, state, email and phone number.” “Send as many as you want, just don’t know how many people will get to,” Kaplan wrote in an email sent April 20 to what appears to be the DNC’s finance department. Comer clarified in a later email, “Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.” These emails appear to show that DNC finance staffers – the DNC’s fundraising staff, in other words – could suggest people they felt should be rewarded with federal appointments. Responding to another question, Comer wrote “I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like ‘President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.’ (no shade to women).” In that same email, sent on April 21, Comer also said “when you submit your names, we don’t need specific designations.” Comer’s statements imply that the DNC could neither guarantee any specific position nor ensure that a person suggested would receive an appointment at all from the Obama administration. Reached at her office in the White House, Moose said she was not authorized to comment. OpenSecrets Blog did manage to contact Kaplan, but he hung up after realizing it was a reporter. Comer directed our request for comment to a political consultant, who forwarded it to the DNC, which did not respond by press time. The list was first reported on by the Daily Caller, a conservative news organization. The Caller article implied that the documents and emails showed Clinton traded appointments for donations, which does not appear to be the case; some gave nothing to Clinton, and many gave to Obama as well as providing hefty contributions to the Democratic Party’s fundraising arms, including those that gather cash to help House and Senate candidates. The publication did not note the direct contact with the Obama administration shown in the emails.

Sorry, it won't let me see it now either, even signed in.

He'll never admit that the primary was rigged.

I read it.

He's not a dictator, he can't just 'legalize' it by fiat.

How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked messages. http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-deplorable-emails-1473981664

I'm with Jill. .

....

By Michael Sainato • 09/16/16 8:00am Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images Hillary Clinton’s State Department has been revealed to be indefensibly unethical. From the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play to the highly questionable defensesClinton used during her FBI investigation, the extent to which similar dirty politics were used to help her win the Democratic primaries merits further attention. After the releases by Wikileaksand Guccifer 2.0, the role in which Nevada—a crucial early voting state—played in stopping Bernie Sanders’ surge against Clinton is brought into light. The undemocratic nature by which Clintonwon the Democratic primaries sets a dangerous precedent. On September 15, former Congressionalcandidate in Nevada’s fourth district, Dan Rolle, took to Twitter to explain how, starting in 2012, the Nevada Democratic Party began changing the state’s voter registration system as a means to rig the caucuses for Clinton. Most state Democratic parties—including Nevada—moved to NGPVAN database systems, which Rolle says facilitated the monopolization of voter data in favor of Clinton. “So now, if you are @HillaryClinton and you have @NGPVAN, you know everything about every democrat. Including who WON’T vote for you,” Rolle tweeted. “So how do you fix that? Simple. Vote Builder. A piece of software that can change the state voter file. And you do that with: @NGPVAN” Rolle attended a fundraising call before the Nevada caucuses, between ClintonCampaign Manager Robby Mook and Nevada Democratic Party donors who were worried she would lose the state, as 70 percent of newly registered voters were expected to support Sanders. According to Rolle, there was a meeting with donors in New York leading up to the Nevada caucus, where donors threatened to pull out. “I met with Nevada Democratic Party executive board members who told me they were aware of caucus members being bussed in from California,” Rolle told the Observer, noting there were significant discrepancies with the Nevada Democratic Party’s voter file. “When I pressed on the accuracy in the voter file, I was told ‘it’s garbage’ by an executive board member.” Over the course of Rolle’s campaign for Congress in Nevada this year, his team found anywhere between five to 10 percent discrepancies and higher in the voter file. “You reach a point, statistically, where if you say, ‘Hey, we are running for congress and 20 percent of this voter file is garbage.’ On the voter file, names were incorrect, phone numbers didn’t work. So you call someone on the file and they say, ‘That’s not me’ or ‘I moved three years ago.’ One or two of those you expect—but 15 in 100 calls? That’s election swinging right there.” Clinton defeated Sanders in the Nevada caucuses 52.6 percent to 47.3 percent, a margin lower than the accuracy of the voter file. The process for recording results at the Nevada caucus was unreliable and easily subject to manipulation. The Young Turks’ host Jimmy Dore posted a video on Youtube shortly after the Nevada caucuses, pointing out an inept chairman of a caucus site in Las Vegas. Dore narrated as the chairman forgot to nominate delegates to go to the state convention after tallying the vote, and let people caucus who weren’t registered. A separate video posted on Youtube revealed unregistered Clinton supporters entering a caucus site in Nevada. “The process of recording results from the Nevada Caucus just involved a person (usually sent out there by the Nevada Democratic Party) entering the results into a website on a phone. No cross-referencing. No validation. You have people entering, voting, and leaving before business concludes, with no verification.” Rolle confronted the Nevada Democratic Party about the disorganization and lack of communication at several Nevada caucus sites. “I was told, ‘We are working on it, we are learning.’ Not ‘there isn’t fraud.’ ” Rolle noted that the Nevada caucuses could have easily swung one or two delegates at several different sites, swaying the state in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid played a major role in tipping the Nevada caucuses in favor of Hillary Clinton. Reid, who maintained neutrality until shortly after the caucuses—at which point heendorsed Clinton—called in favors to casino owners, asking for workers to be sent to caucus sites in Las Vegas. “If Harry Reid is going to push the needle with union workers going to the polls (on paid time), Nevada is the state to do it,” Rolle added. The Culinary Workers Union, for example, did not intend to participate in the Nevada caucuses—until a call from Reid to the union’s leader changed their mind. Following the caucuses, 64 of Sanders delegates were rejected at the Nevada State Democratic Party Convention by a board chosen by Clinton. The delegates would have given Sanders an edge. Roberta Lange, the state party’s chair, denied a recount of delegates and ended the convention at her own discretion, therefore breaking the party’s own rules to ensure Clinton received more delegates from Nevada than Sanders. While Sanders supporters were understandably outraged, biased mainstream media coverage portrayed them as violent. Some went so far as to falsely claim Sanders supporters threw chairs in protest—a narrative Wikileaks proved the DNC staff intentionally pushed to discredit the Sanders campaign. The allegations were eventually debunked, yet The New York Times, among other publications, failed to publish retractions or make edits to correct the story. What happened at the Nevada State Convention is essentially a microcosm of the entire Democratic primaries. The Democratic Party leadership breaks, bends and circumvent the rules to help Hillary Clinton—and when Sanders supporters protest, mainstream media outlets attack. The victory Nevada Democrat officials were able to squeeze out for Clinton enabled the media to continue portraying Bernie Sanders as the “unrealistic” underdog in a Democratic primary that belonged to Clinton before a single vote was cast. http://observer.com/2016/09/former-democratic-congressional-candidate-says-hillary-stole-nevada/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

Bernie isn't my God or my King. He's a man. Men are flawed, always will be. The ideas he was talking about are what drew me to him. I happen to disagree that Hillary and the corporate Democrats are the best choice to advance those ideas. In fact, Bernie is dead fucking wrong about that. The primary was rigged, the DNC leaks proved it, I'm not paying. Fuck off.

So, you're saying the Clintons are no better than Trump. Finally, some truth.

No one said anything about paying your fair share. You're like the fake chicks on Ashley Madison. Preprogrammed responses.

If you don't like how high your taxes are you should have thought of that when A. You support supply side economics B. Also support offshoring jobs and suppression of wages Now we all pay, because you were stupid. Way to go.

Yup. As if the United States isn't collapsing under corporate socialism.

There are definitely pro cannabis activists opposed to this. If it were up to me, I'd do it differently. But for now, it is definitely better than it was.

Yes, just like tomatoes. It's harmless. Less harmful than water. You can drink too much water and die but no one has ever died from using too much cannabis.

They did a similar thing in CO. Over regulated medical system, then they went fully legal. I give it 5 years and we'll be there.