Subject: 2016 GOP HIT on HRC
From: "Hendricks, Lauren" <[email-masked]>
To: Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brinster, Jeremy" <[email-masked]>, "Crystal, Andy" <[email-masked]>, "Dillon, Lauren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 06:31:41 -0700

America Rising PAC Tweet
5/17/16 9:22 AM
Read Here<https://twitter.com/AmericaRising/status/732561594144677888>
AR’s @ColinTReed<https://twitter.com/ColinTReed/> Publishes Op-Ed In Today’s @bostonherald<https://twitter.com/bostonherald/>: “@SenWarren<https://twitter.com/SenWarren/> can’t ‘Occupy’ ticket with @HillaryClinton<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/>” bit.ly/1WCsOO0<https://t.co/yegBKzGtsO>
Colin Reed: Liz can’t ‘Occupy’ ticket with Hillary<http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2016/05/colin_reed_liz_can_t_occupy_ticket_with_hillary>
Clinton guilty as anyone of what Warren so deplores
Colin Reed<http://www.bostonherald.com/users/colin_reed> Tuesday, May 17, 2016

There has been an avalanche of speculation about U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joining the Democratic ticket with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At first, the idea makes political sense, given Clinton’s failure to satiate the ravenous left wing of the Democratic Party that harbors significant misgivings toward her.

But a more careful analysis of Warren’s rhetoric shows it would be impossible without the former Harvard law professor compromising nearly all of her core principles. Setting aside the unresolved questions about Warren’s dubious claims to Native American ancestry, here are five reasons a Clinton-Warren ticket can’t happen.

First, Warren routinely decries the influence of the “army of lobbyists” in D.C., while Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, co-founded a lobbying firm with his brother that The New Yorker described as “one of the most successful in Washington.”

Second, as the self-confessed intellectual “founder” of the radical Occupy Wall Street movement, Warren was one of the pioneers of the “system being rigged” rallying cry, while Clinton has benefited immensely from said “rigged system.” Bill and Hillary Clinton practically invented the kind of crony capitalism Warren so despises by using their political influence to enrich their personal portfolio, behavior perhaps best personified by Clinton earning more than $21 million in paid speeches after leaving the State Department.

Third, despite her enormous Harvard salary nearing half a million dollars, Warren has repeatedly complained that college graduates are “drowning in debt.” The Clinton Foundation took at least $1.8 million in speaking fees from colleges and universities during a nine-month time period. Clinton’s standard fee to address universities was a staggering $200,000 or more, even to cash-strapped and taxpayer-funded public colleges.

Fourth, Warren is waging a war against Wall Street, while Clinton has become the industry favorite. Even President Obama has not been immune from Warren’s wrath, as she has repeatedly blocked his high-profile nominees because of their experience in the financial industry.

A recent Wall Street Journal headline blared, “Financial Sector Gives Hillary Clinton a Boost.” A Bloomberg analysis of first-quarter political contributions revealed, “Clinton gathered almost 70 cents of every $1 spent in the presidential race by employees of the six biggest U.S. banks in the first quarter.” Warren supporting Clinton would be on par with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg joining forces with the National Rifle Association — they are diametrically opposed on each other’s pet issue.

Lastly and most importantly is Warren’s bombshell accusation that Clinton was bought off by campaign donations from the credit card industry. As the controversy over her paid speeches has raged on, Clinton has claimed there is no correlation between campaign contributions and legislation. But that’s precisely the explosive charge Warren leveled in her 2004 book, “A Two-Income Trap.”

As the Washington Post reported earlier this year: “Warren blames Clinton’s about-face as senator on the impact of campaign contributions. ‘The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,’ Warren wrote. ‘Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.’ ”

In short, Elizabeth Warren should add Hillary Clinton to the long line of people she throws rocks at, because Clinton is as guilty as anyone of the behavior the former Harvard law professor finds so deplorable.

Colin Reed is the former campaign manager for c. He now serves as the executive director of America Rising PAC, a Republican opposition research and communications organization.

Lauren Hendricks