Subject: H4A News Clips 7.26.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 08:00:00 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*July 26, 2015*

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**4*

*Stung in 2008, Hillary Clinton Builds a Formidable Team in Iowa* // NYT //
Trip Gabriel - July 25, 2015    4

*Clinton says she's confident about proper handling of emails* // AP //
Catherine Lucey - July 25, 2015        6

*New York Times corrects 'criminal' aspect of Clinton email story* //
Politico // Dylan Byers - July 25, 2015 8

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE.............................................................................
**9*

*Aides for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi Committee Dispute Testimony Plan*
// NYT // Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman - July 25,
2015...........................................................................................
9

*Clinton may testify to Benghazi committee in October* // WaPo // Anne
Gearan - July 25, 2015 11

*Clinton Sent Classified Information Over Email While at State Department,
Review Finds* // WSJ // Byron Tau - July 25,
2015......................................................................................................................
13

*Hillary Clinton to Testify Before Benghazi Panel* // WSJ // Byron Tau -
July 25, 2015............... 16

*Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Use Personal Email Account to Send or
Receive Secret Data* // WSJ // Colleen McCain Nelson - July 25,
2015...............................................................................................
17

*More bickering between Clinton team, House Benghazi panel* // AP // Ken
Thomas - July 25, 2015             18

*Hillary Clinton denies sending classified info from private server* //
Politico // Hadas Gold - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
19

*Hillary Clinton agrees to appear before Benghazi panel* // Politico //
Gabriel Debenedetti and Rachael Bade - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
20

*Republicans, Hillary Clinton Team Bicker Over Scope of Benghazi Hearing*
// Bloomberg // Chris Strohm - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
23

*Hillary Clinton to Lay Out Climate, Renewable Energy Policy in Iowa* //
Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - July 25,
2015...............................................................................................................................
25

*Hillary Clinton Says She Didn't Send or Receive Information Classified at
the Time* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - July 25,
2015..........................................................................................................
25

*Exclusive: AFL-CIO may delay endorsement of Clinton as 2016 presidential
candidate – sources* // Reuters // Luciana Lopez - July 25,
2015................................................................................................
27

*Clinton, congressional Benghazi panel at odds over appearance date* //
Reuters // Bill Trott - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
29

*House Benghazi panel says no date set for Clinton testimony* // Reuters //
Eric Beech - July 25, 2015        30

*Clinton campaign, Republicans clash over Benghazi testimony* // CNN // Dan
Merica - July 25, 2015         30

*Clinton on emails: 'The facts are pretty clear'* // CNN // Eugene Scott -
July 25, 2015............... 32

*Hillary Clinton agrees to testify before Benghazi committee in October* //
MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald - July 25,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
34

*Hillary Clinton: Emails were not marked as classified* // MSNBC // Kristen
Welker - July 25, 2015               35

*Hillary’s inconceivably stupid capital-gains tax scheme* // NBC // Larry
Kudlow - July 25, 2015 36

*Hillary Clinton Says She’s 'Confident' She Did Not Send or Receive
Classified Information* // ABC // Liz Kreutz - July 25,
2015......................................................................................................................
38

*Dispute Continues Over Hillary Clinton Testifying Before Benghazi Panel*
// TIME // Zeke J. Miller - July 25,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
39

*Clinton Aide: Hillary Clinton To Testify Before Benghazi Committee In
October* // HuffPo // Sam Levine - July 25,
2015...............................................................................................................................
40

*Hillary Clinton's campaign says she will testify before Congress about
Benghazi terrorist attacks in October* // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph
and Denis Slattery - July 25, 2015..................................... 40

*Hillary Clinton to Testify Before Congress About Benghazi Emails* //
Gawker // Brendan O’Connor - July 25,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
41

*Hillary Clinton accepts invitation to testify before Benghazi committee*
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - July 25,
2015......................................................................................................
42

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **43*

*DECLARED.................................................................................................
**43*

*O’MALLEY...............................................................................................
**43*

*O'Malley college debt was self-inflicted by unwise decisions* // Baltimore
Sun // Jerry Rodkey - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
43

*SANDERS.................................................................................................
**44*

*For Bernie Sanders, a lot riding on a Louisiana visit* // WaPo // John
Wagner - July 25, 2015... 44

*Bernie Sanders is in with the enemy, some old allies say* // WaPo // David
A. Fahrenthold - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
46

*Bernie Sanders heads to Louisiana* // Washington Examiner // Sarah
Westwood - July 25, 2015 52

*OTHER....................................................................................................
**52*

*Democrats woo activists in key Des Moines neighborhood* // AP // Catherine
Lucey- July 25, 2015              52

*Netroots disruption energizes black activists* // Politico // Maya Park
and Daniel Strauss - July 25, 2015   54

*GOP.................................................................................................................
**57*

*DECLARED..................................................................................................
**57*

*RUBIO......................................................................................................
**57*

*Marco Rubio Is Ticked Off About The Iran Deal (And He Wants Everyone To
Know)* // ABC // Ines de la Cuetara - July 25,
2015..........................................................................................................
57

*WALKER.................................................................................................
**58*

*In Iowa, Donald Trump Takes Aim at Scott Walker, for a Change* // NYT //
Trip Gabriel - July 25, 2015       58

*Trump goes on the attack again, with Scott Walker as his latest target* //
WaPo // David Weigel - July 25,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
60

*Trump slams Walker as governor leads in early voting Iowa* // AP // Thomas
Beaumont - July 25, 2015     62

*Trump on debates: 'I'm going to be in the lion's den'* // CNN // Eugene
Scott - July 25, 2015.... 64

*Trump takes aim at Walker in Iowa* // CNN // Eugene Scott - July 25,
2015............................. 64

*Could North Carolina be Scott Walker's big prize?* // CBS // Jacqueline
Alemany - July 25, 2015 66

*Donald Trump on Scott Walker: 'Finally, I Can Attack'* // ABC // Jessica
Hopper, Alec Goodwin, and Cristina Ochoa - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................
68

*PAUL........................................................................................................
**70*

*Senator Rand Paul makes history in small N.H. town* // Boston Globe //
James Pindell - July 26, 2015       70

*Has Rand Paul stalled?* // The Hill // Niall Stanage - July 25,
2015.......................................... 71

*Rand Paul defies McConnell to defund Planned Parenthood* // Washington
Examiner // Barbara Boland - July 25,
2015...............................................................................................................................
73

*CRUZ........................................................................................................
**74*

*First on CNN: Billionaire brothers give Cruz super PAC $15 million* // CNN
// Theodore Schleifer - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
74

*Report: Ted Cruz super PAC gets $15 million from two billionaire donors*
// USA Today // Deirdre Shesgreen - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
77

*CHRISTIE................................................................................................
**78*

*Chris Christie Claims He Will Pursue the Trans-Hudson Tunnel Project as
President* // NYT // Rick Rojas - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
78

*Christie knocks candidates for being 'vague' on entitlement reform* // CNN
// Ashley Killough - July 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
79

*Chris Christie Fires Back At Gun Rights Activist In Iowa* // HuffPo //
Samantha-Jo Roth - July 25, 2015     81

*GRAHAM.................................................................................................
**82*

*John McCain to campaign in New Hampshire with Lindsey Graham* // WaPo //
James Hohmann - July 25,
2015....................................................................................................................................
82

*John McCain to campaign with Graham in New Hampshire* // Politico // Katie
Glueck - July 25, 2015         83

*John McCain to Campaign for Lindsey Graham Next Week* // TIME // Zeke K.
Miller - July 25, 2015           83

*SANTORUM.............................................................................................
**84*

*Rick Santorum's slow build: campaigning 'has a way of weeding out
candidates'* // Guardian // Ben Jacobs - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
84

*Santorum: Iran deal is 'greatest betrayal' of US security ever* // The
Hill // Jordain Carney - July 25, 2015 86

*Santorum: Lawmakers have 'Stockholm syndrome' with Obama* // Washington
Examiner // Sarah Westwood - July 25,
2015........................................................................................................................
87

*TRUMP....................................................................................................
**88*

*Donald Trump: I Pay My Own Way, Unlike Bush, Walker or Clinton* // WSJ //
Heather Haddon - July 25,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
88

*How Does Trump End?* // Politico // July 25,
2015................................................................. 90

*Donald Trump in Iowa: 'Drudge is amazing'* // Politico // Hadas Gold -
July 25, 2015............... 97

*Donald Trump Turns His Gaze to Scott Walker in Iowa* // Bloomberg // Ben
Brody - July 25, 2015                97

*Trump supporters in Iowa shrug off McCain controversy* // CNN // MJ Lee
and Ashley Killough - July 26,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
98

*What is Trump's actual position on illegal immigration?* // CNN // Maeve
Reston - July 25, 2015 100

*Republican Support for Trump Surges but his Unfavorable Ratings are Also
Rising* // Slate // Daniel Politi - July 25,
2015......................................................................................................................
102

*Donald Trump is still rocketing up polls in dominating fashion* //
Business Insider // Maxwell Tani - July 25,
2015...................................................................................................................................
103

*OTHER...................................................................................................
**104*

*'It sucks': The Republican criticism of their own debate process is
starting to heat up* // Business Insider // Maxwell Tani - July 25,
2015...............................................................................................
104

*GOP presidential race will dominate Sunday shows* // USA Today // Deirdre
Shesgreen - July 25, 2015      107

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**108*

*Presidential Race Just Started? Not According to the Spending* // NYT //
Nicholas Confessore, Sarah Cohen, and Eric Lichtblau - July 25,
2015........................................................................................
108

*Candidates Caught in Middle as Words Ring Hollow to Activists* // NYT //
Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman - July 25,
2015....................................................................................................
111

*All 2016 presidential candidates should disclose campaign bundlers* //
WaPo // Editorial Board - July 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
114

*No rest for the candidates in this summer of discontent* // WaPo // Dan
Balz - July 25, 2015... 115

*2016 candidates on campaign trail miss votes and home-state duties as they
juggle day job* // Fox // Joseph Weber - July 25,
2015..........................................................................................................
117

*Bush, O’Malley among candidates added to Register’s Soapbox lineup* // Des
Moines Register // Brianne Pfannestiel - July 25,
2015...................................................................................................
120

*TOP
NEWS......................................................................................................
**121*

*DOMESTIC.................................................................................................
**121*

*U.S. Fears Data Stolen by Chinese Hacker Could Identify Spies* // NYT //
Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger - July 25,
2015.......................................................................................................................
121

*Is it lights out for Puerto Rico?* // WaPo // Steven Mufson - July 25,
2015............................... 123

*INTERNATIONAL.....................................................................................
**128*

*Spy’s Release Is Unlikely to Assuage Israel on Iran Nuclear Deal* // NYT
// Jodi Rudoren - July 25, 2015    128

*Obama in Kenya: An Upbeat Tone, but Notes of Discord, Too* // NYT // Peter
Baker and Marc Santora - July 25,
2015..............................................................................................................................
131

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Stung in 2008, Hillary Clinton Builds a Formidable Team in Iowa
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/politics/stung-in-2008-hillary-clinton-builds-a-formidable-team-in-iowa.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Trip Gabriel - July 25, 2015*

Two or three days a week, for up to five hours, Liz Mueller plants herself
in a coffee shop called Uncle Nancy’s.

She posts to Facebook, makes calls and meets one on one with people over
bottomless mugs of flavored black coffee. Her goal is to become known
throughout this farming community of 15,000 as “the Hillary girl.”

Ms. Mueller, who at 24 is already a disciplined veteran of political
campaigns in Virginia, New York and Arkansas, is one of Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s 47 paid organizers in Iowa, a sizable and growing army. The
formidable infrastructure, larger than any other candidate’s for either
party in Iowa, shows Mrs. Clinton’s determination not to leave anything to
chance in the state with the first nominating contest, where she suffered a
bruising setback in her last presidential run.

That is no surprise, given that Mrs. Clinton hired a campaign manager,
Robby Mook, who rose through the ranks of field organizing, which has
revolutionized modern campaigns.

“One of the things that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize,
organize,” Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview with CNN. “And you’ve
got to get people committed, and then they will follow through, and then
you bring more people.”

What the news media sometimes misses in mocking Mrs. Clinton’s visits to
Iowa, which have included many small encounters in coffee shops and homes,
is that the events are designed to build her organization by enlisting
volunteers. She is “the closer” at house parties to which the campaign
invites prospective recruits, said Jerry Crawford, a senior Clinton adviser
in Iowa.

With Mrs. Clinton returning to the state for three days on Saturday, she
had house parties scheduled in Carroll and the Beaverdale section of Des
Moines, which was nicknamed “Obamadale” during the 2012 race for its deep
well of Democratic activists.

At a recent house party in a former Grange hall in Newton, which Mrs.
Clinton did not attend, about 45 Democrats and independents were asked to
sign commitment cards to caucus for Mrs. Clinton, or to check boxes
indicating that they would volunteer to “Knock on doors!” or “Be a captain!”

Jane Johnson, a retired music teacher, came after Ms. Mueller had pursued
her on Facebook and invited her for a chat at Uncle Nancy’s.

In 2008, Ms. Johnson caucused for Barack Obama, who won in Iowa as Mrs.
Clinton finished third. “He figured out how to get little people involved
in his campaign,” Ms. Johnson said. “I think Hillary has learned that. This
time she’s on the ground, meeting with people where they work, where they
socialize.”

What the campaigns of President Obama showed, especially in key states
where the margin of victory could be as thin as two percentage points, is
that organizing can be the most potent campaign tool of all.

“Getting people engaged in the campaign is how you win,” said Marlon
Marshall, who runs Mrs. Clinton’s national field organizing efforts.

The Clinton campaign says it has opened 10 field offices and recruited more
than 7,000 volunteers in Iowa.

No state is more of a proving ground. The Iowa caucus system and yearlong
intraparty competition pare the electorate for each candidate to only the
most committed supporters.

“Most of the best Democratic campaign leaders have worked in Iowa at some
point,” said Mr. Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer. “The experience here has
been viewed as the gold standard.”

Mrs. Clinton’s Iowa caucus director, Michael Halle, worked for the Obama
campaign here in 2008 and 2012. He is a protégé of Mr. Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign manager. While working on the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard
Dean, Mr. Mook adopted the organizing techniques of labor groups like the
United Farm Workers.

Rather than having paid organizers responsible for all of the recruiting,
Mr. Halle said, the Obama campaign used volunteers to bring in other
volunteers, usually people in their circles. He called it a “paradigm
shift.”

In 2012, the concept was turbocharged with digital technology, most notably
a platform called VoteBuilder, which logged every door knock and phone call.

Now the Clinton campaign has further adapted the model, dividing the most
committed volunteers into “engagement directors,” who are responsible for
bringing in new volunteers, and “captains,” who oversee specific tasks like
canvassing.

“Engagement directors help focus on building our internal organization, and
the captains work on building relationships with supporters out in the
communities,” said Michelle Kleppe, the Iowa organizing director, who
reports to Mr. Halle.

The careful, ground-up organizing seems designed to counter the kind of
threat to Mrs. Clinton that has emerged from Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, whose hard-left policies have inspired huge crowds at rallies.
Many at the Clinton house party in Newton said Mr. Sanders was the
candidate they were most drawn to. “I like everything he says,” said Dean
Lane, who farms 1,800 acres of corn and soybeans.

“I’m a pretty wealthy farmer,” he added. “I think it’s ridiculous the way
we treat poor people. Nobody wants to pay a dime in taxes.”

Few of the 45 in attendance signed the Clinton commitment cards or said
they were ready to volunteer for her.

Amid the generous pouring of rosé and trays of local Maytag blue cheese,
the house party seemed likely to leave a lasting glow with attendees when
the time came to choose between Mrs. Clinton and an alternative. Ms.
Mueller considered it a success because she had met many people she
intended to contact over and over until the caucuses next year.

The challenge for Mr. Sanders, who is months behind Mrs. Clinton in
organizing in Iowa, is to channel the passion of the many who turn out to
hear him speak into a campaign infrastructure. His campaign says it has
hired 33 organizers and also has 10 field offices in Iowa.

“The misconception is that there’s not organizing going on around” the
impressive crowds, said Pete D’Alessandro, the campaign coordinator for Mr.
Sanders in Iowa.

A third Democratic candidate, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland,
plans to hire staff “across the state” by the end of the summer, his Iowa
director, Jake Oeth, announced in a recent memo. In addition, a “super PAC”
supporting Mr. O’Malley, Generation Forward, is gearing up to “knock on
doors across Iowa soon,” according to its Facebook page.

Most of the Republicans in the party’s field of 16 have small staffs in
Iowa and have scarcely begun to organize.

But for Mrs. Clinton, stung by the lessons of 2008, it is never too early
to develop an outreach plan for the state that can grow and be tinkered
with as the caucuses approach.

“If we do our job in Iowa — if Hillary were to win in Iowa and New
Hampshire — I’d kind of think it’s over,” Mr. Crawford said of the
Democratic nominating race. “If she had won Iowa last time, it would have
been over.”

*Clinton says she's confident about proper handling of emails
<http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:e161bb5fcc15423fbaf2d74597265c53>
// AP // Catherine Lucey - July 25, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday she
never knowingly sent or received classified information using her private
email server and did not know what messages were being cited by
intelligence investigators as examples of emails containing classified
information.

Clinton spoke briefly about the email matter after a Democratic gathering
at the Madison County Historical Complex in which she stressed her
commitment to a variety of issues, including her support for
pre-kindergarten education and abortion access. Reporters raised the topic
of the email during a brief news conference.

"I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was
classified at the time it was sent and received. What I think you're seeing
here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement
among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be
publicly released," she said.

The front-runner for her party's nomination said she wanted the information
in question to be made public as soon as possible and suggested there was
confusion over the issue.

"I think there's so much confusion around this that I understand why
reporters and the public are asking questions, but the facts are pretty
clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the
time," she said.

Intelligence investigators told the Justice Department in a letter this
week that secret government information may have been compromised in the
unsecured system she used at her New York home during her tenure as
secretary of state.

Asked if the Justice Department should investigate, Clinton said: "They can
fight over it or argue over it. That's up to them. I can tell you what the
facts are."

In addition to alerting the Justice Department to the potential compromise
of classified information, the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence
community sent a memo to members of Congress indicating that "potentially
hundreds of classified emails" were among the 30,000 that Clinton had
provided to the State Department.

The office said it also raised that concern with FBI counterintelligence
officials and was recommending changes in how the emails are being reviewed
and processed for public release. The State Department is reviewing 55,000
pages of emails with the goal of releasing all of them by Jan. 29.

The intelligence inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, and his
counterpart at the State Department, Steve Linick, said that McCullough's
office found four emails containing classified information in a limited
sample of 40 emails.

Whether the Justice Department would investigate the potential compromise
the intelligence inspector general highlighted was not clear. The referral
to the Justice Department does not seek a criminal probe and does not
specifically target Clinton.

In its letter to congressional oversight committees, the inspector
general's office said that it was concerned that "these emails exist on at
least one private server and thumb drive with classified information and
those are not in the government's possession," Andrea Williams, a
spokeswoman for McCullough, said earlier this week.

The letter said none of the emails was marked "classified" at the time it
was sent or received but that some should have been handled as such and
sent on a secure computer network.

Clinton has said she used the private server at her home as a matter of
convenience to limit her number of electronic devices.

*New York Times corrects 'criminal' aspect of Clinton email story
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/new-york-times-corrects-criminal-aspect-of-clinton-211254.html?ml=tl_8>
// Politico // Dylan Byers - July 25, 2015*

The New York Times report claiming that inspectors general had sought a
criminal investigation relating to Hillary Clinton's personal email account
was finally changed early Saturday morning, one day after all parties
involved in the story—the two inspectors general, the Justice Department,
and the Clinton campaign—issued public statements disputing the language in
the Times report.

"[G]overnment officials who initially said the request was for a criminal
investigation later said it was not a 'criminal referral' but a 'security
referral' pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information,"
the Times noted in its correction. The Times also updated its headline,
removing the word "criminal" from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary
Clinton’s Use of Email."

In a new article on Saturday, about four emails on Clinton's private server
"that contained government secrets," the Times also provided a lengthy
explanation for the language.

"The discovery of the four emails prompted [the Intelligence Community
Inspector General] to refer the matter to F.B.I. counterintelligence
agents, who investigate crimes related to the mishandling of classified
information," the article reads. "On Thursday night and again Friday
morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a 'criminal
referral' but later Friday dropped the word 'criminal.' The inspectors
general said late Friday that it was a 'security referral' intended to
alert authorities that 'classified information may exist on at least one
private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s
possession.'"

"Irrespective of the terminology, the referral raises the possibility of a
Justice Department investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails as she
campaigns for president," the report continues. "Mishandling classified
information is a crime. Justice Department officials said no decision had
been made about whether to open a criminal investigation."

Sources with knowledge of the situation had likewise told the On Media blog
on Friday that the error was caused by misinformation provided to the Times
by a Justice Department official. But numerous emails to the On Media blog
from journalists, political operatives and even Times staffers expressed
surprise at how long it took the Times to correct the report.

On Friday, the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community and State
Inspectors General all issued statements saying that the referral was not
"criminal" in nature, and the Clinton campaign issued a statement calling
the Times report about a criminal inquiry "false."

Eileen Murphy, the Vice President of Corporate Communications at the Times,
has not responded to repeated requests for comment on the corrections to
the article.

The "criminal" correction is the second correction the Times has added to
its story. As previously reported, the Times initially reported that the
two inspectors general had asked the Justice Department to open a criminal
investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive
government information on a private email account she used as secretary of
state." That clause, which suggested Clinton was a target in the potential
criminal probe, was later changed to eliminate that suggestion: the inquiry
was now into "whether sensitive government information was mishandled in
connection with the personal email account."

In a new statement on Saturday, Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill announced
that Clinton has agreed to appear at an October public hearing before the
House Benghazi Committee. But his statement began with a dig at the Times:
"Friday began with the printing of a story that was false," he wrote.
"Entities from the highest levels of two branches of government have now
made that clear."

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Aides for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi Committee Dispute Testimony Plan
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/clinton-to-testify-publicly-before-house-committee-investigating-benghazi-attacks.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman - July 25, 2015*

Amid renewed controversy surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of
private email for government work, a dispute erupted on Saturday over when
and how she would publicly testify before the House select committee
investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic outpost
in Benghazi, Libya.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides announced Saturday morning that she had accepted an
invitation to testify on Oct. 22. But a spokesman for the Republican-led
committee said hours later that no agreement had been reached.

And by day’s end, it was not clear what exactly they were arguing over.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said she accepted the committee’s invitation
on Friday, the same day that inspectors general for the State Department
and the nation’s intelligence agencies said they had discovered classified
information on the private email account Mrs. Clinton used while she was
secretary of state. The inspectors general said the secret information
should never have been stored outside secure government systems.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in
a statement Saturday that the campaign had reviewed the statements by the
inspectors general.

“We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails
are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails,” Mr.
Merrill said. “We particularly do not want their release to be hampered by
bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community. More emails are
slated to be released by the State Department next week, and we hope that
release is as inclusive as possible.”

But the committee’s spokesman issued a statement a few hours later
asserting that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, had stipulated that
acceptance of the October date would depend on the committee’s agreeing to
question Mrs. Clinton only about the Benghazi attacks, not about her
private email account, and on a commitment that the date of the hearing
would not change.

“Secretary Clinton’s campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer,” the
committee spokesman, Jamal Ware, said. “As of last night, Mr. Kendall was
still negotiating conditions for her appearance.”

Mr. Merrill, however, responded with a second statement disputing this. “We
have made clear that we understand emails are in their jurisdiction,” he
said. “So unless the committee now believes emails are no longer in its
jurisdiction, we are in agreement.”

The Benghazi committee, in the course of its investigation, discovered that
Mrs. Clinton had used her personal email account for State Department
business.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on
the private server she had set up in her house so that she would not have
to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said on
Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified
after the fact.

But the two inspectors general said on Friday that the information they
found was classified when it was sent and remains so. Information is
considered classified if its disclosure would be likely to harm national
security. The investigators said the information was not marked as
classified but should have been stored only on government computer networks
with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an
unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department
inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles
McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence agencies.

Saturday’s testy back-and-forth seemed to boil down to a spat about who
should have announced Mrs. Clinton’s agreement to testify. It also pointed
up how contentious the subject of her email account remains — and that it
is only likely to grow as 2016 draws near.

The Oct. 22 date would give the committee months to receive from the State
Department, and then digest, troves of email traffic involving Mrs.
Clinton’s aides. And her testimony would take place when more people were
focused on her campaign.

But her testimony also is expected to be public, as pressed for by her
aides, who were pleased with how she fared in January 2013 when she last
testified before Congress in relation to the Benghazi attacks. The
committee had sought to question Mrs. Clinton in private about the emails.

Mr. Kendall told the committee on May 4 that Mrs. Clinton was willing to
testify the week of May 18. But the committee chairman, Representative Trey
Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, never scheduled the hearing. He said
he would not call her to testify until the State Department had turned over
all the documents he had requested.

Since then, Mr. Gowdy has repeatedly criticized the State Department for
withholding documents. This month, he postponed the testimony of several of
Mrs. Clinton’s aides, saying he could not question them until he had all of
the relevant documents from the State Department.

The inspectors general said the State Department had agreed to allow
intelligence officials with expertise in Freedom of Information Act
releases to play a role in the review. But the inspectors general said the
department had still not created a process for resolving disputes between
the department and other parts of the government about differences over how
to classify documents.

“There have been recent examples, such as the Senate Intelligence
Committee’s report on torture, where release of information was delayed
because of disagreements among agencies,” Mr. Merrill said in his
statement, “and we hope that will not happen here.”

*Clinton may testify to Benghazi committee in October
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/25/clinton-to-testify-to-benghazi-committee-in-october/>
// WaPo // Anne Gearan - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said Saturday that she will testify on
Oct. 22 before the House select committee investigating her role in
connection with the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya — an
assertion that was almost immediately challenged by a spokesman for the
committee.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill announced the date and said her
testimony would be public.

But Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee, said the timing is not set
because of ongoing negotiations with Clinton’s lawyer over ground rules.

The wrangling is of a piece with months of back-and-forth between the
Republican-led committee and Clinton, whose allies accuse the panel of
conducting a fishing expedition for damaging material that might be used
against her as she runs for president in 2016.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed when
militants overran two U.S. compounds in Benghazi in September 2012, in the
waning months of Clinton’s term as secretary of state. She has said that
she had no direct role in security decisions surrounding the U.S.
facilities, but Republican critics claim that her State Department denied
protections that might have prevented the attack.

As of Friday, Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, was still negotiating
terms for his client’s appearance, Ware said.

“On the grounds of simple fairness and in order to make appropriate
preparation possible, the scope of the questioning [should] be consistent
with the scope set forth in the resolution establishing the Select
Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi,”
Kendall wrote Friday, according to an excerpt of the letter that the
committee released Saturday.

Clinton had long offered to testify in public, but the committee chairman,
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), had initially said he preferred a private
interview. Although Gowdy said he was trying to keep the session from
becoming a circus, Clinton’s team objected on grounds that a closed session
could allow Republicans to selectively leak unflattering details.

Gowdy has also said that he needs more documents from the State Department
before he questions Clinton.

The committee on Saturday appeared to reject Kendall’s terms, which
included that the scope of questioning be limited and that the hearing
date, once set, would not change.

Ware also said in the news release that Kendall had previously agreed that
Clinton would answer questions about “her unusual e-mail arrangement,”
referring to her use of a private e-mail system for government business,
including a server in her home.

“Her e-mail arrangement clearly falls within the scope of the Select
Committee’s jurisdiction,” Ware continued.

“The Committee will not, now or ever, accept artificial limitations on its
congressionally-directed jurisdiction,” Ware said in the statement. “Once
there is an agreement on the date and a better understanding of how, if at
all, Secretary Clinton’s lawyer’s latest writing differs from previous
ones, the Committee will announce said hearing date.”

Clinton’s lawyer has also accused the committee of trying to drag out its
investigation into 2016 to use it as a cudgel against the Democratic
front-runner.

Her campaign also said Saturday that it does not want any delay in the
release of Clinton's e-mails from the private account she used while she
was secretary of state because of “bureaucratic infighting among the
intelligence community.”

The inspector general of the intelligence community said he had found
information that should have been classified in a small sample of Clinton’s
e-mails and made a “security referral” to the Justice Department under a
federal law that requires the FBI to be alerted to any possible compromise
of national security information.

Clinton addressed questions about her e-mails after a Democratic Party
event in Iowa on Saturday, telling reporters, "I am confident that I never
sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was
sent or received."

She said she had "no idea" what the e-mails cited by the inspector general
were about and that it was her desire to be transparent with the e-mails
that had led to the dispute.

"What I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to
some extent a disagreement between various parts of the government, over
what should or should not be publicly released," she said.

Clinton turned over 30,000 e-mails to the State Department after her use of
a private e-mail system became an issue. The e-mails are being reviewed for
release to Congress and the public.

*Clinton Sent Classified Information Over Email While at State Department,
Review Finds
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-sent-classified-information-over-email-while-at-state-department-review-finds-1437779884>
// WSJ // Byron Tau - July 25, 2015*

A government intelligence watchdog found that Hillary Clinton sent at least
four emails from her personal account containing classified information
during her tenure as secretary of state.

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the inspector general of
the intelligence community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains
material from the intelligence community that should have been considered
“secret”—the second-highest level of classification—at the time it was
sent. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street
Journal by a spokeswoman for the inspector general.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are
classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector
general. The inspector general’s review covered about 40 emails in Mrs.
Clinton’s inbox, which suggests the trove of more than 30,000 emails may
contain more potentially confidential, secret or top-secret information.

The inspector general referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s counterintelligence division. An official with the Justice
Department said Friday that it had received a referral to open an
investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information.
Initially, a Justice Department official said Friday morning the
investigation was criminal in nature, but the department reversed course
hours later without explanation.

The inspectors general of both the intelligence community and the State
Department released a joint statement Friday afternoon saying that they
made a counterintelligence referral to the FBI, not a criminal one.

The disclosures roiled her presidential campaign. Mrs. Clinton, the
front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on Friday in
New York that there were “inaccuracies” in reports about her email usage,
but didn’t offer specifics. She noted that she has voluntarily released
55,000 pages of email and offered to testify before a congressional
committee.

“Maybe the heat is getting to everybody,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We are all
accountable to the American people to get the facts right, and I will do my
part. But I’m also going to stay focused on the issues, particularly the
big issues that really matter to American families.”

The investigation concluded that Mrs. Clinton should have used a secure
network to transmit the emails in question. The information in four of Mrs.
Clinton’s emails “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified
personal system,” the inspectors general determined.

It isn’t clear whether Mrs. Clinton was aware she was sending classified
information. “None of the emails we reviewed had classification or
dissemination markings,” wrote Inspector General I. Charles McCullough in
the letter to Congress.

The joint statement from the inspectors general indicated the referral to
the FBI was routine. It said the intelligence community inspector general
is required by law “to refer potential compromises of national security
information” to appropriate security officials.

The emails in question left government custody and were on both Mrs.
Clinton’s personal home email server as well as a thumb drive of David
Kendall, Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney. The concerns about classified
information being in private hands led the intelligence community watchdog
to alert law-enforcement officials about potential loss of classified
information.

Because the information allegedly mishandled in Mrs. Clinton’s email
archive remains classified and unavailable to the public, it is difficult
to know the severity of the breach.

“Realistically, I don’t think there’s any serious concern about anything
criminal in this case,” said Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in
national-security law. “But it raises a whole host of administration
questions for the State Department and will also have political fallout
separate from the legal questions.”

The federal law governing removal of classified information provides for up
to a year for prison for “knowingly” mishandling or removing classified
information. Most high-profile investigations into the mishandling of
classified information have ended in plea agreements without jail time.

Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement involving a personal server has sparked
several lawsuits, a congressional probe and several inspectors general
investigations. The arrangement was legal at the time for unclassified
information, but discouraged by Obama administration and State Department
guidance.

The State Department is facing lawsuits from news organizations and
advocacy groups over access to her records, while the Republican-run House
committee investigating the Benghazi attacks has repeatedly requested that
her email server be turned over to a third party for forensic examination.

Members of Congress immediately seized on the latest disclosure, calling
for a renewed investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.

“If Secretary Clinton truly has nothing to hide, she can prove it by
immediately turning over her server to the proper authorities and allowing
them to examine the complete record,” House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio)
said in a statement.

Experts on government classification have noted that as head of the State
Department, Mrs. Clinton had wide latitude to determine within her own
department what information was classified and what information wasn’t. But
she also had an obligation to respect classification determinations made by
other agencies, including intelligence services and other cabinet
departments.

“Within the State Department, her classification authority is supreme. The
only caveat to that is that not all the information in the State Department
originates within the State Department,” said Steven Aftergood, director of
the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
“If it comes from CIA or other agencies, she is normally obligated to
respect the classification judgments of those agencies.”

The State Department has long played down concerns about the classified
material found in Mrs. Clinton’s emails, saying that information is often
reclassified. The State Department said on Friday that it didn’t believe
any of the emails Mrs. Clinton sent during her time in office contained
classified material.

“To our knowledge, none of them needed to be classified at the time,” said
Mark Toner, a department spokesman. Mr. Toner acknowledged that the
department had determined that many of her emails now contained classified
information, but believed it was unclassified at the time.

Thousands of pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails already have been posted
online, and the State Department is reviewing thousands more for public
release. In one instance, classified information has already been released
to the public, the inspector general found.

*Hillary Clinton to Testify Before Benghazi Panel
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-testify-before-benghazi-panel-1437838184>
// WSJ // Byron Tau - July 25, 2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has agreed to testify before a
House committee investigating the deaths of four Americans in a 2012
terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the
Democratic presidential nomination, said Saturday that she had accepted
House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy’s invitation for an
October appearance before the Republican-led panel.

A spokesman for the Benghazi committee said negotiations over Mrs.
Clinton’s appearance were ongoing and that her attorney’s proposed ground
rules for her testimony could yet derail an October date.

The committee said David Kendall, an attorney for Mrs. Clinton, was
insisting that the questioning remain about only the Benghazi attacks and
not Mrs. Clinton’s use of personal email and that the hearing date would be
fixed regardless of future developments. Republicans on the panel said they
haven’t agreed to those conditions and would push her on her use of a
personal server.

“Her email arrangement clearly falls within the scope of the Select
Committee’s jurisdiction, which is charged by the House under the
Resolution to look at Executive Branch efforts to comply with congressional
oversight as well as the administration’s response in the aftermath of the
tragic attacks in Benghazi,” said Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the
Republicans on the committee.

Mr. Kendall didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Merrill disputed the characterization that Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t answer
questions about her emails.

“We have made clear that we understand emails are in their jurisdiction. So
unless the Committee now believes emails are no longer in its jurisdiction,
we are in agreement,” Mr. Merrill said in an email. He added: “We have no
doubt Hillary Clinton can handle any question that they throw at her. And
as the committee notes, her attorney has stated flatly that her emails are
a part of that. Nothing about that has changed.”

The committee has been investigating the attack on an American diplomatic
facility in Benghazi that occurred while Mrs. Clinton was serving as
secretary of state. That attack killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher
Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, as well as Central
Intelligence Agency contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The attack occurred in the midst of President Barack Obama’s re-election
campaign and has been a flash point for criticism of the administration’s
foreign policy and Mrs. Clinton’s management of security issues at the
State Department.

Emails released by the State Department this year show that Mrs. Clinton
received warnings from her top aides about the deteriorating security
conditions in Libya in the months and years leading up to the attack.

Obama administration officials also initially blamed the attack on a
spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Islamic Internet video
before later acknowledging that it was likely carried out by an organized
terrorist group.

The committee also has been investigating Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use a
personal email server while serving as head of the State Department. Mr.
Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, has repeatedly called for Mrs. Clinton
turn over the server to a neutral third party to ensure that all relevant
emails were in the hands of the committee.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have been pushing Mrs. Clinton to appear more
than once to answer questions about the server. Mr. Gowdy requested a
private transcribed interview with Mrs. Clinton in March to discuss her
email arrangement.

Representatives for Mrs. Clinton haven’t agreed to a closed-door session
with the panel, saying there was “no reason” any questions couldn’t be
answered in public.

The select committee has also been probing the role that Sidney Blumenthal
, a close confidante of the Clinton family, played during Mrs. Clinton’s
time at the State Department. The committee subjected Mr. Blumenthal to
eight hours of closed-door testimony last month, probing his business
dealings and professional relationship with Mrs. Clinton.

Democrats have charged that the committee’s work has moved far away from
its original mandate of investigating the terrorist attacks and has become
a partisan tool to investigate a Democratic candidate for president.

“This Benghazi select committee has become the committee to investigate
Hillary Clinton. Period,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on
the panel, in June.

The committee has previously said a final report on the attacks likely
isn’t due before next year.

*Hillary Clinton Says She Didn’t Use Personal Email Account to Send or
Receive Secret Data
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-says-she-didnt-use-personal-email-account-to-send-or-receive-secret-data-1437870630>
// WSJ // Colleen McCain Nelson - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton said she didn’t use her personal email account to send or
receive classified information when she was Secretary of State, disputing a
government intelligence watchdog’s finding that her emails contained
material that should have been considered secret.

Although the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded Mrs.
Clinton sent at least four emails that included classified information, the
front-running Democratic presidential hopeful was adamant on Saturday that
she had sent only unclassified material from her personal account. “The
facts are pretty clear: I did not send nor receive anything that was
classified at the time,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters in Iowa.

The inspector general revealed its findings in a letter to Congress this
week, reporting the emails in question contained material from the
intelligence community that was classified when it was sent.

Mrs. Clinton said she didn’t know which specific emails had been flagged,
but she suggested that perhaps the information had been classified at a
later date. “What I’m hearing from the discussion that’s going on is that
something that wasn’t classified should have been or maybe now should be,”
she said. “That’s a very different issue.”

A spokeswoman for the inspector general has said the four emails “were
classified when they were sent and are classified now.”

Mrs. Clinton cast questions about her emails as little more than an
interagency squabble over which emails should be made public under freedom
of information laws. “What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical
kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement, among various parts of the
government over what should or should not be publicly released,” she said.

The debate among government agencies “has nothing to do with me,” Mrs.
Clinton added. “They can fight over it or argue over it. That’s up to them.”

The inspector general has referred the matter to the counterintelligence
division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Justice Department
initially said it had received a referral to open a criminal investigation
but later reversed itself and said it wasn't a criminal referral.

Mrs. Clinton said very few issues had emerged in the 55,000 pages of emails
she turned over from her own personal server. “We’re talking about four or
fewer,” she said.

The inspector general has reviewed only about 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails,
though, suggesting that more secret or top-secret information could be
found in the thousands of pages that remain. The inspector general wrote
that Mrs. Clinton should have used a secure network to transmit the four
emails in question and that they shouldn’t have been transmitted with an
unclassified personal system.

*More bickering between Clinton team, House Benghazi panel
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/89690dff2f4849268da3389bc5598690/hillary-clinton-testify-benghazi-panel-october>
// AP // Ken Thomas - July 25, 2015*

The bickering has flared once more between Hillary Rodham Clinton's team
and the Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks,
this time over negotiations for the former secretary of state's possible
testimony.

A spokesman for the Democrat's presidential campaign, Nick Merrill, said
Saturday she would testify in a public session Oct. 22 before lawmakers
examining the deaths of four Americans in the 2012 attacks in Libya. Not so
fast, the committee said.

Committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in an interview that the committee and
Clinton's lawyer were "still in negotiation" and nothing has been
finalized, including the date of an appearance and the terms under which
she would testify.

Any Clinton testimony is likely to reverberate through the 2016 race. The
committee is investigating the deaths of U.S. ambassador and three other
Americans in the attack on the diplomatic facility in Libya. At the time,
Clinton was the country's top diplomat.

In recent months, the inquiry has devolved into a political fight over
Clinton's emails and private computer server. Republicans have seized upon
revelations that Clinton chose to use a private email server, instead of a
government one, and later deleted thousands of emails she said were not
related to her work.

On Friday, government investigators disclosed that they had recently
alerted the Justice Department to the potential compromise of classified
information from Clinton's server.

The inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community sent a memo to
members of Congress saying that "potentially hundreds of classified emails"
were among those that Clinton had provided to the State Department.

Clinton last testified at two congressional hearings in January 2013, when
she denied that the Obama administration tried to mislead the country about
the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. She took responsibility for the department's
missteps and said it was attempting to strengthen security at diplomatic
posts worldwide.

*Hillary Clinton denies sending classified info from private server
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clinton-denies-sending-classified-emails-120625.html?ml=tl_2>
// Politico // Hadas Gold - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton said she is confident none of the emails she sent using her
private email server while secretary as state contained information that
was classified when she sent them.

Clinton, speaking to reporters Saturday after a presidential campaign event
here, said she has “no idea” which are the four emails an inspector general
review has determined were classified “secret” at the time.

“I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was
classified at the time it was sent and received,” Clinton said. “What I
think you’re seeing is a very typical kind of discussion to some extent,
disagreement among various parts of the government over what should or what
should not be publicly released.”

Clinton went on to say that she turned over 55,000 pages of emails to help
the State Department, which had asked all living former secretaries to do
the same in order to help with their record-keeping efforts. Clinton then
said it was her own desire for transparency that had led to the arguments
over levels of classification.

“Then I said, ‘Well let’s make it public.’ If I just turned it over, we
would not be having this conversation, but when I said, ‘Hey I want this to
be public’, it has to go through the FOIA process.

“That’s what’s going on here. I’m going to continue to say I want it to be
made public as soon as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to
try to get that process to move along,” she said.

Reports surfaced late this week that an inspector general review had found
that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her server were classified
“secret” at the time — a finding that calls into question her assertion in
March that she took care to avoid sending classified materials.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday
night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton
campaign. The Times altered its initial story after complaints from the
Clinton camp, along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the
inspector general had not requested a criminal investigation.

Clinton said the question over classification is a common disagreement in
the government.

“[T]he argument is over ‘this should’ve been done’ or ‘this now should be
done.’ That has nothing to do with me. That is a discussion among various
agencies within the government,” Clinton said. “This material is all on the
unclassified system of the State Department. If we were not asking for it
to be made public, there would not be a debate. This is all about my desire
to have transparency and make the information public.”

Asked whether she thought the Justice Department should investigate the
emails, Clinton said it’s up to them.

“They can fight or argue over it, that’s up to them. I can just tell you
what the facts are, and there’s nothing contradicted in those facts I’m
telling you by anything anyone has said so far,” she said.

*Hillary Clinton agrees to appear before Benghazi panel
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-agrees-to-appear-before-benghazi-panel-120620.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti and Rachael Bade - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton agreed on Friday to appear at an October public hearing
before the House Benghazi Committee, her campaign spokesman Nick Merrill
said in a statement.

But the House Select Committee on Benghazi is pushing back against the 2016
Democratic frontrunner’s Saturday-morning announcement.

A panel Republican source said although GOP staff and Clinton’s legal team
have been discussing dates for the past week or so — and seem to have
settled on Oct. 22 — her lawyer David Kendall has asked for two basic
conditions they’ve not agreed to: that the date not be moved and that the
panel keep its questions within certain parameters.

“There is no agreed-upon date because there are no agreed upon conditions,”
said a Benghazi Republican source. “It’s a leak by Nick Merrill because he
wants you all to stop talking about her classified information.”

Merrill, in response, disputed this characterization.

“We have no doubt Hillary Clinton can handle any question that they throw
at her. And as the committee notes, her attorney has stated flatly that her
emails are a part of that,” he told POLITICO. “Nothing about that has
changed.”

But the negotiations between Clinton’s lawyer and the committee do not
appear settled. The panel released a statement Saturday afternoon saying it
“will not, now or ever, accept artificial limitations on its
congressionally-directed jurisdiction.”

“Accordingly, once there is an agreement on the date and a better
understanding of how, if at all, Secretary Clinton’s lawyer’s latest
writing differs from previous ones, the Committee will announce said
hearing date,” said communications director Jamal Ware in the statement.

That both sides are trading dates and discussing conditions, however, is
significant. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who is leading the
investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2012 — when four Americans,
including U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens, were killed in Benghazi, Libya —
initially requested private meetings with the former secretary of state,
but Clinton’s camp had long insisted on a public hearing.

Democrats have accused Gowdy of continuously delaying the hearing in hopes
of dragging the investigation into the 2016 presidential election cycle.
But Gowdy has said he needs all the relevant documents first, since he only
gets one bite at the apple — and the State Department has come under fire
for its slow pace in producing key emails.

News of their discussions came hours following reports that an inspector
general review found that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her
server were classified “secret” at the time — a finding that calls into
question her assertion in March that she took care to avoid sending
classified materials. The Clinton camp’s statement on Saturday morning did
not directly address this finding.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday
night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton
campaign, which continued to attack the story on Saturday morning. The
Times altered its initial story after complaints from the Clinton camp,
along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the inspector
general had not requested a criminal investigation.

“Friday began with the printing of a story that was false. Entities from
the highest levels of two branches of government have now made that clear,”
Merrill said.

“We have had a chance to review the statement released by the Inspectors
General of the State Department and Intelligence Community outlining their
concerns with regard to the State Department’s review and release of
Hillary Clinton’s work emails,” he added.

“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination
markings, but some included [Intelligence Community]-derived classified
information and should have been handled and transmitted via a secure
network,” Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough
III said in a letter to congressional committee leaders Thursday.

Clinton aides deny that she knowingly handled classified information
improperly, and point to a dispute between government agencies over what
should be classified.

“We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails
are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails. We
particularly do not want their release to be hampered by bureaucratic
infighting among the Intelligence Community. More emails are slated to be
released by the State Department next week, and we hope that release is as
inclusive as possible,” Merrill said.

“There have been recent examples, such as the Senate Intelligence
Committee’s report on torture, where release of information was delayed
because of disagreements among agencies, and we hope that will not happen
here,” he said.

Clinton addressed the controversy directly at a campaign event in Iowa on
Saturday.

“I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was
classified at the time it was sent and received,” she said. “What I think
you’re seeing is a very typical kind of discussion to some extent,
disagreement among various parts of the government over what should or what
should not be publicly released.”

The Benghazi committee is pushing back against the notion that they
scheduled the hearing specifically because of the news of Clinton’s
classified emails. GOP panel sources said discussions about dates and a
public hearing for Clinton were ongoing well before Thursday’s news.

Although Kendall, Clinton’s lawyer, approved the October date Friday, he
also asked that the date wouldn’t change and for assurances that questions
would remain within certain parameters.

The former requirement is significant because the panel has pushed back not
only Clinton’s hearing but also interviews with top Clinton staff, such as
Huma Abedin, because, Gowdy has said, the State Department hasn’t turned
over relevant documents. Republicans say they can’t formulate their
questions until they have all of Clinton and her staff’s relevant
communications. The department counters that document production just takes
time, though even federal judges have blasted State in recent days for the
slow pace.

The sources say the latter requirement — limiting the scope of questions —
is the bigger issue, particularly if Clinton’s lawyers seek to limit the
panel from looking into her involvement with the Clinton Foundation or her
email practices, which they believe may have influenced U.S. Libya policy
and, therefore, happened that tragic day.

And until those conditions are agreed upon, having a date means nothing.

“You don’t ask a girl to dance then set a wedding date,” the source said.
“We’ve gone from eating snow cones to picking out baby names in 24 hours.”

Even before the the GOP announced its pushback to the Clinton announcement,
Democrats sniped that the date could change:

“Given how Republicans have denied scheduling hearings and other events
[in] the past, however, all we can confirm at this point is that the date
was offered and accepted, not that the Republicans will stick to it,” said
a Benghazi Democratic spokesperson.

*Republicans, Hillary Clinton Team Bicker Over Scope of Benghazi Hearing
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-25/clinton-to-testify-publicly-before-benghazi-panel-in-october>
// Bloomberg // Chris Strohm - July 25, 2015*

House Republicans and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton sparred
Saturday over the details of having her testify publicly before a House
panel investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The tensions came one day after a report from the U.S. intelligence
community’s inspector general that a personal e-mail account used by
Clinton when she was secretary of state contained some information that
should have been classified and secured. The inspector general said no
e-mails reviewed by its office were labeled as classified.

The latest squabble centered on the ground rules for an expected public
hearing with Clinton before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The
committee is investigating actions taken by Clinton, a 2016 Democratic
presidential candidate, following the attacks that left U.S. Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and three others dead.

Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, said on Saturday that Clinton had
reached an agreement with the panel’s chairman, Republican Representative
Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, to testify on Oct. 22.

The claim was quickly challenged by the committee’s spokesman, Jamal Ware,
who said there was no deal yet and that the two sides were still hashing
out the timing and scope of Clinton’s appearance. Ware said in an e-mailed
statement that negotiations were “ongoing” between the committee and
Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall.

Clear Front-Runner

Holding a hearing in late October would come little more than three months
before voters head to the polls to start choosing the Democratic nominee
for president. Clinton leads her nearest Democratic competitor by about 40
percentage points, according to an average of recent polls by Real Clear
Politics.

Some of the tension apparently has to do with how far the committee can go
in questioning Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account and server while
she was secretary of state. The account contained some information that
should have been classified and transmitted over a secure network,
according to a report from the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector
general, Charles McCullough III.

The federal watchdog asked the FBI to review whether potentially classified
material had been jeopardized during a State Department review of the
documents in preparation for releasing them publicly.

Classified Material

The FBI referral followed a June 29 memo that McCullough and the State
Department’s inspector general sent to Undersecretary of State Patrick
Kennedy, saying that hundreds of e-mails in Clinton’s private account may
improperly have contained classified material.

The Benghazi panel believes that Clinton’s e-mail arrangement falls within
the scope of its jurisdiction, Ware said.

“The committee will not, now or ever, accept artificial limitations on its
congressionally-directed jurisdiction or efforts to meet the
responsibilities assigned to the committee by the House of
Representatives,” Ware said.

Merrill said in response that Clinton’s camp has “made clear that we
understand e-mails are in their jurisdiction. So unless the committee now
believes e-mails are no longer in its jurisdiction, we are in agreement.”

More Clinton e-mails are expected to be released by the State Department
next week, Merrill also said.

“We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these
e-mails are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her e-mails,”
he said. “We particularly do not want their release to be hampered by
bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community.”

*Hillary Clinton to Lay Out Climate, Renewable Energy Policy in Iowa
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-25/clinton-to-lay-out-climate-renewable-energy-policy-in-iowa>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - July 25, 2015*

Democrat Hillary Clinton will unveil her policy agenda on climate and
renewable energy on Sunday and Monday in Iowa, the center of the U.S.
ethanol industry.

“We also have to finally get serious about climate change and clean
renewable energy,” Clinton said Saturday, She spoke at an event in a
private home in the Des Moines neighborhood of Beaverdale, a center of
Democratic activism in the state that will hold the first presidential
nominating contest of 2016.

“It is not only the obviously right thing to do -– there is a lot of
economic opportunity,” said Clinton.

Comparing her climate objectives to the ambitious goals that former
President John F. Kennedy set at the beginning of the 1960s on travel to
the moon, Clinton said she she plans to “set some really ambitious goals
for our country that, once again, I know we can meet.”

Iowa is the nation’s largest producer of ethanol, a renewable fuel that in
the U.S. is made mostly from corn. It accounted for 28 percent of U.S. fuel
ethanol production in 2014, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

Clinton, frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, has been gradually
laying out her policy proposals. On Friday she spoke of a plan to raise
capital gains taxes and discourage the “hit-and-run” tactics of some
activist investors.

*Hillary Clinton Says She Didn't Send or Receive Information Classified at
the Time
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-25/clinton-says-she-didn-t-send-or-receive-information-classified-at-the-time>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - July 25, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Saturday that she
neither sent nor received materials considered classified at the time
through the private e-mail account she used while serving as secretary of
state.

“I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was
classified at the time it was sent and received,” she told reporters in
Winterset, Iowa, after news emerged this week that a federal watchdog had
asked the FBI to review whether potentially classified material in her
e-mails had been jeopardized during a State Department review of the
messages ahead of public release.

“The facts are pretty clear,” she said, reiterating her campaign's message
on Friday as news of the referral unfolded.

The current confusion, Clinton said, comes from disagreements between
federal agencies about whether certain information should have been
characterized as classified at the time.

“What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion—to
some extent disagreement—among various parts of the government over what
should or should not be publicly released,” she said.

In a line of argument similar to the defense from the candidate and her
husband, former President Bill Clinton, about some of the Clinton
Foundation’s controversial donors, Hillary Clinton said the debate over
whether some messages should have been classified had only become an issue
because of her request that the State Department release her e-mails in the
interest of transparency.

“If I just turned it over, we would not be having this conversation,” she
said. “But when I said, 'Hey, I want it to be public,' it has to go through
the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] process. That’s what’s going on here.
And I am going to continue to say that I want it to be made public as soon
as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to try to get the
process to move along.”

Clinton ducked a question about whether the Justice Department should
investigate the possible transmission of classified materials through
unsecured channels.

“They can fight over it or argue over it. That’s up to them,” she said,
holding up her palms to the reporters questioning her. “I can just tell you
what the facts are. And there is nothing contradicted in those facts by
anything that anybody has said so far.”

A report from the federal watchdog said the office had found four e-mails
out of a sample for 40 containing classified intelligence community
information that should have been marked and handled at the secret level.

Asked whether she knew what those four e-mails were, Clinton said, “I have
no idea.”

Clinton: I did not send or get classified emails on private account
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/26/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PZ0S920150726>*
// Reuters // Alana Wise - July 25, 2015*

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that she did
not use a private email account to send or receive classified information
while she was secretary of state, in response to a government inspector's
letter this week.

"I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time,"
Clinton said at a campaign stop in Iowa.

The email controversy has dogged Clinton's bid for the presidency, fuelling
worries that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination has tried to
sidestep transparency and record-keeping laws.

At least four emails from the private email account that Clinton used while
secretary of state contained classified information, Inspector General
Charles McCullough, who oversees U.S. intelligence agencies, told members
of Congress in a letter on Thursday.

Clinton said on Saturday she had "no idea" what were the emails mentioned
in the letter.

McCullough's letter said a sampling of 40 of about 30,000 emails sent or
received by Clinton found at least four that contained information the
government had classified as secret.

The information was classified at the time that the emails were sent,
McCullough said.

The use of her private email account, linked to a server in her New York
home for work, has drawn fire from political opponents since coming to
light in March.

Republicans have accused Clinton of trying to avoid disclosure laws through
her use of private systems.

The frontrunner to represent the Democratic Party in the November 2016
election, Clinton has repeatedly said she broke no laws or rules by
eschewing a standard government email account.

While Clinton faces little competition for the Democratic Party's
nomination, several recent polls have found a majority of voters find her
untrustworthy, a perception potentially exacerbated by controversy over her
emails.

*Exclusive: AFL-CIO may delay endorsement of Clinton as 2016 presidential
candidate – sources
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/25/us-usa-election-aflcio-endorsement-exclu-idUSKCN0PZ0PA20150725>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez - July 25, 2015*

In a possible setback for Hillary Clinton, the AFL-CIO’s political
committee has recommended the nation’s largest labor union federation delay
endorsing a candidate for the 2016 presidential race as it seeks to push
her to be more supportive of its policies on issues such as trade and wages.

The committee on Monday voted unanimously to support the proposal, three
union sources told Reuters. The recommendation will be presented at a July
29-30 meeting of the executive council of the federation, which will make
the final decision. It could reject the recommendation and still go ahead
with an endorsement, though one of the sources said that is unlikely.

The move highlights the pressures Clinton is facing to take a tough stand
against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free trade deal backed by
President Barack Obama but vigorously opposed by unions who see it as
detrimental to jobs and wages in the U.S. Unions also want her to back
labor-friendly policies on other issues, such as the minimum wage and the
Federal Reserve.

The length of any delay in an endorsement may depend on how satisfied union
leaders are with Clinton’s stance on TPP over the next few months.

Clinton, as well as Democrat rivals for the party’s nomination in the
presidential race, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and one of the
candidates in the Republican race, Mike Huckabee, will be grilled by union
leaders on the TPP and other issues at next week’s meeting.

“There will not be an endorsement now,” said a source who was at the
political committee meeting on Monday. “There will be a lot of healthy
discussion about how we approach the election."

QUELLING REVOLT

Delaying an endorsement would also give the affiliated unions time to hear
from their members and let the democratic process play out as labor
eventually coalesces behind a candidate, the source said.

An endorsement now from the AFL-CIO would be a major boon to Clinton. It
would provide her with both a symbolic and practical boost given labor’s
traditional role in raising money and mobilizing voters for the Democratic
Party. That would be especially helpful to Clinton as she seeks to build a
broad coalition within her party to fend off a challenge on her left from
Vermont Senator Sanders, who has eaten away at her lead in recent polls.

While the federation, an umbrella group of 56 unions representing more than
12.5 million workers, is expected to support the eventual Democratic
nominee, an early nod could help Clinton build grassroots support so that
she could go into a presidential election from a stronger position.

A request for comment to the AFL-CIO was not immediately returned. Its
President Richard Trumka said earlier this year that it was "conceivable"
that the AFL-CIO would not endorse any candidate in the 2016 race.

The federation has been trying to quell a revolt in its ranks as some local
unions have declared their support for Sanders, who is known for his
progressive stance and who has spoken out strongly against the TPP.

In contrast, Clinton has simply said that any final trade agreement needs
to include strong worker protections and that she will reserve judgment
until a completed deal is presented. Negotiators from the U.S, and 11 other
nations from the Pacific Rim, including Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Australia, Mexico and Canada, are meeting in the next week in Hawaii in an
attempt to reach a final agreement.

The trade deal will likely be the top issue at the two-day gathering of the
AFL-CIO, which represents workers in a wide range of occupations, from
brick layers to machinists to nurses.

The issue is a difficult one for Clinton, who was secretary of state in
Obama's first term and an influential player in the administration's effort
to build stronger ties with Asia. Obama administration officials view the
TPP as a crucial part of its "pivot" to Asia.

But Clinton has found some support, as well. The American Federation of
Teachers earlier this month announced its endorsement of her – despite a
request from Trumka recently that the affiliated unions hold off on such
moves until the federation makes its own pick. The endorsement was
contentious within the AFT, with a number of members posting angry comments
to the union’s Facebook page after the decision was announced.

Even if the federation holds off on its endorsement, more of the affiliated
unions could pick candidates soon.

At a meeting of the Utility Workers Union of America in Florida this week,
Bernie Sanders won 65 percent of the vote in cell phone poll of the 400
elected delegates to the convention. Clinton won 23 percent, with Martin
O’Malley taking 7 percent and the combined Republican field winning 5
percent.

Still, some labor leaders suggest Sanders is highly unlikely to get
official AFL-CIO backing unless he brings off a shock win and defeats
Clinton to become the party’s nominee. Most unions are expected to endorse
Clinton if, as widely expected, she gets the nomination.

“At the end of the day there’s not going to be a split,” Thomas
Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, told Reuters earlier this month. “I don’t see any union
running to any Republican candidate.”

*Clinton, congressional Benghazi panel at odds over appearance date
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/25/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PZ0IO20150725>
// Reuters // Bill Trott - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign said on Saturday the former
secretary of state will testify on Oct. 22 before a House committee
investigating the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attacks, but a spokesman for the
panel said no date had been set.

Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi
investigation committee, had sought to hear from Clinton on the attacks, in
which four Americans were killed, and her use of a private email account
while she was America's top diplomat.

A spokesman for Clinton, the front-runner in polls for the Democratic
nomination in next year's presidential election, said she had accepted an
offer from the committee to testify on Oct. 22.

"Earlier this week we were pleased for Secretary Clinton to receive an
offer from Congressman Gowdy to appear before the committee in a public
hearing in October, and yesterday accepted his invitation," campaign
spokesman Nick Merrill said in an emailed statement. He said the date was
Oct. 22.

A few hours after the Clinton campaign announced her planned appearance,
Jamal Ware, spokesman for the Benghazi committee, said the date was not
firm.

"Secretary Clinton's campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr.
David Kendall, with whom the Committee has had ongoing conversations," Ware
said in a statement. "As of last night, Mr. Kendall was still negotiating
conditions for her appearance."

Ware said the conditions proposed by Kendall were that the date of her
testimony not change once it was set and that questioning of Clinton stay
within parameters set by the resolution that established the committee.

However, a Democratic spokesman for the Benghazi committee said Gowdy's
staff had proposed dates in October and that Clinton's attorney had
accepted Oct. 22.

Clinton was secretary of state at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks
by Islamic militants on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, which
resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other
Americans.

Congressional Republicans have scrutinized Clinton's handling of the
incident and criticized the lack of security at the U.S. compound.

Clinton has also been engulfed in a controversy over her use of a private
email server instead of a government account while she was secretary of
state.

At least four emails out of some 30,000 from that private account contained
classified information, according to a government inspector's letter to
Congress this week.

*House Benghazi panel says no date set for Clinton testimony
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/25/us-usa-election-clinton-committee-idUSKCN0PZ0MG20150725>
// Reuters // Eric Beech - July 25, 2015*

The U.S. House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya,
said on Saturday that no date has been set for Hillary Clinton's testimony
before the panel, contradicting a Clinton campaign spokesman who said the
former secretary of state would appear on Oct. 22.

"Secretary Clinton's campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr.
David Kendall, with whom the Committee has had ongoing conversations. As of
last night, Mr. Kendall was still negotiating conditions for her
appearance," the committee said in a statement.

*Clinton campaign, Republicans clash over Benghazi testimony
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/clinton-testify-benghazi-committee/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Merica - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday morning that she will publicly
testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. But a
committee spokesman later said the former secretary of state's lawyer was
demanding limitations on the questioning, casting doubt over whether she'll
appear.

Clinton was invited to appear before the committee investigating the Sept.
11, 2012 terrorist attack earlier this week, and the former secretary of
state and 2016 presidential candidate accepted that invitation on Friday,
campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said.

Merrill said Clinton was "pleased" to receive the invitation to a public
hearing from committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy. A Democratic Benghazi
Commitee spokesperson told CNN that Gowdy offered several dates in October.

But Jamal Ware, the select committee's communications director, disputed
that a date had been set, saying that Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, was
insisting that the scope of the questioning be limited to the Benghazi
attack -- and not other subjects, such as Libya and her use of a private
email server, as Ware claims Kendall had previously agreed to -- and that
the hearing date would not change.

"The committee will not, now or ever, accept artificial limitations on its
congressionally-directed jurisdiction or efforts to meet the
responsibilities assigned to the committee by the House of
Representatives," Ware said in a statement. "Accordingly, once there is an
agreement on the date and a better understanding of how, if at all,
Secretary Clinton's lawyer's latest writing differs from previous ones, the
committee will announce said hearing date."

A message left with Clinton's campaign regarding Ware's statement was not
immediately returned Saturday afternoon.

The latest development on Clinton's testimony comes after a protracted back
and forth between the Republican-controlled committee and Clinton's allies
on Capitol Hill and in Washington. Republicans contend that the committee
is solely interested in looking into the terrorist attack that killed four
Americans -- including Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens -- while Clinton
was secretary of state. Clinton's supporters argue that Gowdy's committee
has become nothing more than a political arm of the Republican Party,
looking to score points against Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential
campaign.

Clinton agreed to testify before the committee in May. Gowdy, however,
rejected that offer and asked the secretary to appear twice -- once on her
exclusive use of a private email server while at State and another in
regard to the Benghazi attack.

Kendall, who has spearheaded Clinton's communication with the committee,
said the former first lady would only testify once on both topics and
offered to do it during the week of May 18 or later.

The date came and went, however, with no testimony.

When it became clear Clinton would have to testify before the committee,
her allies and campaign aides had hoped that testimony would happen earlier
rather than later in the hopes of not allowing Gowdy to drag the testimony
into the heat of the 2016 contest. Clinton's aides, however, have told
reporters that they are confident the former senator would be able to hold
her own in front of the committee.

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, accused Gowdy
last week of overstepping the bounds of his committee.

"It appears that much of the Select Committee's work has been shelved while
Republicans pursue every possible avenue of political attack against
Secretary Clinton," Cummings said in a letter to Gowdy. "These actions by
the Select Committee -- which lack any legitimate basis -- serve only to
delay its work further into the election season and subject it to
increasingly widespread criticism for its highly partisan actions."

Gowdy has maintained, however, that he is only interested in getting to the
bottom of the Benghazi attack and Republicans have complimented him for
leaving politics out of it.

Clinton's email gained renewed focus on Friday after the inspector general
for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some
material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained
classified information, but it was not identified that way when they were
sent. Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized
she was potentially compromising classified information.

The story emboldened Republicans on Friday to call for Clinton to turn over
the private email server she used as secretary of state.

"The number of questions surrounding Secretary Clinton's unusual email
arrangement continues to grow," Gowdy said in a statement on Friday. "The
best -- the only way -- to resolve these important factual questions is for
her to turn over her server to the proper authorities for independent
forensic evaluation."

Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department earlier
this year and the Benghazi committee is in the process of going through
those messages.

*Clinton on emails: 'The facts are pretty clear'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/clinton-confident-never-sent-classified-emails/index.html>
// CNN // Eugene Scott - July 25, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Saturday said she did
not send classified emails from her private server while she was secretary
of state.

"I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was
classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton told reporters in
Winterset, Iowa.

She added that the latest controversy is an example of disagreement among
various parts of the government about what should or should not be publicly
released.

Clinton's remarks come after The New York Times reported Thursday night
that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State
Department had asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal
investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. But
the paper significantly revised its story the next day to say the matter
was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information
was mishandled in connection with Clinton's account -- but not necessarily
by Clinton.

On Friday, CNN reported that the inspector general for the intelligence
community had informed members of Congress that some material Clinton
emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it
was not identified that way.

Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she
was potentially compromising classified information. The IG reviewed a
"limited sampling" of her emails, and among those 40 reviewed, found that
"four contained classified (intelligence community) information," wrote the
IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.

The inspector general's office has confirmed it has asked the Justice
Department to look into how the State Department handled the classification
of documents, but emphasized it was not requesting a criminal investigation.

Clinton said she has no idea what are the four specific emails the
inspector general was talking about in his letter to Congress.

"But the facts are pretty clear," Clinton said. "I did not send or receive
anything that was classified at the time."

Clinton told reporters she turned over 55,000 pages of emails to help the
State Department, because officials asked all former secretaries to provide
any information possible to help with their record keeping.

"So I did, but then I said, 'Okay, so let's make it public,'" she said.
"Now if I had just turned it over, we would not be having this
conversation."

Clinton said her desire to make things public requires that it goes through
the public records request process.

"If we were not asking for it to be made public, there would not be a
debate. This is all about my desire to have transparency and make the
information public," she said.

All of the emails are already on the unclassified system of the State
Department, Clinton said.

"The vast majority of anything that I sent or received was already on the
State Department system, the unclassified State Department system," she
said. "In order to respond to freedom of information requests, you'd have
to go through the same process."

*Hillary Clinton agrees to testify before Benghazi committee in October
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-testify-benghazi-committee-october>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald - July 25, 2015*

For more than four years, Wyatt Cenac held one of the most coveted jobs in
American comedy, serving as a writer and on-air contributor for “The Daily
Show.” But in 2012, Cenac quit that job, even though he had no new gig
lined up to replace it. On a recent episode of Marc Maron’s “WTF” poodcast,
Cenac revealed that his departure was the product of an emotionally
traumatizing fight he’d had with Jon Stewart, over whether or not one of
the host’s jokes was racially insensitive.

In 2011, African-American pizza magnate Herman Cain was – briefly – a
leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Among Cain’s
signature policies was a proposal for all congressional bills to be limited
to three pages. On “The Daily Show,” Stewart mocked the
anti-intellectualism of Cain’s proposal by impersonating the candidate,
saying in an approximation of Cain’s own loud, affectedly southern voice,
“Bills will be three pages! If I am president, treaties will have to fit on
the back of a cereal box!  From now on, the State of the Union address will
be delivered in the form of a fortune cookie! I am Herman Cain, and I do
not like to read.”

Cenac told Maron that the bit made him cringe.

“I don’t think this is from a malicious place, but I think this is from a
naïve, ignorant place,” Cenac said he remembered remembered thinking, when
he first watched the segment.

“I represent my community, I represent my people,” Cenac continued. “I
gotta be honest if something seems questionable, because if not, then I
don’t want to be in a position where I am being untrue not just to myself
but to my culture, because that’s exploitative.”

In a writer’s meeting, Cenac told Stewart that the voice reminded him of
Kingfish, an African-American caricature from the show “Amos ‘n’ Andy.”
According to Cenac, Stewart then “exploded.”

“He got incredibly defensive. I remember he was like, ‘What are you trying
to say? There’s a tone in your voice.’ I was like, ‘There’s no tone. It
bothered me. It sounded like Kingfish.’ And then he got upset. And he stood
up and he was just like, ‘F— off. I’m done with you.’ And he just started
screaming that to me. And he screamed it a few times. ‘F— off! I’m done
with you.’ And he stormed out. And I didn’t know if I had been fired.”

Spokespeople for “The Daily Show” did not immediately respond to msnbc’s
request for comment.

Stewart would later apologize for yelling at Cenac, but maintained his
belief that the voice was an exaggeration of Cain’s, and not a racist
caricature, a position shared by at least some black commentators at the
time.

Cenac said the dispute devastated him. The comedian told Maron that his
father was murdered when he was very young, and that the loss left him
looking for substitute father figures for the rest of his life. Cenac said
he had hoped that Stewart might serve as a personal mentor. But the host
kept his relationship with the show’s writers strictly, coldly
professional, according to Cenac, who said the shouting match was the first
real conversation the two had ever had.

“It’s a sobering moment when you see that this person you’ve turned into a
hero is just a mortal,” he said of the encounter.

Cenac’s disappointment with Stewart was exacerbated by the sense of
isolation that came with always being the only African-American in the
writer’s room. After the fight, Cenac walked to the baseball field across
from the studio and broke down.

“I was shaking, and I just sat there by myself on the bleachers and f——
cried. And it’s a sad thing. That’s how I feel. That’s how I feel in this
job. I feel alone,” he said.

He stayed on the show for a year after the incident but never stopped
feeling sad and uncomfortable with what had happened.

When Stewart announced his retirement, Cenac sent him an email offering his
congratulations, and thanked Stewart for giving the opportunity to
contribute to the show.

“He wrote back. And it seemed like a nice fence-mending,” Cenac said. “We
tossed back and forth a joke about football.”

Recently, Cenac received an invitation to appear on Stewart’s final episode
as host of “The Daily Show,” which will air on August 6. Cenac told Maron
that he didn’t want to attend because he and Stewart had never resolved
what had happened between them.

He ended up writing Stewart a long email, laying out all his feelings on
the fight and the tense year that followed.

“He thought that fight we got into was just two people having an argument.
And so the emotion of it, he never really saw,” Cenac said. “He apologized
as much as he could, for if I felt hurt and he said, ‘I’d love for you to
be at the last show because I helped to build this thing’ … And I
appreciated that. I still don’t know if I’m going to show up.”

*Hillary Clinton: Emails were not marked as classified
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-marked-classified>
// MSNBC // Kristen Welker - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton on Saturday said she’s confident nothing marked classified
was relayed in her private emails while she was secretary of state.

Two inspectors general have asked the Department of Justice to investigate
whether classified information was mishandled in relation to Clinton’s use
of a private email account.

The Justice Department mistakenly told reporters that the request was for a
criminal investigation, then corrected itself and said the request was not
a criminal referral.

Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said “there
was a disagreement between various agencies” as to whether the four emails
in question should have been classified when they were sent.

“I did not receive anything that was marked as classified,” Clinton told
reporters after a campaign event in Winterset, Iowa.

“What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to
some extent disagreement, among various parts of the government over what
should or should not be publicly released,” Clinton said.

Clinton has been under fire by critics for her use of a private email kept
on a private server while she served as secretary of state. Clinton has
said she wanted the emails to be public, and turned over 55,000 pages of
emails to the State Department for release.

A Justice Department official said Friday afternoon that “The Department
has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified
information,” but noted that it was not a criminal referral.

In a joint statement, the two inspectors general who made the referral said
that it was “a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.”

But, they added, they found that a sample of 40 of Clinton’s emails from
Clinton’s server contained four with classified information that should
“never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

*Hillary’s inconceivably stupid capital-gains tax scheme
<http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/25/hillarys-inconceivably-stupid-capital-gains-tax-scheme-kudlow-commentary.html>
// NBC // Larry Kudlow - July 25, 2015*

In her latest economic speech, Clinton proposes doubling the capital-gains
tax rate on the profit made from asset sales (stocks, bonds, real estate)
held a day less than one year up to two years. Right now, if you take a
capital gain a day more than one year, you are taxed at a 20 percent rate.
Actually, it's 23.8 percent when you include the health-care surtax. So
under Clinton's brilliant new play, you'd be taxed at 43.4 percent — the
top individual cap-gains rate of 39.6 percent plus the 3.8 percent
Obamacare surtax.

That means, instead of keeping 80 cents on the additional dollar of profit,
you'd only keep 56.6 cents — a 30-percentage-point reduction in the
take-home-pay reward for taking an extra dollar's investment risk.

This will create a tall barrier to investment — what we don't need. If you
tax something more, you get less of it.

Clinton complains about too much "short-termism" in the economy. But her
program might well create more of it. That's because she has a sliding
tax-rate scale, whereby assets held two to three years would be taxed at
39.8 percent and assets held three to four years at 35.8 percent. And you
don't get back to the statutory 20 percent cap-gains rate unless you hold
an asset for six-plus years.

Who's going to lock themselves into that? What if new investment
opportunities arise? Want to convert your current holding into cash so you
can invest in your brother-in-law's start-up? Maybe it's the next Facebook.
Who knows? The point is, the Clinton plan exacts a huge tax penalty on the
movement from old capital to new.

Read MoreClinton rakes in Wall Street cash amid tough talk

The late Jude Wanniski called this re-oxygenating the economy. Ms. Clinton
would snuff that out. Her short-termism fear will lock us into long-term
economic stagnation.

By the way, the numbers are actually worse, because capital gains are
already taxed as corporate profits. What investors pay is a double tax.

So let's go back to Hillary's top cap-gains rate of 43.8 percent. The
government takes 35 percent of your profit in corporate taxes, leaving 65
cents to be taxed a second time as capital gains at the new 43.8 percent
rate. That results in a take-home profit of 37 cents on the dollar.

Is that enough to reward the risk of investing in the next Uber? Except for
Mayor Bill de Blasio, who hates Uber, most people would say no.

But that's Hillary's plan.

How powerful is the capital-gains tax? The non-partisan Tax Foundation
rates it among the top three economic-growth influences on the economy,
along with full cash-expensing for new investment in plants and equipment
and the corporate tax. And compared with the rest of the world, the U.S.
has fallen far behind in terms of this investment-tax-penalty grouping.

This is government tinkering at its worst. The reality is that Hillary
Clinton is attempting to punish success and redistribute income.

Did someone say tax the rich? Clinton proposes an income threshold of
$484,850 for married couples filing jointly. Oh my gosh! Successful
economic activists! Let's get 'em!

Ironically, history shows that periods of higher capital-gains tax rates
produce less revenue as a share of all federal revenue and as a fraction of
GDP. Hillary's not even redistributing efficiently.

And then there's what some call the "Charles Gibson effect." Gibson
interviewed then-Senator Obama in 2008 for ABC News. Obama said he'd raise
the cap-gains tax from 15 percent to 28 percent. But Gibson reminded Obama
that when Bill Clinton and George Bush lowered cap-gains tax rates,
revenues actually increased. In other words, the Laffer curve. But Obama
said it didn't matter because he wanted to be "fair."

It also doesn't matter to Hillary. She wants to beat Bernie Sanders, or at
least cuddle up to the Vermont socialist. What nonsense. Bad economics and
bad politics. Voters will understand this.

Personal income, corporate profits, capital gains, dividends — everything.
But that still leaves me with a double-tax problem for investment and
savings. So it's probably time to blow up the corporate-tax code
altogether. That would get us to the 4-percent-plus growth path advocated
by some of the Republicans on the campaign trail.

And that would get us some "long-termism" economic growth — just what the
country yearns for.

*Hillary Clinton Says She’s 'Confident' She Did Not Send or Receive
Classified Information
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-shes-confident-send-receive-classified-information/story?id=32689054>
// ABC // Liz Kreutz - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton today brushed off a new investigation into whether she sent
or received classified information on her personal email address while at
the State Department, telling reporters she is "confident" she did not.

"First, let me say that I am confident that I never sent nor received any
information that was classified at the time it was sent and received,"
Clinton told reporters at the Third District Democrats Summer Wine Down in
Winterset. "I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of
discussion, to some extent disagreement, among various parts of the
government over what should or should not be publicly released."

Clinton went on to explain that she did not have to make all of her emails
available to the public when she turned them over to the State Department,
and argued that the new investigation is only a consequence of her doing so.

"If I just turned it over, we would not be having this conversation. But
when I said, 'Hey, I want it to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA
process. That's what's going on here," Clinton said. "This is all about my
desire to have transparency and to make the information public."

Clinton’s comments come amid a new development into Clinton's controversial
use of a private email address while at the State Department.

Hillary Clinton's Emails: Unanswered Questions About Deleted Correspondence

Internal investigators for the intelligence community say that of the
55,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department, at least four –-
and potentially hundreds more -– included classified national security
information when they were sent on her private email account and home
server.

The investigation has renewed questions about whether Clinton did send
classified material over email, something she adamantly denied back in
March when it was first revealed that she used her private server for
business.

Today Clinton doubled down on her beliefs, saying, "The facts are pretty
clear: I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time."

Clinton also revealed today that she is planning to testify before the
House Committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks in late
October. During the hearing, which will be public, Clinton will likely also
take questions on her use of email.

*Dispute Continues Over Hillary Clinton Testifying Before Benghazi Panel
<http://time.com/3972229/hillary-clinton-benghazi-panel-october/> // TIME
// Zeke J. Miller - July 25, 2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the House Benghazi
Committee remain at loggerheads over the conditions under which she would
testify before the committee, probing the killing of four Americans in the
September 2012 attack in Libya.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill announced Saturday that Clinton had
agreed to testify before the committee in a public hearing in October, but
the committee’s communications director, Jamal Ware, said no agreement had
in fact been reached.

“Earlier this week we were pleased for Secretary Clinton to receive an
offer from Congressman Gowdy to appear before the committee in a public
hearing in October, and yesterday accepted his invitation,” Clinton
spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement.

“Secretary Clinton’s campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr.
David Kendall, with whom the Committee has had ongoing conversations,” Ware
said. “As of last night, Mr. Kendall was still negotiating conditions for
her appearance.”

According to Ware, Kendall had two conditions for Clinton testify: that the
questions be limited in scope to the Benghazi committee’s jurisdiction, and
that the date remain firm despite the State Department’s alleged slow
production of documents to the committee.

In recent months the committee has expanded its purview into investigating
Clinton’s use of a private email server rather than a government email
account. On Friday, a pair of inspectors general announced that they had
found messages containing classified information among the 30,000 emails
Clinton has turned over from the server, contrary to Clinton’s assertion in
March. The inspector general for the intelligence community also notified
the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the possible compromise of
classified information being kept outside of government control, in
reference to Clinton’s private server.

Ware said the committee believes that the email issue is well within its
purview.

“Her email arrangement clearly falls within the scope of the Select
Committee’s jurisdiction, which is charged by the House under the
Resolution to look at Executive Branch efforts to comply with congressional
oversight as well as the administration’s response in the aftermath of the
tragic attacks in Benghazi,” he said.

A public hearing would mark a small victory for Clinton, who has pushed to
testify in public, despite committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy’s hopes for
her to testify in a classified setting.

*Clinton Aide: Hillary Clinton To Testify Before Benghazi Committee In
October
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee_55b3b223e4b0074ba5a4c4ac?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Sam Levine - July 25, 2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will publicly testify before the
House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22, a Clinton spokesperson told
The Washington Post on Saturday.

That date was disputed by Jamal Ware, the committee's communications
director, who said in a Saturday statement that the panel and Clinton's
lawyer were still negotiating the conditions of her appearance as of Friday
evening.

“Secretary Clinton's campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr.
David Kendall, with whom the Committee has had ongoing conversations. As of
last night, Mr. Kendall was still negotiating conditions for her
appearance," Ware said in the statement.

A Clinton spokesman did not return a request for comment.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the committee's chairman, asked Clinton in March
to appear before a closed-door meeting of the committee to discuss her use
of a private email server. Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president,
has indicated for months that she is willing to appear before the panel,
but would like to do so in public. Clinton's team preferred a public
hearing to a private one out of concern that Republicans on the committee
would selectively leak unflattering details, the Post reported.

The committee is reviewing 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton voluntarily
turned over. In June, the panel interviewed former Clinton confidant Sidney
Blumenthal about some of the messages in a session that largely focused on
domestic politics.

Gowdy's committee is charged with conducting a full investigation of all of
the events surrounding the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,
which killed four, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Critics say
that the committee is just a vehicle for Republicans to attack Clinton.

*Hillary Clinton's campaign says she will testify before Congress about
Benghazi terrorist attacks in October
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-testify-benghazi-october-article-1.2304337>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph and Denis Slattery - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that a deal is in place for the
Democratic presidential front-runner to testify about the Benghazi
terrorist attacks before Congress in October.

The committee’s response: Not so fast.

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee investigating the attacks,
said details were still being hashed out — and took a jab at the Clinton
team.

“Secretary Clinton’s campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr.
David Kendall,” Ware said. “As of last night, Mr. Kendall was still
negotiating conditions for her appearance.”

The committee is investigating Clinton’s actions during the attacks when
she was Secretary of State. The attacks left U.S. Ambassador to Libya J.
Christopher Stevens and three others dead.

Clinton had offered to testify publicly, leaving at issue the timing and
the scope of questions from the committee, headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy
(R-S.C.).

“Finally, earlier this week we were pleased for Secretary Clinton to
receive an offer from Congressman Gowdy to appear before the committee in a
public hearing in October, and yesterday accepted his invitation,” a
Clinton campaign spokesman, Nick Merrill, said.

The back and forth over Clinton’s testimony comes as she faces intensified
scrutiny for using a personal email account and private computer server
while secretary of state.

The Justice Department was asked to launch an investigation into whether
potentially classified information was contained in some of the emails,
though the emails were not labeled by the State Department as classified.

Since the use of the private email account was revealed in March, Clinton
has staunchly denied she ever sent or received any classified emails.

Another batch of emails Clinton turned over to the State Department is
scheduled to be released to the public next week.

“We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails
are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails,” said
Merrill, the Clinton spokesman.

*Hillary Clinton to Testify Before Congress About Benghazi Emails
<http://gawker.com/clinton-to-testify-before-committee-about-benghazi-emai-1720179746>
// Gawker // Brendan O’Connor - July 25, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has accepted an invitation to testify before the Republican-led
committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya now ominously
referred to as “Benghazi,” the New York Times reports.

According to a Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s presidential
campaign, the candidate accepted the committee’s invitation to testify in
October on Friday, the Times reports. Also on Friday, the inspectors
general for the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies
announced that they had discovered classified information on Clinton’s
private email account.

“We have had a chance to review the statement released by the inspectors
general of the State Department and intelligence community outlining their
concerns with regard to the State Department’s review and release of
Hillary Clinton’s work emails,” Merrill wrote in an emailed statement.

“We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails
are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails,” the
statement continued. “We particularly do not want their release to be
hampered by bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community. More
emails are slated to be released by the State Department next week, and we
hope that release is as inclusive as possible.”

The Times reports that Clinton’s testimony is expected to be public.
Clinton last testified before Congress on Benghazi in January 2013.

There appears to be some confusion in Washington, however, over whether
Clinton has actually agreed to appear. “Secretary Clinton’s campaign may
want to reach out to her lawyer, Mr David Kendall, with whom the committee
has had ongoing conversations,” the Benghazi committee said in a statement
on Saturday. “As of last night, Mr Kendall was still negotiating conditions
for her appearance.”

But Merrill told the Times that this was incorrect. “As the committee’s own
statement says, we have made clear that we understand emails are in their
jurisdiction,” he said. “So unless the committee now believes emails are no
longer in its jurisdiction, we are in agreement.”

*Hillary Clinton accepts invitation to testify before Benghazi committee
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-accepts-invitation-to-testify-before-benghazi-committee/article/2568970>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - July 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton accepted on Friday an invitation to testify before the
House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

Chairman Trey Gowdy asked Clinton to appear before the committee earlier
this week, according to campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.

Merrill also disputed media reports that Clinton had handled classified
information improperly on her private email server, which prompted two
inspectors general to refer the matter to the Justice Department for a
possible criminal investigation.

"Friday began with the printing of a story that was false," Merrill said in
a statement. "Entities from the highest levels of two branches of
government have now made that clear."

Gowdy had asked Clinton to testify before the committee about her use of
personal email address and server to shield her official communications
from the government network and her role in the security failures that led
to the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.

Clinton has been forced to respond to questions about her emails, among
other points of controversy, in the early days of her campaign as details
of the unusual arrangement have emerged.

She has repeatedly maintained that she broke no laws by using a personal
account and that no classified information passed through the server.

But a report in the New York Times Friday indicated hundreds of the private
emails she chose to give the State Department could contain classified
intelligence.

Clinton has not yet appeared before the Benghazi committee, whose sole
purpose is to investigate the circumstances surrounding the attack.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*O'Malley college debt was self-inflicted by unwise decisions
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-college-20150725-story.html>
// Baltimore Sun // Jerry Rodkey - July 25, 2015*

Former Gov. Martin O'Malley's college debt unfortunately mirrors those of
many who fail to plan, prioritize, work, sacrifice, save and live within
their means ("O'Malley's $339,200 college debt," July 20).

While working for the federal government, and with a wife who was a
"stay-at-home mom," our three children were free of college debt within 18
months after they completed their undergraduate and post-graduate degrees.

They attended in-state schools, had summer jobs and began saving for
college while in middle school. My sons served as college resident hall
advisers. All applied for numerous scholarships; all received one or more.

All pursued degrees sought in today's job markets. After my daughter
completed her undergraduate degree, she accepted a position with AmeriCorps
to teach at-risk students in Colorado. Upon fulfilling her commitment, she
received money that was sufficient to pay off the balance of her college
loans. She is currently working part-time while enrolled in a full-time
master's degree program.

As for myself, I performed odd jobs within my neighborhood while in middle
school, had a part-time job at a hospital while attending high school, and
worked in factories during my college summer and Christmas breaks.

I commuted to a state university for two years then sold my car after
successfully competing for a partial two-year ROTC scholarship that enabled
me to reside on campus during my last two years. I incurred a four-year,
active duty military obligation that resulted in an army career.

I am extremely proud of the work ethic, values, sacrifices and
accomplishments of my children. I'm thankful to God that they, unlike Mr.
O'Malley, were humble and fiscally prudent. The formula for success is well
known. Unfortunately, too many lack the will and determination to implement
it.

*SANDERS*

*For Bernie Sanders, a lot riding on a Louisiana visit
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/25/for-bernie-sanders-a-lot-riding-on-a-louisiana-visit/>
// WaPo // John Wagner - July 25, 2015*

Louisiana traditionally doesn’t rank up there with Iowa and New Hampshire
as important destinations for presidential candidates at this point on the
calendar. But Bernie Sanders has a lot riding on a swing through the Bayou
State this weekend.

In seeking the Democratic nomination, the independent senator from Vermont
has acknowledged that one of his key challenges is demonstrating an ability
to connect with black voters. Sanders, who has emerged as the leading
alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton, represents a state that is 95
percent white. Unlike most of his Democratic rivals, his elections have
never required much outreach to the African American community.

Sanders is also fresh off an awkward experience last weekend at the liberal
Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix, where both he and former Maryland
governor Martin O’Malley were heckled by protesters aligned with the Black
Lives Matter movement. To many in the crowd, Sanders seemed dismissive as
activists demanded specific prescriptions for dealing with police brutality
and other issues. At one point, Sanders offered to leave the stage.

Which brings us to this weekend: Sanders has four events booked in a state
where one-third of the population is black.

He is scheduled to appear in Baton Rouge on Saturday night at a national
gathering of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a storied
African American civil rights organization whose first president was Martin
Luther King Jr.

From there, the self-described democratic socialist heads to New Orleans to
address a Jefferson-Jackson dinner later that night sponsored by the
Louisiana Democratic Party. There is certain to be a sizable African
American turnout there as well. And on Sunday, Sanders has both a house
party and large-scale rally planned in the New Orleans area.

In recent weeks, Sanders has seen his crowds swell into the thousands at
rallies around the country. But they have been largely white. This isn’t
surprising in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two presidential nominating
states, which have small minority populations. But the same has been true
in larger locales around the country.

In Louisiana, Sanders has an opportunity to demonstrate a broader appeal.

“If he’s going to be considered a serious candidate, he needs to make
inroads in the black community,” said state Rep. Randal L. Gaines, a member
of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus.

Gaines said Sanders has come to the attention of a lot of Democrats in the
state, particularly younger ones, in just the last 30 days. Clinton, by
contrast, is well known, both for her own political career and for that of
her husband, who was the governor of neighboring Arkansas before he became
president.

The Sanders campaign sees potential here. The 73-year-old senator has a
long history on civil rights, having attended the 1963 March on Washington
and witnessed King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in person.

During a swing through New Hampshire last month, Sanders pledged “a
significant expansion” in outreach to minority voters and suggested his
economic message should resonate.

“The views that we hold are important to all Americans … but to be honest
with you, they’re probably more relevant to black and Hispanic voters …
because the poverty rate in those communities is even higher than whites,”
Sanders told reporters.

Sanders cited his support to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and
offer free college tuition as examples.

During appearances in Texas this week, Sanders also spoke out about the
case of Sandra Bland, the 28-year-old African American woman found dead in
her jail cell 60 miles northwest of Houston after being arrested for a
traffic stop. Her family has disputed a medical examiner’s finding that the
death was a suicide.

Sanders will also be watched closely in coming days to see what he has to
say about gun violence in the wake of Thursday's fatal shootings in a movie
theater in Lafayette, La. His record on Capitol Hill is mixed when it comes
to gun control, an issue of interest to black voters.

African Americans are a key constituency in the Democratic nominating
process. Once the process moves beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, their
influence will be felt, starting with the South Carolina primary.

As he tries to build bridges, aides say Sanders will make stops in several
other Southern states in coming weeks, including in South Carolina.

*Bernie Sanders is in with the enemy, some old allies say
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-hes-a-socialist-his-old-socialist-buddies-say-not-so-much/2015/07/25/a3948256-3145-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html>
// WaPo // David A. Fahrenthold - July 25, 2015*

It was one of the first political events Bernie Sanders ever went to in
Vermont: a 1971 discussion by a small group of left-wingers, the Liberty
Union Party.

These people were not winners, in the electoral sense. The closest they had
come to winning a statewide race, at that point, was losing by 56 points.
So someone in the audience asked: Why don’t you become Democrats? Why not
sacrifice third-party purity for a chance at actual power?

Sanders — a transplanted Brooklynite, known in Vermont for his overheated
writing and underwhelming carpentry — spoke up from the crowd. The
sacrifice wasn’t worth it.

“He felt strongly that you worked outside the Democratic Party,” said Jim
Rader, a longtime friend who took Sanders to the meeting. “He felt there
were too many compromises that had to be made, too many compromises of
political principles.”

Last week, 44 years later, a group of socialists gathered in a Vermont
library to have a strikingly similar debate. This time, they were deciding
whether they could support Bernie Sanders himself.

Sanders was not at this meeting. The scruffy socialist of the ’70s — who
later became a mayor, congressman and U.S. senator — is out on the campaign
trail now, drawing huge crowds as a candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination.

In Vermont, the socialists’ speaker said his answer was no. The purest
socialist in mainstream American politics was no longer pure enough.

“When Sanders decided to run as a Democrat,” that was the last straw, said
Jim Ramey at the meeting of the International Socialist Organization’s
Burlington branch. “People on the left should not support him.”

The story of Bernie Sanders’s life in politics is the distance between
those two meetings.

Sanders got his start on Vermont’s left fringe. In multiple third-party
runs for office, he learned the craft of politics, which has been the only
steady work he has ever had. Sanders also developed the same policy ideas
that still define him: taxing the rich, expanding the safety net for the
poor and weakening the influence of Wall Street.

But if Sanders kept the fringe’s ideas, he quickly discarded its small-bore
tactics — and began making allies, and compromises, that would bring him
bigger audiences and higher office.

The result is that Vermont is strewn with dissatisfied socialists,
denouncing Sanders for perceived sins that go back to the ’70s.

And Bernie Sanders is running for president.

“A very skilled and savvy politician,” said Rader, who later worked in
Sanders’s congressional office, so close to Sanders that they shared one
well-used necktie. “He’s not a purist. He’s consistent. He holds very deep
convictions. But he is not a purist.”

Sanders was born in Brooklyn, the son of a paint salesman, and became
involved in left-wing politics at the University of Chicago. He arrived in
Vermont in a wave of newcomers, back-to-the-landers. They didn’t make a
habit of asking one another where they had come from.

“He was poor as a church mouse back then . . . living in an apartment that
I always referred to as dark, stark and cluttered,” said Darcy Troville, a
friend from those early days. Sanders had been divorced years before. He
had a son, whose mother and he never married. “I was wondering how he ended
up with this baby alone. I didn’t know what he did for work,” Troville said.

If Bernie Sanders had a great talent at that time, it was not obvious.

He wrote for the Vermont Freeman, a counter-culture newspaper, for $10 or
$15 a story, including an especially strange piece about dark sexual
fantasies. Sanders also did some carpentry. Nobody remembers the writing or
the woodworking well.

The thing Sanders was good at, it turned out, was politics.

But even that wasn’t clear right away.

“We didn’t have a chance in hell,” John Bloch said, recalling a meeting of
the Liberty Union Party in 1971, when members were seeking nominees to run
for the U.S. Senate. “I said, ‘Is there anybody that can be lion bait for
the Senate race? We need a body.’ ”

Sanders volunteered.

In his first radio interview as a candidate, he later recalled, his nervous
knees knocked the table so loudly that the microphone picked it up. “A
strange thumping noise traversed the airwaves,” Sanders wrote in his 1997
autobiography, as the sound engineer waved at him to stop it.

The message that Sanders used in that campaign is present in this one.
“Wealth=power, lack of wealth=subservience. How could we change that?” he
recalled in his autobiography, called “Outsider in the House.” “The ideas I
was espousing were not ‘far out’ or ‘fringe.’ Frankly, they were
‘mainstream.’ ”

Maybe. But Sanders wasn’t. He got 2 percent of the vote.

In 1974, Sanders ran for Senate again. Four percent.

In 1976, he ran for governor. Six percent. He was getting better at debates
and retail politics. And at this rate, he would be up to an electoral
majority in only . . . 44 more years.

So, in 1977, Sanders quit the party.

In the media, he called Liberty Union “a failure.”

“I didn’t really think he had a right to do that,” said Doris Lake, a
former House candidate who had campaigned alongside Sanders in his first
race. She meant bad-mouthing the party. “We were still keeping it alive.”
Not for the last time, Sanders had alienated one of the true believers with
whom he had started out.

“Enough was enough,” Sanders told himself, he recalled in his
autobiography. “My political career was over.”

Trouble was, his other career was worse.

Sanders made slide shows with audio for Vermont schools. But his operation
was so painfully low-tech that he was stymied by the need for a “beep” to
tell the teacher to advance to the next slide. He couldn’t afford a
professional beep. “He tried banging a pot lid with a spoon,” friend Terry
Bouricius said. That wasn’t a beep. Finally: “His son’s walkie-talkies, if
you pushed both the buttons at the same time, it would make a beep sound.”

Sanders also tried to be a documentary filmmaker, with a movie about a
personal role model: Eugene V. Debs, leader of the Socialist Party of
America. Sanders did his hero’s voice himself: “One class is small and rich
and the other lahwge and poor,” he read in his Brooklyn accent, according
to audio discovered by Mother Jones magazine. He continued: “One consists
of capitalists, and the other of work-uhs.”

Debs was from Indiana.

“I said, ‘Bernie, you’re not going to sell this thing. The soundtrack, Debs
has a Brooklyn accent you can cut with a knife,’ ” Bloch, his friend,
remembered saying. Vermonters wouldn’t understand it. “He said, ‘They’ll
luuhn.’ ”

It still wasn’t much of a living. Sanders’s landlord raised his rent, and
he moved in with a friend.

Then that friend, a University of Vermont professor, persuaded him to go
back into politics — running for Burlington mayor as an independent,
without the baggage of a larger party behind him. This time, Sanders
focused on local issues: a waterfront development, fighting a tax increase,
keeping a hill open for snow-sledding.

He won by 10 votes. That year, Sanders recalls, his friends chipped in and
bought him something a mayor needs: a leather briefcase. He was 40 years
old.

Sanders first faced strong opposition from Republicans and Democrats. He
did some things that his old allies liked — he hung a picture of Debs in
City Hall, he criticized U.S. policy in Central America, he set up an
office to increase affordable housing, and he tried make cable TV cheaper
for the poor.

But he still alienated some on the left, at times, by acting like a mayor
instead of a socialist.

In 1983, for instance, some of Sanders’s old allies planned to block the
gates of a General Electric plant in Burlington that made guns for military
helicopters. They would demand that the factory start making something
peaceful instead.

“He said he would have us arrested,” said Greg Guma, who had known Sanders
since 1972. “Then the day came. And he did.” The socialist mayor sat
quietly on a guardrail, watching them being handcuffed.

In the same period, Sanders also began a political relationship with the
Democratic Party. He still denounced the party as ideologically bankrupt,
part of a closed and corrupt two-party system.

But, when big elections came, he also campaigned for its candidates, as he
did for Walter Mondale in 1984.

That lost him another socialist ally.

“The friendship could not stand him storming around the state for Fritz
Mondale,” said Peter Diamondstone, one of Sanders’s friends from the
Liberty Union Party and Doris Lake’s husband.

In the good old days, Diamondstone used to stay over at Sanders’s house in
Burlington, and the two men stayed up late shouting political arguments at
each other.

One such row had been over whether all children should be allowed to vote.
Diamondstone said yes. Sanders said only after puberty. “I said, ‘Waddya
want, the town clerks to start doing examinations?” Diamondstone remembered
yelling.

Now, that was over. Diamondstone staked out a Mondale event. He caught
Sanders coming in and handed his friend a leaflet that called him a
“Quisling.”

Since then, as Sanders rose through the political ranks, Diamondstone has
continued to run as a third-party candidate for state and federal offices.
He has run 16 times. He has never won. He has never even cracked 6 percent.

“It was who we were. I mean, he was the best politician. But I watched how
he changed. And those changes seemed to be related to moving to the right”
to build a bigger following, Diamondstone said. “I was myself, and he was
himself. He became a Democrat. And I stayed where I was.”

Sanders served as mayor of Burlington for eight years, leaving office in
1989. Later that year, he and Frank Kochman — his old publisher, from his
threadbare days as a $15-per-story writer — found themselves alone at a
party, looking out over Lake Champlain.

“He’s looking off in the distance, and he says . . . ‘I think I ought to
run for governor or Congress.’ I said, ‘Bernie, I don’t think that you’ll
ever get elected governor,’ ” Kochman said.

The state might not want to be governed by a socialist. But it might send
one to Washington. “Congress,” Kochman said. “I think you got a real shot.”

Sanders ran, and now it appeared that his courting of the Democrats paid
off.

Their big guns stayed out of the way, apparently assured that Sanders was
close enough to being a Democrat already. With the help of the National
Rifle Association, which hated the Republican incumbent, Sanders won.

His association with Democrats continued to pay off.

By 1991, Sanders — although still officially an independent — was part of
the Democratic caucus in Congress, climbing the party’s seniority ladder.
He has not faced a serious challenge from a Democrat in all the elections
since.

“Why would you run against him, you know what I mean?” said Jeff Weaver, a
longtime Sanders staffer and current campaign manager. For Democratic
leaders in Congress, he said, Sanders “was a more reliable vote than a lot
of other people down there who had a ‘D’ after their name.”

But, in this election, Sanders is running as a Democrat — officially,
fully, within the party system he decried for so long. Sanders said the
party’s structure makes it easier to get on ballots, into debates and into
the media.

He has said that if he loses in the Democratic primary, he will not run as
an independent.

“His decision to run this election in the Democratic primary was completely
informed by Ralph Nader,” said John Franco, a longtime friend who is a
lawyer in Burlington. He said Sanders did not want to draw votes away from
a Democrat and elect a Republican in the process, as happened when Nader
ran and George W. Bush won in 2000. “That really turned out swimmingly,”
Franco said.

What about those on the left who think Sanders has sold out by refusing to
go it alone?

“Frankly, those people — they have their meetings in a phone booth,” Franco
said.

Or, at least, in an upstairs meeting room at the Burlington public library.

There were 28 people there at the International Socialist Organization
meeting Wednesday night. They called one another “comrade.” They praised
Nader for having the guts to challenge the two-party system in 2000. No
matter who got elected instead.

“My first vote was for Ralph Nader,” said Patrick St. John, 32.

“Good for you!” somebody called out, and meant it.

Ramey, a forklift operator for a chocolate company, was in charge of
answering the question: “Should the Left Support Bernie Sanders?” He listed
some of Sanders’s policy goals: a higher minimum wage. Equal pay for women.
Free college tuition. A single national health-care system.

“I’m not going to lie. That would be pretty good,” Ramey said.

But it wasn’t good enough, he said, because of Sanders’s choice of tactics:
He was running as a Democrat. Which meant that he could lose and deliver
his voters to Hillary Clinton, a mainstream Democrat with ties to Wall
Street and big business. Deliver them to the system they all wanted to
defeat.

“Warts and all, the [Sanders] campaign has a lot going for them,” Ramey
said. “But the Democratic Party is not a wart.” It is a fatal flaw, he said.

So, if Sanders wasn’t good enough, what should the socialists do? They
didn’t settle on a plan. After an hour of discussion, a man in a straw hat
stood up.

“I’m tired of being powerless!” said Albert Echt, 66. He wanted to support
Bernie Sanders, warts and all. “Let’s jump on Bernie’s coattails. . . .
That would actually be doing something, instead of sitting around!”

The room was not moved. The moderator called on the next person who had
raised a hand. Echt, frustrated, walked out.

“They’re such fools!” he told a reporter, in a too-loud whisper, as he left.

The meeting broke up amicably without him. In the next week, Sanders was
planning big rallies in Iowa and Louisiana. The socialists had a plan to
meet again on Thursday in Burlington.

*Bernie Sanders heads to Louisiana
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-heads-to-louisiana/article/2568969>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - July 25, 2015*

Sen. Bernie Sanders will head to Louisiana this weekend for a series of
campaign events that will include a town hall and a civil rights convention.

The Vermont Independent is set to host his town hall meeting Sunday at the
same venue where Gov. Bobby Jindal launched his presidential campaign
earlier this month, according to the New Orleans Advocate.

Sanders, who has drawn impressive crowds to campaign events around the
country in recent weeks, will likely be forced to confront the shooting
that claimed two lives in a Lafayette movie theater earlier this week.

The Democratic presidential candidate will head to Baton Rouge for the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference's annual convention before
departing for New Orleans to attend the state party's Jefferson-Jackson
Dinner.

*OTHER*

*Democrats woo activists in key Des Moines neighborhood
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1b8xQPt4>
// AP // Catherine Lucey- July 25, 2015*

Four years ago, the Beaverdale neighborhood in Des Moines organized big for
President Barack Obama's re-election, building an uber-volunteer group
skilled at phone-banking, door-knocking and boosting caucus and general
election participation. The volunteers dubbed their leafy neighborhood
Obamadale.

Now the 2016 Democratic presidential hopefuls are visiting this liberal
stronghold, trying to rename it once more.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hung out at a local bar Friday night
and Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a house party Saturday afternoon. But
they may have to keep wooing for a while. The neighbors are split among the
candidates or undecided.

"I think Obamadale is still kind of an open target for candidates at this
point," said Brad Anderson, a resident who served as Obama's state director
in 2012.

Anderson said that in the last presidential election, the Obamadale group
"over-performed by every metric that was set." The group of about 20 core
activists and dozens more participants got training from the campaign and
put in long hours working the phones and going door to door. They turned
out big numbers on caucus night and again in the November general election,
when the incumbent Obama won the state. Their organizing methods were so
successful that they were sent to other areas to boost participation.

"You get off work and clock in volunteering," recalled founding member
Kimberly Boggus, 36. "Phone banks Monday and Wednesday. Saturdays and
Sundays were canvassing."

Political engagement is a longtime tradition in the neighborhood. Located a
short drive from downtown, the tidy streets are lined with small
Tudor-style homes, known as Beaverdale Bricks. The shopping district
features a candy shop and an independent bookstore. People mark the seasons
with community gatherings and festivals.

It's the kind of group any Democratic hopeful would like to scoop up.
Clinton featured a local organizer in her announcement video and has picked
up some key support here, including backing from the local Democratic state
Sen. Janet Petersen. O'Malley has visited more than once, and played his
guitar in a local tavern in the spring.

"It's great to be in Beaverdale," O'Malley told dozens packed into a local
pub Friday night. "You guys have been terrific to me."

He stood on a chair for a lengthy question-and-answer session that touched
on raising the minimum wage and banking reform before accepting a guitar
from an audience member and leading the enthusiastic crowd in song.

Clinton spoke to about 200 people in a Beaverdale backyard Saturday
afternoon, calling the area "one of the most active, productive, effective
areas in the whole state, not just in Polk County or Des Moines."

She also told the crowd that she planned to release policies on climate
change and renewable energy in Iowa on Sunday and Monday.

Back in the 2008 race, Obama had strong support in Beaverdale and spent
July 4, 2007, here. Beaverdale Democrats said Clinton's campaign was less
active in the area during that campaign, when she placed third in the Iowa
caucuses. But many said that she appears more committed to grassroots
organizing here, as she is across the state.

"Her campaign this time around feels more like Obama '08, more grassroots,
bottom up," said Petersen, who endorsed Obama in 2008.

For now, it looks like the Obamadale gang will not lock arms behind one
candidate for the caucuses. Boggus is with O'Malley, "somebody that I
relate to."

But Sean Bagniewski, 31, who was featured in the Clinton video and hosted
the Saturday house party, said "there's quite a bit of support for Hillary
right now."

Bagniewski said he was thrilled to have the event at his home. "It takes a
little bit longer to get their support over here, but when you get their
support, they are in whole hog," he said.

Rose Mary Pratt, 67, another member of the group, said she was still
weighing her decision.

"I've had calls from all campaigns," she said. "Because I'm an activist
they want my commitment early."

"I like all of them. Hillary's my generation; I want to see a woman
president. That's meaningful to me. I think O'Malley is a new voice in the
party and he's quite articulate in his statements. I could go there. "

As for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, she said, "I'm an old liberal, so he
says all the things I like to hear."

Sanders has not done an event here, though Pratt said she saw him in the
coffee shop several months ago and chatted with him. Sanders' Iowa
director, Pete D'Alessandro, said the campaign will organize in the
neighborhood and Sanders probably will come for an event.

Whatever happens in the February caucuses, activists agree they'll come
together later on for the party nominee.

"We go our separate ways, we support the people that are more in mind with
what we think," said Ben Guise, 69. "We're really close friends, all of us.
We will have no trouble transitioning back."

*Netroots disruption energizes black activists
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/netroots-disruption-energizes-black-activists-120617.html>
// Politico // Maya Park and Daniel Strauss - July 25, 2015*

Protesters who hijacked a presidential forum in Arizona last Saturday
demanding that the candidates spend more time addressing problems in the
black community left feeling dissatisfied.

But a week later, what at the time felt like a disastrous disruption has
supercharged the Black Lives Matter movement — and pushed Hillary Clinton
and her rivals for the Democratic nomination to speak to the concerns of an
African-American community that is enraged by high-profile incidents of
police misconduct and is demanding that its voice be heard.

“We’re not having this conversation because [the protesters] haven’t been
polite,” NAACP President Cornell William Brooks told POLITICO on Friday.
“We’re having this conversation because the presidential candidates are not
being sufficiently precise.”

At the forum, hosted by the liberal activist group Netroots Nation,
protesters clashed with Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, commandeering
the stage as they accused the two Democrats of ignoring police brutality
against blacks.

O’Malley at one point said, “black lives matter, white lives matter, all
lives matter” — a statement that offended many in the Black Lives Matter
movement, who recall the phrase being used to diminish their cause.

Sanders came across as defensive, saying he spent 50 years “fighting for
civil rights” and “if you don’t want me to be here that’s OK.”

“During the action, you saw Bernie Sanders trying to talk us down, trying
to speak over us,” Angela Peoples, one of the organizers of the protest at
Netroots and the co-director of GetEqual, an LGBTQ rights advocacy group.
“Basically it was as if he was trying to pretend that there weren’t 15
people in the room screaming ‘black lives matter.”

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), a leading member of the Congressional Black
Caucus, said that the protesters should have let the candidates speak.

“If I ask you a question, I must want your answer. And so if I ask you a
question and talk over your answer, what have I done?” Clyburn said,
stressing the importance of substance over symbolism and cautioning against
anyone who wants to “make a headline rather than make headway.”

Yet, as Peoples noted, all three major Democratic candidates have spent the
week showing their concern for the black community.

Clinton, who skipped Netroots Nation, used a Facebook chat on Monday to
emphasize that “everyone in this country should stand firmly behind” the
notion that “black lives matter.”

Sanders began working the phrase ‘black lives matter’ into his stump speech
and social media efforts, while O’Malley apologized and has made sure to
repeatedly say he’s “listening and speaking to leaders” from the Black
Lives Matter movement.

The candidates were acknowledging that, Brooks said, “the campaign rhetoric
has not risen to the level of reality.”

Seizing the moment, the Black Lives Matter group —a movement organizing
action on topics important to the black community and racial injustice —
decided to quickly put together a summit in Cleveland, Ohio. The summit
describes itself as “hundreds of Black freedom fighters from around the
country” coming together to coordinate and build a new coalition for action
in the black community. The conference offers panels on, for instance, self
defense and organizing for black activists.

It comes after national attention fell on Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old
African-American woman from Chicago who was pulled over by a Texas state
highway patrolman for not signaling before changing lanes and then was
jailed for not putting out her cigarette in her car, even though that’s not
illegal. She died in jail, allegedly by hanging herself.

Bland’s death has further galvanized black leaders to demand that their
concerns be heard. Many appreciate how the Democratic candidates talk about
the black community’s economic disadvantages, but want them to more
explicitly tie those gaps to racism — while others note that Bland was a
college graduate.

“We get that the solution to the structural racism that black folks are
facing is connected to fair wages, issues of access to education,” Peoples
said. “The piece that’s missing is talking about how the legacy of racism,
anti-blackness, and racial violence plays out in all of those issues.”

There were also setbacks. Sanders, for instance, reportedly skipped a
meeting with Black Lives Matters protesters during the Netroots Nation
weekend and ended up sending campaign manager Jeff Weaver instead. That
resulted in some grumbling.

“Bullshit — I’m sorry,” Jamal Simmons, a Democratic consultant, said. “If
he was scheduled to meet with activists, then he should have met with
activists. You can’t not show up. You gotta show up.”

Other black leaders said that merely showing up wouldn’t be enough, either.

“The day is over for [the candidates] saying ‘I believe in justice,’ and
‘Everyone should have equality, whether black or white, male or female,
young or old,’” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in a phone interview from
Nairobi on Friday.

Talking about how economic inequality affects African Americans is fine,
legislators, activists and strategists said — but specific plans to address
it are better.

For instance, Clyburn said, Sanders should offer a plan for dilapidated
schools and Medicaid expansion in states that have resisted Obamacare.

“Yes, the criminal justice stuff is big,” said Democratic strategist and
pollster Cornell Belcher. “If you’re talking to African-American women who
will be a plurality in a lot of these Democratic primary states, education
and not losing a lot of young people to crime and violence is still tops.
And yeah, they have angst economically about jobs.”

Of the three main Democratic candidates, Clinton has been the most
assertive in speaking to those issues.

Earlier in the year, she unveiled a set of criminal justice reform
proposals with mentions of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson,
Missouri, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, and Trayvon Martin in Florida. On
Thursday, Clinton continued to beat that drum, saying in a panel at South
Carolina’s influential Brookland Baptist Church, “It’s essential that we
all stand up and say, loudly and clearly, that yes, black lives matter.’”

Speeches like that have helped Clinton stay visible in the African-American
community, Belcher said.

“I think that most of the polling that you see right now is that Sanders
and O’Malley are not very well known figures in the community,” Belcher
said. “What’s important is for you to build a strategy around how to
introduce yourself in the black community in a way that resonates with the
value of the community and that’s not hopefully tone-deaf which is what
Bernie came across with.”

It’s something O’Malley seems to have realized. On Wednesday, he released a
statement saying his “heart breaks for Sandra Bland and her family” and
called for a “thorough and independent investigation of the traffic stop,
the arrest and Ms. Bland’s tragic death in custody.”

He also called Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree on Wednesday to
discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and topics important to the
African-American community, as part of a series of discussions ahead of
unveiling his criminal justice platform.

“We had a robust and informative and strikingly candid conversation about
the past, present, and future,” Ogletree said, adding he expected to talk
more with O’Malley going forward.

Meanwhile, Sanders has made sure to try and offer more specifics in media
interviews and over social media.

“We have more people in jail than any other country on Earth,” Sanders said
in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday. “Millions of lives have been destroyed
because people are in jail for non-violent crimes, so we have to take a
look at mandatory minimums and the drug policy and the militarization of
police forces all over the country. We have to take a look at use-of-force
policy. That is what you saw in that dreadful and painful video of Sandra
Bland.”

“We’ve got a lot of work in front of us,” Sanders added.

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio Is Ticked Off About The Iran Deal (And He Wants Everyone To
Know)
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubio-ticked-off-iran-deal/story?id=32675228>
// ABC // Ines de la Cuetara - July 25, 2015*

He hasn't been as outspoken as some GOP contenders in condemning Donald
Trump, he’s been reluctant to criticize other Republicans and he was off
the campaign trail for a bit over the past week getting over a cold.

But when it comes to Iran, Marco Rubio, the Florida senator and
presidential candidate, is speaking up, loud and clear.

"The Iranian regime and the world should know that a majority of members in
this Congress do not support this deal and that the deal could go away on
the day President Obama leaves office," a noticeably angry Rubio told
Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday.

Rubio added: "The Iranian regime and the world should know this deal --
this deal is your deal with Iran.”

That same day, in one of three national television interviews since the
hearing, Rubio made it clear that as president he would "absolutely"
re-impose sanctions on Iran.

"What the President is using is a national security waiver. He’s in essence
saying, ‘I’m using this waiver to prevent the sanctions from still being
imposed’,” Rubio said in an interview on Fox News. "The next President
could just lift that with the stroke of a pen."

Although many other Republicans candidates have also been critical of the
deal to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check, the issue seems to send
Rubio fuming. On Wednesday, Rubio said President Obama had “no class” for
going “on comedy shows to talk about something as serious as Iran”,
referring to the President’s interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Rubio has made
his opposition to the deal a pillar of his campaign, emerging as one of the
its harshest and most outspoken critics.

One of the outside groups backing his presidential bid, the Conservative
Solutions Project, has already released two ads criticizing the deal,
calling it a "bad deal" and claiming it would give Iran "a clear path to a
nuclear bomb."

At the Senate hearing, Kerry told Rubio he was confident the next president
would have enough common sense to not arbitrarily end the deal if it was
being properly implemented.

“If you think the Ayatollah is going to come back and negotiate again with
an American, that’s fantasy,” Kerry said. “You’re never going to see that
because we will have proven we’re not trustworthy."

"The fantasy is in believing that they’re going to even live to the
accord," Rubio shot back in an interview with CBS on Friday. "This is a
country that has a long history, at least the leaders of Iran do, of
violating agreements and of always having a secret nuclear program."

*WALKER*

*In Iowa, Donald Trump Takes Aim at Scott Walker, for a Change
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/25/in-iowa-donald-trump-takes-aim-at-scott-walker-for-a-change/>
// NYT // Trip Gabriel - July 25, 2015*

To the list of Republican rivals he has insulted, Donald J. Trump on
Saturday added a new name: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whom he accused
of mismanaging his state’s budget and creating a disaster for its roads,
schools and hospitals.

Mr. Walker, who has been restrained in criticizing Mr. Trump’s provocative
remarks compared with other Republican presidential candidates, is leading
in the polls in Iowa, a fact that seemed to gall Mr. Trump, the golf course
entrepreneur and former reality star.

“I can’t believe I’m in second place,’’ Mr. Trump told several hundred
people who filled a high school auditorium and an overflow room to see him.
“Folks, will you please put me in first place so I feel better?”

Mr. Trump’s criticism of Senator John McCain’s war record one week ago at
an Iowa forum set off a furious round of attacks between him and other
Republicans. On Saturday, he said he felt free to add Mr. Walker to his hit
list after a Walker supporter called Mr. Trump “DumbDumb” in a fund-raising
appeal.

“I said, ‘Finally, I can attack him,’ ’’ Mr. Trump said to laughter.

He went down a list of criticisms that seemed the result of an overnight
opposition-research effort. “Wisconsin is doing terribly,’’ he said. “The
roads are a disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them, and
they’re borrowing money like crazy.’’

He cited figures for the state’s budget deficit. “I wrote this stuff all
down but I don’t need it because I have a really good memory,” he said.

He also accused Mr. Walker of flip-flopping on the Common Core education
standards, having once supported them. “Scott Walker changed when he saw he
was getting creamed, so now he’s not in favor,’’ he said.

Mr. Trump gave $10,000 to Mr. Walker’s re-election campaign last year,
something he alluded to in a meandering, backhanded way: “I’ve been nice to
Scott Walker,” he said. “He’s a nice guy. He came up to my office three or
four months ago and presented me with a plaque because I helped him with
his election. I liked that he was fighting.

“I didn’t know what the hell he was doing, but he was fighting, and I like
a fighter,” Mr. Trump added. “Does that make sense?”

The leader in national polls of the Republican candidates, Mr. Trump
dropped in to Oskaloosa, about 70 minutes east of Des Moines, and treated
the crowd to a picnic lunch of hamburgers and pulled pork. He was applauded
and cheered throughout a one-hour, free-associative speech, especially when
he bragged that he had barred reporters from The Des Moines Register from
the event after its editorial page called on him to quit the race for the
good of the Republican Party.

Talking to reporters after his speech, Mr. Trump seemed to set his
characteristic hubris aside when discussing the Republican debate on Aug.
6, presumably to lower expectations for his performance. He said he had no
debating experience compared with the politicians he is likely to face on
stage.

“I’m going to be there much to the chagrin of many people, but I’m no
debater,’’ he said. “From what I’ve heard, everyone is going to come after
me.’’

Yet he said he was not undertaking any debate preparation. “I am who I
am,’’ he said.

*Trump goes on the attack again, with Scott Walker as his latest target
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-goes-on-the-attack-again-with-scott-walker-as-the-latest-target/2015/07/25/c6727b44-3315-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html>
// WaPo // David Weigel - July 25, 2015*

First Donald Trump questioned whether Sen. John McCain was truly a war hero.

The he revealed to a South Carolina crowd the personal phone number of Sen.
Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), one of his rivals for the Republican presidential
nomination.

On Saturday Trump went for the hat trick, gleefully insulting Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker because one of Walker’s fundraisers called the
billionaire real estate mogul ‘DumbDumb.’

“Finally, I can attack!” Trump said at a packed rally at Oskaloosa High
School. “Wisconsin’s doing terribly. It’s in turmoil. The roads are a
disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them. They’re
borrowing money like crazy. They projected a $1 billion surplus, and it
turns out to be a deficit of $2.2 billion. The schools are a disaster. The
hospitals and education was a disaster. And he was totally in favor of
Common Core!”

The mention of the state-driven education standards — from which Walker,
like many Republican governors, has walked away — incited a prolonged boo.
That was not enough for Trump, who told a story about Walker giving him a
“beautiful plaque” out of gratitude for campaign donations and wondered if
“Wisconsin paid for it.”

Republicans’ hopes of banishing Trump from their presidential primary may
have wilted in the heat of the Iowa summer. On his first visit to the
caucus state since the McCain insult, Trump drew a crowd of 1,300 in a city
of 11,463. He cleaned up his remarks about veterans, from the stage and in
the crowd. He talked with characteristic gusto about “killing in the polls
and” securing a spot in the party’s first sanctioned debate, scheduled for
Aug. 6.

“I’m going to be there,” Trump told reporters, “much to the chagrin of many
people.”

Trump did all of this at a four-hour spectacle — the Make America Great
Again Rally and Family Picnic — that felt like a New York cinematographer’s
idea of an “Iowa event.” A campaign bus stood unused until Trump posed in
front of his, giving a double thumbs-up before hopping into an SUV. The
outdoor barbecue was so large that Trump endorser Tana Goertz — who had
been a contestant on Trump’s NBC series, “The Apprentice” — asked the crowd
to gorge themselves a little more. “Mr. Trump can’t take all this food home
on the plane,” she said.

As they lined up for the speech, conservative Iowans fell into two camps.
One group adored Trump’s brio, but wished he hadn’t gotten personal with
McCain (R-Ariz.). The larger camp egged Trump on for again refusing to play
nice. Although a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Trump’s ratings
slipping after his comments about McCain, the crowd in Oskaloosa saw
another reason to trust him. Some Republican voters, who had dutifully
turned out for “anti-establishment” candidates and been disappointed,
insisted that Trump was just the man to blow up the system.

“The dude’s badass, no question about it,” said Dave Moore, 30, a National
Guard veteran and welder. “Republicans keep sending chihuahuas to a pitbull
fight and being nice, and the only time they’re mean is to each other.”

The McCain spat, Moore said, was an example of that. “People applied that
to all soldiers,” he said. “Trump was trying to protect his people.”

That was Trump’s official line. In the seven days since he suggested that
merely being “captured” did not make McCain a hero, Trump has alternately
denied that he said it, talked up his work for veterans, and said that he
was only responding to McCain for calling opponents of immigration reform
“crazies.”

Trump deployed all of those arguments here Saturday. One of his warm-up
speakers, 20-year Navy SEAL Brad Nagel, insisted that Trump respected
veterans, unlike “people who think we’re crazies.” (McCain had not been
referring to veterans.) Event staffers who found veterans in the crowd
handed them “Veterans for Trump” signs. Late into his 56-minute speech,
Trump beckoned to someone offstage, and a woman in a black dress delivered
a stack of paper wrapped in a red bow.

This, Trump said, represented one day of “more than 700 letters from
veterans, thanking me.” They appreciate his charity, he said, and trust him
to reform Veterans Affairs, even though he did not serve.

“I might not have been a great soldier,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Maybe I
would, maybe I wouldn’t.”

Trump’s cleanup seemed to do the trick. Tammy Sparks, 54, came to the event
because she interpreted the comment as an insult to her father, a prisoner
of war during World War II.

“I heard he’d been saying some bad stuff about prisoners of war, and I was
so irritated,” Sparks said. “One of the guys in suits explained it to me.
And when Mr. Trump saw me again, he said, ‘That was not what I meant.’ ”

Others said there was nothing to apologize for as far as McCain was
concerned. “He’s done nothing for veterans, nothing to secure our borders,”
said Randy Binns, who wore a hat and pin commemorating his service in the
1991 and 2003 Iraq invasions. “If he was running again, I’d tell him to get
out of town.”

In Oskaloosa, Trump told his main audience, of 700, about his Thursday
visit to the U.S.-Mexico border. He told an overflow audience that
President Obama had failed POWs by winning Bowe Bergdahl’s release from the
Taliban but not getting Iran to turn over hostages.

He also won cheers for telling how he denied credentials to the Des Moines
Register, Iowa’s largest newspaper, after its editorial board called on him
to quit the race. In a back-and-forth with reporters, with the Register’s
team kept outside his event, Trump proved that he was comfortable being
playful with the facts.

“I didn’t ban them,” he insisted. “They just couldn’t get credentials.”

*Trump slams Walker as governor leads in early voting Iowa
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/050476d537c142629a9397e799fd6f20/trump-slams-walker-governor-leads-early-voting-iowa>
// AP // Thomas Beaumont - July 25, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump opened up a line of attack
Saturday on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, accusing the leader in recent
polls in Iowa of running his neighboring state into financial trouble.

It's the latest broadside against a rival of the outspoken New York
billionaire. Last week, Trump went after South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
for calling him a "jackass." The New York businessman has characterized
other candidates as unfit for the office and said the party's 2008 nominee,
Sen. John McCain, was not a war hero in spite of his years as a prisoner in
Vietnam.

Spurred on by a raucous audience of more than 1,000 at a central Iowa high
school, Trump said Walker has an advantage in Iowa because he's from a
neighboring state but that the edge is undeserved because Walker has
mismanaged Wisconsin's budget.

"He grew up right next door. A little advantage, right?" Trump said.
"Except Wisconsin is doing terribly."

Trump faulted Walker, popular for stripping public employees of many of
their collective bargaining rights, for falling short of budget projections
and changing his position on Common Core education standards. The voluntary
state-based benchmarks for achievement in math, reading and language arts
are unpopular among a segment of conservatives who view them, if
incorrectly, as a federally mandated curriculum.

Walker showed tacit support for the standards during his first term when he
signed budgets that paid for implementing them. Last year, he called for
their repeal and replacement with standards set in Wisconsin.

"He was totally in favor of Common Core, which I hate, I hate," Trump said.
Walker changed course on the topic, his rival said, when he saw "he was
getting creamed."

Trump said Walker deserved the criticism because a top fundraiser to the
governor referred to Trump in a recent fundraising email as "Dumb dumb."

Trump criticized Graham, a close friend of McCain, after Graham chided
Trump for faulting McCain for being shot down as a Navy fighter pilot
during the Vietnam War. McCain, held as a prisoner of war for five years,
was heralded by Republicans as a war hero during his 2008 campaign.

"I'm very disappointed in him for one reason. He's done a bad job with the
vets," said Trump, who has sharply criticized Congress for inaction on
calls for improvements for services under the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

While Graham and other GOP presidential candidates have sharply criticized
Trump for his comments about McCain, Trump held up a stack of paper during
his Iowa speech that he said were letters of support he'd received from
veterans.

Before Trump arrived at the event, hundreds lined the sidewalk in front of
the high school. At the end was a catered picnic lunch of hamburgers, hot
dogs, potato salad, chips and cold drinks.

Standing in the 90-degree sun, Jill Jepsen held a sign that said, "The
Beltway talks, Trump works!"

"He works, and he doesn't back down," said Jepsen, a political independent
from Oskaloosa. "He'll get things done."

At the National Governors Association meeting in West Virginia, two
Republicans gave Trump's campaign little chance of succeeding.

"At the end of the day, I don't think (Trump) will do very well in Iowa
because Iowans like leaders who are humble and hardworking, and people who
go to all parts of the state," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said when asked
about the reality TV star.

Oklahoma's governor, Mary Fallin, said she didn't think Trump would be the
next president "because I think the people of our nation want to see
someone who will be able to bring people together to get things done."

Asked about Trump, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said: "You see some
outspoken people who jump up in the polls, but then they also falter very
quick. It'll be interesting to see if that same dynamic occurs."

Not one to suffer criticism silently, Trump denied press credentials for
Saturday's event to reporters at The Des Moines Register after the
newspaper published an editorial calling him a "feckless blowhard" who is
"unfit to hold office" and saying that he should leave the race.

Register editor Amalie Nash said Friday that the paper's editorial board is
independent of its news reporters and editors.

*Trump on debates: 'I'm going to be in the lion's den'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/trump-on-debates-im-gonna-be-in-the-lions-den/index.html>
// CNN // Eugene Scott - July 25, 2015*

Real estate magnate Donald Trump might be an expert when it comes to bear
markets and bull markets, but put him on the debate stage next month amid a
crowd of determined GOP contenders and, in the candidate's words, he's
"going to be in the lion's den."

"I'm by far number one, so I'm going to be there. But I'm not a debater. I
create jobs. I've never stood at a podium and debated a bunch of people,"
Trump told reporters Saturday at Oskaloosa High School in Oskaloosa, Iowa.

He added: "From what I hear, every one of them's going to come at me. For
two hours, I'm going be in the lion's den, but I don't do that for a
living."

And: "I hear everyone saying I'll be great at debate. I don't know if I'll
do good. I look forward to debate, but I've never done it before."

The remarks, a rare moment of public self-doubt for the brash and cocky
mogul, come as Trump continues to lead 2016 GOP contenders in national
polls while his Republican contenders anxiously await a chance to knock him
down.

Fox News, which on Aug. 6 is sponsoring the first debate, has said it will
only invite the top 10 finishers in recent opinion polls to its event.
However, CNN's first debate on Sept. 16 will be split into two parts: One
will have the candidates that national polls rank as the top 10 GOP
contenders, and the other with the candidates who didn't make that cut.

Currently, it appears Trump is a lock to make the top 10.

But Trump told reporters Saturday that because he is not a politician, he
will have the least experience of those participating.

"They say Jeb Bush hasn't been on stage lately. I haven't been on stage my
whole life. And nobody talks about that," he said. "I have to be honest. I
am who I am."

*Trump takes aim at Walker in Iowa
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/trump-goes-after-walker-in-iowa/index.html>
// CNN // Eugene Scott - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump has spent much of the early days of his presidential campaign
taking on Jeb Bush.

But in Iowa on Saturday, the real estate mogul took shots at Scott Walker,
who's long stood atop polls in the Hawkeye State, home to the critical
first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Trump -- who is in second place in Iowa polls behind Walker -- slammed the
Wisconsin governor's leadership.

"Wisconsin is doing terribly. It's in turmoil," Trump said at Oskaloosa
High School in Oskaloosa. "The roads are a disaster because they don't have
money to rebuild them."

He also accused Walker's administration of borrowing due to a budget
deficit, and painted him as a supporter of Common Core education standards,
which are opposed by much of the Republican base.

"Schools are a disaster. Hospitals and education are a disaster," Trump
said. "And he was totally in favor of Common Core, which I hate."

Walker recently has been a fierce opponent of Common Core, leading Trump on
Saturday to label him a flip-flopper.

A Monmouth University poll of Iowans released Monday and conducted over
last weekend showed Walker continues to maintain a solid lead in the Iowa
Republican caucus, though Trump has gained an edge over the rest of the
field and now stands alone in second place.

Of likely caucus attendees, 22% told pollsters that they'd support the
Wisconsin governor in next winter's matchup, but 13% said they would back
Trump, who has suddenly catapulted to the front of some national polls.
Trump only earned 4% of Republicans' support in a Des Moines
Register/Bloomberg survey conducted in May, a month before Trump announced
his campaign and made a string of controversial comments that came
alongside his rise.

Trump's remarks come one day after a fundraiser for Walker's campaign
called Trump "DumbDumb."

Gregory Slayton, a New Hampshire venture capitalist who served in the
George W. Bush administration, challenged Trump's intelligence in a
fund-raising invitation, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

"As you've seen Gov Walker is now well ahead of everyone not named DumbDumb
(aka Trump) in the national polls," the email invitation said.

Slayton told the paper that intelligence is not required to gain the wealth
that Trump has acquired.

"I didn't mean that to be public but obviously I stand behind it," he said.
"Look, this is a great country. Guys who are not that smart can get rich,
it's wonderful. But Donald Trump is not going to be president of the United
States ever, period, end of story."

Also on Saturday, Trump made reference to the Des Moines Register, to which
his campaign denied press credentials following a negative editorial this
week in which the paper called for Trump to drop out of the race.

"We have so many people standing outside ... actually, the Des Moines
Register is standing outside, too," Trump said, to laughter.

Jennifer Jacobs, the Register's chief political reporter, tweeted that
Henry Hahn, another reporter for the paper, was in the main auditorium
covering the event. She said the campaign staff was polite to her earlier
Saturday, but that the candidate himself was "silent" when he saw her.

*Could North Carolina be Scott Walker's big prize?
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-looms-as-big-republican-prize-in-2016/>
// CBS // Jacqueline Alemany - July 25, 2015*

March Madness is about to get a whole new meaning in North Carolina come
next year.

With two Floridians, two Texans and an Ohio governor in the Republican
presidential race, three delegate-rich presidential primary states might be
left uncontested by the rest of the expansive GOP field.

What's a candidate looking for a big early win to do? Head toward Tobacco
Road.

North Carolina state legislators voted this week to hold the state's 2016
primary on March 15 of next year, bringing to a close a lengthy squabble
over when to hold the primary. But the change also has serious implications
for the huge field of Republican presidential candidates as they draw up
their nomination roadmaps. North Carolina has in recent years held its
primary in May, and by May, the nominee is usually a foregone conclusion.
There hasn't been a competitive Republican primary in May in 40 years.

But assuming there is no clear nominee by early March, "There is real
opportunity here," said State Sen. Andrew Brock, a co-sponsor of the bill
moving the primary to March. "You can win with 15 or 16 percent of the
vote. You're going to have to run a campaign. And it doesn't benefit one
candidate or another in this race who is looking in our state."

March is full of big primary states packed with delegates, but three of the
biggest have hometown candidates that could take those states off the map:
Ohio's governor John Kasich just joined the race, Florida has Jeb Bush and
Marco Rubio, and Texas has Rick Perry and Ted Cruz all claiming support
back home.

That leaves North Carolina as the biggest primary prize in March: 72
delegates will be at stake in a winner-take-all contest.

Republican candidates are taking notice. Supporters of Scott Walker and
Rand Paul have been jockeying behind the scenes for months to establish a
North Carolina primary date that favors their preferred candidate. While
Paul supporters weren't banking on the Kentucky senator winning the state,
they had hoped to make the state's primary proportional, giving him a
chance to nab some of its delegates.

Walker has greater ambitions for North Carolina, too. The Wisconsin
Governor made a detour last month to address the North Carolina GOP
convention in Raleigh, and he was slated to make a second trip this weekend
before canceling his plans to attend the funeral of one of the Marines
slain in last week's Chattanooga shootings.

Sources told CBS News that the Walker campaign also made it known to allies
in the state legislature -- namely state Sen. Bob Rucho, a powerful state
Republican -- that a March 15 winner-take-all contest would be its
preference. According to one source, Walker "put the squeeze" on Rucho to
make North Carolina an early winner-take-all primary.

"The 15th was communicated to Senator Rucho as the preferred date by the
Walker campaign," said another GOP source involved in the maneuvering. "If
you're Walker, you're not going to go to Florida - why would you spend
money there? You got Kasich's Ohio on the same day. You're not going to put
a lot of resources there. North Carolina is a big fish."

Moving the primary to March marked a change of heart for Rucho, who was
locked in a dispute earlier this year with national Republican officials
over his desire to move the primary to February - showcasing the state
early in the nomination process. But that would have been in flagrant
violation of Republican National Committee rules protecting February for
the first four voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and
Nevada.

The Walker campaign declined repeated requests for comment.

Though multiple North Carolina Republicans said Rucho has been pulling the
strings for Walker behind the scenes, Rucho denies being an outright
supporter of the governor, despite heaping praise on him.

"I was very pleased to watch and see Governor Walker and see the message he
put out," Rucho told CBS News, praising Walker's conservative record in
Wisconsin. "My feeling is lot of people can talk about what they would like
to do, but very few of them can actually achieve it."

North Carolina might seem an unusual cultural fit for the Wisconsin
governor as he plots his nomination strategy, but Republicans in the state
say his appeal is rooted in his tough-minded approach to the slashing the
state budget in Madison.

The high-profile battles over union benefits and voter ID laws during
Walker's first term beginning in 2010 mirrored similar fights in North
Carolina, and won Walker fans down south.

Former North Carolina GOP Chairman Claude Pope, who has supported changing
the date of North Carolina's primary, told CBS News that the state is
thrilled to have a chance at the national spotlight once again, pointing to
Ronald Reagan's North Carolina upset over Gerald Ford in 1976.

"He had not yet won a state at all during 1976, and he was primarying a
sitting president," Pope told CBS News. "So he kept losing and losing and
it wasn't until he won North Carolina and got enough momentum. Not enough
to get the nomination - but enough to make a significant impact and that
propelled him to set up the stage for a win in 1980."

*Donald Trump on Scott Walker: 'Finally, I Can Attack'
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-scott-walker-finally-attack/story?id=32687873>
// ABC // Jessica Hopper, Alec Goodwin, and Cristina Ochoa - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump came under fire all week for questioning John McCain's status
as a war hero and for giving out Lindsey Graham's personal cell phone
number, but today he might have found a couple of safe targets for his
attacks: GOP rival Scott Walker and the scandal swirling around Hillary
Clinton and her email.

"I don't know how a person with that cloud over their head could be running
for president," Trump said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner
in the race for the White House.

Trump said if the allegations are true that Clinton sent classified email
from her private server, it's "criminal."

Trump went on to compare Clinton and her email scandal to the downfall of
Gen. David Petraeus, who was forced to resign as director of the CIA after
it was revealed he was having an extramarital affair and had shared
classified information with his lover.

"They destroyed him. He's like a ruined man," Trump said of Petraeus.

Trump argued that Petraeus "did much less than Hillary in terms of
information, in terms of importance and in terms of volume," of the
classified material leaked.

Trump didn’t reserve all his criticism for Clinton. He moved onto Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker. He said that the state of Wisconsin is doing "terribly"
and accused Walker of being a flip-flopper.

"He was totally in favor of Common Core," Trump said. "Scott Walker changed
when he saw he was getting creamed."

Trump said he was retaliating for nasty comments made by a Walker
fundraiser.

"Today I read this horrible statement from his fundraiser guy about Trump,
and I say, 'Finally, I can attack. Finally,'" Trump said.

Trump, currently leading the GOP race nationally in the polls, is trailing
Walker in Iowa. And Trump let the more than 1,000 people filling an
Oskaloosa auditorium know that it was bothering him that he wasn’t in first
place in the Hawkeye state.

"I can't believe I'm in second place," Trump said. "Folks, will you please
put me in first place, so I feel better."

Before Trump arrived in Oskaloosa, people waited in the heat for two hours
to catch a glimpse of the billionaire mogul and reality television star.
Trump's whirlwind week of criticizing Sen. John McCain’s war hero status
and giving out Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone number didn’t seem to deter
people from coming to hear him speak.

"One thing I really like is he's not afraid to say what he thinks and stand
up for it," said Karen Lambert of Des Moines, Iowa. "I'm tired of the
Republicans just caving for pressure and they really need to stand their
ground and I think that Trump is someone who will do that."

Lambert is undecided on who her favorite candidate is in the Republican
field, but she said she appreciates Trump for not always being politically
correct.

"I really feel like the GOP leadership has completely ignored the roots,
the grassroots, the base of their party and they're trying to be Democrats
and we really need a conservative option," she said.

Carl Drost, a native of Oskaloosa, called Trump, the "epitome of the
American dream."

"I want to shake his hand before he gets out of here today," Drost said.

Drost, a Vietnam veteran, wasn’t bothered by Trump's comments about McCain
last week.

"He's kind of outspoken and I've been president of the school board for a
couple of years and sometimes being outspoken is not real positive and that
needs to be done to let people know what's going on," Drost said.

Trump didn’t back down from his comments made about McCain, reiterating
that he believes McCain has done little for veterans. To highlight how much
Trump says veterans love him, he called for a box of letters to be brought
to the stage that contained what he called "one day of letters, about a
half a foot wide stack."

Of his candidacy, Trump said he was in it for the long haul. He joked that
there were other more relaxing things he could be doing, but he wants to be
president.

“I love you people. I love Iowa, but it’s hot as hell in this room. I could
be doing something else right now,” said Trump, generating laughter in the
room.

In a press conference following his speech, Trump talked about his
campaign’s future and his preparation for the first GOP debate, which is
scheduled for Aug. 6.

"I'm going to be there, much to the chagrin of everyone. I never did that
before. I never stood at a podium and debated a large number of people and
from what I heard, every one of them is going to come at me," Trump said.

Trump said he knows he’ll likely be in the "lion's den."

"I don’t know if I'm going to be good," Trump said of the debate.
"Politicians do it every night, but they don’t produce jobs."

*PAUL*

*Senator Rand Paul makes history in small N.H. town
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/25/paul/H2Ljj9qo9UYhzHEntLocJK/story.html>
// Boston Globe // James Pindell - July 26, 2015*

US Senator Rand Paul on Saturday became the first presidential candidate in
recent history to visit this small town nestled in the White Mountain
National Forest.

In a state that boasts a presidential candidate visit nearly every day
since this spring, Warren gets little attention from White House hopefuls.

“This is a really big deal for Warren,” said Bob Giuda, the town’s
moderator. “We often feel a bit ignored by the presidential campaign
because we are a small town a bit out of the way, but his visit will have
people talking for a while.”

This marked Paul’s second visit to the town, where the common has displayed
a rocket since 1971. He campaigned there in 2007 for his father, former US
representative Ron Paul of Texas, when he ran for president.

Paul said that coming to Warren was just the latest example of how he is
willing to campaign where others won’t. He recently spoke at historically
black colleges and campaigned in Detroit, Missouri, and Maryland.

The Kentuckian spent Saturday campaigning in northern New Hampshire for his
own presidential aspirations. He also held town hall meetings in West
Lebanon and Littleton, visited the North Haverhill town fair, and was
scheduled to attend an evening event Saturday night in Tilton.

On Sunday he will host a meet-and-greet at a Windham diner.

But on Saturday afternoon, Paul spent about an hour at the Moose Scoops ice
Cream store, where he bought two scoops in a waffle cone. He also signed a
taxpayer pledge, in which he appeared with a giant ax with the words “ax
the tax.”

At the Warren town hall, across the common, a couple celebrated their 34th
wedding anniversary.

Bryan Flagg, the owner of the Moose Scoops Ice Cream store and the local
weekly newspaper, said that Paul’s visit highlights the importance of
smaller communities.

“It is small towns where government policies can have a big impact,” Flagg
said. “His visit here says he respects us. I hope we can have others visit.”

*Has Rand Paul stalled?
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249170-rand-paul-looks-for-traction>
// The Hill // Niall Stanage - July 25, 2015*

A year ago, Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded senator from Kentucky, was
among the leading potential candidates in the GOP presidential race,
topping at least three national polls in spring and early summer.

Now, he is stuck in seventh place in the RealClearPolitics (RCP) national
average, with less than 6 percent support.

The Kentuckian’s campaign, once the subject of intense media interest, is
struggling for attention, and faces the danger that it could fizzle.

“There are so many new entrants into this sweepstake that I think he has
been overshadowed by all the attention given to every new declaration of
candidacy,” said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers
University. “I think he, and his message, are getting lost — and it shows
the dangers of a too-early announcement.”

One dynamic of the race since Paul announced his candidacy on April 7 is
particularly stark. Back then, most pollsters were not even including
Donald Trump’s name on the menu of choices for Republican voters. The one
poll that had done so, from Fox News, had given the mogul 3 percent support.

Now Trump sits atop the field with an 18.2 percent RCP average.

Paul’s standing in the first states to vote, Iowa and New Hampshire, is
better than in the national polls, but not strong enough to suggest he will
mount a serious challenge to the frontrunners.

Paul is fourth in the RCP average in New Hampshire, behind former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush, Trump and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. In Iowa, he is tied
for third with Trump, behind Walker and Bush. Walker’s support is more than
twice as high as Paul’s.

The issue for candidates like Paul — and others — is not just Trump’s poll
ratings. The businessman is so adept at creating controversy that he denies
all but the very biggest candidates the spotlight.

“Donald Trump is taking all the oxygen out of the debate,” said David
Winston, a longtime Republican strategist and pollster. “That is a
short-term dynamic, but when people aren’t talking about your ideas, that
is a challenge.”

Still, Winston stressed that this did not mean all was lost for Paul or for
other candidates who are now starved of attention. The first GOP debate,
set for Cleveland on Aug. 6, provides an opportunity for them to break
through — and for Trump to stumble of his own accord or be sidelined by
rivals.

Paul is also more adept than some others at garnering media attention
himself. He has proven this in the past, particularly in his use of
filibusters to protest Obama administration policies on national security.
Last week alone, he pushed an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood and
illustrated his desire to replace the existing tax code with a video in
which he attacked the current version with a chainsaw, fire and a wood
chipper.

Meanwhile, his campaign is pushing back against the perception that he is
anything less than a leading candidate.

“Recent polls continue to show Rand Paul in the top tier,” Sergio Gor, a
spokesman for the Paul campaign told The Hill. “A new Economist poll in the
last couple weeks had Rand in second place behind only Trump, and the Real
Clear Politics average of polls show Rand in third and fourth place in Iowa
and New Hampshire ahead of other Republicans like [Sen. Marco] Rubio, [New
Jersey Gov. Chris] Christie and [Sen. Ted] Cruz.”

Gor also insisted that Paul had “laid out the boldest proposals” of any
candidate, including a flat tax.

Still, it remains to be seen whether Paul can expand on the constituency
that backed his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), in his two most
recent presidential runs, in 2008 and 2012.

Ron Paul came second in the 2012 New Hampshire primary with 23 percent
support and third in Iowa with 22 percent. Either of those results would be
at the very high-end of expectations for his son at the moment.

“It’s just gone kinda quiet,” said Jamie Burnett, a longtime GOP strategist
in New Hampshire, referring to chatter about Paul in the state. “It’s just
odd but people aren’t talking about Rand Paul — or Ted Cruz — right now.”

Burnett, who is not affiliated with any campaign but who personally favors
Bush, added that he was always skeptical that Rand Paul could really pull
together much more support than Ron Paul.

“I’ve always believed that … his support is capped; that there was a
ceiling to it,” he said. “He was going to have a really hard time
broadening his appeal where he could peel off enough mainstream
conservatives.”

The news agenda, many people believe, has also not done Paul any favors.
Over the past year, foreign policy issues such as the rise of ISIS and the
negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have become more prominent. Paul,
who is not so isolationist as his father but nonetheless favors a markedly
restrained foreign policy, has problems with the base in that regard.

“He has got a very different view that is clearly, within the party,
controversial,” said Winston. “He is going to have to work through an
explanation of how his policies will address terrorism, ISIS, Iran possibly
getting a nuclear weapon. That is one of the challenges he faces.”

Still, Paul could gain steam if other candidates falter. And even some
observers unaffiliated with his campaign warn that it’s much too early to
write him off.

“Maybe some people expected more out of a Rand Paul campaign — that it was
going to be bigger, more flamboyant,” said Craig Robinson, a former
political director for the Republican Party of Iowa. “But these are the
months when campaigns need to be on the ground, working and organizing —
and sometimes that doesn’t get a lot of headlines. It’s clear to me that
his campaign is functioning very well in Iowa.”

*Rand Paul defies McConnell to defund Planned Parenthood
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-defies-mcconnell-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2568973>
// Washington Examiner // Barbara Boland - July 25, 2015*

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced late Friday that he will "use every Senate
rule" to force his Senate colleagues on the record after fellow Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blocked his amendment to defund
Planned Parenthood.

If Paul gets enough senators to sign his petition, he can go around
McConnell and force a vote.

"I'm prepared to use every Senate rule at my disposal to force my
colleagues on record whether they like it or not," Paul wrote Friday night.
"Under Senate rules, if enough Senators are willing to stand with me and
sign a petition demanding a vote, there will be no stopping you and me."

"The more I learn about Planned Parenthood's racket, aborting unborn
children and then selling off their organs, the more my head spins," he
wrote. "I'm not about to let Planned Parenthood off the hook. And I'm not
about to let politicians and our media sweep this scandal under the rug."

Paul is referencing two recent undercover videos which show Planned
Parenthood officials haggling the price of aborted fetal organs. In one
video, Planned Parenthood Dr. Deborah Nucatola says: "You know, we've been
very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not
gonna crush that part, I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush
above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact," describing how she
alters the abortion procedure to best harvest whatever organs are in demand.

"One video even showed Planned Parenthood officials squabbling over the
price of aborted baby parts because one official joked she wanted to buy a
Lamborghini," Paul wrote.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S. About 45
percent of Planned Parenthood's 2014 revenue — $540.6 million — was
provided by taxpayer-funded government health services grants, an analysis
of their annual report reveals.

Paul's petition to defund Planned Parenthood is his second buck to fellow
McConnell's leadership; after Paul defied McConnell in May and killed a
segment of the Patriot Act that enabled NSA mass data collection on
Americans.

Rival Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, garnered
headlines with a viral video where he accused Sen. Majority Leader
McConnell on the Senate floor this week of "flat-out" lying for the
last-minute addition of an amendment that would extend the unpopular
Export-Import Bank, while excluding amendments he had offered to a
"must-pass" highway bill.

Paul's two amendments, one to defund Planned Parenthood, and another to arm
service members on military bases, were also blocked using a maneuver
called "filling the tree" that was a favorite of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
during his time as Senate Majority Leader.

The multi-billion highway bill the senators wished to add their amendments
to is considered "must-pass" legislation because it will fund highways,
roads and mass transit systems over the next ten years.

Paul hopes he can garner the signatures for his bill and win support from
the pro-life community, after he earned kudos in April when he turned a
"rape and life of the mother" abortion question around on a reporter and
asked: "Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in
the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK
with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not yet born."

The Senate will be in session Sunday and voting could extend throughout the
week, depending on what maneuvers the senators make.

*CRUZ*

*First on CNN: Billionaire brothers give Cruz super PAC $15 million
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/ted-cruz-wilks-brothers/index.html>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer - July 25, 2015*

Two low-profile Texas brothers have donated $15 million to support Sen. Ted
Cruz, a record-setting contribution that amounts to the largest known
donation so far in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West
Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the
pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings
next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the
giving.

The siblings earned their riches with the sale of their company Frac Tech
for $3.5 billion in 2011, and since then have shuffled large contributions
to the leading social conservative nonprofit groups that aren't required to
reveal their donors. But they will no longer be able to avoid detection
after giving a historically large and early donation that now make the
brothers two of America's most prominent political donors.

"Our country was founded on the idea that our rights come from the Creator,
not the government. I'm afraid we're losing that," Farris Wilks, a
63-year-old pastor in the small town of Cisco, said in a statement to CNN.
"Unless we elect a principled conservative leader ready to stand up for our
values, we'll look back on what once was the land of opportunity and pass
on a less prosperous nation to our children and grandchildren. That's why
we need Ted Cruz."

Keep the Promise is technically four separate committees that give three
families more control over their own super PAC. Most of the attention has
focused on Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund magnate who gave the
second-most money to conservative groups in 2014 than any other Republican
donor. Mercer has given $11 million of the $38 million raised, according to
a leader of the super PACs. Another $10 million comes from Toby Neugebauer,
a Houston investor and a personal friend of Cruz's. The involvement of the
Wilks brothers was first reported by National Review.

Together, their donations give Cruz and his allies more money than any
other Republican except Jeb Bush, a surprising achievement for a firebrand
senator more embraced at a Tea Party rally than at a black-tie business
gala.

Friends and associates of the Wilks brothers say they are unaffected and
unassuming, depicting them as hometown-loving Texans who morphed into
billionaires over the course of a decade. Intensely private, those close to
the pair say they are nervous about the spotlight that will shine on their
church and their family thanks to the donations.

"If Dan and Farris walk into a room, they don't want ever to be known, to
be announced. They just come in and sit in the back," said Luke Macias, a
Texas political strategist who has worked with the family. "They are normal
people. They dress normal. They show up normal."

Several other Republican donors will make seven-digit contributions to
super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations, that will dwarf sums
recorded in 2012: Norman Braman, a Florida auto dealer, will reportedly
give up to $10 million to Marco Rubio's. Several Jeb Bush supporters are
expected to have given $1 million to his and to be eager to give more. But
the Wilks family's $15 million donation -- split between two people -- is
likely to be the largest gift to a candidate on next week's reports.

Unlike some other mega-donors with an affinity for the ideological
slugfest, the brothers shun giving that is meant purely for firepower in
partisan fights. They choose specific projects over broad platforms.
Through their $100 million family philanthropy, The Thirteen Foundation,
the brothers gave nearly $19 million as part of their tithing to religious
and conservative nonprofit groups like the Family Research Council and
Online for Life in 2013, according to the most recent tax filings.

Driven mostly by their opposition to abortion and their fear that their
religious sect -- which interprets every word of the Bible literally -- is
under attack, Dan and Farris Wilks have slowly become more accustomed to
funding campaigns. As recent billionaires, however, they haven't yet risen
to the profile of the other conservative siblings that have revolutionized
outside spending: the Koch Brothers.

Now, though, they are prepared to step right into the middle of a
potentially nasty Republican nomination fight that could cost hundreds of
millions of dollars.

"We need a true leader in Washington," Farris' younger brother, Dan, 59,
said in the statement. "A leader that will stand up for biblical morals. We
need a leader who is proud of America, not one who apologizes for us. We
need a leader who encourages hard work, not one who tells people who don't
work that they should make the same living as people who do. We need a
leader who will make sure America doesn't end up a socialist nation."

Born to a poor family that once lived in a former goat shed, Farris and Dan
Wilks spent their careers as brick-builders with their own masonry
business. In 2002, they founded Frac Tech, which became one of the best
positioned companies to capitalize on the growth of fracking, a
controversial practice that involves the removal of natural gas or oil from
rock formations.

Slowly, they marched toward a bigger role in the fracking industry. When
competing Texas frackers looked to freeze the brothers out from the
companies that distribute the sand needed to drill, the siblings opened
their own sand quarry to thrive. Just as the West Texas fracking business
began to boom, the brothers invested in their own line of trucks and became
some of the largest fracking truck-producers in the country.

In 2011, they cashed out -- and began to buy enormous amounts of land in
Montana for elk hunting and fly fishing. As of last year, they owned more
than 310,000 acres of land in the state, making them Montana's largest
private landowners, according to The Billings Gazette.

Today, Forbes pegs their net worth at about $1.4 billion each.

At the heart of their life, still, is the Assembly of Yahweh, which
preaches a mix of Christianity and Judaism and holds the Bible as
infallible. A different Wilks family member gives a sermon many Saturdays.
Last week, it was Farris' turn.

"He was a pastor before he was a billionaire and he continues to pastor
after being a billionaire," said Mat Staver, a prominent conservative
activist close with the family.

It is not yet clear how the brothers plan to spend their money in the Cruz
super PAC, or whether any strings are attached to the $15 million
contribution. But the pair are said to have a particular desire to fund
breakthroughs in social media and digital organizing, eyeing long-term
opportunities to mobilize Christian voters on emerging or
created-from-scratch platforms online.

Much of their giving is directed by Jon Francis, a family son in-law who
heads The Thirteen Foundation, but those who have pitched projects to the
brothers say that their philanthropy is very much a family affair. It is
not uncommon for entrepreneurs to face questions from a half-dozen Wilks
family members when asking for money.

That includes Republican presidential candidates. The brothers have been
familiar with Cruz since he used the office of Texas solicitor general to
launch several high-profile legal fights to defend Christian causes. But
other Republican presidential candidates, aware of the Wilkses' net worth,
have nevertheless courted their checkbook. The candidates most aggressively
pining for their support, according to multiple people familiar with the
outreach, were Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and former Arkansas governor
Mike Huckabee.

The Wilks family's eventual pledge to Cruz was driven by his emphasis on
preserving Christian organizations' ability to operate amid cultural
victories for the left. But it was also motivated by the Texas senator's
ability to speak about policy in the entrepreneurial terms that the
brothers use when evaluating projects.

"One of the pleasures of doing business with them is they kind of treat
like you like you might be the next Wilks," said Jeremy Boering, a
California filmmaker who has successfully won grants from them.

Boering said that's the philosophy that Cruz pitched to Farris Wilks -- and
why he's funding him.

"He thinks he's one of the only guys in the movement that seems to
authentically wants to preserve the market, authentically preserve the way
of life that allows people to move from bricking walls to being a
billionaire," Boering said.

*Report: Ted Cruz super PAC gets $15 million from two billionaire donors
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/25/texas-billionaires-donate-15-million--cruz-super-pac/30664455/>
// USA Today // Deirdre Shesgreen - July 25, 2015*

Two billionaire brothers who made a fortune in the fracking business have
donated $15 million to a super PAC supporting Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential
bid, according to CNN.

Citing unnamed sources, CNN reported that Farris and Dan Wilks are by far
the biggest donors to Keep the Promise, a pro-Cruz PAC. The brothers
founded Frac Tech, a hydraulic fracturing and oil field services business
in 2002, and then sold it in 2011 for $3.5 billion, according to Forbes.

Farris Wilks, who is also pastor of the Assembly of Yahweh 7th Day Church
near Cisco, said he and his brother support Cruz because the country needs
"a principled conservative leader."

"Our country was founded on the idea that our rights come from the Creator,
not the government. I'm afraid we're losing that," Wilks said in a
statement to CNN. "Unless we elect a principled conservative leader ready
to stand up for our values, we'll look back on what once was the land of
opportunity and pass on a less prosperous nation to our children and
grandchildren."

The Wilks' contributions — along with other funds raised by the PAC — will
become public in filings due to the Federal Election Commission at the end
of this month.

Cruz's allies have created several PACs to boost his presidential
ambitions, all with similar names: Keep the Promise PAC, Keep the Promise
II and Keep the Promise III.

Super PACs can raise unlimited sums but are required to operate
independently of the candidates they support.

*CHRISTIE*

*Chris Christie Claims He Will Pursue the Trans-Hudson Tunnel Project as
President
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/nyregion/chris-christie-claims-he-will-pursue-the-trans-hudson-tunnel-project-as-president.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Rick Rojas - July 25, 2015*

Several days of severe delays for rail commuters trying to cross the Hudson
River this week has been a painful reminder of the deteriorating state of
the tunnels that carry the trains and brought renewed attention to a
decision made years ago to halt a project that might have helped improve
the situation.

In a radio interview that will be broadcast this weekend, Gov. Chris
Christie of New Jersey made clear his reasoning for blocking the
construction of a new tunnel and other infrastructure in 2010 that was
intended to increase passenger service capacity between his state and
Manhattan. He said it was a regional project that would have left New
Jersey taxpayers to bear the brunt of its cost.

The governor, a Republican candidate for president, added that if he were
to make it to the White House, he would push for an equitable solution.

“If I am president of the United States, I call a meeting between the
president, my secretary of transportation, the governor of New York and the
governor of New Jersey and say, ‘Listen, if we are all in this even Steven,
if we are all going to put in an equal share, then let’s go build these
tunnels under the Hudson River,’ ” Mr. Christie said in an interview with
the radio talk show host Larry Kudlow, which will be broadcast on Saturday
on WABC-AM.

“Then, everyone has an incentive to have the project run right, to run
efficiently because everybody is on the hook,” Mr. Christie added.

The governor’s comments — and his hypothetical phrasing — has attracted the
attention of his critics, who say his statements emphasize how little he
has done to help improve transportation.

“This is not a hypothetical issue, this is a real issue, and he could be
doing something about it,” said Martin Robins, the founding director of the
Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University, who was the
director of the tunnel project during the mid-1990s. “The question is, what
has he done, what will he do in the next 18 months as the governor of New
Jersey?”

Commuters have faced severe delays several days this week, including on
Friday, because of electrical problems in the aging tunnels beneath the
river.

In a separate statement on Friday, Mr. Christie placed blame for the delays
on Amtrak. “N.J. Transit commuters were victimized by nearly an entire week
of extreme delays and cancellations for one reason only: Amtrak’s
indifference to New Jersey commuters and its abject neglect of the
infrastructure that New Jersey and our entire region relies upon,” he said.

Amtrak did not directly respond to Mr. Christie’s pointed remarks, but a
spokesman did say the agency “regrets and apologizes for the inconvenience.”

“These power failures demonstrate the urgent need for a funding solution so
we can build and renew the infrastructure needed to keep this region and
the economy moving,” the spokesman, Craig Schulz, said in a statement.

The governor has argued that he recognized the need for additional rail
capacity across the Hudson, as long as the cost does not disproportionately
fall on New Jersey. But his critics said they were surprised by Mr.
Christie’s response on Friday, saying they struggled to recall a previous
instance when he had acknowledged the issue and its severity.

*Christie knocks candidates for being 'vague' on entitlement reform
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/chris-christie-jeb-bush-entitlement-reform/index.html>
// CNN // Ashley Killough - July 25, 2015*

Chris Christie is positioning himself as the candidate in the race who's
offering specific policy proposals, while other candidates, he says, are
being "vague."

Holding a town hall event in Davenport, Iowa, on Friday, the New Jersey
governor appeared to single out one candidate in particular, though not by
name.

"I heard a candidate complain the other day that, you know, 'my positions'
-- meaning that candidate's positions -- 'on comments I made about
entitlement reform are being misconstrued by the press.' Well, it's much
harder to be misconstrued by the press if you're specific," Christie said.
"If you continue to speak in generalities, then you're going to have other
people interpret what you mean."

Meanwhile, Christie said, "we've put forward more detail than any other
candidate in this race."

His comments come one day after Jeb Bush argued that he was "taken out of
context" when he said Thursday night that entitlement programs like
Medicare should be "phased out." He emphasized that he wants to reform such
programs and replace them with more sustainable policies, and floated the
idea of raising the retirement age.

But Bush, who says he's planning to outline more policy proposals in the
coming weeks, did not go into great detail.

Asked later Friday if Christie was specifically referring to Bush, the
governor said he was talking about "everybody who's not talking about it."

"Everybody who doesn't talk about this stuff says they're
mischaracterized," he continued, talking to reporters after shaking hands
and meeting voters at the Davenport Street Fest. "Be specific. Then you
won't be mischaracterized."

For his part, Christie made a major policy speech earlier this summer
listing a series of policy proposals on entitlement reform. For one, he'd
like to means test Social Security and raise the retirement age for Social
Security by two months every year until it hits 69.

"People don't have to interpret what I mean about Social Security," he said
Friday. "It won't be mischaracterized ... the more vague you are because
you're trying to have it both ways, the more you're subject to that kind of
misinterpretation."

He was asked by a voter at the town hall if he would still raise the
retirement age for people who work manually intensive jobs and can't work
as long. Because of improvements in medicine, Christie argued that even
laborers will be able to work for longer periods in their lives.

"I think that if you give it 25 years, which is what we're giving it,
you're going to see advances in medical science ... and pharmaceutical
treatments that are going to allow us to even have manual laborers who will
be able to work longer, much longer than they're able to work now," he said.

"Even to 65?" the voter asked

"Yeah, listen, I think so. I really do. There will always be early
retirement available for some people," he said, noting how people can take
that now in Social Security.

Democrats, who zeroed in on Bush's comments about Medicare, were also quick
to jump on Christie's comments on Friday.

The Democratic research group American Bridge blasted out video of
Christie's town hall as "proof that Republicans really do believe that the
problem isn't income inequality, it's that all those workers just don't put
in enough effort."

*Chris Christie Fires Back At Gun Rights Activist In Iowa
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-gun-control_55b3ece0e4b0224d88327b1d?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Samantha-Jo Roth - July 25, 2015*

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) got into a heated exchange with a
skeptical voter who accused the presidential candidate of being “anti-gun”
during a town hall on Saturday, citing New Jersey’s tough gun control laws.

Responding to the man, who did not identify himself but mentioned he was
part of the Iowa Gun Owners organization, Christie defended his record,
refuting every claim the voter mentioned, and, at times, even raising his
voice.

“Come up with one fact that shows one thing I’ve done as governor in New
Jersey that’s done anything, anything not to support the rights of legal
gun owners,” Christie said as the crowd gathered inside a local community
college auto body shop erupted in applause. “Don’t come in front of this
group of people and lie about my record, which is what you did.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) got into a heated exchange with an
activist over gun control in Iowa on Saturday.

The voter accused Christie of proposing to ban .50-caliber rifles,
requiring a government-issued ID for every firearms purchase and setting up
a statewide firearms registry of guns and gun owners. Christie responded
harshly, holding true to the theme of his campaign, “Telling it like it is.”

“I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but your
information is wrong,” Christie told the man.

Christie noted that he vetoed the .50-caliber ban, the statewide ID system
and the law that was passed to reduce magazine sizes from 15 to 10.

The man in the crowd then asked if Christie is planning on pardoning Brian
Fletcher, a North Carolina man who is facing prison time after telling a
police officer in New Jersey that he had a gun in his vehicle, which is the
customary and legal thing to do in his home state. Christie said he hasn’t
made a decision yet, but is reviewing the situation.

“I’m not going to make that decision in 15 minutes nor should I. Nor should
you want me to,” Christie said. “I see you shrugging your shoulders, why
are you shrugging your shoulders about? You have your point of view, but
have some facts about it.”

The confrontation lasted over five minutes, as others in the crowd seemed
to shift uncomfortably in their seats. The voter brought up an ad that ran
in 1995, which shows Christie criticizing his opponent for wanting to
repeal the assault weapons ban in New Jersey. Christie pointed out that his
views have changed over the last 20 years.

“If you haven’t changed your mind once in 20 years on any issue, then I’ll
tell you, you’re not a thinking, breathing, living human being,” Christie
said as the crowd applauded.

“If you want to debate me, come to the top 10, run for president and come
to Cleveland on Aug. 6, and I’ll happily debate you,” he added.

In Iowa, Christie’s favorability ratings are under water. A recent poll of
Iowa caucus-goers shows 45 percent of registered Iowa voters have negative
feelings about Christie, while only 24 percent view him favorably.

At the town hall, Christie continued to blame New Jersey’s
Democratic-controlled legislature for anti-gun measures occurring in his
state.

“As governor and as president, you’re not an emperor or dictator,” Christie
said. “You want better gun laws, elect a Republican legislature, and these
laws will be changed.”

*GRAHAM*

*John McCain to campaign in New Hampshire with Lindsey Graham
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/25/john-mccain-to-campaign-in-new-hampshire-with-lindsey-graham/>
// WaPo // James Hohmann - July 25, 2015*

John McCain will spend next weekend campaigning around New Hampshire with
his pal Lindsey Graham.

The Arizona senator, who twice won the state’s Republican primary, will
headline a barbecue at the VFW post in Littleton on Aug. 1 for the dark
horse GOP presidential candidate and South Carolina senator, according to
the Graham campaign. Then the duo will travel to additional events, which
campaign officials said are still being planned.

McCain’s trip will be his first foray out on the campaign trail since
Donald Trump, leading in the national polls of Republicans, suggested he is
not a true war hero because he got captured by the North Vietnamese. Graham
responded by calling Trump a “jackass.” Trump retaliated by announcing
Graham’s personal cellphone number on national television during a rally in
South Carolina.

That prompted Graham to destroy his cellphone, but it has also generated
buzz that could give him enough momentum to get into the first Republican
debate on Aug. 6 on Fox News.

McCain has already been helping Graham, one of his best friends. They
recently appeared together at an event in New York to oppose President
Obama’s deal with Iran. And McCain has helped Graham raise money. They
share a hawkish foreign policy, and Graham was an all-in surrogate during
McCain’s run for president in 2008. Along with former senator Joe Lieberman
(I-Conn.), they called themselves “the three amigos.”

Several of Graham’s senior staff are veterans of McCain’s 2008 campaign.
Campaign manager Christian Ferry was McCain’s deputy manager. Senior
adviser Jon Seaton was McCain’s national field director. Communications
director Brittany Bramell also worked in McCain’s communications shop.

*John McCain to campaign with Graham in New Hampshire
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-mccain-to-campaign-with-graham-in-new-hampshire-120624.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Katie Glueck - July 25, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham is getting an assist
in New Hampshire from a man with a track record of success in the Granite
State: Sen. John McCain will campaign with him there next weekend.

McCain, the Arizona Republican and 2008 GOP nominee, saw his presidential
run take off in New Hampshire that year after a string of setbacks. Next
weekend, he will join Graham, who is perhaps his closest colleague in the
Senate, for a swing through the first-in-the-nation state that begins
Saturday at a VFW hall in Littleton, N.H.

The Arizona senator also won the 2000 New Hampshire primary and remains a
respected figure among many Republicans there.

Graham (R-S.C.), who is lagging in the polls, is a vocal advocate for a
muscular foreign policy and robust national security strategy. McCain, who
shares those views, will help him amplify that message.

While this will be McCain’s first early-state campaign trail foray on
behalf of Graham, there is plenty of overlap between their worlds: Graham’s
campaign is run by several veterans of McCain’s orbit, and the two appeared
together last week at a New York City fundraiser for Graham, as well as at
a town hall centered on highlighting their concerns about the Obama
administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

*John McCain to Campaign for Lindsey Graham Next Week
<http://time.com/3972234/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-campaign/> // TIME //
Zeke K. Miller - July 25, 2015*

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, will
campaign for the first time on behalf of his friend Sen. Lindsey Graham in
New Hampshire next week.

According to a Graham spokesperson, McCain, who won the 2000 and 2008 New
Hampshire primaries, will appear with the South Carolina senator at a
barbecue at a VFW hall in Littleton, N.H. on Saturday, Aug. 1. The pair
will campaign in the state throughout the weekend.

McCain’s in-person assistance is critical for Graham, who is casting his
message as the natural successor to McCain’s “straight talk,” combining a
hawkish foreign policy with calls to reform the immigration system,
preserve the environment and modernize entitlement programs. It comes as a
bevy of 2016 contenders are hoping to deploy a “tell-it-like-it-is”
campaign in the Granite State.

The pair traveled extensively together in 2008, when Graham was a
ubiquitous presence on McCain’s campaign bus and plane. Together with
former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the trio branded themselves as “the
three amigos.” (The three were united in New York last week at an event
opposing President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.)

In an interview with TIME last month, McCain praised Graham for being a
“happy warrior” on the campaign trial.

“He’s been on it with me for so long, he knows that one of the things
that’s important about a campaign is to enjoy it, and that enjoyment many
times will transmit itself to the voter,” McCain said. “He’s going to be a
happy warrior. He already is. And sometime that’s very helpful in getting
support, particularly when sometimes the face-to-face contact is what you
get with voters in Iowa, and particularly New Hampshire.”

In 2012, McCain held off endorsing anyone until the day after the Iowa
Caucuses, when he appeared with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at a
joint New Hampshire town hall as the eventual GOP nominee, and McCain’s
once bitter primary rival, sought to consolidate the party’s support.

*SANTORUM*

*Rick Santorum's slow build: campaigning 'has a way of weeding out
candidates'
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/25/rick-santorum-interview-slow-build-this-process-has-a-way-of-weeding-out-candidates>
// Guardian // Ben Jacobs - July 25, 2015*

Rick Santorum spent the summer of 2011 crisscrossing Iowa, meeting handfuls
of voters. For a long time he was mired at the bottom of the polls in the
Republican primary, but his hard work paid off. The former Pennsylvania
senator, an ardent social conservative, won Iowa and 10 other states in the
race for the presidential nomination, finishing second to Mitt Romney.

A second-place finish is normally a springboard to frontrunner status in
the GOP primaries next time round. But this summer, Santorum is doing the
same thing, with the same low fundraising numbers and threadbare campaign.

The difference is that instead of being driven in the passenger seat of a
pickup truck owned by a campaign aide, Santorum is travelling from town to
town in a two-SUV caravan, driven by young staffers equipped with earpieces.

Santorum’s campaign is relatively informal. Recently, he went into the back
of Misty’s Malt Shop in Keosauqua, Iowa, and made a milkshake for the
Guardian. Not long afterwards, he could be spotted in Des Moines airport,
alone, before flying back to his northern Virginia home.

In an interview with the Guardian, Santorum sounded relatively confident
about his prospects despite having lower fundraising numbers in the last
quarter than all but two other serious Republican candidates.

In his opinion, “the most important thing is getting to the finish line
and, for me, the best way to get the finish line is to get to the start
line”. He said he was confident his campaign had “the money we need to do
what we want to do” and was “way ahead of where we were four years ago”.

Santorum also seemed to be taking a strategic decision to de-emphasize
fundraising.

“I don’t spend all my time raising money,” he said. “Most candidates are
not now doing seven or eight town hall meetings a day, they are spending
most of their time on the phone, going to fundraisers, doing those things.

“That’s the way they want to run their campaign and they can have nice
reports which show lots of money. I’ll show lots of caucus captains and
lots of volunteers and impressions that while people may not say ‘I’m for
you now’ [they might say] ‘You’re on my list and I might find myself
supporting you on caucus night.’”

Santorum has also differentiated himself from other candidates with a
relatively low-key approach at campaign events and at larger gatherings
such as the Family Leadership Summit, a GOP presidential cattle call held
in Ames, Iowa, last weekend. While others went for applause lines, Santorum
consistently pushed his message of “blue-collar conservatism”.

At every campaign stop, Santorum asked how many working-age Americans
didn’t have college degrees. He would get a guess or two and then give the
answer: “74%”.

The economically heterodox candidate, who opposes the TPP free trade
agreement and favors the renewal of the Export-Import Bank, then talked
about his plans to revive manufacturing in the US and the importance of
using the tax code to incentivize two-parent families.

Santorum’s skepticism towards free trade strikes a unique tone in the GOP
field. At a business roundtable in Fairfield, Iowa, he argued: “A level
playing field is not just domestic tax policy, because manufacturers in
Iowa, by and large, don’t compete against manufacturers in Wisconsin, they
compete against manufacturers in Mexico and China.”

Instead, he expressed his support for “a level global playing field”.

Unlike some Republican rivals, Santorum made a point of not mentioning the
campaign’s insurgent force, the real-estate mogul Donald Trump, by name.
Instead, in an interview which took place before Trump’s controversial
remarks about John McCain, he simply noted that in the past two election
cycles, “almost everyone that’s gone up has come down”.

The former Pennsylvania senator said: “Every candidate could surprise me
and go up and never come down and be the candidate that can run wire to
wire. But this process has a way of weeding out candidates.”

He added: “I’ve always been the candidate who tries to have that slow
steady build and build off of that foundation.”

That approach was displayed as Santorum went from voter to voter to voter.
In the small town of Keosauqua, Santorum walked the block and a half from
the malt shop to the bar and restaurant where he was holding an event. On
the way, he stopped at every business to shake hands.

“Hi, I’m Rick Santorum and I’m running for president,” he said. A waitress,
eating lunch alone at the pizzeria, was unimpressed. A teller asked what he
would do to help community banks. Santorum seemed excited to share his
desire to repeal Dodd-Frank.

Of course, there were Iowans who didn’t recognize the candidate but, upon
hearing he was running for president, wanted to take selfies. At the end of
the walk, Santorum arrived at his event. In a town of just over 1,000,
there were seven people waiting.

This approach has some real benefits. The Guardian talked to two voters who
said they were considering Bernie Sanders and Santorum, having talked to
the latter.

One, Tai Ward, a fantasy sports software developer from Fairfield, said
Santorum piqued his interest when he said he was a fantasy sports fan as
well. Ward, who caucused for the libertarian Ron Paul in 2012, said he
liked candidates who stood up to corporations and seemed genuine, a
description he felt applied to Santorum. He didn’t agree with Santorum on
everything, but appreciated that he seemed like “he believed everything he
says”.

The key for Santorum is whether he can successfully woo voters one on one
in small towns over the next six months. The defending champion of the Iowa
caucuses was in eighth place in the most recent poll of the Hawkeye State
and he is doing even worse nationally, in danger of not qualifying for the
first GOP debate, on 6 August.

He told the Guardian his campaign “was better positioned from the
standpoint of being able to take this race beyond Iowa” than it was at the
same time four years ago. But as in that campaign, he must hope that
Republicans polling ahead of him flame out and give him, the slow and
steady candidate, an opportunity to pull ahead.

*Santorum: Iran deal is 'greatest betrayal' of US security ever
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/249197-santorum-iran-deal-greatest-betrayal>
// The Hill // Jordain Carney - July 25, 2015*

Former Sen. Rick Santorum on Saturday called the Iran nuclear agreement the
"greatest betrayal" of U.S. national security in the history of the United
States.

"This is the greatest betrayal of American national security in our
history," Santorum, who is running for president, said at the National
Security Action Summit in New Hampshire. "[Iran] will cheat. They will
violate the agreement. They will continue to sponsor terror all over the
world."

Santorum's comments come as the administration is in the middle of trying
to sell Congress on the agreement, announced earlier this month.

Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz met with lawmakers in multiple closed-door briefings
and public hearings this past week, and they are expected to testify again
next week.

Santorum slammed lawmakers, who he suggested don't want to stand up to the
administration and have "Stockholm syndrome" when it comes to Obama.

"They are so afraid to fight," he added. "They have now decided that the
only way to survive is to go along with him."

Lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year that gives them the ability
to review and vote on the Iran deal before congressional sanctions can be
lifted. But measures from Republicans that would have required it be
considered as a treaty — which includes a higher threshold for approval —
were rejected.

Santorum said the fact that senators weren't able to get enough votes to
back requiring that the Iran agreement be submitted as a treaty — which the
administration argues it is not — underscores "how little respect they have
for you and how little belief they have in themselves."

Under legislation passed earlier this year, Obama ultimately needs to
convince 34 lawmakers in the Senate to back the Iran agreement, which would
give him enough support to uphold a potential veto of a resolution
undercutting the deal in the Senate.

So far, Republicans have largely lined up against the agreement, while
Democrats remain skeptical, with only one member of Senate leadership —
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — throwing his support behind the deal so far.

Santorum, like other Republican presidential candidates, suggested Saturday
he would walk away from the Iran agreement on "day one" if he's elected.

"Go through the process of on day one, saying this agreement is no longer
enforced for the United States of America," he said, adding that the next
president should "draw a line" and tell the Iranian government if it
crosses it "we will take actions that make sure you are no longer a threat
to the rest of the world."

*Santorum: Lawmakers have 'Stockholm syndrome' with Obama
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/santorum-lawmakers-have-stockholm-syndrome-with-obama/article/2568979>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - July 25, 2015*

Rick Santorum blasted lawmakers for their "Stockholm syndrome," implying
Saturday at an appearance in New Hampshire that lawmakers have bonded to
their kidnapper, the Obama administration.

Speaking at the National Security Action Summit, Santorum said the nuclear
agreement with Iran was "the greatest betrayal of American national
security in our history" and urged members of Congress to stand up to the
president in opposition of the deal.

"[Iran] will cheat. They will violate the agreement. They will continue to
sponsor terror all over the world," the former Pennsylvania senator said
Saturday, according to The Hill.

Secretary of State John Kerry and other cabinet members spent much of this
week trying to sell lawmakers on the agreement, which is currently awaiting
rejection or approval in Congress.

Obama has promised to veto any legislation that dismantles his signature
diplomatic achievement.

Other Republican candidates for president have railed against the Iran deal
and suggested they would eliminate it immediately upon taking office.

If Congress approves the agreement or fails to muster the support needed to
override Obama's veto, the sanctions against Iran will be lifted.

*TRUMP*

*Donald Trump: I Pay My Own Way, Unlike Bush, Walker or Clinton
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/25/donald-trump-i-pay-my-own-way-unlike-bush-walker-or-clinton/>
// WSJ // Heather Haddon - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump said there was no cap in the amount of money he would be
willing to put into his campaign for the Republican nomination for
president if his message continues to resonate with voters.

Speaking at a free-wheeling press conference following a rally in this city
east of Des Moines, Mr. Trump also attacked Republican rivals Jeb Bush and
Scott Walker and Democrat Hillary Clinton with accusations that they were
beholden to wealthy donors.

Mr. Trump, a real-estate developer and television personality, has almost
entirely self-financed his campaign so far.

“Bush is controlled by those people. Walker is controlled by those people.
Hillary Clinton is controlled by those people. Trump has none of those
people,” he said Saturday afternoon. “I’m not controlled. I do what’s right
for the people.”

Mr. Trump was particularly pointed in his attacks of Mr. Walker. He
criticized the Wisconsin governor’s handling of his state’s economy and
accused him of flip-flopping his stance on the Common Core education
standards.

While once friendly with the governor, Mr. Trump said he felt free to
criticize Mr. Walker after a fundraising invitation sent by one of his
donors called Mr. Trump a “DumbDumb.”

“I said ‘hey now, the gloves are off,’” said Mr. Trump, who called the
fundraiser a “stupid person.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Walker’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Mr. Trump spoke before more than 1,000 people who gathered for a “family
picnic” and speech that his campaign sponsored. Attendees filled the
auditorium of the city’s high school and spilled into a space in the
neighboring middle school, with 1,300 people registering to attend, a
campaign official said.

The rally was originally scheduled to be held at a city park in Oskaloosa
last month, but was rescheduled for a larger facility, Mr. Trump’s state
director said.

The largely white crowd ate hamburgers cooked on long grills and salads
served in silver chafing dishes.

“He’s saying the things we really feel,” said Gary Staggs, a 55-year-old
small business owner from Oskaloosa.  “Politicians can’t say them because
they are so afraid of somebody they will offend.”

Mr. Trump delivered a nearly hourly long monologue without notes that
touched on the imbalance of trade with China, his wealth and Iowa’s hot
weather.

“I love you people. I love Iowa. But it’s hot as hell and I’m sweating like
a dog,” said Mr. Trump, who wore a full suit.

Mr. Trump stuck to his criticisms of Mexico and illegal immigration to the
U.S. from his country. He called for a system of immigration based on
merit, but didn’t discuss specifics of his plan when asked about it after
the speech.

After being criticized by veterans groups for attacking Arizona Sen. John
McCain’s war record, Mr. Trump brought on stage a stack of papers he
claimed to have been sent to him from former military men who supported
him. Audience members waved printed signs stating “Veteran for Trump.”

Mr. Trump has lobbed colorful attacks at rivals since declaring he was
running for president last month. He said he would tone down his criticisms
if he was elected president, and singled out Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and
neurosurgeon Ben Carson for maintaining a civil tone towards him.

Mr. Trump declined to discuss specific in response to a wide-range of
questions posed to him by reporters. He would not say if he was preparing
for the debates or if he was taking pointers from policy advisers. He
couldn’t say who would make up a Trump cabinet.

Asked if he would join some Republicans’ calls to cut Social Security
benefits, Mr. Trump said it wasn’t necessary because he would bring so much
economic activity back to the U.S.

Flanked by a large security detail in suits, Mr. Trump stood with
well-wishers who snapped photos with him as he left. He posed before a
“Trump” campaign bus, but then got into a black SUV to leave Iowa by plane.

*How Does Trump End?
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-does-trump-end-120596_full.html#.VbRFixNViko>
// Politico // July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump’s rapid ascendency to the top of the Republican polls—and the
blinding media spotlight surrounding him that has rendered all other 2016
contenders seemingly mute—has baffled nearly every observer. Even his
longtime friends (and enemies) are fascinated. When I reached him this week
on vacation, Las Vegas developer mogul Steve Wynn, who has been on both the
enemies and the friends side of that equation with Trump, said simply, “I
am as mystified about it as you are.” As he continued, “It certainly is a
spectacular and perverse moment in political history. There’s no precedent
for this.”

“What I am certain of,” the gaming mogul averred, “is that when you and I
have this conversation next year, we will both agree unequivocally how
convoluted and how mercurial the events of the world are. Neither one of us
will have ever predicted the political environment of America [a year from
now] as surely as I know my own name.”

Added Wynn, “Intervening events will be dramatic and unpredictable. That’s
the kind of world we’re living in.” The Trump boomlet, too, Wynn insisted,
shall pass.

But how it shall pass is a serious point of debate among campaign
observers. With some help from Politico Magazine, Wynn’s challenge was put
to top political thinkers: how does Trump’s unprecedented campaign end?
Will Trump fizzle out soon, or endure for months? Will he succumb to
pressure from the RNC, the GOP establishment and other candidates? Or only
earn more attention as the race drags on? And is Trump ever truly “done”—or
would he jump back into the race as a third party candidate?

“Maybe people will get tired of me,” Trump mused Friday in an interview
with Morning Joe. Or perhaps they won’t. Below appear the best predictions
collected from the respondents who dared speculate about how The Donald’s
spectacular rise ends – Jon Ralston, Politico Magazine contributing editor.

***

‘There’s a more-than-reasonable chance that he pulls a Perot and runs as an
independent.’

By Bob Shrum, Democratic presidential strategist.

Trump is ripe for a Bentsen-Quayle moment in the first debate. Bush, Rubio,
et al—no longer reticent in the face of Trump’s pandering to the basest
elements of the base, the “crazies”—are preparing the putdown right now.
The question is who gets the right opening first. But one candidate who
won’t be looking for the opportunity is Cruz; he’s angling to take the
reins of Trump’s buckboard of bigotry when Trump falls off and then ride it
to the nomination.

He may have to wait. Trump can be scorched in the debate; but he won’t
flame out because he won’t run out of money, even if he is a few billion
shy of ten. He can hold on indefinitely, and he’s not the type to recognize
reality and retreat from the race. In the end, denied a nomination he can’t
win, there’s a more-than-reasonable chance that he pulls a Perot and runs
as an independent. That’s what I’m rooting for and would advise the Great
Bloviator to do. The “crazies” deserve a voice, and he’s it. And the GOP
deserves to pay a price—the presidency—for appeasing and exploiting the
politics of nativism and resentment that has spawned and nourished the low,
mean Know-Nothingism of Donald Trump.

***

‘If the GOP keeps pounding Trump instead of ignoring him, they buy him
time.’

By Erick Erikson, frequent commentator, radio host and founder of the blog
RedState.

Congress goes on recess in August, you have the GOP debate and people will
start to take a look at all the other candidates in relation to Trump. I
think he begins a decline toward Iowa. If you delve into the polling, a lot
of people who are right now saying they intend to vote for Trump are really
saying they just like what he is saying. As others begin to get attention,
he fades. One caveat though: if the GOP keeps pounding Trump instead of
ignoring him, they buy him time. The longer the party elite bash Trump, the
more the base loves him.

***

‘Donald Trump is not only not hurting the GOP, he is a boon to it.’

By Mary Matalin, Republican political strategist.

With apologies to, and respect for, my conservative friends and colleagues,
Donald Trump is not only not hurting the GOP, he is a boon to it.
Candidates would be well advised to pay close attention to the forensics of
his approach, and apply their own unique personalities and policies to
their campaign efforts. And the GOP leadership should quit insulting him,
giving him an excuse to mount a third party candidacy.

Among other strategic and tactical triumphs, Trump is exhibiting in pulsing
neon colors the contemporary political parallel universes of Common Sense
America and Conventional Wisdom Establishment. CS America is, and has been
for some time been, so over the incompetent, posturing national politicians
as well as their irrelevant agenda issues and their counterproductive
policies. They are aching for candidates with authenticity who will address
their everyday concerns. AND do not presume a preference for their common
sense world makes them redneck philistines.

Further he is exposing the multiple fallacies of CW Establishment politics,
to wit: appealing to nontraditional GOP voters requires narrow and corrupt
Identity Politics tactics; message resonance demands mandatory acceptance
of any and all CW Politically Correct premises, including gratuitous,
phony, solicitous kowtowing to the media; that strict avoidance of
establishmentarian “third rail” issues is political kamikaze.

Once he gets to the debates, he will have to connect his bombastic
iconoclastic antics to authentic policy prescriptions, as well as
demonstrate his potential effectiveness by past performance metrics

Bottom line: he will not blow up, but could pump up overly-reserved
candidacies.

***

‘He is the voice of the GOP. Hell, he’s even the hair of the GOP.’

By Paul Begala, political analyst for CNN and counselor to President Bill
Clinton.

When it comes to Mr. Trump, I know this: he reflects the views of today’s
Republican Party. Here’s proof: 64 percent of Republicans agree with the
broader statement that, “President Obama is hiding important information
about his background and early life.” And 34 percent of Republicans go
full-on birther: saying of Republicans think it’s likely that president
Obama is not a US citizen; that he was not born in America (Fairleigh
Dickinson Univ. poll, Dec., 2014). This, of course, is an issue Mr. Trump
has highlighted.

68 percent of Republicans say Mr. Trump is right on immigration. (Fox News
poll, July 17, 2015). This was after he said those rather, umm,
controversial things about Mexican immigrants. 22 percent of Republicans
even agree with his hateful attack on John McCain—saying McCain was not a
war hero (PPP Poll 7/22/15).

Mr. Trump is the face of the GOP: angry, white and male. He is the voice of
the GOP. Hell, he’s even the hair of the GOP.

***

‘How long? As long as he wants.’

By Joe Trippi, Democratic political strategist.

Never, ever ever underestimate Trump’s staying power and ability to
dominate media attention. In a field this large he could be around for a
long time—potentially a lot longer than many of the other GOP candidates
who have derided his chances of being their nominee. On running as a 3rd
party candidate—someone should remind the GOP that Trump is a tough as
nails negotiator and he would have plenty of leverage. How long? As long as
he wants.

***

‘He can’t sustain the weight of multiple attacks.’

By Rick Wilson, national Republican message and media strategist.

The Trump show ends when the other candidates follow Perry and Rubio, get
off their asses and knock his dick in the dirt. Do a deep oppo dive on
Trump and go to work. Trump’s verbal incontinence prevents him from being
able to restrain himself, and as they start banging him on his liberal
political background, his casino deals, rickety real estate empire,
multiple bankruptcies, the Trump-U scam, and so on, Trump will respond,
over and over. He can’t sustain the weight of multiple attacks.

***

‘There is nobody strong enough to stop him.’

By Van Jones, former Obama administration special advisor for green jobs.

Do not underestimate Donald Trump. He is in this race to stay. He will be a
defining force through the primary season. As long as there are a dozen or
more other candidates, there is nobody strong enough to stop him. A man who
has no shame cannot be embarrassed or hounded out of the race—no matter how
many offensive, racist or ludicrous things he says. Also: the media is
addicted to Trump. They hate themselves for indulging him, but they refuse
to go to rehab. Hold onto your hats! This guy is for real. And he will go
the distance in the GOP primary—and maybe beyond the GOP primary, as an
independent candidate.

***

‘The first debate will tell us all we need to know.’

By SE Cupp, conservative political commentator.

The first debate will tell us all we need to know. Does Trump come with
policy points and substantive responses? Will he respect the other
candidates, the format, the moderator? Will he attempt to look
presidential? Or will he interrupt, call people “dummies,” and punt on any
real questions? If next to Walker, Jeb, Rubio, et al he looks like a
cartoon, we’ll probably see the polls reflect that. If that gives him an
off ramp to exit, maybe he’ll take it. If on the other hand he performs
well, why would he go anywhere?

***

‘He doesn’t have to be even remotely viable to be a dangerous.’

By Ed Kilgore, liberal commentator, blogger at Washington Monthly’s
Political Animal and Managing Editor at The Democratic Strategist.

It’s early to predict much of anything about anybody, but I’d say Donald
Trump has the ego, the money and probably the motivation to take his
campaign into the general election as an independent. That doesn’t mean
he’ll succeed as well as Ross Perot in 1992 or even 1996. But in a campaign
that could be a very close major party barnburner, he doesn’t have to be
even remotely viable to be a dangerous and impossible-to-ignore factor,
especially for Republican Party elites he clearly enjoys tormenting. And
his appeal is heavily concentrated in a white working class demographic
that Republicans just cannot afford to lose much of—Romney won 61 percent
in 2012—and still hope to win.

What else is a 70-year-old narcissist going to do with all the attention
he’s mustered? Retire? Do another TV show? I don’t think so.

***

‘Donald Trump will ... exit before the parade of judgement days we call
elections.’

By Stuart Stevens, Republican strategist and the chief advisor for the 2012
Romney presidential campaign.

Put me down in the camp of being highly skeptical that Donald Trump will be
on the ballot in Iowa or NH. Running for President is a uniquely humbling
experience for all involved. The process has no respect for wealth, status
or power. All of that argues, to me, that Donald Trump will use the system
to make the points he is making and exit before the parade of judgement
days we call elections.

***

‘Trump's act will grow tiresome.’

By Peter Wehner, former deputy director of speechwriting for President
George W. Bush.

How the Trump campaign for president ends is hard to predict, since Trump
himself is a deeply erratic individual. He shifts positions literally
within hours, so knowing what he'll do months from now is impossible. But I
do have a better feel, I think, for how Trump will play over time with
Republican voters. The short answer: Not well.

My guess is that Trump’s candidacy is best understood as a months-long
political conflagration that will begin to burn itself out by the late
summer. Mr. Trump is a genius at getting attention, and he's clearly tapped
into a deep vein of unhappiness among Republican voters—unhappiness with
the politicians and the political class, with government and the media and
with the state of America. Right now he’s a vehicle for lots of people's
outrage.

But Trump's act will grow tiresome. The intensity surrounding him can't be
sustained. And reality will soon take hold. His own past (and recent)
liberal positions—there are many of them—are going to create serious doubts
among the conservative base. Mr. Trump’s lack of substance and shallowness
will catch up to him. And his non-stop crudity and insults, which some
people might have found amusing at first, will wear thin. (In my
experience, presidential candidates who ridicule POWs who were tortured
usually don’t have a lot of staying power.) People who were initially drawn
to him will begin to be embarrassed by him. Even now, while he leads
several national polls in a splintered field, his negatives are extreme
high. They'll go higher. He’s a stunningly target-rich environment.

This is the time in a political campaign when people’s impressions are
fluid, their views of the candidates unsettled, and they feel they have the
luxury to indulge even circus clowns. This, too, shall pass. So even if
Trump doesn’t lose interest in the race, more and more Republican voters
will lose interest in him. For a narcissist like Trump, that's the worst
possible fate.

It hard for many people to imagine now, when Trump is the focal point of
American politics, but come early fall—and maybe even sooner than that—my
guess is that what many people will think of when they think of Donald
Trump is boring. Tedious. The crazy uncle in the attic.

If Trump doesn't end this charade, Republican voters will happily do it for
him.

***

‘I’ll go with the scenario that has Trump leaving the Republican party to
run as an independent candidate.’

By Anita Dunn, Democratic political strategist and the White House
Communications Director from April through November 2009.

The Trump Show will last longer than your typical summer blockbuster that
has a glitzy opening, gets bad reviews, makes plenty of noise, has lots of
explosions, attracts a lot of eyeballs the first weekend out and then
disappears until it runs endless loops on cable.

Ignore the similarities! His financial disclosure suggests a serious effort
at a campaign, and he is tapping a chord with a segment of the Republican
electorate that no one else is right now. So I’ll go with the scenario that
has Trump leaving the Republican Party to run as an independent candidate,
sometime before Iowa but after a number of debates (so he gets maximum
publicity but never loses a primary or caucus). Hey, he’s got the money to
go the independent route!

***

‘The air is coming out of the balloon.’

By John Feehery, president of QGA Public Affairs.

The air is coming out of the balloon. Trump will hurt himself with
undisciplined comments and he will cease to be a candidate by the end of
the year. He will not run as a third party candidate, unless his daughter
and Chelsea Clinton have some sort of private agreement that we know
nothing about.

***

‘Believe that Trump has more staying power.’

By Douglas Schoen, pollster for President Bill Clinton.

Believe that Trump has more staying power than some may think because of
the profound anger the Republican base has with the Republican
establishment.

A recent Quinnipiac poll in Colorado, Virginia and Iowa showed high
negatives for Trump, but so, too, do Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have high
negatives—indicating that the American electorate is disaffected across the
board. Trump ultimately will not be the Republican nominee, and he almost
certainly won’t run as an Independent, though he may well hint at the
possibility.

What Trump’s candidacy does is to underscore profoundly, as does Bernie
Sanders, how much anger there is across the board in America. With very
good reason!

***

‘His candidacy is shining a bright light on some of the most intolerant
factions in the right wing.’

By Bill Burton, former senior strategist for Priorities USA Action, a super
PAC in support of President Barack Obama.

My view is that there is great value in the fact that his candidacy is
shining a bright light on some of the most intolerant factions in the right
wing. My hope is that he sticks around just long enough for America to
snuff out some of the worst of what he represents.

My friend Paul Begala taught me that cockroaches are around even if you
don’t see them—but you’ll never be able to kill them unless you turn the
lights on.

***

‘Who the hell knows.’

By Ana Navarro, Florida-based Republican strategist.

Who the hell knows what the final episode of the Trump telenovela will be.
You are better off asking that question of a psychiatrist, not a political
analyst.

*Donald Trump in Iowa: 'Drudge is amazing'
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/donald-trump-in-iowa-drudge-is-amazing-211256.html?ml=tl_5>
// Politico // Hadas Gold - July 25, 2015*

Speaking here at a campaign event in Iowa, Republican Presidential
candidate Donald Trump had high praise for a site that’s an important
factor among conservatives and the media: The Drudge Report.

“Drudge, who is great by the way, Drudge is amazing," Trump said as he was
retelling his story of visiting the border in Laredo, Texas.

Trump had little good will for the rest of the media in his speech here in
front of a packed auditorium of more than 600 people at Oskaloosa high
school (with at least 400 in an overflow room). The billionaire real estate
mogul opened his speech by bashing the Des Moines Register —whose reporters
he had banned from the event, his team said on Friday, because the paper
had published an editorial calling on Trump to drop out of the race.

“The Des Moines Register is standing outside too," Trump said to cheers
from the audience. “It's a super liberal rag that’s not respected around
here.”

(During the event, the Register’s chief political correspondent Jennifer
Jacobs tweeted that the paper did in fact have a reporter inside the
auditorium covering the event).

Trump said the press often misquotes him and doesn’t accurately report how
many people come out to see him or how much he’s worth.

“A lot of political press is great like 30, 35 percent,” he said. “Some are
so dishonest. You'll have a crowd like this and they'll say it’s miniscule.”

Trump also claimed that reporters have been calling him to apologize for
mischaracterizing his remarks about Mexican immigrants.

*Donald Trump Turns His Gaze to Scott Walker in Iowa
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-25/donald-trump-turns-his-gaze-to-scott-walker-in-iowa>
// Bloomberg // Ben Brody - July 25, 2015*

During an appearance in Iowa Saturday, real estate mogul Donald Trump
turned his attention to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a chief rival for
the Republican presidential nomination and the current front-runner in the
state that holds the nation's first presidential nominating event.

"Wisconsin is doing terribly," Trump said. The tycoon, who is leading the
Republican pack of 16 in several national polls, said Wisconsin had seen
budget deficits and high borrowing which led to poor infrastructure under
Walker. "The hospitals and education is a disaster."

Trump also pointed out that Walker, who has repeatedly visited neighboring
Iowa and was the first choice of 22 percent of likely Republican
caucus-goers there in a recent poll, had supported the Common Core
education standards that much of the GOP base now derides. Trump received
support from 13 percent of people in the poll, putting him in second place.

The attacks, which focused on the record of a strong rival, contrasted with
Trump's personal attacks on a past candidate and a low-polling candidate,
respectively,  in the past week. He told an Iowa audience on July 18 that
Arizona Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war who was the
Republican presidential nominee in 2008 and who chairs the Senate Armed
Services Committee, was a war hero only because he had been captured.  On
July 21, he gave out the personal phone number of South Carolina Senator
Lindsey Graham, who attacked Trump over the McCain comments and statements
on immigration, but who hardly registers in polls.

Trump said that he had been holding back on Walker, whom he called "a nice
guy," until he read that an ally of the governor had insulted the
businessman. A Walker fundraiser had called Trump "DumbDumb" in an event
invitation, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"I say, 'Oh finally I can attack,'" Trump said in relating the story
Saturday at the "Make America Great Again" rally and picnic in Oskaloosa.
"I would have never done this. I didn’t know. Because I hear the only one
beating me in Iowa is Scott Walker, and not by that much."

He then had a request for the audience:  "Will you please put me in first
place so I feel better?"

*Trump supporters in Iowa shrug off McCain controversy
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/trump-iowa/> // CNN // MJ Lee
and Ashley Killough - July 26, 2015*

Donald Trump returned to Iowa on Saturday one week after setting off a
national firestorm about Arizona Sen. John McCain's service in war.

But rather than condemn the billionaire businessman for his flamboyant
attacks on other Republicans, including McCain, many Trump fans here seemed
to give the presidential candidate a different message: Go get 'em.

Trump admirers showed up in droves to a rally and picnic at Oskaloosa High
School, eager to catch a glimpse of the reality TV star who has dominated
the 2016 campaign with both his inflammatory comments and his signature
unapologetic and brash persona.

Around a dozen Trump supporters -- many of whom endured the sweltering heat
outside for hours -- told CNN that they were enamored by Trump's unfiltered
rhetoric, as well as the stark contrast between the New York real estate
magnate and other more seasoned politicians in the GOP field.

Larry Howe, a 77-year-old retired veteran from Blakesburg, said Trump's
McCain comments from last weekend never bother him.

"He's honest. He tells is like it is. A lot of people don't like that but I
think we need a president that will tell it like it is," Howe said.

Tammy Runnalls, a 50-year-old Trump fan from the nearby town of Eddyville,
arrived at the school at 6 a.m. to get the first spot in line.

"He doesn't need anybody's money, he's not a career politician, he's not a
lawyer. I'm excited because he's not like everybody else in the field,"
Runnalls said. She added that Trump's McCain comments "went a little
overboard," but that they didn't make her less supportive of the candidate.

At a summit in Ames, Iowa, last weekend, Trump drew widespread condemnation
when he quipped that McCain was a "war hero because he was captured" during
the Vietnam War.

"I like people that weren't captured, OK?" Trump said.

Though Trump partly backtracked from those original comments, saying that
he does in fact believe McCain is a war hero, he has not apologized to the
2008 GOP presidential nominee. He has also since gone after his GOP
competitors for criticizing him for those remarks, particularly training
his ire on South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham for calling Trump a "jackass."

In one of the most colorful moments of the 2016 cycle, Trump read out loud
Graham's cell phone number on national television earlier this week,
inviting his supporters to give the senator a call.

Even undecided voters here in Oskaloosa said they found Trump's bombastic
style refreshing.

"He's really stirring things up. I do like that about him. I like his
outspokenness," said Steve Wickenkan, 58, a custodian for the Oskaloosa
schools who has previously supported President Barack Obama.

This weekend, Trump once again demonstrated that when critics come after
him, he only hits back harder.

The Des Moines Register said Friday that its journalists had been denied
credentials to Trump's Saturday rally because the paper's editorial board
penned a scathing piece calling Trump a "feckless blowhard" candidate
asking that he drop his White House bid.

Trump mocked the paper on Twitter, writing: "The the ultra liberal and
seriously failing Des Moines Register is BEGGING my team for press
credentials to my event in Iowa today-but they lie!"

His supporters egged him on, cheering when Trump gleefully kicked off his
hourlong rally by noting that the Des Moines Register had been kept outside.

Crystal Breuklander, an employee of the Oskaloosa Municipal Water
Department, said it was Trump's willingness to take on anybody that she
found so appealing.

"I like that he will speak his mind and is not swayed by others,"
Breuklander, 40, said. "I like his open-mindedness, and he's not intimated
by anybody."

*What is Trump's actual position on illegal immigration?
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/trump-illegal-immigration-inconsistent/index.html>
// CNN // Maeve Reston - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump rose to the top of the GOP presidential field by harnessing
the anger of many conservative Republicans about illegal immigration. But
he has softened his tone in recent days -- going so far as to say that he
would favor a "merit-based system" for undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

After weeks of criticism over the harsh tone of his presidential campaign
announcement -- where he claimed that Mexican immigrants were bringing
drugs and crime to the U.S., and calling some of them rapists -- Trump
seems to be edging toward a more moderate position.

On the campaign trail in recent weeks, Trump has shed little light on his
actual plans for dealing with illegal immigration beyond generalizations
that have often seemed far-fetched. Initially, he said he would build a
wall and make Mexico pay for it. On Thursday, during a visit to the
U.S.-Mexico border, he seemed to reverse course under questioning by CNN's
Dana Bash.

"In certain sections, you have to have a wall," he said.

His position on immigration -- which has been a huge part of his appeal
among conservative voters nationally -- grew even more muddled Friday when
he highlighted his support for a "merit-based system" for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Though he did not explain the mechanics of the system in any detail, it
sounded similar to the calls by some moderate Republicans for a path to
citizenship for undocumented workers, which has been an anathema to
hardline conservatives.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday, Trump insisted that he would secure the
border first and "take the bad ones" -- referring to undocumented
immigrants -- "and get them the hell out."

"We give them back to Mexico or we make sure they stay where they came
from," Trump told the show's hosts, noting that he would "secure the
border" first. But, he added in regard to the millions of undocumented
immigrants in this country, "I'm a very big believer in (the) merit system."

"I have to tell you, some of these people have been here; they've done a
good job; in some cases sadly they've been living under the shadows," Trump
said in his telephone interview. "We have to do something, so whether it's
merit, or whether it's whatever, but -- I'm a believer in the merit system.
Somebody's been outstanding, we (ought to) try to work something out."

It wasn't the first time that Trump had raised the possibility of a kinder,
gentler immigration policy. In fact, a number of conservative writers have
noted the irony of his appeal to the right flank of the Republican Party
given his moderate statements on immigration, as well as abortion, over the
years.

In a newsletter to his readers earlier this month entitled "Trump fans,
it's time for an intervention," National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg
noted that Trump told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in 2011 that he favored a
system where the U.S. determined which undocumented immigrants could stay
in this country on a "case by case" basis. The Glenn Beck program has also
cited that interview as a reason conservatives should not support the real
estate magnate.

In the 2011 interview, O'Reilly had asked Trump what he would do with "15
million illegal aliens already in the United States."

"You know, it's hard to generalize, but you're going to have to look at the
individual people, see how they've done, see how productive they've been,
see what their references are, and then make a decision," Trump said.

O'Reilly pointed out that kind of system would take a long time and require
a great deal of manpower.

"A long time," Trump responded, "but you know, you have some great
productive people that came in."

Trump's harsh vitriol about immigrants from Mexico in his announcement
speech also seems ironic, given his criticisms of what he cast as the
"mean-spirited" tone of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney on the topic.

Trump told the conservative outlet Newsmax in 2012 that Romney harmed the
Republican Party's image with his hard line views on illegal immigration.

"He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal," Trump told
Newsmax. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote."
Trump added that the GOP should develop better policies "with respect to
people wanting to be wonderful, productive citizens of this country."

Trump's visit to the U.S.-Mexico border this week brought a fresh round of
scrutiny to his positions -- and left more questions than answers. He was
once again effusive about his love for Mexico and said he thought he would
win "win the Hispanic vote," because "thousands and thousands of Hispanics
have worked for me."

When pressed by a reporter about what he would do with the 11 million
undocumented immigrants in the U.S., he dodged the question: "The first
thing we have to do is secure our borders and after that we're going to
have plenty of time to talk about it."

That dodge once again caught the attention of the conservative blogosphere.
The headline on the blog of the conservative Weekly Standard illustrated
the perils for Trump on the issue: "Trump suggests he may be open to
amnesty."

*Republican Support for Trump Surges but his Unfavorable Ratings are Also
Rising
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/25/republican_support_for_trump_surges_but_his_unfavorable_ratings_are_also.html>
// Slate // Daniel Politi - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump is not going away anytime soon. That much is clear from the
latest Economist/YouGov poll of the 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls
that claims support for the real estate magnate soared to 28 percent, up
from 15 percent the previous week. That means more than twice the number of
Republicans describe Trump as their first choice than former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush, who is backed by 14 percent of Republicans, and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has 13 percent support.

“There is clearly a core group of registered voters who identify as
Republicans that has coalesced around Trump’s tough talk and proposals,”
notes YouGov. “He is even more clearly in first place than he was two weeks
ago when Republicans are asked to choose among the current candidates.”

Yet it’s not all good news for Trump. Even as he solidifies his first-place
slot among Republican contenders, his unfavorable ratings are on the rise.
In the previous YouGov poll, Trump had the highest favorable ratings. In a
week, the reality TV star has seen his favorable ratings drop 11 points to
53 percent and his unfavorable ratings rise 15 points to 42 percent. And
despite the growing support, Republicans still don’t see him as the likely
nominee and largely expect Bush will be the party’s candidate.

Trump's unfavorable ratings are likely to increase considering that it’s
unclear how much the poll was affected by Trump’s criticism of Arizona Sen.
John McCain. The poll began on the same day Trump questioned McCain’s
status as a war hero so some of the respondents may not have been aware of
the controversy yet.

*Donald Trump is still rocketing up polls in dominating fashion
<http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-donald-trump-leads-jeb-bush-scott-walker-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Maxwell Tani - July 25, 2015*

Donald Trump is still the clear front-runner of the 2016 GOP presidential
field.

A new Economist/YouGov poll released on Friday actually showed Trump
gaining support in the last week, despite a controversy over his comments
questioning Sen. John McCain's (R-Arizona) status as a "war hero."

According to the poll, the number of registered Republican primary voters
who responded that Trump is their first choice jumped from 15% at the
beginning of July to 28% last week. Another 10% of voters pick him as their
second choice.

That puts the real-estate magnate far ahead of the next Republican
candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), as well as Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker (R), who saw his numbers jump following his campaign
announcement earlier this month.

The poll comes only a week after many analysts declared that Trump's
comments about McCain would mark a turning point in his campaign.

The line of thinking was that Republican primary voters — who are generally
much more hawkish — wouldn't take kindly to Trump's dismissive comments
about McCain's status as a prisoner of war.

But so far, no backlash appears to have materialized. In fact, Trump has
only gained support in the survey. And the poll found that 32% of GOP
primary voters don't think that Trump needed to apologize.

And the YouGov poll isn't the only poll to show that Trump is still
comfortably in the lead. A Monmouth University poll of GOP voters in Iowa
showed that Trump's support remained unchanged following the McCain flap.
And an ABC/Washington Post poll released earlier this week found him nearly
doubling Bush's support, as well.

Donald Trump planeLM OteroRepublican presidential hopeful Donald Trump
arriving at the airport for a visit to the US-Mexico border in Laredo,
Texas.

Pollsters have warned that early polls are not reliable indicators of real
support that will translate into votes. Voters are still not tuned into to
the election, and, at this point, candidates with high name recognition who
can dominate the news cycle can see inflated support. Trump — a media
sensation with decades of high-profile entertainment ventures, real-estate
deals, and reality-television show experience — is perfectly positioned to
take advantage of that.

Many pollsters have pointed to Trump's unfavorability rating, which remains
higher than other GOP candidates in most polls. The Economist/YouGov poll
showed the real-estate magnate's unfavorability ratings did rise slightly
following his comments about McCain.

"The poll results with regard to candidate standing are ephemeral at this
stage, primarily a function of name recognition," University of Michigan
political science professor Michael Tractor, a polling expert, told
Business Insider last month, as Trump began his surge. "Trump has greater
name recognition than many of the others, especially the governors. But
name recognition is not the same as support."

Some polls, however, have shown Trump's favorability numbers climbing. And
the real-estate mogul has bulldozed his way into the forefront of issues
that are hugely important in the 2016 race — especially with Republican
primary voters.

Trump was one of the first 2016 candidates to call attention to the death
of Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was allegedly murdered by an
immigrant living in the US without permission.

Trump got a shout-out during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week
from one of the witnesses, who thanked him for bringing attention to the
issue of violent crime committed by immigrants living in the US illegally.

And earlier this week, House Republicans passed an immigration bill that
Democrats dubbed "The Donald Trump Act."

*OTHER*

*'It sucks': The Republican criticism of their own debate process is
starting to heat up
<http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-debate-rules-2015-7> // Business
Insider // Maxwell Tani - July 25, 2015*

When the first Republican debate takes place on next month, 10 Republican
presidential candidates — including a billionaire reality-television star
and a retired neurosurgeon with zero executive experience — will likely be
onstage.

But six other candidates will be shut out — including, possibly, a former
US senator who won 11 states in the 2012 Republican primary, a Republican
senator with 20 years of congressional experience, and the governor of the
state where the debate is being held.

That's because Fox News and CNN, which are hosting the first two Republican
debates, decided to grant spots on the stage to the top 10 candidates based
on averages of several national, nonpartisan polls.

But many Republican Party strategists and some of the candidates themselves
are intensifying their criticism of how the networks are choosing
candidates for the debates. Curt Anderson, a former top Republican National
Committee official and now an adviser to candidate and Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal, argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week that the RNC should
"let all 16 candidates debate."

In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham
(R-South Carolina) again criticized Fox News and the Republican National
Committee for sticking by those rules, which look increasingly likely to
exclude him and some of the other lower-polling candidates from the August
6 debate.

"It sucks," Graham said, bluntly.

Opponents of the Fox/CNN model argue that it's unfair to rely heavily on
early polls, which tend to heavily favor candidates with higher name
recognition who can dominate the news cycle. Several times in making his
case about the debate rules, Graham has said that Brad Pitt would likely be
on the debate stage at this point if he had decided to run as a Republican.

University of Michigan polling expert Michael Traugott told Business
Insider that relying on early polls to determine who gets to debate
represents "a conflict between production values and the realities of early
political positioning."

"In this early phase, name recognition and media coverage means a lot for
recognition levels on national polls," Traugott said. "The dynamic is that
media exposure is positively correlated with poll standing (a la Trump), so
Graham is correct about suffering from a double whammy."

Other pollsters agreed.

"I think most pollsters agree that using our surveys more than six months
before anyone even votes to decide who gets to be in the debates is a
terrible process," Public Policy Polling Director Tom Jensen told Business
Insider.

Donald TrumpREUTERS/Dominick ReuterBusinessman and Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump greets supporters in Bedford, New Hampshire, June
30, 2015.

Some strategists argue that the lower-tier candidates are diverse and could
help bring other voters into the Republican tent.

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard chief executive, is the only
woman running on the Republican side — and it's looking like she won't make
the debate stage. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a pro-immigration-reform
Republican who has also embraced the Affordable Care Act, also looks poised
to be shut out unless he sees a bump from his announcement earlier this
week.

The format also could prevent lesser known and lesser funded candidates who
perform well in the debates from breaking out into the mainstream. Jensen
noted that in 2012, a strong debate performance helped provide a needed
boost for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), who went on to
win the South Carolina primary.

"When they can't all face off against at least a few of the others or more
than a few of the others ... it's hard to really measure the quality of
each individual candidate or get a sense of how they would actually perform
if nominated," Republican strategist Liz Mair told Business Insider.

On Thursday, Graham pointed out that he has only been able to raise his own
profile by attacking Trump — who has high unfavorability ratings and who
observers consider unlikely to actually win the GOP nomination.

“If my numbers go up just because I call Donald Trump a 'jackass,' that’s
not why I want to rise in the polls,” Graham said on Morning Joe. “The
bottom line is, I think the criteria in July of 2015 makes no sense. You’re
testing celebrity and name ID.”

Indeed, attacking Trump seems to be an actual strategy by some Republican
candidates to get onstage.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who is teetering on the edge of the
bubble, has managed to raise his media profile by bashing Trump in a series
of online videos, tweets, and speeches.

rick perryScott OlsonRepublican presidential candidate and former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry fields questions at The Family Leadership Summit.

As NPR has reported, there's also a statistical problem with leaning on
polls. The poll numbers determining who gets onstage — Perry currently
qualifies with 2.4% — are so small that the difference-making percentage
point could be within the margin of error.

“There's no difference between John Kasich and Bobby Jindal except one's
going to be in and one is going to be out,” Doug Usher of Purple Strategies
said, according to Bloomberg Politics. “Or maybe they're both going to be
out.”

Some observers have floated alternatives.

Mair has suggested that the Republican debates should be split up, with
candidates randomly assigned to each. Pollster Stu Rothenberg has agreed.

It should be noted that the lower-tier candidates have received media
coverage on Fox News and on CNN. Former Sen. Rick Santorum
(R-Pennsylvania), who appears unlikely to make it onto the stage despite
winning nearly a dozen states in the 2012 primary, spent an hour on the Fox
morning show 'Outnumbered' on Wednesday. He fielded softball questions and
was interviewed by his daughter. Graham himself has sat for interviews with
Fox more than 10 times this year.

And there's also a chance that some of the lower-tier candidates could
benefit from the early debates. The candidates who don't make the main
stage will participate in a forum airing before the official debate on Fox
News. If they manage to stand out in this arena, it could boost them,
allowing them a spot on the CNN debate in September.

A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment for this piece, and CNN did not
respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

*GOP presidential race will dominate Sunday shows
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/25/gop-presidential-race-sunday-shows/30663539/>
// USA Today // Deirdre Shesgreen - July 25, 2015*

GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump won't be on any of the Sunday talk
shows, but the New York billionaire will be center stage nonetheless.

Featured guests—including several of Trump's rivals for the GOP
nomination—will talk about Trump's controversial comments on immigration,
his blistering criticism of other Republicans, and his high standing in the
national polls. The Republican candidates will also, of course, tout their
own presidential prospects.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders, a Vermont independent, and others will talk about the success of
his populist message. And other panelists will discuss gun violence after
the recent shootings in Louisiana and Tennessee, along with the controversy
surrounding Planned Parenthood's handling of fetal tissue.

Here's the full lineup:

•CBS' Face the Nation: Former Texas Governor and GOP presidential candidate
Rick Perry; Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, also a presidential contender;
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia; ex-Obama National Security Adviser Tom
Donilon; and former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers,
R-Michigan.

•NBC's Meet the Press: Sanders; Jon Nichols, Washington correspondent for
The Nation; Patrick J. Buchanan, the one-time adviser to Presidents Richard
Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the 16th
Republican to jump into the presidential race.

•CNN's State of the Union: Perry will appear again, along with: S.E. Cupp,
a CNN political commentator; Bakari Sellers, former South Carolina House of
Representative; Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia attorney general; and Neera
Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy
group.

•Fox News Sunday: GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

•ABC's This Week: Attorney General Loretta Lynch, South Carolina Republican
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is also running for president; and Cecile
Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

•WUSA9 Capital Download: Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md; Paul S. Ryan of the
Campaign Legal Center; political roundtable with Politico's Manu Raju and
NPR's Domenico Montanero.

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*Presidential Race Just Started? Not According to the Spending
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/presidential-race-just-started-not-according-to-the-spending.html?ref=us>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore, Sarah Cohen, and Eric Lichtblau - July 25,
2015*

Since late last year, presidential hopefuls have been romancing donors,
hiring staff and haunting the diners and senior centers of Manchester and
Dubuque.

But on paper, most of the candidates spent virtually no money exploring a
presidential bid until very recently. According to campaign disclosures
filed with the Federal Election Commission last week, the much-promoted
campaign staff they hired had other jobs. And their many, many trips to New
Hampshire and Iowa had nothing to do with running for president.

Such accounting — which the campaigns defended as perfectly appropriate but
some election lawyers said violated the law — has allowed would-be
candidates to spend months testing the presidential waters while saving
cash to use later in the primaries.

It also let them tap their most loyal donors for additional funds that will
not count against the limits on contributions to their official campaigns.
And it has contributed to what some experts described as a kind of campaign
Wild West, with candidates and their lawyers testing or crossing legal
boundaries stretched thin by the advent of “super PACs” and by Federal
Election Commission deadlocks.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” said Kenneth Gross, a Washington election
lawyer and former Federal Election Commission general counsel. “This
campaign cycle more than any other, we’ve seen more pre-announcement
activity being paid for through essentially unregulated money.”

Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have billed hotel rooms in New Hampshire
and consulting fees for Iowa strategists to their re-election campaigns in
Texas and Kentucky. Gov. Scott Walker billed fees to a Texas-based
fund-raiser, hired in March, to his Wisconsin state campaign, months after
he was re-elected governor and years away from a potential 2018 Statehouse
bid.

Several candidates, including former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, Gov. Bobby
Jindal of Louisiana and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, reported to the
Federal Election Commission that they spent almost nothing to explore a
presidential bid until a few days before they jumped into the race. Federal
law requires declared candidates to retroactively report “exploratory”
expenses once they enter the race.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, reported hundreds of thousands of
dollars of exploratory spending, dating to May last year, on political and
legal advice. But he did not report any travel expenses before June, though
he traveled extensively during the winter and spring to meet with donors
and attend town-hall-style meetings in early primary states.

Mr. Bush and some other White House contenders say those expenses are
unrelated to their presidential campaigns and were paid for by other
political organizations — typically not subject to the same disclosure
rules and contribution limits as presidential candidates. The campaigns
argued that any costs paid for by such groups were unrelated to exploring a
presidential bid and did not need to be repaid once the candidates
announced their bids.

One such group, Conservative Solutions Project, a nonprofit set up by
allies of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, picked up the tab for extensive
research of Republican primary voters, the kind of expense that would-be
candidates bore in the past.

Other White House contenders have assigned months’ worth of expenses to
campaigns for other offices.

Last summer, Mr. Paul hired Steve Grubbs, a former chairman of the Iowa
Republican Party and an expert on the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses,
to assist with his national political efforts.

Mr. Grubbs indicated in an email that he is currently advising Mr. Paul
about Iowa, and Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign paid his firm, Victory
Enterprises, about $200,000 during the second quarter of 2015.

But during the first quarter of 2015, Mr. Grubbs’s fees — about $15,000 —
came out of Mr. Paul’s Senate account. A spokesman for Mr. Paul, Sergio
Gor, said those earlier payments were unrelated to the senator’s
presidential campaign.

Mr. Cruz is not up for re-election in Texas until 2018. But his Senate
campaign committee was billed thousands of dollars in meals, hotels, car
services and other travel expenses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Mr. Cruz’s Senate committee also paid $12,903 in April and May to a company
controlled by Bryan English, the Iowa campaign director for Mr. Cruz’s
presidential bid. Mr. English’s LinkedIn profile states that he began
working for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign in April.

Another payment, billed to his Senate campaign in early March, appears to
correspond with Mr. Cruz’s trip to Iowa for the Iowa Agriculture Summit.
The gathering is described on its website as “a unique forum for potential
and likely presidential candidates from both major parties to discuss
issues of vital importance to the Iowa and national economies.”

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz, said his presidential
campaign intended to reimburse his Senate committee for any 2016-related
expenses once they had all been identified and calculated. She also said
that the dates on Mr. Cruz’s reports did not necessarily reflect the actual
dates the expenses were incurred, and that it was “standard practice to use
the credit card payment date for all the ultimate vendors.”

“We are well aware of the expenses, as they will be part of a larger
reimbursement from the presidential committee to the Senate committee that
will be disclosed on our next F.E.C. report,” Ms. Frazier said.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who announced in April that she would seek the
Democratic nomination, was among the more conservative candidates in
accounting for her spending. Her campaign reported $278,821 in exploratory
expenses, including office rent, staff travel and employee salaries and
benefits, which she paid for out of her own pocket.

And unlike other candidates, Mrs. Clinton maintained a low profile before
entering the race in April: A tally kept by the National Journal showed
only five public trips before April, four of them for paid speeches and
none in the early primary states.

Mr. Walker did not enter the campaign until after the period covered by the
most recent federal filings. But the committee for his campaign for
Wisconsin governor, Friends of Scott Walker, collected $6 million from
January to July, according to reports filed with regulators in Wisconsin.

His state committee, bound by Wisconsin law, was entitled to raise far more
money per donor than a presidential campaign would be. And during the first
six months of his second term, when Mr. Walker made more than 30
out-of-state trips, Friends of Scott Walker spent $5.7 million, more than
five times what the committee spent during the equivalent six months of Mr.
Walker’s first term.

With any Wisconsin re-election bid at least three years away, Mr. Walker’s
committee paid out nearly $500,000 in salaries and benefits. Friends of
Scott Walker also spent $114,000 on fund-raising events, 10 times what it
spent on fund-raising during the equivalent period during his first term.

His Wisconsin re-election campaign paid for hotels and meals in Iowa and
New Hampshire from January to April. The committee has paid $2.5 million to
his direct mail fund-raising firm this year, more than Mr. Walker spent
with the company during his entire 2014 re-election campaign.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Walker, Kirsten Kukowski, said the Iowa and New
Hampshire expenses covered employees who “continued to assist in staffing
and fund-raising for the Friends of Scott Walker committee.” The direct
mail firm, she said, was raising money only for his campaign for governor.

Mr. Bush’s schedule in the months before he announced his candidacy was
packed with the kind of appearances that would-be candidates typically use
to explore their chances in a presidential race. He made three trips to New
Hampshire, two to Iowa and two to South Carolina from January to May,
according to public reports, and held numerous meetings with donors around
the country.

But while Mr. Bush’s presidential campaign reported spending more than
$300,000 on “testing the waters” activity as far back as May 2014, he
reported no travel expenses for himself before June 15, the day of the
official announcement.

“He was traveling constantly in what appears to me to be ‘testing the
waters’ if not actually campaigning,” said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel to
the Campaign Legal Center, which has filed complaints with the Justice
Department about Mr. Bush’s early fund-raising and spending.

Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said the travel expenses were
covered by Right to Rise PAC, a political committee of which Mr. Bush was
“honorary chairman,” and were not related to his presidential bid.
“Governor Bush has attended events as a featured guest for organizations
that have a mission and philosophy he shares,” Ms. Campbell said.

Mr. Jindal reported only $21,000 in spending before his official
announcement on June 23, mostly on facility rentals shortly before the
announcement. Yet before that date, the Louisiana governor took
high-profile trips to New Hampshire and Iowa to explore a possible run.

Curt Anderson, the chief strategist for Mr. Jindal’s campaign, said in an
interview that those trips were paid for by two other groups, one of them a
nonprofit policy organization that Mr. Jindal founded in 2013. The
campaign’s own low burn rate, Mr. Anderson suggested, was merely an
indication of Mr. Jindal’s thrift.

“We’ll run a very lean operation for some time and get a foothold in the
early states,” Mr. Anderson said. “We’re going to want every dollar.”

*Candidates Caught in Middle as Words Ring Hollow to Activists
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/candidates-caught-in-middle-as-words-ring-hollow-to-activists.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman - July 25, 2015*

In the space of a few hours last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush
showed how their parties’ two best-funded candidates are grappling with
insistent, intensifying demands from activists on the left and the right
who are deeply disenchanted with the political establishment.

Before a heavily African-American audience in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton
sought to outflank her Democratic rivals who have struggled with questions
of race. “It’s essential that we all stand up and say, loudly and clearly,
that, yes, black lives matter,” she said on Thursday. “And we all have a
responsibility to face these hard truths about race and justice honestly
and directly.”

But Mrs. Clinton offered little in the way of ideas to satisfy activists in
search of far-reaching solutions to systemic discrimination.

Later the same day in rural New Hampshire, Mr. Bush sought to strike a
balance between his view that Republicans must be inclusive to win and a
desire not to give in to what he called excessive political correctness.

“A Republican will never be elected president of the United States again
unless we campaign like this,” he said, spreading his arms wide. It was an
implicit rejection of Donald J. Trump’s incendiary remarks about immigrants.

Yet, talking to reporters after the event, Mr. Bush was nearly incredulous
that Martin O’Malley, a Democratic contender and former Maryland governor,
had apologized for telling demonstrators who interrupted him at Netroots
Nation last weekend that “all lives matter.”

“We’re so uptight and politically correct now that you apologize for saying
lives matter?” he said, dismissing “black lives matter” as “a slogan.”

The well-organized “Black Lives Matter” movement against discrimination and
police brutality, on the one hand, and conservatives uneasy about
immigration and assimilation, on the other, reflect sharply different
currents of anger in American life. But the demands that each constituency
is placing on the leading presidential candidates reflect a growing
unwillingness to accept the usual assurances, an expectation of action —
and discomfiting strains on the political center.

“There’s tension at the seams of both political coalitions,” said Pat
Buchanan, the conservative commentator, who has run Republican and
third-party campaigns for president.

On the left, young black activists, furious about discrimination and
inequities in criminal justice, say the usual rhetorical nods toward
equality, incremental increases in funding for housing or education, and
vague promises of change from mainstream political leaders are inadequate.
Instead, they are confronting Democrats, imploring them to offer specific
solutions for what they see as an urgent crisis.

Tia Oso, the black activist who interrupted Mr. O’Malley’s speech at the
progressive Netroots gathering in Phoenix, cited “an emergency.”

“The most important and urgent issue of our day is structural violence and
systemic racism that is oppressing and killing black women, men and
children,” Ms. Oso wrote on Mic.com.

And Jamilah Nasheed, a Missouri state senator from heavily black northern
St. Louis, near the center of protests over the fatal shooting of an
unarmed black man in Ferguson last year, said the anger was moving “beyond
protest.”

“You’re seeing a movement now,” Ms. Nasheed said, describing a “boil-over
of anger and hopelessness.”

Mrs. Clinton was praised for a speech on race she delivered days after the
massacre at a black church in Charleston, S.C., last month. But several
black leaders questioned whether her early words would translate into calls
for substantive changes beyond the debate over policing.

In the eyes of many black liberals, no candidate is addressing race and
poverty with the boldness of a Robert F. Kennedy.

On the right, by contrast, blue-collar conservatives have responded to Mr.
Trump, who has given voice to their fears about what they see as America’s
identity crisis.

“It’s not only illegal immigration, but mass immigration and the changing
character and composition of the country that unsettles people,” Mr.
Buchanan said.

Mr. Trump’s success so far suggests that the eventual Republican nominee
could face difficulties persuading many in the party to adopt a more
accommodating tone and policies toward immigrants.

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll found that his support came largely from
white voters with high school diplomas, a constituency that was most likely
to believe that immigration does not strengthen American society.

While Mr. Bush has continued to advocate a pathway to legal status for
those in the country illegally, some of his rivals have mused about a
harder line. “The next president and the next Congress need to make
decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based, first and
foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages,” Gov. Scott
Walker of Wisconsin said in April. And in an ad aired by his “super PAC” in
Iowa, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana took on the matter of assimilation
directly, saying that he was “tired of hyphenated Americans” and that
immigrants must “adopt our values.”

Should the two parties nominate Mr. Bush and Mrs. Clinton, heirs in the
country’s leading political families, it is not difficult to imagine a
conservative candidate’s mounting a populist third-party run, much as Mr.
Buchanan once did, that taps into anti-trade and anti-immigration fervor on
the right.

The enhanced expectations and louder shouting from both ends of the
political spectrum are a natural outgrowth of President Obama’s
administration, said Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University historian.
Ambitious presidents who usher in or oversee periods of sweeping change, he
said, often lead to the creation of pressure groups on their own side and a
fiercer backlash from the opposition.

The John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson presidencies, Mr. Kazin said, did
not just spawn an idealistic generation of Democratic baby boomers. “They
created the New Left and black freedom movement, both of which became quite
critical of Kennedy, Johnson and the entire political establishment,” he
said.

The sense, then and now, is that “their problems are not being addressed,
and nobody in either party is truly addressing them,” Mr. Kazin said

But Elon James White, the founder of “This Week in Blackness,” a digital
media platform, who also works with Netroots Nation, said that would have
to change.

“Folks are going to have to learn,” he said, “that people are not going to
sit around anymore and let this ride.”

*All 2016 presidential candidates should disclose campaign bundlers
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-2016-presidential-candidates-should-disclose-campaign-bundlers/2015/07/25/0b33b95a-309b-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html>
// WaPo // Editorial Board - July 25, 2015*

APOLLO, VOYAGER, Endeavour. These familiar names no longer belong only to
space shuttles: They’re also how Jeb Bush is categorizing his top donors in
the 2016 presidential race. We hope Mr. Bush will attach identities to
those titles and make them public, as he has promised. We also hope other
candidates who have not yet disclosed their campaign bundlers will do the
same.

Mr. Bush has pledged to release the names of high-achieving individual
fundraisers in October at the third-quarter Federal Election Commission
deadline. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has made the same promise. That’s a
big change from 2012, when no Republican candidate volunteered any more
information than the law required, and a welcome one. On the Democratic
side, Hillary Clinton has already released the names of bundlers dubbed
“Hillblazers” who have raised at least $100,000 for her campaign.

Candidates such as Mr. Bush and Mr. Walker are right to follow Ms.
Clinton’s lead. The rest of the pack should, too. Bundlers get huge perks
for their fundraising efforts — for many of President Obama’s campaign
supporters, even ambassadorships. The public deserves to know who these
favored backers are and how much they are giving.

In fact, even Ms. Clinton has not gone far enough. Though she has provided
a blanket list of bundlers who have raised more than $100,000, she has not
broken that list down by the amounts raised, as Mr. Obama did for donations
above $50,000 in his two campaigns. Who is hauling more than $500,000 for
Ms. Clinton? How about $1 million? We do not know. When asked, a campaign
spokesman declined to provide any answers.

It’s heartening that Mr. Bush and Mr. Walker — serious contenders for the
Republican nomination — have made a move toward transparency, especially
when so many fell short last cycle. Today, super PACs package billions of
dollars for candidates. Almost every major candidate except Bernie Sanders
has at least one as a backer. “Dark money” also streams into presidential
and congressional races from nonprofit corporations that can donate
unlimited amounts without disclosing individual contributors.

Recently, these issues might have overshadowed bundling on the national
stage, but in many ways it is as important as ever. The FEC caps individual
contributions at $2,700 for good reason: to limit any one person’s
influence on a race and prevent corruption. Yet bundlers retain the ability
to exert power and then reap the rewards.

When Mr. Bush and Mr. Walker release the names of their bundlers, they
should do it right — with a low threshold for disclosure and a breakdown of
bundlers into brackets according to gross amounts raised. Ms. Clinton
should also go the extra distance. And those candidates who have done
nothing so far should move quickly.

*No rest for the candidates in this summer of discontent
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-summer-of-political-discontent-has-most-presidential-aspirants-scrambling/2015/07/25/591f6b84-32d8-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html>
// WaPo // Dan Balz - July 25, 2015*

Dissatisfaction and protest are roiling the politics of summer 2015. They
are evident in the response to the angry rhetoric from Donald Trump, in the
crowds that come to hear Bernie Sanders bash Wall Street and in the rallies
demanding racial justice. For presidential candidates, there is no safe
harbor. Ignore the mood at your peril; engage it at your peril.

The discontent is real, whether economic, racial or cultural. It knows no
particular ideological boundaries. It currently disrupts both the
Republican and Democratic parties. It reflects grievances that long have
been bubbling. It reflects, too, the impatience with many political leaders
— what they say and how they say it.

The economic collapse of 2008 continues to ripple through the lives of many
families, despite the drop in unemployment. Steady but slow growth has not
been balm enough to give these families, many of whom see a system rife
with inequity, much optimism about the future. Instead, they see the
American Dream as part of the nation’s past.

The uproar over illegal immigration underscores the anger over what many
still see as broken borders, an issue heightened by the recent killing in
San Francisco of a young woman by an illegal immigrant with a criminal
record who had been deported but returned to the country. But immigration
also is tied to the broader cultural reaction to demographic changes that
continue to remake the face of the country and generate tensions that are
at the heart of political differences.

Racial issues remain front and center, whether the killings in a black
church in Charleston by a young man who wanted to start a race war or
repeated episodes that have raised hard questions of how police and law
enforcement officials treat African Americans. All this is a reminder that,
almost seven years after the election of the nation’s first black president
and all of the progress that made that possible, work remains to be done.

It is tempting to try to dismiss Trump for what he is — a reality TV
showman who talks as much about himself as anything else. The support he is
receiving in national polls, however, suggests more than just a response to
a celebrity with a loud voice. He has tapped into something.

Trump is not particularly conservative — or, more accurately, he seems to
have no fixed ideology. He amplifies dissatisfaction without proposing real
solutions to the country’s problems, other than building a big wall. Yet he
speaks about things in a language so blunt and uncharacteristic of
politicians that it wins visceral approval from disaffected Americans.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says Trump brings out the “crazies” in the
Republican Party on the issue of immigration. In fact, Trump’s candidacy
highlights the reality that there is an unresolved debate within the GOP
about what to do about it. This is an argument of long standing. Each time
McCain and other Republicans have stepped up to solve it with a
comprehensive solution, they have been rebuffed by the party’s conservative
base. Trump has scratched at the wound again this summer.

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is running for the
Democratic nomination, seems to be an extension of the Occupy Wall Street
movement that began four years ago. That movement struggled to find
political traction the way the tea party movement had two years earlier.
But it nonetheless had an indelible impact on the political dialogue by
framing the economic debate as the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent.

Obama carefully subsumed the unrest represented by the Occupy Wall Street
movement into his middle-class message in 2012. In Mitt Romney, he found
the perfect foil, an opponent he portrayed as an out-of-touch plutocrat.
That was enough to win reelection.

Yet four years later, the Democrats find themselves debating not just
Republicans about the economy but one another, as well. They debate how far
left they should move to deal with the issues of income and wealth
inequality and the power of what Sanders calls “the billionaire class.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of the way there in responding to the
economic unrest, at least rhetorically. Sanders says that she and he
continue to have major disagreements on the particulars of what to do. The
outpouring of support he has seen at events around the country and the
recent rise in his poll numbers in New Hampshire and Iowa will keep the
pressure on Clinton to keep responding. She will try to calibrate the
extent of her move to the left.

The signs of discontent have flummoxed many of the presidential candidates.
Each party wants this election to be about the weaknesses and
vulnerabilities of the other. Yet the intraparty strife cannot easily be
ignored.

Republican candidates were slow to challenge Trump’s language on
immigration — both those who strongly disagree with his positions and those
who generally agree. Engaging Trump carries risks. He swings back hard,
sometimes wildly but sometimes with the nimbleness and precision of a
practiced politician.

Many Republicans want Trump to go away. But they are wary about trying to
hasten his fall because they fear they will pay too high a price among
those for whom he has provided a voice.

Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley went to the Netroots
Nation convention a week ago, no doubt looking to find a sympathetic
audience for their populist economic message. It was an event, after all,
that Clinton did not attend, for the obvious reason that she likely would
not have been welcomed.

Instead, though, Sanders and O’Malley were caught unprepared for the
interruptions from the Black Lives Matter movement, and neither looked
particularly adept or comfortable as they responded. Sanders seemed to
throw up his hands in frustration over the interruption. Then he invoked
his civil rights work as evidence that he stood with African Americans.
O’Malley said that “all lives matter” and later apologized. Clinton was the
lucky one for not having attended, but she will not escape the issue,
either.

Few Republicans expect Trump to become their party’s nominee. They worry
that his candidacy alone, if left to run for months, could condemn them to
another defeat in November 2016, even if he eventually disappears. Their
other concern is that Trump might eventually run as an independent, in
which case he could drain more than enough votes from their nominee to cost
them the general election.

Not many Democrats yet think Sanders has the staying power to defeat
Clinton, even if he can give her a good scare. Strange things happen in
nomination contests. But Clinton’s advisers vow they will not be caught by
surprise by an insurgency from the left.

Even if both Trump and Sanders end up merely as interesting characters
rather than long-distance runners, the unrest that has contributed to the
attention they are now receiving will remain. Distrust of the political
class will infect the campaign, adding to the burdens the major party
nominees will carry into the general election and beyond. It is embedded in
the politics of now.

*2016 candidates on campaign trail miss votes and home-state duties as they
juggle day job
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/25/senators-governors-in-white-house-runs-face-questions-on-missing-votes-juggling/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cbon1-c%7Cdl5%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1695642913>
// Fox // Joseph Weber - July 25, 2015*

Elected officials making a 2016 White House bid are facing questions about
missing votes, hearings and other official duties so they can hit the
campaign trail.

On Capitol Hill, the four Republican and one Democratic senator have since
January collectively missed 208 roll call votes, with Election Day still
roughly 15 months away.

Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as of Monday had missed the most, 72 out of
249, or 29 percent, while Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul had missed just
three, according to the website GovTrack.us.

“Sen. Rand Paul never stops fighting for the people of Kentucky,” campaign
Communications Director Sergio Gor told FoxNews.com. “He takes his job
immensely seriously. And unlike other candidates, he has missed only 1
percent of all votes.”

Rubio campaign spokesman Alex Conant points out that a senator missing
votes while running for president is not unusual. And he argued that Rubio
is on Capitol Hill to cast “decisive” votes and continues to attend
important committee meetings including this week's Foreign Relations
hearing on Iran.

“As Marco travels the country talking about his agenda to help the middle
class, there is no doubt where he stands on important issues before the
Senate," Conant said.

Kendra B. Stewart, a professor at South Carolina’s College of Charleston,
said Wednesday that missing votes is generally not a liability for
political candidates “unless somebody misses an excessive number and is
portrayed as being lazy or not doing their job.”

“It is hard to say what exactly an acceptable number of missed votes is
because there is no clear line,” she said. “But in general, candidates do
not get much flack.”

Stewart also argues that missing a vote could work for a candidate who
would not want to go on the record voting either way.

In April, 2016 GOP candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was criticized for
attending a campaign fundraiser at home instead of taking a final
confirmation vote for Loretta Lynch as President Obama’s choice for U.S.
attorney general.

However, Cruz argued that he had already voted twice against Lynch being
confirmed and that his absence was equivalent to another ‘no’ vote.

Political author Ira Shapiro on Thursday pointed to two cases in which
White House candidates -- Senate Democratic Majority Leader Lyndon B.
Johnson (1960) and Republican Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker (1980) --
mistakenly assumed they could win support for their candidacy by staying in
Washington and using their leadership roles to help pass key legislation.

“They thought their position and accomplishments would give them real
visibility and credibility. They didn’t realize that they needed to get out
of Washington and run for president,” said Shapiro, author of “The Last
Great Senate: Courage and Statesmanship in Times of Crisis?”

The four governors in the race -- all Republicans -- have faced similar
criticism, particularly about leaving behind important state business just
to build a campaign.

None of them has taken more heat than New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who
last year as president of the Republican Governors Association, a job with
enormous potential to build name recognition and a donor network, spent
about one-third of his time out of the state.

And this year, prior to Christie officially announcing his bid, he was
spending roughly 46 percent of his time outside of New Jersey.

"It's outrageous," said John Currie, chairman of the New Jersey Democratic
State Committee. "Anyone else who skipped work so often would be fired. …
If he is truly committed to seeking the presidency, he should just resign.”

A poll released last month showed Christie’s approval rating at a
record-low 30 percent but also showed low marks for state legislators.

The Christie campaign declined to comment.

Christie, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, New Jersey’s Scott Walker and Ohio’s
John Kasich all waited until they wrapped up 2016 budget negotiations
before officially entering the race, weeks and months after most of the
other candidates had joined, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage.

Walker, whose second term doesn’t expire until 2019, jumped in just one day
after signing the state budget on July 12. And this week he was still
taking care of statehouse business, signing a bill Monday that outlaws
non-emergency abortions at or beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.

All of the governors, in fact, entered the race within days of signing
their respective budgets, except for Kasich who joined Tuesday, about three
weeks after signing the 2016 Ohio budget.

Conant also pointed out that senators in the most recent presidential
elections also missed votes during campaigns.

In the 2004 race, Democratic nominee and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry
voted 10 percent of the time that year on Capitol Hill. And he voted 36
percent the year before.

In 2008, the top Democrat candidates -- Sens. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., and
eventual White House winner, Obama, then an Illinois senator -- voted 51
percent and 36 percent. They voted 77 percent and 62 percent, respectively,
the year before.

The Republican presidential nominee that year, Arizona Sen. John McCain,
voted 20 percent of the time in 2008 and 44 percent in 2007.

Still, the less-than-perfect records are not an indication of how senators
running for president always vote.

Kerry’s voting percentage, for example, was no less than 98 percent in 10
of the 12 previous years.

The missed-vote median score for senators currently serving is 1.6 percent.

South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of other senators running for
president, has missed 24 percent of the 249 roll call votes this year but
was a perfect 112-122 his first year, 2003.

Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, running on the Democratic ticket,
has missed 6 percent of his votes. And Cruz has missed 28 percent.

Shapiro argues that senators don’t get a lot of criticism for being off
Capitol Hill to run for president because voters are never surprised that a
White House bid is the next step in their careers.

He noted many examples of senators who failed to reach the White House but
came back to be long-serving and powerful senators, most notably the late
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

*Bush, O’Malley among candidates added to Register’s Soapbox lineup
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/25/iowa-state-fair-register-soapbox-candidates/30679027/>
// Des Moines Register // Brianne Pfannestiel - July 25, 2015*

Six more presidential candidates have committed to speaking at The Des
Moines Register’s State Fair Soapbox during the 2015 Iowa State Fair.

Democrats Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee will join Republicans Jeb
Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. They will speak at the
following times:

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: 4 p.m., Aug. 13.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 9:30 a.m., Aug. 14.

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee: 11:30 a.m., Aug. 15.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina: 11 a.m., Aug. 17.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: 10 a.m., Aug. 19.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: 1:30 p.m. Aug. 21.

Speeches from the soapbox, an Iowa State Fair tradition, attract national
media coverage during years leading up to the Iowa presidential caucuses.

The soapbox generally operates every day of the fair, this year Aug. 13 to
23. Candidates will have 20 minutes to speak from a stage in front of the
Horner Service Center on the Grand Concourse.

Anyone wishing to see the candidates at the soapbox must pay admission to
the fair.

A special presentation by President George Washington, portrayed by Ron
Carnegie, will kick off the 2015 soapbox. He’ll speak on the importance of
voting and will field questions from fair attendees.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz also will
speak.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*U.S. Fears Data Stolen by Chinese Hacker Could Identify Spies
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/world/asia/us-fears-data-stolen-by-chinese-hacker-could-identify-spies.html?ref=us>
// NYT // Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger - July 25, 2015*

American officials are concerned that the Chinese government could use the
stolen records of millions of federal workers and contractors to piece
together the identities of intelligence officers secretly posted in China
over the years.

The potential exposure of the intelligence officers could prevent a large
cadre of American spies from ever being posted abroad again, current and
former intelligence officials said. It would be a significant setback for
intelligence agencies already concerned that a recent data breach at the
Office of Personnel Management is a major windfall for Chinese espionage
efforts.

In the days after the breach of records of millions of federal workers and
contractors became public last month, some officials in the Obama
administration said that the theft was not as damaging as it might have
been because the Chinese hackers did not gain access to the identities of
American undercover spies.

Katherine Archuleta, director of the Office of Personnel Management, in
Congress on Tuesday.Attack Gave Chinese Hackers Privileged Access to U.S.
Systems JUNE 20, 2015

The records of the C.I.A. and some other intelligence agencies, they said,
were never part of the personnel office’s databases, and were protected
during the breach. Officials said intelligence agencies were taking steps
to try to mitigate the damage, but it is unclear what they are specifically
doing.

But intelligence and congressional officials now say there is great concern
that the hackers — who government officials are now reluctant to say
publicly were working for the Chinese government — could still use the vast
trove of information to identify American spies by a process of
elimination. By combining the stolen data with information they have
gathered over time, they said, the hackers can use “big data analytics” to
draw conclusions about the identities of operatives.

“The information that was exfiltrated was valuable in its own right,” said
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee. “It’s even more compromising when it is used in
combination with other information they may hold. It may take years before
we’re aware of the full extent of the damage.”

The C.I.A. and other agencies with undercover officers would be cautious
about immediately withdrawing spies from China because that would raise
suspicions among Chinese counterintelligence operatives. A C.I.A. spokesman
declined to comment.

The C.I.A. and other agencies typically post their spies in American
embassies, where the officers pose as diplomats working on political
affairs, agricultural policy or other issues. The American Embassy in
Beijing has long housed one of the largest C.I.A. stations in the world,
with intelligence officers gathering information on China’s political
maneuvering, economic development and military modernization.

Several current and former officials said that even if the identities of
the agency officers were not in the personnel office’s database, Chinese
intelligence operatives could run searches through the database on everyone
granted visas to work at American diplomatic outposts in China. If any of
the names are not found in the stolen files, those individuals could be
suspected as spies by a process of elimination.

The director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers,
alluded to that problem Thursday night during an interview at the Aspen
Security Forum in Colorado.

“From an intelligence perspective, it gives you great insight potentially
used for counterintelligence purposes,” Admiral Rogers said. “If I’m
interested in trying to identify U.S. persons who may be in my country —
and I am trying to figure out why they are there: Are they just tourists?
Are they there for some other alternative purpose? — there are interesting
insights from the data you take from O.P.M.”

Admiral Rogers suggested another possible motive of the hackers: The data
could be used for developing sophisticated “spear phishing” attacks on
government officials. In those attacks, victims click on what seem to be
innocent emails from known sources, allowing viruses into their computer
networks.

Admiral Rogers said it was “not perhaps unrelated that in the past nine
months I am watching huge spear phishing campaigns targeted at the United
States,” though he would not name the countries that are the sources of the
attacks.

Officials said it was not yet clear how Chinese officials were using — or
might use — the stolen files, which include personal information gathered
during background checks of government workers, many who now hold Top
Secret clearances.

“As a practical matter, you have to assume that all of the information has
been exposed and can be exploited,” said Mr. Schiff, who added that it was
prudent to plan for “worst-case scenarios.”

Some former officials said they were not overly alarmed that the data
breach could do long-term damage to American intelligence collection,
saying it was uncertain how many hard conclusions about American spies the
Chinese could draw from the millions of personnel files — a mountain of
data that could become overwhelming.

“The Chinese have created their own big data problem,” said Rob Knake, a
former director of cybersecurity policy issues at the National Security
Council and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Knake said the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies would be able to
adapt in the event that secrets were exposed. Still, he said, the breach
had the potential for “a whole bunch of C.I.A. case officers spending the
rest of their careers riding desks.”

Sophisticated computers equipped to analyze millions and even billions of
files allow intelligence operatives to make use of information that was
once of uncertain value.

Joel Brenner, the former head of counterintelligence for the director of
national intelligence, said the Chinese could search the database with the
names of suspected spies they had gathered over the years. “You run 200 of
those people through, and you have a pretty good idea of what they are and
are not keeping in the system,” he said.

In the United States government there is little debate that China was the
source of the attack on the Office of Personnel Management, which unfolded
over at least 18 months. Last month the director of national intelligence,
James R. Clapper Jr., said, “You’ve got to salute the Chinese for what they
did,” before retreating to say China was the “leading suspect” in the case.

One former senior C.I.A. officer and one congressional official, both
speaking on the condition of anonymity because they have received
classified briefings about the data breach, said the hackers also managed
to get personal information of retired C.I.A. officers that was in the
databases.

Current and former American officials said that the hacking of the security
clearance information will be a problem for years. The highly personal and
potentially embarrassing information in the background questionnaires
includes details about finances, drug and alcohol use, contacts with
foreigners and mental health issues.

Mr. Clapper said Friday in Aspen that O.P.M.’s contractors had fallen so
far behind in conducting security clearances — partly because of the
hacking — that the intelligence agency’s periodic review of employees was
far behind. But he was philosophical about the breach.

“If we had the opportunity to do the same thing,” he said, “we’d probably
do it.”

*Is it lights out for Puerto Rico?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/is-it-lights-out-for-puerto-rico/2015/07/24/61c6e51c-29a7-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html>
// WaPo // Steven Mufson - July 25, 2015*

For a case study in how to run a company into the ground, look no further
than the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.

The island’s government-owned electric utility has $9 billion in debt,
falling sales and rising costs. Its electricity rates for consumers run 2
1/2 times the national average and higher than any U.S. state except
isolated, oil-dependent Hawaii.

All that money has purchased precious little. The utility’s power plants,
with a median age of 44 years, lack pollution controls and violate
Environmental Protection Agency mercury limits. The plants burn dirty
residual fuel oil and diesel to generate about two-thirds of the island’s
power. And thanks to aging infrastructure, frequent and costly power
failures plague customers. The calls of customers bold enough to phone the
utility to complain about service are dropped more than 50 percent of the
time.

Now, however, PREPA is running out of cash and its creditors — including
the major bond funds Oppenheimer and Franklin Templeton — can’t be put on
hold.

The utility lies at the epicenter of a mounting financial crisis in Puerto
Rico, frequently called “America’s Greece.” The territory’s governor
recently called the island’s $73 billion of debts “unpayable.” With
hundreds of millions of dollars of payments looming and little cash on
hand, PREPA has been thrust to the forefront of a fight over whether the
Puerto Rican commonwealth should be able to resort to U.S. bankruptcy
courts for protection while it restructures its debts.

That in turn is part of a larger debate over the status of Puerto Rico —
tethered to the United States ever since it was seized in the
Spanish-American War of 1898, yet treated neither as a state nor as a
country. Bankruptcy rules are part of that. In 1984, Congress passed
legislation barring municipalities, agencies and government-owned utilities
in Puerto Rico from declaring bankruptcy, while allowing those located on
the mainland to do so.

Amid all this, PREPA stands out as what Puerto Rican Gov. Alejandro Garcia
Padilla in an interview called “the biggest mess.”

A report issued by three veteran International Monetary Fund economists
said the utility’s poor performance not only ruined its own balance sheet
but also undermined the Puerto Rican economy’s competitiveness because of
needlessly high electricity rates.

“As a key input cost, this cascades down to locally produced goods and
services and stunts potential growth sectors such as tourism,” the report
said.

The cost and availability of energy “is probably the most serious issue we
face today,” said Eric Spackey, chief executive officer of Bluewater
Defense, a manufacturer of uniforms and protective clothing for the
military. “My largest fixed cost is energy, and sadly service in the area
of my plant is intermittent.”

Spackey said that every time there is a power failure, more than 450
machines in his complex just west of San Juan “turn off and production
stops until the generator kicks in and the machines can reboot — disrupting
the production flow, machine circuit boards and ultimately morale.” He said
that while the government is aware of the problems, he fears the liquidity
crisis will only make things worse.

Problems with plants and politics

Fixing the mess at PREPA — whose chief executive and several other top
officials resigned in June — will be no small task.

“This is not something where a few tweaks will do,” said Anne O. Krueger,
former chief economist at the World Bank and former No. 2 official at the
International Monetary Fund. She helped write the report on Puerto Rico’s
finances.

One of the main problems is PREPA’s overwhelming dependence on oil for
power generation, a function of poor planning. Moreover, its antiquated
power plants burn the oil inefficiently. As a result, high oil prices over
the past 10 years have helped strangle the utility and at one point drove
electricity rates over 30 cents a kilowatt hour.

But PREPA’s problems run deeper than that and are rooted in the island’s
political culture.

The Krueger-led report called PREPA “an inefficient and over-staffed public
enterprise using technologies decades out of date.” Three-quarters of the
utilities service trucks are “obsolete” and frequently out of service, said
a presentation by Lisa J. Donahue, a managing director of New York-based
Alix Partners who is now acting as the utility’s restructuring officer.

Donahue has vowed to fix the trucks and shrink the bloated payroll, which
is twice as big as the average utility payroll on the mainland, according
to a June 2010 report by the Center for a New Economy.

Both of the island’s political parties have been complicit; they have
padded the payrolls with loyalists in equal number as part of an unwritten
pact to feed off the utility’s revenues. More than a thousand of these
“trust employees” work more — and earn more — when their party is in power.

“So when your party is in the majority, you might be given more
responsibilities, and if it is out of power then you are sent to the
basement for four years,” said former Puerto Rico secretary of state
Kenneth McClintock, who tried in vain to reform PREPA when he was in
office. He said that the political parties also raised money by pressing
the utility’s suppliers to buy tickets to utility raffles or social events
whose earnings go to the parties.

The EPA’s experience with PREPA suggests not just political meddling but a
pattern of disregard of laws and regulations. In 1993, the utility was
found to have committed multiple violations of air, water and storage-tank
regulations. In 1997, it was fined for failing to fix those. In 1999, the
EPA won a criminal case under the Clean Water Act to force the utility to
comply with orders after a sulfuric acid spill. In 2004, PREPA was fined
again for failing to meet terms of an earlier consent decree.

Not all of PREPA’s woes are of its own making. The Puerto Rican government,
no matter what party was in power, has in the past used its ownership of
public utilities to extend subsidies to lure new investors or keep
businesses from leaving, Eugenio J. Alemán, senior economist of Wells
Fargo, wrote in a May 24, 2012, note to investors.

“In the past, some of the hotels that have gone bankrupt over the years on
the island had been delinquent in their public utility bill payments and
phone bills for years before the bankruptcy, but state-owned public
utilities never enforced the collection of their bills from those hotel
chains,” Alemán said.

“This meant that public utilities would have to recoup the costs of these
subsidies either by not investing or by charging a higher rate to other
businesses or individuals or a combination of both strategies,” he wrote.
“For many decades, they did not do either. This is one of the reasons why
public utilities are in such dismal conditions today.”

As the commonwealth’s finances have crumbled, PREPA also has had trouble
collecting money owed by the government itself. According to the last
report, from 2013, the government owed the utility $250 million.

Stealing electricity has grown more prevalent too, by some estimates
draining as much as 15 to 25 percent of output.

Refusing to innovate

Many investors have put forth a different vision of PREPA, offering to
build a variety of solar, wind, hydro and natural-gas-powered plants to
make the utility’s electricity cheaper and greener.

Yet PREPA, reluctant to relinquish its grip on power supplies, has turned
away many of those investors. Although sunlight is plentiful and breezes
steady, the island has only about 150 megawatts of wind and solar installed
— barely 1 percent of total consumption. Although many wind and solar
developers have signed contracts with PREPA, virtually all of them have
shelved the projects for now.

In late 2012, Robert Sternthal, president of CohnReznick Capital Markets
Securities, predicted that Puerto Rico would become “the next hot
development spot in the U.S. solar market.” After all, with nationwide tax
incentives and the high cost of oil-fired electricity, solar would be
significantly cheaper than business as usual.

Today, a frustrated Sternthal admits he was wrong. PREPA demanded that
independent solar power developers meet “minimum technical requirements” or
PREPA would close off the solar project’s access to the grid for an
unspecified amount of time, with no clear guidance on when a project could
come back online, Sternthal wrote in a November 2013 online solar industry
publication.

Complying with PREPA’s requirements “is a near impossibility” and “would
make nearly all of the projects uneconomic to build,” wrote Sternthal,
whose firm has arranged financing for more than $4 billion in renewable
energy projects. By the time PREPA’s finances are sorted out, the federal
tax incentives for solar will probably have expired.

“To me it’s astounding that you look at the world and the creation of
renewables, at how many megawatts are built every day, and these guys
cannot get out of their own way,” Sternthal said in an interview. “They
would save millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, a year.”

Now PREPA is attracting conventional firms and financiers who see the
potential for big savings and profits.

York Capital, a New York-based investment firm, and NRG, one of the
country’s largest electric utilities, teamed with ITC Holdings, a
transmission company, and recently came up with a grand vision for Puerto
Rico’s electricity sector. The three firms said they would invest $3.5
billion to install a natural-gas-fired plant, about 400 megawatts of solar,
and transmission lines to take power from the gas plant in the south of the
island to the north.

The group would sell electricity to PREPA — without getting involved in the
utility’s debt headaches, its four trade unions or its aging power plants.

Within a couple of years, the group says, the island would save $1.5
billion annually, or 9 cents a kilowatt hour, more than 40 percent of
retail rates — enough to pay creditors and still slash consumers’ bills.

“Our interest in the project comes from being distress investors and
restructuring experts,” said William Vrattos, partner and head of global
credit at York. “At PREPA, we felt that not only would more value be
created for the PREPA bankruptcy estate or the company but also for the
island and all the stakeholders.”

Trying to reorganize

For now, PREPA is at the mercy of its creditors while a team hired by the
Puerto Rican government scrambles to restructure — and get some financial
relief.

On July 13 at Citigroup’s midtown Manhattan headquarters, advisers to PREPA
spelled out to a room crowded with creditors how dire the island’s
situation is.

Jim Millstein, former head of restructuring at the Treasury during the
financial crisis, warned at the meeting that “if this turns into a
donnybrook, with creditors litigating against one another and litigating
with the commonwealth,” it would hurt the economy and tax revenues needed
to meet payments. Millstein’s firm has been working with Puerto Rico’s
Government Development Bank.

PREPA proposed deferring principal payments and most interest payments for
five years, delaying more than $600 million a year in payments and
providing the utility with enough capital to build more efficient power
plants that would be cheaper to operate because they wouldn’t burn
petroleum.

The biggest creditors initially insisted that the utility could cover
interest costs by raising electricity rates about 4 cents a kilowatt hour.
The utility’s advisers replied that higher rates would only accelerate the
fall in demand, which has sliding about 2.5 percent a year for the past
decade.

Franklin Templeton and Oppenheimer have about $10 billion in Puerto Rican
bonds, valued by investors because interest on such bonds is exempt from
federal, state and local taxes. Together with Blue Mountain, a hedge fund,
Franklin Templeton and Oppenheimer won an appeals court ruling that threw
out Puerto Rican legislation that would have allowed government entities
there to use bankruptcy, saying that power belonged to Congress.

But on Thursday, a group representing holders of 40 percent of PREPA’s
bonds — including Franklin, Oppenheimer, Blue Mountain and Knighthead,
another hedge fund — made a counterproposal, offering to exchange old bonds
for new ones with lower average interest rates and a mixture of deferred
payments.

For PREPA, it would be a mixed bag. It would still pay $1.6 billion in the
first five years but would save $2.5 billion in interest and principal
payments over 10 years. Electricity rates would be lower than Hawaii’s but
would remain high compared with rates on the mainland.

A big obstacle to a compromise could be the two companies that insured much
of PREPA’s bonds — National, formerly known as MBIA, and Assured. They have
guaranteed $10 billion of Puerto Rican debt; about $3 billion of that was
issued by PREPA. If PREPA and its bondholders agree on terms, National and
Assured, which also guaranteed mortgage securities caught in the housing
collapse of 2008, would still have to pay investors in insured bonds the
shortfall.

To Wolfe, co-author of the Krueger report, the PREPA crisis echoes the
earlier U.S. financial crisis.

“To me, this is second example of where financial markets have completely
failed because of bad information,” Wolfe said. Just as ratings agencies
rated sub-prime mortgages without any idea what they were rating, he said,
“here investors were lending to a governmental agency, and no one knew what
its financial situation was.”

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Spy’s Release Is Unlikely to Assuage Israel on Iran Nuclear Deal
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/world/middleeast/spys-release-is-unlikely-to-assuage-israel-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html?ref=us>
// NYT // Jodi Rudoren - July 25, 2015*

The two issues with perhaps the broadest consensus and resonance in Israeli
politics are opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and support for the
release of Jonathan J. Pollard, the convicted Israeli spy, from a North
Carolina prison. Now the two could be tied together, as some in Washington
appear to be highlighting Mr. Pollard’s likely parole in November in hopes
of quieting the vigorous campaign by Israel and some of its American
supporters against congressional approval of the deal.

But while Mr. Pollard has long been bandied about as a potential diplomatic
chit the United States might use to force Israeli concessions, analysts
said Saturday that such a linkage had little chance of working now, and
could instead provoke a backlash.

Iran is seen as too serious a threat for the kind of horse-trading
suggested in previous proposals to free Mr. Pollard in exchange for
compromise on the Palestinian front, they said. Mr. Pollard has been
expected to get out this year in any case, having served the required 30
years of a life sentence, so efforts to portray his release as a grand
gesture are already being described as cynical, cheap and misguided.

“If this is the motive, it’s naïve,” said Amnon Rubinstein, a law professor
at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, who joined the growing
movement calling for Mr. Pollard’s release in recent years. “The two things
are totally separate. One is a human consideration, and one is a strategic
issue, which most Israelis, including myself, regard as existential.”

Aaron David Miller, a State Department veteran on Middle East affairs who
is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said any
such move would look bad for President Obama, given that Americans remain
in Iranian prisons. And he added that it would probably make Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel “fight harder” against the Iran deal “so he’s
not thought to have colluded.”

“Pollard is apples and the Iran deal is oranges,” Mr. Miller said. “The
Pollard card is not just of limited value, but potentially damaging.” A
spokesman for the National Security Council said Friday, “There is
absolutely zero linkage between Mr. Pollard’s status and foreign policy
considerations,” denying a report in The Wall Street Journal that American
officials were pressing for his release in part to allay Israel’s anger
over the nuclear accord. But while Obama administration officials have
previously emphasized that they expect Mr. Pollard to serve out his term,
on Friday a Justice Department spokesman punctuated that sentiment with the
caveat, “which in this case is a 30-year sentence as mandated by statute.”

That spin may be aimed not at Israel but at Democratic — and Jewish —
lawmakers like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has long lobbied for
Mr. Pollard’s release and could be among the pivotal votes in Congress on
Iran. Even if it does not change either the substance or the tenor of
criticism of the nuclear deal, freeing Mr. Pollard would at least remove
one item from the lengthy list of complaints about Mr. Obama by Israelis
and their backers.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because
of the delicacy of the situation, said Saturday that the government had not
“been told anything at all” about developments regarding Mr. Pollard, and
that he did not think it had been discussed as part of a so-called
compensation package Washington might provide to appease Israel on the Iran
front.

“Our longstanding position has been, we have made repeated requests over
the years, that for humanitarian reasons he should be released,” the
official said. “It comes up routinely. I’m not aware that the issues are in
any way connected.”

Israel on Saturday issued a stern statement that the country would continue
to criticize the nuclear agreement with Iran and could not be pressured to
stop voicing its objections. The statement was in response to comments made
Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry, who warned that the international
community might blame Israel if Congress blocked the accord and that as a
result Israel might “wind up being more isolated.”

“We reject the threats directed at Israel in recent days,” an Israeli
official said in a statement provided Saturday to The New York Times. “The
U.S. Congress will make its decision based on American interests, which
include consideration of U.S. allies,” added the official, who asked not to
be named because of the diplomatic sensitivities. “The regrettable attempt
to intimidate Israel will not prevent us from voicing our concerns about
this deal, which poses direct threats to Israel’s security.”

Mr. Pollard, 60 and ailing, was born in Texas to a Zionist family, and
shortly after being hired in 1979 as a naval intelligence analyst, started
passing suitcases stuffed with classified documents to an Israeli handler,
who paid him $1,500 a month, bought his wife a diamond and sapphire ring,
and sent the couple on expensive European vacations.

He was disavowed by Israelis upon his 1985 arrest, but later embraced — he
was granted citizenship in 1995 and, by 2013, had become the focal point of
a protest movement that went beyond the original right-wing core to become
a coalition of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, retired generals, celebrated
authors and dovish politicians like Shimon Peres, then the president of
Israel. An online petition demanding clemency drew 175,000 signatures.

Mr. Netanyahu has made the fight against Iran’s obtaining a nuclear weapon
the centerpiece of his career, but the Pollard case could be a close second.

In 1998, Mr. Netanyahu nearly secured Mr. Pollard’s release during a summit
meeting with President Bill Clinton regarding the Palestinians at Wye
Mills, Md., but it was thwarted when George J. Tenet, then director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, threatened to resign.

Mr. Netanyahu’s aides in 2010 floated to the Obama administration the idea
of trading Mr. Pollard’s freedom for an extension of a 10-month freeze on
construction in West Bank settlements. And last year, Secretary of State
John Kerry persuaded Mr. Obama to put Mr. Pollard on the table as part of a
package to save Mr. Kerry’s collapsing peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians, but the negotiations fell apart for other reasons.

“It is clear that since the 1990s he’s been a chip, he’s been a playing
card,” said Michael B. Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United
States, who visited Mr. Pollard in prison in 2011 and writes about him in
his new book, “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide.” “It’s
become sort of built into the peace process.”

In Washington, debates about how to maximize Mr. Pollard’s leverage have
raged; in 2014, for example, many thought freeing him only to extend the
talks, rather than to move Israel on the core issues of conflict with the
Palestinians, would be a mistake. As the clock ticks toward the 30th
anniversary of his arrest — at the time, parole was generally mandated
after 30 years for federal inmates serving life sentences — the value
inevitably drops. Amir Oren, a journalist who has covered the case from its
first day, said Israelis would “pocket this gesture; they will not even
agree that it’s a gesture, they will say it’s a make-believe gesture
because he was going to be released anyway.”

Mr. Pollard’s ex-wife, Anne, said on Israeli television Saturday night that
he would want to live in Israel. With the 30-year mark approaching, Mr.
Pollard “deserves to be released based on the American system of justice.”

“I just want to see him out,” she added. “I can’t bear it anymore that he
sat and lost all of his life in jail.”

Oded Eran, a longtime Israeli diplomat who is now a researcher at the
Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said the
anonymous reports coming out of Washington are “a cheap shot to try and
change the tone on Iran, and therefore we are not going to be swayed one
way or the other.” Mr. Eran, who served in Israel’s embassy in Washington,
said Mr. Pollard’s release would be a 24-hour story of national
celebration, while the Iran issue “will be with us for months, if not
years.”

“I want to be very clear and very categorical,” he added. “If anyone in
Washington believes that this is going to change the tone of the debate on
Iran, the nature of the debate on Iran, the votes on Iran, he is
absolutely, categorically, misleading himself.”

*Obama in Kenya: An Upbeat Tone, but Notes of Discord, Too
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/world/africa/in-kenya-obama-hails-africas-growth-and-potential.html?ref=world>
// NYT // Peter Baker and Marc Santora - July 25, 2015*

The return of the long-lost son, as President Obama is widely seen by
Kenyans, had all the elements of a family reunion. They hugged, they caught
up, they talked about shared interests, they agreed they should get
together more often, and they had their sibling spats.

In his first visit as president to his father’s home country, Mr. Obama
struck a relentlessly upbeat tone, declaring, “Africa is on the move”;
praising progress toward democracy and economic growth; and marveling over
the changes he saw on the streets of this locked-down capital.

But he found himself at odds with his hosts on human rights and same-sex
marriage and gingerly tried to nudge them to change their ways. At a news
conference, he said the fight against terrorism in Kenya should not be used
to justify a crackdown on dissent and argued that no nation should
discriminate against gays and lesbians, comparing it to the era of
segregation of African-Americans.

“If somebody is a law-abiding citizen who is going about their business and
working in a job and obeying the traffic signs and doing all the other
things good citizens are supposed to do and not harming anybody, the idea
that they are going to be treated differently or abused because of who they
love is wrong,” Mr. Obama said. “Full stop.”

Standing to his left on the lush lawn of the colonial-era State House,
President Uhuru Kenyatta accepted the advice on human rights without
argument, saying Kenya was trying to improve its handling of security and
liberty. “This issue of terrorism is new to us,” he said, “and as it is
new, we learn with each and every step.”

But in a country where homosexuality is widely condemned, he flatly
rejected Mr. Obama’s views on gay rights. “There are some things we must
admit we don’t share; our culture, our society don’t accept,” he said. “It
is very difficult for us to be able to impose on people that which they
themselves do not accept.”

The disagreement was quickly papered over, though, as both Mr. Obama and
Kenyans focused on the historic nature of his visit. While Mr. Obama came
here three times before taking office, many Kenyans had bristled that he
waited until the seventh year of his presidency to return.

He joked in public events that he had not wanted to make the rest of Africa
jealous by coming too soon, but expressed a strong connection to Kenya.
“I’m proud to be the first U.S. president to visit Kenya, and obviously,
this is personal for me,” he said at a business forum. “There’s a reason
why my name is Barack Hussein Obama. My father came from these parts and I
have family and relatives here. And in my visits over the years, walking
the streets of Nairobi, I’ve come to know the warmth and the spirit of the
Kenyan people.”

He held out Kenya as a model in a fast-growing region. “Kenya is leading
the way,” Mr. Obama said. “When I was here in Nairobi 10 years ago, it
looked very different than it does today.”

He added, however, that the greatest threat to continued growth in Kenya is
the scourge of corruption, found here from the local police officer to the
highest politicians. Mr. Obama and Mr. Kenyatta released a 29-point plan
for fighting corruption in Kenya. They also signed an “action plan” to
bolster Kenya’s security in its fight against the Shabab, the Qaeda
affiliate based in Somalia.

Mr. Obama could not get out of his armored car to wander the streets as in
the past. Instead, his most intimate encounter with Kenya beyond its
official leadership came during a dinner Friday at his hotel with three
dozen members of his extended family.

Readers from about a dozen African countries shared their views on
President Obama’s time in office, pointing out successes, failures and
hopes for the future.

The Effects of Obama’s Presidency in Africa: Readers’ Opinions

Over a buffet of Kenyan food, including chicken, fish and beef, the
president heard his relatives talk about life in Kenya, and he told them a
little about life in the White House. Some of them told Mr. Obama they
wished he could spend more time in Kenya, and with them. He later said he
spent part of the meal “begging for forgiveness” that his schedule did not
allow it. “Once I’m a private citizen, I will have more freedom to
reconnect,” he said.

Said Obama, his uncle, said his relatives understood. “He explained to the
family members the nature of his work,” Said Obama said in an interview.
“But he said his mind is always with them, his heart is always here.”

The president generally has only remote connections to most relatives
living here. He is closest to his half sister, Auma Obama, who hosted him
for his first visit as a young man. Also present on Friday night was his
step-grandmother, known as Mama Sarah but whom he calls Granny.

His Kenyan relatives have not been regular visitors to the White House. The
only Obamas who show up in publicly released White House visitor logs are
Said Obama and Sarah Obama, an aunt, who have visited just once in more
than six years, and the president’s half brother Abongo, also known as Roy,
who has visited three times.

Indeed, the president acknowledged that some at dinner here on Friday were
strangers. “In these extended families, there are cousins and uncles and
aunties that show up that you didn’t know existed but you’re always happy
to meet,” the president said with a laugh. “And there were lengthy
explanations in some cases of the connections. But it was a wonderful time.”

Mr. Obama had a long day of activities. He addressed the sixth annual
Global Entrepreneurship Summit meeting, laid a wreath at a memorial to the
victims of the 1998 bombing of the United States Embassy here and attended
a state dinner in the evening, where he was serenaded in English and
Swahili by a group that sang a song called “Coming Home.” In his toast, Mr.
Obama joked that critics back home no doubt believed he had come “to look
for my birth certificate,” adding, “That is not the case.”

He made no mention of Mr. Kenyatta’s indictment for crimes against
humanity. Mr. Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, were charged in the
International Criminal Court with instigating violence after disputed 2007
elections that killed more than 1,000. The case against Mr. Kenyatta was
dropped in December, but the charges stand against Mr. Ruto, who met with
Mr. Obama.

Guests at a welcoming ceremony for President Obama in Nairobi, Kenya, on
Saturday were quick to take out their cameras. Credit Doug Mills/The New
York Times

Mr. Obama referred obliquely to that violence but praised a revised
constitution adopted afterward, and said the subsequent election in 2013
that elevated Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto “showed growth in the election
process.”

He defended his Power Africa initiative, a multibillion-dollar effort
announced two years ago that has produced little electricity for a
power-starved continent. “I would just point out that if you wanted to
start a power plant in the United States, it doesn’t take a year to get
that done,” he said.

Rejecting comparisons to President George W. Bush, whose efforts to curb
AIDS and malaria in Africa are warmly remembered, he said, “This isn’t a
beauty contest between presidents.”

The excitement at his visit was palpable from the gated homes with
manicured lawns in grand old wealthy neighborhoods like Muthaiga and Karen
to the slums of Kibera, where sewage runs in the street and families live
in mud and tin shacks. “Obama is a source of inspiration to many,” said
Babu Owino, president of the Kenya University Students Organization. “The
students here love him so much. They are die-hard fans. When they look at
his background, he’s someone they are able to identify with.”

So much so that before the visit, Mr. Owino wrote to the American
ambassador here claiming at least 17 students had threatened to commit
suicide if Mr. Obama did not visit the University of Nairobi. (The
president did not, but no suicides were reported.)

Mr. Obama transcended the tribal differences that have divided society. Mr.
Obama’s family is Luo while Mr. Kenyatta and his ruling elite are Kikuyu.
But Solomon Wekesa, 31, a security guard who himself is Luya, said it did
not matter to most Kenyans.

“In Obama, they see a man who does not see tribe, a man who is an open
man,” he said. “He sees Kenya as one nation.”

Others hoped the visit would bring change. “I want Obama to push for
reforms in Kenya’s fight against corruption to enable the poor access to a
better livelihood,” said Nancy Ayako, 21, who lives in the Kibera slum
settlement. “There are so many young people who have been marginalized,
like slum dwellers.”

But expectations may have surpassed reality. For Rogers Mogaka, a community
organizer, Mr. Obama’s visit came too late. “Why now?” he asked. “Look, he
is not coming here to meet with the common man on the street.”

He added, “There are a number of issues that we think need to be addressed
that affect the common man in Kenya.”