Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday July 30, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:58:53 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday July 30, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Slate: “Ready for Anything”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>*

[Subtitle:] “David Brock’s super PAC network is fending off every attack on
Hillary Clinton. The book tour is barely the end of Round 1.”

*MSNBC: “Clinton welcomes ‘healthy’ Democratic primary contest”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-welcomes-healthy-democratic-primary-challenger>*

“Hillary Clinton may be the prohibitive, if undeclared, frontrunner for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but she still thinks it’d be
‘healthy’ for the party to have a contested primary, she said Tuesday.”

*Blue Nation Review: Hillary’s a Flip Flopper? Nah, That’s Just GOP Drivel
<http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-flip-flopper-much-rnc/>*

"And see, that’s the beauty of rancid political institutions like the RNC.
They’re in the business of tearing people down, people like former First
Lady and Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, private citizens
like Hillary Clinton. That’s what the RNC is really really good at: tearing
people down."

*Media Matters for America: “Right-Wing Media Distort Hillary Clinton's
Comments To Falsely Claim She Endorsed Hamas”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/29/right-wing-media-distort-hillary-clintons-comme/200247>*

“Right-wing media selectively edited comments made by Hillary Clinton to
falsely accuse her of endorsing Hamas' extremist tactics. But Clinton made
clear that Israel has a right to defend itself and credited its measures to
decrease civilian casualties.”

*Fusion: “Hillary Clinton thinks the Cuban embargo has been a failure”
<http://fusion.net/Leadership/video/hillary-clinton-thinks-cuban-embargo-failure-905215>*

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fusion's Jorge Ramos
that the she thinks the Cuban embargo has been a failure.”

*Tampa Bay Times (F.L.) blog: The Buzz: “Hillary Clinton: End the Cuban
embargo”
<http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/hillary-clinton-end-the-cuban-embargo/2190577>*

“Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Fusion airing tonight, repeats her
call to end the Cuban embargo.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: Redskins name ‘insensitive’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-washington-redskins-name-change-109529.html>*

“Hillary Clinton says the Washington Redskins need a name change.”

*RIGHT WING ATTACK DU JOUR: RECORD WILL BE CORRECTED*

*Washington Examiner: “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches,
controversial consulting deal worth $48m; Hillary Clinton's COS copied on
all decisions”
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428>*

“A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit
watchdog group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215
speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign
policy"

*Mother Jones: “Quote of the Day: ‘The Press Loves to Cover Her Hard’”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/quote-day-press-loves-cover-her-hard>*

“The press has never liked Hillary, and she's never liked them, and that's
that. If she decides to run for president, this is going to be one of her
biggest problems—or maybe her biggest, period.”

*Facebook post: Sen. Ted Cruz
<https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152603151697464>*

“Hillary Clinton seems to fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Hamas
doesn't put rockets in schools, mosques, hospitals, and homes because ‘Gaza
is pretty small.’”

*Articles:*

*Slate: “Ready for Anything”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>*

By David Weigel

July 29, 2014, 4:26 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] David Brock’s super PAC network is fending off every attack on
Hillary Clinton. The book tour is barely the end of Round 1.

Hillary Clinton’s face looms over the offices of Correct the Record—in a
friendly way. The young PR operation’s 18 workers do their typing and
designing and debunking next to a blown-up version of that 2011 photo in
which the former secretary of state is checking her BlackBerry on a flight
from Malta to Tripoli, behind dark sunglasses. That photo inspired the
Texts From Hillary Tumblr, and was painted on the Ready for Hillary PAC’s
bus before it started schlepping around the country.

It’s kitsch from Clinton’s finest hour, from the postelection, pre-Benghazi
period when a pundit could call her “a great secretary of state” and hear
no coughing or guffawing. A few steps away, past the shelves full of David
Brock’s books—his 2002 memoir of the conservative movement he left, and the
much less heretical 2012 The Fox Effect—sits American Bridge’s president,
Brad Woodhouse.

American Bridge is the permanent campaign that’s currently trying to save
the election for Democrats. Correct the Record, launched in November 2013,
is a subsidiary focused on the next election. Both organizations live to
fight Republicans, just as Media Matters—the Brock project from which all
of this grew—lives to rebut “conservative misinformation” in the press.

But Media Matters and American Bridge respond to everything. Correct the
Record has only one mission. In an interview with David Freedlander, Brock
said he dreamed up the project after Republicans held hearing after hearing
on Benghazi. “There was no, or limited, capacity for her to deal with the
range of attacks,” he said, referring to Clinton. In October, Brock
co-authored a book titled The Benghazi Hoax, and within weeks Correct the
Record was there to insist that “Hillary Clinton was the ‘most on top of
the situation’ on the night of the attack.”

I dropped by the Brock-verse a few weeks after the release of Clinton’s
memoir Hard Choices. The conventional wisdom is that the tour could have
gone better—more book sales, fewer verbal somersaults about her wealth and
gay marriage stance.

Correct the Record wants everyone to know that the media blew it. It had
been sending out weekly updates of Clinton book sales, because there was a
story out there that she was flopping. The first memo, from July 2, ran to
more than 4,000 words, and insisted, “Critics have praised the authenticity
and insight of the former Secretary of State’s new memoir” and that “Hard
Choices sold more in its third week than Rand Paul and Jeb Bush’s books did
total, combined!” (Exclamation point in the original.)

Woodhouse wants me to appreciate the long game that CTR is playing. They
don’t just do rapid response, though of course they’re “very good” at it.

“You can hand people a list of 100 Hillary Clinton accomplishments, or 30,
or whatever, from the State Department or her life, and nobody’s even
reporting on them,” says Woodhouse, sitting behind his two computer screens
and a TV tuned to MSNBC. “They’re reporting on whether she had a gaffe. But
one thing Correct the Record is doing is citing and placing a lot of
op-eds, putting surrogates out on TV, to talk about her accomplishments.
And all that stuff is going to be somewhere for someone to use later on.”

Right. It’s not like CTR can force the media to use this material. It can
only politely inform the press that it’s falling for right-wing spin. CTR’s
own spin has described an attack on the Clintons’ wealth as an attack on
the “profoundly American success and philanthropy of Bill and Hillary
Clinton,” and criticism of her speaking fees as “relentlessly attacking
Hillary Clinton for raising money for universities.”

If this came from an actual campaign, reporters would choke on the
chutzpah. But it doesn’t. It comes from a small group led by Burns Strider,
who happened to be a senior adviser to the 2008 Clinton campaign, and who
argues that Clinton’s book tour was an unqualified win.

“The great thing about the book tour, from my vantage point, as a guy from
Mississippi who’s worked all over the country, is that Secretary Clinton
hasn’t gone out with a giant stash of canned answers,” says Strider. “She
doesn’t go out with a tested message. She’s talking from answering and
reacting to questions. You look at her town hall on CNN, on Charlie Rose,
she’s had an incredibly successful couple of months chatting with the
American people.”

If you gaze too deeply at Correct the Record, you start to wonder if you’ve
been too critical of the Clintons. That is by design. The outfit has
studiously avoided intrigue and invited plenty of reporters into the inner
sanctum. (This piece is at least the third that begins with a tour of the
CTR bunker, though each reporter got a different estimate of the total
staff—from 16 to 18 to 20.) Strider will even discuss how the organization
might fend off attacks if Clinton draws a challenge from the left. “If
Clinton chooses to run,” he says, “she’s gonna articulate her record for
the future and I’d be very surprised to find it not much in line with her
friends from the left.”

And Brock is happy to describe what he learned in his wild days as a
right-wing hack, and why the facts brought him to liberalism and the
defense of the Clintons. In Blinded by the Right, he describes in detail
how the right first turned on him when his reporting for a Hillary bio
turned out nuanced instead of vitriol.

“Back when I wrote The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, I wrote something to
the effect that I thought her potential as a political leader was such that
she might end up being a more historic figure than her husband,” remembers
Brock. “I think the potential is still there. I try to make sure, through
our work, that she gets a fair hearing, and that the media environment
isn’t clogged with misinformation.”

Brock goes through all of the hits on Clinton, and explains why they
fizzled—why they were predestined to fizzle. What about the Benghazi
attack, the one that led to Correct the Record’s very existence?

“The Benghazi issue is almost like birtherism at this point,” says Brock.
“I don’t think it’s doing real damage. If it’s a question of where Benghazi
sits in the mainstream discourse, it’s largely been contained. I think we
had a fair amount to do with that.”

How about the Washington Free Beacon’s report that dredged up—with fresh
audio—the story of a young Hillary Clinton defending a child rapist?

“It was very misleading in the way it was presented, and wrong,” says
Brock. “So again, I don’t think … ” He pauses. “It got some attention and
broke through to some extent, but when real reporters looked at it, it
fizzled.”

And what about the current wave of Clinton books? Correct the Record tears
through them, but has discovered that they need little rebutting. No one in
the mainstream media (excluding Fox News and the New York Post) did much
with Ed Klein’s Blood Feud and its mysteriously sourced quasi-scoops.
Daniel Halper’s Clinton, Inc., released a month after Hard Choices, was the
sort of book a young Brock might have written, with named sources backing
up some of the best stories. But it was no real threat to Hillary.

“I don’t believe it’s going to succeed as well as other conservative books
in the marketplace,” says Brock. “The basic approach he seems to take is
that he will give you a page or two of essentially rumor or speculation,
that a lot of us who are plugged into the world have heard. Then he backs
out of it with various caveats. I think he doesn’t deliver the kind of red
meat that an Ed Klein has delivered. The conservative audience—it doesn’t
do caveats. And as far as its reach into mainstream conversation, there
hasn’t been much pickup. Reporters don’t feel like any new ground has been
plowed there at all.”

I ping Halper and tell him what Brock thinks of his book. In no time at
all, Halper points me to the rules of Clinton PR that he identified in his
reporting, and identifies this as No. 3: “make any allegation unfavorable
to the Clintons” into “old news.”

*MSNBC: “Clinton welcomes ‘healthy’ Democratic primary contest”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-welcomes-healthy-democratic-primary-challenger>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

July 29, 2014, 2:54 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton may be the prohibitive, if undeclared, frontrunner for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but she still thinks it’d be
“healthy” for the party to have a contested primary, she said Tuesday.

“I think there will probably be many candidates,” she told Fusion’s Jorge
Ramos in an interview. “I’m not sure I’m going to run, but if I do, I think
competition is healthy and if people want to get in and want to be in a
primary, more power to them.”

Clinton added one note of caution, however: “Now, if they come in and they
say crazy things, that’s not healthy, but if they say sensible things, of
course that’s healthy.” It’s unclear if she had any specific possible
challengers in mind.

A majority of Democratic voters think Clinton should face a primary
challenge in 2016, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll,
while just 28% think the former secretary of state should make it to the
convention unopposed, if she decides to run.

Clinton is touring the country while promoting her new memoir, “Hard
Choices,” about her time at the State Department.

In the Ramos interview, Clinton also joined fellow Democrats like Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama in calling on the Washington
Redskins football team to change their name. “I think it’s insensitive,”
Clinton said, “And I think that there’s no reason for it to continue as the
name of a team in our nation’s capital.”

She declined, however, to propose alternative names.

*Blue Nation Review: Hillary’s a Flip Flopper? Nah, That’s Just GOP Drivel
<http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-flip-flopper-much-rnc/>*

By Jimmy Williams

July 29, 2014

I’ll bet you already knew the Republican National Committee is on a jihad
against Hillary Clinton. You’re not shocked by this. If anything, you’re
comforted by this because they’ll just re-litigate her husband’s presidency
and scream “Benghazi” from now until the Second Coming. But why are you OK
with all of this, with “this-gate” and “that-gate” and “their-gate” and
“Benghazi-gate?” So many gates that lead to nowhere?

The reason you’re OK with all of this is because the more they tear her
down, the stronger she becomes. The more they overreach, the more rational
she looks. The more delusion the GOP vomits forth, the healthier she
actually becomes.

And see, that’s the beauty of rancid political institutions like the RNC.
They’re in the business of tearing people down, people like former First
Lady and Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, private citizens
like Hillary Clinton. That’s what the RNC is really really good at: tearing
people down.

Their latest salvo came yesterday from RNC spokeswoman Izzy Santa, who
accused the former Secretary of State of flip flopping on the issue of
immigration. Santa said

“Hillary Clinton wins today’s flip-flopper award in her latest attempt to
hispander. It’s disingenuous for her to change her tune on the 2008
immigration law, within 24 hours, especially when speaking to a Hispanic
journalist who serves a large Hispanic viewership. Hillary Clinton’s book
tour is revealing she will say just about anything to connect with the
American people but her pandering will continue to take its toll on her.”

GayPandaI just love the word “hispandering.” It’s so, oh I don’t know,
pandering–to the GOP base. It’s a hate-based word. Frankly, if I were the
GOP I’d be doing a hell of a lot more pandering. Like maybe to Latinos. And
women. And the LGBT community. And the black community. And the Asian
community. They could even come up with words for those groups. I
personally like Homopandering. While I’ve never met a gay panda, it sure
does sound fun right? Or maybe Blackpandering. I remember those Black
Panthers from that Forrest Gump movie but hey, maybe they’d be receptive. I
don’t know. And then you could have Asianpandering but that seems a bit
redundant doesn’t it? Pandas are Asian bears right? Or what about
Blatinopandering? No no no, that’s just too many things for Republicans to
think about in a collective manner.

But enough about Asian bears.

In all seriousness, I’m sort of the school of thought that politicians
evolve on issues. Take Mittens Romney as the penultimate example of this.
Back when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was
adamantly pro-everybody and everything. He liked the gays and he was for a
woman’s right to privacy. Then he ran for president and he “evolved” on
those issues. Wait, I mean devolved. Sorry, but he went from being for
people to against them. That’s called devolution folks.

Cue the Republicans. They’ve now accused Mrs. Clinton of changing her
position on whether or not to deport the children crossing the Mexican/US
border. In the above video interview, Clinton was asked about her position
and she was damn clear: children who aren’t refugees should be given
shelter while they’re here, a safe place to live and then adjudicated back
to their countries. Children who are refugees and fleeing violence and
murder in their home countries should be granted a safe and healthy asylum
here in the US. This, by the way, is current US law.

I’m not sure what part of that isn’t a) clear and b) consistent with what
she’s been saying for years.

The good news is this folks: if Mittens Romney runs again in 2016, he’s
already assured the American people all these “illegals” will just
self-deport. Remember that brilliant policy statement from the 2012
campaign? I sure as hell do. And since we’ve known all along what Mrs.
Clinton’s views were, it looks like the immigration debate between Romney
and Clinton will be a choice between a bunch of “Mexicans” running back
across the border or maybe something a bit more, well, erudite.

*Media Matters for America: “Right-Wing Media Distort Hillary Clinton's
Comments To Falsely Claim She Endorsed Hamas”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/29/right-wing-media-distort-hillary-clintons-comme/200247>*

By Thomas Bishop

July 29, 2014, 8:11 p.m. EDT

Right-wing media selectively edited comments made by Hillary Clinton to
falsely accuse her of endorsing Hamas' extremist tactics. But Clinton made
clear that Israel has a right to defend itself and credited its measures to
decrease civilian casualties.

In an interview with Fusion TV's Jorge Ramos, former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton renewed her support for a cease-fire to end the current
Israeli/Hamas conflict.

Right-wing media outlets co-opted Clinton's interview to dishonestly claim
that Clinton was justifying Hamas' tactics and endorsing the extremist
group.

On July 29, the Washington Free Beacon distorted Clinton's comments,
portraying them as justification of Hamas' tactics in an article headlined
"Hillary: Hamas Uses Human Shields Because 'Gaza is Pretty Small.'"

On Fox News' The Five, co-host Andrea Tantaros accused Clinton of "trying
to make an excuse for Hamas" and defending Hamas "for hiding rockets in
places like schools."

But the full context of the interview shows that Clinton credited Israel's
attempts to prevent civilian casualties by sending warnings before
airstrikes and said that "obviously Israel has a right to self-defense."
Clinton noted that "any kind of conflict" has civilian casualties, but
Gaza's small size and Hamas' tactics make them more acute (emphasis added):

CLINTON: I'm not a military planner, but Hamas puts its missiles -- its
rockets in civilian areas. Part of it is that Gaza's pretty small and it's
very densely populated. They put their command and control of Hamas
military leaders in those civilian areas. Israel, I know, has sent warnings
and tried to get people to move, but in any kind of conflict there are
going to be civilian casualties, and we need to try to get to a cease-fire
as soon as possible.

*Fusion: “Hillary Clinton thinks the Cuban embargo has been a failure”
<http://fusion.net/Leadership/video/hillary-clinton-thinks-cuban-embargo-failure-905215>*

By America With Jorge Ramos

July 29, 2014, 6:29 p.m. EDT

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fusion's Jorge Ramos
that the she thinks the Cuban embargo has been a failure. In an interview
last friday, the possible presidential candidate was blunt in her
assessment. "I think it has propped up the Castro's because they can blame
everything on the embargo...everything is blamed on the embargo," she said.
When Ramos asked Clinton if she would consider visiting the island for a
"Nixon goes to China" moment, she responded in the affirmative. "You know,
some day I'd like to go to Cuba. I would someday, yes," she said.

*Tampa Bay Times (F.L.) blog: The Buzz: “Hillary Clinton: End the Cuban
embargo”
<http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/hillary-clinton-end-the-cuban-embargo/2190577>*

By Alex Leary

July 29, 2014, 5:57 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Fusion airing tonight, repeats her
call to end the Cuban embargo.

"I think it has propped up the Castro's because they can blame everything
on the embargo," she told host Jorge Ramos. "You don't have freedom of
speech, you don't have freedom of expression, you know, you're still having
political prisoners, everything is blamed on the embargo.

"I would like to see us move toward normalizing relations eventually and
therefore more Americans back and forth. That's something president Obama
did and I supported the first term. We do have our own political prisoner
in Cuba, Alan Gross, a man who's been, you know, thrown into prison and not
being given a chance to come home to his family so I'd like to see that
resolved. And I would like to see us move toward ending the embargo and
trying to, by our example, by commerce, by all kinds of visits, you know,
help the Cuban people have a different future"

Ramos: "Are you interested in a Nixon moment going to Cuba?" Clinton: "You
know, some day I'd like to go to Cuba. I would someday, yes"

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: Redskins name ‘insensitive’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-washington-redskins-name-change-109529.html>*

By Jonathan Topaz

July 30, 2014, 6:12 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton says the Washington Redskins need a name change.

“I think it’s insensitive and I think that there’s no reason for it to
continue as the name of a team in our nation’s capital,” Clinton said
during an interview on Tuesday with Jorge Ramos, who asked her if she
thought the name was a “racial slur.”

“I would love to see the owners think hard about what they could
substitute,” she added.

Last month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six
federal trademarks of the team name because it was found to be
“disparaging” to Native Americans. The decision has put more pressure on
team owner Daniel Snyder — who has vowed he won’t change the name — to move
on the issue.

Clinton is the latest political figure to suggest the D.C.-area team change
its name. In May, 50 senators — 48 Democrats and two independents — wrote
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to urge the league to change the name. “The
N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as
anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter read. The letter was
not circulated among Republicans.

The NFL shot down the letter later that day, saying the team wants to
portray a “strong, positive and respectful image” with the name.

Last October, President Barack Obama said the nickname offends “a sizable
group of people” and that if he were the owner, he would “think about
changing it.” And earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder said he
thought the name should be dropped, calling it “offensive.”

When Ramos asked Clinton if she had any suggestions for a new name, the
potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate laughed and said she
hadn’t thought of any alternatives.

*Washington Examiner: “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches,
controversial consulting deal worth $48m; Hillary Clinton's COS copied on
all decisions”
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 30, 2014, 1:00 a.m. EDT

A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit watchdog
group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches
and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy,
raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements
related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton's tenure as
secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released Wednesday in
an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials
charged with reviewing Bill Clinton's proposed speeches did not object to a
single one.

Some of the speeches were delivered in global hotspots and were paid for by
entities with business or policy interests in the U.S.

The documents also show that in June 2011, the State Department approved a
consulting agreement between Bill Clinton and a controversial Clinton
Foundation adviser, Doug Band.

The consultancy with Band's Teneo Strategies ended eight months later
following an uproar over Teneo's ties to the failed investment firm MF
Global.

State Department legal advisers, serving as "designated agency ethics
officials," approved Bill Clinton's speeches in China, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Panama, Turkey, Taiwan, India, the
Cayman Islands and other countries.

The memos approving Mr. Clinton's speeches were routinely copied to Cheryl
Mills, Hillary Clinton's senior counsel and chief of staff.

Mills is a longtime Clinton troubleshooter who defended the president
during his impeachment. In the Benghazi affair, Mills reportedly berated a
high-ranking official at the U.S. embassy in Libya for talking to a
Republican congressman.

Under State Department protocols, a "designated agency ethics official" is
assigned to advise the secretary of state about "potential or actual
conflicts of interest."

In a December 2008 memorandum of understanding, the protocols were expanded
to Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and related initiatives —
specifically, to reviewing Bill Clinton's proposed speeches and consulting
deals.

In an accompanying letter to the State Department legal adviser, Clinton
lawyer David Kendall noted that Bill Clinton would disclose proposed
consulting deals and, for speeches, provide "the identities of the host(s)
(the entity that pay the speaker's fee)" so that the State Department "in
consultation with the White House as appropriate, may conduct a review for
any real or apparent conflicts of interest with the duties of the Secretary
of State."

But an inspection by the Examiner and Judicial Watch of donations to the
Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton's personal financial disclosure forms,
and the State Department conflict-of-interest reviews shows that at least
$48 million flowed to the Clintons' personal coffers and foundation from
many entities that clearly had interests in influencing the Obama
administration — and perhaps currying favor with a future president as well.

Saudi Arabia, for example, was a key Clinton benefactor. The oil-producing
giant has had a relationship with the Clintons dating back to Bill
Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas.

In 1992, while running for president, then-Gov. Clinton secured a $3.5
million Saudi donation for a Middle East studies program at the University
of Arkansas.

A few weeks after Clinton was inaugurated president, the Saudis kicked in
another $20 million. Both deals were brokered by a close Clinton friend,
David Edwards.

Overall, the Clinton Foundation has received staggering sums from Saudi
benefactors — between $18 million and $50 million. (The foundation's
donations are reported in ranges, not specific numbers.)

While Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, Bill Clinton gave two
speeches in Saudi Arabia, earning a total of $600,000.

In January 2011, for example, Bill Clinton spoke at a global business forum
in Riyadh founded by the Saudi Investment Authority and sponsored by the
Dabbagh Group, a commercial colossus with close ties to the Saudi royal
family.

His fee for the speech: $300,000.

During Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department, Bill Clinton also
gave four speeches in the United Arab Emirates, earning $1.1 million. For
two speeches in Egypt, he earned $425,000.

UAE-linked entities also have donated at least $2.7 to $11.5 million to the
Clinton Foundation, and Egyptian entities have donated at least $250,000 to
$750,000.

While the State Department did not object to Bill Clinton's speeches in the
Arab world — or anywhere else — it did turn down a proposed consultancy
with a longtime Clinton friend and supporter, the Israeli-American media
mogul Haim Saban.

In turning down the consultancy, a February 2009 State Department memo
noted that Saban "is actively involved in foreign affairs issues,
particularly with regards to the Middle East, which is a priority area for
the secretary."

The consultancy with Teneo and Band, the longtime Clinton adviser, was
outlined in a June 2011 memo from Band himself, writing "on behalf of
President Clinton," to a State Department legal adviser. Bill Clinton would
advise Teneo on "geopolitical, economic and social trends."

Band requested a response within 10 business days. He got it in seven.
"Please be advised that we have no objection," the State Department wrote.

Bill Clinton also was active in China, as was Hillary Clinton, who
championed the notion of a "pivot" toward Asia during her time as secretary
of state.

In the period after Hillary Clinton signed the ethics agreement, Bill
Clinton gave four speeches in China or to Chinese-sponsored entities in the
U.S., earning $1.7 million.

By comparison, between 2001 through 2007 — just after he left office, when
a former president is normally most in demand — he gave seven speeches in
China, earning $1.4 million.

Groups with interests in China also donated between $750,000 and $1.75
million, at a minimum, to the Clinton Foundation.

Taiwan took an interest in Bill Clinton as well. In November 2010, he spoke
on global warming and social inequality at a Taipei event sponsored by
Singapore-based UNI Strategic. His fee? $400,000.

The Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office donated close to $1 million to the
Clinton Foundation, and the Taiwan Mobile Foundation and a semiconductor
manufacturer also contributed.

Turkish sponsors paid Bill Clinton $1 million for three speeches, including
one to an Arab stock exchange.

In Russia, Bill Clinton gave two speeches for $625,000. One was to the
Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital, at a 2010 event titled
"Russian and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global."

The State Department background memo described the bank as "focused on the
emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Sub-Saharan Africa."

The Russian Standard Bank also donated to the foundation.

In India, Bill Clinton collected $300,000 for two speeches. He also gave
speeches to Indian companies and the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce in Toronto, New Jersey and Disney World.

At one, a "conference on business process outsourcing/off-shoring," hosted
by an outsourcing firm, the discussion centered around "the benefits and
disadvantages of outsourcing IT," according to a State Department document.

In Panama, Bill Clinton earned $325,000 for one speech. And in the Cayman
Islands — a notorious offshore money haven — $225,000 for a speech, noted a
State Department document, "at a ticketed event that will target the
business community in Grand Cayman."

*Mother Jones: “Quote of the Day: ‘The Press Loves to Cover Her Hard’”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/quote-day-press-loves-cover-her-hard>*

By Kevin Drum

July 29, 2014, 2:49 p.m. EDT

Dave Weigel notes that the media is still obsessed with Hillary Clinton's
comment about being "dead broke" when she and Bill left the White House:

“They've got to be sick of this by now. Maggie Haberman had it nailed three
weeks ago: Hillary Clinton was ‘still raw over the partisan wars that
hindered her husband’s legacy and left the couple with millions of dollars
in legal debt.’ Her answer, as she told Ramos, was accurate, and it's
baffling to her that this became a ‘gaffe.’ As she continued her tour,
HarperCollins was printing up copies of Clinton, Inc., a tell-all by the
Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper. On Page 18, Halper recalls that in 2001
‘the Clintons were broke, owing a fortune in legal fees from the many
investigations into their personal lives,’ and that they had to be loaned
$1.3 by Terry McAuliffe. Until just a month ago, that was how even
conservatives remembered the Clintons' departure from the White House.”

“She has a lot of positive attributes that are currently just being
overwhelmed by all this negative coverage. And it’s going to keep going.
The momentum—there’s, there’s— The press loves to cover her hard.”

This comes courtesy of Bob Somerby, who's been following this ever since
the initial flood-the-zone coverage of Hillary's ‘gaffe’ in the Washington
Post. Somerby tells the rest of the story:

“Multimillionaire TV stars asked if voters would support a person as
wealthy as Clinton. In response to Clinton’s answers, some of the nation’s
most famous pundits launched their famous ‘gaffe culture.’

“The Washington Post even launched a front-page jihad concerning the size
of Clinton’s speaking fees. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd assailed
Clinton for her ‘rapacious’ behavior and her ‘wanton acquisitiveness,’
which she was said to be passing along to her daughter.

“....Halperin made a starting suggestion—he suggested the press corps’
coverage of a major candidate could determine the outcome of our next White
House campaign.

“Plainly, that’s what happened in Campaign 2000, when a twenty-month war
against Candidate Gore let George Bush reach the White House. In the main,
that war was conducted by the mainstream press corps, not by the RNC.

“The press corps’ poisonous war against Gore let Bush reach the White
House. But it’s a basic law of the guild: Major journalists never suggest
that the behavior of their own guild could have such startling effects.”

The media's preoccupation with the Clintons' wealth won't last forever.
Even for the Washington press corps, it's too transparently silly to
pretend that it's somehow surprising that a presidential candidate is
wealthy. But Somerby and Halperin are right: it's a sign of things to come.
The press has never liked Hillary, and she's never liked them, and that's
that. If she decides to run for president, this is going to be one of her
biggest problems—or maybe her biggest, period. She's just never going to
catch a break.

*Facebook post: Sen. Ted Cruz
<https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152603151697464>*

By Sen. Ted Cruz

July 29, 2014, 2:22 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton seems to fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Hamas
doesn't put rockets in schools, mosques, hospitals, and homes because "Gaza
is pretty small."

Hamas does so--and tells civilians to stay there, when the rockets are
about to be taken out--because they want to use the citizens of Gaza as
human shields. The entire objective, for Hamas, is to have heart-wrenching
pictures of dead Palestinian women and children emblazoned across the
evening news, for the UN and the media to use to demonize Israel. Using
civilians as human shields is a war crime, and Secretary Clinton should not
be excusing it merely as a consequence of the small size of Gaza.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  August 9 – Water Mill, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the Clinton
Foundation at the home of George and Joan Hornig (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/17/for-50000-best-dinner-seats-with-the-clintons-in-the-hamptons/>
)

·  August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx
Summit (BusinessWire
<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E>
)

·  September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean
Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today
<http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html>
)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  ~ October 13-16 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/keynotes.jsp>)

 ·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)