New York Times | Hillary Clinton's in the House New York Times In the weeks since losing the election, Hillary Clinton has gone to four Broadway shows often enough that industry wags joke about making her a Tony voter. And she's even been spotted at theater district haunts last week, just before seeing a ... Hillary Receives Standing Ovation At Broadway Show (Video) |
View original post here:
Hillary Clinton's in the House - New York Times
A Hillary volunteer reflects on Presidents Day.
karakotsya / Shutterstock, Inc.
A dog started barking inside when I knocked on the door, the desultory, half-assed bark of an animal who doesnt really feel alarmed. Somebodys probably home, I thought. But after half a minute or so, I wasnt sure. I started to peel off one of the door-hangers I was carrying, and then, sure enough, I heard a fumbling at the latch.
The door opened a couple of feet to reveal a pretty, freckled, sleepy-looking woman in her 20s, dressed in a long T-shirt, with curly blond hair and a stud in her nose. I had clearly just woken her up. The apartment behind her was in darkness; the dark-colored, medium-size dog crowded behind her legs, curious.
Hello, I said. Are you I read the name from my list.
Yeah, she said.
Great, well, Im Mark, and Im volunteering for the Arizona Democratic Party, and were here in the neighborhood today talking to registered Democrats, reminding you to vote early. Youre a registered Democrat, right?
Yeah.
Have you received your ballot?
Yeah.
Great, and have you voted yet?
Not yet, hon. Im not sure if Im going to vote. I dont really believe in the process.
Her voice was quiet and flat. She didnt even seem particularly annoyed at the interruption of her afternoon, just massively, affectlessly uninterested.
Well, wed sure like to encourage you to vote early, and to vote for Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates. I handed her the door-hanger.
Okay, hon. Thanks for coming by.
Her door closed, and I descended the stairway from her apartment, back into the heat of a late October Sunday in Phoenix. I jotted down the disappointing results of my visit on my sheet, then looked around at the baffling, unhelpful signs on the surrounding buildings, trying to figure out the most efficient route to the next apartment.
When I said, Were here in the neighborhood today, I had been using the editorial we. At least in this enormous, labyrinthine complex of shabby apartments, it was just me. I had been there for most of an hour, and the sleepy young woman with the nose stud was only the second person I had found at home. The first, a middle-aged lady, had claimed she was not the person I asked for. I didnt doubt her. The sprawling complex was divided into two sets of apartments with the same set of number-and-letter sequences. I was never sure, as I knocked, if I was at the right 128-A or 202-C, and the geographical division of the two sections had no logic that I could grasp. I was sweaty sweatier than usual, that is my legs ached, and I was tired of carrying around this stack of door hangers.
This was the penultimate weekend before Election Day. For months, I had carried a seriously bad feeling that Donald Trump could be elected president. I had written a longish essay, directed less at Trump enthusiasts than at those who were reluctant, at one level or another, to vote for Hillary Clinton, and I had donated a (very) few bucks to Clintons campaign.
But none of this felt like enough.
My career as a political activist has been neither extensive nor triumphant. I have a dim memory of spending some time in the Washington, D.C. campaign offices of Michael Dukakis in 1988. I think I distributed buttons or something.
In 2006, I did some speechwriting for a Democratic Congressional candidate in Riverside County, California. This was the midterm election of George W. Bushs second term, the year that the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress. But my guy was decisively defeated by Republican incumbent Mary Bono.
Then in 2010, when my former New Times colleague John Dougherty ran a quixotic campaign here in Arizona for John McCains Senate seat, I e-mailed him (at the request of his campaign manager) with some pointers on public speaking. He graciously acknowledged these; whether he tried to put them into practice I dont know. In any case, he finished third in the Democratic primary.
Youd think I might have taken the hint, and helped by not trying to help. But no, I decided to get off my ass and away from my keyboard and take part in the famous Democratic ground game, the one Mitt Romney had disdained to play in 2012, and that Donald Trumps campaign was likewise ignoring.
Through one of the innumerable wheedling mass e-mails I received every day, Id arranged to go canvassing, trying to persuade Democrats in my part of town to fill out the early ballot theyd received. I went to the local contact persons home, and shed given me a map, a sheet with a script from which I was encouraged to depart if I wanted to add in personal anecdotes about why I supported the Democrats several sheets of names and addresses of registered Democrats, and a sheaf of flyers to hang on the knob when nobody answered the Halloween-decorated doors.
This had proven the most common result, so far. I had spent the previous afternoon, Saturday, wandering around this place as well. Hardly anyone seemed to be at home, and of those who were, several claimed, like the lady, not to be the person I was looking for. Maybe a half-dozen people had confessed to being, or being related too, the person listed on my sheet.
Over both days, a couple of these folks told me, without much passion, that they would be voting for Hillary Clinton. An elderly African-American man told me that he already had, and shook my hand hard, thanking me for my efforts so vehemently that it made me feel sheepish. A younger African-American man, according to his T-shirt a military veteran, had expressed concern at my flushed, unhealthy appearance and insisted I drink a bottle of water from his fridge.
Despite these kindnesses, the experience was the most disheartening, futile-feeling attempt at civic participation in which I had ever engaged (not, I admit, that this is saying much). I saw singles and young couples of all races skinny, tatted-up, perplexed-looking young men and overweight, addled young women corralling small children. There were also plenty of sallow, haggard, nicotine-stained seniors, looking like theyd washed up in this vast dreary compound after financially disappointing careers.
No one was angry or unfriendly. A number of people even thanked me, in an obligatory sort of way. And a preteen girl out in front of her apartment took a break from pestering her older brother to tell me a pretty good joke as I passed: Why cant you hear a pterodactyl go to the bathroom? (Sorry, but youll have to keep reading if you want the answer.)
But no one seemed very concerned about the presidential race, one way or the other. Though the complex wasnt a slum, the people I saw there, both those that came to the door and their passing neighbors, nonetheless looked to me like the sort of folks that would be very directly and adversely affected by a Democratic loss, even in a normal election year.
Yet to the very real possibility that Donald Trump could be elected president, most showed only a polite, distracted disinterest. At least two other young women told me, with no hostility, that there was no difference between the candidates. No one seemed to disagree with the idea that Trump was a terrible choice for president, but no one seemed to think it had any great bearing on their lives. I might have been talking to them about an election happening in Sri Lanka, or perhaps, about a fictional election happening on a TV show.
At one point I wandered between two buildings at the far south end of the complex, looked across the alley they faced, and saw the back of my own house. I hadnt realized the apartments extended that far. I had often wondered about the people whose arguments and laughter trickled over the wall while I sat in my backyard.
Now, Id met them. But I didnt understand them.
Late in the following week, the guy from the Arizona Democratic Party called me. Would I be willing to go out again? I said I would.
This time the contact lady gave me a map of a neighborhood of single-family homes. My neighborhood, as it turned out. It was the weekend before the election, so it was too late to vote early; now, my job was to get people to say they would show up at the polls Tuesday and vote the old-fashioned way.
I parked on a street a few blocks from my house, within walking distance of two registered Dems, according to my sheet. Amazingly, the first guy was at home, shirtless, puttering around his garage. He accepted the little flyer with the address of the polling place a nearby elementary school with thanks but no other comment.
Across the street and a few houses down, I approached the address of my second target on that block. There was a New England Patriots bumper sticker on the minivan in the driveway. A good Massachusetts liberal, I stereotypically decided. The screen door was closed, but the inner door was open. I rang the doorbell.
Instantly a pack of tiny dogs, four at least, charged at the screen and began rioting. More slowly, a stout Anglo woman of about my age shambled in from the back yard, where she seemed to be grilling, and approached the door.
Hi, Im sorry to disturb you, I said over the canine din. Im volunteering with the Arizona Democratic Party. I read her name from the sheet.
Thats me.
And youre registered to vote, right?
No, she said. Im a felon. We both are. So we cant vote.
Then she added, Thank God.
Again, no difference between the candidates, I thought as I headed back down her driveway. Not having to choose between them was an occasion for thankfulness, even thankfulness for being a felon.
This proved not to be a typical encounter, however. The second weekends task was a little less depressing. The folks in the single-family houses were, to begin with, more frequently at home, or at any rate more willing to answer the door. They also seemed more engaged, warmer, more aware of the stakes in the matter.
But just around the corner from my house, I walked up a driveway where a couple of souped-up, expensive-looking cars were parked, and a small group of young Latino-looking guys were discussing them in Spanish in the open garage. The first name of the person listed on my sheet for this address was Jesus, and the last name sounded Asian.
Yeah, thats me, said a slight guy of around 25 who looked, indeed, like he might be of both Asian and Latino descent.
Great, hi, Im volunteering with the Arizona Democratic Party. Youre a registered voter, right?
Yeah.
Have you voted yet?
No.
Will we have your support next Tuesday?
Nah, I dont think so. I dont see any difference between the candidates.
OK, here was my big moment to campaign, to persuade, to state my position.
What I was thinking was: Really, Jesus? No shit? You dont see the slightest difference between the candidates? No difference at all? What I said was something like:
Well, I cant agree. I realize that Hillary Clinton isnt a perfect candidate, but I think shes vastly preferable to Trump.
Yeah, said one of the other guys, with a chuckle. Jesus just shrugged. I handed him a flyer, asked him to reconsider, and headed for my truck.
The experience left me without the slightest sense that I gained Hillary Clinton so much as one vote beyond my own. About the best I can hope for is that I didnt actually lose her any votes, didnt turn anybody who was planning to vote for her off so badly that they changed their mind. Im not even sure of that.
As I write these words, Donald Trump has been president of the United States for less than a month. Im trying to think of what lessons, if any, I might draw from my couple of weekends as Clinton volunteer.
Well, first of all, let me say that activists who do this sort of tiring, unrewarding, dispiriting work who devote weeks and months and for that matter years to doing it, and not, like me, just a few hours, mostly to stave off guilt are heroic, as far as Im concerned.
Having said that, Im wondering if maybe the ground game isnt what it used to be. In an astoundingly short time, social-media outlets have radically changed the way millions and millions of people in our society (including me) interact with each other. It appears that the old retail-politics model of looking the voters in the eye, shaking their hands, and asking them for their vote has become, in the space of just a few years, unnecessary, even quaint. In a few more years, it may seem as obsolete as the whistle-stop speech. And it appears that Trump and his campaign instinctively understood this to a degree that the Clinton campaign didnt.
Finally, the biggest impression I got was: the progressive cause isnt getting through to young people, or at least not to working-class young people. The ones I talked to were registered Democrats, but many of them seemed to see their party as a big, monolithic, impersonal social force with roughly the same level of concern for them (none at all, in their mind) as the opposing party.
If Im right that this is their impression and I grant that its risky to speculate based on the tiny sample size of folks I met then I sure hope that its unfair. Maybe their youth, and the fact that they came of age over eight years without a Republican White House, leads them to see the likes of reproductive rights, marriage equality, or even access to health care, if they think about them at all, as givens. If so, then they, and all of us, may be about to learn that these are, rather, hard-won social victories that can quickly be taken away without a party even a compromised, corrupt, minimally progressive party to defend them.
Anyway, this is my best shot at a few tentative conclusions, for whatever they may be worth.
Oh, yeah, thats right, I owe you a punchline: Why cant you hear a pterodactyl go to the bathroom?
Because the P is silent.
See the rest here:
Confessions of a Hillary Clinton Canvasser - Phoenix New Times
|
Posted: Feb 20, 2017 10:34 AM
An e-mail in WikiLeaks Podesta database shows a former State Department official with close ties to Hillary Clinton met with an ambassador to China early in 2016 and attempted to facilitate a secret off the record meeting between Clinton and the ambassador to discuss U.S.-China relations.
The revelation comes as many in the liberal press are attempting to use the 18th-century Logan Act as evidence of then-President-elect Trumps potentially illegal communications with the Russian government.
Their argument goes something like this: Michael Flynn, Trumps former national security adviser, was allegedly in communication with Russian officials to discuss sanctions passed by the Obama administration prior to Trumps inauguration. If Trump had directed Flynn to engage in conversations over official state business prior to taking office, he and Flynn violated the Logan Act, because they never sought permission from the Obama administration to do so. If Flynn had engaged in these conversations on his own, he would still be guilty of violating the Logan Act, but Trump would escape liability.
There are numerous problems with these claims, which have recently been advanced by influential news outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post. For starters, no one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act in its 200-year history, and according to Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard, the only man charged under the law was a Kentucky farmer who wrote a newspaper article in 1803 about American territories allying with Franceand even he was never prosecuted.
Critics of Trump and Flynn say even if the outdated Logan Act cant be used to bring forth a prosecution, Flynns actions deserve condemnation. They argue we cant have private citizensa dubious claim considering the Trump administration was just weeks away from taking overnegotiating deals without the approval of the sitting administration.
Unfortunately for those on the left making these assertions, evidence in WikiLeaks John Podesta e-mails show Hillary Clinton may also have engaged in similar actions as those committed by Flynn. In a January 2016 e-mail sent to Podesta and several high-level Clinton staffers, Kurt Campbell, the former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (from 2009 to 2013), told the Clinton team he had a private meeting with a Chinese ambassador who wanted to have an informal, private, off the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the current state of US-China affairs.
Clinton staffer Jake Sullivan responded by saying he had three or four other things to discuss with you. Can we do a calltomorrow or Monday? On the same e-mail chain, Podesta would later agree to reach out to Campbell to discuss the matter.
If Clinton did meet with the Chinese ambassador, as Campbell suggested, her meeting also violated the Logan Act, assuming such a claim could be made against Flynn. Regardless of whether the Logan Act should apply (I dont think it should), her staffs attempts to set up the meeting is even more troubling than anything Flynn allegedly did, because Clintons team attempted to put this meeting together (and may have succeeded) prior to the 2016 election. Whatever faults can be reasonably claimed against Flynn for speaking to Russian officials, its clear he was acting in anticipation of becoming President Trumps national security advisor just a few short weeks later.
Its also notable this isnt the only time Campbell had engaged in important foreign policy matters without holding a government post. In another e-mail in WikiLeaks database, Hillary Clinton wrote to Podesta to ask about Campbells attempts to negotiate behind the scenes with the Chinese side prior to an important summit between Obama and the Chinese government. In the e-mail, sent October 22, 2014, Clinton wrote, Ive heard that the NSC team (Evan, et al) is working to include wildlife protection in the agenda. Kurt Campbell has also been working the Chinese side and believes they will agree if US/POTUS side makes it a clear priority.
Campbell, who had already left his post in the State Department, appears again to have potentially been in violation of the Logan Act.
Its entirely possible, of course, Campbell had been asked and authorized by the Obama administration to engage in these talks, but I couldnt find a single record in 2014 indicating Obama had done so. In fact, in a detailed article about the summit by David Ignatius in The Washington Post in November 2014, many individuals who engaged in negotiations leading up to the talks are mentioned, but Campbell, who is cited and quoted in the story, is not one of them. Hes instead labeled a consultant.
Whether Campbell was engaging in talks with foreign officials without permission from President Obama cannot be known without a much more detailed investigation, but its clear from these examples (and there are probably many more) that the sort of discussions had by Flynn were not nearly as irregular as so many seem to suggest.
How likely is it Clinton (and/or her staff and allies) and Campbell will now face the same media outrage experienced by Flynn and Trump over similar accusations? Not very, which is precisely why so few Americans trust the media when it constantly rails against the Trump administration.
Milo Now OUT at CPAC After Shocking Video Emerges
Calls to Boycott Wegmans Backfire as Stores Sell Out of Trump Wine
Read the original post:
Did Hillary Clinton Have a Secret Meeting with Chinese Officials Before 2016 Election? - Townhall
During his chaotic 77-minute press conference on Thursday, President Donald Trump was on the defensive about his relationship with Russia. One key point he made, attempting to prove that that he wasnt soft on Moscow, was to paint the previous administration as weak in handling the Kremlin by claiming again that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of our uranium as secretary of state.
Heres what he actually said during a rambling attempt to convince reporters that his Russia strategy was sound and not the product of some covert relationship that compromises the integrity of his policies:
By the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia. Just so you understand that. Tomorrow, you will say, "Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia; this is terrible." It is not terrible.
It is good. We had Hillary Clinton try to do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? Its this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that. I did not do anything for Russia. I've done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember, with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks?
The very first part of what Trump said, about it being desirable to get along with Russia, makes sense. It might seem counterintuitive during a time when much of the American public is enraged at Russia for allegedly engaging in election-related cyberattacks and finds the idea of cooperating with its authoritarian government to be distasteful. But powerful countries getting along as well as they can with their powerful rivals can be a good thing, as it makes it less likely that they'll end up in costly conflict with each other, even if their interests are at odds on many matters. And that is indeed why, as he points out, the Obama administration made serious attempts to try to improve US-Russian ties.
But the claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of Americas uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russias nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity a move the US State Department signed off on. But PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year when Trump first made it on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:
The general inaccuracy of Trumps claim isnt surprising; at this point, it would be more shocking if he strung together five minutes worth of sentences that werent packed with falsehoods and lies.
But his misleading comments are in service of a broader goal: to push back against the notion that hes at Vladimir Putins beck and call. Trump wants to make the case that the Obama administration is the real culprit when it comes to being too easy on the Kremlin by catering to its geopolitical interests for little in exchange. And hes exaggerating points about uranium to make that case.
By contrast, Trump vows that hes done nothing for Russia. Thats not really true. Trump has constantly pushed back against the intelligence communitys claims about Russias interference with the US election, and said that even if theyre true, he doesnt understand all the fuss about it making it less likely that the GOP will investigate Russias conduct rigorously. And his open embrace of Putin in the public sphere for many years has helped boost the Russian leaders stature among the nationalist right in the US and Europe as a strong leader and a vital ally against Islamist terrorism around the world.
Theres also the possibility that Trumps team has in fact floated concrete gifts to Putin. We know that his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, spoke about sanctions with the Russian ambassador on the phone the very day that Obama slapped new sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies for their role in using cyberattacks to interfere with the presidential election. While we cant confirm the substance of the call, two government officials claimed in interviews with the Washington Post that Flynn cautioned Russia against reciprocating Obamas sanctions because Trump would be in a position to lift them when he entered office. If thats true, that might in part explain why Putin overrode his own foreign minister in declaring that hed wait for the next administration before reacting to sanctions.
Theres plenty of evidence that suggests Trump simply really likes Russia. Hell use whatever points he can to distract from it.
Originally posted here:
No, Hillary Clinton did not "give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in the US - Vox
February 20 House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) announced today that the impeachment proceeding against President Hillary Clinton would proceed directly to a vote of the full House.
We know everything we need to know, said Goodlatte. This woman belongs in prison, or worse, for the high crime of treason.
House Speaker Paul Ryan added, We knew Hillary Clinton was incompetent and we knew she was corrupt. But trading favors with Vladimir Putin to throw the election, and to enrich the Clinton business interests, is a new low, even for the Clintons.
I dont want to pre-judge this, since the Senate still needs to vote to convict, added Senate leader Mitch McConnell, but her behavior makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot.
We now know, said Goodlatte, citing the bill of impeachment, that the Clinton campaign did the following:
Several senior aides in the campaign were in regular contact with Russian intelligence. They signaled the Russian leadership that a Clinton administration would give the Russians a freer hand to pursue expansionary objectives. In return, the Russians hacked into the Trump campaigns confidential internal communications. All this while the Clintons had extensive business interests in Russia.
Even now, an unrepentant Clinton has doubled down on her disgusting habit of selling out the security of the United States for the business interests of her family. China. After feigning a tougher on Chinese, Clinton abruptly backed down and confirmed Americas One China policy and the Chinese government suddenly violated its own laws to resolve a long-blocked trademark dispute in the Clintons favor.
McConnell added, Pathetically, the Democrats have focused on the leaks, by patriotic members of the intelligence community. They liked the leaks just fine when they were coming from Putin. During the campaign, candidate Clinton even urged Putin to provide more leaks of confidential Republic campaign conversations.
This is far worse than Watergate, said Ryan, Because it involved meddling by Americas most treacherous global rival; and because unlike in 1972, it actually altered the election results. I cant believe that only a handful of Democrats are concerned about this.
Okay, the shoe is on the other foot. Most Republicans have reversed their longstanding view of the Russian threat rather than embarrass Donald Trump. Its breathtaking. Theyre okay with having Putin be the dominant world leader as long as Republicans get their tax cuts, deregulation, Supreme Court, and dismantling of government.
With a handful of exceptions, the Republicans already concluded that selling out America in exchange for partisan goals is an acceptable deal. Hypocrisy is rampant in politics, but this takes it to an unimagined extreme.
A curious question for this Republic is whether its better or worse that our would-be dictator is so thoroughly incompetent and disorganized. You might say that a more competent demagogue would do even more damage. By now, he would have a fully staffed administration in place. There would be less chaos, less infighting, and a more consistent game plan.
At the same time, Trumps very weirdness makes him that much more dangerous. Trumps approval ratings keep dropping, but its a long way to 2018. The question is which pays the price first the Republicans or the Republic.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis Universitys Heller School. His latest book is Debtors Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/0307959805
Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook: http://facebook.com/RobertKuttner
Originally posted here:
The Impeachment Of Hillary Clinton - Huffington Post