From Florida section:
"Republicans' weakness among minority voters is well known. But the reason this race is so close overall is Clinton's historic weakness among white men. In Florida, she is getting just 25 percent from white men," Brown said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[Quinnipiac University Polling Logo]
May 10, 2016 - Clinton-Trump Close In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds
PDF format
---
*         FLORIDA: Clinton 43 - Trump 42; Sanders 44 - Trump 42
*         OHIO: Clinton 39 - Trump 43; Sanders 43 - Trump 41
*         PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 43 - Trump 42; Sanders 47 - Trump 41
In a race marked by wide gender, age and racial gaps, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are running neck and neck in the key presidential Swing States of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont runs stronger against the likely Republican nominee, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.
Clinton and Trump both have negative favorability ratings among voters in each state, compared to Sanders' split score, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.
The presidential matchups show:
*         Florida - Clinton at 43 percent, with 42 percent for Trump and Sanders at 44 percent to Trump's 42 percent;
*         Ohio - Trump edges Clinton 43 - 39 percent, while Sanders gets 43 percent to Trump's 41 percent;
*         Pennsylvania - Clinton at 43 percent to Trump's 42 percent, while Sanders leads Trump 47 - 41 percent.
"Six months from Election Day, the presidential races between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the three most crucial states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are too close to call," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll.
"At this juncture, Trump is doing better in Pennsylvania than the GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012. And the two candidates are about where their party predecessors were at this point in Ohio and Florida."
"This election may be good for divorce lawyers. The gender gap is massive and currently benefits Trump," Brown added. "In Pennsylvania, Clinton's 19-point lead among women matches Trump's 21-point margin among men. In Ohio, she is up 7 points among women but down 15 points with men. In Florida she is up 13 points among women but down 13 points among men."
"Trump would do a better job handling the economy, voters say. He also would do a better job handling terrorism, voters in Florida and Ohio say. Pennsylvania voters are divided.
"By wide margins, voters in all three states say Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and by smaller margins, voters in all three states say she has higher moral standards."
Florida
A 48 - 35 percent lead among women gives Clinton an overall score of 43 percent. Trump's 49 - 36 percent lead among men gives him 42 percent of all voters.
Independent voters are divided 39 - 39 percent. White voters go Republican 52 - 33 percent, while non-white voters go Democratic 63 - 20 percent. Voters 18 to 34 years old back Clinton 49 - 27 percent, while voters over 65 years old back Trump 50 - 37 percent.
Clinton and Trump each get a negative 37 - 57 percent favorability rating.
Florida voters say 54 - 40 percent that Trump would do a better job than Clinton handling the economy, and say 49 - 43 percent that he would be better on terrorism.
Voters say 52 - 38 percent that Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and 46 - 41 percent that she has higher moral standards. Clinton has the temperament to handle an international crisis, Florida voters say 54 - 44 percent. Trump does not, voters say 62 - 34 percent.
Florida voters support 77 - 20 percent, including 60 - 36 percent among Democrats, requiring voters to show photo ID.
Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship, 57 percent of voters say, while 11 percent say they can stay but not apply for citizenship and 25 percent say they should be required to leave the U.S.
Florida voters split 48 - 48 percent on whether the U.S. should build a wall along the Mexican border. Men support the wall 54 - 44 percent, with women opposed 52 - 43 percent. White voters want a wall 55 - 41 percent, with non-white voters opposed 65 - 31 percent.
"Republicans' weakness among minority voters is well known. But the reason this race is so close overall is Clinton's historic weakness among white men. In Florida, she is getting just 25 percent from white men," Brown said.
Ohio
The gender and racial gaps are wide in Ohio, where Trump edges Clinton 43 - 39 percent. He leads 51 - 36 percent among men, while she takes women 43 - 36 percent. White voters go Republican 49 - 32 percent, as non-white voters vote Democratic 76 - 14 percent.
The age gap narrows as voters 18 to 34 years old go 43 percent for Clinton and 39 percent for Trump, while voters over 65 go 46 percent for Trump and 40 percent for Clinton.
Independent voters go 40 percent for Trump and 37 percent for Clinton.
Clinton gets a negative 34 - 62 percent favorability, compared to Trump's negative 36 - 57 percent.
Trump would do a better job than Clinton handling the economy, Ohio voters say 52 - 40 percent. He also would be better on terrorism, voters say 48 - 43 percent.
Ohio voters say 47 - 39 percent Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and by a narrow 43 - 39 percent that she has higher moral standards.
Clinton has the temperament to handle an international crisis, Ohio voters say 51 - 46 percent, while Trump does not, voters say 63 - 29 percent.
Voters support 75 - 22 percent requiring voters to show photo ID. Democrats are divided with 50 percent in favor of photo ID and 48 percent opposed.
Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship, 54 percent of voters say, while 9 percent say they can stay but not apply for citizenship and 31 percent say they should be required to leave the U.S.
Ohio voters oppose 52 - 45 percent building a wall along the border with Mexico. White voters are divided as 50 percent want a wall, with 46 percent opposed. Non-white voters are opposed 79 - 19 percent.
"Ohioans oppose 'The Wall' 52 - 45 percent, while they are overwhelmingly in favor of requiring a photo ID for anyone wanting to vote," Brown said. "They are happy with the economy and satisfied with the way things are going in the state - all of which is a nice testament to Gov. John Kasich, who dropped out of the White House race last week, but might be back as Trump's running mate."
Pennsylvania
It's the same story of gender and racial gaps in Pennsylvania, where Clinton gets 43 percent to Trump's 42 percent. Women back Clinton 51 - 32 percent, while men go to Trump 54 - 33 percent. White voters go Republican 48 - 37 percent, while non-white voters go Democratic 74 - 14 percent.
Clinton edges Trump 43 - 36 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, while Trump has a slim 49 - 42 percent lead among voters over 65 years old.
Clinton and Trump both have negative favorability ratings, 37 - 58 percent for her and 39 - 55 percent for him.
Pennsylvania voters say 51 - 42 percent that Trump would do a better job than Clinton handling the economy. They are divided on who best would handle terrorism, as 47 percent say Trump and 46 percent say Clinton.
Clinton is more intelligent than Trump, Pennsylvania voters say 52 - 35 percent and she has higher moral standards, voters say 48 - 39 percent.
Clinton has the temperament to handle an international crisis, Pennsylvania voters say 55 - 42 percent, while Trump does not, voters say 62 - 33 percent.
Voters support 64 - 34 percent requiring voters to show photo ID. Support is 94 - 6 percent among Republicans and 63 - 35 percent among independent voters. Democrats are opposed 56 - 40 percent.
Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship, 58 percent of voters say, while 10 percent say they can stay but not apply for citizenship and 27 percent say they should be required to leave the U.S.
Pennsylvania voters oppose 51 - 45 percent building a wall along the border with Mexico. White voters are divided as 49 percent want a wall with 47 percent opposed. Non-white voters are opposed 71 - 26 percent.
"Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are locked in Pennsylvania and they have similar, awful numbers on honesty and favorability," said Tim Malloy, assistant Director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "The one glaring difference: Trump is crushed on the question of which candidate has the temperament and personality to handle an international crisis. It's a vote of confidence the Clinton camp can dine out on and Trump supporters have to see as a red flag."
From April 27 - May 8 Quinnipiac University surveyed:
*         1,051 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points;
*         1,042 Ohio voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points;
*         1,077 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research.
Visit  or www.facebook.com/quinnipiac poll. Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
1. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
FL     OH     PA
Clinton              43%    39%    43%
Trump                42     43     42
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      3      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      7      8      7
DK/NA                 6      6      5
2. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
FL     OH     PA
Sanders              44%    43%    47%
Trump                42     41     41
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      2      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      7      8      5
DK/NA                 4      6      5
3. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?
FL     OH     PA
Favorable            37%    34%    37%
Unfavorable          57     62     58
Hvn't hrd enough      3      2      4
REFUSED               3      2      1
4. Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
FL     OH     PA
Favorable            43%    45%    50%
Unfavorable          41     40     36
Hvn't hrd enough     14     12     12
REFUSED               1      2      3
5. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
FL     OH     PA
Favorable            37%    36%    39%
Unfavorable          57     57     55
Hvn't hrd enough      3      5      4
REFUSED               3      3      2
11. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job handling the economy - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
FL     OH     PA
Clinton              40%    40%    42%
Trump                54     52     51
DK/NA                 6      8      7
12. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job handling terrorism - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
FL     OH     PA
Clinton              43%    43%    46%
Trump                49     48     47
DK/NA                 7      9      7
13. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in - (FL) Florida / (OH) Ohio / (PA) Pennsylvania - today; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
FL     OH     PA
Very satisfied        9%    13%     4%
Smwht satisfied      49     54     40
Smwht dissatisfied   26     22     33
Very dissatisfied    15     10     21
DK/NA                 1      1      1
14. Would you describe the state of - (FL) Florida's / (OH) Ohio's / (PA) Pennsylvania's - economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
FL     OH     PA
Excellent             5%     4%     1%
Good                 52     57     38
Not so good          30     29     44
Poor                 10      9     14
DK/NA                 2      1      2
15. Do you think - (FL) Florida's / (OH) Ohio's / (PA) Pennsylvania's - economy is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?
FL     OH     PA
Better               34%    35%    16%
Worse                11     12     26
The same             53     52     56
DK/NA                 2      2      3
16. Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago?
FL     OH     PA
Better off           47%    50%    39%
Worse off            28     24     34
SAME(VOL)            24     24     26
DK/NA                 1      1      2
17. Would you say that Hillary Clinton - is honest and trustworthy or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  29%    27%    30%
No                   66     69     67
DK/NA                 4      4      3
18. Would you say that Donald Trump - is honest and trustworthy or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  38%    35%    39%
No                   57     58     55
DK/NA                 5      7      6
19. Would you say that Hillary Clinton - has strong leadership qualities or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  53%    54%    58%
No                   45     44     40
DK/NA                 2      2      2
20. Would you say that Donald Trump - has strong leadership qualities or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  60%    61%    62%
No                   37     36     37
DK/NA                 3      3      1
21. Would you say that Hillary Clinton - cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  41%    44%    44%
No                   56     53     52
DK/NA                 2      3      4
22. Would you say that Donald Trump - cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  40%    37%    39%
No                   58     58     58
DK/NA                 3      5      3
23. Would you say that Hillary Clinton - has the right kind of temperament and personality to handle an international crisis as President, or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  54%    51%    55%
No                   44     46     42
DK/NA                 2      3      3
24. Would you say that Donald Trump - has the right kind of temperament and personality to handle an international crisis as President, or not?
FL     OH     PA
Yes                  34%    29%    33%
No                   62     63     62
DK/NA                 3      7      5
25. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think has higher moral standards: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
FL     OH     PA
Clinton              46%    43%    48%
Trump                41     39     39
DK/NA                12     18     13
26. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think is more intelligent: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
FL     OH     PA
Clinton              52%    47%    52%
Trump                38     39     35
DK/NA                10     15     13
29. As you may know, there have been efforts in some states to require voters to show a photo identification card to vote. Some people say this is needed to prevent people from voting who are not eligible to vote. Other people say such efforts are designed to suppress voting by minorities. What do you think: do you support or oppose efforts to require voters to show a photo identification card to vote?
FL     OH     PA
Support              77%    75%    64%
Oppose               20     22     34
DK/NA                 3      3      2
30. Which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States? A) They should be allowed to stay in the United States and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. B) They should be allowed to remain in the United States, but not be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship. C) They should be required to leave the U.S.
FL     OH     PA
A) Stay/Citizenship  57%    54%    58%
B) Stay/Not citizen  11      9     10
C) Not stay          25     31     27
DK/NA                 7      5      4
31. Would you support or oppose building a wall along the border with Mexico?
FL     OH     PA
Support              48%    45%    45%
Oppose               48     52     51
DK/NA                 4      3      4
Additional info by state:
Florida:
State Crosstabs
Trend Tables
Sample and Methodology detail
Ohio:
State Crosstabs
Trend Tables
Sample and Methodology detail
Pennsylvania:
State Crosstabs
Trend Tables
Sample and Methodology detail


Hi Pablo -
Thanks for the ideas and meeting today.
When do you think I can expect a Communications Surrogate List?
Attached is the template with the required fields needed for surrogates.
Let your team know they can find home addresses on VoteBuilder.
To meet deadlines on my end, I'd like roughly 200 contacts/talkers (roughly 20 surrogates per team member) by NOON May 19.
I can always check to see if a person is already in the database or answer any questions.
If that's going to be an issue, let's talk ASAP to discuss priorities with the bosses.
Thank you in advance.
Jennifer W. Sanchez
Deputy Director for Surrogate Operations
Democratic National Committee
Cell: 801.403.4817 |Office: 202.863.8070
Email: jennifer@dnc.org
| Twitter: @jennsanchezmpa
Address: 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
www.Democrats.org


We only handle press calls. They have to own their own jobs. We CAN and SHOULD provide them existing talking points to work from, but that's it.
________________________________
From: Jefferson, Deshundra
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 6:55 AM
To: Miranda, Luis
Cc: Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric
Subject: Re: Please read: Script for Thursday's DWA Call
This is my first CE call, and I thought we were responsible for writing the script. Didn't know the protocol. Will let Laila handle everything.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 11, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Miranda, Luis
> wrote:
Why are you writing a community engagement team script? Entirely NOT your or our responsibility.
They need to do their own work. We need you focused on state events, not a second more spent on their call.
-------- Original message --------
From: "Jefferson, Deshundra"
>
Date: 05/11/2016 6:20 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Miranda, Luis"
>, "Paustenbach, Mark"
>, "Banfill, Ryan"
>, "Walker, Eric"
>, "Walsh, Tom"
>
Subject: Re: Please read: Script for Thursday's DWA Call
Wanted to re-up for this morning.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 10, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Jefferson, Deshundra
> wrote:
Dejuana Thompson, Moderator
Hello everyone and thank you for joining us. My name is Dejuana Thompson , the Deputy Director of Community Engagement at the DNC. Community Engagement works to promote advocacy among various progressive political leaders and activists across the country. We work closely with key leadership of the DNC, state parties, external partners, and allies to ensure seamless integration into the larger DNC strategy and engage, inform, and mobilize specific constituencies.
I am proud to welcome the DNC Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC’s Women’s Caucus Lottie Shackleford, and Pratt Wiley the National Director of Voter Expansion at the DNC, to this call.
I would like to remind everyone that this call is strictly off-the-record, and is closed to the press.
With that, it is my pleasure to turn this call over to the DNC Chair Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.
DNC Chair Representative Wasserman Schultz
Thank you Marilyn. I also want to thank everyone on this call for joining us today.
The right to vote is our most fundamental right, and the right by which all of our other rights are secured. No one should ever take for granted their right to vote, nor should anyone seek to take that right away.
But the GOP seems to believe their path to victory lies in restricting access to the ballot box, and Republican-led state legislatures are leading the charge in key battleground states across the country.
We see that most clearly in North Carolina, where the so-called Voter Information Verification Act, reversed a generation of electoral progress. Passed in the wake a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the bill eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back early voting by a full week, and imposed new photo ID requirements for voters. This purely partisan law was passed without any support from Democrats because its intent was clear from the very beginning – to systematically limit access to the polls in order to sway elections.
It is deeply disturbing that as our nation moves forward, one of the country’s major political parties is attempting to drag us backward. We should not have to re-litigate yesterday’s battles or continue a fight we have previously won.
Yet this is playing out all across the country.
From North Carolina to Wisconsin to Arizona, we’ve seen a number of states pass anti-voter laws designed to limit access to the polls. Whether it’s implementing restrictive photo ID laws, rolling back early voting, eliminating same-day registration, or changing polling locations without notifying voters, these types of tactics make it harder to vote.
When we limit the ways that people can vote, we are hurting the low-wage workers with two jobs, the recently married woman who hasn’t changed her name on her driver’s license, the single mother who goes to work early each morning and picks up her children late at night, and the widower without a car who relies on his grown children to get to the polls. And as you may have noticed, these types of laws disproportionately impact women, minorities, students, the elderly, and low-income people.
We’re going to discuss how these laws hurt women voters in particular. And by the way – we’ve outnumbered male voters in every national election since 1964. In 2012, approximately 10 million more women voted than men, contributing to the largest gender gap in history. President Barack Obama won 56 percent of the women’s vote in the last election and women voters made the difference in several high-profile races, helping Democrats retain control of the Senate that year. So it’s easy to see why the GOP is taking aim at women voters – we’re a key part of the Democratic constituency and we vote in large numbers.
Women face a number of “silent” obstacles on Election Day that I alluded to earlier.
Rolling back or restricting early voting hurts makes voting more difficult for those with limited flexibility in their schedules. Women have comprised 60 percent of early voters in 2012.
Women are more likely than men to change their name due to marriage or divorce. However, some voter ID laws require voters’ government issued identification to exactly match their name at their local polling place. So if you haven’t had time to go to the DMV for a new license, then you’re penalized at the polls.
And some states now require documented proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, just to register to vote. If citizens don’t provide sufficient evidence, then they are not allowed to vote in state and local elections. It is estimated that 32 million eligible women voters may lack proof of citizenship that matches their current legal name.
I cannot emphasize this enough – women are an important voting block that the Republican Party has largely alienated. We cannot allow them to continue to silence our voices.
With that, I would like to turn the call over to my dear friend, the Chair of the DNC’s Women’s Caucus, Lottie Shackleford.
Women’s Caucus Chair Lottie Shackelford
Thank you Debbie.
I started my career in politics back in 1978, and I have witnessed many “firsts.” I was also the first women elected Mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas, and I have tried to open the doors of opportunity for other women.
Women must – we can and we must – amplify our voices and values at the ballot box. To echo Debbie, women have outnumbered male voters in every national election since 1964. Our voices are powerful when we go to the polls.
Let me take a moment to talk about this year’s race. Donald Trump is dangerous, and he lacks the judgment and the temperament to be president.
I wouldn’t want him to take a tour of the White House, let alone live there. He has a long history of denigrating women, and the vile, sexist comments he’s made on the campaign trail are beneath the dignity of the office he seeks.
Trump would take away a woman’s right to make her own healthcare choices. He has said that women who had abortions should be punished – but not the doctors that performed them. He’s even opposed exceptions for health of the mother because he thought women would use a cold as an excuse to have an abortion.
Trump said that ensuring equal pay for women should just be left up to “the marketplace,” and once suggested family leave policies should actually be scaled back. He’s also called pregnancy was “an inconvenience for a business.” Trump even complained that when he employed mothers, they were not giving him “100 percent.”
This is about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, and ourselves. That’s who he’s referring to. He’s talking about us. And we must hold him accountable.
Our vote is our voice. Let’s use it this fall. And let’s register and encourage others to vote. Here’s what I am asking you to do:
Know the Law. In order to successfully vote, you need to know the rules of the road. Make sure you check with your local board of elections.
Engage Your Community. Women are most likely to register to vote if someone they know and trust asks them to vote and engages them in a discussion about the issues. Keep in touch with the people you registered through email, events, town hall meetings, candidate forums, et cetera. Invite them to attend registration or other events that will engage them more deeply in the political process.
Register to vote, plan to vote, and then vote. Ensure you ask the three most important questions: 1) Are they registered to vote 2) Have they voted? 3) What is their plan on or before Election Day to vote?
There’s too much at stake this election. We can’t look back, and ask ourselves what more could we have done. We need to go out there and do it!
I would now like to turn this call over to Pratt Wiley, the DNC’s National Director of Voter Expansion.
Pratt Wiley, National Director of Voter Expansion
Democrats believe that we solve our nation’s problems with more democracy, not less. The Democratic National Committee’s Voter Expansion Project reflects our commitment to ensuring every eligible citizen is able to register, every registered voter is able to vote, and every vote is accurately counted.
But the opposite seems to be true for the Republican Party. Republicans have been following the same playbook – in North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and beyond – to tilt elections in their favor. Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are passing restrictive voting laws that make it harder for women, minorities, and students to vote. These groups are not only the Democrat’s core constituency – they are also the majority of Americans.
Voter impersonation – the type of conduct that photo IDs are supposed to eliminate – is virtually non-existent. A comprehensive study found only 31 instances of voter impersonation in over 1 billion votes casts – that’s twice as rare as a shark attack. These facts, however, are not stopping the GOP from seeking a solution to a problem that just doesn’t exist.
Former Senator Jim DeMint, who now leads the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, recently admitted that voter ID laws help elect “more conservative candidates.”
In April, students at the Marquette University polling station faced two hour wait times to vote. Many still stood in line well after the polls official closed and the race was called. At the same time, a Republican Wisconsin Congressman bragged to reporters that the state’s restrictive photo ID law would help the GOP defeat Democrats in the fall.
In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ restrictive photo ID law. Cruz wears his opposition to voting rights as a badge of honor. In 2012, he voiced his opposition to a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. He also led the fight as Texas Solicitor General to limit voter registration efforts in communities of color, vigorously defending a discriminatory law against a civil rights lawsuit.
And we all remember just four years ago when the Pennsylvania Republican House Leader announced that the state’s restrictive photo ID law was ‘gonna allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania.’
It’s not hard to see that this is a part of a cynical political ploy to boast the Republican’s electoral success this fall.
While Democrats have gone to court in Arizona to reverse the culture of discrimination and disenfranchisement, Republicans are going to court to defend laws designed to decrease voter turnout – because that is their only path to victory.
As mentioned by our distinguished speakers, the DNC and Democrats across the nation will not waver in defending the right to vote – the most fundamental of all of our rights.
Again, I want to thank everyone for joining us and I would now like to open the call to questions.
Deshundra Jefferson, Southern Regional Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
JeffersonD@dnc.org
| (202) 863-8112


Good to go for research.
Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8148
paustenbachm@dnc.org
On May 20, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Helmstetter, TJ
> wrote:
Bumping please.
From: Helmstetter, TJ
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 4:52 PM
To: Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric; Miranda, Luis
Subject: APPROVE for LGBT list: Shot /chaser
To: LGBT press list
Can go out tomorrow AM
SL: Another anti-LGBT week for the GOP
Shot: Earlier this week, the Senate finally approved Eric Fanning to be the first openly gay Secretary of the Army, after Republicans blocked his nomination for over 200 days. (insert link)
Chaser: Today, House Republicans broke regular order to force their members to support anti-LGBT language in the NDAA. (insert link)
Lime: Donald Trump released a list full of anti-LGBT judges who he would name to the Supreme Court. (link)
“Despite its efforts to rebrand itself, it’s clear the Republican Party has no plans to embrace the LGBT community anytime soon. Love has won, the world has evolved, but Republican politicians like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan remain stuck in the distant past. The LGBT community will be key to electing a Democratic president in November, because we know we can’t afford to elect a Republican like Trump who would stand in the way of progress.” – TJ Helmstetter, DNC spokesperson
TJ Helmstetter
Deputy Director of Regional and Specialty Media
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8022 – desk
973.464.9224 – cell
HelmstetterT@DNC.org


Thank you for reminder.
Best Regards,
Bel Leong-Hong
President and CEO
Knowledge Advantage, Inc
bel@kaiglobal.com
www.kaiglobal.com
(Ofc)  301 948 1682
(cell) 240 401-2572
From: Scott, Jillian
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:34 PM
To: Earl Fowlkes
; Bel Leong-Hong
; iymartinez@prodigy.net; Virgie M Rollins
; lottiehs@yahoo.com
Cc: Davis, Marilyn
; Thompson, Dejuana
; Gregory Hinton
; Gomez, Bridgette
; Khan, Ali
; Miranda, Luis
; Palermo, Rachel
; Pratt Wiley
Subject: RE: DNC Caucus Chair's Conference Call
Friendly Reminder about the call today @ 6PM (eastern time).
Good Afternoon Caucus Chairs,
I am sending a friendly reminder about our conference call today, Tuesday, May 17th @ 6PM-6:30PM eastern time.  Please find the conference call number below. The agenda is forthcoming . If there are any issues, comments, and/or concerns that you want us to address during this call please send them my way.
As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
All the best,
Jillian Scott
201-696-2695
Conference Call Information:
866-810-8093 / Code: 816-697-0275
From: Scott, Jillian
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Earl Fowlkes; 'bel@kaiglobal.com'; 'iymartinez@prodigy.net'; 'Virgie M Rollins'; 'lottiehs@yahoo.com'
Cc: Davis, Marilyn; Thompson, Dejuana; Gregory Hinton
Subject: RE: DNC Caucus Chair's Conference Call
Reminder email. Thank you all.
From: Scott, Jillian
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Earl Fowlkes; 'bel@kaiglobal.com'; 'iymartinez@prodigy.net'; 'Virgie M Rollins'; 'lottiehs@yahoo.com'
Cc: Davis, Marilyn; Thompson, Dejuana; Gregory Hinton
Subject: DNC Caucus Chair's Conference Call
Good Afternoon Caucus Chairs,
I am sending a friendly reminder about our next conference call on Tuesday, May 17th @ 6PM-6:30PM eastern time.  Please find the conference call number and the conference call  kick-off email regarding these calls below.  As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
All the best,
Jillian Scott
Conference Call Information:
866-810-8093 / Code: 816-697-0275
DNC Caucus Chair's Conference Calls:
Your monthly conference call will kick-off on Tuesday, April 12th @ 6PM - 6:30PM eastern time, and will be every 3rd Tuesday of the month @
6PM - 6:30PM eastern time moving forward. The conference call details are below. Thank you all again,  Have a wonderful weekend.
Conference Call Information:
866-810-8093 / Code: 816-697-0275
[DNC]
Jillian Scott
Democratic National Committee
Scottj@dnc.org
202-863-8105


Pratt and I have already started drafting a statement. He’s in the senior staff meeting, and will have revisions after it is over.
I am trying to gauge the NC Congressional delegation’s availability for a press call tomorrow.
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Kate Houghton; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis
Cc: Ryan Banfill; Walsh, Tom; Jefferson, Deshundra; Pratt Wiley
Subject: RE: NC Voter ID Law
Ugh this got stuck in my outbox this morning.
Adding Deshundra, Pratt, and Tom in case no one is working on this already.
If everyone’s busy I can take a stab at this quickly…. Let me know. thanks
From: Kate Houghton
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:33 AM
To: Walker, Eric; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis
Cc: Ryan Banfill
Subject: NC Voter ID Law
DWS wants to do a statement.
®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


For Immediate Release
May 17, 2016
Contact: Stewart Boss, sboss@nvdems.com
NV Dems Release Formal Complaint
Detailing Disturbing Convention Tactics
Las Vegas, NV - On Monday afternoon, the Nevada State Democratic Party sent a formal complaint
to the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee regarding the conduct of Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters and representatives from his campaign at the party's 2016 State Convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, May 14. The four-page letter explains in detail how Sanders supporters and campaign staff actively incited disruption and violence after failing to organize their supporters and being outnumbered
at the State Convention by Hillary Clinton's delegates.
Read the letter below from the Nevada State Democratic Party's General Counsel:
Monday, May 16, 2016
Mr. Jim Roosevelt and Ms. Lorraine Miller
Co-Chairs, Rules and Bylaws Committee
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street Southeast
Washington, DC 20003
To the Co-Chairs and Members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee:
By this letter, the Nevada State Democratic Party ("NSDP") hereby lodges a formal complaint regarding the conduct of supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders at the recent State Convention held in Las Vegas, Nevada on Saturday, May 14, 2016, as well as the conduct of representatives of Senator Sanders' presidential campaign (the "Sanders Campaign").
We believe, unfortunately, that the tactics and behavior on display here in Nevada are harbingers of things to come as Democrats gather in Philadelphia in July for our National Convention. We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sanders Campaign's penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior-indeed, actual violence-in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats. Indeed, the threats to the Chair of the Nevada State Democratic Party are ongoing at time of this writing, as Sanders activists have posted her cell phone and home address online, and have bombarded her with threats to her life and the safety of her family. We have attached some examples of this conduct, which is not merely offensive but obviously criminal in nature. We can provide audio of threatening phone calls made directly to the Chair, which now number in the hundreds.
The explosive situation arose in large part because a portion of the community of Sanders delegates arrived at the Nevada Democratic State Convention believing itself to be a vanguard intent upon sparking a street-fight rather than attending an orderly political party process. Surprised and outraged at the idea of being out-organized and thus outnumbered in the convention hall by Clinton delegates, a portion of the Sanders delegation rushed the dais immediately upon the opening of the convention and halted the progress of any convention business for much of the day. Indeed, every point during which Sanders delegates did not agree with any aspect of the proceedings saw them press up against the dais and scream obscenities and threats at the Chair, First Vice Chair, and any other speaker. In fact, event security provided by the Paris Las Vegas Hotel & Casino took it upon themselves to increase the security perimeter around the dais so the convention could simply move forward with its routine business in relative safety. In other words, the hour-to-hour business of Nevada Democrats was necessarily conducted in an atmosphere of impending eruption of physical threats and intimidation for more than 12 hours. Scuffles, screams from bullhorns, and profane insults marked nearly the entirety of the event. Numerous medical emergencies among delegates pressed up against the dais had to be attended to throughout the day.
To the great embarrassment and revulsion of the vast majority of attendees, Sanders delegates crowded the dais and shouted down universally-respected U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who had arrived as a guest of the party to deliver a keynote address in support of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Sanders Campaign spent its time either ignoring or profiting from the chaos it did much to create and nothing to diminish or mitigate. It was clear to the NSDP that part of the approach by the Sanders Campaign was to employ these easily-incensed delegates as shock troops to sway the convention proceedings. At the very least, these delegates became a way for the Sanders Campaign to seek the advantage of disruption at any particular moment while trying to disavow any responsibility for their actions even as it was ongoing. At no time did any Sanders representative make anything more than token gestures towards peace in the hall, and at the times of most intense crisis offered little more than shrugs and smirks.
The most egregious instance of the Sanders Campaign inciting disruption-and yes, violence-came as the State Convention's Credentials Committee completed its work. Adam Gillette, part of National Delegate Operations Team for the official Sanders Campaign, drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary, inaccurate, and wholly unauthorized "minority report" charging that the Credentials Committee had fraudulently denied 64 Sanders delegates their eligibility. The final delegate count had provided the Clinton Campaign with a 33 delegate advantage in the hall; one can imagine the rage occasioned by this inflammatory charge, tossed into the tinderbox of a tense convention hall. Not only did this discredit the work of the Credentials Committee-which featured five Sanders delegates and five Clinton delegates and a Sanders co-chair, and who worked all day under extremely trying conditions to be fair and diligent in their duties-it called into question the entirety of the proceedings because it indicated to an irrational minority that the proceedings had been rigged against them. Forcing their way onto the dais to deliver this paranoid fantasy of fraud and delegate theft was clearly intended to throw the proceedings into disarray. It succeeded. From that moment on, there was little hope for any peace or mutual understanding and respect between Sanders delegates and the NSDP; the mantra became simply that the convention had been stolen from the Sanders Campaign.
Never mind that six of the 64 potential Sanders delegates referenced had been seated after investigation, or that most of the remaining 58 potential delegates had been disqualified-appropriately, and by a panel evenly split between the campaigns-for not being registered Democratic voters in Nevada. Never mind that the same Credentials Committee had disqualified Clinton delegates for various reasons as well. Never mind, further, that just eight of those 64 potential Sanders delegates even attempted to register for the State Convention. All that mattered was the creation of a narrative of fraud and dispossession, which the Sanders Campaign fomented intentionally for its own political gain. This was an unconscionable act by an official Sanders Campaign representative, with full knowledge of its likely impact on the convention.
Alerted by event security at approximately 10 p.m. that the situation had reached a point where public safety could no longer be assured and that the proceedings had to be concluded in very short order, the NSDP worked diligently to conclude the business of the day and adjourn the State Convention as quickly as possible.
On Sunday, May 15, 2016, a group of Sanders activists attended "protests" at the NSDP's headquarters office in Las Vegas to criminally deface the building with graffiti. Las Vegas police were notified and called to the scene.
The people who fostered, encouraged, and gained from the unsettling scenes at the Nevada State Democratic Convention bring dishonor and discredit to our state and national parties. Having seen up close the lack of conscience or concern for the ramifications of their actions-indeed, the glee with which they engaged in such destructive behavior-we expect similar tactics at the National Convention in July. We therefore formally complain to the DNC regarding these unfortunate events, and warn the body that the goal of many of these individuals, sanctioned or encouraged by the Sanders Campaign, is not party-building but something more sinister and unproductive. Their tactics speak for themselves, and have no place in our political process as Democrats.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Bradley S. Schrager
Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
General Counsel
Nevada State Democratic Party
###
-----Original Message-----
From: Atwood, Kylie
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:59 PM
To: DNC Press
Subject: Please send me letter from NV dem party
Thanks!
Kylie Atwood
CBS News
Cell: 781-589-8668


FYI
From: Lightman, David
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Walker, Eric
Subject: any response to this? Need anything you have by 3..thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Briggs
>
Date: Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: NEWS: Sanders to DNC: Don’t Stack the Deck at Philly Convention
To: dlightman@mcclatchydc.com
[Bernie 2016]
Sanders to DNC: Don’t Stack the Deck at Philly Convention
May 6, 2016
Contact: Michael Briggs (802) 233-8653
BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday urged Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz not to stack the committees that will draft the rules and lay out the party platform at this summer’s Democratic National Convention.
In a letter to the party chairwoman, Sanders said the makeup of the standing committees should reflect the relative level of support that he and Hillary Clinton received in primaries and caucuses. So far, Sanders has won about 45 percent of the pledged delegates. Both campaigns deserve a say at the convention this July in Philadelphia, the senator said.
Under party rules, Wasserman Schultz recommends 25 at-large appointments to the party’s executive committee for each of the three standing committees; rules, platform and credentials. Wasserman Schultz has forwarded only three of 40 names the Sanders campaign recommended for the key committees while installing Clinton loyalists in leading roles. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy was put in charge of the Platform Committee, for example, and former Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts was tapped to head the Rules Committee.
Sanders called Malloy and Frank “aggressive attack surrogates” for Clinton. He doubted that either would “conduct committee proceeding in an even-handed manner” and said the appointments of the two Clinton loyalists “suggests the standing committees are being established in an overtly partisan way meant to exclude the input of the voters who have supported my candidacy.”
How the party leadership comports itself at the convention will affect Democrats’ chances of winning the general election this November, the Vermont senator said.
“If we are to have a unified party in the fall, no matter who wins the nomination, we cannot have a Democratic National Convention in which the views of millions of people who participated in the Democratic nominating process are unrepresented in the committee membership. That sends the very real message that the Democratic Party is not open to the millions of new people that our campaign has brought into the political process, does not want to hear new voices and is unwilling to respect the broader base of people that this party needs to win over in November and beyond,” Sanders wrote to Wasserman Schultz.
The letter warned that if committee assignments aren't fairly allotted one result could be floor fights. Under party rules, minority reports may be brought before the full convention at the request of 25 percent of the platform, credentials and rules committees.
“If the process is set up to produce an unfair, one-sided result, we are prepared to mobilize our delegates to force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules on the floor of the convention,” Sanders wrote.
To read Sanders’ letter to Wasserman Schultz, click here
.
###
Paid for by Bernie 2016
[(not the billionaires)]
PO Box 905 - Burlington, Vermont 05402, United States
[


It's understood that Donald Trump would be disastrous for our country's national security at home and abroad - but his economic policies are just as dangerous. What he has proposed and said about the economy are harmful, ill-informed and would disrupt the historic streak of 73 consecutive months of private-sector job growth under President Obama.
*         Donald Trump has proposed a trade war
with China, which experts say
would hurt American jobs and cause a global recession.
*         His trade agenda could cost
the United States $250 billion, would surmount to a global
trade war, and drive up
the prices of consumer goods for all Americans.
*         Almost every fact check about Donald Trump's statements on trade have been rated as false (see here
, here
and here
) and, as one expert put it
, "A vote for Trump is a vote against the American consumer."
*         Trump also misunderstands basic facts about the economy. He repeatedly
claims the unemployment rate stands at 42%, which has been debunked on numerous occasions. Donald Trump has also said there are 93 million people out of work, a statement that led Politifact to write
that Trump has a "basic misunderstanding of the labor market."
One has to look only at Trump's business record to see how his poor judgement has already had a direct negative impact on thousands of hard-working Americans.
*         His companies have had to file for bankruptcy four times
, with a ratings agency going so far as to proclaim his businesses as "serial filers
."
*         This financial mismanagement has led to thousands of Americans losing their jobs but Trump still likes to brag
about how filing for bankruptcy was "an amazing, amazing deal!"
*         Trump said that the 2007 real estate collapse would be "very minor
" and encouraged investors to purchase mortgages from his own subprime lending business.
"After a historic 73 straight months of private-sector job growth, Donald Trump's dangerous economic policies and proven track record of disastrous business decisions would very clearly erase the progress we have made under President Obama. America cannot afford a Trump presidency that hurts our standing around the world and puts all Americans at risk financially." - DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach
View this post on our Factivists site here
.
To be automatically unsubscribed from this list, please email: dncrrmain-unsubscribe@dnc.org


ok
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Crystal, Andy
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Freundlich, Christina; Dillon, Lauren; Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric; RR2
Subject: RE: to blast? -- RE: To Pitch: Trump Paying Bridgegate Debt
Looks good
From: Freundlich, Christina
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:17 AM
To: Dillon, Lauren; Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric; RR2
Subject: to blast? -- RE: To Pitch: Trump Paying Bridgegate Debt
+ RR2
I would like to blast this story. It's exactly our doc.
From: Freundlich, Christina
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Dillon, Lauren; Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric
Subject: RE: To Pitch: Trump Paying Bridgegate Debt
Wish I could take credit for the AP writing about this yesterday. Grrrrrr
Trump bails out Christie with fundraisers
Michael Catalini, Associated Press 10:38 p.m. EDT May 18, 2016
TRENTON, N.J. - Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is helping dig former rival Chris Christie and the New Jersey Republican Party out of big debt they incurred from the George Washington Bridge scandal and the governor's presidential campaign.
Trump on Thursday will attend a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for the state GOP to help it pay off about $500,000 incurred in legal fees responding to legislative subpoenas in the bridge scandal. Trump and Christie will headline the event as well as a separate, $200 per-person fundraiser to pay down Christie's roughly $250,000 presidential campaign debt.
"Governor Christie has been very supportive of Mr. Trump," said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks. "Mr. Trump looks forward to raising money for the Governor and spending time with the great people of New Jersey on Thursday night."
The hand-in-hand fund raising help is a sharp turnabout from five months ago, when Trump said Christie "totally knew" that some of his allies had shut down access lanes to bridge to retaliate against a Democratic mayor who wouldn't support Christie's re-election, as prosecutors allege. Two former Christie allies have pleaded not guilty to federal wire fraud and civil rights charges. Christie has not been charged and denies involvement.
Christie has since folded his presidential campaign and taken the big political risk of endorsing Trump, and the billionaire has tapped the governor to head his White House transition team.
Now Trump, eager to show support for the Republican Party, is making what some members of the GOP see as a helpful gesture.
"We certainly take it as a demonstration of their long and deep friendship," said Bill Palatucci, a long-time Christie adviser and New Jersey Republican National Committeeman. "Whether it's a thank-you or not, we appreciate it nonetheless."
The events, both held at the National Guard Armory in Lawrenceville, are expected to draw roughly 1,000 people for the presidential debt fundraiser and 15 to 20 for the state party fundraiser, Palatucci said. The fundraisers, he says, are expected to retire the debt almost entirely, if not completely.
Trump is coming to New Jersey as the bridge scandal is in headlines again this week after a federal appeals court delayed the release of a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the scheme sought by media organizations, including The Associated Press.
New Jersey taxpayers have spent more than $10 million for legal services for the Christie administration. Christie's 2013 gubernatorial campaign also still owes nearly $1 million for legal services. None of the money raised Thursday will go toward those costs, according to Palatucci.
Asked about the fundraisers this week by a reporter, Christie shook his head and laughed but refused to comment.
Hicks did not address whether Trump still believes Christie knew about the lane closures.
In recent comments Christie has highlighted his friendship with Trump, which goes back more than a decade, and insisted support doesn't stem from political expediency.
"This is not like some political marriage," Christie said. "This is a guy I've known and been friends with for 14 years."
The state party is praising Trump ahead of his first visit to the state since he has become the presumptive nominee.
"We are proud that Mr. Trump has shown his commitment to growing our party here in New Jersey," said Pete Sheridan, executive director of the Republican State Committee.
Christie's presidential campaign was a magnet for New Jersey Republicans with most of the party establishment backing him. He raised nearly $4 million from New Jersey donors, far more than any other Republican candidate, according to federal records. That produced a squeeze on contributors, which likely cost other Republicans running for office in the state, according to political experts.
"It really created a vacuum in the last years," Montclair State University political science professor Brigid Harrison said. "There was this kind of sucking from New Jersey donors to his campaign at the cost of down-ballot candidates."
From: Dillon, Lauren
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:51 PM
To: Freundlich, Christina; Paustenbach, Mark; Walker, Eric
Subject: To Pitch: Trump Paying Bridgegate Debt
See attached. By fundraising for the NJ GOP tomorrow, Trump is basically helping to pay off Christie's bridgegate debt. He previously said Christie knew about bridgegate when it was happening and now Trump has tapped Christie to create the Trump administration after Christie's own staffers put the lives of Americans at risk playing politics.
Let me know if you have questions.


Outgoing call to +1 (202) 228-0808 (Other)
Duration: 17 Minutes 13 Seconds
+1 (202) 228-0808
Other:  +1 (202) 228-0808
Microsoft Lync


What:             TV – FOX BIZ “Mornings with Maria”
When:              Friday, 20 May, 7am or 8am ET
Where:             TBD
Format:           Live
Who:               Maria Bartiromo, Anchor/Reporter
Topic:             State of the Race
Staff:               TBD
Contact:          TBD
TIMELINE:
Arrival Time:  TBD
Makeup:         TBD
Hit Time:        TBD
Cleared:          TBD
Pablo Manriquez
Democratic National Committee
Phone: 202.572.5488
Email: pablo@dnc.org
web: democrats.org
Twitter: @Pablo_DNC


From: Press Texas Democratic Party
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:36 PM
To: Press Texas Democratic Party
Subject: ICYMI: Texas Democrats Hold Ted Cruz Accountable for His Lawlessness
[TX Dem logo.png]
For Immediate Release
April 26, 2016
Contact: Tariq Thowfeek, (832) 429-8217, press@txdemocrats.org
ICYMI: Texas Democrats Hold Ted Cruz Accountable for His Lawlessness
Austin, TX -- In case you missed it, yesterday, the Texas Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding Ted Cruz’s violation of federal election campaign laws.
Here’s what you need to know:
·         At a fundraiser for Ted Cruz, Keet Lewis, Cruz’s National Co-Chair asked attendees to contribute funds in unlimited amounts and make corporate contributions to a Super PAC, Stand for Truth PAC. That is against the law.
·         Cruz for President also decided to place and publicize a solicitation table for the Stand for Truth PAC at its own event, flagrantly disregarding the limits of the law.
·         Keet Lewis, Cruz for President campaign National Co-Chair stated, "If you hit your max then we have a table for you that is the unlimited table...It can take corporate dollars, it can take partnership dollars, and that’s the super PAC, Stand for Truth, so pick up some of that information." [Politico, April 7, 2016
]
Background:
·         Click here to listen to Ted Cruz Campaign official violating federal election laws in Dallas, Texas.
·         Click here to view the official Texas Democratic Party’s FEC Complaint against Senator Ted Cruz, Cruz for President, J. Keet Lewis, and Stand for Truth PAC.
Watch these clips:
·         [KTSM, April 25, 2016
]
·         [KTJL, April 25, 2016
]
·         [KWKT, April 25, 2016
]
·         [KMID, April 25, 2016
]
·         [KHOU, April 25, 2016
]
·         [KVUE, April 25, 2016
]
Read more:
·         “Texas Democrats allege Cruz campaign violated federal election laws during Dallas fundraiser” [Dallas Morning News, April 25, 2016
]
·         “Texas Dems file FEC complaint over Ted Cruz fundraiser” [Houston Chronicle, April 25, 2016
]
·         “Ted Cruz fundraiser subject of Texas Democrats’ ethics complaint” [Austin American-Statesman, April 25, 2016
]
·         “Texas Democrats File FEC Complaint Against Cruz” [Texas Tribune, April 25, 2016
]
·         “Texas Democratic Party Accuses Ted Cruz of Violating Election Campaign Laws” [Time Warner Cable, April 25, 2016
]
·         “O’Malley’s ‘Irish Wake’” [Politico, April 25, 2016
]
·         “Paxton Tries To Calm Tempest Over Tea Party IRS Remark” [Texas Tribune, April 25, 2016
]
·         Texas Take: April 26, 2016 [Houston Chronicle, April 26, 2016
]
###


Ummm. Julia Ioffe got anti-Semitic death threats and Melania Trump’s response is “she provoked them.”
A GQ reporter who dug into her family’s past—turning up the existence of a secret 50-year-old half-brother in her native Slovenia whom her father has never acknowledged—was subjected to anti-Semitic threats online. Of the GQ article, Melania says: “I have thick skin. It doesn’t bother me if they write about me because I know who I am. But what right does the reporter have to go and dig in court in Slovenia in 1960 about my parents? They’re private citizens. If they go after me, it’s different. But to do that, it’s a little bit nasty, it’s a little bit mean.” So if people put a swastika on my face once this article comes out, will she denounce them?
“I don’t control my fans,” Melania says, “but I don’t agree with what they’re doing. I understand what you mean, but there are people out there who maybe went too far. She provoked them.”
From: Sarge, Matthew
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Comm_D
Subject: DuJour Interview with Melania Trump
“Unbelievable,” she says of Matthews’ comment. “That’s what I’m saying! I’m not only a beauty, I’m smart. I have brains. I’m intelligent.” She exhales, adding: “I would just say, Men will be men.”
DuJour: Lady and the Trump
Melania Trump might speak softly, but in this rare, candid interview, she comes through loud and clear
Written by Mickey Rapkin
Donald and Melania Trump live in a 30,000-square-foot triplex at the top of his namesake tower on Fifth Avenue, and as the race toward the presidency gets shorter and more frenzied, the ratings-hungry cable news networks have started coming to them. On May 4, the day after Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, Donald, 69, appeared live on Today, Good Morning America, Morning Joe, Fox & Friends and The Situation Room—all without leaving Trump Tower. On the morning I visit, Secret Service agents are stationed in the lobby, and everyone entering the building—even those going to the Starbucks—must pass a security checkpoint first. One week earlier, a letter containing a suspicious powder had been delivered to Donald’s office, and while the powder was later deemed non-toxic, the mood is understandably tense.
Once given the all clear, I take the elevator to the 25th floor, where a longtime Trump employee escorts me to a second elevator that rockets us to the 66th floor, where a Secret Service agent awaits. It’s on that floor that finally, behind a hulking gold door, the woman I’m here to meet appears, a picture of repose. Melania Trump, 46, is dressed in a black Chanel coat, slim black pants by The Row and Louboutin heels. A 25-carat diamond ring, an anniversary present from her husband, weighs down one hand. Her much-discussed squint—like a fox caught in headlights—is less prominent in person; otherwise she looks just as you’d imagine. Camera-ready, not a hair out of place. Fiji and Pellegrino water on the coffee table. “Come sit,” she purrs.
This woman is a few months, and swing states, away from becoming our next first lady, but very little is known about her. Magazine profiles inevitably trot out the same recycled anecdotes. For example, when she and Donald met for the first time—at a party in 1998—Melania famously refused to give out her phone number. A year later Donald flirted with running for president, and a reporter asked Melania what kind of first lady she’d be. Without giving it much thought she announced: “I would be very traditional, like Betty Ford or Jackie Kennedy.”
The apartment, which has been likened to a floating Versailles, is as opulent as advertised. There are 18-foot ceilings in the dining room and a heavy marble table; at the end of the room stands a kiddie-size Mercedes-Benz, which 10-year-old Barron Trump has long-since outgrown. And while the apartment might be gaudy, one barely notices the marble fountain in the corner, what with the infinity views of Central Park smacking him in the face. I hear a lone vacuum cleaner whooshing somewhere upstairs, but there’s no evidence of another soul here otherwise. We sit down on a cream-colored couch, and I mention the chaos in the lobby below, wondering aloud: Why would anyone come to a Starbucks that requires a security pat-down?
“I think people find it exciting,” Melania says in her hypnotic, heavily-accented English. “To be in the building and to go through that.”
Presumably Melania can avoid that agitation and have her morning Starbucks order sent up directly, right? “I don’t drink Starbucks,” she says. You don’t drink coffee? I ask. “I drink coffee, but I don’t drink Starbucks. My son likes it, the what do you call it? The Frappuccino? He likes that.”
I don’t get the impression that Melania’s throwing shade at Americans who subsist on 10,000-calorie coffee drinks. This is more like something Gwyneth Paltrow would say on Goop and we’d all roll our eyes but secretly love it. Except this woman’s husband is running for president, and in today’s media environment, any off-script thought immediately becomes a scandal. Like when I ask what Bill and Hillary Clinton got the Trumps for a wedding present in 2005, and Melania says innocently: “I don’t think they sent a gift.”Really? She nods. “Some people didn’t send gifts.”
Is she intentionally fanning the flames? This is the kind of click bait that becomes international chatter, and would she even remember who sent a wedding gift 10 years ago? Or would the faux pas be so weird that she couldn’t forget? While we’re on the topic, what do you even get the person who has everything?
Of the election, she says, “They go after him, so he goes after them. It’s nothing personal. It’s all business. Everybody wants to win. He thinks he’s the one. She thinks she’s the one.”
We’ve been talking for less than 10 minutes when Melania broaches the idea that she’s been misrepresented in the media—her silences interpreted as a lack of intelligence, her marriage as some kind of Faustian bargain. If Donald is a winner, as he often repeats in speeches, she—finally—would like you to know that she is, too. “I had a successful modeling career,” she says, and it should be noted, her QVC line of sparkly jewelry sold out in 45 minutes.
In what ways have you been misrepresented, I ask. “That I’m shy,” she says. “I’m not shy. I know what I want, and I’m selective.” No shame there. It’s just that, in terms of political narratives, this one is a little harder to sell. If Michelle Obama is everyone’s favorite Cool Mom—you know, the one with the toned arms and the perfect J.Crew outfit—Melania is seen as the Queen Bee, the helicopter mom with her own helicopter. If she’s defensive about her qualifications, perhaps she has a right to be, considering she’s getting catcalled on a national stage. Earlier that day, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was caught ogling her walk, accidentally muttering on-air: “My God, is that good. I could watch that runway show.”
“Unbelievable,” she says of Matthews’ comment. “That’s what I’m saying! I’m not only a beauty, I’m smart. I have brains. I’m intelligent.” She exhales, adding: “I would just say, Men will be men.”
She uses that same phrase—“Men will be men”—when asked about Donald’s old appearances on Howard Stern’s show, which recently resurfaced online. Stern once asked if Donald would stay with Melania if she suffered a horrific car accident, and he replied: “How do the breasts look?” A similar vibe was conveyed when Trump came out on stage at a town-hall meeting at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999 and shouted, “Where’s my supermodel?”
That was entertainment. This is politics (which is maybe also now entertainment but whatever). There’s a lot I really want to ask Melania, but most of all, I want to know: Does she really want this? A year ago she was a private citizen, hocking her wares on QVC or taking her son, Barron, to Paris for the summer. But here we are. And there she is. Who is this woman who might share a bed with our next president? Does she have his ear? If so, what is she saying to him?
“I want to make clear,” she tells me, “in 1999, when they asked what kind of first lady I would be, it was out there that I’d be traditional, a Jackie Kennedy or Betty Ford. But that was 1999. A lot has changed.”
The idea of a 24-hour news cycle feels quaint at this point. I’m meeting Melania on Thursday, May 5, and here’s a small sampling of the morning’s breaking news. The FBI revealed it was interviewing Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, as part of an ongoing probe into the security of Clinton’s private e-mail server. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, tweeted a photo of himself eating a taco bowl in honor of Cinco de Mayo, captioning the photo: “I love Hispanics!” Paul Ryan revealed he’s “just not ready” to support Trump, who then issued his own statement saying: “I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda.” A video of President Obama and Michelle dancing with R2-D2 from Star Wars went viral. And to think: We’re only 187 days away from the election.
As Melania explains, she always knew this day would come: “When we were dating in 1999, he was thinking about running with the Reform Party.” The couple briefly broke up in 2000, with the Daily News suggesting then that his focus on the campaign was behind the split. She clarifies: “That was part of it. We were apart for a few months, not long. We got back together. He was always thinking about it. But he loved what he did, he had his business. He was not saying ‘Now is the time.’ He always had that in him.” Things changed in 2014, she says. “He was more into the country, what was wrong with it. Every morning was Fox & Friends.”
She continues: “To be married to my husband, to someone successful as he is, he needs somebody who will tell him the truth. Somebody smart, you know. It’s not just like I’m there and I’m just doing things for him. People say I’m not on the campaign, [but] I’m very involved from home.” She may DVR Empire (which she calls “interesting, something for fun”), but nightly she’s glued to CNN or Fox News. “I like to know exactly what’s going on,” she says. “I give a lot of advice to my husband and tell him how it is and how I see it. I’m not backing off. I tell him the truth.” She also reveals that she’s the one in the family who has his ear. “After a speech, the kids are calling me—Ivanka, [his] sons—saying, ‘Call dad and tell him this and that. He’s listening to you.’ They know I would talk to him and put him in the right direction. Sometimes he does, and sometimes he doesn’t. He will decide what he does.”
When was the last time you challenged him? I ask.
“This morning!” she says, letting out a big laugh. Was it about something political? “No, something else,” she says, almost giggling. “I cannot say. It’s too private. He was upset about some stuff, and I said, ‘Hey, wake up! You did it. Now deal with it.’ ”
When Melania appeared on the cover of Vogue in 2005, dressed in the custom Christian Dior gown John Galliano designed for her wedding—the one embroidered with 1,500 crystal rhinestones and pearls, at the time said to be the most expensive wedding gown ever made—the headline read “How to Marry a Billionaire,” five words that essentially dismissed this woman as a gold digger. But perhaps, in 2016, a more accurate retelling of her origin story is justified. Melania Knavs grew up in Slovenia, the former Yugoslavia, then under Communist control. She was born in 1970 in Novo Mesto, and says her childhood was fairly typical. “I spent a lot of time [doing] after-school activities and homework, and I remember every weekend we visited the grandparents,” she says. “When you grow up you don’t think, Oh, I’m growing up under Communism. You understand what I mean? You’re just a kid. You go on the bike, you do gymnastics, you enjoy your friends. My parents provided a great solid life for our family. I have beautiful memories of traveling.” At 16, her parents took her and her sister to their first concert: Elton John live in Zagreb, Croatia.
But even then Melania imagined a different future for herself. Of Slovenia, she says, “I felt it was kind of too small for me.” Her mother was a pattern maker and designer for the state-owned textile factory and, on trips to Paris, she’d pick up fashion magazines for her daughter. Melania would sometimes sketch her own clothing, which her mother then sewed for her. She cites the birth of CNN in 1980 as opening her eyes to life beyond the Iron Curtain.
At 22, Melania entered Jana magazine’s Look of the Year contest, which felt like a ticket to a new adventure, and while she didn’t win, a seed was planted. She signed with a modeling agency and dropped out of the University of Ljubljana after two years. Her father managed dealerships for the state-owned car company (and later opened his own operation). When asked if he was upset by her leaving school, she says: “No, it was not a big deal. It is what I want to do. It’s my passion. And I always felt like, don’t lose the momentum with what you want to do. Go for it. You don’t want to turn back and say, ‘Oh! Why didn’t I do that?’ ”
Melania (who changed her surname to Knauss because it was easier to pronounce) was by all accounts studious. She never drank, she never smoked. The modeling industry is a notorious minefield for young women. When asked if she’d ever been propositioned by a photographer or agent, she doesn’t hesitate, saying, “Yes. You need to be a strong person. For me, it was no way. The agents, they invite you, ‘Oh, let’s go for a weekend here or there.’ Some girls go for it. I knew exactly how the industry worked. I never went into that. I know when they go to parties, there are drugs, there’s alcohol. It doesn’t bring you anywhere. I always stayed true to myself.”
When independence came to Slovenia, Melania was already away working in Milan and Paris—mostly print modeling—before an agent from Metropolitan brought her to New York and installed her at the Zeckendorf Towers on Union Square, where the 26-year-old shared an apartment with a photographer. At night she sometimes hung out at Cipriani Downtown with a Euro crowd, but she wasn’t dancing on tables. She went on dates, she says, “but nothing else. It was known that I was very tough. Yes, dating, but notdating. Maybe a movie or dinner. I was busy. After a long day, the last thing I wanted to do is get ready and go out at 10 at night and then be up again at six in the morning. I don’t want to feel exhausted. I came here to work. I didn’t come here for hanging out. I came here for my career.”
The work she found was commercial—a job for Bergdorf Goodman, some lingerie and swimwear catalogs. Soon she rented her own apartment, a small one-bedroom that felt like a declaration of independence. “The rent was $2,500 a month,” she says. “I picked it out, everything on my own. I still remember, I went to shop for a TV and an air conditioner. I bought furniture.” Considering the Louis XIV aesthetic of her Trump Tower residence, I wonder what her taste was like in her twenties. Where did she shop for furniture? She thinks about this for a second before she finally remembers the name of the store. “I went to Crate & Barrel,” she says. “Does that still exist or no?”
Melania met Donald at the Kit Kat Club in 1998, at a fashion week party thrown by Paolo Zampolli, the founder of ID Models. She was friendly with Zampolli’s girlfriend, who invited her out that night, telling her they’d pick her up in the car on the way. Melania had no premonition that she’d meet her husband that night. In fact, Donald had arrived with another woman—and tried to get Melania’s phone number while his date was in the bathroom.
“I knew who he was,” Melania says, “but I didn’t know about his life, about what was going on. I had my life. I didn’t care about his. I wasn’t starstruck.” But she called him a few days later. Soon they had their first date, meeting mutual friends at Moomba—a chic late-’90s spot where young socialites did karaoke on Monday nights. “I’d never been before, and Donald hadn’t been either,” Melania says. “We had a great connection, great chemistry.” A few days later he took her to his home in Westchester, a 230-acre property dubbed Seven Springs, and soon Melania was shopping for furniture at Sotheby’s. But she takes pains to point out: “When I moved here with my husband, we weren’t married yet—so I kept my apartment.”
Upon marrying Donald, the world opened up to her in ways she never dreamed. “I met Michael Jackson,” smiling at an obviously happy memory. “It was here in New York in the Pierre Hotel. He called us, so we went over and we had dinner. Just after dinner, we were chatting on the sofa and my husband went into another room to see some art somebody wanted to show him.
And Michael said to me, ‘Hey, when Trump comes back, let’s start kissing so he will be jealous!’ ” They didn’t kiss, she says, “No, no, no. But we were laughing so hard.”
Despite her own substantial fame, Melania is rarely photographed by paparazzi. That’s by design, she explains. “I have a life. I go out every day. I bring my son to school. I pick him up. I’m not an attention seeker. I’m not the one who calls paparazzi, ‘I have lunch with the girlfriends, and I’m going to this restaurant.’ ” I ask her what those after-school pick-ups are like; I can imagine her, like many of my friends with young kids, being forced to make awkward small talk with the other moms and nannies as they wait outside for the kids. “I get along,” she says, sincerely. “[With] the moms at the school pick-up, it’s ‘Hello, how are you?’ But it’s not friends friends. I like quality over quantity.”
Indeed, she isn’t the type to spend every night on the town. She is active in several charities—the American Red Cross and the Boys’ Club of New York—but she prefers time with her son to red carpet events, telling me about Saturdays spent on the sidelines of his baseball games in Central Park. “I was there taking pictures and videos, quietly so he didn’t see me. I was never screaming or cheering. I know my son and he would say, ‘Stop it.’ ” She is up at five forty-five most weekday mornings to have some time to herself before she wakes Barron, whom she once described as a mini-Donald—at 7 years old, he preferred a suit-and-tie to sweats, though he’s long since outgrown that phase. “The third floor is Barron’s,” she says. “It’s much easier that way. For him as well. He has friends over, he has his toys. He has a play date tomorrow and is bringing two friends over. They come here, they go upstairs and they play. They kick a ball, they play with iPads. I don’t allow Xbox before homework is done.”
Marrying a celebrity, Melania says, requires strength. “When you walk in a room, everybody knows the person. Sometimes people see you with that man and maybe they know more about the man, and they judge you or see you differently. You need to know who you are and you need to be very secure. You need to stand up for yourself. You need to have your own yes and no.” When Donald is on the road campaigning, they talk several times a day, but there is no evening routine. “We don’t Skype,” she says. “We don’t text. He’s only a phone person. No e-mails and no texts.”
As she repeats more than once, she is fiercely independent. Before Donald announced his candidacy, “I said to him, ‘You really need to think, because our family life will change.’ The three of us will change. I know what it takes, traveling and all that stuff. I told him if he really wanted to do that I would support him 100 percent. But I would also be a mom first, I would be with our son, I would be home. Our son needs parents, and I don’t want somebody other than me taking care of him. We made that decision. It’s a big decision [to run], and a selfless decision. To go into that is very selfless because of what we’re going through.”
She deflects a question about whether she’d move to the White House should Donald be elected—“It’s tradition,” she offers, “but we are not there yet, so for me it’s a little too early to talk about it”—but, with this election, Melania is keenly aware of what’s at stake for her family. What she’ll miss, it seems, are the simple moments, like when Donald and Barron return home from a father-son dinner. “When they come home, Barron tells me how it was, and all three of us will be together in the living room, watching TV and talking about it. It’s very cozy. The best is when we would go—not anymore—but we’d have unforgettable moments when Donald was driving and Barron would sit in front. I’d be in the back. And the three of us going somewhere with nobody around.”
While Melania often declines to discuss her politics publicly, it’s clear she and Donald are united on the talking points—none more so than on the topic of immigration. Donald has called for an immediate deportation of approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. He has also proposed a ban on all Muslims entering this country. (London just elected its first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, who I guess should visit New York soon if he’d like to see Hamilton?) Melania came to the United States on what’s called an H1-B visa, which generally requires a bachelor’s degree or higher. (According to a 2013 Bloomberg account, due to some congressional technicality, foreign-born fashion models are almost twice as likely to receive H1-B visas than computer programmers.) Melania rightfully points out that she came here legally, flying home to Slovenia to have her passport stamped whenever required. She got her green card in 2001 and became a citizen five years later. But as she echoes her husband’s proposed policies, I wonder if she has sympathy for someone who, like her, wanted to come to the United States for a better life, but couldn’t get an H1-B visa or couldn’t afford an immigration lawyer?
“The law needs to be changed to help those kind of people,” she says. “But they can’t just sneak in and be here. That’s what I’m saying. I do have sympathy. I’m a very compassionate person. But don’t sneak in and stay here without papers. We need to follow the law. If the law needs to be different, we need to do that.” The Muslim ban—which Donald had re-affirmed his support of that very morning—led Michael Bloomberg to call him a demagogue. When I mention that the comedian Louis C.K. flat out compared Trump to Hitler, Melania stares blankly back at me.
Do you know who Louis C.K. is, I ask.
“No,” she says, shaking her head. But she continues: “We know the truth. He’s not Hitler. He wants to help America. He wants to unite people. They think he doesn’t but he does. Even with the Muslims, it’s temporary.” She concedes: “Maybe he needs to say it in a softer way. He doesn’t go after religions. He feels like we need to know who’s coming to this country. If not, we don’t have a country. That’s how he feels. We see how he is, and he wants to unite the country and bring people together and bring jobs back.”
I can’t help but wonder what kind of hate speech her supporters might unleash on me for asking a few pointed questions. A GQ reporter who dug into her family’s past—turning up the existence of a secret 50-year-old half-brother in her native Slovenia whom her father has never acknowledged—was subjected to anti-Semitic threats online. Of the GQ article, Melania says: “I have thick skin. It doesn’t bother me if they write about me because I know who I am. But what right does the reporter have to go and dig in court in Slovenia in 1960 about my parents? They’re private citizens. If they go after me, it’s different. But to do that, it’s a little bit nasty, it’s a little bit mean.” So if people put a swastika on my face once this article comes out, will she denounce them?
“I don’t control my fans,” Melania says, “but I don’t agree with what they’re doing. I understand what you mean, but there are people out there who maybe went too far. She provoked them.”
I don’t want to give her ideas, but Donald knows good television when he sees it. Why not invite Melania’s half-brother on TV and have a teary reunion special?
“I never met him,” she says. “He’s had his own life. I wish him all the best.”
Some have taken Melania’s absence on the campaign to mean that she’s somehow aloof, something her friends dispute. “There’s no such thing as ‘along for the ride,’ ” says Steve Hilbert, the CEO of Sterling Investors Life Insurance and a longtime friend of the Trumps. “She recognized this country needs leadership.”
And she is not nostalgic for the past. Donald has visited Slovenia exactly once according to The New Yorker—a three-hour dinner on the way home from London. Melania’s parents, however, have their own apartment in Trump Tower and spend much of their time in New York, which gives Melania peace of mind when she has to be away from Barron.
Melania traveled to Iowa with Donald earlier this year. Where did you stay?Who did you talk to? “It was kind of a fun experience,” she says. “We stayed in a hotel. It was clean. It was, I think, a Holiday Inn. You do it in a fun way. My husband knows me and how I am. I like beautiful stuff. I live the life. It’s funny when we go and travel. They don’t have five-star hotels there, but you go with it. It was a great experience in Iowa, because we went to an Evangelical church on Sunday. The church we got married in is very different. In Iowa there was a band, there was singing. It was very different, but it was a great experience. Being on the campaign trail and traveling around the country is hard work.”
Whether she wanted any of this, who knows. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff was working at Vogue when she met Melania more than a decade ago. She is now president and CEO of her own consulting agency, SWW Creative, and the two have become close friends, having lunch together once a month and even traveling to the Trumps’ Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. She calls to put her friend in context, saying, “Don’t underestimate her just because she is quiet and reserved. There is virtue in the fact that she appears to be quiet and isn’t on the front lines constantly saying, Hear me, see me. But she’s very confident in her viewpoint. She does not agree with everything that [Donald] says or everything that’s being done, but she believes in the greater good. They are a power couple. They are each other’s teammate.” She adds: “He’s out there. He has so much going on. It isn’t about her yet. She has always said, when and if the time comes, she will step up. She’s a wife and a mother until that day comes.”
Before I leave, Melania offers me a tour of the apartment. She has to head out soon herself, she says: “I am picking up my son and taking him to the dentist.” We’re staring out at the massive skyscrapers coming up along 57th Street, and then we turn to look at Central Park—so lush and green this time of year. It’s one of the most coveted views in the world. “It’s beautiful,” she says. “You kind of get used to it, but still you know, especially now, it’s beautiful.” And with that, she walks me to the hallway, where a Secret Service agent waits in a stairwell designed for the help. Donald’s Secret Service name is reportedly “Mogul.” What will hers be?
“I don’t think about it,” she says. “I take it day by day.”


See below
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
Begin forwarded message:
From: "noreply@segmentedmedia.com
"
>
Date: May 16, 2016 at 12:46:55 PM EDT
To:
>
Subject: New submission from Contact
Your Name
Jim Newell
Your Organization
Slate Magazine
Your Email
jim.newell@slate.com
Subject
Media inquiry re: Democratic Platform
Your Message
Hello,
I sent a message to Ms. Brazile's Georgetown email as well, but will send it here in case that doesn't get noticed.
I’m a political reporter at Slate trying to do a story about the importance of the Democratic platform. Namely: how seriously is it taken since it’s not really a binding document, what ability would the Sanders campaign have to change it, and what flexibility Clinton might show in granting platform concessions to Sanders? It seems like she would have the numbers on the platform committee to stave off his changes, but she also needs to keep his supporters in mind ahead of the general election.
If you have the time today I’d love to chat. I’m at (443) 223-6125. Thank you!
Jim Newell
Slate


rn
--
Nathan Kauffman
DNC Research Associate
574-849-4726


Yup… or Darfur or Armenia or Rwanda or Bosnia (which PS is where my husband served).  Does she want us to do one for each other those remembrance days as well?
On May 5, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Ryan Banfill
> wrote:
This is about remembering the Holocaust. Never forget.
Sent from my iPad
On May 5, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Kate Houghton
> wrote:
We aren’t going to do statements for every Jewish holiday unless she wants to do them for every religious holiday and trust me, this Catholic can give you a list of them.  Also when she does an official statement it makes very little sense to have two statements out there in her voice.
On May 5, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Ryan Banfill
> wrote:
Flagging for you. The chair is asking for a statement on Yom Hashoah.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: hrtsleeve@gmail.com
Date: May 5, 2016 at 9:58:29 AM PDT
To: Aaron Weinberg
>
Cc: Sarah Arkin
>, Steve Paikowsky
>, Ryan Banfill
>
Subject: Yom Hashoah statement
We need to do a statement from the DNC. Is there a reason we haven't?
DWS


Trying to spin the woman card comment and being challenged by Baldwin who mentions that Trump plays the man card
__________
Shu-Yen Wei
Northeast Press Secretary
AAPI & Women's Media
Democratic National Committee
207-512-0005
weis@dnc.org


Mark Thompson (radio show) want to talk with DWS about Bernie Campaign accusations of money laundering. Note: This is the SIRIUS XM “PROGRESS” station which should make it a fairly straight-forward segment. Happy to pass on it or pitch someone else if this isn’t something we want the chair to talk about. Let me know!
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Guggenheim, David"
>
Subject: Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Date: May 3, 2016 at 6:10:26 PM EDT
To: "'ManriquezP@dnc.org
'"
>
It would be Mark Thompson for about 15 minutes.
From: Manriquez, Pablo
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:47 PM
To: Guggenheim, David
Subject: Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Checking! Thanks, David! How long would the segment be? Would you be interviewing?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Guggenheim, David
> wrote:
My evening show has been covering this Clinton fundraising issue.  They’d like to speak with Wasserman Schultz – tonight I’m sure would be out but if she could do it tomorrow at 8pm that would be lovely.
David
From: Tomasetti, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 4:53 PM
To: Guggenheim, David
>
Subject: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Looking to have DWS discuss the allegations of ‘money-laundering’ by the Hillary Victory organization, as reported by Politico.

Available & Flexible Timeslots:
TONIGHT – 6:30, 7p, 8p hour
WEDNESDAY – 8pm
THURSDAY – 7p, 8p
FRIDAY – 7p, 8p
Matt Tomasetti
Executive Producer
‘Make It Plain’
SiriusXM Progress 127
1221 6th Avenue, 37th Flr.
NY, NY 10020
Tel: 212.901.6542
Cel: 908.803.2208
Pablo Manriquez
Democratic National Committee
Phone: 202.572.5488
Email: pablo@dnc.org
web: democrats.org
Twitter: @Pablo_DNC


[ WilliamsVerified account@ColoSecofState
Jon Keyser falls 86 signatures short of making the Senate primary ballot
#copolitics
#coleg
@Jon_Keyser