4.26.16 PRIMARY DAY TALKING POINTS
Topline Message:
Today as millions of Americans in five states go to the polls, Democrats are voting with enthusiasm for the candidate they like most -- Republicans are holding their noses and casting their votes for the candidate they dislike least. We expect that today we'll see the same thing we've seen throughout this campaign, our voters are energized with the serious and substantive primary we've had and two candidates who both have the judgment and temperament to serve; while Republican voters will continue to be dismayed with the chaos on their side.
*         In the last primary in New York, exit polls showed that nearly 7 out of every 10 Democratic voters believe that our primary has energized our party.
*         That's because our two candidates have consistently offered strong, well thought-out visions for our country that would move America forward.
*         That's consistent with Wisconsin where 7 out of 10 Democrats in those exit polls said they were excited or optimistic about both of our candidates.
*         That's something we're not seeing on the Republican side where serious questions have been raised about their understanding of the issues, not to mention their judgment and temperament given how ugly, divisive and insulting they've been.
*         Their own voters know it. Just 39% of Republicans in New York thought their campaign has energized their party. In Wisconsin 4 out of 10 Republican primary voters...let me say that again...Republican primary voters said they fear what a Trump presidency would do to our country. And roughly a third would rather stay home, vote for a third party, or vote for a Democrat than support either Trump or Cruz.
*         That's stunning, but it tells you that Democrats are heading into November in a far stronger position than Republicans.
Talking Points
Chaos in Cleveland vs Our Next President in Philadelphia
We're less than 100 days from the July conventions, and it's clear that Democrats will emerge united, while Republicans are embroiled in drama better suited for a reality show than a contest for the presidency.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are dedicated to supporting the eventual Democratic nominee.
*         Just yesterday, Senator Sanders said at a town hall on MSNBC that he will do everything in his power to make sure no Republican gets into the White House in November.
*         And Secretary Clinton has been clear about her commitment to unifying the party and the need to build on the progress we've made under Democratic leadership over the last 7 years.
*         Because the Party's platform is a statement of our values, the DNC is committed to an open, inclusive and representative process. Both of our campaigns will be represented on the Platform Drafting Committee, and just as we did in 2008 and 2012, the public will have opportunities to participate.
Democrats know that we're stronger when more voices are heard, and when we stand together to move our country forward, we'll see that in Philadelphia at our convention.
Compare that to the Republicans.
*         This week, the increasingly desperate Cruz and Kasich campaigns forged an unusual alliance to stop Trump, but it barely lasted as long as the announcement that it was happening.
*         A majority of Trump supporters said they would abandon the Republican Party if he loses the nomination and runs as a third-party candidate.
*         Even Republican leaders are afraid of going near their radioactive convention. You've already seen Republican candidates in tight races, like Senator Kirk in Illinois and John McCain - the GOP nominee eight years ago - say they will not attend their own convention in Cleveland. But don't let them fool you, they're not any better than the top of their ticket.
Joint Fundraising Committees
*         We welcome any effort by our candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties, which is why stood up similar agreements for joint victory funds with both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign early in the cycle.
*         The DNC is the only entity that will be able to closely coordinate with our eventual nominee, and we took these important steps because of the urgency to build a strong national infrastructure NOW that will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November.
*         It's important to note, the funds that the DNC and state parties get through the joint victory funds help strengthen, for example, our national voter file and communications, research and digital support for state parties and down ballot candidates. That includes training across a variety of areas, for example, and access to media monitoring and rapid response support. This is helping us build infrastructure for the general election.
*         These arrangements are not new or unusual. Similar joint fundraising committees were established with our Democratic candidate in both 2008 and 2012. And again, both campaigns have signed on and have the option of using joint victory funds.
*         And let's be clear, neither the DNC nor state parties are subsidizing fundraising through these committees for either campaign. For whatever each campaign raises under the agreement that then goes to their campaign, that campaign pays a directly proportional amount for the cost of that fundraising.
Contested Convention / Arizona Lawsuit
*         We're going to be united at our convention, and we're confident in our process, which was in place well before we knew who would run this cycle and which has been fair to all of our candidates.
*         We've cautioned our candidates to maintain a tone that helps us build toward the general election, recognizing that as we funnel down the home stretch of any campaign the intensity level will rise.
*         Ultimately, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are drawing sharp differences with one another, but their differences remain focused on how to best move America forward.
*         They're focused on how to make sure our government reflects the values of the American people, that we have an economy and a democracy that are inclusive, and that we respect everyone in America.
*         If you want to talk about a rigged process, we're doing that too. The Democratic National Committee and our Senatorial Campaign Committee are suing officials in Arizona whose decisions led to voters having to wait for hours to vote during their March primaries, and many to be disenfranchised as a result. We want to make sure that doesn't happen in November.
*         If you want to talk about rigging elections, that's the real example, and it's a serious problem and we're glad both our candidates have expressed interest addressing attempts to make it harder for the American people to vote.
*         In Maricopa County, officials reduced the number of polling locations to just 1 for every 21,000 people. That's seven times what it was in other parts of the state, and it shows you the magnitude of the efforts to make it harder to vote that Republicans are championing all across the country.
*         And it's not just Arizona, you had a member of Congress from Wisconsin, Glenn Grothman, who flat out said that they expected they could now win Wisconsin because of the Voter ID law. It was his Kevin McCarthy moment, and the type of rigging of the system we're not going to put up with.
*         When voters go to the polls in November, they can be certain that the Democratic nominee will have the temperament and judgment to serve as commander in chief, and that's not something you can say about the Republican candidates.
Clinton's Speeches and Sanders' Taxes
*         Our job at the Party isn't to handicap our own primary, we're not going to referee.
*         There are real differences, but they're with the Republicans, and while you have to expect that the candidates are going to draw sharp differences, they're also highlighting what a much better option voters have with Democrats.
*         Just look at the issue of taxes as millions of Americans filed last week, but most of them didn't get to take advantage of special loopholes or get special breaks. Yet every single Republican plan for the economy is based on tax cuts for those at the very top of the income scale. It's exactly the economic policy that the Bush Administration had as they drove us toward the great recession.
*         So ultimately those are the differences that will matter most in November.
GOP Frontrunner Trump is Reckless and Dangerous
*         The Economy: Trump's unfounded predictions
of recession and warnings against investing in the stock market are reckless, and economists have already predicted his policies could start an international trade war and cause a global recession.
*         Foreign Policy: Trump's threat to pull back from our most important military alliances
in NATO sends a dangerous message, which is particularly troubling in light of his past praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
*         Nuclear Proliferation: Trump has refused to say he wouldn't use nuclear weapons on European territory, then suggested South Korea
and Japan should either develop nuclear weapons or pay the United States for protection against North Korea.
*         On abortion: Trump has taken multiple positions on abortion - from a dangerous and offensive call to punish women who get an abortion, to saying he would allow states to restrict women's rights, to saying abortion laws are set but he would eliminate them with judicial appointments.
Cruz
*         The vast majority of his Republican colleagues can barely muster a straight face to say anything nice or positive about him!
*         Lindsey Graham crassly talked about how no one in the Senate would object if he was killed on the Senate floor, and said that endorsing him over Trump was the equivalent of choosing to get poisoned over being shot.
*         Senator Jim Risch of Idaho - TWICE - gave one of the most passive, non-endorsement endorsements I've ever seen.
*         It's going to be very difficult for Senators and Congress members to run alongside a presidential nominee they really don't like!
The GOP's Problem with Women Voters
Trump is viewed unfavorably by 7 out of 10 women, but both of his primary opponents would also alienate women voters with their policies as the nominee.
*         Kasich said that he wants to see Roe v. Wade repealed
, and when asked what kind of punishment that would lead to, he evaded the question by saying that it should be left to the states.
*         Cruz said that even if a woman has been brutally raped, she should be forced to carry the pregnancy caused by her attacker to term.
*         In the past, the Republican candidates have opposed equal pay, family leave, and voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Earlier this month we marked Equal Pay Day, the day in 2016 when women's earnings have caught up with men's earnings from 2015. On average we earn 79 cents to their dollar, and it's worse for women of color. All of the Republican presidential candidates would stand against protections that ensure greater equality in the workplace.
*         John Kasich has consistently belittled women and said that we don't need workplace protections, just a 'change of heart' among major employers.
*         Ted Cruz voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act three times and ridiculed the legislation as a 'show vote.'
*         Donald Trump stated that women would have pay equity if we did 'as good a job' as men.
Republicans to Blame for Trump and His Down Ballot Impact
It's fitting that Donald Trump is the standard-bearer of a party that has relied on divisive politics and scapegoating for electoral gain for so long. Since 2004 they've used gay marriage as a wedge issue, demonized immigrants and stoked fears about border security. They've given birthers like Trump a pass, and fueled the Tea Party with lies about a total government takeover of healthcare and the economy. Then while in office, the only thing Republicans have done in Washington over the last seven years is obstruct. Trump IS the Republican Party.
Advantage, Democrats
Despite all the media attention that Republican frontrunner Trump gets with his say-anything strategy, Democrats are winning where it matters.
*         Senator Clinton has earned more than 10 million votes - Over a million more than Donald Trump - while Senator Sanders has  earned more than 8 million votes (well ahead of Ted Cruz and John Kasich), while also garnering more than seven million individual campaign contributions from low dollar donors. If there is an enthusiasm gap, it clearly favors Democrats.
*         Overall fundraising shows a Democratic edge, with Democrats raising a total of $72.1 million in February and 67.5 million in March, eclipsing Republicans' fundraising, which amounted to less than $12 million for Cruz, $6
million for Trump, and just $3.4 million for Kasich in February.
*         And while Trump continues to claim that he is self-funding his campaign, his latest report with the FEC
shows that he has loaned his campaign $24 million throughout this election cycle, while he raising just $34 million from outside contributors and loans for the entire cycle.
*         Democrats will have the strongest candidate in November. Period. And we are poised to take back the Senate and make serious gains in the House.
Broad Contrast and Infrastructure
*         We have been building an infrastructure and operation that will work regardless of who the Republicans nominate. We see the numbers of course; it's clear Trump is far ahead of his competitors, and we're ready for him if he makes it through what is shaping up to be a train wreck of a convention.
*         But we don't think taking on Trump is fundamentally different from any of the others.
*         At least with Trump, he's not shy about exposing what the Republican brand has truly become. Ted Cruz and John Kasich are every bit as extreme as their party's front-runner, they just hide it a bit better.
*         They promise the same extreme agenda on women's rights, they deny the threat of climate change, and they oppose fixing a broken immigration system with a path to  citizenship.
*         They all want to drag America back to the failed economic policies of the last Republican president who left office losing 800,000 jobs a month and having plunged our country into the Great Recession.
*         And they've all been just as offensive in their rhetoric, using language that alienates our allies, helps ISIS recruit terrorists, and makes America less safe.
*         So if it is Trump, we're ready. Maybe it's Cruz, but it's hard to see how that comes together in the end. But regardless we're building a ground game and an infrastructure that's ready to challenge him on every single position he's taking on the campaign trail, and that holds him accountable for what those positions would actually mean for the American people.
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC


The subject line of this email is unsettling..."heritage"
Sean Sorbie
Tracking Coordinator
Democratic National Committee
(727) 458-8583
Begin forwarded message:
From: "National Review Institute"
>
Date: May 19, 2016 at 7:31:46 PM EDT
To:
>
Subject: Defending our Western Heritage
Reply-To: "National Review Institute"
>
To view this email as a web page, go here.
[webheadershort]
[
Dear Mr Sorbie:
Those of us who read National Review and NRO share a rich inheritance. And we at National Review Institute have the honor and privilege of helping preserve that inheritance passed down by our founder, William F. Buckley Jr.
As a supporter of NRI, you know that over the past two years we have built a journalistic think tank to support the National Review mission. And as part of our recent reorganization (NR Inc. becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Institute), NRI has brought on significant portions of the enterprise-including new additional costs which were operational expenses previously borne by the magazine (such as the salaries of some of NR's top talent).
That is why we need your continued support . . . so that we can continue the critical work of the entire NR enterprise. If you give today, your gift will have double the impact. It will be matched by a close friend of NRI who has graciously offered a $500,000 matching gift between now and the end of NRI's fiscal year on July 31, 2016. This means that any tax-deductible contribution you make today will be matched dollar-for-dollar.
[Support NRI]
As part of this reorganization we also have a number of new, exciting initiatives, including the launch of our Center for the Defense of Western Civilization.
Bill Buckley was keenly aware of the existential threat that radical Islam poses not just to America, but to all of Western civilization. This was of pressing concern for Buckley toward the end of his life. So much so that in October of 2007, at his last National Review editorial-board meeting (held a few short months before his death), with those closest to him and to the magazine gathered in his apartment, he charged them to persistently fight against Islamist terrorism
.
Buckley viewed the threat of radical Islam as akin to the threat of Communism; no less dangerous, no less consequential.
NRI's new Center for the Defense of Western Civilization helps realize Buckley's vision for the NR enterprise. The Center will organize and prioritize the work of NRI fellows Victor Davis Hanson
and Andrew C. McCarthy
, who regularly write and speak on this immensely important topic.
Your support today will help spread their vitally important message. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.
Our goal is to raise $100,000 toward the matching gift in the month of May. Thank you in advance for your support.
Gratefully,
[lindsaysignature]
Lindsay Young Craig
President
P.S. Remember: Because of our matching grant, your gift today will go twice as far in helping us defend Western civilization by supporting the work of NRI fellows such as Victor Davis Hanson and Andrew C. McCarthy. Now is the time to make a tax-deductible gift to National Review Institute-a gift that will have double the impact thanks to a very generous donor.
The National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1991, 36 years after he founded National Review magazine. The Institute is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), charitable organization, established to complement its sister organization, National Review, but engaging in policy development, public education, and advocacy to advance the conservative principles Mr. Buckley championed.
EIN #13-13649537
National Review Institute -  215 Lexington Ave, 11th Floor - New York, NY  10016
info@nrinstitute.org
212.849.2806  www.nrinstitute.org
This email was sent to: sean.sorbie@gmail.com
This email was sent by: National Review Institute
215 Lexington Ave, Fl 11, 3rd Floor NYC, NY 10016 US
We respect your right to privacy - view our policy
[
Manage Subscriptions
| Update Profile
| Unsubscribe


This is good.
Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
W: 202.863.8148
paustenbachm@dnc.org
From: Palermo, Rachel
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:49 PM
To: Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis
Cc: Price, Jenna; Helmstetter, TJ
Subject: Vox: Donald Trump's position on transgender rights is incoherent, not "nuanced"
Took parts out. Luis/mark is this good to go to national and lgbt?
Donald Trump's position on transgender rights is incoherent, not "nuanced"
VOX // GERMAN LOPEZ
The Washington Post picked an interesting word
to describe Donald Trump's new position on legal protections for transgender people: "nuanced."
A better word, however, might be "incoherent."
Trans people are "a very, very small portion of the population, but as I said, you have to protect everybody, including small portions of the population," Trump told the Post. But he added that it should be left to the states, most of which he said would "make the right decisions." So he would rescind the Obama administration's guidelines
telling federally funded schools to respect the rights of trans people, including their right to use a bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.
In other words, Trump thinks trans people should be protected by the law, but he wants to take away the only federal policy clearly doing just that in public schools. Pressed on this incoherent position, he invoked the old mantra of "states' rights."
As a concept, leaving something to the states makes sense if there's something local and state governments can do better than the federal government, or if it would be too burdensome or unwieldy for the federal government to get involved. A good example of that: fire departments. There's really no reason to think a federal fire department would be particularly more effective in a big city or county than a local one. (Obviously, some exceptions may apply with wildfires and in sparsely populated or low-income areas.)
Discrimination in schools is not one of those issues. The history and current experience make that very clear.
...
We have seen how this plays out already - in the 1960s, when the federal government had to step in to force schools to stop discriminating against black people. It's one of the big reasons the Civil Rights Act passed in the first place.
Similarly, the federal government passed Title IX in the 1970s after it became clear that states were failing to ensure equal opportunities for women in schools.
Now the country is seeing the same kind of failure with trans people. For one, most states do not have explicit anti-discrimination protections for trans people in the workplace, housing, education, or public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the public). So it's not explicitly illegal under most states' laws to fire, evict, or refuse service to someone entirely because she's trans.
...
In fact, some states are actively discriminating against trans people. That's what North Carolina did when it passed a law
that banned local nondiscrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation and gender identity, and banned trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity in schools and government buildings.
Some people might wonder why denying trans people access to the bathroom for their gender identity is discrimination. It's simple: Forcing trans people to use the bathroom that doesn't align with their gender identity acts as a reminder that, as far as society has come on some LGBTQ issues, it's still not completely willing to accept trans people and their identities - even if trans people pose no danger to anyone else
. So to trans people, this is just another slight by society. And it's a slight most states allow - and that North Carolina explicitly embraced.
This is why the Obama administration got involved. If the country believes that anti-LGBTQ discrimination should be illegal (and majorities do in every state
), but states aren't stopping that discrimination from happening, it makes sense for the federal government - which has historically done this when states fail - to intervene, especially in schools the federal government funds. That's exactly what happened.


Before my must-see interview w/ @realDonaldTrump, @EricTrump has special insight into his dad's political rise. Don't miss it TONIGHT 9p ET!
Original Tweet:


This is good.
Thanks!
Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
W: 202.863.8148
paustenbachm@dnc.org
From: Palermo, Rachel
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Walsh, Tom; Walker, Eric; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis; Freundlich, Christina
Subject: For Approval: ROUNDUP: Dangerous Donald’s Foreign Policy “Plan”
SL: ROUNDUP: Dangerous Donald’s Foreign Policy “Plan”
Each day on the campaign trail, Donald Trump advocates for dangerous ideas that would undermine our national security. He fails to sound reasonable when it comes to foreign policy, and his ideas alarm foreign leaders, threatening our relationships with our allies. He lacks the judgment, experience, and temperament to be our next commander-in-chief.
During yesterday’s foreign policy speech, he proved that even a teleprompter can’t mask his dangerous ideas. Read what people are saying about his remarks below:
Don’t be fooled by Trump’s foreign policy speech
WASHINGTON POST // ANNE APPLEBAUM
If you weren’t already convinced that parody is now the central art form of our era, then Donald Trump’s grand foreign policy speech yesterday was the proof. All of the elements of spoof “foreign policy seriousness” were in place. The introduction from a serious foreign policy figure, Zalmay Khalilzad. The sponsorship by a serious foreign policy magazine, the National Interest.
The speech itself was a pastiche of a serious foreign policy speech. Trump plucked slogans and cliches used in the past — “America First” and “draw a line in the sand” — and mashed them up into a new form. The multiple inconsistencies and internal contradictions have already been listed by others. On the one hand, he said that “your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.” On the other hand, he threatened to “walk” if those same friends didn’t pony up to his demands. He wants to invest heavily in the military, but he wants to stop using the military. He doesn’t want to do “nation-building” but does want to promote “regional stability.” There was no sense that he knew what either of those terms actually meant.
…
Anyone who sits down and analyzes the speech from start to finish will, of course, worry about the contradictions, the inconsistencies, the impossible claims, the detachment from reality.
From Donald Trump, a Foreign Policy Speech Heavy on Slogans and Light on Details
WALL STREET JOURNAL // AARON DAVID MILLER
Those expecting a coherent, well-ordered view of the world and a strategy to match it would have been disappointed listening to Donald Trump’s foreign policy address on Wednesday. The speech was a collection of bromides, slogans, aims, and promises wrapped in Mr. Trump’s conviction that he can solve America’s problems in a cruel and unforgiving world–all without specifying how.
…
Nobody expected great detail on how exactly he would accomplish all of his plans. But in what was billed as a major foreign-policy address, the absence of guidance on how he would achieve his goals was striking. The best he could do about better burden sharing with our NATO allies was to suggest a summit to discuss the matter.
…
Whether it comes to Vladimir Putin or ISIS, Mr. Trump appears convinced that he has the answers. In the case of Mr. Putin, he would negotiate; when it comes to ISIS, he would destroy the jihadis. Trust me, he says. His implication that only he knows how to fix what ails the republic suggests a self-absorption that goes well beyond the normal ego and narcissism required to run for president. Mr. Trump’s preference for celebrity (his) over substance and his reliance on one-liners over serious analysis of complicated problems point up potential for conflict, at minimum, should he win the nation’s most-demanding job, a position that requires prudence, curiosity, and a willingness not only to ask questions but also to home in on the right ones.
Trump struggles to explain 'America first' foreign policy
ASSOCIATED PRESS// LOLITA C. BALDOR AND SAGAR MEGHANI
Donald Trump strained to lay out a clear vision of his "America first" foreign policy on Wednesday, vowing to substitute hard-headed realism for what he called a post-Cold War era replete with U.S. national security failures.
Yet the Republican presidential front-runner outlined no strategy for how he'd make the United States at the same time a "consistent" and "unpredictable" force in the world. And he didn't appear to allay the concerns of U.S. and international critics — Republicans at home as well as Democrats — who see him as unfit for the responsibilities of commander in chief.
…
Trump also contradicted his own broad-brush approach to foreign policy. He said at one point that the best way to achieve his goals was through "disciplined, deliberate and consistent" policy. Later, however, he exhorted the nation to "be more unpredictable" in how it combats enemies.
...
Democratic and Republican opponents immediately pounced on the speech's substance, or lack thereof.
…
Some prominent Republican national security voices, too, expressed dismay.
"This is worse than Obama," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an early loser in the presidential primary season.
Graham tears into Trump’s ‘pathetic’ foreign policy speech
THE HILL // JESSIE HELLMAN
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tore into Donald Trump’s foreign policy address Wednesday in a series of tweets, saying, “Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.”
The outspoken senator called Trump’s speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington pathetic and incoherent.
“Trump speech is pathetic in terms of understanding the role America plays in the world, how to win War on Terror, and threats we face,” Graham wrote.
“Trump’s FP speech not conservative. It’s isolationism surrounded by disconnected thought, demonstrates lack of understanding threats we face.”
Graham also mocked Trump for using a Teleprompter to deliver the speech.
A Trump-First Foreign Policy
WALL STREET JOURNAL //
As Donald Trump closes in on the Republican nomination, he’s rolling out a formal lecture series to detail his agenda and burnish a more dignified brand. His maiden policy speech on Wednesday, devoted to foreign affairs, earns an “incomplete” at Trump University.
…
The 5,000-word speech lacked specifics by normal political standards, if not his own. The central motif, like all of Mr. Trump’s political thought, is that the businessman has the brains and strength to solve a given problem, and everybody else is a pathetic loser, so trust his instincts and temperament. “I’m the only one—believe me, I know them all—I’m the only one who knows how to fix it,” he said.
…
For prepared remarks, or for that matter even an after-dinner talk, Mr. Trump’s speech was especially rife with contradictions. He said the conduct of foreign policy must be “more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything.” He also said the conduct of foreign policy must be “disciplined, deliberate and consistent.”
…
Mr. Trump isn’t known for close readings of his briefing books, if such documents exist, and deep policy knowledge is obviously not the source of his political appeal. But Americans typically prefer Presidents who are conversant about the world’s biggest problems beyond a sound bite or two, and Hillary Clinton will aggressively litigate the businessman’s Commander in Chief credentials, to put it mildly.
Mr. Trump promised to “win our new future struggles, which may be many, which may be complex, but we will win if I become President.” He won’t become the GOP nominee much less President if voters don’t trust him with nuclear weapons, so a serious if contradictory speech is at least a kind of progress.
Donald Trump’s Strange Worldview
NEW YORK TIMES // THE EDITORIAL BOARD
...
No one’s fears are likely to be allayed by this speech, which was clearly worked up by his new campaign advisers and read from a teleprompter. It did not exhibit much grasp of the complexity of the world, understanding of the balance or exercise of power, or even a careful reading of history.
...
Mr. Trump repeatedly states outright falsehoods, often based on wrong assumptions. He’s been refuted before on his claim that the Islamic State is making “millions of dollars a week” by selling Libyan oil. There is zero evidence of that. The nuclear deal with the United States and other major powers has not made Iran a “great power,” nor has Tehran violated the conditions of that pact, as Mr. Trump has said.
Mr. Trump says he knows how to negotiate, and to him that seems to mean putting forward maximal positions that he can then walk back. That won’t work in foreign policy. Mr. Trump did not display any willingness to learn or to correct his past errors. For someone who claims he is ready to lead the free world, that is inexcusable.
Trump's unreal foreign policy: Our view
USA TODAY // EDITORIAL BOARD
As anyone who watches reality television knows, the genre might be entertaining, but its correlation to actual reality is tenuous.
Which is a good place to start with the  much-awaited foreign policy speech delivered Wednesday in Washington by presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As with The Apprentice, the show that helped him become a household name, the Republican front-runner sought to provide appealing fare for a certain class of people. In this case, the primary audience was voters opposed to trade, resentful of immigrants, distrustful of foreign governments, and wistful for a time when America wielded more power in a simpler world.
In reaching out to this group, Trump vividly portrayed a world that does not exist: America’s allies would be more respectful after being lectured to, while its enemies would be dealt with by bluster. China would fall into line after enduring unspecified economic pressure. And troubled regions of the world would be stabilized through U.S. disengagement.
…
Things might happen that way on TV. But not in reality. Or perhaps we should say real reality.
Donald Trump shows dangerously incoherent foreign policy
THE SACRAMENTO BEE // THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Then, he gave a rambling, vague and incoherent speech Wednesday full of platitudes and contradictions, and suggested he would undermine international alliances that have helped keep America safe since World War II.
It was billed as a major foreign policy address, but voters looking for reassurances about Trump as commander in chief can’t feel that much more comfortable. Our longtime allies certainly won’t be confident.
...
But without the aid of a teleprompter, he shows his true self. In his victory speech, he gratuitously slammed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, claiming that if she were a man she wouldn’t get 5 percent of the vote and accusing her of “playing the woman’s card.” It’s an insult to women that will only widen the gender gap facing Trump.
Based on his campaign so far, that’s the real Trump – a bombastic and bigoted candidate who appeals to our worst instincts, not the more reasonable one who promised a clear-eyed foreign policy that makes America strong.
--
[DNC]
Rachel Palermo
Democratic National Committee
PalermoR@dnc.org
202-863-8041


Embedded NYT magazine reporter, Robert Draper
- Trump is his own communications director, etc
- Trump has a "constrained view of the world"
- After abortion comments to Chris Matthews, Trump refuted campaign staffers saying that his comments weren't problematic
Eric Trump
- Donald Trump speaks from the heart
- "John Miller" audio didn't sound like him, but even if it was, it was a long time ago
- Trump "not a dictator"
________________________________
From: Berns, Jeremy
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Research_D; DJTspeaks@hillaryclinton.com
Subject: Video request: Eric trump on Kelly File tonight
[X]     Eric Trump (@EricTrump
)
5/18/16, 6:08 PM
Look forward to being on @megynkelly
tonight at 9:30pm! @FoxNews
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
pic.twitter.com/Py84diFx3D
Download
the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone


Re-upping this
From: Wei, Shu-Yen
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis; Walker, Eric; Walsh, Tom
Subject: RE: For Comms Approval: Talking points for NJ teacher press call
Still working on getting a third speaker, updated NJ teachers script, plus a third set below (I'm really trying to get a woman as the third person)
Assemblyman Diegnan
Hi everyone and thank you for joining the call. This is Assemblyman Pat Diegnan, and I serve as the Chair of the Education Committee.
It has certainly been a busy week in Trenton and nationally as well, with Donald Trump spouting another conspiracy theory and all but certain to secure the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz dropping out, and our governor generating buzz as a possible Trump vice presidential pick.
During this Teacher Appreciation Week, we wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the Republican record on education locally and at the national level.
Governor Christie's behavior toward teachers and public employees for the past six years has been disgraceful. Over and over again, he has tried to devalue the teaching profession and squeeze those who work so hard to shape our children's future. He actually suggested last year that teachers should be making minimum wage
, after he vetoed and stood against
minimum wage increases.
And he is supporting and actively campaigning for Donald Trump, who is similarly destructive. Trump has said that he would reduce union power and has vowed to cut the Department of Education.
How is that for investing in New Jersey's future? And our state has resoundingly rejected these wrong-headed policies, Governor Christie's approval ratings have plummeted to 26 percent since he endorsed Trump.
These issues haven't gotten much attention because of the GOP's numerous, other outrageous comments. The Republican party agenda is so extreme that those backward education proposals are the standard now.
As New Jersey has wrestled with the consequences of Governor Christie's actions and hostility, we cannot allow his policies to spread across the country at the prospect of a Republican president.
Now, I would like to introduce someone who has always been a champion of educators, NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer.
Wendell Steinhauer
Hi everyone, and thank you Assemblyman. As some of you may know, I taught in the Riverside public schools for 27 years. In my time at the NJEA, I've seen first-hand Chris Christie at work.
This week is Teacher Appreciation Week, and Governor Christie has been anything but appreciative of teachers and our work his entire tenure in office. We all remember when he slashed the state education aid by more than $1 billion in his first year in office, leading to thousands of layoffs.
Or when he made reneged on his promise to fund public employee pensions, despite his promise to do so at the negotiation table.
Or when he suggested violence against teachers and teachers unions; he has made multiple references to punching us.
It is certainly no surprise to us that Chris Christie is supporting Donald Trump for President, they are two peas in pod. But when it comes to teachers, we cannot allow what Governor Christie has done to New Jersey to spread to the rest of the country, especially now that Trump is the standard bearer of the Republican party.
Trump is on record for saying that he would cut the Department of Education and that he would reduce the power of the teachers' unions.
We simply can't imagine what would happen under this Republican president, where Governor Christie's dangerous ideas and policies would surely be allowed to spread nationally.
We are calling out these dangerous ideas and gross misconceptions and asking voters to take a stand against them.
Thank you. I would like to now turn it over to [3rd speaker]
Speaker #3
Thank you XXXX, and as mentioned, I am XXXX.
Before Donald Trump was even thinking about running for President, Chris Christie was writing the book on squeezing teachers and hurting working families here in New Jersey.
Just this week, he vetoed an equal pay bill that would have helped women breadwinners in our state. I couldn't believe it he suggested that teachers should be making minimum wage last year.
And let's face it, the teaching profession is a woman-dominated one and issues around equal pay and the minimum wage affect working women and their families. So when Governor Christie says those horrible things about teachers and suggests inflicting violence on teachers' unions, he is targeting a lot of New Jersey women.
At the national level, Trump and the rest of the Republican Party share those values. With Trump as the face of the Republican party, we expect to hear a lot more divisive, wrong-headed rhetoric, and unfortunately, more hostility toward educators.
Trump and Christie are cut from the same cloth. New Jersey is well aware of Christie's bullying tactics, reneging on promises made at the negotiation table, slashing funding for state education. And all indicators suggest that Trump will be worse on the national level.
Thank you.


I am copying Pratt so that he can reach out to her. I know that Donna has a contract with ABC and CNN. Not sure how that impacts radio requests.
From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Manriquez, Pablo
Cc: Dillon, Lauren; Paustenbach, Mark; Freundlich, Christina; Regional Press
Subject: RE: DNC's (First) Weekly Segment on SIRIUS XM
Plenty we can do there. Let's find out if Donna Brazile can do this.
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Manriquez, Pablo
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:35 PM
To: Miranda, Luis
Cc: Dillon, Lauren; Paustenbach, Mark; Freundlich, Christina; Regional Press
Subject: Re: DNC's (First) Weekly Segment on SIRIUS XM
Plus regional press. Any thoughts on what we should talk about this segment? They're very interested in talking about voting rights and state of the race sort of things.Thanks!
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r)4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Manriquez, Pablo"
>
Date: 05/05/2016 12:53 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Dillon, Lauren"
>, "Miranda, Luis"
>
Cc: "Paustenbach, Mark"
>, "Freundlich, Christina"
>
Subject: DNC's (First) Weekly Segment on SIRIUS XM
Hi Team: I booked a weekly segment on "The Morning Briefing" of SIRIUSXM's POTUS Channel. It will occur every Wednesday at 8:20AM EST and will run 7-8 minutes. We can shape this segment to be what we want it to be. Some options to consider:
*   Push oppo...craft a weekly hit job that Research and Comms agree on. This will require a process that makes sense...like agreeing on an oppo point in the Friday week ahead; locking in consensus with show producers on Monday morning; pulling the research on Monday afternoon; synthesizing toplines and briefing on Tuesday; and amplifting the segment on Weds (factivist, social?).
*   Reward/empower state parties...perhaps by booking a different state party talker every week to lend their local perspective on a national topic that relates to the general. This will require less process on our end as it will be up to State Party teams to deliver our TPs via a local perspectives.
*   Assign the segment to a specific DNC talker. SIRIUS feels that this option works best to curate an audience through a familiar voice they associate with our DNC brand. Given the ongoing nature of the POTUS Radio team's commitment, if we go this way, we should assign the segment to someone who will never have another booking obligation in the 8:20AM EST slot. This, in effect, would be their show, their audience to build like Donna does on CNN.
Happy to discuss at tomorrow's Week Ahead, but those are my thoughts. I'm negotiating similar segment cycles with SIRIUS's "Urban" (topic: voting rights) and "Progress" (audiences: gay, afam), and will continue to expand as I connect with the rest of their producers next week.
To wit - Think of this as an opportunity to build the election's finest broadcast messaging specialists around inter-departmental briefing processes that make sense. Here to help!
Pablo
Pablo Manriquez
Democratic National Committee
Phone: 202.572.5488
Email: pablo@dnc.org
web: democrats.org
Twitter: @Pablo_DNC
Pablo Manriquez
Democratic National Committee
Phone: 202.572.5488
Email: pablo@dnc.org
web: democrats.org
Twitter: @Pablo_DNC


It's the hands thing, remember that video of him showing off his hands to a reporter on the rope line?
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 6:20 PM
To: Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark; Freundlich, Christina
Subject: idea for tomorrow morning
SL: Is Thin-Skinned Trump's Prez Run an Attempt at Payback for 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner?
Body: From the New York Times
:
That evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away, accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political world. And it captured the degree to which Mr. Trump's campaign is driven by a deep yearning sometimes obscured by his bluster and bragging: a desire to be taken seriously.
So in addition to rescuing the U.S. economy, rescuing the auto industry, creating 14 million new jobs, getting unemployment under 5%, getting health coverage to 20 million Americans while slowing the growth of health costs, killing Osama Bin Laden and 30,000 other terrorists, President Obama may have ensured a Democratic successor using nothing but his comedic chops.
Thanks, Obama!
Eric Walker
walkere@dnc.org
732-991-1489
@ericmwalker


Oh, should I attribute the quote to luis or the Chair and run it by Ryan to go up the chain?
On Apr 26, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Walker, Eric
> wrote:
Love the subject line. Snark snark snark
One edit to the quote and I'm good.
This is great
On Apr 26, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Wei, Shu-Yen
> wrote:
SL: A Teleprompter Can’t Make Us Forget What Dangerous Donald Has Already Said
Donald Trump’s uninformed and inflammatory remarks throughout the course of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination have caused condemnation and worldwide
alarm among foreign leaders and policy
experts. To make matters worse, Trump has no consistent policy positions on any number of issues but would dismantle the existing U.S. military framework and undo key alliances around the world.
“Donald Trump is reckless and dangerous when it comes to issues both foreign and domestic. He would make Americans less safe and endanger our diplomatic relationships. But then again, we shouldn’t expect too much from someone who only consults his 'good brain' and 'the shows'.” - XXXX, DNC Spokesperson
In advance of Trump’s speech on national security today, here are some of his most outrageous proposals that would make him a disastrous commander-in-chief:
·         He has recommended that the U.S. military commit international war crimes. He would target the families
of suspected terrorists, bomb civilians
and conduct torture
.
·         He wants to allow countries that don’t currently have
nuclear weapons to get them, reversing long-held goals of international nuclear disarmament, and suggested launching a first strike against a dangerous country like North Korea.
·         He would not rule out using nuclear weapons on Europe or the Middle East.
·         He has questioned whether the U.S. should be a part of the United Nations, saying that the organization “is not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom.”
·         He thinks that NATO is obsolete and “doesn’t help” us
in addressing terrorism, despite the fact that it led the UN-mandated International Security Assistance force in Afghanistan after 9/11, which had more than 130,000 troops from 51 NATO and partner nations.
·         He has spread lies about a domestic recession
and warned people against investing
in the stock market. These statements cannot be taken lightly; economists have predicted that his policies could start an international trade war and cause a global recession.
·         He consistently antagonized Mexico
and China
and has said that he would start trade wars with both.
###


Here is the link to the interview -- Watch here
- if you would like to see the questions
Starts at 14:52
WATCH: Roberts Gates Says Dangerous Donald is Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief
Donald Trump may have skipped this past weekend's White House Correspondent's Dinner, but he probably felt hung over after former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took to the airwaves yesterday to raise serious questions about the Republican candidate's grasp of foreign policy. On ABC's This Week, Gates criticized Dangerous Donald's recent foreign policy speech saying Trump is someone "who doesn't understand the difference between a business negotiation and a negotiation with sovereign powers," that he contradicts himself, and that he doesn't listen. The latter was described by the former Defense Secretary, military officer, and intelligence official as "one of the things that troubles" him about Trump.
Gates' comments are a reminder that Dangerous Donald Trump lacks the judgment, experience, and temperament to be our next commander-in-chief. Dangerous Donald would alienate allies and deal with friend and foe alike with reckless disregard, with poorly conceived ideas that would undermine our national security and make the American people less safe.
Watch to see what Robert Gates thinks of Dangerous Donald:
You heard Trump's foreign policy speech this week. Tell me what you believe a Trump presidency would mean for the national security of this country? WATCH
If Donald Trump is elected, are we safe? Is national security in good hands? WATCH
How do you think foreign leaders would see him? WATCH


----
This email was sent to mirandal@dnc.org.
To unsubscribe, go to:


Adding Luis, Mark, and Eric.
On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Garcia, Walter
> wrote:
Kate,
Christina Bellantoni from the LA Times finally got back to me and said she’d love to meet with DWS for coffee if we can make it work. She’s asking for windows that work best for DWS. Let me know, and I’ll go ahead and reply.
Thanks :)
--
Walter Garcia
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
GarciaW@dnc.org
@WalterGarcia231


We should respond to this. TJ, can you take the lead on drafting?
From: Bennett, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:17 AM
To: Comm_D
Subject: Potential Pence endorsement today?
Likeliest @tedcruz announcement today is @GovPenceIN endorsement. Campaign #s suggest same impact as @GovWalker in Wisconsin #tealeaves
Original Tweet:
Sent via TweetDeck


Another reporter is asking about this passage from the story below. We cannot speak to what the RNC is doing with their joint fundraising committee and the building fund. But, the reporter wants to confirm that HFA/DNC are not doing the same thing with our building fund. I think we should kick this to HFA. Thoughts?
> But a key piece of Trump's pact, according to his strategists, will be the RNC's building fund. Congress opened up > this new line of money for the parties in a larger spending bill at the end of 2014, and Trump is set to become the  > first presidential candidate to test its legal boundaries.
>
>The building fund alone can receive donations of $100,000-plus per donor, making it a powerful part of the still->forming Trump fundraising plan. Though the Democratic National Committee has building fund of its own, >Clinton did not include that in her joint fundraising agreement.
----------

Trump ramping up national team to expand battleground states
By STEVE PEOPLES
ASSOCIATED PRESS
May. 17, 2016 11:17 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Donald Trump is moving quickly to install political operatives in more than a dozen states, targeting Maine and Minnesota among others that traditionally favor Democrats, as the Republican White House contender lays the groundwork for an expanded electoral battlefield.
The staffing expansion, outlined by campaign strategists not authorized to speak publicly about internal strategy, represents Trump's first tangible step toward implementing a general election plan that would defy conventional wisdom and political trends. Drawing on the New York billionaire's appeal among working class white voters in particular, the campaign is charting an early path to the White House that runs through states that haven't supported a Republican in a presidential election in decades.
"I will win states that no Republican would even run in," Trump told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
The Trump campaign has identified roughly 15 states where it plans to install state directors by the end of the month. They include traditional battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida and Virginia and more challenging terrain such as Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maine - all states that haven't favored a Republican presidential contender in at least two decades. The target states are also expected to include Georgia, a Republican-leaning state where demographic shifts benefit Democrats.
The plan will be subsidized, at least in part, by the Republican Party's new "building fund," a lightly regulated pool of money that can draw donation of more than $100,000 from individual donors.
With likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton already weeks into her swing-state ramp up, Trump's team is scrambling to build a national organization essentially from scratch.
"Up until three weeks ago, there were 102 or 103 employees, which is fewer than Ben Carson had in January," said Trump aide Barry Bennett. "Today, that number is much bigger, and it's growing every day."
The former reality television star's success in the GOP primary season was fueled almost exclusively by personality and a flood of free media coverage. The staffing expansion marks the recognition that Trump must grow his bare-bones operation to be competitive this fall, even if he is reluctant to fully embrace other modern-day political tactics.
He refused to add a pollster for the first 11 months of his campaign, relying on sometimes-unreliable public polls to make strategic decisions. Now shifting toward the general election, Trump has hired GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, who confirmed the move Tuesday on Twitter.
With Fabrizio only now coming on board, Trump's strategists were forced to rely on the Republican National Committee's voter data and internal poling to guide the battleground state staffing plan. Going forward, Fabrizio will work with the Trump team and RNC on the voter modeling, overseeing the RNC's polling and voter targeting, according to a person familiar with the hiring.
The Trump campaign aims to have roughly 15 of its own state directors on the payroll by June 1 to supplement more than 200 RNC operatives already on the ground across the country. The campaign envisions a small, but significant presence in key states that includes a local state director, communications director, events coordinator and a coalitions director, with additional campaign functions running through the RNC.
There are challenges.
Trump begins the hiring process drawing from a pool of state-based loyalists who are largely inexperienced and relatively unknown to those leading his political operation. Some of the most experienced swing-state Republican operatives have so far shunned Trump's campaign. It's unclear how many may be willing to work for him now that he's become his party's presumptive presidential nominee.
To pay for much of the expansion, Trump's strategists said he expects to draw heavily from a new fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee, which is expected to be signed in the coming days. Clinton has a similar deal with the Democrats, which enables her to collect checks of more than $350,000 from individual donors and spread the money among her campaign and national and state parties.
But a key piece of Trump's pact, according to his strategists, will be the RNC's building fund. Congress opened up this new line of money for the parties in a larger spending bill at the end of 2014, and Trump is set to become the first presidential candidate to test its legal boundaries.
The building fund alone can receive donations of $100,000-plus per donor, making it a powerful part of the still-forming Trump fundraising plan. Though the Democratic National Committee has building fund of its own, Clinton did not include that in her joint fundraising agreement.
Trump's team concedes they weren't prepared to shift so suddenly toward the general election. Up until only two weeks ago, it appeared as though the GOP primary would continue until the party's July national convention.
"Nobody complaining that we're behind schedule," said Trump supporter, Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., noting that Democrats are still locked in a primary fight.
Collins expects Trump's message to resonate in states like his and "traditional rust belt areas" such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio that feature many working-class voters who don't typically support Republicans.
"Whether you call them Reagan Democrats, blue dog Democrats, whatever, that's what puts those area in play and why I think he's going to win in a landslide," Collins said.
___
Associated Press writers Julie Bykowicz, Jill Colvin and Julie Pace contributed to this report.
Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
W: 202.863.8148
paustenbachm@dnc.org


Gingrich gives official endorsement of Trump tonight on Hannity
- Says he only held off to remain impartial because he was personal friends with some of the other candidates
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarge, Matthew
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:09 PM
To: Comm_D
Subject: Video Request: Gingrich and Rev. Darrell Scott on Hannity
On Fox News at 10pm


Brad, it was good catching up. Remind me where the event is taking place tonight. See you then!
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC


BREAKING: Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump releases list of 11 potential nominees to U.S. Supreme Court.
Original Tweet:

Trump's picks include Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.
Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas
So we have research on Colloton, Gruender, Pryor, Sykes and Willett. Still need information on the other 6 judges he named. Below is the release we worked up a couple weeks ago. I also attached the original doc I put together that has some information on Gruender.
SL: Whom Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley Are Holding Out For
Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley have long been waiting for this day - to see whom their party's frontrunner would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. The day has finally come, and it's nothing pretty.
"The Supreme Court nominating process is serious, Donald Trump is not. Again and again he has demonstrated he lacks the experience and temperament to be an effective commander-in-chief. So it comes as no surprise that his list of top picks for the Supreme Court is full of red flags.
"The judges he wants to elevate to our highest court have a history of making the same sort of unpredictable, extreme decisions that we see every day from Trump. It's bad enough that Senate Republicans refuse to uphold the Constitution, do their jobs and hold hearings on President Obama's eminently qualified nominee. But, it's worse that the reason for the obstruction is their hope that Trump would get to nominate one of these judges." - DNC Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach
No one is more qualified to immediately serve on the Supreme Court than Chief Judge Merrick Garland - but Senate Republicans continue to say they won't meet with Chief Judge Garland, hold a hearing or vote on his nomination.
So instead, let's take a closer look at whom the Republicans are holding out for:
Diane Sykes
*         Throughout her career, Diane Sykes has supported partisan republican efforts to restrict access to the ballot box. In 2014, she voted in favor
of upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation, which could block 300,000 registered voters
in Wisconsin from casting their ballots. Sykes also authored an opinion that same year that gutted major portions
of Wisconsin's campaign finance law, giving special interest groups more influence in our elections.
*         In 2013, Sykes authored an opinion that restricted a woman's access to birth control, which was described as the "broadest ruling"
so far by a federal appeals court barring enforcement of the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
Bill Pryor
*         After George W. Bush nominated Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit, Senate Democrats filibustered his nomination
because of his extreme positions on abortion. Pryor opposes abortion
even in cases of rape or incest, and he called
Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."
*         In 2009, Pryor authored the Eleventh Circuit's decision upholding Georgia's strict voter ID law. Years earlier, he urged Congress
to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
*         Pryor was the only Attorney General in the nation to file an amicus brief
to the Supreme Court arguing that the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault in the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional.
*         Pryor has a long history of opposing LGBT rights. In fact, in 2005, Lambda Legal called
Pryor "the most demonstrably antigay judicial nominee in recent memory."
*         Editorial boards across the country denounced Bush's nomination of Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit, including the Washington Post, New York Times
, and numerous local outlets.
Brett Kavanaugh
*         As a Circuit Judge, Brett Kavanaugh was one of the staunchest critics of President Obama's environmental rules efforts to combat climate change and he authored an opinion
that struck down the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule.
*         Throughout his career, Kavanaugh has used his judicial authority to increase the influence of money in politics. In 2009, he authored an opinion
that ruled that the government can't restrict political spending by nonprofit groups or political committees. In addition, Kavanaugh authored an opinion
that upheld South Carolina's restrictive voter ID law.
*         Kavanaugh has argued
that a president may refuse to enforce a law if he or she personally deems that law unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court has previously upheld it. should have the authority to decline
to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.
Paul Clement
*         Paul Clement has taken action on his out-of-touch views on immigration, serving as lead counsel to defend SB 70, Arizona's extreme immigration law. Republicans have continually hired Paul Clement to defend their out of touch views on immigration, health care, and LGBT rights.
*         Governor Jan Brewer hired
Clement as lead counsel to defend SB 70, Arizona's extreme immigration law
.
*         Clement has "pledged to the destruction
" of the Affordable Care Act, which would take away quality, affordable health insurance from millions of 20 million Americans. He served as lead counsel
in the lawsuit that first challenged the authority of the ACA.
*         In 2011, Clement was hired
by John Boehner hired
Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and in 2012, Clement was hired
by Governor Nikki Haley hired
Clement to defend South Carolina's strict voter ID law.
*         Clement also represented
corporate interests the International Franchise Association in a lawsuit to block Seattle's $15 an hour minimum wage law.
Steven Colloton
*         Steven Colloton has consistently held dangerous positions on women's health. He joined an opinion
that restricted women's access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. He also voted to uphold a South Dakota law requiring
physicians to disclose an increased risk of suicide to women seeking safe and legal abortions.
Don Willett
*         As a judge on the Texas Supreme Court, Don Willett has time and again ruled in favor of special interests at the expense of consumers and workers. In fact, Willett ruled in favor of
corporate interests 81 percent of the time.
*         Willett authored an opinion
that protected industrial plants from liability suits by workers who claimed they were injured on the job due to the negligence of their employers. Texas Watch, a nonpartisan citizen advocacy organization, called
Willet's majority opinion in this case "the most activist decision in years" that would allow companies to "avoid accountability for workplace safety violations."


Thank you. The story is already done. Not sure Scott would have responded with the time difference.
Get Outlook for Android
From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Friday, May 13, 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: Urgent question
To: Garcia, Walter, Jake Hamburg, Kay Brown
Cc: Paustenbach, Mark, Banfill, Ryan
Also looping Kay, so you guys get on the same page, I'm sure she knows how to deal with this bs and bat down the ridiculous requests.
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r)4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Miranda, Luis"
Date: 05/13/2016 19:39 (GMT-09:00)
To: "Garcia, Walter"
, Jake Hamburg
Cc: "Paustenbach, Mark"
, "Banfill, Ryan"
Subject: RE: Urgent question
Jake, being with a state party you know it's state parties who deal with voter file access down ballot, so you should pose your question to the Florida party.
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r)4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Garcia, Walter"
Date: 05/13/2016 16:29 (GMT-09:00)
To: Jake Hamburg
Cc: "Miranda, Luis"
, "Paustenbach, Mark"
, "Banfill, Ryan"
Subject: Re: Urgent question
Jake,
Adding some folks from my team to help answering this question.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2016, at 8:24 PM, Jake Hamburg
> wrote:
Walter, I have been asked about the chairwoman blocking Tim Canova from using the voter file. Is that true or is there a statement on that?
Get Outlook for Android


We should NOT add that extra point you suggested. We want to emphasize the opposite, which is that we set up these committees with both campaigns early - albeit it one of the campaigns hasn't used theirs - precisely because we need to raise the resources NOW to have the infrastructure in place for the general election. The money the state parties are transferring back to the DNC is still helping the state parties. Point them to this bullet in the talking points:
*         It's important to note, the funds that the DNC and state parties get through the joint victory funds help strengthen, for example, our national voter file and communications, research and digital support for state parties and down ballot candidates. That includes training across a variety of areas, for example, and access to media monitoring and rapid response support. This is helping us build infrastructure for the general election.
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Graham Wilson; Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark; Lindsey Reynolds; Dillon, Lauren; Dacey, Amy; Bauer, R
Subject: RE: FLAG: Politico asking state parties about HRC JFA direct transfers back to DNC
Messages coming in from lots of state parties now.
He's asking about FEC reports that show transfers from state parties to the DNC of exact dollar amounts raised by the HFA / state party JFAs. So in other words, let's say HFA raised 300k for PA Dems... PA Dems sending that money back to DNC.
I assume he wants to write that this money won't be used for state parties or downballot races, but that it's all going to the DNC for the presidential campaign, and the state party JFAs are a workaround.
I can call Josh and Zac with HFA and see what they're thinking.
From: Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie)
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Walker, Eric; Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark; Lindsey Reynolds; Dillon, Lauren; Dacey, Amy; Bauer, R
Subject: RE: FLAG: Politico asking state parties about HRC JFA direct transfers back to DNC
Which direct transfers is he asking about?
Do we know HFA is saying?
Graham M. Wilson | Perkins Coie LLP
Direct. +1.202.434.1638
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:18 PM
To: Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark; Lindsey Reynolds; Dillon, Lauren; Dacey, Amy; Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie); Bauer, Bob (Perkins Coie)
Subject: FLAG: Politico asking state parties about HRC JFA direct transfers back to DNC
PA Dems and OH Dems just got a call about it from Politico. Reporter wants to know why the direct transfers have been happening for exact dollar amounts. He wants to write the Paul Blumenthal angl
e, but Politico can be more aggressive and sensational.
I can supply the TPs that we've used before which nibble around the issue (JFA money goes to winning races up and down the ballot, investing in infrastructure, blah blah blah) but I think it may be worth adding an extra talking point if pressed.
*         It's way too early to start determining where the money will be most useful in the run-up to the election, and even if it was time to make that determination, we wouldn't discuss funding allocations in the press for the RNC to see what we're doing.
Any objections?
TPs we've used before:
- For Background Only -
Talking Points on Joint Fundraising Committees
We welcome any effort by our candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties.
Similar agreements were set up with both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign early in the cycle, precisely because of the urgency to build a strong national infrastructure now that will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November. The Sanders campaign has not used theirs.
It's important to note, the funds that the DNC and state parties get through the joint victory funds help strengthen, for example, our national voter file and communications, research and digital support for state parties and down ballot candidates. That includes training across a variety of areas, for example, and access to media monitoring and rapid response support. This is helping us build infrastructure for the general election.
These arrangements are not new or unusual. Similar joint fundraising committees were established with our Democratic candidate in both 2008 and 2012. And again, both campaigns have signed on and have the option of using joint victory funds.
And let's be clear, neither the DNC nor state parties are subsidizing fundraising through these committees for either campaign. For whatever each campaign raises under the agreement that then goes to their campaign, that campaign pays a directly proportional amount for the cost of that fundraising.
Rick Hasen, an influential academic on campaign finance, posted an analysis on the Election Law Blog that addressed this issue. Hasen states in the article that "it is hard to see what provision of the law" is at issue in the letter. As the blog points out, "legally" the criticism of the fund "seems weak."
Eric Walker
walkere@dnc.org
732-991-1489
@ericmwalker
________________________________
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.


Hey Luis,
I wanted to share this with you, but also check-in to see if the DNC can make a statement on PR especially with both candidate’s campaigns out in Puerto Rico this week.
Bernie Sanders is in Puerto Rico today with a townhall event (details
) and Bill Clinton will be there tomorrow (see details below).
Please let me know what is possible.  I would like to move on convening a national call to help elevate the issue, but want to make sure this is ok to do and also think once we make a statement it makes it better to move forward with a call after.
Thank you,
Bridgette
Hillary Clinton Statement on Puerto Rico
Hillary Clinton released the following statement on the political status of Puerto Rico:
"The people of Puerto Rico have a proud history and a distinct heritage--and as American citizens, they are entitled to have their voices heard on critical issues that affect them. All Americans should be able to vote for the people who make their laws.
"During my presidency, I will work as hard as I can with the people of Puerto Rico and with advocates from all sides to answer the fundamental question of their political status. It is up to the people of Puerto Rico to decide, and I commit to supporting their decision.
"A process to resolve Puerto Rico's legal status must be fair and consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the decision should be made by majority vote. I will support any process that meets these terms, such as an up or down vote on statehood.  It is time to bring this issue to closure.
"Additionally, all American citizens, no matter where they reside, should have the right to vote for the President of the United States. I expressed that in 2008 and I reiterate that position again today."
Declaraciones de Hillary Clinton sobre Puerto Rico
Hillary Clinton realizó las siguientes declaraciones sobre el estatus político de Puerto Rico:
“El pueblo de Puerto Rico posee una orgullosa historia y un patrimonio distintivo y, como ciudadanos estadounidenses, tienen el derecho que sus voces sean escuchadas en los asuntos críticos que les afectan. Todos los estadounidenses deberían poder votar por las personas que formulan sus leyes.
“Durante mi presidencia, trabajaré tan fuerte como me sea posible con el pueblo de Puerto Rico y los defensores de todas las ideologías para contestar la pregunta fundamental de su estatus político. La decisión debe ser tomada por el pueblo de Puerto Rico y me comprometo a apoyar su decisión.
“Un proceso para resolver el estatus legal de Puerto Rico debe estar basado en opciones que sean justas y consistentes con la Constitución y las leyes de los Estados Unidos y cuya decisión sea por voto mayoritario. Apoyaré cualquier proceso que cumpla con estos términos, cómo lo es un voto sí o no sobre la estadidad. Es tiempo de cerrar este asunto.
“Además, todos los ciudadanos estadounidenses, no importa dónde residan, deben tener el derecho de votar por el presidente de los Estados Unidos. Lo expresé en el 2008 y reitero mi posición hoy nuevamente.”
President Bill Clinton to Campaign for Hillary Clinton in Puerto Rico
On Tuesday, May 17, President Bill Clinton will campaign for Hillary Clinton in Puerto Rico ahead of the June 5 caucus. President Clinton will attend public events in Bayamón, Cayey, and Ponce where he will discuss why Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to fight for Puerto Rico and build ladders of opportunity for Puerto Rican families.
Media interested in covering these events should RSVP here
by Monday, May 16 at 10:00 PM. Media who RSVP to the events will receive a credential confirmation and logistical information after the RSVP deadline.
Bayamón Organizing Event with President Clinton
When: 10:30 AM
Where: National College Plaza, Road # 2 Km 11.2 Bayamon, P.R. 00960
DOORS OPEN: 9:30 AM
Public RSVP Here
Cayey Organizing Event with President Clinton
When: 2:15 PM
Where: Teatro Municipal de Cayey Cll Luis Muñoz Rivera North Cayey, Puerto Rico 00376
Doors Open: 1:15 PM
Public RSVP Here
Ponce Organizing Event with President Clinton
When: 6:00 PM
Where:  Complejo Ferial de Puerto Rico Ave. Rafael Cordero Santiago Lote #1 final Ponce, Puerto Rico, 00716
Doors Open: 5:00 PM
Public RSVP Here
--
Lorella Praeli
National Director of Latino Outreach || Hillary for America
203.417.1436
@lorellapraeli


Agree. Let's use the same topper but with headlines or excerpts that paint a bad picture for the GOP.
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Price, Jenna; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis; Walsh, Tom; Freundlich, Christina
Subject: RE: For Comms Review: Front Pages Release
Guys... I'm sorry but what does this achieve? They're all just saying Trump won. The only cover worth putting in is the NYDN where it declares the Republican Party dead. Editorials / headlines from stories that are critical - that could be useful
From: Price, Jenna
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:27 AM
To: Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis; Walsh, Tom; Walker, Eric; Freundlich, Christina
Subject: For Comms Review: Front Pages Release
The results of the Indiana primary are in: Trump is the GOP nominee. Now the Republicans are stuck with the tabloid-touting reality TV star that ran an ugly campaign and is tied to dangerous proposals that would drag America backwards and make our country less safe.
Ted Cruz may have been the least- liked politician in Washington, but Trump is one of the least liked men in America. Donald Trump simply doesn't have the judgment or temperament to be President, and the American people know it.
Don't just take our word for it, see what newspaper headlines are saying around the country:
[
View this post on our Factivists site here.
###


NM and AZ state parties are trying to book their ED on radio, and will be sending paper tomorrow, along with TX, NV, and (possibly) CA. In addition, will be sending our talking points on the Trump-Ryan agenda to Rep. Becerra for media hits that he does tomorrow.
From: "Jefferson, Deshundra"
>
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM
To: "Walker, Eric"
>, Regional Press
>
Subject: RE: Press events re: this week’s Trump/Ryan meeting
North Carolina is trying to book their ED for TV interviews. Georgia is working with Rep. Johnson to push paper, and book TV.
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 6:32 PM
To: Regional Press
Subject: RE: Press events re: this week’s Trump/Ryan meeting
Alright y’all – TJ has events happening in Ohio and Iowa.
What else do we have?
From: Walker, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:18 AM
To: Regional Press
Subject: FW: Press events re: this week’s Trump/Ryan meeting
Hey Regionals – please start calling your battleground state comms directors this morning to get these events off the ground.
You should also be interfacing with your counterparts in CE / Political to make sure they are engaged and helping with the lift – can also be a broader discussion about preparing lists / comms plans for the general.
Thanks all
From:demcommunications@googlegroups.com
On Behalf Of Walker, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:13 AM
To: demcommunications@googlegroups.com
Subject: [COMMUNICATIONS] Press events re: this week’s Trump/Ryan meeting
Hey everyone –
Tomorrow, Donald Trump is coming to Washington D.C. to meet with Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, and Mitch McConnell. The Ryan meeting is the highlight because Ryan has withheld his endorsement of Trump thus far. This is an ideal opportunity to highlight the historic mess that is the Republican Party, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives not ready to fully endorse his Party’s nominee, and a slew of former GOP presidential candidates, former Republican presidents and vulnerable Senate and House candidates trying to distance themselves from their standard bearer.
We’re asking state party communications directors to put together events around Thursday morning’s Trump-Ryan meeting to deliver the message that while Trump and Ryan may have a personal disagreement, they are both pushing the same divisive and dangerous agenda. We’re also asking state party communications directors to echo these events with op-eds and letters to the editor in local papers, and surrogates on television and radio.
Attached please find a packet with materials to put together an event. In this packet you’ll find:
·         Sample talking points / message guidance
·         A sample advisory
·         A sample press release
·         A sample op-ed
·         Four sample letters to the editor
DNC can offer national surrogates to appear via satellite or phone on local television and radio broadcasts to amplify the message. Please reach out to walker@dnc.org
if you would like to book one of our surrogates. Members of Congress and Senators who are currently in Washington can also use our studio to do local hits.
Here’s what we’re looking for in terms of event logistics:
·         Types of speakers:
o   State Party Chairs, Vice-Chairs, and EDs
o   Local Elected Officials
o   Allied Groups – Planned Parenthood, NAACP, Mi Familia Vota, etc.
o   Labor
o   People sharing personal stories
·         About 15-20 supporters
·         Signs that say “Reject the Trump-Ryan Agenda” – we have a mockup that can be found here
.
·         A big push to get local TV to the event – studies show that local TV is the dominant player in most markets and Americans trust local TV news about 20 points more than they trust national TV news.
The Republican Party has elevated offensive policies and extreme voices using divisive campaigns for years, and now they’re stuck with Donald Trump’s reckless and dangerous campaign heading into the general election. We have to make sure we hold Republicans in Congress and in every state accountable for their Party’s dysfunction as they chaotically tumble toward the general election.
And while Republicans argue, Democratic voters are overwhelming in agreement that our primary has been exciting, and large majorities would support either one of our candidates.
This meeting is also a reminder that what Trump has promised and what Republicans up and down the ballot have pushed for is the same brand of trickle-down economic policies that help those at the top while costing hardworking Americans. It’s the same old Republican playbook of cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of middle-class families, opposing measures like equal pay and paid family leave, and reckless policies that would only to drag America back into a recession
. We can’t afford to go back to losing 800,000 jobs a month as the last Republican president left office.
Eric Walker
walkere@dnc.org
732-991-1489
@ericmwalker
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Democratic State Party - Communications Staff" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to demcommunications+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to demcommunications@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
.
For more options, visit


"Coming up"
Sent from my iPhone


Do we just go ahead with this?
Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8148
paustenbachm@dnc.org
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Miranda, Luis"
>
Date: May 8, 2016 at 12:30:49 PM EDT
To: "weiner@dscc.org
"
>
Cc: "Paustenbach, Mark"
>, "Walker, Eric"
>
Subject: HIT ON MCCAIN TODAY
Hi Sadie, we want to hit McCain on what he said today on CNN. Any concerns with the below?
SL: Senator McCain: "Oh, I don't know" if Trump should retract "rapists" comment
Body:
"Oh, I don't know." That was Senator John McCain's response this morning when asked on CNN if he thought Donald Trump should take back his dangerous and divisive comments calling Mexicans 'rapists.'
See the exchange below:
(Screenshot:
"By refusing to condemn Trump's unconscionable remarks, Senator McCain will own them from now until Election Day. The fact that Senator McCain is supporting Trump and standing by his discriminatory comments about Hispanic-Americans confirms that the GOP is now the party of Trump." -- DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach


Hi all -
Just circling back.
Thanks!
From: Shestopal, Olivia
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:56 PM
To: Rachel Palermo; Price, Jenna
Cc: Garcia, Walter; Julie Greene (GreeneJ@dnc.org); Miranda, Luis
Subject: For Your Review: Weekly Update
Hi all,
Please see the draft of this week's update for your review. Let us know your feedback.
Thanks,
Olivia
--
Dear DNC Member,
The Republican Party is in chaos. In less than a week since becoming the GOP's presumptive nominee, Donald Trump continues to take reckless and dangerous positions. Not only has he been continually criticized
from all sides on his refusal to release his tax returns, his own tax plan is irresponsible
. While he claims that the wealthy will "probably going to end up paying more," in reality his tax plan would give the top .1% an average tax cut of over $1 million. Furthermore, Trump continues to express ongoing support
for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. It is clear that he does not have the temperament or judgement needed to occupy the White House.
2016 is going so badly for the RNC that they put out a second autopsy
over the weekend. Donald Trump defended
his comments that Senator John McCain was not war hero, saying "there are many people that like what I said. You know after I said that, my poll numbers went up seven points." His reckless temperament and divisive rhetoric will backfire on Republicans. While the list of Republican leaders who refuse to support Donald Trump
continues to grow longer, and exit polls indicate that Republican voters believe their primaries have been divisive, 75% of Democrats say they are excited and energized by our primaries. The Democratic candidates for President are substantive and are sharing a message for moving American forward. The contrast couldn't be clearer.
Finally, Republican Senator Jeff Flake admitted this week that if the Republicans lose the presidential election they "ought to approve [Chief Judge Garland] quickly." In response
to this statement, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, "Senator Flake's comments are a reminder that Republicans are playing political games with the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Garland is the most qualified nominee to immediately serve on the Supreme Court, with more federal judicial experience than any other nominee in history, he should get a fair hearing and a vote."
Have a safe and happy weekend.
Best,
Stephanie
----------------------------
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
Secretary
Democratic National Committee


Hi Anthony,
Are you still having Luis on your call tomorrow from 9:30-10? And will you please share the dial in and the RSVP list? Also, is the call closed press? Thanks.
Best,
Rachel
--
[DNC]
Rachel Palermo
Democratic National Committee
PalermoR@dnc.org
202-863-8041


Ok. We'll cut off the third section and say Read more here: link
Jenna/Rachel - can you blast?
From: Brinster, Jeremy
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Helmstetter, TJ; RR2
Subject: RE: For Research: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
We can't leave that line about Clinton towards the end in. The rest looks fine to me, but I'm not sure if or how we want to excerpt the rest.
From: Helmstetter, TJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:00 PM
To: RR2
Subject: For Research: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
Research, any flags on this? if not, we'll blast
From: Miranda, Luis
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:58 PM
To: Helmstetter, TJ; Freundlich, Christina; Paustenbach, Mark
Subject: RE: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
Fine here.
[SigDems]
Luis Miranda, Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org
- @MiraLuisDC
From: Helmstetter, TJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Freundlich, Christina; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis
Subject: RE: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
Mark/Luis, okay to blast?
From: Freundlich, Christina
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:48 PM
To: Helmstetter, TJ; Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis
Subject: RE: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
I like that idea. This is good.
From: Helmstetter, TJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:32 PM
To: Paustenbach, Mark; Miranda, Luis; Freundlich, Christina
Subject: FW: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent
I'd like to blast this instead of us doing a round-up/statement. Great explainer, including how trump's language is dog whistling
From: Helmstetter, TJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Comm_D
Subject: Vox: trumps's trans position is incoherent

Donald Trump's position on transgender rights is incoherent, not "nuanced"
The Washington Post picked an interesting word
to describe Donald Trump's new position on legal protections for transgender people: "nuanced."
A better word, however, might be "incoherent."
Trans people are "a very, very small portion of the population, but as I said, you have to protect everybody, including small portions of the population," Trump told the Post. But he added that it should be left to the states, most of which he said would "make the right decisions." So he would rescind the Obama administration's guidelines
telling federally funded schools to respect the rights of trans people, including their right to use a bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.
In other words, Trump thinks trans people should be protected by the law, but he wants to take away the only federal policy clearly doing just that in public schools. Pressed on this incoherent position, he invoked the old mantra of "states' rights."
As a concept, leaving something to the states makes sense if there's something local and state governments can do better than the federal government, or if it would be too burdensome or unwieldy for the federal government to get involved. A good example of that: fire departments. There's really no reason to think a federal fire department would be particularly more effective in a big city or county than a local one. (Obviously, some exceptions may apply with wildfires and in sparsely populated or low-income areas.)
Discrimination in schools is not one of those issues. The history and current experience make that very clear.
States have and still are failing at prohibiting discrimination
We have seen how this plays out already - in the 1960s, when the federal government had to step in to force schools to stop discriminating against black people. It's one of the big reasons the Civil Rights Act passed in the first place.
Similarly, the federal government passed Title IX in the 1970s after it became clear that states were failing to ensure equal opportunities for women in schools.
Now the country is seeing the same kind of failure with trans people. For one, most states do not have explicit anti-discrimination protections for trans people in the workplace, housing, education, or public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the public). So it's not explicitly illegal under most states' laws to fire, evict, or refuse service to someone entirely because she's trans.
In fact, some states are actively discriminating against trans people. That's what North Carolina did when it passed a law
that banned local nondiscrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation and gender identity, and banned trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity in schools and government buildings.
Some people might wonder why denying trans people access to the bathroom for their gender identity is discrimination. It's simple: Forcing trans people to use the bathroom that doesn't align with their gender identity acts as a reminder that, as far as society has come on some LGBTQ issues, it's still not completely willing to accept trans people and their identities - even if trans people pose no danger to anyone else
. So to trans people, this is just another slight by society. And it's a slight most states allow - and that North Carolina explicitly embraced.
This is why the Obama administration got involved. If the country believes that anti-LGBTQ discrimination should be illegal (and majorities do in every state
), but states aren't stopping that discrimination from happening, it makes sense for the federal government - which has historically done this when states fail - to intervene, especially in schools the federal government funds. That's exactly what happened.
Trump's position sounds more like a dodge
[Donald Trump in West Virginia.]Mark Lyons/Getty ImagesDonald Trump in West Virginia.
Given this history and Trump's position, it's odd that Trump would say this issue should be left to the states.
It does, however, make sense if you see it as a dodge. After all, "states' rights" has long been the mantra of national-level politicians who want to stay out of touchy issues when they know where the country or their party is going. For example, Hillary Clinton said in 2006 that same-sex marriage should be left up to the states
. And John McCain said the same of same-sex marriage
in 2008.
Trump seems to be in a similar position. He says he wants to protect trans people. But he probably realizes that some members of the Republican Party, particularly religious conservatives, wouldn't appreciate that position. So "states' rights" it is.
TJ Helmstetter
Deputy Director of Regional and Specialty Media
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8022 - desk
973.464.9224 - cell
HelmstetterT@DNC.org


Watch here
From: "Brinster, Jeremy"
>
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:15 AM
To: "Sarge, Matthew"
>, Comm_D
>
Cc: "DJTspeaks@hillaryclinton.com
"
>
Subject: RE: Video Request: Rep Marsha Blackburn on CNN
·         I missed what exactly she said about the Muslim ban, so I’ll circle back on that
·         Do you want to be Trump’s VP? No one ever wants to turn it down but I would be a very “most unusual choice.” (she has had this same answer at least 3 times)
From: Sarge, Matthew
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:11 AM
To: Comm_D
Cc: DJTspeaks@hillaryclinton.com
Subject: Video Request: Rep Marsha Blackburn on CNN
Talking Muslim Ban


2:30 on Monday works for Luis. Thanks!
--
[DNC]
Rachel Palermo
Democratic National Committee
PalermoR@dnc.org
202-863-8041
From: Adrian Saenz
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Miranda, Luis
Cc: Palermo, Rachel
Subject: Re: Meeting
Thanks Luis.
Rachel, Rep Martinez Fisher is available after 2:00 on Monday. Let me know what works for Luis.
Adrian
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Miranda, Luis
> wrote:
Hi Adrian, moving to my work email. I'd be happy to. I'm copying Rachel to help us schedule a time.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Adrian Saenz
> wrote:
Luis, are you in town on Monday afternoon and do you have some time to meet with TX State Rep Trey Martinez Fischer? He's been a huge ally to POTUS and is in his last year in the state house and as chair of the Mexican American legislative caucus. He is interested in getting on TV re: the Latino vote, Trump, etc.
I know you're busy but would appreciate it if you could find time to visit with him and provide some guidance.
Adrian
Sent from my iPhone


With Jake Tapper. Happening now