Mediaboss Marketing

poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201901/3160/1155968404_5987249368001_5986822033001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true

Talk of whether or not the U.S. is prepared to elect women leaders "takes me back," 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told an audience in New York on Monday, praising the resolve of that state's female elected officials for getting legislation passed to protect women's reproductive rights.

The former secretary of state's comment comes amid fresh discussion of the prospect of a female president after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took initial steps last week to begin running for president in 2020. Warren is the highest-profile Democrat to date to announce 2020 plans, and although her political views lie to left of Clinton's, the two have long been the subject of comparison.

Story Continued Below

"Theres been a lot of talk recently about whether our country is ready for women leaders. Now that really takes me back," Clinton said, eliciting laughter from the audience.

"But today I want to thank all of you for your persistence," Clinton said of several women officials at the event. "I know many of you and can attest as to how smart, determined, effective and, dare I say, likable you all are."

Warren's entrance into the 2020 field has sparked not only fresh discussions regarding how she is perceived by voters but also talk of the extent to which female candidates are held to a different standard of likability than men. The U.S. has never elected a woman president or vice president and Clinton's 2016 bid made her the first ever female presidential candidate for a major political party.

Your guide to the permanent campaign weekday mornings, in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

MSNBC host Kasie Hunt called out questions over Warren's likability, arguing male candidates did not receive similar scrutiny during past presidential campaigns.

"Did anyone ever ask, oh say, Bernie Sanders that question in 2016?" she said on her Sunday night show.

Clinton delivered her remarks at an event at Barnard College to announce Gov. Andrew Cuomo's agenda to codify Roe v. Wade protections into New York state law. Cuomo, a Democrat whose name has also been floated as a potential 2020 candidate, is pushing to have his Reproductive Health Care Act pass New York's state legislature within the chamber's first 30 days.

During her address, Clinton praised New York for leading the way in women's rights, naming and congratulating several female state officials, including Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins.

"When it comes to getting all of this done," Clinton said of the governor's initiative, "I believe the vision of the people and groups here today, the commitment of public servants in the Legislature and the courage of candidates who ran on these issues, coupled with the determination of Gov. Cuomo, will prove to be an unstoppable combination."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton: 'Likability' discussion around female ...

US

17:54 07.12.2018(updated 17:55 07.12.2018) Get short URL

The Clinton Foundation was accused of being entangled in multiple corruption schemes during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The allegations include a variety of pay to play promises to donors and embezzlement of funds.

Member ofthe US House ofRepresentative Mark Meadows has told Fox News three whistleblowers provided hundreds ofpages of evidence, probably proving fund misuse and quid-pro-quo schemes atthe Clinton Foundation when she was secretary ofstate between2009 and 2013.

"Whenever we look atthe possibility of 'pay toplay' bygovernment officials, current or former, it demands answers, and anyone who uses public office tosell access fortheir own financial benefit must be held accountable, Meadows said, commenting onthe issue.

The House Oversight Subcommittee onGovernment Operations that Meadows heads is tohold an unprecedented investigative hearing next week onthe foundation, which US Attorney John Huber has been tasked toprobe.

Ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed him toinvestigate multiple corruption allegations againstClintons charity inMarch. The allegations include claims ofcriminal misconduct inthe sale ofUranium One. In 2010, Clinton's State Department was one ofnine US agencies that signed offon the US-Russian uranium deal.

READ MORE: FBI Raids Clinton Foundation Informant's Home Over 'Pay toPlay' Docs Reports

Meanwhile, the Hill recently reported that Huberts team requested files froma private firm called MDA Analytics LLC, set upby former federal criminal investigators toprobe alleged wrongdoing bythe foundation. The firm is said tohave earlier contacted the IRS, the Justice Department, and the FBI withevidence alleging that the Clinton Foundation may have been involved inillegal practices.

According tothe outlet, last year, 95 exhibits, including internal legal reviews ofthe Clinton Foundation, dating back to2008-2011, were submitted tothe FBI and IRS. The submission reportedly flagged concerns aboutlegal compliance and quid pro quo schemes. It also included information fromthe interview withClinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel inlate November 2016. He reportedly said that "one ofthe biggest problems was [former President Bill] Clintons commingling and use ofbusiness and donated funds and his personal expenses, Fox News reports.

In 2017 and 2018, the IRS confirmed toMDA Analytics it had received the submission, which was still open and underactive investigation. But, beforethe midterm elections, the federal authorities indicated that they had not pursued the allegations. The reasons forit included a shortage ofresources and expiration ofthe statute oflimitations onsome claims.

See the original post here:
Explosive Docs on Hillary Clinton's Charity Obtained From ...

Hillary Clinton Archives - FactCheck.org

FactCheck.org is celebrating 15 years of holding politicians accountable.

A not-so-fond look back at the worst viral deceptions of the year.

An old, bogus quote claiming that Hillary Clinton suggested in 2013 that Donald Trump should run for public office is circulating again on Facebook. Its still not true.

In this weeks fact-checking video, CNNs Jake Tapper discusses Hillary Clintons misleadingclaimthat President Donald Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to stop Russian interference in U.S. elections.

In an op-ed, Hillary Clinton went too far with her criticism that President Donald Trump has shown a complete unwillingness to stop Russian interference in U.S. elections. The Trump administration has taken a number of steps to combat foreign interference in future elections.

Q:Did the FBI wait until after the 2016 election to review the Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiners laptop?

A: No. A viral story misinterprets an FBI document and ignores widely reported facts.

Q: Did actress Jennifer Garner say, Im joining Trump train?

A: There is no evidence of that. Garner supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

Q: Were the victims of a New Jersey home explosion tied to an investigation into the Clinton Foundation?A:No. A viral conspiracy theory is spreading that claim without any evidence.Investigators told us they found no evidence of foul play and that the deaths were ruled accidental.

Q: Was Clare Bronfman an aide to Hillary Clinton and was she indicted for child sex trafficking?A:No. A false story is based on speculation that Bronfman could be indicted in relation to an alleged sex cult. But she never worked for Clinton.

Q: Did the late surgeon Dean Lorich expose Clinton Foundation corruption in Haiti?

A: No. Lorich co-authored an article criticizing the medical response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, not the Clinton Foundation.

Q: Was Hillary Clinton appointed New Yorks attorney general?

A: No. That story originated on a website that bills its work as satire.

Visit link:
Hillary Clinton Archives - FactCheck.org

Released on the morning of the single drunkest day in the country, Massachusetts senator and possible 1/1024 Cherokee Elizabeth Warren's New Year's Eve announcement that she's formed an exploratory committee to run for president has not been met with much praise or fanfare across the Democratic base. Sure, the announcement trended on Twitter, but her bland announcement video felt remnant of a different political era, and her ill-advised Instagram live video, complete with a beer and a reluctant cameo by her husband, earned more mockery than compliments.

Naturally, the Atlantic's Peter Beinart blames sexism. But Beinart's lamentations ring more of relitigating the 2016 election than an actual argument that Warren has faced any appreciable amount of discrimination due to her gender. Warren doesn't have a misogyny problem; she has a Hillary Clinton one.

On paper, Warren should be a compelling candidate. She was once a nationally esteemed professor specializing in bankruptcy and commercial law; Wall Street's irresponsibility and the Great Recession spurred her ideological evolution and eventual embrace of progressivism. It's a politically expedient narrative, and one backed by consistency that starkly contrasts with that of Clinton. No one could convincingly accuse Warren of selling out, and she bridges the gap between Roosevelt-style regulatory activism and an appreciation for the necessity of capitalism. She describes herself as "capitalist to the bone," swearing that she wants to save capitalism from itself rather than overhaul it, which arguably represents a contrast to some of her prospective competitors.

But something about Warren rubs people the wrong way. Sure, conservatives have endlessly mocked Warren's repeated assertions that she's Native American enough to qualify as a person of color, but even Democrats can't seem to muster enthusiasm for her Boomer-level lack of charisma. Liberals could point at obvious flaws in Clinton as a candidate: that her career rode on the coattails of her husband (how feminist!), her cozy relationship with Wall Street, her ability to flip on issues faster than a chef at McDonald's, and, of course, decades of baggage regarding her rumored complicity in her husband's alleged rapes and mistreatment of women. Warren has none of these problems, yet she has the same try-hard, labored, and off-putting personal demeanor that renders her candidacy unconvincing.

None of the criticisms levied against Warren fit into misogynistic stereotypes of the overly ambitious Lady Macbeth variety. She simply missed her moment in 2016, when she could have conceivably galvanized the Bernie base as well as the mainstream of the party. She might have been the best bet to beat Clinton. But now that there are younger, shinier, and more intersectional fish in an enormous pond, Warren's personal lack of charisma and seeming (though perhaps not actual) lack of authenticity could do her candidacy in.

As noted by CNN's Harry Enten, Warren, whose favorability rating is 10 points lower than President Trump's, won her re-election in this past "blue wave" by three points less than Clinton won her state in 2016. Her personal brand, built around reconciling markets with vast and expansive government regulation and oversight of the economy, is more 2012 and 2016 than the racially and emotionally charged 2019 political arena.

If this sexism is still so pervasive, why is incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., so beloved by Democrats? And why would Kamala Harris, a first-term junior senator with a far messier Pandora's box of a personal life than Warren, be celebrated as serious a presidential contender as Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who's been in the national political conversation for nearly a decade?

Most significantly, why would Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., be seen by so many as the most formidable dark horse of the 2020 election?

Because Warren just lacks the "it" factor and unfortunately has the Hillary Clinton factor instead. That same apparent passion and self-starting nature that draws progressives to Ocasio-Cortez stands in direct contrast to the privileged pedigree and air of performative wokeness that turns Democrats off Warren. Whereas one could conceivably envision Klobuchar as a mother and a friend as they see her deftly issue lines of questioning on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Warren's Instagram antics (as when she thanked her husband for being there and he said, "Pleasure. Enjoy your beer") felt hopelessly forced and desperate.

Liberals ranging from former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to progressives at Vox urged Warren to run for president in 2016. She had her moment, one in which her personal flaws would have paled in comparison to those of Trump and Clinton. But she missed her window, and you can't blame sexism for that.

See the article here:
Elizabeth Warren has a Hillary Clinton problem, not a sexism ...

Former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump in Christmas remarks says shutdown won't end until he gets money for wall Progressives prefer Biden to Sanders in hypothetical 2020 Trump matchup, new poll shows Poll: Trump beats O'Rourke, nearly ties Sanders and loses to Biden in hypothetical 2020 matchups MOREsaidthe White Houses announcement that it would begin to withdraw troops from Syria would put the U.S. at risk.

Actions have consequences, and whether were in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Irans hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.

Actions have consequences, and whether were in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Irans hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk,Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president,tweeted.

Trump proclaimed Wednesday morning that ISIS had been beaten in Syria, accomplishing my only reason for being there.

Rep. Adam KinzingerAdam Daniel KinzingerMattis exit leaves Trump, US further isolated Hillary Clinton slams Trump's Syria withdrawal: This President is putting our national security at grave risk Overnight Defense: Mattis stuns Washington with resignation | Letter highlights differences with Trump | Dems call exit 'scary' and 'bad news' | Trump defends Syria withdrawal | New reports say Trump weighing Afghan drawdown MORE (R-Ill.), an Air Force veteran, responded by saying This is simply not true.

This is simply not true. https://t.co/Jvie2NxgWz

U.S. troops in Syria are currently assisting a coalition of rebel groups known as the Free Syrian Army, which are one of several forces fighting ISIS in Syria. While the terrorist groups self-declared caliphate has crumbled, it remains active in planning attacks in the desert area straddling Iraq and Syria.

Russia praised the move, saying it opened the door for a political solution.

The White House confirmed in a statement Wednesday after Trumps tweet that the administration has started returning United States troops home but emphasized that coalition efforts in Syria would continue. It also reiterated Trump's claim that the United States has defeated the territorial caliphate.

We have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign," her statement said. "The United States and our allies stand ready to re-engage at all levels to defend American interests whenever necessary, and we will continue to work together to deny radical Islamist terrorists territory, funding, support, and any means of infiltrating our borders.

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton slams Trump's Syria withdrawal: This ...