New WikiLeaks emails show more negative remarks against Bern

[admin]

Planned Attacks on Sanders Included in WikiLeaks' Third Batch of Podesta Emails
Emails include list of "hits" on Bernie Sanders and attempts to spin media coverage in Hillary Clinton's favor
by Nika Knight, staff writer
October 11, 2016
Common Dreams

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The emails reveal prominent Clinton supporters outside of the campaign were frightened by the unexpected success of Sanders' campaign and often provided advice on how to defeat him. (Photo: ABC/flickr/cc)

WikiLeaks released the third installment of its cache of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's hacked emails early Tuesday, revealing the inner workings of the Clinton camp's efforts to spin news items and influence reporting; their strategies to take down the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); and the often cozy relationship between Podesta and corporate lobbyists.

For instance, one email featured Gordon Giffin, a lobbyist for TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, asking Podesta personally to secure a seat for him at the White House state dinner with Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. "Giffin is a [so-called] 'Hillblazer' who has contributed or raised at least $100,000 for Clinton and her joint funds with the Democratic Party," Politico observed.

Another exchange shows top aides struggling to spin contentious moments, including a statement Clinton made last February about her vote for a 2001 bankruptcy bill that favored credit card companies. Clinton said she was pressured to vote for the legislation by women's groups.

"She said women groups [sic] were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence does not support that statement," Clinton campaign senior policy adviser Ann O'Leary wrote.

Other notable exchanges reveal the Clinton campaign's attack lines on Sanders' presidential run: one shows Clinton aides soliciting an op-ed from current transition team head (and former Interior Secretary) Ken Salazar that slams Sanders' record on immigration, which Salazar readily provided.

Another, titled "Sanders hits," features a list of points of attack against the Vermont senator. It includes such items as Sanders' record on gay marriage and gun rights, which became popular lines of attack from the Clinton camp during the close Democratic primary contest.

And many emails involving journalists, such as one from Patrick Healy of the New York Times, often reveal the campaign's forthright efforts to manipulate media coverage of Clinton—a tactic that prior email dumps have also shown, as The Intercept reported.

Occasionally, the exchanges also reveal Clinton aides expressing views that oppose the candidate's own: one email from Podesta shows him urging another Clinton staffer to "drop the gmo's [sic]" when the aide tells Podesta she is suffering from a bad migraine. Clinton supports GMO crops and the biotech industry.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks and others continued to sift through the thousands of emails previously published by the group and highlight particularly notable ones:

Our Goals & Strategy

Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate. We have outlined three strategies to obtain our goal:

1) Force all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election;

2) Undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have to make inroads to our coalition or independents;

3) Muddy the waters on any potential attack lodged against HRC.

Operationalizing the Strategy

Pied Piper Candidates

There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson

We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Clinton's secret strategy shows how Clinton pushed to elevate Donald Trump as early as April 2015 #PodestaEmails https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 …
3:58 PM - 10 Oct 2016

1. The Prime Minister always had a “surprising good relationship” with Hillary; she is “easy to work with”, and that she is more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House. Even during their “famous 43 minute phone call, when he felt like slamming down the phone, he felt she was simply heavily scripted and reading from points prepared by the White House.

2. While the Prime Minister favors a two state solution, neither a majority of the Likud Party nor Bennett’s party does. Indeed, a two state solution has never been in the government guidelines in any Likud-led government.

3. The Prime Minister hoped during his most recent meeting with the President that the new MOU would be announced, but the White House only wanted to announce the intention to negotiate it. He hopes it will be concluded in the next few months. When I asked if Bunker Busting Bombs or the new deep ordinance bomb was on the Israeli request list, he only indicated that “there is no dispute on platforms” between the Administration and Israel. He said the biggest issue is the amount of money, in a lean budget situation. The Israeli Embassy is not going around the Administration to lobby for a higher figure, although they could probably get it. But if the figure is too low, they will wait until the next President.

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Israel PM Netanyahu coms to Hillary Clinton according to private email from Israel ambassador #PodestaEmails2 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/346 …
12:25 PM - 10 Oct 2016

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Univision owner & Clinton doner Haim Saban revealed to be tightly coupled to Clinton Latino strategy #PodestaEmails2 http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updat ... df79c90000 …
12:48 PM - 10 Oct 2016

Dear Investors & Key Advisors,

Wanted to send you a quick update...

As you may have heard with the hard work of the folks at ProgressNow Colorado as part of Colorado¹s ³communication hub² they dug up weeks ago and carefully passed on information to the mainstream media on how the leading GOP candidate for Governor, former Congressman Scott McInnis plagiarized a report he provided on water policy for a foundation in Colorado.

In the past 48 hours, McInnis and the entire Republican party of Colorado are in free-fall. There are now calls even within the Republican party for McInnis to withdraw.

The best part is that ProgressNow Colorado nor any of our allies had their fingerprints on any of the excellent behind-the-scenes work to develop and then break this story. This has led to three straight days of front page Denver Post coverage as well as the editorial below and statewide media, a share of which is linked to below.

Kenneth P. Vogel ✔ @kenvogel
Dem "Dark Money" org @ProgressNowCO boasts it took out GOP gov candidate "without any fingerprints". #transparency https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/886 …
3:36 PM - 10 Oct 2016

The emails also reveal prominent Clinton supporters outside of the campaign were frightened by the unexpected success of Sanders' campaign and often offered unsolicited advice on how to better appeal to voters. "A good amount of exposure of Hillary holding, feeding and playing with her adorable grandchild would greatly help the public understand her," wrote longtime Clinton ally Andy Manatos last fall.

And other missives illustrate that the Clinton campaign was at times pressured to adopt more progressive views. For example, The Hill columnist Brent Budowsky argued to Podesta in March that Clinton should attempt to dovetail with Sanders' policy recommendations, rather than attack the progressive senator, if Clinton hoped to win Sanders' supporters' votes in the future. Budowsky wrote:

[...] Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does. I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November, and she and [chief campaign strategist Joel] Benenson and others have no idea of the damage she does to herself with these attacks, which she does not gain by making. Instead the smart move would be to look for issues where she can dovetail with Bernie. One I am definitely going to suggest would be to take his proposal for a free public college education paid for by a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation and add one new dimension....that to receive this benefit young people should devote one year to some form of community or public service.... There is no reason Hillary cannot not support this.... Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump....she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.....even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me.....

In response to the WikiLeaks trove, Clinton surrogates and supporters have said that the leaks were orchestrated by Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, despite no evidence to support that claim. "It is absolutely disgraceful that the Trump campaign is cheering on a release today engineered by Vladimir Putin to interfere in this election," Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin said Monday in a statement.

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

Bernie narrative

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016-05-21 22:23
Subject: Bernie narrative

Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that
Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess.

Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign
to do things because they'd either ignored or forgotten to
something critical.

She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his staff to respond
to our concerns. Even then they didn't get back to us, which is why we had
to shut off their access in order to get them to finally let us know
exactly how they snooped around HFA's data.

Same was true with the standing committee appointments. They never got back
to us with their names (HFA and even O'Malley got there's in six weeks
earlier) for the committees. So, again, the chair had to call Bernie
personally for his staff to finally get us critical information. So, they
gave us an awful list just a few days before we had to make the
announcements.

It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together.

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477

Re: Politico - Sanders: Democratic Party hasn't been fair to me

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016-04-24 17:25
Subject: Re: Politico - Sanders: Democratic Party hasn't been fair to me

Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.

DWS

On Apr 24, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Paustenbach, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran."
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/b ... ess-222355
>
>
> Mark Paustenbach
> National Press Secretary &
> Deputy Communications Director
> Democratic National Committee
> 202.863.8148
> [email protected]

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999%20

Re: Sanders: If I'm elected, DNC leader would be out

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016-05-21 18:31
Subject: Re: Sanders: If I'm elected, DNC leader would be out

This is a silly story. He isn't going to be president.

> On May 21, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Miranda, Luis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Do you all think it's worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration when a new DNC Chair is elected anyway?
>
>
> From: Steve Paikowsky [[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 4:13 PM
> To: Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Tracie Pough; Ryan Banfill; Ed Peavy; Dave Beattie; Miranda, Luis; Jodi Davidson
> Subject: CNN: Sanders: If I'm elected, DNC leader would be out

> Sanders: If I'm elected, DNC leader would be out
> CNN
>
> Bernie Sanders tells CNN's Jake Tapper that if he is elected president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz would not be reappointed as DNC chairwoman. Read the full story

> Shared from Apple News

> Sent from my iPhone

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643

No shit

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31
Subject: No shit

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

[admin]

Election Fraud Study Points to Rigged Democratic Primary Against Bernie Sanders
by Reno Berkeley
June 15, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY THE OPINION OF RENO BERKELEY AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE INQUISITR.

A study done on the Democratic primary is pointing to signs of election fraud in multiple states. Two statisticians studied exit polls and other data and compared them to actual election results. Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan from Stanford University in California published the study on June 7, the day the last six states held their primaries and caucuses.

The study comes on the heels of multiple accusations of election fraud hurting or costing Bernie Sanders a victory in several states where state and local election authorities have come under scrutiny for questionable behavior.

Geijsel and Barragan compared states that used “hard paper evidence” of votes versus states that did not use paper ballots and noted “it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries” using this method. They also compared election results with exit polls, noting that, in 2008, voting irregularities were not at the same level as they have been in 2016.

The study authors discovered significant anomalies between election results and exit polls, where data indicated lower support for Clinton than what the actual vote tally showed. These types of discrepancies did not occur in either the Republican primaries or in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

The authors theorized that in states without paper voting trails, the differences in exit polls and election results would be bigger, and their study confirmed this.

“While the effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls … In contrast, the effect size is much smaller in states with paper trails.”

In other words, it’s easy to rig elections when no hard copies exist to prove otherwise.

Several states where Clinton seemingly beat Sanders experienced an unusual amount of irregularities, voter disenfranchisement, and exit polls that did not match election results.

According to CounterPunch, the state of Illinois experienced widespread discrepancies and even election fraud where poll workers were seen manipulating paper ballots to match voting machine tallies. Lora Chamberlain, a leader for Who’s Counting, an organization that works with the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, expressed her surprise and dismay at what she saw during an audit of early voting machines.

“…what we saw was not an audit … I was watching the hand count of the early voting machines … they had to erase 21 votes for Bernie Sanders and add 49 Hillary Clinton votes.”

In Arizona, where the polling locations were reduced by two-thirds and where voters waited up to five hours to cast their ballots, allegations of hacking and fraud ran rampant. Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan ultimately acknowledged that voter suppression and election fraud occurred, including instances where people’s party affiliation had been mysteriously changed, rendering them disqualified from voting in the closed primary.

In Arizona specifically, the Bernie Sanders campaign had stopped using the electronic GOTV (Get Out TheVote) app on their smartphones and instead had begun using hard copy printouts to register new voters. This was due to suspicions that Sanders’ records had been hacked, and supporters were targeted for removal from the voter rolls.

According to the Justice Gazette, more than one million Arizona voters were disenfranchised, most of whom were Bernie Sanders supporters. Election analyst Tyler Pedigo predicted a Sanders win in Arizona and big losses for Clinton in Utah and Idaho. Pedigo’s predictions for Utah and Idaho were correct. Arizona, however, went to Hillary, indicating possible election fraud and rigging.

This, despite the fact that exit polls, along with Pedigo’s analysis of Sanders’ support across multiple voting spectra, indicated strong support for the Vermont senator.

New York also experienced massive election fraud and voter disenfranchisement, according to complaints. In California, which saw a huge increase in new voter registrations, the race was called for Clinton even though more than two million mail-in ballots have yet to be counted (as of June 10).

Notable author and election expert Richard Charnin has indicated a strong possibility of election fraud based on the discrepancy in exit polls and actual vote totals. In a recent blog post, he illustrated how recent polls, Sanders’ strong approval ratings, and election results show a strong correlation to possible fraud. In 13 out of 14 states that held caucuses, Charnin said, Sanders won with an average of 65.4 percent.

Because of all the unusual issues voters faced during the Democratic primaries, the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity has filed a lawsuit against the DNC alleging election fraud and vote rigging in multiple states.

The Geijsel and Barragan election fraud study appears to have confirmed what the average voter has suspected for months. Simply put, the studies, the Democratic Primary process has been rigged against Bernie Sanders from the very start.

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5423

Sanders-related advice from Mark Siegel

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2016-03-20 12:00
Subject: Sanders-related advice from Mark Siegel

Sharing as a favor and cause of his role in the Dems' delegate system.

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mark Siegel <[email protected]>
> Date: March 20, 2016 at 9:18:34 AM EDT
> To: Tamera Luzzatto <[email protected]>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Tamera, I've tried to get this
> ( below) to Robbie but I'm not sure he's seen it. Is it possible for you to get this to him or someone else in Brooklyn dealing with the convention? It might be useful. Thanks/love. Mark
>>
>> I've lived through many national conventions and have found that it's critical that all delegates, especially those representing losing candidates, emerge from the convention feeling that they have won something, achieved something tangible. I think this is terribly important especially with people like Bernie's sometimes self-righteous ideologues. We want them to go home happy and enthusiastic in working their asses off for Hillary.
>>
>> Hillary has already smoothly pivoted to incorporate some important elements of Bernie's ideas and rhetoric into her own message. Thus I don't think the 2016 Platform is a sufficiently tangible prize for the Bernie wing of the convention. I think they have to be given something that they can claim as a singular success. I think I know something that would painlessly work.
>>
>> As you probably know I was the guy who drafted the "super delegate" provisions of the party's delegate selection rules. It was an outgrowth of the McGovern 1972 convention where very few of our elected officials were delegates. After the debacle, the "regulars," the Party establishment, wanted a big chunk of guaranteed representation at future conventions ( as much as 25%) The liberal wing was firmly opposed to this, saying it was undemocratic. Through the Mikulski, Winograd and Hunt Commissions I worked out a compromise giving ex- officio delegate status to Democratic members of the House and Senate, Democratic Governors and big- city Mayors. That would have totaled about 10% of the convention, what I thought was a reasonable compromise.
>>
>> The liberals were ok with it but the Democratic State Chairmen's Association wanted to add party officials to this new class of ex-officio delegates.
>>
>> When the new delegate selection rules were voted on by the DNC, it is not shocking that the DNC ADDED THEMSELVES as automatic delegates. That drove the percentage up to over 15%. It has crept up even a bit higher now.
>> ( wouldn't the republicans like to have that now!)
>>
>> So here's my idea. Bernie and his people have been bitching about super delegates and the huge percentage that have come out for Hillary. Since the original idea was to bring our elected officials to the convention ex-officio
>> ( because of the offices and the constituencies they represent), why not throw Bernie a bone and reduce the super delegates in the future to the original draft of members of the House and Senate, governors and big city mayors, eliminating the DNC members who are not State chairs or vice-Chairs. (Frankly, DNC members don't really represent constituencies anyway. I should know. I served on the DNC first as Executive Director and then as an elected member for 10 years.)
>>
>> So if we "give" Bernie this in the Convention's rules committee, his people will think they've "won" something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn't make any difference anyway. They win. We don't lose. Everyone is happy.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't know if Robbie is focusing on the convention at this point but the Bernie people have a lot of passion and we should try to keep them marginally on board. Just saying...
>>
>> Thanks. Mark
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/em ... 0APKAPMATG

Campaign money and negative ads....

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-07-01 23:11
Subject: Campaign money and negative ads....

John, one thought worth considering would be for HRC to offer leadership for a
better kind of politics by suggesting Democratic candidates agree to not run
negative ads against each other during the primaries. A modern version of
Reagan's 11 commandment of Republicans not attacking each other. She would
get credit with voters for trying, Bernie would almost certainly agree and O'Malley
doesn't matter at this point and probably won't....

HRC could then spend money running positive ads about herself, juxtaposed against
Republicans, which helps her favorable and trust numbers, draws a nice contrast
between her and Republicans, and when she has to go negative when Republicans
do, she has a strong foundation of having campaigned for a higher standard of
politics which voters want....

Frankly I thought it was dumb for McCaskill and Gutierrez to be attacking Bernie.
We are going to need his voters to turn out in November for HRC, he won't be
nominated. I am doing the opposite, repeatedly writing friendly and positive
pieces about Bernie as an HRC supporter, and when the time is right I will have
money in the bank with him and his people as a liberal to urge them to come out
in force to vote for HRC.....which is not a given, and we won't have much margin
for error in a close election.....Brent

Sent from my iPad

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688

Revised debate memo

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2015-04-27 17:51
Subject: Revised debate memo

John, Robby, and Ron,

Please see the revised briefing memo. I have attached two other documents:

1) An email I'd send to Mo confirming certain things (a sanitized version of our internal memo).

2) The DNC draft press release.

Memorandum

TO:

John Podesta, Robby Mook, and Ron Klain

FROM:

Charlie Baker

DATE:

April 27, 2015

CC:

Jen Palmieri

RE:

DNC Debate Proposal

Beginning in February 2015, the DNC, through its communications operation (Mo Elleithee and Anita Dunn) began discussing with representatives of potential Democratic candidates, the establishment of a "sanctioned" schedule of debates. The DNC is now close to rolling that proposal out publicly.

Background. The RNC early in the cycle announced a formal schedule of debates for their primary candidates. That schedule, as of today, consists of 12 separate debates beginning in August 2015. The RNC debates are logistically spread around the country with no more than 1 debate in any state. As part of establishing that schedule the RNC has insisted that the candidates and networks who participate in those "sanctioned" debates must agree not to participate in "unsanctioned" debates.

Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.

Through discussion of these goals with the DNC their current plan is to begin a debate schedule that would commence in early October, with one debate a month, one each in the early primary and caucus states, and the remaining 2 post South Carolina (we will need to push them to post March 1 and then the later 2 debates would be cancelled if the race ends). The DNC's current plan is to release the attached press release (which lacks this specificity but confirms the number and start window for the debates). The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier. Mo and Anita believe that this announcement prior to the actual entry into the race of other candidates will strengthen their hand as they lock a schedule in with local media partners and state parties.

One remaining issue is the criteria for participation: we believe it is important to the extent possible to keep the debates "multicandidate" and to eliminate the possibility of one on one debates; the most likely standard that would achieve this result is to allow any announced candidate who is: 1) a Democrat and, 2) who meets some threshold of viability (1 percent) in either a national or state specific (e.g. Iowa, NH) to participate.

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22224

This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Bernie's negativity

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2015-11-19 15:20
Subject: Re: Bernie's negativity

I see no downside to them talking to him

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Maura Keefe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Spoke to Shaheen yesterday who said she and Claire were talking about
> Bernie going negative. I asked her if she thought some of the women
> might be inclined to speak to him about it. She thought they would be.
>
> Let me know if there's interest in pursuing as another way to
> reinforce that he's running a negative campaign. Recognizing that
> conversation would likely get out and could become a part of the
> narrative against him - that the women senators went to him to ask him
> to tone it down and to keep the pledge he made to them at the start of
> the race...

> Sent from my iPhone