TRUMPOCALYPSE AND OTHER DNC PLANS FOR JULY Guccifer 2.0

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Twitter

MENU

GUCCIFER 2.0

WRITTEN BY GUCCIFER2JULY 6, 2016

TRUMPOCALYPSE AND OTHER DNC PLANS FOR JULY

I have a new bunch of docs from the DNC server for you.

It includes the DNC action plan during the Republican National Convention, Surrogate Report, POTUS briefing, financial reports, etc.

This pack was announced two days ago but I had to keep you waiting for some security reasons. I suffered two attacks on my wp account.

You might be aware of the rumors about Marcel Lazar aka Guccifer. Those are a.c. fake stories, but who knows. Please keep me updated if there is any news.

CounterConventionPlanSketch_May20Update

 

POTUS Briefing 05.18.16_AS Edits

Big Spreadsheet of All Things

DRAFT Platform Press Release (DWS)

And other docs:

051916 Simas Sue and Grace

Democracy TV Presentation

DNC LGBT List_6 9 2016

Finance_LGBT Reception Guest List

Sample Report

SHARE THIS:

Press ThisTwitterFacebook586Google

25 THOUGHTS ON “TRUMPOCALYPSE AND OTHER DNC PLANS FOR JULY”

Pingback: 1 – Trumpocalypse and other DNC plans for July – GUCCIFER 2.0

KING MAKER

JULY 7, 2016 AT 12:37 AM

Looks authentic to me.

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

SMYTHRADIO

AUGUST 6, 2016 AT 11:25 AM

Its real alright. We called the phone numbers listed and questioned them on this and the response was priceless. We will air this on 7AUG16 on SmythRadio.com at 5-8pm est (UTC -5)

Like

REPLY

VICTOR JAMS (@S0LLDUS)

JULY 7, 2016 AT 5:20 AM

Man you gotta start making an archive of these dumps.

Like

REPLY

SUMI XAVIER

JULY 7, 2016 AT 5:56 AM

We know the DNC rigged the elections too? Could you upload documents that validate this?

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

Pingback: Trumpocalypse and other DNC plans for July | HISTÓRIA da POLÍTICA

JRKIEFER

JULY 7, 2016 AT 4:27 PM

Reblogged this on Kill The Paradigm and commented:
The latest #Guccifer2

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

EBREAKER1942

JULY 8, 2016 AT 4:43 PM

Beautiful, my friend. We need MORE

Like

REPLY

EBREAKER1942

JULY 8, 2016 AT 4:45 PM

Have you seen DC leaks? They also have good stuff:

http://dcleaks.com/emails/Philip_Mark_Breedlove-Email_Archive/html/breedlove_karber/CLOSE%20HOLD.html

Liked by 2 people

REPLY

PRETTYTWISTEDTHOUGHTS

JULY 8, 2016 AT 11:56 PM

Guccifer 2.0,
Thank you for sharing the information you uncover so we can know the truth about our government. Seeing as the msm is serving up propaganda as “news” nowadays, I’ve been wondering if there’s any way to hack into the corporate media systems to shut down what’s loaded to be broadcasted and replace those programs with real stories that need to reach the people that are still in the dark about what’s really going on. I don’t know the first thing about computers/ technology so forgive me if my question is a ridiculous one. Thanks again.

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

MERRIE SKELLEY

JULY 9, 2016 AT 6:18 PM

Reblogged this on aRT for a Gloomy Day and commented:
Wow. Reading through these documents makes me sick. RNC, DNC what’s the difference? Not much. Yeah. The “social issues.” And how long do we really believe that will last? As long as the DNC’s nominee accepts money from human rights violators, not long is my guess. Remember, Republicans weren’t always as unreasonable as they are now. It’s only a matter of time until the Democrats join them.

Like

REPLY

EARLENE HAMMOND

JULY 10, 2016 AT 7:57 AM

I think they already have joined them.

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

MERRIE SKELLEY

JULY 9, 2016 AT 6:20 PM

Thank you again, Guccifer 2.0. I hope all is well in your world.

Like

REPLY

INTRICATE KNOT

JULY 9, 2016 AT 8:54 PM

Reblogged this on and commented:
Wow. Reading through these documents makes me sick. RNC, DNC what’s the difference? Not much. Yeah. The “social issues.” And how long do we really believe that will last? As long as the DNC’s nominee accepts money from human rights violators, not long is my guess. Remember, Republicans weren’t always as unreasonable as they are now. It’s only a matter of time until the Democrats join them.

Like

REPLY

IZAAC

JULY 11, 2016 AT 6:39 AM

Anyone else notice how they can’t do math. $15 for gimmicks at 100 ea is marked as $15,000. That’s a huge difference.

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

HELLMACH

JULY 27, 2016 AT 3:40 AM

That’s core math for you

Like

REPLY

TOM DUNKLE

JULY 11, 2016 AT 8:37 PM

Hello Guccifer

Thank you for all of the information you have posted. I am 66 and have never participated in the political process until now. I can`t imagine my country electing someone that the FBI showed is nothing but a criminal and a thug. Hopefully you can post things from her private server that will destroy her campaign.

Regards

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

INGE CRUTCHFIELD

JULY 12, 2016 AT 1:19 PM

Please accept my sincere appreciation for all that you do for us who know that our government is betraying us left and right. You work and info is not only helpful but informative for each one of us to counter their treasonous actions.
Thanks my friend and keep it coming!

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

ELISABELL BAKER

JULY 14, 2016 AT 6:04 AM

this is the left left

Like

REPLY

LINDA CRUMP

JULY 14, 2016 AT 8:33 PM

Thank you, keep it coming. Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:36 +0000 To: snydercrumpwest@aol.com

Like

REPLY

PUTINLOVESTRUMP

JULY 23, 2016 AT 12:21 AM

That you think Trump is in anyway “honest” means

1) you haven’t read or researched anything about him. His compulsive dishonesty is well known. You think he is “self made”? His father was one of the richest men in America. He grew up far far wealthier than Hillary did lol.

2) You are a Russian shill.

Sorry but it is hard to believe you are stupid enough to think Trump is “Honest”. When you say that it removes all your credibility. It seems clear to me that Putin is helping Trump out by posting internal and embarrassing DNC material. Trump in turn has changed the republican platform to be more russian friendly. Two of trumps advisors have direct ties to Russia – one advisor used to work for Putin-supported Ukrainian president. The other has ties to Russian Oil – and recently spoke in Russia.

Like

REPLY

TWERKINGNEUROSURGEON

JULY 24, 2016 AT 6:07 PM

Hey wanker,Trump is 1000 times more honest then Hitlery.Get your head out of your ass.She’s been in power ever since her perverted husband was in the White house and she has more fuck ups then good ye retards like you think she’d be great for the White House.Manning made public a video showing how unarmed people were killed by the US airforce and he’s facing over 30 years in prison.Hillary intentionally moved her email server where she was receiving TOP SECRET information that got out to China and Russia and nothing happens to her.She’s fucking incompetent and a traitor yet here you are either defending her so i have to ask….are you blind,illiterate or fucking retarded?

EVEN IF Trump was dishonest that doesn’t take anything away from what Hillary did.

Trump 2016 for President.Hillary for Prison!

Liked by 1 person

REPLY

LAGERGELD

JULY 26, 2016 AT 11:18 PM

You’re a member of the Democratic Party. Your party is spreading lies that the hack is on Trump’s behalf when the FBI notified the DNC TWO YEARS AGO of it. Stop lying for once in your pathetic life.

Just face a few acts, asshat:

1) You Democrats can’t secure your email servers if your lives depended on it. Hillary just got out of federal charges because of her connections and nothing else.
2) Trump did not get Russia to hack emails at his request starting ONE YEAR before he announced his candidacy. You’re desperate and reaching.
3) The contents of your DNC emails wouldn’t matter if you all weren’t so fucking corrupt and racist.
4) You spout off false moral outrage while tonight (7/26/16) on the stage at the DNC is the parents of attempted cop killer Michael Brown, held up as victims and martyrs.
5) You Democrats are filthy from the top down and have no ability to be honest to get what you want.
6) The Trump/Russia connection is concocted to deflect from the horrible contents of the DNC emails so you don’t have to actually address them.

So go fuck yourself.

Guccifer, keep up the good work. I bet there’s even worse out there to yet find.

Like

REPLY

BOB HANUMAN

JULY 24, 2016 AT 10:32 PM

I’m sorry, but your obsession with Clinton is very suspect and very one sided. The country is run by big corporate interests and money. Nothing is going to change. The political parties are just pawns in the game.
Jane Mayer – ” Dark Money”

Like

REPLY

LAGERGELD

JULY 26, 2016 AT 11:20 PM

Your deflection on behalf of Hillary is very suspect and one-sided.

Like

REPLY

LEAVE A REPLY

Logged in as smythradio. Log out?

COMMENT 

I AM ON TWITTER

POST NAVIGATION

PREVIOUS POSTFAQ FROM GUCCIFER 2.0

NEXT POSTNEW DNC DOCS

Blog at WordPress.com.

4 brutal poll numbers that greet Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.washingtonpost.com

Some audience members booed and chanted Bernie Sanders's name when Hillary Clinton was mentioned during the opening invocation at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia July 25. (The Washington Post)

It's common for presidential candidates to get a bump from their conventions, and two new polls Monday suggest Donald Trump did indeed get that.

But the new polls don't just show Trump's stock rising (however temporarily that may be); they also have some very bad news for Hillary Clinton and her already-declining personal image. Indeed, politically, she's doing as bad as she ever has — if not worse.

A caveat at the outset: The GOP convention was, as was to be expected, very anti-Clinton. There were chants of "lock her up" and plenty of accusations lodged against Clinton. So it's perhaps not surprising to see Clinton's numbers take a hit. But they have been steadily getting worse for months and are now basically worse than ever before.

Below, four key points:

1) 68 percent say Clinton isn't honest and trustworthy

That's according to the CNN poll, and it's her worst number on-record. It's also up from 65 percent earlier this month and 59 percent in May. The 30 percent who see Clinton as honest and trustworthy is now well shy of the number who say the same of Trump: 43 percent.

You heard that right: Trump — he of the many, many Pinocchios — now has a large lead on Clinton when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness.

The CBS poll, for what it's worth, has a similar number saying Clinton is dishonest: 67 percent.

2) Her image has never been worse

CBS showed just 31 percent have favorable views of Clinton and 56 percent have unfavorable ones. Even in Trump's worst days on the campaign trail, he has rarely dipped below a 31 percent favorable rating. Clinton has hit that number a few times, but her negative-25 net favorable rating here is tied for the worst of her campaign,according to Huffington Post Pollster.

In the CNN poll, the 39 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton is lower than at any point in CNN's regular polling since April 1992 — when she wasn't even first lady yet. Of course, back then, the reason just 38 percent of people liked her was because many were unfamiliar with her. At the time, 39 percent were unfavorable and 23 percent had no opinion.

Clinton's favorable rating in the CNN poll is currently 16 points net-negative. That's unprecedented in the dozens of CNN polls on her since 1992.

Gallup's new numbers on Monday — 38 percent favorable and 57 percent unfavorable — are also unprecedented over the course of Clinton's political career.

This also appears to be the first time ever that Clinton's image measures worse than Trump's. It does so in both polls.

3) Just 38 percent would be "proud" to have her as president

That's down from 55 percent in March 2015. Sixty percent say they would not be proud.

On this measure, she's basically on the same footing as Trump, whom 39 percent would be proud of and 59 percent wouldn't be.

4) Nearly half of Democratic primary voters still want Bernie Sanders

Clinton dispatched with Sanders and now has his endorsement, but despite 9 in 10 consistent Sanders supporters saying they'll vote Clinton in November, many of them still pine for their first love.

The CNN poll, in fact, shows 45 percent of those who voted in Democratic primaries still say they wish it was Sanders. Just 49 percent say they prefer Clinton — down from 55 percent a month ago.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets supporters at her primary night victory party on June 7 in Brooklyn, N.Y. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

COMMENTS

DNC allowing donations from federal lobbyists and PACs

www.washingtonpost.com

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.

The change in the rules, already apparent to leading Washington lobbyists, was quietly introduced at some point during the past couple of months.

The ban was both a symbolic and substantive way for Obama to put his stamp on the party in 2008 when he promised voters “we are going to change how Washington works.”

Since it was introduced, lobbyists and corporate advocates in Washington have complained about the ban and other limitations imposed by Obama. The only portion of the old rules now remaining in place is that lobbyists and PAC representatives will still not be able to attend events that feature Obama, Vice President Biden or their spouses, according to Mark Paustenbach, deputy communications director for the DNC.

“The DNC’s recent change in guidelines will ensure that we continue to have the resources and infrastructure in place to best support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” Paustenbach said in an email. “Electing a Democrat to the White House is vital to building on the progress we’ve made over the last seven years, which has resulted in a record 71 straight months of private-sector job growth and nearly 14 million new jobs.”

Last summer the DNC announced it was lifting a ban on lobbyist contributions to convention-related expenses. At the time, DNC officials said the move was necessary because Congress had eliminated about $20 million in federal funding for the quadrennial party gatherings.

The DNC’s recent, sweeping reversal of the previous ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees was confirmed by three Democratic lobbyists who said they have already received solicitations from the committee. The lobbyists requested anonymity to speak freely about the committee’s decision, which has been otherwise kept quiet.

For the most part, they said, the DNC is back to pre-2008 business as usual. The DNC has even hired a finance director specifically for PAC donations who has recently emailed prospective donors to let them know that they can now contribute again, according to an email that was reviewed by The Washington Post.

The decision is the latest move likely to inflame tensions between the DNC and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has railed against lobbyist influence, particularly those representing Wall Street.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC and the new rules are likely to provide her with an advantage.

The new rules have already opened up opportunities for influence-buying “by Washington lobbyists with six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund,” said Wertheimer, suggesting that lobbyists could also face “political extortion” from those raising the money.

Sanders has made his small-dollar-infused campaign a hallmark of his stump speech, boasting that he is the candidate of the little guy, to the point where supporters in Iowa could finish the portion of his stump speech in which he crowed that the average donation was $27.

In recent months Sanders’s supporters have accused the DNC of trying to prevent more primary debates, trying to tilt the race in Clinton’s direction. Just this week his backers were enraged that the DNC allowed the senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus to use the committee’s Capitol Hill headquarters to announce that their PAC had endorsed Clinton over Sanders.

Sanders backers have also expressed concern that the DNC is not playing a more vigorous role in checking out disputes over voting in the recent Iowa caucuses, which Clinton narrowly won.

COMMENTS

It’s Clinton Déjà Vu — New Hampshire Brings Snow and Rumors of Campaign Implosion

A Clinton supporter waving banners on the side of the road in Manchester, N.H.

JONNO RATTMAN

By MARK LEIBOVICH

FEBRUARY 9, 2016

So, I was driving along somewhere in New Hampshire on Monday, the day before the storied primary. It was snowing, just as the clichés of the New Hampshire Primary dictate: It is always snowing in New Hampshire. (Really, though, it actually was snowing).

The email came in from an editor in New York at around 4 p.m. Subject line: “Hillaryworld.” Body content: “What do you make of the supposed looming implosion?”

What supposed looming implosion? Or, to be more precise, which supposed looming implosion? Isn’t Hillaryworld always on the verge of one?

Yes, but they do have a tendency to occur at this precise moment. Periods of intense hand-wringing and recrimination always occur in Clintonworld around the New Hampshire primaries, if history is any guide — and what is Clinton history, if not utterly repetitive?

Slide Show | A Hillary Clinton Rally in Manchester, N.H.Jonno Rattman photographed a Hillary Clinton event ahead of the 2016 New Hampshire primary.

These brawls traditionally follow difficult results in Iowa. In 1992, the native Hawkeye Tom Harkin beat Bill Clinton in the year’s first caucuses. Barack Obama beat Hillary in 2008 (as did John Edwards, who finished second). And last week, Bernie Sanders essentially tied the former secretary of state, setting up the latest Clinton bloodbath-in-waiting. Hillary is down big in the New Hampshire polls. Her nervous staff and extended community of sycophants, hangers-on and self-professed “confidantes” keep unburdening themselves in the press — while being granted anonymity in exchange for their self-aggrandizing candor.

And then Politico writes all about it, as the site’s Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni did yesterday: “Clinton weighs staff shake-up after New Hampshire.”

We’ve been here before. This is how it all rolls in the Clinton precincts of Blue America. The situation is so familiar to be its own Democratic Party cliché, like nominating unelectable liberals in the 1980s or engaging in nasty platform fights in the 1990s.

Say this about the Clintons, for better or worse: They are predictable. Thrush and Karni’s New Hampshire pre-autopsy contained all the paint-by-number refrains of Clinton crackups past:

· The term “staff shake-up” would need to appear in the story’s headline (or, at least, the lede).

· Also, somewhere, the phrase “lack of trust” or “mutual suspicion.”

· The story would have to include a nod to the trusted old Clinton hands who were selflessly offering themselves up as potential campaign saviors.

· Embedded in the article would be the clear implication that all of this could have been avoided if only Mark Penn, Clinton’s 2008 strategist, were more involved.

· The story would also inevitably include at least one blind quote from a former Obama campaign aide who knows how to do things better.

· The story would have to offer up for sacrifice at least one scapegoat, whose job was allegedly in peril.

· Bonus points if said scapegoat hails from Obama’s campaigns (watch your back, Joel Benenson).

So, yes, this latest chapter in the Clintons’ book of Supposed Looming Implosions, 2016 edition, contains all the predictable elements. And I have no doubt that everything in the Politico story is 100 percent correct. Again: This is how it all goes in Clintonworld. For whatever reason — for all of their political gifts — Bill and Hillary are addicted to this high-wire act. And the slick roads of New Hampshire seem to be their preferred recurring backdrop, like those repeating cactuses in the background of an old cartoon.

We, the political gallery, become codependents. Ho-hum. (My Clinton Fatigue is acting up again.) And yet here we are, back in New Hampshire, with another Clinton inevitability parade being snowed on by someone — Sanders, in this case — who is, allegedly, unelectable.

This, of course, is when the Clintons are at their best and most dangerous. Their well-honed survival instinct kicks in. The challenger gets cocky. Next thing we know, there the Clintons are again, up on another New Hampshire pedestal, claiming victory. In other words, here we are in the midst of another Supposed Looming Implosion in New Hampshire, and as of noon on Primary Day, I am ruling nothing out.

And of course Joe Biden, who is tanned and tested, is ruling nothing out either.

Mark Leibovich is the chief national correspondent for the magazine.

Hiller Instinct: 7News/UMass Lowell New Hampshire tracking poll day 4

www.whdh.com

MANCHESTER, N.H. (WHDH) -

It's not an earthquake, yet...But the political ground in New Hampshire is moving.

We're seeing more of Iowa's impact, and the war of words underway here.

Hillary Clinton is coming back; and Marco Rubio is coming up.

Watch 7News streaming live onmobile / desktop.

Donald Trump stays in first, with 36%; Rubio takes over second place, with 15%. Ted Cruz, now in third, has 14%. Jeb Bush, 8%; and John Kasich 7%.

Other news: Trump calls for Iowa election do-over as Cruz campaigns in NH

For the rest of the Republicans: Chris Christie, 5 %, Ben Carson, 4%; Carly Fiorina 3% and undecided 8%.

Our tracking poll show its all: Trump on top, but down two points-- the first time he's dropped in our poll. 

Marco Rubio shoots into second place, with 15%, a gain of three points overnight.

Ted Cruz holds his support, but slips into third place.

Jeb Bush lost a point; no change for John Kasich.

In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton can start thinking about a comeback, and Bernie Sanders is coming down.

Sanders still has a significant lead over Clinton-- 58% to 36%-- a 22 point margin.

But look at the direction of the tracks: Sanders is down three and Clinton is up four, our biggest single gain since we started this poll.

Related: Clinton defends progressive record against Sanders critique

You see the trends, and so will the candidates.

They're good for Rubio and Clinton... and not very good for anyone else.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders need to win big here, and our tracking poll shows both are losing ground right now.

This time next week, we'll know the winners.

Between now and then, this is the best way to see who's going to win.

'Like' 7News on Facebook for latest NH Primary coverage

(Copyright (c) 2016 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

COMMENTS

Moody’s model gives Dem candidate advantage in 2016

thehill.com

The Democratic presidential nominee will win the race for the presidency but the election is shaping up as historically tight, according to a political model. 

Less than 11 months from Election Day, Moody’s Analytics is predicting that whomever lands the Democratic nomination will capture the White House with 326 electoral votes to the Republican nominee’s 212. 

Those results are heavily dependent on how swing states vote. The latest model from Moody’s reflects razor-thin margins in the five most important swing states — Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. 

In each of those states, the Democratic advantage is less than 1 percentage point, well within the margin of error.

The election model weighs political and economic strength in each state and determines the share of the vote that the incumbent party will win.

The most important economic variable in the model is the growth in incomes in the two years leading up to the election. 

That factor captures the strength of the job market in each state, including job growth, hours worked, wage growth and the quality of the jobs being created. 

The model also factors in home and gasoline prices. 

So far, the strength of the economy has kept the model on track for the Democratic nominee.

But the trajectory of the president’s approval rating also makes a difference in who could win the White House. 

If President Obama’s approval rating shifts only a little more than 4 percentage points, a bit more than the margin of error for many presidential opinion polls, the move could further cut into Democratic hopes to retain the White House. 

Growing concern about terrorism and other issues could dent Obama’s approval rating further.

Usually, if the sitting president’s approval rating is improving in the year leading up the election, the incumbent party receives a boost. 

But in most elections, the president’s rating has declined in the lead-up to the election, favoring the challenger party. 

COMMENTS

Who had the worst week in Washington? Hillary Clinton.

www.washingtonpost.com

For Hillary Clinton, it’s starting to look like deja vu all over again.

Start a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination as giant front-runner. Check. Raise tens of millions of dollars and look unbeatable for large swaths of the year before the primaries start. Check. An insurgent challenger running to her ideological left? Check. Collapsing poll numbers on the eve of actual votes? Check.

Over the past week or so, Clinton has watched as her national polling lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a self-avowed socialist, has shrunk. And, far more important, Clinton’s standing vis a vis Sanders in the key early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire has eroded as well.

In Iowa, after holding a high-single-digit lead (at worst) for months, Clinton now finds herself in a dead heat with the caucuses just over a week away. The Real Clear Politics polling average gives Clinton an edge of less than five points.

Sanders has always run stronger in New Hampshire than in Iowa, but of late several polls suggest that he is widening his steady lead over the former secretary of state. In the Real Clear Politics polling average, Sanders is up by almost 13 points.

As Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls continues to fall, her attacks on Bernie Sanders have stepped up. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Lose both of those states early next month, and Clinton’s inevitability bubble bursts. Period.

Clinton, to her credit, is doing everything she can to avoid a repeat of 2008. She’s savaging Sanders as both too conservative (on guns) and too pie-in-the-sky liberal (on health care).

Complicating those efforts is the news that broke midweek: The intelligence community’s inspector general confirmed that dozens of emails on the private server Clinton used while she was at the State Department contained extremely highly classified information.

Clinton continues to stick by her original line on the email controversy — that she never sent or received anything that was classified at the time — but the latest news is proof that the story and its reverberations are likely to dog her all the way through November.

Hillary Clinton, for watching history repeat itself, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

Each week, Chris Cillizza awards the worst week in Washington to an inhabitant of Planet Beltway who stands out for all the wrong reasons. You can check out previous winners or e-mail Cillizza with candidates. You can also read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

COMMENTS

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published December 20, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Saturday, Dec. 19, 2015, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

It was Hillary’s night

“Should corporate American love Hillary Clinton?” David Muir asked.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Everybody should,” Clinton responded without missing a beat.

This will undoubtedly be one of the most memorable moments of Saturday night’s Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, which showcased just three candidates but managed to cover a lot of ground.

Though buried on a Saturday night right before Christmas and up against NFL football no less, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley combined substance with showmanship that made the debate worth watching. It’s a shame that, without even seeing the ratings, I know that many Americans will have missed it.

Hillary Clinton executed a masterful strategy Saturday night. She managed to handily beat the two men on either side of her who represent the progressive left of the Democratic party and at the same time position herself as a leader for the entire country, including a significant portion of Republicans who fear a Donald Trump presidency as much as any Democrat. In fact, her one- liner about Donald Trump turning into perhaps the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS gave everyone pause – as it should.

Clinton showed herself to be the most experienced candidate the Democrats are offering. While Bernie Sanders related almost every issue back to income inequality and the billionaire class in America – his cornerstone issue – Clinton was able to focus on each topic with precision and specifics. Her strategy to combat ISIS, which is an extension of Obama’s plan with a no-fly zone, is the right approach to combating this threat. On the issue of technology companies working with government to help combat terror, Clinton showed that she is a candidate of balance: there is a way to avoid compromising our civil liberties while still giving law enforcement the tools they need to fight terror.

She was the most balanced candidate on how she’d manage the economy. Instead of promising everything for free through increased taxes on Wall Street, Clinton’s plan to offer debt free college instead of freecollege is right on the money. She understands that we can’t raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour without hurting the economy and costing jobs, but that we can bring it up to twelve dollars an hour. And her notion of incentivizing profit sharing is a worthwhile one.

Sanders supporters got a great performance from the Vermont senator. He was completely sincere and passionate, showcasing his major selling points.

Sanders began the night by apologizing to Clinton for his campaign’s mishandling of a donor breach, which set the tone for an evening in which he did criticize her at times – notably on her handling of Middle East foreign policy – but also praised her work and went so far as to thank her for transforming the role of first lady. We saw no surprises from him: he wants to raise taxes and fundamentally redistribute wealth in the country. And he wants to fight ISIS through coalitions, but is opposed to any American boots on the ground, even special forces.

As for O’Malley, he did his best, but flopped on a number of issues. He took swipes at both Clinton and Sanders that won’t resonate with viewers and voters.

He surely has the experience and has notably implemented gun safety reform and raised the minimum wage in Maryland, but he just doesn’t appeal to voters. And in an election where Americans want outsider politicians, they’re never going to choose O’Malley over Clinton as the establishment candidate.

That said, O’Malley did bring up an issue that may haunt Clinton the most: Benghazi. In a veiled swipe at her, he noted how Ambassador Christ Stevens was not provided the proper support and tools to help Libya transition into a thriving democracy – a clear reminder of his untimely death. No doubt this foreshadows what will be in all likelihood a major line of attack from the Republicans and stands to really hurt her going forward.

Even with Hillary Clinton’s strong attempt at bipartisan appeal on Saturday evening, the question remains whether she’ll be able to pull it out if the Republicans nominate a strong, establishment candidate who doesn’t have her baggage.

In recent polling she’s been competitive with each GOP contender – and ahead of some – but we know that Obama’s low approval, American anxiety over ISIS and concerns about the economy could hurt her.

As for the Democratic battle, Hillary Clinton came into Saturday night with a big lead and she leaves with a big lead. Neither Sanders nor O’Malley hurt themselves, but her dominance was clear and it explains why she has her eyes focused on the prize: beating the Republicans come next November.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is "The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America's Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter@DouglasESchoen.

+ FollowFoxNewsOpinion on 

Democrat Leaders Dance, Gloat, Declare Speaker Paul Ryan ‘Gave Away The Store’

Getty Images

by NEIL MUNRO18 Dec 2015472

Democratic leaders are unanimous in declaring a complete victory over House Speaker 

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

58%

 and his close allies, who wrote the $1.1 trillion omnibus budget without asking House conservatives for any input — or even for some public objections to help their closed-door negotiations.

The Democrats’ victory, and Republican Ryan’s defeat, was garishly displayed when his omnibus got more Democratic votes in the House and in the Senate than it got Republican votes.

“I said I would not accept a lot of [conservative] ideological riders that were attached to a big budget deal,” President Barack Obama said Friday, at his end-of-year press conference. “And because of some terrific negotiations by the Democrats up on Capitol Hill and I think some pretty good work by our legislative staff here… it was a good win,” he said. “We met our goals,” he said.

In 2015, “we wanted to get rid of sequestration, we were able to do that,” gloated the Democrats’ leader in the Senate,

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

2%

. “We wanted to make sure there is parity between defense and the middle class, we wanted to make sure that we kept these poison pills off the legislation… All three goals we had, we accomplished,” he said. Ryan’s omnibus deal “caps off a successful year for Senate Democrats,” he added.

“Well, if you would’ve told me this year that we’d be standing here celebrating the passage of an omnibus bill, with no poison pill riders, at higher [spending] levels above sequesters than even the president requested, I wouldn’t have believed it, but here we are,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters shortly after the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill was passed.

“Almost anything, the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms… Democrats had an amazingly good year,” he declared.

Over in the House, the Democrats’ upbeat press conference began with laughter, according to the transcript.

(Leader Pelosi. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. I know you’re out there. I see you.

[Laughter]

Some of you, for the second time this morning – thank you for coming by. We’re very pleased to say that today, we delivered sweeping victories for hard-working American families. The Omnibus bill makes vital investments that will create jobs, strengthen our future and grow the paychecks of American people… We passed the best possible, under the circumstances, appropriations bill… the Republicans’ obsession with lifting the oil-export ban, they really gave away the store. Democrats were able to strip scores and scores of poison pills, destructive poison pills, some of which they had to have, which they ended up with not having… it is a monumental improvement… But again, we feel very, very good about what it is.… and thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

You can watch it all here, including the claim by Maryland 

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

6%

, the Democrats’ deputy leader, that “this was an extraordinarily big victory.”

The Washington Post scored the results, and kindly give only 10 victories to the Democrats, and then four to Ryan.

At his press event, Ryan claimed a victory, but had little evidence to prove his point. “Today, the House came together to ensure our government is open and working for the American people,” he said in a statement. “This bipartisan compromise secures meaningful wins for Republicans and the American people, such as the repeal of the outdated, anti-growth ban on oil exports,” said the statement.

What did he trade to get that one win? — “scores and scores of poison pills, destructive poison pills, some of which they had to have, which they ended up with not having,” according to Pelosi.

So Ryan claimed “meaningful wins,” but very few of them.

“The legislation strengthens our military and protects Americans from terrorist threats, while limiting the overreach of intrusive government bureaucracies like the IRS and the EPA,” he said, weakly, before changing the subject by promising to do better in 2016. “Congress can now move into 2016 with a fresh start and a plan to return to regular order in order to better protect taxpayer dollars,” he claimed.

On the Michael Medved radio show, Ryan defended stepped up his claims — with a stronger adjective, but not more evidence.

We scored major policy wins for conservatives—for our country—in this bill. We advanced our principles. Did we advance all of our principles as far as we want to go? No, because we’re in divided government. But we did advance them in the right direction. So the way I look at these things, is take what you can get now, and then go fight for more later. And I think we’ve set ourselves up for more success in 2016.

Ryan didn’t tout one of the most unpopular inserts in the bill  — the GOP-approved legislation to import up to 200,000 extra foreign workers to take American’s blue-collar jobs.

Ryan’s main claim to success was the removal of the barrier to the export of crude oil — and to get that win, he gave up a huge list of conservative priorities.

“If you take a look at what’s in this bill, at what this bill actually does, it has a permanent lift—a permanent removal—of the ban on petroleum exports, on crude oil exports. That’s something we’ve been trying to do for 40 years in this country. Think of what we get by removing the ban. And the Obama administration, on oil exports—when America can export its oil, that means we can compete with OPEC. We can put OPEC out of the business of controlling the world’s oil markets. We can take Putin out of business with respect to selling oil and gas to his customers. We can create more jobs. We can become more independent. We can keep our prices low by having more control over the marketplace and create more jobs right here in America. It’s fantastic for our foreign policy. It’s really good for American jobs. And it’s something we’re actually getting done that we haven’t been able to do for decades.”

The commenters on his website tend to disagree with Ryan’s claim of “meaningful wins.”

“Ryan… just spit in the face of his constituents,” said one. “Why vote Republican? The Democrats claim this bill as a great victory for their priorities and party! Did Republicans cut the budget? NO,” said the next commenter.  “And they wonder why Trump is beating them. I suppose now that they’ve funded all of Obama’s priorities through 2018, they can play “Pretend Opposition Party” in 2016 and hope we’ll forget how they boned us,” said the next comment.

Many GOP politicians — especially the roughly 100 Representatives and Senators who voted against the deal — are very unhappy, including 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

70%

, who posted this statement on his website:

A rotten process yields a rotten result, and this 2,000-page, trillion-dollar bill is rotten to its core, resulting from secret, backroom negotiations and getting dumped in the dead of the night on Americans with barely two days before the vote. Corporate lobbyists had a field day, but working Americans lost out. Take just one sordid example: this bill will quadruple the number of foreign guest-worker visas at a time when millions of Americans are still looking for full-time work and working-class wages remain stagnant.

At the Senate Democrats’ press conference, Schumer gloated at length and in great detail, unlike Ryan. He’s always worth listening to, if only because he’s expected to take over Sen. Reid’s leadership position in January 2017.

This bill is a great victory for the principles Democrats stand for. And as we look back in the year of the Senate, I think there have been three major trends, two of which are getting noticed, but the third is getting overlooked.

First, the Senate is getting things done.

Second, we are getting them done, because Democrats are not obstructing the same way Republicans did when they were in the minority, and those two points have been talked about in the media and elsewhere.

But third, the point that has been missed is that the bills were passing reflect Democratic values. We are getting, even though were in the minority, we are passing a program that we have been for all along. Today’s omnibus vote is a metaphor for that. The vote marks the end of the road the Democrats began mapping out last spring.

When Republicans made clear they were going to try to jam through partisan appropriation bills through the senate. [GOP] Senator [Mitch] McConnell thought he could jam the defense appropriation bill through, but Democrats stood firm and blocked him. Sen. McConnell said over and over again he wants to stay at sequestration levels. He said over and over again, that he wanted to put much more money into defense than into the nondefense. He didn’t get either of those, and we said the opposite, and we got what we wanted.  The relief from devastating cuts knowns as sequestration, the relief that was equal, no poison pill riders, the three principles Democrats laid out, Republicans opposed, are all laid out, are all in that bill today.

The bill were passing today, passes the test of Democratic values with flying colors and fits the framework we laid out years ago. And if you need any proof of this, look what happened on the floor a few minutes ago. Senator McConnell offered an amendment to strip out the omnibus portion of the bill, and a majority of Republicans voted for it. They don’t like it. But, our strategy worked. And the idea that we’d let people know that if the government was shut down, it would be because of their intransigence, maybe both Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell understand that they couldn’t shut down the government and that meant they couldn’t make unreasonable demands and that meant we were going to have a budget with Democratic priorities.

But it’s not just the budget. This has happened over and over again, take the transportation bill. Democrats demanded a long-term bill with increased investments. Republicans wanted a short term bill with flat funding. What’d we get? A long term bill with increased investments.

How about the Export-Import bank? Senator McConnell said, no. Most of the Republicans said, no. We now have an export import bank.

How about when Republicans sought to hold hostage funding [in early 2015] for the Department of Homeland Security and Democrats banded together to fully fund the department and protect the president’s order on immigration. And finally, the bill that Ranking Member [Democrat Sen. Patty] Murray mentioned the Education Bill, loaded with Democratic values, attempts to switch the funding formula, attempts to do all of these other things, didn’t happen.

So, anything, almost anything, the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms.

By sticking together, as we have been, we’ve been unified under Harry Reid’s leadership, by fighting for the middle class, which we have focused on like a laser, while Republicans carry the water for the special interests; Democrats had an amazingly good year, as a minority party. We can only hope that our Republican colleagues will be as a cooperative minority, as we were this year, when Democrats take back the senate in 2016.

In comparison, Ryan only declared “This bipartisan compromise secures meaningful wins for Republicans and the American people, such as the repeal of the outdated, anti-growth ban on oil exports.”

“And I think we’ve set ourselves up for more success in 2016,” he says.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, barack obama, Paul Ryan,Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer

STILL IN THE CLOSET

Lack of Democratic debates intentional

www.charlotteobserver.com

The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted “carpet bomb” and “anchor baby,” they’d probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip.

But I could send save-the-date cards, promise canapés by Mario Batali and recruit Adele to belt out “Hello” whenever the doorbell rang: Still the Democrats wouldn’t show up.

For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet.

Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third.

And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind.

The previous meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than 9 million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each.

In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate averaged 18 million viewers.

The Republican events certainly have seductions that the Democratic ones don’t. But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things.

Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over.

But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can?

I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. What I’ve heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she'll enter the general election less battle-tested than she’d be if she were facing stiffer primary competition and enduring a greater number of higher-stakes debates.

A politician who’s been through Whitewater, Travelgate, impeachment, an emotional 2008 campaign against Barack Obama and several Benghazi inquisitions doesn’t strike me as someone who needs more battle experience.

The real danger for her is that she’s become all armor.

And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus too distant from everyday Americans.

That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her.

And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.