#I think this is a pretty good article and interesting to read from a pro-gop paper like the wall st. journal

[banji-effect]

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday in an unprecedented criminal case accusing the former president of trying to subvert the will of American voters through his attempts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election. The indictment by a federal grand jury in Washington charges Trump with four crimes, including conspiring to defraud the U.S., obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiring against the rights of voters for his actions that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol. The indictment charges Trump alone, but describes six co-conspirators working with him, including people identifiable as Rudy Giuliani and several other lawyers who worked with him to contest the 2020 election results. Many of the details referenced in the case have been previously revealed, including from a House panel that investigated the attack. But the 45-page document paints a detailed portrait of Trump’s alleged efforts to press claims that the election had been marred by fraud, even though he had been told repeatedly they had no merit, and how he leaned on officials in battleground states he had lost including Arizona, Georgia and Michigan to support his efforts. After those initial efforts failed, the indictment alleges, Trump pushed his own Justice Department to falsely claim election fraud, and pressed Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results, telling Pence at one point: “You’re too honest.” He then called his supporters to Washington and urged them to “fight like hell” just before they marched to the Capitol on Jan. 6. Brought by special counsel Jack Smith, the indictment opens a second federal criminal case against Trump under the administration led by President Biden, who beat him in the 2020 race for the White House and is now his potential opponent next year, with Trump the GOP front-runner for 2024. Trump is scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington on Thursday.

In a brief appearance where he took no questions, Smith called the Capitol attack “an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies.”

Despite losing, Trump spread lies that there had been fraud in the election, and that he had actually won, the indictment alleges. “Each of these conspiracies…targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election,” prosecutors assert in the indictment.

In a social media post, Trump said the case was a “pathetic attempt” by the Justice Department to “interfere with the 2024 Presidential Election.”

Within minutes, the Trump campaign sent a fundraising email, portraying him as a victim of political persecution. “It’s not just my freedom on the line, but yours as well—and I will NEVER let them take it from you,” it read.

In the indictment, prosecutors acknowledged that Trump had a right to challenge the election results and even falsely claim fraud. But they said what he did went far beyond such rights and involved discounting legitimate votes.

The indictment adds to the cloud of legal challenges. Smith’s office also is prosecuting Trump on separate charges that he improperly retained classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., also has been investigating Trump for election interference. He awaits trial on 34 felony charges brought by local prosecutors in New York in a business-records case stemming from a hush-money payment made to a porn star in the final stretch of the 2016 election.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in the federal, New York and Georgia matters, and accused prosecutors of pursuing him for political reasons.

Prosecutors have charged more than 1,000 people in connection with the riot, for crimes ranging from trespassing to assault and obstructing the Congressional proceeding, almost all of whom were at the Capitol during the violence. More than 500 have pleaded guilty, and several who were convicted of playing a leading role in the violence have been sentenced to years in prison. Trump is among the first who didn’t directly participate in the riot to face federal charges in connection with the attack.

The Jan. 6 Capitol attack led to Trump’s unpredecented second impeachment, with the Democratic House alleging that Trump, who by then was out of office, incited an insurrection. Trump was acquitted in the Senate.

The probe has advanced for months on several tracks, with prosecutors examining efforts that included assembling fake slates of electors to send to Congress; pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence to thwart the congressional certification of Biden’s win; pressing state officials to undo their results; fundraising with false claims of election fraud; and rallying his supporters to march to the Capitol.

Federal grand jurors in Washington have heard from witnesses including election officials from several states, White House lawyers and a list of Trump’s closest aides. Pence, Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and other senior officials in Trump’s closest circles also testified after Trump’s lawyers unsuccessfully tried to block their appearances, citing executive privilege. Prosecutors interviewed Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani for eight hours.

The co-conspirators are unnamed, though the descriptions in the document indicate that they are Giuliani, Trump lawyers John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. A sixth is described as a political consultant, whose identity is unclear.

The six, while unindicted, could potentially face charges as Smith’s investigation is ongoing.

“Every fact Mayor Rudy Giuliani possesses about this case establishes the good faith basis President Donald Trump had for the actions he took during the two-month period charged in the indictment,” his political adviser, Ted Goodman, said.

Clark and lawyers for Eastman and Chesebro didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment. A lawyer for Powell declined to comment.

In Smith’s separate probe of Trump’s handling of government documents, prosecutors recently added three new counts, alleging Trump and his aides sought to have surveillance footage from the club deleted so that it couldn’t be turned over to a grand jury. A federal judge has scheduled the trial in that case to begin on May 20, 2024.

The original June indictment in the documents case charged Trump with 37 counts on seven different charges, including willful retention of national-defense information, withholding a record, false statements and conspiracy to obstruct.

Despite his compounding legal problems, Trump has remained the clear front-runner for the GOP nomination as he has portrayed himself as the victim of a broad effort to keep him out of office. He has seen fundraising spikes surrounding his two previous indictments, and most of his Republican rivals for the nomination have joined in criticizing his prosecution.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has denied that the Justice Department’s investigations are politically motivated—he wasn’t in Washington on Tuesday but was roughly 175 miles away in Philadelphia, attending an anticrime event. He appointed Smith, whom he called a “veteran career prosecutor,” in November 2022 as special counsel to insulate the probe and give it a degree of independence from the agency’s political appointees.

[migleefulmoments]

The ccers are just like the gop

Watching the Impeachment testimony today it’s a nightmare for the gop and Trump. Ambassador Sondland has admitted everything we knew was true using the words “Quid Pro Quo” and admitting that everyone in Trump’s administration knew.  Watching the gop then try to defend Trump is a disaster or outrageous lies, conspiracy theories, and distraction.  

Reading this thread from the cc coven, I’m reminded of how similar their tactics are to the gop’s. This thread is full of lies and conspiracy theories that have been duped and yet these people- like Nunes, Jordan, and Stipanik- clearly believe the lies they share. The two groups have built their knowledge bases on these lies. These faulty foundations don’t hold up to even the smallest of scrutiny. People living in reality can see the faults, but sadly ccers and the gop don’t see reality and live in an imaginary world where they are always right.  

ajw720 answered:

It is hard to me to select the one thing that i find the most offensive, there are just so many.  They have also named at least 2 drinks based on breast size, Good Rak (I forget the exact name) and R2DD2.  you know reducing women to their body parts.  And of course the one called C3PHO that is implying that women should be called whores if they decide to exercise their sexual freedom.  And we are even touching on the innuendo which maybe isn’t offensive, but is extraordinarily immature.  Or the fact that they have naked women gyrating on the bar and simulating sex with teddy bears in a PIANO BAR where on a different night you can sing d/isney tunes! (Abby refuses to understand that the drink names are NOT to belittle women but to take ownership of the words away from those who use them against us. She has been told this but she needs to be angry at Mia so she refuses to even think about it=faulty foundation)

But hey, according to her stans, I am closed minded and they are progressive. (yep! That’s true). You know what it reminds me of?  The individuals watching the impeachment trials and daring to say that these upstanding, career public servants, many of whom serve both democrats and republicans, are liars because they refuse to admit the bigot in the WH is a criminal. (Nice try but no, you honey, you are those people. Faulty foundations) 

D looked really drained to me last night, and we know he is PBB free in NYC. I have to imagine the way the are smearing his name constantly is weighing heavily on his soul. My heart hurts for him.  (In fact, 3 of the 6 people in at least one of the photos has the same neutral face. Other photos, released later that night show a gleefully happy Darren=faulty foundations. Photos at the end.)  

ajw720 Can I just add one thing?  The “marriage” was forced by D’s team, and this includes his extremely powerful PR agency.  (NOT TRUE= faulty foundations) Why are they not reading and reviewing everything posted by that offensive institute prior to its release? (Because Darren controls his own life and his business is not part of what Sunshine Sachs does for Darren).  That would be working FOR THEIR CLIENT.  Instead, they are allowing that bar to actively harm his character. (Such a stupid argument.  Why would Darren continue to pay them if they were actively harming him? Abby this one is so stupid you need to stop=faulty foundations) 

I hope that there is a time D can sue them for defamation, I really do, because to me, this is an absolute outrage. (Well we are a decade in, when you believe that could happen, Abby? Ya know ....using your legal knowledge?) 

This flannel shirt theme stunt has made my blood boil more than most. (This just pisses me off.  My daughter read this post, called herself a dyke and said.“I just wish I could go.” She was wearing a flannel shirt)  

notes-from-nowhere My question is: why M has been forced to drop “s/unsetstrippa” (and f/etus but, let’s leave one of the sock account behind for a moment)? (Fetus IS NOT MIA. OMG THIS IS SO STUPID=Faulty Foundations) That was not her decision.(WTF? Of course, it is=faulty foundations)  So, why? I’ll tell you why: given that the plan was to make her relevant for everybody besides for her nanny, it was embarrassing for D (and his team) to have her tagged by colleagues and various celebrities with that childish nickname. Do not even try to tell me this is not the reason (Faulty Foundations).

So why isn’t the same level of “courtesy” reserved for your establishment? Quite frankly “s/unsetstrippa” was far less offensive than what happens constantly in&out of that place. When will we see day D will be treated with the respect that a man in his position should have by default? And above all, when his team will accept that they are no longer managing a teenage dream? Controversy as a way to make someone famous it doesn’t work as a shortcut if there is nothing behind that people might like. (I honestly don’t understand this sentence so I have no good debunk...Darren was never marketed as “teenage dream” and he certainly currently isn’t= Faulty Foundations)  

It’s time to remove D from the TS/G narrative once and for all. M dropped this place a long time ago and it has no meaning for D’s career, let alone finantial reasons since he is just the piano man and not the owner. (Well “finantial” reasons aside, Darren and Mia own the bar. They don’t work there.  -=Faulty Foundations).   

ajw720

Sadly she dropped that for another made up name that they have used to mock D.  It is unfathomable the way D is being treated.  

And honestly, I don’t know why more people aren’t screaming about this bar and how people don’t see or ignore how offensive it is. (Because only someone who refuses to live in reality actually sees the bar as problematic.  It’s a queer-safe space that celebrates the LGBTQ community in ways that MAKE SENSE TO THE LGBTQ Community.  Just because Abby doesn’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong= Faulty Foundations).  D does his best to distance himself, but it is his name front and certain in every article about the place and he is the one on TV naming it repeatedly (I love this nonsense..so is he distancing himself or is he the name that is connected often?)

Where are the people protecting the actual marketable commodity’s interest? The person with talent that is at the top of his game?  I have never seen anything like this. (Its all made up in your head=Faulty Foundations)

notes-from-nowhere You know one of the reason his team keeps ignoring things like this bar is because people bring gifts to M. (OMG...this is just a stupid thing to say) Because even if these people know everything about t his place, how rude the staff is, how undrinkable and overpriced the drinks are, how annoying and out of place “certain activities” inside of it are, they swallow their beliefs and words to go there and have a picture with D to post on their social media (This is all conspiracy theory and absolutely Faulty Foundations.  This is exactly like Nunes repeating all the conspiracy theories tied to Trump this morning. I’ve looked at these and most -if not all- of these are not real.)  

As long as there will be people that put their interests ahead of D’s wellbeing and public image, his team will keep to ignore how hurtful behaviors and bar are. They will buy an article on a random magazine that will praise the bar, D will be forced to publicly say the its name and so on. (Faulty Foundations) 

D’s team is not protecting an investment, they are making money out of people. And people is allowing them to do so.

leka-1998 Yesterday someone asked me why I keep being angry at the things they do or don’t do, at what’s going on at that bar that screams M. Why I even had to point out that flannel theme. Because I shouldn’t be surprised at all. And I’m really not, but the way they are destroying D’s character really gets me. He’s currently getting more attention due to M/idway and AB, two great projects. Both are/will be seen by a new audience. I’m sure HW will be big too. A competent and well-meaning team would care how D looks, what he’s associated with. They don’t. And no one can tell me that’s not wrong. (The idea that Darren can’t take control of his own life is pretty gross.  Nobody lives this life they imagine- it’s outrageous.  Faulty Foundations) 

ajw720 Obviously everything annoys me about the circus that surrounds him. But I can mostly laugh about the Halloween BS or and the excessive praise she receives as none of that ultimately affects D’s character and his reputation.  But this bar, it is so harmful and it potentially could be so damaging.  Imagine a theater goer looking up D after AB and finding their IG full of discriminatory themes/drinks and extremely immature innuendo. And D’s name is what that bar is associate with, not his “bride” as she doesn’t do anything, but D who is the one promoting it the media regularly.  He has not promoted anything in his life more than the bar over the past 2 years.  Not even his fake nuptials. (Yes, Imagine what it looks like that Darren’s bar is a queer safe space.  OMG How horrific!!!!!!! How doe he live with himself? The ONLY People who are upset that TSG has LGBTQ programming most nights but Disney on other nights are those who are homophobic!!!!!!!!!!!) 

And I truly do not understand how anyone dismisses this stuff or says we are the ones who are wrong. Some of the marketing ploys are blatantly and clearly offensive.  And yet it continues and no one seems to care that D is the only one that could potentially be hurt by this as it is his career that they are jeopardizing.  And M is praised as a role model for disparaging women and members of the LGBT+ community. (YOU are literally claiming that the gay women who runs Dyke Night doesn’t know anything about-or respect - her own community... but YOU do.  SHUT THE FUCK UP ABBY)   

It is revolting (yes you are) and it is really important that we document it and discuss it and continue to highlight it and I don’t care how much hate i get for doing so, people need to realize what they are doing. (The “hate” should be a  HUGE WARNING SIGN Abby. But you see EVERYTHING as proof you are right and it doesn’t matter how hard it is to get to “I’m right”, how much you have to twist the truth or makeup stories about Darren's lack of personal agency, it’s all confirmation bias for you. YOU ARE WRONG and these comments are homophobic).    And maybe it won’t be today, but at some point he will get free from his tormentors who are hell bent on destroying him and we will have the public record of everything they did to actively harm him. Faulty Foundations). 

klaineownsmysoul This is precisely the kind of place that a real pr/management team would work overtime to keep their client away from instead of pushing it relentlessly as a point of pride. There’s nothing remotely redeeming about it and like that farce of a wedding, nothing that reflects D’s personality. It’s beyond tacky and juvenile and straight out of the wheelhouse of a 20 year old frat boy. You expect me to believe that the same person who wrote beautiful songs like “Not Alone” or “TDTDIO” also decided to name a drink period sex? (Yes!!!!!! because people are complex animals.  But also because that same person wrote “Me and MY Dick” =Faulty Foundations).  the words of Trevor Noah, get the fuck out of here. But I’d expect nothing less from his team at this point: a group of people who think class and notoriety are equal. I live for the day when he gets a team to actually support him instead of trying to further themselves through him. (His team by law has to support him but also WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE STICK WIT HTHEM If they weren’t helping him?  He’s not a moron=Faulty Foundations) No one goes to events hoping to see D’s manager on the drums. There are actual musicians out there who are more than qualified. (And yet Darren chose Ricky to play drums for him=Faulty Foundations).   Go do your actual job for a change.

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

Love her or hate her, Congresswoman Pelosi has been one of strongest women in DC and one of the major leaders of the Democratic Party. She scares the right because of her effectiveness as a Congresswoman and she upsets the left with a long history of making compromises and conflicting interests that continue to orbit her. This article isn't a reflection on her career as a whole but reflection of whether or not she should take up the mantle of Speaker of the House again as she did under President Bush and for a short time under President Obama. While I have my opinion on the subject (which I will share in the end) I want to go over why she should be afforded the position while also making a case for her to step down.

Speaker of the House Position

Before we get into the nitty-gritty details of why Pelosi should and shouldn't take the job, it's important to go over what the position entails. The Speaker of the House Position is effectively the mediator of the House of Representatives elected by the Representatives (usually the party with the majority). The election is pretty straightforward as a candidate must have a clear majority in Congress IE over 50% and if the vote cannot get over that bar then another vote takes place. Another notable aspect of the position is that it does not have to be someone from Congress to hold the role of Speaker of the House which means an outside individual can be voted into the role (I plan to touch base on that idea again later).

So, in a nutshell, the Speaker of the House is the arbiter for the house of representatives which enables him or her to bring votes on legislation to the floor, create special oversight committees (something essential for the Trump Administration), and keeping order within the house. The role has a fair amount of power but it is fragile in the sense that if a House Speaker loses the majority support of his/her party they could be voted from the position quite easily.

Reasons to Consider Pelosi

Pelosi’s Power

What I have read/heard about Pelosi over the years is that she is a focused woman who has a lot of influence in the Democratic Party. She can raise money like crazy, knows all the right people in DC and Rolodex full of all the contacts she has acquired over the years. Her networking skills are nothing short of something of the Mafia keeping favors on the books and knowing where to put pressure to get things done. This makes her very unlikeable because it represents some of the major fundamental issues with American Politics but on the other hand, if this is how the game is played you most certainly want her on your side. If not because these connections but also because of her experience and ability to fundraise for the DNC.

A Tarnishing Position

While the position brings with it power, a louder voice with the political party and prestige, the position also moves whoever is in the position to the front of the line for the mudslinging. Successes in the role are short-lived in their celebration and failures stick to a person like deep stains. Believe it or not Pelosi over a decade and a half ago was far from the polarizing person she is today. Most of the bad reputation she earned (while some of it deserved) came BECAUSE she held this role under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The Conservatives can/will demonize anyone holding the position over time making the Speaker of the House the ‘enemy of the people ‘if they don't have the R after their name.

On this point, I think this is one good reason to keep Pelosi as Speaker. Already covered in mud from years of being a democratic leader makes it hard to bring her low since she has are been vilified as much as she could possibly be. If anyone does step into this position there must be an understanding that the Speaker of the House position can possibly limit any long-term aspirations to climb higher in the political power structure. The alternative to dealing with the Partisan Tarnish is to either put someone who is completely neutral into the position as Speaker who represents a fairness between parties or let someone outside of Congress take on the role and see if they CAN build a career from being the Speaker by being that neutral arbiter that will appeal to centrist/undecided voters in upcoming elections (more on this later).

No Better Options

The last reason why I think Pelosi should be considered for the role besides the fact she already dealt with the worst of the GOP’s mudslinging and has a strong/established power base in DC is the fact she appears to be the best option at the moment. I know this sounds like Hillary Clinton again but there is something to say about tried and true politicians who know how the sausage is made. While we have lots of fresh young faces entering the white house after this blue wave, I see no reason to put anyone into the role simply because they are charming, energized, and optimistic. We have better ways of utilizing those traits and the Speaker role is perhaps not the best place to start (see Tarnish again if you need a reminder of why). I, however, DO NOT think Pelosi should hold this position for long but I think she takes the role and begins thinking about the future of the party instead of any personal motivations she might have for holding to power. In other words, thinking who should come after her and become the new face of the party should be one of her priorities. 

Reasons to Reject Pelosi

Grooming A Successor

So its pretty clear I am kinda Pro-Pelosi at this point but I also believe in the long game of politics and building a better party. I think Democrats benefit from a diverse base, a belief in equality/equity regardless of race and gender and appeal to humanities better characteristics. This party cannot survive without bringing in the New Generations X,Y, & Z into the base. Part of that is having young politicians who inspire these larger voting demographics to put their support behind candidates they relate too.

Pelosi is actually pre-Baby Boomer herself and is a representation of a harsh reality that the current Democratic Party keeps investing its power in politicians who are simply... old. This isn't agism mind you but just an observation of a flawed structure in our party and one that we need to frankly address. What I purpose is a shift in the structure where the faces of the party are the younger/newer politicians that can stir up their voter bases in a positive/effective way. The veteran politicians take a step back for the new generations and take on the advisor like role steering the party from behind but no longer being the face. I know some people’s egos might have an issue with this but if you care about democratic values it's all about thinking what comes next and grooming younger successors to undercut the old white man party as deep as possible.

In regards to Pelosi, while she should take the Speake of the House role it should be on the condition that she keeps one of the younger Congressmen or women close to her and prepares them to take her role permanently. Whoever does this should know that the position comes with that big red target on their back and should look to tap Pelosi’s (and other veteran Democrats) expertise regularly to be an effective House Speaker.

The Outsider

Since the position does not have to be a sitting Representative of the House, we could consider the option of bringing in an outsider to take on the role. The way the current law is written allows for this and provides a unique opportunity to do one of two things. 

A) We can bring in an upcoming/motivated official who perhaps lost the recent election but provides an important injection of energy into the DNC. I am thinking Stacey Abrams or the like taking on the position being someone who can bring new energy and perhaps avoid the mudslinging enough to build a name for herself and return to the governor's race with enough renown to unseat the racist who presently took that position in her state.

B) Take the neutral path. A representative who a bit left of center who takes on the role of being an objective nonpartisan speaker. This does a few things: 1) Displays democrats willingness to be nonpartisan for the sake of the country. 2) Allows conservatives to do their mudslinging ineffectively tarnishing a person who has no long-term interest in a political career. 3) Makes it harder for Donald Trump to scapegoat his own impotent policies on the new Speaker of the House.

We can use this position to either build up someone's career (if done properly) or we can have someone looking to serve his/her country in a meaningful way and letting the GOP focus their hate attacking someone who will simply move on wasting their time and efforts. Either way helps the long-term interests of the Democratic Party.

My Thoughts

If I had any political power in the House of Representatives and was able to establish a game plan for the Progressives; it would be voting Pelosi into the position without all the infighting, seeking out a newer/young man or woman to take up the position one or two years from now (perhaps switching them into the Speaker position months before the 2020 election), and reorganizing the power structure of the party where the young politicians are at the front stirring up support/votes while the veterans use their influence and experience to draft legislation to further the progressive goals for the long run. 

As I said before I am not a big fan of Pelosi but no one can deny her influence and effectiveness as a politician in DC. Expelling her because she represents some of the problems in DC won’t save us from the fact that those problems are part of the institutions. If we DO want to move on the age of politicians like Pelosi we need to change the rules and the game before switching out the players who know the game best. This infighting we are currently seeing does not make us a stronger party. 

As always thanks for reading.

Regards, Michael California

[thisdaynews]

Pecans, Jay Leno and the Oxford comma: Hidden gems of the impeachment transcripts

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/pecans-jay-leno-and-the-oxford-comma-hidden-gems-of-the-impeachment-transcripts/

Pecans, Jay Leno and the Oxford comma: Hidden gems of the impeachment transcripts

Nickname-checked

When Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, sat for a deposition on Oct. 11, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) had some questions for the ex-envoy about her nickname.

MEADOWS:“And since we’re out of time, I just want to know one thing. Ambassador Volker said awful nice things about you, and he said that you’re called Masha.” YOVANOVITCH:“Yes.” MEADOWS:“Where did you get that name from?” YOVANOVITCH:“Well, despite my posting to Ukraine, I’m actually half Russian, and it’s a Russian nickname.” MEADOWS:“I yield back.”

Asked and answered

Yovanovitch had little patience for a meandering line of inquiry by another GOP lawmaker, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who wanted to know more about her professional relationship with a staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

ZELDIN:“Did you know this person?” YOVANOVITCH:“Yes.” ZELDIN:“And how did — where did you know that person from?” YOVANOVITCH:“She had previously worked at the State Department.” ZELDIN:“And how do you know that person at the State Department?” YOVANOVITCH:“Because she worked at the State Department.”

‘Locker room’ talk

About two-thirds of the way through Yovanovitch’s deposition, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) prepared to hand over questioning to Republicans in the room, but not without first making a brief housekeeping announcement that — if his staffers are to be believed — was likely much welcomed.

SCHIFF:“And just to let members know, we are going to turn the air back on. It’s feast or famine here, and we’re — my staff tells me it started to smell like a locker room in here. So we’ll turn it over to the minority and we’ll turn the air back on.”

‘Follow me on Twitter’

As lawmakers prepared to wrap up their marathon questioning of Yovanovitch, she revealed that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, implied to her at one point that to save her job, it would be helpful for her to publicly express support for Trump on social media.

But Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) injected some levity into the deposition, plugging his Twitter account and prompting some light (if puzzling) ribbing from his colleagues.

MALINOWSKI:Okay. Finally, I would say to aIl of my colleagues on both sides that I would be honored if you followed me on Twitter, and I will not accuse you of monitoring me. My handle is @malinowski. MEADOWS:How do you spell that one? MALINOWSKI:It’s hard. Almost as hard as Yovanovitch. YOVANOVITCH:Exactly. Thank you. SCHIFF:Mr. Goldman. GOLDMAN:Thank you. Just a few last things. You ultimately — SCHIFF:I thought your handle was @pecan.

More pecans

During an exchange between Yovanovitch, Meadows and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) about so-called “unmasking,” Perry apparently stood to abruptly leave the room. Yovanovitch then asked whether someone could repeat the question posed to her.

YOVANOVITCH:“Okay. So —” MEADOWS:“You can answer. He’s got to run.” PERRY:“I’ll be back.” YOVANOVITCH:“Okay.” PERRY:“Sorry. Thank you.” MEADOWS:“It’s nothing you said.” STEVE CASTOR (Republican staff of the House Oversight Committee):“Welcome to Congress.” YOVANOVITCH:“So I got lost a little bit in the conversation. Are we talking about –“ DANIEL GOLDMAN (the House Intelligence Committee’s senior adviser and director of investigations):“Let’s ask him to repeat it. Oh.” MEADOWS:“You can ask the pecans.”

‘I watch HBO’

During his appearance before House impeachment investigators on Oct. 17, Sondland sought to head off questions regarding his knowledge of Rudy Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm on whose board Hunter Biden served.

Sondland suggested he was more likely catching up on “Game of Thrones” than tuning into the former New York mayor’s frequent cable news appearances.

CASTOR:“Before I get into this letter, there was some frustration about whether you had seen that New York Times article. I mean, there’s a lot of media nowadays. You know, have you seen every article, every story that references Rudy Giuliani since you began your post?” SONDLAND:“No. I mean, I have so many cables and other things to read, I just don’t have time.” CASTOR:“And you’re not watching TV, U.S. TV at night when you’re i n Brussels?” SONDLAND:“Sometimes.” CASTOR:“Okay. So have you seen Rudy Giuliani on — you know, discuss these issues on TV?” SONDLAND:“I watch HBO.”

‘The three amigos’ ride again

Sondland was also forced to answer for a nickname bestowed upon him and two other administration officials — Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Kurt Volker, the former special envoy for Ukraine negotiations — during a trip to the Eastern European nation’s capital.

Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence chairman who Trump has memorably mocked as a “pencil neck” and “little Adam Schitt,” weighed in with some perspective.

GOLDMAN:“Did you and Ambassador Volker and Secretary Perry ever develop a nickname for the three of you?” SONDLAND:“I think you’re referring to the three amigos.” GOLDMAN:“Yeah, who coined that?” SONDLAND:“I think we were all in Kyiv together, and someone walked up to US, and said, you look like the three amigos, we were all standing together, and I think that’s where it came from.” GOLDMAN:“You kind of liked that nickname, right?” SONDLAND:“I don’t —” MR. LUSKIN:“We’ve all heard worse.” THE CHAIRMAN:“I can attest to that.”

Zelensky’s late-night ‘hero’

Almost halfway through House investigators’ deposition with Sondland, the ambassador described a dinner party in Brussels celebrating U.S. Independence Day attended by Zelensky, State Department officials and other world leaders.

Sondland said U.S. officials saw the dinner, which followed a much larger event, “as an opportunity to present President Zelensky to various EU and U.S. officials and to build upon the enhanced government ties.” He sought to correct the record on a few points, telling investigators that “contrary to some reporting, [U2 lead singer] Bono did not attend or perform.” He also disclosed an entertaining revelation into Zelensky’s comedic role models.

SONDLAND: “The subject of the dinner was not Ukraine and was not President Zelensky. The Prime Minister of Romania was there. The President of Poland was there. Jay Leno was there. Mr. Kushner was there. There were a lot of celebrities, guests, and it was a very sort of light-hearted evening. It was not a business dinner.” GOLDMAN:“Did President Zelensky, as a comedian, get along well with Jay Leno?” SONDLAND:“He was honored to meet him. Apparently, Jay Leno was his hero.”

‘The Greenland question’

William Taylor’s testimony before lawmakers on Oct. 22 regarding his knowledge of the Ukraine scandal included a reference to an odd diplomatic dust-up that originated in the White House — Trump’s short-lived bid to purchase Greenland.

Taylor, the top American envoy to Ukraine, said the president’s fascination over the summer with the U.S. government potentially buying the semi-autonomous Arctic territory made it difficult to schedule a meeting between Trump and senior administration officials regarding the resumption of military aid to Ukraine.

SCHIFF:“What do you deduce from that, that our alIy is fighting with the Russians, but all of these agencies that support this can’t get a meeting with the President to discuss it?” TAYLOR:“It turns out, Mr. Chairman, that those principals, as we call them, were on different trips at different times. I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a lot of energy in the NSC.” SCHIFF:“Okay. That’s disturbing for a whole different reason.”

Fishing for an explanation

Taylor’s testimony before impeachment investigators made waves when his lengthy opening statement became the first evidence tying Trump directly to a quid pro quo.

It was also notable for the extent of personal recordkeeping that Taylor described to lawmakers, prompting Rep. Ted Lieu to take an odd approach to attempt to explain the contrast between Taylor’s deep recollection of crucial events with Sondland’s, who later substantially revised his testimony.

LIEU:“The public reporting on Ambassador Sondland’s testimony is that he didn’t remember a lot of stuff. You have a number of conversations here with Ambassador Sondland. I just want to make sure, in those conversations, there was no indication he was under the influence of alcohol, correct?” TAYLOR:“Correct.” LIEU:“He didn’t slur his words, correct?” TAYLOR:“Correct.” LIEU:“There was no indication that he was under any medications that caused him short-term memory loss, correct?” TAYLOR:“Not that I know of.” LIEU:“Okay.”

Under the sea

Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, may have been hunkered down in a basement-level SCIF when she was deposed on Oct. 14, but on a few occasions during her testimony, she was able to reminisce about some underwater activities she enjoyed while on her summer vacation.

CASTOR:“Did you speak with anyone? You had left on the 19th, but had you spoken to anybody about the call?” HILL:“I did not. I was on vacation [redacted]. And at the time the phone call took place, I think, based on my date-stamp on my phones, I was snorkeling.” VOICE:“You were under water.” HILL:“I was under water, yeah. It was a pretty good alibi. I didn’t take underwater pictures, but, you know, I can basically —”

Politics and punctuation

In addition to being quizzed on matters related to the potential impeachment of a president, Hill was asked to weigh in on another particularly divisive issue.

DANIEL NOBLE (Democratic counsel):“Are you a fan of the Oxford comma?” HILL:“I’m confused, is kind of basically where I am. Because when I was growing up, they changed the comma formatting, and then when I came here, I found there was all kinds of different comma formatting. So I tend to put commas everywhere.”

Looking for leakers

In the middle of Hill’s testimony, word began to get out about some of the substance of her deposition. When a GOP staffer began to ask her about Manu Raju, a CNN reporter omnipresent on Capitol Hill, Hill noted she’d had a pretty ironclad alibi. Raju, for his part, backed up her story.

DAVID BREWER (Republican staffer for Oversight Committee):“Ma’am, today at 1:16, Manu Raju, who I understand is a reporter for CNN —” HILL:“Who?” BREWER:“Manu Raju.” HILL:“I don’ t know who that is. Manu Raju?” BREWER:“He’s a reporter, I understand, from CNN. He tweeted some substance of your testimony here today.” HILL:“I don’t know how that was possible because I’ve been in here with you the whole time.” BREWER:“That’s what I was going to ask you. Have you spoken —” HILL:“There’s been lots of people in and out, so I suppose you should ask your colleagues if somebody’s been talking to CNN.” BREWER:“So, just for the record, you have not spoken to Manu Raju since you’ve been here today?” HILL:“I have not had my telephone. I have been in your full and I have not met with Manu Raju in the bathroom here. And I think you can attest you saw me in the bathroom. And they have had full custody of me at all times.” BREWER:“And just one last question, ma’am: Have you directed anyone on your behalf to speak with Mr. Raju about your testimony?” HILL:“No. I don’ t know who Manu Raju is.”

Call me, beep me

At one point in her testimony, Hill described how broad Sondland’s jurisdiction appeared to be, complaining that the EU ambassador frequently bypassed her White House-issued phone, giving officials her personal phone number instead, and sending these people to the White House where they believed they had a meeting with NSC officials. She called the issue “comical” but also “deeply concerning.”

HILL:“And so I was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to coordinate in some fashion with Ambassador Sondland on a whole range of issues related to visits by heads of states, meetings. And Ambassador Sondland would frequently give people my personal cell phone to call up and demand meetings with Ambassador BoIton or with me.

“We had all kinds of officials from Europe, particularly when [redacted] was the the president in the office of the European Union, literally appearing at the gates of the White House, calling on our personal phones, which are actually in lock boxes, so it was kind of difficult to get hold of them. I’d find endless messages from irate [redacted] officials who’d been told that they were supposed to meet with me by Ambassador Sondland.”

Sibling rivalry

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer and Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council, was a unique witness in that he’s got an identical twin brother who just so happens to also serve in the White House, as the top ethics lawyer on the National Security Council. Vindman, whose testimony was among the most damaging collected by impeachment investigators, couldn’t let his deposition go by without taking a dig at his womb-mate.

CASTOR:Okay. After you spoke with Eisenbeng, who else did you communicate to about this meeting? VINDMAN:So my kid brother, my twin brother is on the White House National Security Council legal team. CASTOR:And is Is he your kid brother or your twin brother? VINDMAN:He’s 9 minutes younger. He’s my kid brother, whether he Iikes it on not. I told him I was going to get that in there

‘I don’t know her’

Before Vindman could get underway with questions from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), one of his attorneys need to get something taken care of. Namely, just who they were being quizzed by.

MICHAEL VOLKOV (Vindman’s attorney):First off, I don’t know who you are, if you could identify yourself for the record. But second off, could you be specific as to two calls? We’re talking about one call here. CASTOR:“This is Representative Stefanik.” REP. ELISESTEFANIK:“I’m on the House Intelligence Committee.” VOLKOV:“Okay. I don’t know who you were. I apologize —” STEFANIK:“Yeah. I’m from New York. I’m a third term member.” CASTOR:“There’s no staffers talking except for me and the Members.” VOLKOV:“I understand that and I appreciate that, I just didn’t —” STEFANIK:“I get asked this a lot.” VOLKOV:“Oh, that’s good.” STEFANIK:“No, it’s not good. But I will continue my line of questioning, which is, the witness testified—”

Read More

[wassible196258]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/scam-pacs-strike-again-in-utah-wisconsin

[kevinbowman70060bxj]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[cashutters50309]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[winsupply10566]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[windws90017]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[andrewjennyve]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[alanfrederickpg]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[derekbowman06921f]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[kathleesanmoore]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[yvonnsaebrown]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[wastoon35]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf

[daisyfasarmer]

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin

‘Scam PACs’ Strike Again in Utah, Wisconsin By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mysterious and misleading political action committees are nothing new, but two recent examples demonstrate just how brazen some PACs are becoming in their money-grabbing email pitches.

“BREAKING: Sheriff Clarke Resigned,” announced the subject line of a Sept. 2 email from the Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate (Official Draft Campaign). The subsequent text of the message was supposedly explanatory, yet nearly completely wrong.

“Well, exactly as your Sheriff Clarke Draft Committee has been predicting, Sheriff Clarke notified Governor Walker that he was resigning his position as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, effective at midnight, yesterday morning,” the email read.

“The courageous black conservative Sheriff has been tight lipped about his future plans, but those of you who have been paying attention to our draft efforts will not see his resignation as a surprise,” the email continued.

This message is remarkable, considering, six months ago, Clarke wrote in his book, “I have no interest in running for elected office other than being sheriff. … I’m not running for mayor, I’m not running for congressman, I’m not running for senator, and I’m not running for governor.”

But don’t let that get in the way of a good email.

“His resignation will at long last free him to prepare for a U.S. Senate campaign in earnest — something he was unwilling to do while still taking taxpayer dollars to serve Milwaukee County,” the email stated. “That means it’s showtime, folks!”

But more than six weeks before the recent email, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clarke told a local radio station, “I want to put this to a rest because it’s becoming a distraction. No, I’m not running for Senate.”

Of course, that didn’t stop this PAC from asking for money.

“Sheriff Clarke needs our prayers and vocal support to officially launch his campaign for Senate. You can encourage him today with a donation of $50, $100, or $500 — CLICK HERE to your secure link,” the group wrote.

That’s a pretty bold ask, considering Clarke specifically told people not to give money to the PAC.

“It’s a scam PAC really,” he said in July. “They don’t need my permission to do it.”

“Every time I turn around, I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money,’” continued Clarke, who (surprise!) just accepted a new position with America First Action, a pro-President Donald Trump PAC.

An Aug. 26 email, subject line “URGENT: Enemy #1” from Black America’s Political Action Committee, or BAMPAC, was almost as offensive for it’s lack of truth.

“I’m sending you this urgent email to get your attention on a critical matter: Mia Love is in serious trouble. You see, the Democrats are already on the offensive — making wild allegations against Mia Love … and every indication is that it seems to be working,” the email began. “Mia’s poll numbers have revealed serious trouble ahead for her reelection.”

That caught my attention on a couple of levels: that the Republican congresswoman from Utah was in “serious trouble” in a district where Hillary Clinton received 32 percent of the vote last fall, according to calculations by Daily Kos Elections, and that her campaign would share polling numbers with BAMPAC.

So I reached out to Love’s pollster.

“There’s no indication in any polling that I know of, public or private, that Mia is having any trouble,” said Quin Monson, a partner at Y2 Analytics. “Given the election results last fall, just the opposite is true. She is in a stronger position than ever before.” Love defeated Democrat Doug Owens 54 percent to 41 percent in 2016 after a more narrow 51-46 percent victory over him in 2014.

But of course, facts are just minor speed bumps on the road to raising more money.

“We expected the Democrats to come after Mia, but we didn’t expect such vicious attacks so early! It’s painfully obvious they’re out for blood, and they’ll stop at nothing to take her down,” the email alleged.

Love wasn’t on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s initial (and ambitious) list of 59 Republican targets released at the beginning of the year, nor was she among the 21 additional GOP members added in the subsequent months. As of June 30, Love didn’t have a Democratic opponent with more than $14,000 in campaign funds. She had $348,000 after spending over $5.5 million in the 2016 cycle.

But of course, BAMPAC thinks she needs the money, even though contributions through the email wouldn’t go directly to her anyway since the committees aren’t linked in any way.

“That’s why I’m hoping you’ll help Mia Love fight back with a gift of $28, $35, $50, $75 or more TODAY,” read the email plea signed “sincerely” by President and CEO Alvin Williams. “Your gift will be put to use immediately to defend Mia from the Democrats’ vicious attacks.”

“Or perhaps you’ve been blessed and want to do more?” Williams asked in the email. “Your gift of $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2500 or more will give Mia the ammo she needs to fight back.”

“With the liberal elite dumping millions of dollars into this race, Mia Love desperately needs your support now more than ever!” Williams wrote.

Love’s campaign suggests otherwise.

“I would just add that this particular email from BAMPAC is pretty much a complete scam,” Monson said. “BAMPAC is simply using Mia’s name to gin up fundraising and is not connected to Mia in any way. It may be legal, but is certainly ethically questionable at best.”

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2eWeMpf