Urgent News for Democrats : It's not about the Money, Stupid, It's about the Message and Candidates

THE REAL NEWS TODAY IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE HURTING FOR MONEY AND VOTERS. • • • MONEY, THE MOTHER MILK OF POLITICS. Politico reported on Sunday that new Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez -- the former Obama Secretary of Labor and Hillary's pick for the DNC top spot -- is taking longer than anticipated to get up to speed with fundraising, in part because of the sheer scale of the undertaking. But, reports Politico : "The Democratic National Committee is reeling, facing a turnaround that's proving a much bigger lift than anyone expected as it struggles to raise enough money to cover its basic promises. Many donors are refusing to write checks. And on-the-ground operatives worry they won’t have the resources to build the infrastructure they need to compete effectively in next year’s midterms and in the run-up to 2020. Here in the halls of Bally's hotel and casino in Las Vegas for the DNC's fall meeting through the weekend, state committee chairs and operatives echoed a now-common concern among donors and strategists : The DNC's recovery is still a ways away, and that could have serious repercussions for the party in the coming years." Nebraska Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico : "Donors, small and large, are so over the party. Everybody thinks that some magic three-page document and some magic tagline is going to turn everything around for us. But this is very typical work." Kleeb is working on grassroots fundraising for the DNC. • The DNC reboot under Perez has taken longer than anticipated, and one DNC member who has spent years fundraising for the PArty said : "It's a very legitimate concern." Besides the sheer scale of the Democrat Party's problems, Politico says the financial challenges reflect a broader struggle at a DNC led by a chairman who is new to party politics and is on a steep learning curve at a time when national Democrats are still searching for an identity after the historic 2016 presidential loss. Politico says : "It's not just donors who are staying away as the Perez-led group promises an expansive set of new investments and innovations. The party's old leaders, led by former President Barack Obama, have kept their involvement to a minimum, as well. So with 2018's midterms presenting a clear opportunity for Democrats to leap forward, the worry is that they simply may not be prepared in time. While the House and Senate Democratic campaign arms -- and individual candidates -- are having no problem raising funds, the comparatively anemic cash flow at the central committee and state branches could affect organizing efforts on the ground across the country." Politico cites the "State Party Innovation Fund, a planned $10.5 million competitive grant program that DNC leadership has made available to interested state parties over the next year." The SPIF money is meant to pay for organizing, ground operations and other support essential to countering Republican National Committee investments that helped elect Donald Trump and a slew of other other Republican candidates in 2016, leapfrogging Democrats in the process. The planned SPIC funding is to be on top of the $10,000 each state party receives from the DNC every month. But, says Politico : "Entering October, the DNC had just $7 million in its main account, which also has to cover its central responsibilities and salaries." In Las Vegas, Minnesota party chairman Ken Martin, who is president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, went out of his way while speaking to a gathering of state party executive directors to assure them the SPIF grant program was on schedule, since the money will be doled out over the course of a year and so doesn’t have to be raised yet, said one Democrat in the room. Brandon Dillon, the Michigan Democratic Party chair, said he believes that the matching grant program will help focus donors’ attention by giving them a specific target, with specific operations that they’d be funding. Asking for money to help a DNC that few have faith in anymore and that lacks a clear mission isn’t working, he warned. • Financial concerns dominated conversation over the four-day Las Vegas meeting, and officials repeatedly alluded to the DNC's fundraising troubles in formal sessions. Alice Germond, a former DNC Secretary, told Politico : ""We're all aware the money is not flowing in the way we hoped it would. The abundance of new resistance-minded groups asking for cash from donors has been pretty overwhelming, and a newer phenomenon, and it represents 'competition for the party.' " • Top DNC finance officials painted an optimistic picture during an executive committee meeting on Friday, but still acknowledged the concerns. Bill Derrough, the new DNC Treasurer, said : “The finance organization has only recently been built up,” but he insisted their efforts were "on track. In general, we're in decent shape." National finance chair Henry Muñoz agreed, but added : "But none of us are satisfied." • Perez did not address the committee's fundraising during the Las Vegas conference. But DNC press secretary Michael Tyler pointed out that most of the party's donations are small-dollar contributions, a sign of grassroots enthusiasm : "While our overall fundraising is on pace with previous 'off-years,' we want to do better and that's why we are building a team to elect Democrats to win as we head into 2018 and beyond." • Politico pointed out that : "Compared not just with the RNC, but with other Democratic committees, groups and candidates that are teeming with donations, the DNC's funding problems are stark. That is the case even though it's customary for an out-of-power committee to face a drop-off. Perez, who had no previous fundraising experience, has been hitting the road nonstop for months in a bid to bring new donors and win over disillusioned contributors who are withholding checks after the 2016 election. He hit fundraising hot spots like Martha's Vineyard this summer and swung through San Francisco and Seattle in recent weeks, according to Democrats familiar with the events. Perez is also visiting secondary money destinations, including a planned stop in North Carolina later this month. This isn't a social club, he says at roundtables and meet-and-greets, according to donors who've heard the pitch. It's something they all have to participate in, since they have to win -- though it's not going to be easy or cheap," he tells the faithful. Party officials involved in fundraising say donors repeatedly turn them away with a "try again next year," especially since it became clear there won't be an official party autopsy from 2016. Democrat Jon Ossoff's loss in his much-hyped special congressional election in Atlanta's suburbs in June has also depressed donor enthusiasm. California attorney Guy Saperstein, a part-owner of the Oakland Athletics and a prominent funder of progressive causes and candidates said : "I've made it pretty clear I don't want to donate to the DNC, DCCC, or the Senate counterpart, so they have not called me." And, even donors who are more willing to play ball have a stern message -- The party needs a clearer plan to win before we fork over more money. • DNC members themselves have now been asked to give or raise $1,000 each, some said -- a request people who've been around the committee for decades told Politico they can't remember being made before. Part of the problem has been the lack of major draws for the contributors. For the past eight years, much of the party's donor strategy has been built around large events featuring Obama. But, Obama so far has committed to just one DNC event since leaving office -- a September event in Washington that brought in $2.5 million, a total that was less than officials had hoped for, according to people involved. Other high-profile party officials, like the dozens of potential presidential contenders, have not signed up to raise cash for the committee. • The DNC and Democrat Party's problems are not just about money. The Democrats have to rebuild political infrastructure and trust in the wake of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz's controversial tenure atop the committee, the loss of the White House, and the fallout from the Russian hack of the committee computer system. After being slow to assemble a full staff, the DNC is still advertising to fill 22 jobs, including a chief security officer and a data science lead. Paying for those jobs will take more money, which means winning over more skeptical donors. Orlando attorney John Morgan, a longtime top party donor who is now considering a Florida gubernatorial run, told Politico : "I’ve had enough dinners. I’m not really interested. I’m going to let them get new blood. I can’t get motivated.” • • • THE DEMOCRAT PROBLEM. It's not about "the money, stupid," it's about the message and the candidates and potential candidates delivering the message. • • • THE SONOMA FIRE AND SANCTUARY STATE CALIFORNIA. Consider this Breitbart report of last Thursday by Michelle Moons : "US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tom Homan confirmed on Thursday that a man arrested in connection with setting a fire in Sonoma County Wine Country is an illegal alien from Mexico who has been twice returned to his 'home country.' Homan also confirmed that ICE has issued detainer requests for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez five times now in the past year alone, including the one issued on October 16 in relation to his most recent arrest on suspicion of arson. All the arrests were made 'by Sonoma County on various felony and misdemeanor charges,” according to Homan. Sonoma County is considered a sanctuary jurisdiction and does not fully cooperate with federal immigration officials. That includes not honoring ICE detainer requests. Homan said : “ICE was never notified of Mr. Gonzalez’ various releases.” There were several fires in the region, and it is not clear what role the fires Gonzales allegedly set played in the overall disaster. Homan’s public statement highlights the lack of cooperation from Sonoma County officials and the devastating wildfires that have ravaged the region. Sanctuary cities -- and now states as California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill making all of California a Sanctuary State -- has a price among real Americans who want to be safe in their own neighborhoods and communities. Moons wrote : "Once again, a non-cooperative jurisdiction has left their community vulnerable to dangerous individuals and preventable crimes. ICE lodged a detainer against Jesus Gonzalez with Sonoma County jail officials on October 16, following his arrest on felony charges for maliciously setting fire to a property. This is especially troubling in light of the massive wildfires already devastating the region. Over the past year, ICE has lodged detainers against Mr. Gonzalez after four separate arrests by Sonoma County on various felony and misdemeanor charges. ICE was never notified of Mr. Gonzalez’ various releases. Additionally, Mr. Gonzales has been returned to his home country of Mexico on two separate occasions. The residents of Sonoma County, and the state of California, deserve better than policies that expose them to avoidable dangers. Non-cooperation policies -- now enshrined in California state law -- ensure only one thing: criminals who would otherwise be deported will be released and left free to reoffend as they please." • That ProgDem message cannot be good news for a DNC trying to rebuild its party and raise money at the grassroots level. Even hyper-leftist Californians must be reeling from the revelation that a Sanctuary-protected illegal alien may have been one cause of the ghastly Sonoma wildfires that caused billions of dollars of losses in destroyed homes, as well as deaths. Why would they suport the Democrat Party whose Sanctuary policies may have caused the horrible losses. • • • THE PODESTA GROUP, URANIUM ONE AND HILLARY. Or, what about this Blabber Buzz and InfoWars report of last Friday by Jerome Hudson. He wrote : "The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. The federal probe is, CNN reports, 'examining the work of other firms linked to the former Ukrainian government, including that of the Podesta Group.' The Podesta Group, run by John Podesta’s brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records. Yanukovych took office in February 2010. He was forced to flee to Russian after a political uprising in Ukraine. Federal prosecutors are probing the work Yanukovych’s regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government. As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton Cash, the company Uranium One -- which hired the Podesta Group -- is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company. According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a 'goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.' ” The Times reported last April : "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing." CNN reported that the Posesta Group has hired outside counsel to review its relationship with an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, retaining Caplin & Drysdale as independent, outside legal counsel to determine if it was misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre’s potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.” a Podesta Group statement said, according to CNN. • And how about the negative impact on DNC donors of this ProgDem-Hillary message of Russia connections, corruption and pay-for-play? • • • HOUSE JUDICIARY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES TO INVESTIGATE HILLARY EMAIL SCANDAL. TheHill reported on Tuesday that the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees announced a joint investigation into how the FBI handled last year's probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said in a joint statement : "Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered." The two Republican leaders said they have questions about the FBI's decision to openly declare the bureau's investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information, while quietly investigating Trump campaign associates. They said they also want to know why the FBI decided to formally notify Congress of the Clinton probe on two separate occasions; why the FBI -- rather than the Justice Department -- recommended that Clinton not be charged after the investigation concluded; and the reasoning behind their timeline for announcing such decisions. The Goodlatte-Gowdy statement said : "The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken." • Former FBI Director James Comey apparently began drafting his statement that the FBI would not recommend charges months before his July 2016 announcement. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham first announced in late August that Comey had drafted a statement on Clinton months before making a public statement, saying the decision was drawn up "before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses." The revelation raised questions about why Comey waited months after beginning to draft a statement to announce the end of the investigation in the midst of a heated presidential race. President Trump fired Comey early this year, citing his handling of the Clinton probe. The FBI last week released emails appearing to prove that Comey began drafting a memo regarding his July 2016 statement as early as May, but the contents of the emails were unclear as nearly all of it was redacted. The now-public records show the email titled “Midyear Exam --- UNCLASSIFIED” was sent by Comey on May 2, 2016, to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI general counsel James Baker and FBI chief of staff and senior counselor James Rybicki. On May 16, a response email from Rybicki, said, “Please send me any comments on this statement so we may roll into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date. Thanks, Jim.” The existence of the documents was first revealed by Grassley and Graham, after they reviewed transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides who alluded to the emails' existence. The issue has raised questions about Comey’s past explanations for his decision to go public in the case -- in a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey was asked whether his decision to announce the results of the investigation was influenced by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous meeting days earlier on an Arizona tarmac with former President Bill Clinton. “Yes, in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me -- that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation,” Comey said. At a House Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2016, Comey also testified that he made the decision not to recommend criminal charges “after” the FBI interviewed Clinton. Comey was leading the Trump-Russia inquiry at the time, but after he was fired by President Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller took over the investigation. • The top Democrats on the House panels, Oversight’s Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Judiciary’s John Conyers of Michigan, slammed the decision, issuing their own joint statement : “This new investigation is a massive diversion to distract from the lack of Republican oversight of the Trump Administration and the national security threat that Russia poses, ten months of abdication of responsibility" to look into the abuses taking place at the White House, adding : “The Russian government continues to represent a clear and present threat to the United States and our democratic system, and we are the targets of near-constant cyberattacks by foreign adversaries. Yet House Republicans have taken no concrete steps to secure our next election. Apparently, House Republicans are more concerned about Jim Comey than Vladimir Putin." Comey has come under heavy scrutiny for the decisions he made regarding the email investigation. He disclosed during his June testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had urged him to describe the Clinton email probe as a "matter" rather than an investigation. Comey said her request gave him a “queasy feeling” because it matched "how the [Clinton] campaign was talking about how the FBI was doing its work.” • And how about that as a negative message for DNC donors -- lying under oath and corruptly influencing the FBI. • • • HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE URANIUM ONE DEAL AND HILLARY'S EMAILS. Fox News reported on Tuesday that in addition to the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees' joint investigation of the Hillary email scandal and its handling by the DOJ and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes of California announced that his Committee and the House Oversight Committee will jointly investigate the so-called Uranium One deal. Nunes said : “We’re not going to jump to any conclusions, but we’re going to try and get the facts.” Both controversies have hit the online headlines recently. The uranium deal, which was covered in 2015, especially by the New York Times, concerns the 2010 approval of the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom nuclear company. The US was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of 20% of the uranium supply in the US. The Hill reported, however, that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the US. Fox reported that Nunes said Tuesday the main question for Hill investigators will be whether there was an FBI probe at the time and “if so, why was Congress not informed of this matter." Representative Pete King of New York said : “It’s important that we find out why that deal went through.” Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida, an Oversight Committee member, threatened to use subpoena power to get access to a former FBI informant in the case who apparently has not yet been released from a nondisclosure agreement. While scrutinizing the 2010 approval, Republican lawmakers have also revived questions that first surfaced in 2015 about payments to both Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from “interested parties.” • Addressing the matter Monday on C-SPAN, Hillary Clinton said : “It’s the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked. The closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians...the more they want to just throw mud on the wall.” But, Hillary is known for "debunking" every allegation, many of them accurate, aimed at her or Bill, so we may conclude that she is just engaging in her usual stonewalling. But, she must be feeling a little nervous, now that her only "protector" in high office is Robert Mueller, who, as we learned in Tuesday's blog, is himself coming under scrutiny. Last month, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee formally renewed their call for a second special counsel to be appointed by Attorney General Sessions to probe 2016 controversies involving Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. • The Justice Department released a statement vowing to “fully cooperate with this important Congressional investigation.” Let's hope that with Congresss gearing up to fully investigate the Clinton emails and Uranium One deal and the Clinton Foundation role in the deal, AG sessions will wake up and fully assume his role as President Trump's chief law enforcement officer. • Meantime, the negative Uranium One message must be gut-wrenching for reluctant DNC donors. • • • DEAR READERS, I cannot imagine that all Democrats are tone deaf to the shockwaves breaking across their 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton concerning her email scandal and her pay-for-play role in the Uranium One deal that gave 20% of America's uranium into the hands of Russian entities. Grassroots Democrats must see the corruption being alleged and must know the prior history of Hillary Clinton and her shady practices. Why would they support the DNC led by a man, Tom Perez, she chose for the job? Why??? And, why would very wealthy Democrat donors continue to throw money, and possibly their reputations, at a Democrat Party that cannot even stand up and separate itself from the Clintons or the Podestas? Why??? And, more important, why would any American continue to be associated with or vote for the Democrat Party that is standing by these crooked ProgDem elites???