If Hillary Clinton was a Republican, the mainstream media would be taking all of the juicy tidbits flying out of WikiLeaks and beating her over the head with them until she tapped out and quit.
Unfortunately, that standard doesnât apply to liberal Democrats who get a free pass from the press, which is likely the only thing â aside from Obama pulling strings â that has managed to keep Clinton from acquiring a new orange wardrobe and spending her holidays in a cozy room at the state penitentiary.
WikiLeaks has released yet another big bomb as an email may indicate illegal coordination between Hillaryâs campaign and super PACs.
Apparently Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote an email to Hillary herself, that seems to suggest a legit formal strategy was created to coordinate with two different super PACs, Correct the Record and Priorities USA.
Hereâs the email via Breitbart:
Madame Secretary,
Attached is a memo Marc prepared on some issues related to superpacs and state parties we wanted to discuss with you next week, specifically (1) coordination of rapid response with Correct the Record;
(2) coordination of some ads with Priorities;
(3) use of state parties to defray costs; and
(4) suing the FEC to compel action against Bush and Republican superpacs.
Iâve talked with Huma and Alex about finding a time that might be convenient for you. This is probably best to do in-person, but if your schedule doesnât permit, weâll arrange for a call.Let us know if you have any questions in advance!
Robby
The email comes with a memo as a pdf attachment addressing how the campaign believed it could use a reading of current law to coordinate legally. The memo, in part, outlines the strategy, as such:
II. Coordinated Non-Express Advocacy Ads with Super PAC
As noted above, federal law prohibits Super PACs from coordinating with campaigns on public communications that include words of express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy or that republish campaign materials. However, the plain language of FEC regulations suggest that a campaign may collaborate with a Super PAC on communications that lack express advocacy or its functional equivalent, do not republish campaign materials, and air more than 120 days before the primary in each state. We believe that such collaboration is legally permissible.
Under this theory, the campaign could collaborate on television ads sponsored by Priorities USA Action more than 120 days before the primary in each state, as long as the ads lacked express advocacy, its functional equivalent, or republished campaign materials. The advertisements would focus on a public policy issue; praise your position on the issue or criticize an opponentâs; and urge viewers to take an action in support of your position (or in opposition to your opponentâs). The advertisements would not focus on your qualifications or fitness for office, and would not refer to elections, candidacies, political parties, or voting by the general public. Finally, while your campaign may have significant input on such a communications program, Priorities ultimately would have to direct and control it.
While we believe that such a program is legally permissible, it would be breaking new ground more so than what CTR is doing. As evidenced by the press scrutiny of CTRâs announcement, the media reaction to such a program could be toxic. In 2011, the FEC divided 3-to-3 on a request by American Crossroads to engage in a similar coordinated issue advocacy program; that division between the commissioners has persisted over the past four years. The FEC cannot find a violation without the support of four commissioners, so the ongoing deadlock reduces (though by no means eliminates) the likelihood of adverse action by the FEC. However, the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress retain separate authority to investigate alleged campaign finance violations, and there is no indication of what their views are on this issue.
Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress was a bit anxious over Hillaryâs lack of regard for the law, stating in May: âThatâs fine. But skirting if not violating the law doesnât help her INMHO.â
Clinton and breaking the law seem to go together like peanut butter and chocolate, which is why this latest revelation isnât the least bit surprising.
Whatâs infuriating is that the media isnât reporting this and it seems no one is going to hold Clinton accountable for her actions, thus proving if youâre a Democrat who supports the liberal agenda, youâre above the law.
Hillary violated the law by using a private email server and apparently by messing with campaign laws, yet sheâs out and about, roaming free with no consequences.
Does America really need someone like this as our leader?
You already know the answer to that.
Source: Allen West
