Clinton email reveals: Google sought overthrow of Syria's Assad

Washington Examiner | By RUDY TAKALA | March 19, 2016

Google in 2012 sought to help insurgents overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to State Department emails receiving fresh scrutiny this week.

Messages between former secretary of state Hillary Clinton's team and one of the company's executives detailed the plan for Google to get involved in the region.

"Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool ... that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from," Jared Cohen, the head of what was then the company's "Google Ideas" division, wrote in a July 2012 email to several top Clinton officials.

"Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition," Cohen said, adding that the plan was for Google to surreptitiously give the tool to Middle Eastern media.

"Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria," he said.

"Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything [else] you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact," Cohen concluded.

The message was addressed to deputy secretary of state Bill Burns; Alec Ross, a senior Clinton advisor; and Clinton's deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. Sullivan subsequently forwarded Cohen's proposal to Clinton, describing it as "a pretty cool idea."

Cohen worked as a low-level staffer at the State Department until 2010, when he was hired to lead Google Ideas, but was tied to the use of social media to incite social uprisings even before he left the department. He once reportedly asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to hold off of conducting system maintenance that officials believed could have impeded a brief 2009 uprising in Iran.

The unusual involvement by Google in foreign affairs highlights the difficulty of involvement in the internal politics of foreign states. While Cohen seemed to consider his company's effort as helpful to American interests, the effort to overthrow Assad helped spur the rise of the Islamic State, which eventually filled a vacuum resulting from Assad's loss of control over of Syria.

The exchange on Syria was highlighted by Wikileaks on Saturday. Earlier in the week, the secret-leaking website posted more than 30,000 emails that Clinton sent or received during her tenure leading the State Department.

VIDEO: OBAMA CRACKS JOKE ABOUT SCALIA’S DEATH

Infowars - FEBRUARY 22, 2016

During his National Governors Association speech Monday, President Obama joked there was a lot to get done during his final days in office, including “appointing judges.”

“Some of you may be in the final year of your term, working as hard as you can to get as much done as possible for the folks you represent, fixing roads, educating our children, helping people retrain, appointing judges, the usual stuff,” the president jested, as the crowd in attendance burst into laughter.

Last week, the president was criticized after it was announced he would not be attending the funeral of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Obama was further lambasted when it was reported he spent less than two minutes paying his respects to Justice Scalia during the Saturday service at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Scalia Found Dead With Pillow Over His Face

My San Antonio | By John MacCormack | February 15, 2016

MARFA — A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner.

Just hours later, he would be found dead of apparent natural causes, which media outlets were reporting Sunday was a heart attack.

"He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, 'it's been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep," recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch.

When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge's door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

"He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.
Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.

"Ultimately they became available and handled it t superbly. They flew in by helicopter. They told me to secure the ranch, which I did until this morning," he said.

Scalia was just the latest newsworthy guest to visit the celebrity hideaway that covers 30,000 acres near the Chinati Mountains. Mick Jagger, Julia Roberts and Tommy Lee Jones have also partaken of its scenic vistas and luxury accomodations.

Established in 1857 by Milton Faver, known as the first Texas cattle baron west of the Pecos, the ranch retains 19th Century constructions, including "El Fortin de Cibolo," a primitive fort designed to protect settlers from Apaches.

In a special guest package offered last month, rooms went for $545 to $565 a night for two people, with a meal package and ranch tour included. Other activities include hiking, horseback riding, bird-watching and ATV tours.

Scalia, who was scheduled to return to Washington on Sunday, had little time to avail himself of the ranch's offerings. Poindexter said he had only met Scalia once before briefly, in Washington. Scalia came to the ranch because he was friends another guest.
Poindexter said he knew the other guests.

"All the guests were friends of mine, I paid for all of them. There were no politics, no jurisprudence in the slightest," he said.

"This was strictly a group of friends that the judge decided to join. He was coming with his son who had to drop out for reasons I don't' know.

"It was an honor to have him. He was widely admired. There were no speeches. He wasn't asked any hard questions, it was all about the outdoors and Texas, and what it's like to being a Supreme Court Justice," he said.

Scalia's personal financial disclosures show no previous trips to the ranch. The disclosures, posted on OpenSecrets.Org show that the justice made several trips to Texas since 2005 to speak at colleges and universities, including St. Mary's University in 2008.

Poindexter, 71, said Scalia's sudden death was both a "personal tragedy" for those at the ranch, and for the nation.

"All of us here saw him as a stalwart defender of our way of life in Texas, in a real sense," he said.
"It's a great loss. Having made that statement, if it was his time to go, he was surrounded by friends, in fairly nice setting, with a full tummy too. He said he was very happy to be invited so it could have been in worse circumstances," he said.

"It's caused all of us here to stop and think about life, how precious it is, and how it is so unexpectedly lost," he added.

The body of the Supreme Court justice was moved to an El Paso funeral home early Sunday.
The body was driven from Marfa and arrived around 2:30 a.m. at Sunset Funeral Homes, according to spokesman Chris Lujan.

Lujan said the funeral home was chosen by family of the justice, and at the advice of a family friend.

The El Paso County medical examiner's office said they hadn't received any information regarding the possibility of performing an autopsy.

Staff Writer David Saleh Rauf contributed to this report

Reporter Took Orders from Hillary Clinton’s Staff, Down to Specific Adjective

Breitbart | by JOHN SEXTON | 9 Feb 2016

AP PHOTO

A newly revealed email exchange shows a reporter for a major political magazine agreeing to use the exact word suggested by a member of Hillary’s staff to write positive coverage of her speech.

The email exchange between the Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder and Hillary Clinton’s aide at the State Department, Philippe Reines, took place in 2009. It was published Tuesday byGawker.

Ambinder wrote to Reines asking for an advance copy of a speech Hillary was set to deliver to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Reines replied that he would make the speech available on three conditions:

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular” 

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something 

3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!

Ambinder immediately responded, “got it.” As promised, Ambinder wrote coverage of the CFR speech which opened:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Rep. Dennis Ross.

Asked about having Hillary’s PR people write his columns, Ambinder now claims he does not remember the exchange and adds that he is not interested in defending it. “It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable today,” he tells Gawker.

The Atlantic is not the only news site which covered Clinton’s CFR speech exactly as her staff wanted it covered. In an amazing coincidence, Mike Allen of Politico wrote about the speech in a piece that opened, “In a muscular first major address as secretary of state….” And midway through the story Allen writes, “A look at the CFR’s guest seating chart shows that arrayed in the front row will be top members of her team — the envoys she has called her “force multipliers”: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Philip Goldberg and Stephen Bosworth.”

Similarly, the New York Times’ Mark Landler seemed to be working from the same script. In his second paragraph he writes, “But with its muscular tone and sweeping scope, it was also an effort to recapture the limelight….” And in his fourth paragraph, he mentions the attendees, “She even marshaled a cheering section of special envoys and other senior American diplomats in the first few rows at the Council on Foreign Relations.” Neither of these details appeared in the Associated Press story about the speech which the New York Times linked.

There’s no proof that Allen or the Landler spoke with Reines or anyone else working for Clinton before filing their stories, but the details are remarkably similar. And, in the case of Politico‘s Mike Allen, other emails show he has willing to offer a guaranteed “no risk” interview of Chelsea Clinton, seemingly as a way to ingratiate himself with Hillary Clinton.

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

MSNBC | By Pete Williams | 02/08/16 05:30 PM

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”

He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”

The letter was filed in one of the Freedom of Information Act cases brought against the State Department over access to documents from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. This one was filed by Judicial Watch.

Ron Paul: Ted Cruz is no libertarian

Politico | By ELIZA COLLINS | 02/05/16 12:13 PM EST

Ron Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. | AP Photo

Now that Rand Paul is out of the race for the White House his father Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012, isn't impressed by Ted Cruz's attempts to pick up the "free market" libertarian banner.

“You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz — they think he’s for the free market, and [in reality] he’s owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don’t think there is much picking,” Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business’ “Varney & Company" on Friday.

Surprisingly, the elder Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Democratic primary.

“On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he’s right, and occasionally he voted against war,” the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.

"It's hard to find anybody -- since Rand is out of it -- anybody that would take a libertarian position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy," Paul added.

“So I always say: You can search for a long time, but you’re not gonna find anybody in the Republican or Democratic primary that even comes slightly close to ever being able to claim themselves a libertarian,” he concluded.

DOCUMENTS: OBAMA HAS SPENT $74 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON HOLIDAYS

Steve Watson | Infowars - FEBRUARY 5, 2016

The Obama family has wracked up a bill of $74 million, charged to the taxpayer, in vacations since taking office, according to recently obtained records.

The watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit to find out how much money the first family has spent on luxury getaways since Obama took office.

Documents, obtained after Freedom of Information Act requests were ignored, reveal that the total figure is at least $74,124,562.48.

“Now that we’ve sued, the Secret Service has stopped ignoring our requests for details on more of the costs of Barack Obama’s luxury vacations,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said on Wednesday.

The records show that just two of the most recent Obama family vacations cost taxpayers more than $5 million dollars.

Secret service accommodations alone for the 2014 Martha’s Vineyard and Honolulu vacations cost taxpayers $1,243,057.

“Taxpayers, the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service are being abused by Barack Obama, who too often treats Air Force One and his security detail like some of sort of kingly entourage.” Fitton noted.

“Does Barack Obama really think that over $5 million for two family vacations, which include nearly $1 million in Secret Service hotel bills for a two week Martha’s Vineyard vacation, is an appropriate use of tax dollars?” the Judicial Watch President urged.

The group highlighted that in Martha’s Vineyard, the Obama family booked out a “plush, secluded seven-bedroom, nine-bath, 8,100-square-foot house in the exclusive Chilmark neighborhood.”

An earlier day trip to New York, just to “hang out with his girls” was said to have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In October, Judicial Watch revealed that in just two months the President spent close to $4.5 million on golfing and fundraising trips.

The documents showed that:

Obama’s February 14, 2015, golf outing to Palm Springs required a five-hour flight, costing taxpayers a total of $1,031,685.
Transportation for Obama’s February 19 day trip to Chicago cost taxpayers $619,011.00.
Transportation for Obama’s March 2015 fundraising trip to Los Angeles cost taxpayers $1,980,835.20.
Obama’s March 28, 2015, golf outing to Palm city required a 3.9-hour flight, costing taxpayers $804,870.30.

The two golf outings alone cost taxpayers $1,836,555 in travel expenses. Obama played a total of five rounds of golf, equating to a cost of $20,406 per hole.









—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com.

$19 Trillion and Counting: The Dangers of Unlimited Debt

Veronique de Rugy | Reason - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

The statutory limit on how much debt the federal government can accumulate is back in the news, but this time it's not because Washington is close to breaching it. That's not a present concern thanks to the year-end bipartisan spending spree that included a suspension of the debt limit until March 2017. The news is that a report from the House Financial Services Committee found that the Obama administration's Treasury Department has been repeatedly misleading the American public on the matter.

Treasury has routinely rejected the idea that once the government reaches the debt limit, federal spending could be prioritized to avoid a default. During a previous debate over the debt limit in 2011, my colleague Jason Fichtner and I wrote a paper explaining that even if Treasury is unable to issue more debt, it can still avoid a default and thus give policymakers more time to implement reforms that would put the government on a more sustainable fiscal path.

Contrary to Treasury's claims, we argued that it has several financial management options to continue paying the government's primary obligations. Specifically, Treasury could use incoming tax receipts to cover high priority claims including the interest on existing debt, the principal on that debt, Social Security benefits, and more. Government assets could also be liquidated to pay bills.

Treasury claimed that such options were neither acceptable nor feasible, and thus the only choice was for Congress to promptly agree to increase the debt limit. Then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claimed that prioritizing was out of the question and that failing to pay any of the government's bills would be the equivalent of defaulting on the debt. The same thing happened again during the administration's 2013 showdown with Congress over lifting the debt limit. This time it was Geithner's replacement, Jacob Lew, claiming that prioritization was not an option.

We now know that the administration's claims were untrue. As it turns out, documents subpoenaed by the House Financial Services Committee reveal that during the 2013 debt ceiling debate the Obama administration knew it was actually capable of prioritizing payments. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was conducting "tabletop exercises" in preparation for what the administration was publicly stating couldn't be done. The documents show that while Treasury was helping the administration scare the public, its behind-the-scenes actions proved otherwise.

While Treasury and the administration's deceptive behavior is disturbing, it's good news for the next battle over lifting the debt limit early next year. I have repeatedly made it clear in the past that I believe defaulting on the debt is not an acceptable option. However, continuing to raise the debt limit without making any substantive changes to the unsustainable financial path we are on is just as irresponsible. Under the watch of both Republicans and Democrats, the debt limit has been raised 20 times since 1993. The result is that the federal debt has ballooned from less than $5 trillion in 1993 to $19 trillion and counting today.

Deficits are also going back up thanks to a bipartisan inability to get spending under control. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections, cumulative annual budget deficits will add another $9.4 trillion in debt to the federal government's mountain of red ink. That figure is $1.5 trillion higher than the CBO projected less than six months ago.

Will Rogers once said, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Policymakers need to stop digging and instead implement institutional reforms that constrain government spending, which is the underlying cause of the mounting debt. Indeed, that should be a precondition to raising the debt limit next year. And this time we will know that Treasury has the means to give Congress the time to finally get it done.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

THE MEN BEHIND TED CRUZ: NEOCONS AND A CIA PROPAGANDIST

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is routinely billed by the mainstream media as a Tea Party outsider who is reviled by fellow Republicans as a “wacko bird” along with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan.

It is not simply his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs and investment banking or his unreported loan from the multinational investment banking firm, however, that betrays this image.

A closer look at Cruz reveals he is a neocon insider, not a renegade outsider.

His campaign manager, Chad C. Sweet, co-founded the Chertoff Group with former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Sweet, as a leader of the Chertoff Group, “advocated for expanding NSA metadata collection,” according to his bioon the risk-management and security consulting company’s webpage.

“Mr. Sweet formerly served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to becoming Chief of Staff of DHS, Mr. Sweet worked as an investment banker at the firms of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as well as served in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service,” the bio continues.

Cruz’s foreign policy advisor is the notorious neocon James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA during the Clinton administration. Woolsey is connected to the now largely defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank with an agenda formulated by top neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC was at the forefront of the Bush administration push to invade Iraq. He is a former vice president of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and an advocate of the neocon hardline on Iran.

Ted’s foreign policy team includes Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, a trailblazing neoconservative ideologue. Abrams was a key adviser on Mideast policy at the National Security Council (NSC) during the George W. Bush presidency and also a staunch advocate of the Iraq invasion, the hardline on Iran and military strikes against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Finally, the man in charge of public relations for the Cruz campaign is Dan P. Gabriel, a former CIA covert action officer and a founding partner of Applied Memetics, a company “focused solely on developing engineered influence for clients seeking to alter their tactical or strategic operational environments,”according to its webpage. The company specializes in propagating memes that ”can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus,” in other words Applied Memetics specializes in propaganda.

The latest Cruz meme is working hard to convince followers of Rand Paul, who dropped out of the race in the wake of the Iowa caucus, that Cruz “is the natural inheritor of the modern libertarian movement built by Ron Paul, which was especially resonant here in New Hampshire, where the elder Paul won second place four years ago,” CNN reports.

“Cruz’s entreaties appear to be paying off. A number of state legislators—in places ranging from here in New Hampshire to the Paul family’s Texas—signed onto the Cruz team.”

Ted Cruz is not even remotely a libertarian. He is a neocon masquerading as a champion of liberty. If nominated and elected he will continue the forever war agenda initiated by the Bush regime and further expand the high-tech surveillance police state.

Unfortunately many Republicans, desperate to beat Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in November, are buying into the illusion.

Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny

Bloomberg | By Eli Lake & Josh Rogin | FEB 4, 2016 6:00 AM EST

SHE'S USED TO SCRUTINY. PHOTOGRAPHER: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Now that several e-mails on Hillary Clinton's private server have been classified, there is a more immediate question than the outcome of the investigation: Should the former secretary of state retain her security clearance during the inquiry? Congressional Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different answers.

The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 e-mails from Clinton’s private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the e-mails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton’s home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. "I'm sure she does hold a clearance, and she should," he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the e-mails, told us, "It's important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it's appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances."

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. “I think that’s up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with,” he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 e-mails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. “They are definitely sensitive," he said. "Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.”

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the e-mails as top secret.

“There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff,” she said.

Clinton’s discussion of classified programs on an unclassified e-mail system is hardly rare. The issue, called “spillage,” has plagued the government for years. It can apply to anything from a spoken conversation about intelligence programs outside of a secure facility, to printing out a document with classified information on an insecure printer.

Still, it is forbidden. The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual says "transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted" is a "security violation." Such violations must be investigated by the State Department's own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton's security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: "The State Department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the e-mails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, "It's entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises."

William Leonard, who oversaw the government's security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of "spillage" was common. "The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual's unclassified e-mail account, it's almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified." He also said that in Clinton's case, "there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance."

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton's decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state "reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well."

The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It's an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI's investigation.

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts

Politico | By JOSH GERSTEIN | 02/03/16 05:33 PM EST

IMAGE CREDIT: GETTY

The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archives argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.

"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."

The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.

"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.

"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.

Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.

Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.

It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.

Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.

Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.

Why Bernie Sanders Has to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class

Daniel Bier | The Foundation for Economic Education | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.

Willie Sutton was one of the most infamous bank robbers in American history. Over three decades, the dashing criminal robbed a hundred banks, escaped three prisons, and made off with millions. Today, he is best known for Sutton’s Law: Asked by a reporter why he robbed banks, Sutton allegedly quipped, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Sutton’s Law explains something unusual about Bernie Sander’s tax plan: it calls for massive tax hikes across the board. Why raise taxes on the middle class? Because that’s where the money is.

The problem all politicians face is that voters love to get stuff, but they hate to pay for it. The traditional solution that center-left politicians pitch is the idea that the poor and middle class will get the benefits, and the rich will pay for it.

This is approximately how things work in the United States. The top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19 percent of total income and pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earn 12 percent and pay 3 percent. This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows net taxes paid and benefits received, per person, by household income group:

But Sanders’ proposals (free college, free health care, jobs programs, more Social Security, etc.) are way too heavy for the rich alone to carry, and he knows it. To his credit, his campaign has released a plan to pay for each of these myriad handouts. Vox’s Dylan Matthews has totaled up all the tax increases Sanders has proposed so far, and the picture is simply staggering.

Every household earning below $250,000 will face a tax hike of nearly 9 percent. Past that, rates explode, up to a top rate of 77 percent on incomes over $10 million.

Paying for Free

Sanders argues that most people’s average income tax rate won’t change, but this is only true if you exclude the two major taxes meant to pay for his health care program: a 2.2 percent “premium” tax and 6.2 percent payroll tax, imposed on incomes across the board. These taxes account for majority of the new revenue Sanders is counting on.

But it gets worse: his single-payer health care plan will cost 80 percent more than he claims. Analysis by the left-leaning scholar Kenneth Thorpe (who supports single payer) concludes that Sanders’ proposal will cost $1.1 trillion more each year than he claims. The trillion dollar discrepancy results from some questionable assumptions in Sanders’ numbers. For instance:

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible.
“In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion,” he writes in an email. “With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative.”

So unless pharmaceutical companies start paying you to take their drugs, the Sanders administration will need to increase taxes even more.

Analysis by the Tax Foundation finds that his proposed tax hikes already total $13.6 trillion over the next ten years. However, “the plan would [only] end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output.”

And the consequences will be truly devastating. Because of the taxes on labor and capital, GDP will be reduced 9.5 percent. Six million jobs will be lost. On average, after-tax incomes will be reduced by more than 18 percent.

Incomes for the bottom 50 percent will be reduced by more than 14 percent, and incomes for the top 1 percent will be reduced nearly 25 percent. Inequality warriors might cheer, but if you want to actually raise revenue, crushing the incomes of the people who pay almost 40 percent of all taxes isn’t the way to go.

These are just the effects of the $1 trillion tax hike he has planned — and he probably needs to double that to pay for single payer. Where will he find it? He’ll go where European welfare states go.

Being Like Scandinavia

Sanders is a great admirer of Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and many of his proposals are modeled on their systems. But to pay for their generous welfare benefits, they tax, and tax, and tax.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all capture between 20-26 percent of GDP from income and payroll taxes. By contrast, the United States collects only 15 percent.

Scandinavia’s tax rates themselves are not that much higher than the United States’. Denmark’s top rate is 30 percent higher, Sweden’s is 18 percent higher, and Norway’s is actually 16 percent lower — and yet Norway’s income tax raises 30 percent more revenue than the United States.

The answer lies in how progressive the US tax system is, in the thresholds at which people are hit by the top tax rates. The Tax Foundation explains,

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers.
The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent. …
Compare this to the United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

The reason European states can pay for giant welfare programs is not because they just tax the rich more — it’s because they also scoop up a ton of middle class income. The reason why the United States can’t right now is its long-standing political arrangement to keep taxes high on the rich so they can be low on the poor and middle.

Where the Money Is – And Isn’t

As shown by the Laffer Curve, there is a point at which increasing tax rates actually reduces tax revenue, by discouraging work, hurting the economy, and encouraging tax avoidance.

Bernie’s plan already hammers the rich: households earning over $250,000 (the top 3 percent) would face marginal rates of 62-77 percent — meaning the IRS would take two-thirds to three-quarters of each additional dollar earned. His proposed capital gains taxes are so high that they are likely well past the point of positive returns. The US corporate tax rate of 40 percent is already the highest in the world, and even Sanders hasn’t proposed increasing it.

The only way to solve his revenue problem is to raise rates on the middle and upper-middle classes, or flatten the structure to make the top rates start kicking in much lower. You can see why a “progressive” isn’t keen on making more regressive taxes part of his platform, but the money has to come from somewhere.

The bottom fifty percent don’t pay much income tax now (only $34 billion), but they also don’t earn enough to fill the gap. Making their taxes proportionate to income would only raise $107 billion, without even considering how the higher rates would reduce employment and income.

The top 5 percent are pretty well wrung dry by Sanders’ plan, and their incomes are going to be reduced by 20-25 percent anyway. It’s hard to imagine that there’s much more blood to be had from that stone.

But households between the 50th and the 95th percentile (incomes between $37,000 to $180,000 a year) earn about 54 percent of total income — a share would likely go up, given the larger income reductions expected for top earners. Currently, this group pays only 38 percent of total income taxes, and, despite the 9 percent tax hike, they’re comparatively spared by the original tax plan. Their incomes are now the lowest hanging fruit on the tax tree.

As they go to the polls this year, the middle class should remember Sutton’s Law.

DID HILLARY STEAL IOWA FROM BERNIE: HERE’S THE EVIDENCE SO FAR

The Daily Sheeple | JOSHUA KRAUSE | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

I don’t think anybody has any illusions about Hillary Clinton. And with the exception of her core supporters, I don’t think the people who voted for her have any illusions either. In their minds, she is simply the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless. It’s impossible to deny the fact that Hillary is a liar, a chronic flip-flopper, and most likely a criminal whose maliciousness knows no bounds. And now that the Iowa primary has come and gone, we may be able to add “cheater” to that list as well. Or at the very least, some powerful people in high places may have given her a hand in Iowa.

I’m no friend of socialism, nor do I approve of any of Bernie Sanders policies, but if we’re going have a political system that lets its citizens participate, then we always have to point out when electoral fraud is afoot. And this particular primary election looks incredibly shady.

For starters, everyone has been talking about the 6 delegates that Hillary won, each by coin toss. The odds of her winning 6 coin tosses in a row is 1 in 64. If half of those votes had been divided evenly to Bernie, he would have won. What people should be really asking themselves, is what are the odds of this many ties occurring in the first place? Or even one tie? Apparently it’s never happened before. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything, but it is suspicious when put into the context of more evidence.

Then there is the fact that the Democrats didn’t staff 90 of the precincts in Iowa. In other words, there are 90 precincts where it is impossible to know if the results were accurate. This amounts to about 5% of all the Democratic votes in Iowa. In a race this close, that is a pretty big deal.

And who could forget that Microsoft provided a free app to both political parties, that would help precinct officials count and validate the votes. This app called the election in favor of Clinton hours before anything was tallied. Of course, that’s pretty messed up considering this could convince some people to stay home. And the Sanders campaign admitted they were highly suspicious of Microsoft’s free software in the days leading up to the vote.

Why? Because Microsoft’s employees have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaign in the past. The company itself has also given money to the Clinton Foundation while she was working for the State Department. They were among dozens of other companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation while simultaneously lobbying to the State Department. Clearly, Microsoft has no business being involved in any high-profile election.

Finally, the most damning evidence so far comes from this video that was posted to C-SPAN’s website.

According to one person who was at the event, this was actually the second recount. Here’s what apparently happened.

So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to these primary elections, because this is nothing new. In 2012, there were plenty of dirty tricks employed against Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa and other states, which essentially killed his momentum and paved the way for Mitt Romney’s victory.

It should be clear to anyone with eyes and ears that American elections are a farce, and have been for a long time. If a candidate hasn’t paid his dues to the political and corporate elites of this country, and he hasn’t waited his turn, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning.

VIDEO: CLINTON VOTER FRAUD IN ACTION?

Steve Watson | Infowars | FEBRUARY 2, 2016

‘The hell is going on in this video?

This is, apparently, what a caucus looks like in a Presidential race in America in 2016.

The footage is taken from precinct #43 in Des Moines, Iowa, where supporters of Clinton and Sanders gathered to determine the delegate count for the candidates.


The description of the video, posted on the C-SPAN website, claims “Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus”.

Reports suggest that Sanders was winning during an initial vote, but when a recount was called, Clinton gained the lead.

One person who was at the event at Roosevelt High School took to Reddit to explain:

So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

The footage appears to verify this with the Clinton camp admitting they did not do a second full count and that “they just added the (new) people”.

“Does that add up right?” one of the organiser is heard asking the caucus chair, who replies “I don’t think so.”

Nevertheless, a challenge by Sanders supporters for a third count was rejected and Clinton was handed a victory.

This monumental cluster f*ck was just one 1,600 caucus sites around the state of Iowa. Who knows what went on elsewhere.

In another video, Clinton and Sanders supporters are seen remonstrating with caucus organisers in Ames who were attempting to move the caucus outside, refusing to start counting votes because their building was too full.

The incident led to much finger poiting and apparently many people abandoning the caucus and going home.

Reports also emerged from other locations where Hillary Clinton was handed victories on coin tosses, meaning she ultimately received more delegates.

Six coin tosses took place, according to reports, and Hillary won ALL of them. That carries a likelihood of 1.6%.

The overall Iowa results on the Democratic side have not been verified at time of writing. It appears to be a dead heat. Bernie Sanders has, however,called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count.

Cracks in America's economy are growing

CNN Money | by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney | January 29, 2016: 5:12 AM ET

America's economy hit the brakes during the holidays.

Some recent economic data even raises fears that we might be heading towards a possible U.S. recession in 2016. Big banks like Morgan Stanley (MS) estimate there's a 20% chance of recession this year.

On Friday, the government will release data that show how the U.S. economy fared in the last three months of the year. Many experts forecast that the U.S. economy barely grew -- about 1% or less -- between October and December of 2015 compared to a year ago.

Even the Federal Reserve admitted Wednesday that the economy "slowed" at the end of last year.

On Thursday, the bad news continued. A key sign of confidence is orders for new products and equipment -- known as "durable goods" -- placed by companies to power their business. Orders for durable goods fell 5% between November and December, according to the Commerce Department. That was a lot below expectations that orders would be flat.

It shows that some companies are delaying or deciding not to purchase any new piece of equipment they need.

The news on durable goods caused Barclays (BCS) to lower its GDP forecast to 0.4% on Thursday. Capital Economics, a research firm, admitted the new data posed risks "firmly to the downside" for its estimate of 1%.

Related: Apple CEO: 'extreme conditions' in global slowdown

Here are 3 more warning signs that the U.S. economy is heading in the wrong direction:

1. Americans are not spending much

U.S. economic growth depends on shoppers. Consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the nation's economic engine. Yet they're sending mixed signals: U.S. retail sales declined a bit in December and they were negative or flat seven times last year.

Consumer confidence has wavered too. It peaked at 98% in January 2015 but has since drifted down in general. Consumer confidence is currently 93%. While it's a lot better than what it was just a few years ago, any downward movement is still a cause for concern.

2. U.S. manufacturing already in recession

American factories are suffering from the global economic slowdown. Manufacturing makes up 10% of the U.S. economy, according to Morgan Stanley.

The key ISM manufacturing index has declined for six straight months, and its been negative -- below 50% -- for the last two months.

The strong dollar is making products manufactured in the U.S. more expensive overseas, lowering demand for American made goods. The slowdown in emerging market economies isn't helping trade either.

Related: U.S. economy: recession fears are growing

3. Corporate America is hurting

Earnings season isn't over yet but one thing is clear: American companies are making less money than a year ago. Put together, when America's biggest companies -- and employers -- suffer, the economy follows suit.

The S&P 500 -- the benchmark for U.S. stocks -- is down 7% so far in January. Apple, the nation's biggest company by market size, just announced record profits with a gloomy outlook ahead. It believes iPhone sales will decline in the first quarter of this year for the first time in 13 years.

Apple CEO Tim Cook expressed serious caution about the global economy. When a major American CEO raises the warning flag that's not good for the U.S. economy.

"We're seeing extreme conditions unlike anything we have experienced before just about everywhere we look," Cook said Tuesday.

Campaigning in style: How Jeb Bush blew through his warchest

Yahoo | By Michelle Conlin and Grant Smith | January 26, 2016

IMAGE SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA COMMONS

NEW YORK (Reuters) - There were stays at boutique hotels featuring rooftop pools, private soirees at members-only, jacket-and-tie clubs and fundraisers at the Four Seasons, the St. Regis and the Mandarin Oriental.

In the world of Jeb Bush, the campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has at times been a whirl of private planes and high-end affairs, according to the federal filings of Bush’s campaign and his Super PAC, Right to Rise, which can raise unlimited funds for Bush as long as it does not coordinate directly with him.

It is not unusual for U.S. presidential candidates to fly private or even sometimes stay in luxury hotels. But some disgruntled donors say they are unhappy with Bush's large outlays, which also include big spending on staff and tens of millions of dollars in ad buys.

Eleven of 16 major donors contacted by Reuters questioned whether it was money well spent, especially given how the one-time frontrunner has stumbled badly in the polls and is now facing questions about whether he should withdraw from the race.

(Graphic on Bush spending vs performance in polls http://tmsnrt.rs/1SKC4O1)

In contrast to Bush, Senator Ted Cruz, who is running second in national polls of Republican voters, favors cheaper accommodation options like Holiday Inn and often flies on budget carriers, campaign finance filings through the third quarter show.

Several members of the Bush camp vigorously rejected the donor critiques. Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said, “We are running a national campaign that is competing everywhere and we have made investments that have allowed us to do what serious campaigns must do to be competitive in the primary and general elections."

Ad-tracking firm SMG Delta says Bush's campaign and Right to Rise have spent $82 million on ads, significantly more than the three leading candidates in the Republican race: Donald Trump ($5 million); Senator Ted Cruz ($11 million) and Senator Marco Rubio ($49 million). The tracking firm’s data is more up to date than what has been reported so far in the federal filings.

"There is no return on investment on the Bush ad buys, zero,” said one high-dollar donor who asked not to be named, pointing to how the ads have done little, at least so far, to lift Bush in the polls or dent his opponents.

On Sunday, donors will learn just how much Bush has spent from his $100 million-plus warchest. That's when Republican and Democratic candidates and their Super PACs release their latest campaign finance reports. What is known so far is that Bush and Right to Rise spent at least $82 million, both in operating expenditures through the third quarter of 2015 and on ad spending through this month.

The campaign finance reports also show that between June 2015, when Bush formally announced his candidacy, and September, the Bush campaign spent $1.2 million on private planes versus the roughly $700,000 spent during the same period by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Cruz spent $158,000 on private planes, and Rubio $293,300. Trump flies around the country in his own Boeing 757.

MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS

The former Florida governor's spending pattern illustrates the limits of campaign donations: Even in an era when candidates can receive unlimited sums from wealthy donors, money doesn't guarantee success.

“They are burning money,” said a second major donor, who, like all the other high-dollar donors interviewed, asked not be named for fear of displeasing the Bush family.

“Look, this is not the election cycle to be spending like a silver-spoon Establishment candidate," said a third donor. "It just doesn’t look right,” the donor said, referring to the way income inequality has emerged as a key theme in the 2016 election.

Ambassador Jeanne Phillips, a member of the Right to Rise governance committee, laughed off the criticism.

“I’ve known Jeb for 30 years, so the idea that Jeb would allow anyone around him to be frivolous with money is hilarious, it’s ridiculous. The man is the most conservative, fiscally responsible person I’ve ever worked with.”

Bush’s campaign committee paid for all lodging on the campaign trail and the vast majority of private air charter, while Right To Rise paid for nearly all the known ad spending.

Money donated by both large and small donors kept the Bush camp traveling in style. There were stays at luxury hotels including the Wilshire in Beverly Hills, the Viceroy in Florida, the St. Regis in Dana Point, California, and the W in Stamford, Connecticut, the campaign finance filings show.

The filings do not offer a complete picture. It is not clear for example, how many nights were spent at each of the hotels or indeed whether it was Bush himself who stayed or staff members.

Bush isn’t the only candidate spending at high-end hotels, but it’s a high proportion of his overall hotel spending. He spent $125,000,or 70 percent of his total hotel spending between June and September on hotels defined as luxury or "upper upscale" luxury hotels by STR Global, which tracks supply and demand data in the hotel industry.

Cruz and Rubio each spent less on luxury hotels and a smaller proportion of their overall lodging expenses on them, at roughly 56 percent and 61 percent, respectively, federal filings through the third quarter show. Trump flies home nearly every night so he can sleep in his own bed.

POSH VENUES

Bush also spent more than $400,000 on renting facilities and catering at posh venues, including the Union League Club and the upscale beachfront 1 Hotel South Beach in Miami, where the campaign spent $60,000 last year. Rubio and Cruz spent roughly $265,000 and $185,000 respectively.

Bush defenders said the spending on high-end venues was simply how the donor world operated.

"If you can hold an event at a fancy hotel and raise millions, then it's well worth holding it at a swanky hotel” said Charlie Spies, counsel for Right to Rise.

Spies said Right to Rise had negotiated "below market" rates with vendors and consultants, including an overall compensation cap for staff.

Nevertheless the Bush camp has spent more on staff and consultants than any of the leading candidates. Starting roughly in the spring, Bush paid out about $8 million. Cruz spent just $2 million; Rubio, just under $2 million; and Trump, $1.7 million.

Overall, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have spent a small fraction of the $82 million Bush has reported paying out. Cruz spent $18.5 million and Rubio outlayed $32 million, according to the filings made so far.

Bush is certainly not the only candidate to spend big on the trail. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for instance, ran an expensive campaign and burned through nearly $10 million before quitting after three months.

Bush's prospects were far brighter last summer. Trump had yet to join the race and Bush was making headlines for the size of his warchest. His Super PAC had just cracked its goal of raising more than $100 million in just six months — an unprecedented haul in American politics.

To celebrate, Jeb’s parents and family welcomed their large network of well-heeled donors to their oceanside compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, where attendees were treated to rides in private trolley cars, lobster rolls and group photos with the sprawling Bush clan.

(Editing by Paul Thomasch and Ross Colvin)