Wikileaks: Hillary asked Bill Clinton to cancel Wall Street speech

Bill Clinton reaped more than $5 million from banking, tech and other corporate interests, according to financial documents filed by Hillary Clinton.

(AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Former President Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, at Washington Park in Cincinnati, Friday, Oct. 14, 2016.

Hillary Clinton's campaign asked former President Bill Clinton to cancel a speech to a Wall Street investment firm last year because of concerns that the Clintons might appear to be too cozy with Wall Street just as the former secretary of state was about to announce her White House bid, newly released emails show.

Clinton aides say in hacked emails released Friday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks that Hillary Clinton did not want her husband to cancel the speech, but after a "cool down period" was eventually convinced that canceling was the right step.

Campaign manager Robby Mook said he realized canceling the lucrative speech would disappoint both Clintons but "it's a very consequential unforced error and could plague us in stories for months."

The Clintons' paid speeches have been an issue throughout the campaign, particularly Hillary Clinton's private speeches to Wall Street firms. Hillary Clinton earned about $1.5 million in speaking fees before launching her presidential campaign, while Bill Clinton reaped more than $5 million from banking, tech and other corporate interests, according to financial documents filed by Hillary Clinton.

The campaign has never released transcripts of Hillary Clinton's speeches, but the hacked emails did reveal excerpts flagged by her advisers as potentially concerning.

In the excerpts, Clinton talked about dreaming of "open trade and open borders" in the Western Hemisphere. She also says politicians sometimes need to have "both a public and a private position" on issues.

Bill Clinton was scheduled to speak to Morgan Stanley executives in April 2015, a few days after his wife was set to launch her bid for president.

"That's begging for a bad rollout," Mook wrote in a March 11, 2015, email.

In a later email, Mook says he feels "very strongly that doing the speech is a mistake" with serious potential consequences for Hillary Clinton's campaign. "People would (rightfully) ask how we let it happen."

Hillary Clinton was scheduled to campaign in Iowa, "where caucus goers have a sharply more negative view of Wall Street than the rest of the electorate," Mook wrote. "Wall Street ranks first for Iowans among a list of institutions that 'take advantage of every day Americans,' scoring twice as high as the general election electorate. ... This is a very big deal in my view."

Clinton's longtime aide, Huma Abedin, assured Mook the next day that Clinton was fine with canceling the speech, especially if Bill Clinton agreed. The candidate "just needed a cool down period," Abedin wrote.

The emails were among thousands published this week by WikiLeaks, which has been releasing a series of emails hacked from the accounts of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

U.S. intelligence officials last week blamed the Russian government for a series of breaches intended to influence the presidential election. The Russians deny involvement.

What's motivating Russian involvement in US politics? The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Putin may be meddling in the US election because he believes the US has meddled in his own political affairs, pointed out Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institution senior fellow in foreign policy, in an August analysis of the situation.

When Putin decided to return to the Russian presidency for a third term, Russian demonstrators took to Moscow’s streets in 2011 and 2012 to protest the lack of alternative candidates and other perceived political violations. Putin has blamed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for fomenting and even financing these outbursts.

A second reason might be Russia’s asymmetric information advantage. Former KGB operative Putin is a master at using leaked information, intimidation, and blackmail to directly target foreign leaders, according to Dr. Hill.

The Kremlin has its own state-sponsored media machine to function as a “kind of massive pro-Putin Super PAC,” in Hill’s words. Meanwhile, Russian officials are skilled in using the very openness of the US media, which eagerly disseminates the leaked email information, as a means for their own ends.

Podesta's hacked messages offer insight into the various strategies and responses considered by those close to Clinton as they grappled with pitfalls in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, including the 2009 decision to use a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

In a separate email, Clinton aides discussed how to explain her 2001 support for an overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy system. Sanders was citing past criticism by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as evidence of Clinton's favoritism to Wall Street.

Clinton defended the vote in a TV interview earlier this year, saying she pursued language to ensure women received child support if a spouse went into bankruptcy. In a Feb. 7 email, adviser Ann O'Leary noted that Clinton had overstated her case: "She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence does not support that statement."

Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said Friday that the campaign has taken unspecified precautions to secure its emails. Asked whether officials were considering releasing all of Podesta's emails at once, Palmieri said, "That is what the Russians would like us to do and we are not going to do that."

Emails released Friday also show that Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, used a second alias to communicate with her mother's campaign: Anna James. Chelsea Clinton also used the alias Diane Reynolds, according to emails previously made public.

___

Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Catherine Lucey, Andrew Taylor and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.