RE: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

Source: Wikileaks
Published: Oct 20, 2016
Author: John Podesta et al
Post Date: 2016-10-20 13:22:45 by nolu chan
Views: 260

https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/786037534828617729/video/1

MicroSpookyLeaks™
@WDFx2EU7

Hillary Clinton reads from script during interview! WikiLeaks bombshell email MSNBC Chris Hayes Tax

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

WIKILEAKS - Re: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23288

RE: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

From:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
To: jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2016-01-11 19:06

Subject: RE: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

I think her repeating $1.62 in this format makes his argument. Would do that in a different format.

- - - - - - - - - -

*From:* Jake Sullivan [mailto:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 4:03 PM

*To:* Jennifer Palmieri

*Cc:* Dan Schwerin ; John Podesta < john.podesta@gmail.com>; Kristina Schake ; Brian Fallon ; Robby Mook < re47@hillaryclinton.com>; Christina Reynolds ; Mandy Grunwald ; Betsaida Alcantara < balcantara@hillaryclinton.com>

*Subject:* Re: Tax hit for Chris Hayes

Should we add the 1.62 a week line Podesta suggested?

Small thing but, I might say "he hasn't been able to show how he's gonna pay for it" rather than explained because didn't they put out a whole chart showing how they pay?

Otherwise I'm good.

- - - - - - - - - -

On Jan 11, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Jennifer Palmieri wrote:

I think this is good.

Plus Betsaida.

- - - - - - - - - -

*From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 3:50 PM

*To:* John Podesta ; Jake Sullivan ; Jennifer Palmieri ; Kristina Schake ; Brian Fallon ; Robby Mook ; Christina Reynolds ; Mandy Grunwald

*Subject:* Tax hit for Chris Hayes

HRC is going to call into Chris Hayes' show this afternoon to do her tax hit. How does this look to you guys?

  • Right now, the super-wealthy and big corporations are using every trick in the book to game the system and avoid paying billions in taxes. It’s wrong, and it’s bad for our economy. We can’t have one tax system for those at the top and another one for everyone else.

  • So today, I proposed adding a new “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and closing loopholes to make it harder to game the system. I’m also pushing for the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum rate for those at the top, and other reforms like closing the carried interest loophole that allows some hedge fund managers to pay a lower rate than a teacher or a nurse.

  • When it comes to taxes, there’s a clear choice in this election. Republicans candidates are promising huge new giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. And on the Democratic side, I am the only candidate pledging toraise middle class incomes, not middle class taxes.

  • You know, Senator Sanders, Governor O’Malley, and I share a lot of the same values and goals. We both want to make the economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. And the differences between us pale compared to what we see on the other side. But we *do* have differences.

  • I’m a progressive who likes to get things done. I measure every policy by whether it’s going to actually make life better for working families. And I’ve laid out how I’m going to pay for everything I’m proposing by making the wealthy pay their fair share.

  • Senator Sanders has a different approach. His agenda would add 18 to 20 trillion dollars in new federal spending, but he hasn’t explained how he’d pay for it. That’s a big risk, because it’s hard to make the arithmetic add up any other way than a big tax increase on middle class families. I don’t think that’s the right choice when incomes for most people have barely budged in years.

  • I like and respect Senator Sanders quite a lot, but I’m concerned that some of his ideas run the risk of hurting rather than helping. So I look forward to debating these differences in the campaign.

- - - - - - - - - -

Post Comment   Private Reply