• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • msnbc.com sites & shows:
  • TODAY
  • Rock Center
  • Nightly News
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • Morning Joe
  • Hardball
  • Ed
  • Maddow
  • Last Word
  • msnbc tv
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech & science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Rushing for online poker spoils, some US firms tie up with partners with a past
  • Recommended: Gov. Christie's pension issue: N.J. probe looks at running mate, double-dipping
  • Recommended: Edwards case: Denial of dismissal bid is anything but routine
  • Recommended: Bending to industry lobbying, Obama eases safety rules for some railroads
Investigative reporting by msnbc.com and NBC News, with your story ideas and documents. Share your ideas. Read about this new blog. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 7
    May
    2012
    7:08am, EDT

    Prostitute at center of Secret Service scandal: Agents were 'stupid brutes'

    The prostitute at the center of the Secret Service sex scandal speaks in her first American television interview, calling the agents "stupid brutes" and saying she's "not to blame for being attractive." NBC's Michelle Kosinski reports.

    By Michelle Kosinski and Denny Alfonso, NBC News

    Updated at 8:16 a.m. ET: MADRID, Spain -- A woman identifying herself as the Colombian prostitute at the center of a scandal involving U.S. Secret Service personnel has called the group of agents "stupid brutes" who put partying above President Barack Obama's security. 

    "These seem like completely stupid, idiotic people," Dania Londono Suarez said in an interview which aired on Monday's TODAY. "I don't know how Obama had them in his security force."

    She also accused the agents of "leaving their duty behind" and described them as "stupid brutes."


    The scandal broke in April when, in advance of Obama's arrival at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, agents allegedly brought prostitutes to their hotel rooms.  One of the men, Suarez told NBC News, refused to pay her for sex so she went to the police.

    So far, eight agents have lost their jobs as a result of the incident.

    Suarez, 24, said three men who approached and propositioned her and her friends were drinking vodka like it was water.

    "They liked to show off their bodies, great bodies, well-defined abs," Saurez said of the men she first met at a nightclub. "They liked attention." 

    NBC's Kristen Welker talks about the interview given by the woman in the middle of scandal, in which she alleges she did not know the men were Secret Service agents.

    The mother of a nine-year-old son said she made it perfectly clear to one that a night with her would cost $800.

    "And he accepted. And it was clear," she said. 

    But in the morning after they had had sex, the man gave her only $50 and ordered her out of the room, Suarez said. 

    "I am not to blame for being attractive," she told TODAY. "They are to blame -- for leaving their duty behind."

    Related stories:

    Prostitute at center of Secret Service scandal: 'I would have been able to get everything'

    Watch the most-viewed videos on msnbc.com 

    Colombia hookers not tied to cartels, terrorists, source tells NBC

    Some Secret Service agents agree to lie detector tests in prostitution scandal

    NBC: Prostitute's $50 fee for two agents triggered Secret Service scandal

    Members of elite unit among those suspended in Colombia

    More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Secret Service agents were 'brutes,' prostitute says
    • Meet Monsieur Caramel Pudding, France's next president
    • Al-Qaida releases video of American hostage
    • Report: Fake bomb exposes London Olympic security
    • Woman, child survive mauling by cheetahs 

    Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world

     

    1391 comments

    $800 versus $50... close enough. These fools have been around politicians too long. It shows both in their actions and in keeping their promises. An all night drunk is like the campaign before being elected... you wake up and only want to pay $50.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: colombia, scandal, secret-service, obama, featured, prostitute, dania
  • 4
    May
    2012
    11:17am, EDT

    Prostitute at center of Secret Service scandal: 'I would have been able to get everything'

    A woman identifying herself as the escort who had a confrontation with a Secret Service agent who refused to pay her fee spoke publically during a paid interview on a Colombian radio network. NBC's Mark Potter reports.

    By Erika Angulo
    NBC News

    A woman identifying herself as the Colombian prostitute at the center of a scandal involving U.S. Secret Service agents spoke publicly about the incident for the first time on Friday, telling a Colombian radio network that, had she been a terrorist, she could have easily pried loose details of President Barack Obama’s planned visit to Cartagena from the liquored-up agents. 

    Follow @nbcnightlynews

    “At that moment, if I had wanted to, or if I had been part of one of those terrorist groups, it's obvious I would have been able to get everything," the woman, Dania Londono Suarez, told Caracol Radio. 

    Suarez said the Secret Service personnel did not consume drugs, but “bought alcohol like one buys water” while partying at a discotheque in the tourist destination before inviting some of the “escorts” to return with them to the Hotel Caribe, where many members of Obama’s security detail were staying.


    Suarez said she didn't know if there were other girls or how many agents were involved. "I was at the bar with another girl, but left with him by myself. I was the only one." 

     

     

    Suarez said she made clear that she expected to be paid before departing with the agent whose refusal to pay her led to exposure of the misconduct. 

    “I was at a disco and he came over and told me 'sex,'" she said. "... I said, 'Baby, Cash, Money,' that I wanted money. He said, 'OK, baby. How much?' 'Eight hundred.' He told me, 'Eight hundred. OK, let's go. Come, come to hotel.'

    "It was obvious. I can't believe he would be so dumb or so stupid to think I wasn't going to charge him money."

    But she said that the agent had a change of heart when they awoke in his room about 6 a.m.

    Watch the most-viewed videos on msnbc.com 

    “When he was drunk he was the nicest guy, but when he woke up sober, he was another person,” Suarez said. “When I asked him for the money, he told me ‘Let go, bitch.’ He pushed me into the hallway and closed the door. He wouldn't come out. I kept pounding on the door. Hotel security came.  The called the head of the hotel's security and I explained what happened to him on the phone.” 

    NBC's Kristen Welker discusses an interview Friday by a Colombian woman who says she was at the center of the recent Secret Service prostitution scandal.

    Suarez, who has a 9-year-old son, said she traveled to Dubai after the incident but had returned to Colombia despite concern that she could face retaliation from the tarnished Secret Service personnel. 

    "I fear they will retaliate against me," she said. "I left my country, practically fled. Yes I am scared. I fear or my family and for my son. No one has threatened me, no one has come to see me, but their marriages have been wrecked, they're sharp shooters, because I've been doing some research and I know they do that."

    She also said her career as an escort is over: "I do not plan to that ever again," she said. "They ruined my life. They should have never published my pictures, my name." 

    Related stories:

    Colombia hookers not tied to cartels, terrorists, source tells NBC

    Some Secret Service agents agree to lie detector tests in prostitution scandal

    NBC: Prostitute's $50 fee for two agents triggered Secret Service scandal

    Members of elite unit among those suspended in Colombia

    The Secret Service has declined to comment on the interview. According to an official with the Secret Service the agency is close to completing its internal investigation of the incident, which occurred prior to the Summit of the Americas on April 14-15. 

    The 12 Secret Service personnel at the center of the investigation were among 175 members of the service in Colombia during Obama’s visit. They were among 135 staying at the Hotel Caribe, the source said.

    Seven of those members of the agency have resigned, one has been terminated and one has retired, NBC News has reported previously. Three others have been cleared of serious misconduct but given administrative punishment.  

    Meantime, a separate investigation into U.S. military personnel who were allegedly involved in the incident has been concluded and forwarded to a commander for review, military and defense officials tell NBC News. 

    According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the U.S. military investigator looking into the incident zeroed in on a dozen uniformed personnel assigned to the security operation -- seven Army personnel (six Special Forces Green Berets and one White House communications specialist); two Navy bomb detection specialists, two Marine dog handlers and one member of the Air Force whose duties were not specified. 

    SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Douglas Frazier will review the report and determine what, if any, punishment should be meted out. Once he formally accepts the findings of the investigation, he has four options: 

    • Clear any or all the individuals of any wrongdoing.
    • Administrative action (a letter of reprimand, usually a career-ender).
    • Non-Judicial punishment (reduction in rank and pay).
    • Criminal charges and court martial. 

    In the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, consorting with or procuring the services of a prostitute is prohibited and considered a criminal act.

    Erika Angulo is an NBC News producer based in Miami; NBC's Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and Kristen Welker of NBC's Washington, D.C., bureau also contributed to this report.

    More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Deal nears on blind China activist as US offers fellowship
    • Meet Monsieur Caramel Pudding, likely French president
    • Water access spurs resentment in West Bank
    • Suicide bombers kill 12, wound 110 in Russia
    • Apology to journalist fired for WWII surrender scoop
    • End of nuclear? Japan to shut down last reactor
    • Wild celebrations as Argentina nationalizes oil company

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Keep up with Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    849 comments

    As She says she could probably have gotten what ever info she wanted. It used to be that people with security clearances were indoctrinated into the idea that "loose lips sink ships". That so many were involved speaks volumes of how sloppy security has become. Janet can you explain how that happened …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: colombia, security, scandal, secret-service, obama, featured, prostitutes
  • 1
    May
    2012
    5:05pm, EDT

    Advance report of Obama's Afghanistan trip raises new security concerns

    President Barack Obama arrived in Kabul to sign a 10-year security agreement with Afghanistan. NBC's Chuck Todd and Jim Miklaszewski report.

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    When President Barack Obama arrived Tuesday in Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, it was supposed to be a secret, like his earlier visits to the dangerous region. But news of the trip leaked out hours earlier, raising new alarm bells about the president's security.

    The Afghan news station TOLONews reported early Tuesday that Obama had arrived in Kabul, hours before the White House's embargo on reporting the news was lifted. Other news organizations, including The New York Post and the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, cited that report, which was attributed to unnamed Afghan officials.

    The U.S. National Security Council and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul both denied the report, and Obama's official schedule indicated that he was still in Washington, meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in the Oval Office:


    President Barack Obama's official schedule for Tuesday indicated that the president was remaining in Washington all day.

    In fact, he had left Joint Base Andrews, Md., aboard Air Force One shortly after midnight Tuesday morning.


    M. Alex Johnson

    M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.


    In the face of the official denials, the Post removed its report, as did Buzzfeed, which deleted a tweet noting the news after an NSC official called it to argue that its report endangered Obama's life, it said.

    Obama's previous visits to Afghanistan, in March and December 2010, were unannounced for security reasons, and news of them didn't leak out. And strict security measures were in place Tuesday as well, including a White House embargo that prevented journalists traveling with the president from reporting the trip until Obama arrived at the Afghan Presidential Palace about 11:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m. ET), hours after the TOLONews report was published.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    But this time the news did get out, and at an uncomfortable time for U.S. security officials.

    The apparent breach comes in the wake of an incident last month in which members of the president's advance security team were reported to have picked up prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, before Obama's visit to the Summit of the Americas. Eight Secret Service agents have been forced to leave the agency as a result of the scandal.

    The Defense Department said it couldn't discuss the incident, and the White House didn't immediately return calls for comment. Editors at TOLONews did not respond to an email seeking comment.

    Ronald Kessler, a longtime political reporter who interviewed more than 100 active and former Secret Service agents for "In the President's Secret Service," a book on presidential security arrangements, told msnbc.com that an early report on a surprise visit "clearly endangers the president when he's going into a war zone."

    The biggest concern, he said, "is the possibility of attacks on the ground when (Obama) lands and thereafter."

    NBC News and other news organizations learned about the trip Tuesday but withheld reporting it until Obama arrived at the palace. But "the fact so many U.S. reporters knew about it made it easier for it to disseminate," Kessler said.

    Kessler suggested that the Obama administration follow the example of the administration of former President George W. Bush, "which did not let reporters know beforehand at all" when Bush traveled to Afghanistan.

    "They told the press pool that they were going to go on a trip, (but) they weren't told where," Kessler said. "It was not until they got on the airplane that they were told they were going to Afghanistan."

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Occupy activists fear becoming Democrats' 'pet'
    • Video: Woman, 81, uses hand sanitizer to fend off pit bull
    • Bin Laden's lair: Hatching plots with no one to execute them
    • Mom, son killed in separate car accidents hours apart
    • Anarchists nabbed in alleged plot to bomb Ohio bridge
    • EPA official resigns over 'crucify' philosophy

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    172 comments

    There is loyal opposition to the President and then there is the opposition of some on the extreme right. Many self professed Tea Partiers and others, are little more than confederates who wish the President harm. Not since Abraham Lincoln have we seen such a situation where a duly elected President …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: media, afghanistan, security, obama, featured, ronald-kessler, m-alex-johnson
  • 30
    Apr
    2012
    6:05pm, EDT

    U.S. official acknowledges drone strikes, says civilian deaths 'exceedingly rare'

    Counterterrorism advisor Jon Brennan outlined the use of drones, arguing that it's legal and has reduced the ability of al-Qaida to attack the U.S. NBC News senior investigative producer Bob Windrem and The National Journal's Yochi Dreazen discuss.

    By Michael Isikoff
    NBC News

    White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan on Monday spoke openly -- and at great length -- about what has long been one of the government’s most controversial official secrets:  the use of remotely piloted drones to kill suspected terrorists.

    In doing so, he became the first U.S. government official to acknowledge that the drone strikes sometimes kill innocent people, though he characterized such deaths as  “exceedingly rare.” But a new analysis by an independent Washington think tank estimates that more than 300 civilians have been killed by drones since President Barack Obama took office.

    In a major speech on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death during a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs, Brennan proclaimed that al-Qaida is now "on the path to its destruction."  But the headline was what he had to say about the drone program — long a forbidden subject for senior U.S. officials  — and how the U.S. government uses it.


    “The United States conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,” said Brennan, in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington, D.C., foreign policy think tank.  

    While it has been openly reported in the press for years, the use by the CIA of pilotless drones to kill members of al-Qaida has long been officially classified,  prompting government officials to talk obliquely about “lethal operations” and “removal” of terrorists. They have done so even as Obama has dramatically escalated the number of such attacks and made them the central component of the administration’s counterterrorism efforts.

    Saul Loeb / Getty Images

    White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan in a May 2, 2011, file photo.

    One U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told NBC News that the speech represents “a pretty big sea change for us” in terms of what officials will now be permitted to talk about. But the official said that while Brennan’s speech had been carefully vetted throughout the U.S. intelligence and national security community, there had been no formal declassification of the drone program. “The president can declassify anything he wants,” said the official, adding that Brennan – as the representative of the president — can speak about anything his boss wants him to discuss.   

    Under Obama, there have been an estimated 250 drone strikes in northwest Pakistan that have killed as many as 2,345 people, according to an analysis by the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that closely tracks the program. Such strikes have generated a storm of protest in Pakistan and stepped up demands by the Pakistani government to halt them.   

    In what he described as an effort to be more open with the American people, Brennan on Monday described an elaborate process under which senior government officials select targets for drone strikes. They must first determine whether a prospective target is a bona fide member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and poses a “significant threat” to U.S. interests.  The “lethal action” strikes are not used for “punishing terrorists for past crimes” or “seeking vengeance.” Instead, they are used to “stop plots” and “prevent future attacks,” citing as one example, targeting individuals  who possess “unique operational skills.”

    Read more reporting by Michael Isikoff in 'The Isikoff Files'

    Brennan  said the use of drones gives U.S. intelligence agencies the ability to use “laser-like” precision against the terrorists. But he acknowledged that "innocent civilians have been killed in these strikes." He said such instances have been "exceedingly rare, but it has happened.

    “When it does, it pains us and we regret it deeply, as we do any time innocents are killed in war," he added. 

    That passage of his speech alone was significant. In June 2011, Brennan said that in the previous year of operations in the government’s then-unspecified program to eliminate al-Qaida members, “There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.”   

    Brennan later changed that statement in response to questions by the New York Times, spurred in part by  reports about a May 6 strike in Pakistan that  hit a religious school, an adjourning restaurant and a house, killing 18 people. Although 12 militants were allegedly killed, British and Pakistani journalists on the scene reported that six civilians also died in the strike.

    In Brennan’s adjusted statement last year, he said, “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.”

    Brennan did not give any details on Monday about how rare civilian deaths have been. But according to the analysis by the New America Foundation, which relies heavily on local media and other reports from observers in Pakistan, about 17 percent of those who have been killed by drones since the program effectively began in 2004 were “non-militants.”  The foundation estimated that the  “non-military fatality rate” has since dropped to about 13 percent under Obama – as drone strikes have become more frequent and more precise.

    Those numbers translate to 471 civilian deaths, including 309 under Obama.

    Human rights groups — who have challenged the administration to be more open about its drone program — were not satisfied with the new details provided by Brennan’s speech.

    “It is not enough that care is taken to avoid harm to innocent civilians,” said Raha Wala, an official with Human Rights First. “Brennan's assertion that any 'member' of al-Qaida or 'associated forces' is legally targetable is wrong. Under the laws of armed conflict, only members of the enemy's armed forces, or those directly participating in hostilities or who perform a continuous combat function, may be targeted.”

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Video: Lucky fan survives 60-foot fall   | More top videos
    • Occupy activists fear becoming Democrats' 'pet'
    • Teens hit by car -- while tanning on rural road
    • Hiker beats hypothermia after 3 days lost in desert
    • EPA official resigns over 'crucify' philosophy

    430 comments

    Well blah, blah, blah. When you are fighting a war innocent people are going to die. When are the President and his people going to understand that what is secret must be kept secret (such as not announcing that it was Navy Seals who went in and got Osama). There was no reason for them to say we hav …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: pakistan, obama, featured, counterterrorism, drones, john-brennan
  • 31
    Jan
    2012
    11:23pm, EST

    Video: Michael Isikoff reports on Obama campaign finances

    President Obama's campaign released a report naming big money bundlers—including Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley CEOs--who have raised $71 million for his reelection and the Democratic National Committee. The Obama campaign collected $140 million in 2011 and had $82 million cash on hand at year's end. National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reports.

    3 comments

    Steve Spinner (who pushed for Solyndra) was one of his contributors ......no surprise there..... That's OK , once Mitt is the nominee .......Mitts backers will poor in funds to get Obama out..... If you understand our crushing debt dilemma , then you no , Obama's got to go.... Mitt would be a 1,000  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: spielberg, union, campaign-finance, obama, seiu, election-2012
  • 31
    Jan
    2012
    8:29pm, EST

    Spielberg, labor union are Obama backers; PAC raises less than GOP

    NBC's Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff takes a look at the released information on Super PAC fundraising and donors. Romney donors include Wall St. hedge fund managers and a Koch brother.

    By Bill Dedman, msnbc.com, and Michael Isikoff, NBC News
    with reporting by NBC's Azriel Relph and Lisa Riordan Seville

    Hollywood director Steven Spielberg and the Service Employees International Union were among the big donors to a Super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. Priorities USA Action filed the report Tuesday with the FEC showing $4.4 million raised to support the president's re-election.

    Spielberg chipped in $100,000, and the SEIU gave the largest amount,  $1 million.

    The total contributions to Priorities USA Action are, however,  far less than those being raised by the Super PACs for the Republican candidates and appear to put the group well behind its initial goal of raising $100 million on behalf of the president's re-election.

    But there are signs that the Obama Super PAC is being financed by a related non-profit group that is in turn raising money from secret donors. Such non-disclosing political entities were denounced in 2010 by President Obama. But in Tuesday night's filing, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action reported that it has gotten $215,234 from its non-disclosing sister group, Priorities USA, listing the funds as reimbursements for its operating expenses. As a nonprofit, Priorities USA is not required to file any public reports with the Federal Election Commission.

    Proirities USA Action and Priorities USA, which has already begun running attack ads on Mitt Romney,  were founded last year by two former Obama White House aides -- former deputy press secretary Bill Burton and political aide Sean Sweeney. Burton said in an email to NBC News that the two groups Priorities groups together have now raised a total of $6.7 million, adding: "I have no doubt we'll raise our goal. The question is when we'll raise it."

    The SEIU, which organizes workers in government jobs, health care and property services, has been a strong supporter of Obama. Its leaders have been named among the most frequent visitors to the White House, when the Obama administration released most of its visitor logs.

    Other donors to the Obama Super PAC include:

     The American Association for Justice PAC has contributed a total of $50,000 to the PAC, and has also given a total of $100,000.00 to the House Majority PAC, which supports Democrats.

    John C. Law is the managing director of Warland Investments, a major landowner in Cypress, Calif. He has given $100,000 to Priorities USA, and is a big donor to Democratic political causes.

    Akerman Senterfit is a law and lobbying firm with locations throughout the U.S. Records show $20,000 going to Priorities USA from the firm, and another $10,000 from Joseph L. Falk, who specializes in the mortgage banking industry at the firm.

    William E. Little Jr. gave $150,000. He is chairman of George Little Management, LLC, a large producer of trade shows for consumer goods in the United States, and a Bates College trustee.

    Lenny Mendonca gave $50,000. He is a direcdtor in the San Francisco office of McKinsey & Co., chairman emeritus of the Bay Area Council, and chairman of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. He is the former chair of Repair California, the organization behind the call for a limited Constitutional Convention to address the structural elements that have made governing California so difficult. He serves on the board of The New America Foundation.

    The full list is here.

    Tuesday is the day for the so-called Super PACS to file an annual report of donors. NBC News and msnbc.com will be scouring the filings, and posting details. We'll have updates on msnbc.com, and could always use your help identifying the economic and political interests behind the names.

    The political action committees must disclose by midnight tonight who gave them money, and how much they spent to support or oppose candidates in the presidential race, including the Republican candidates and President Obama as well.

    The official deadline for filing is midnight ET (12 a.m. Wednesday), so reports may trickle in. And it wouldn't surprise us if some campaigns file late tonight as attention is focused on voting results in the Florida Republican primary.

    Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

    Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

    Tracking Image

    95 comments

    There's something wrong when Unions are allowed to take corporate money (union dues), and then use it to play politics , which is not in the corporations' best interest.usually against corporations. And, When will the workers Wake Up and realize they're paying WAY too much union dues if unions have  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: spielberg, union, campaign-finance, obama, featured, seiu, election-2012
  • 31
    Jan
    2012
    4:39pm, EST

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    President Obama's campaign released a report naming big money bundlers—including Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley CEOs--who have raised $71 million for his reelection and the Democratic National Committee. The Obama campaign collected $140 million in 2011 and had $82 million cash on hand at year's end. National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reports.

    By Michael Isikoff, NBC News
    with reporting by NBC's Azriel Relph and Lisa Riordan Seville

    The Obama campaign on Tuesday released an updated list of 445 major "bundlers" of campaign contributions, including a "Desperate Housewives" star, a Silicon Valley mogul, and a former Energy Department advisor who pushed a government loan for the now bankrupt Solyndra solar company.

    The report provides new evidence of just how important big money bundlers are in presidential campaigns. In all, the 445 bundlers raised $74 million to $100 million for the Obama re-election campaign, the campaign reported, according to totals calculated by NBC from the rough ranges the campaign reported for each person's collections. Just 61 elite fundraisers among that group brought in at least $30 million, or at least $500,000 apiece.

    The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group, calcuated that the bundlers raised $35 of every $100 raised by the Obama campaign groups since April, when he launched his re-election campaign.

    Among the newly named bundlers who have raised at least $500,000 or more for the Obama re-election are Marc Benioff, a Silicon Valley computer tycoon who founded Salesforce.com and hosted a fundraiser for the president at his home last spring; Jack Rosen, a prominent New York real estate developer who is chairman of the American Jewish Congress; and Kawana Brown, the chief operating officer of Magic Johnson Enterprises.

    Altogether there are 88 newly disclosed bundlers for the president's campaign. Those raising $200,000 to $500,000 include Eva Longoria, the Desperate Housewives actress; Stewart Bainum, chairman of Manor Care and Choice Hotels International; Joel Cantor, owner of Cantor Partners real estate firm; and Mai Lassiter, wife of film producer James Lassiter.

    The Obama list of $500,000 bundlers includes some notable names that have previously been disclosed, such as Hollywood moguls Jeffrey Katzenberg (who has also donated $2 million to an Obama superpac), film producer Harvey Weinstein, and UBS Americas chairman Robert Wolf.

    One of the president’s top bundlers, former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, recently caused embarrassment for the campaign when his investment  firm, MF Global, filed for bankruptcy, triggering an FBI investigation into whether its clients’ money had been mishandled. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee last month returned over $70,000 of funds donated by Corzine  and his wife.

    Another name previously disclosed is a former Energy Dept. adviser, Steve Spinner, of Menlo Park, Calif., who pushed the controversial funding of the Solyndra energy company. Emails uncovered by a Congressional committee last fall showed that Spinner, while on an Energey Department board, repeatedly pushed officials to finalize a loan for Solyndra before Vice President Joe Biden visited the company in September 2009. "What is he waiting for?" Spinner wrote to a DOE official. I have the OVP [Office of the Vice President] and WH [White House] breathing down my neck on this."

    Other names on the list include:

    David Cohen, the executive vice president of Comcast, the cable firm that owns NBC and is co-owner of msnbc.com

    Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue

    Laura Ricketts, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs

    Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey and former chairman of bankrupt MF Global Holdings

    Thomas Carnahan, founder of wind farm company Wind Capital Group

    Andrew Tobias, Miami, financial writer

    Crystal Nix-Hines, lawyer and Hollywood writer

    Mark Gallogly, private equity investor and member of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board

    The full list is here.

    In an official filing with the FEC, the campaign's fundraising arm, Obama for America, reported having $82 million cash on hand at year end. It raised $40 million in the last quarter. A related campaign arm, Obama Victory Fund, reported raising $24 million in the last quarter, finishing the year with $1 million on hand. The Obama Victory Fund, controlled by the campaign, jointly contributes to the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

    Overall, 61 Obama fundraisers are now in the highest bundler category, "$500,000 plus," 20 more than were on the previous list of 41 listed last fall.

    The Obama campaign is so far the only presidential campaign to voluntarily disclose its bundlers, fundraisers who are key to a presidential campaign’s success because they collect  checks en masse from multiple donors,  giving them far more clout than individual contributors who are still limited to giving $2,500 a piece.  Although John McCain and Obama both disclosed their bundlers in 2008.

    Update: Mitt Romney released a short list of bundlers on Tuesday, but only the names required by law to be disclosed, because they are lobbyists. Those names are here.

    President Obama, as a United States senator, proposed legislation in 2007 that would have required disclosure of supporters who raised $50,000 or more. That legislation was not enacted, but Obama voluntarily released names during his campaign and during his term in office.

    Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

    563 comments

    "showing that just its 61 elite fundraisers brought in at least $30 million for the president’s re-election" 500G per fundraiser... Same old same old...

    Show more
    Explore related topics: campaign-finance, obama, featured, election-2012
  • 31
    Jan
    2012
    8:45am, EST

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

    Comedian Stephen Colbert sat down with Rock Center Special Correspondent Ted Koppel to talk about the influence of Super PACs in this year's election.  While joking with Koppel, Colbert also got serious, telling the backstory of how he formed his Super PAC. 

    By Bill Dedman
    Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com

    Tuesday is the day for the so-called Super PACS to file an annual report of donors. NBC News and msnbc.com will be scouring the filings, and posting details. We'll have updates on msnbc.com, and could always use your help identifying the economic and political interests behind the names.

    TV political satirist Stephen Colbert kicked off the reporting by filing a statement showing $1 million in contributions to his group, Americans for A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. You can see his announcement and filing here.

    "'Yeah! How you like me now, F.E.C?" Colbert told the Federal Election Commission in a cover letter. "I'm rolling seven digits deep! I got 99 problems but a non-connected independent-expenditure only committee ain't one!''


    "We raised it on my show," Colbert told his fans, "and used it to materially influence the elections -- in full accordance with the law. It's the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country."

    Colbert had fun on his show Monday night with some of the bogus names of donors listed on his report: Pat Magroin, Ibin Yerkinoff, and Frumunda Mabalz.

    The political action committees must disclose by midnight tonight who gave them money, and how much they spent to support or oppose candidates in the presidential race, including the Republican candidates and President Obama as well.

    The official deadline for filing is midnight ET (12 a.m. Wednesday), so reports may trickle in. And it wouldn't surprise us if some campaigns file late tonight as attention is focused on voting results in the Florida Republican primary.

    Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

    Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    569 comments

    What Stephen Colbert has done is exposed how flawed the election system has become, especially at the federal level. When Corporations can be classified as people/persons we as a county have made a wrong turn. I love this quote! “As a friend of mine from Texas says, he will believe corporation …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: santorum, gingrich, campaign-finance, obama, romney, paul, featured, colbert, cain, election-2012
  • 30
    Jan
    2012
    9:07am, EST

    How do we keep candidates from lying over and over?

    By Bill Dedman
    Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com

    Why doesn't the fact-checking come first?

    After a presidential debate, even before the debate has ended, we're able now to read fact-checks from Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact and many news organizations.

    But shouldn't the candidates get their facts straight and tell the truth in the first place?

    "American politics has become a battle of talking points," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and Washington bureau chief for The Tampa Bay Times. "Once candidates find a talking point they like, they often stick with it — even when fact-checkers say it's wrong."

    Perhaps the first questions in the next presidential debate should be something along these lines...

    For Newt Gingrich:

    Former Speaker Gingrich, in debate after debate, you've taken credit for balancing four federal budgets when you were the speaker of the House. As has been pointed out repeatedly by fact-checking organizations, the four years of balanced budgets were fiscal 1998 through 2001, but you were in office for only the first two of those budgets. You left the House in January 1999 and had no role in crafting the budgets for the subsequent two years. In addition, you opposed the two tax-raising deals that were largely responsible for balancing the budget. (Fact-checks here from The New York Times and here from The Washington Post.)

    Similarly, you said that people can use food stamps "to go to Hawaii," claimed that the ethics charges against you were conducted by "a very partisan political committee," and said that "no federal official at any level is allowed to say 'Merry Christmas.'" 

    All these statements were false, according to PolitiFact.

    PolitiFact scorecard on Gingrich

    Equal-time: Questions for the other candidates are below 

    It's been nearly five years since PolitiFact and a host of similar services started debunking the most outrageous statements. In that time, have the candidates become more honest?

    "Not overall, but we've seen glimpses that they will alter their wording after we've called out a falsehood," Adair said. "For example, the way Newt said the balanced budget line in the last debate was more accurate, because he didn't say the four consecutive years were when he was speaker. So maybe he responded to the fact-checking."

    Here are specific follow-up questions for each of the current Republican candidates, as well as President Barack Obama, based on fact-checking by PolitiFact and the major newspapers:

    For Mitt Romney:
    Former Governor Romney, in every debate so far, you've said something like, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part of why we have the housing crisis." But studies have shown that Fannie and Freddie were late to invest in subprime mortgages, following the lead of Wall Street firms that you never mention. (Fact-check from The New York Times here and here.) The unspoken narrative in your comments, and those of the other candidates, panders inaccurately to those who want to believe that loans to unworthy minorities, driven by the Community Reinvestment Act, caused the financial crisis. In fact, most subprime loans were made by lenders who were not covered by the CRA, but who were driven by the need for profits to satisfy their Wall Street investors. Are you trying to deflect blame from Wall Street?

    Similarly, you have said repeatedly that President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America," said "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign," and claimed that President Obama's health care law "represents a government takeover of health care."

    All false, according to PolitiFact.

    PolitiFact scorecard for Romney.

    For Rick Santorum:
    Former Senator Santorum, you have repeatedly criticized Gov. Romney's health insurance program in Massachusetts for the so-called individual mandate, for requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Why not mention that in 1994, when you were running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, you supported an individual mandate.

    Similarly, you said that an Obama administration policy prohibits people who work with at-risk youth from promoting marriage as a way to avoid poverty, claimed that "a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion," and said, "Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed." 

    All false, according to PolitiFact.

    PolitiFact scorecard for Santorum.

    For Ron Paul:
    Representative Paul, you've said that the United States "is bankrupt." The country isn't unable to pay its debts, nor is it impoverished. The credit rating of the United States is AA+ at Standard & Poor's (one step below the top of a 20-step scale), and AAA at the other rating agencies.

    Similarly, you claimed that only a few sentences in your racist and conspiratorial newsletters were inflammatory, that the majority of the American people believe we should go back on the gold standard and that you never vote for legislation unless it's specifically authorized in the Constitution.

    All false, according to PolitiFact.

    PolitiFact scorecard for Paul.

    And in the general election, maybe the first question to the incumbent could start something like this:

    For Barack Obama:
    President Obama, you've said that most of the money for your campaign came from small donors, that you've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs, that you haven't raised taxes once.

    All false, according to PolitiFact.

    You've claimed that your opponents plan to cut funding for Israel to zero. PolitiFact rated that claim "Pants on Fire," its lowest rating.

    "One theme we've seen in Obama's statements," says PolitiFact's Bill Adair, "is that he is exaggerating how he has fulfilled promises. We know this, of course, because we keep track of all 500+ promises on our Obameter."

    PolitiFact scorecard for Obama and Obameter keeping track of his campaign policies

    Should the candidates be asked: As you prepare for a debate, is part of your preparation to remind yourself, whatever I say, I should play it straight with the American people? Aren't you embarrassed to repeat statements that any 8th-grader could look up in 20 seconds and discover have been proven untrue? Or do you calculate that it's acceptable to twist the facts to win an election?

    Readers, what do you think? What would make the candidates stick to the facts? Add your comments below. 

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas or documents with Open Channel

    Facebook Follow Bill Dedman on Facebook

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Follow Bill Dedman on Twitter

    Twitter Follow Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    793 comments

    PolitiFact itself is unreliable. They find facts, then subjectively skew the results in their ratings. The word "fact" is not the botom line. Their name should be politifactopinion. Reporting facts and arbitrating facts with assumed superiority may not be political, but is arrogant because facts sho …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: santorum, gingrich, obama, romney, paul, featured, election-2012
  • 26
    Jan
    2012
    4:49pm, EST

    No, President Obama isn't actually proposing to cut defense spending

    A lot of rhetoric is being thrown about in discussing the Pentagon budget. Reporter R. Jeffrey Smith from the Center for Public Integrity takes a look at what's actually been proposed by President Obama, in his explainer, "Puncturing the hot air balloons on defense spending: A reader's guide to the debate in 2012." The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative reporting group in Washington.

    Smith's takeaway summary:

    Obama’s national security spending plan does not cut the defense budget. Even if his proposal is enacted, U.S. defense spending will continue to dwarf the rest of the world’s. The new U.S. military strategy was concocted to accommodate the proposed budget trims, not vice versa. Sequestration is a threat, not a promise. And no matter what politicians say or do this year, U.S. defense spending will remain vulnerable to real cuts. The important question in the years ahead is, which military programs will survive and which will go away.

    Read the full story here from the Center for Public Integrity.

    83 comments

    Panetta and the generals say there is a 13% cut in military spending. A far left think tank says it isn't. I'll go with Panetta and the generals. More bullshiite we've come to expect from MessNBC and Obama.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: defense, military, obama, featured, election-2012
  • 18
    Apr
    2011
    11:33am, EDT

    Obama's White House visitor logs: less than full disclosure

    By Bill Dedman
    Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com

    The Center for Public Integrity and Politico have an interesting follow-up story on the lists of visitors to President Barack Obama's White House. Readers may remember that msnbc.com pursued the visitor logs persistently, reporting in a series of articles on gaps in the White House release of public records.

    Here's the gist of Politico's story:

    The White House website proudly boasts of making available “over 1,000,000 records of everyone who’s come through the doors of the White House” via a searchable database.

    Yet the Center’s analysis shows that the logs routinely omit or cloud key details about the identity of visitors, whom they met with and the nature of their visits. The logs even include the names of people who never showed up. These are critical gaps that raise doubts about the records’ historical accuracy and utility in helping the public understand White House operations, from social events to meetings on key policy debates.

    The reporters point out how few visitors are recorded with the former White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, with visitors apparently ascribed to underlings who set up meetings.

    Read the rest of the story by Viveca Novak and Fred Schulte, on Politico's website.

    As we've pointed out before, another weakness in the records is that they give no hometown, and often no affiliation. Knowing a name is not enough to know whether the name listed is the same as a person who represents a particular lobbying interest.

    And the White House has not released most of the records from the first eight months of the administration. To find out whether someone visited during that period, a member of the public or journalist must guess at the names. The administration will confirm a visitor during that period, but won't release the list wholesale. The White House says the Secret Service data system was not set up for wholesale release during that period, with confidential and security information mixed in with visitor logs.

    Still today, the Obama White House takes the same position as its predecessors, arguing that its release of visitor logs is voluntary. Msnbc.com and others have argued, and federal courts have ruled, that release is required under the Freedom of Information Act, because these are agency records under the control of the Secret Service. (Agency records are subject to the FOIA law, while White House records are not.)


     

    The Obama administration argues, correctly, that it is the first to release wholesale information on visitors. Still, it's also true that it did so under pressure from the press and advocacy groups, and that its release of information has been less than 100 percent.

    Stories in our msnbc.com series on the White House visitor logs:

    • Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
    • After lawsuit, Obama opens a bit of info on meetings with health care executives.
    • Obama yields on most White House visitor logs
    • Help figure out who has been lobbying Obama
    • Obama names 110 White House visitors
    • Obama is sued for White House visitor list

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Keep up with Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    2 comments

    Different clowns...same circus. Some things never change.....Even from someone who promised 'Change You Can Believe In'......LOL......

    Show more
    Explore related topics: obama, documents, foia

Browse

  • featured,
  • documents,
  • investigative-reporting,
  • reading,
  • al-qaida,
  • election-2012,
  • nbc,
  • terrorism,
  • huguette-clark,
  • campaign-finance,
  • windrem,
  • investigation,
  • obama,
  • iran,
  • pakistan,
  • nuclear,
  • wikileaks,
  • isikoff,
  • arizona-shooting,
  • u-s,
  • osama-bin-laden,
  • palin,
  • fbi,
  • environment,
  • penn-state,
  • romney,
  • health,
  • japan,
  • earthquake,
  • colombia,
  • secret-service,
  • military,
  • wealth,
  • egypt,
  • yemen,
  • pentagon,
  • cia,
  • plot,
  • real-estate,
  • investigative,
  • 9-11,
  • sexual-abuse,
  • gingrich,
  • gadhafi
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Bill Dedman

Investigative reporter Bill Dedman of msnbc.com is always looking for good investigative story ideas and documents. Bill received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, and has written full time for msnbc.com since 2006.

Bill Dedman Blogroll

  • Bill's investigative reporting feed on Twitter
  • ABC News The Blotter
  • Center for Investigative Reporting
  • Center for Public Integrity
  • Center for Public Integrity's Paper Trail blog
  • Huffington Post Investigative Fund
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors' Extra! Extra!
  • McClatchey blog Nukes & Spooks
  • New York Times' City Room Records blog
  • New York Times' Open data blog
  • ProPublica
  • ProPublica blog
  • Yahoo! News The Upshot
  • TPM Muckraker
  • Washington Post Investigations
  • WhoWhatWhy forensic journalism
  • New England Center for Investigative Center at Bos
  • Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
  • Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting
  • Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, B
  • MinnPost.com
  • The Washington Independent
  • AU Investivative Reporting Workshop
  • Become a fan on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
Have an idea?
Send your ideas and documents for investigative stories.

Rich Gardella

Rich Gardella is an investigative producer, off-air reporter and digital journalist with NBC News, based in Washington, DC at the NBC News Washington Bureau. He joined NBC News in 1991. His work has appeared on NBC Nightly News, the TODAY Show, MSNBC and MSNBC.com.

Michael Isikoff

Michael Isikoff joined NBC News in July 2010 as national investigative correspondent. He had been at Newsweek since 1994 as an investigative correspondent. He has written extensively on the U.S. government's war on terrorism, the Abu Ghraib scandal, campaign-finance and congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and other national issues.

Amna Nawaz

Amna Nawaz is a producer and video journalist with NBC News, based in the network's Washington bureau. She has worked in the Middle East, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe and her work has appeared on "NBC Nightly News," "The Today Show," "Dateline NBC," and MSNBC.

Mike Brunker

Mike Brunker is the Projects Team editor at msnbc.com. He's worked for the site as a reporter and editor since August 1996. Before that, he was an editor at the San Francisco Examiner and Hayward Daily Review in California.

Mike Brunker Blogroll

  • White Collar Crime Prof blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy: Legal news now
  • Frederick Lane Blog -- legal news
  • Social Networking Law Blog
  • Sports Law Blog
  • Business of Horse Racing Blog
  • The Long War Journal
  • The Red Tape Chronicles -- consumer/tech news

Azriel James Relph

Azriel James Relph is a researcher for NBC News Investigations. He is a graduate of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, and was a reporter for several years at the Hunts Point Express -- a South Bronx newspaper serving the poorest Congressional District in the United Sates. He has written for Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and MSNBC.com.

Robert Windrem

Robert Windrem is investigative producer for special projects at NBC Nightly News. He is also a Fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. He has worked at NBC News for more than three decades, focusing on issues of international security, strategic policy, intelligence and terrorism.

M. Alex Johnson

M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com specializing in national affairs, technology and data analysis. He joined msnbc.com in 1999 from The Washington Post.

M. Alex Johnson Blogroll

  • Alex Johnson — Journalist at Large
  • Ars Technica
  • Krebs on Security
  • GetStats
  • Technolog
  • Sophos Security Trends
  • Muckety
  • Pew Internet Research
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors
  • Fund for Investigative Journalism
  • Data Journalism Blog
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on Facebook
Follow Alex
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Archives

  • 2012
    • May (28)
    • April (28)
    • March (24)
    • February (38)
    • January (42)
  • 2011
    • December (27)
    • November (23)
    • October (15)
    • September (9)
    • August (6)
    • July (11)
    • June (12)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (11)
    • February (11)
    • January (21)
  • 2010
    • December (11)
    • November (13)

Most Commented

  • Gov. Christie's pension issue: N.J. probe looks at running mate, double-dipping (888)
  • Spy who uncovered underwear bomb plot is British national, sources say (194)
  • Yemen terror group may have made more underwear bombs, US officials say (157)
  • Edwards case: Denial of dismissal bid is anything but routine (109)
  • 'Puppet' and 'Stooge': al-Qaida chief al-Zawahiri issues message on Yemen (77)
  • Super PACS: Follow the money - if you can (76)
  • Rushing for online poker spoils, some US firms tie up with partners with a past (37)
  • Bending to industry lobbying, Obama eases safety rules for some railroads (10)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • Gadgetbox
  • Technolog
  • Daryl Cagle's Cartoon Blog
  • InGame

msnbc.com top stories

3147,10
© 2012 msnbc.com
  • US news on msnbc.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Terms & Conditions
  • MSN Privacy
  • Legal
  • Advertise
Advertise | AdChoices