2016 POTUS Election Thread

Cowboysrock55 said:

Yeah the best measure would be dollar increase adjusted for inflation. Percentage is a pretty meaningless statistic when it comes to an increase in the deficit.

Click to expand...

Of course it is when St. Ronnie is doing all the damage.

L.T. Fan said:

Dealing strictly with percentages can be a little deceiving as to actual dollar changes. The actual numbers show the amount the deficit increases while percentage of increase compares one amount to another. Example a billion dollar increase in the amount this year may be say 20 % of the amount of this years deficit over last year but last years deficit was a half billion but and was still 40% of the previous years deficit.

Amounts and percentages are thrown around with a lot of spin. The actual dollars are still increasing the overall deficit at a record pace even though the increase may not be as high a percent this year but still a deficit. It's confusing. Just look at the actual dollar figure to get a truer representation.

Click to expand...

I would think otherwise, inflation tells us the number is just going to keep getting bigger and the bigger the debt the harder to get from under it. So I would consider a better barometer to see percentage wise how much it increased.
Especially when comparing along the last almost 40 years, Reps spent more than Dems, WHY?

Angrymesscan said:

I would think otherwise, inflation tells us the number is just going to keep getting bigger and the bigger the debt the harder to get from under it. So I would consider a better barometer to see percentage wise how much it increased.
Especially when comparing along the last almost 40 years, Reps spent more than Dems, WHY?

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you just adjust for inflation?

It shouldn't be that difficult to adjust for inflation. If every President increased the debt 100% the later ones would be doing far more damage then the earlier ones. It's why percent is a inaccurate statistic in this situation. To use it would literally be meaningless.

By the way, FDR is the worst President according to percentage and was a Democrat but again, could care less. Show me what he spent, after adjusting for inflation.

Angrymesscan said:

I would think otherwise, inflation tells us the number is just going to keep getting bigger and the bigger the debt the harder to get from under it. So I would consider a better barometer to see percentage wise how much it increased.
Especially when comparing along the last almost 40 years, Reps spent more than Dems, WHY?

Click to expand...

Not debating who spends more just making a point about the approach to analysis. A look at each years budgets and who was in control would possibly indicate what you are asking. At the same time however the budget appropriations arent necessarily just who is president at the time. Congress control has a lot to do with it also. It is more of an analysis than just Presidents and deficits. Spending And appropriating is done at various levels and political affiliations.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Why wouldn't you just adjust for inflation?

It shouldn't be that difficult to adjust for inflation. If every President increased the debt 100% the later ones would be doing far more damage then the earlier ones. It's why percent is a inaccurate statistic in this situation. To use it would literally be meaningless.

By the way, FDR is the worst President according to percentage and was a Democrat but again, could care less. Show me what he spent, after adjusting for inflation.

Click to expand...

I agree with your methodology for comparing one year to the next for actual increases in expenditures. Trying to sort out which parts of the budget were appropriated for party preferences is a little more difficult. Some things are heavy democratic sponsored programs while others are pro republican. It takes a bit of midnight oil to sort it out notwithstanding the seated Presidency.

Just to clear things up, I'm not a D or R, I'm just trying to understand. It's one of those things we as outsiders can't quite comprehend like the whole Rep are pro life AND pro death penalty and Dems are pro choice AND against death penalty.
Why is there not a huge difference in goverment spending where those that are against big government (R) spend much less than the others?

Angrymesscan said:

Just to clear things up, I'm not a D or R, I'm just trying to understand. It's one of those things we as outsiders can't quite comprehend like the whole Rep are pro life AND pro death penalty and Dems are pro choice AND against death penalty.
Why is there not a huge difference in goverment spending where those that are against big government (R) spend much less than the others?

Click to expand...

They still believe in Trickle Down Economics

Angrymesscan said:

Just to clear things up, I'm not a D or R, I'm just trying to understand. It's one of those things we as outsiders can't quite comprehend like the whole Rep are pro life AND pro death penalty and Dems are pro choice AND against death penalty.
Why is there not a huge difference in goverment spending where those that are against big government (R) spend much less than the others?

Click to expand...

It's sort of like where I live if you want to win a job as the county prosecutor or get one of the judge positions you have to claim to be a Republican. Half the people who run as a Republican don't share any of the Republican beliefs. It's just what they do to get elected. I think there is a massive gap between the platform people run on to get elected and what they actually do in office once they get there.

Angrymesscan said:

Just to clear things up, I'm not a D or R, I'm just trying to understand. It's one of those things we as outsiders can't quite comprehend like the whole Rep are pro life AND pro death penalty and Dems are pro choice AND against death penalty.
Why is there not a huge difference in goverment spending where those that are against big government (R) spend much less than the others?

Click to expand...

Platform ideologies and their differences are pretty straight forward between the parties. When it comes to money however it gets considerably more complicated.

There is an on going struggle between parties as to who controls the house and senate. Even the two congressional divisions banter as to who controls the purse strings. Generally speaking the majority party usually dominates the congressional division but the house and senate may not see things eye to eye either. It's a matter of trade offs with the loyal opposition to get what you want that keeps the art of politics in play between the parties.

If a democratic sponsored program is in trouble and needs help from the republicans to get it passed, then they may be willing to concede to a republican program and help it get passed. It is too convoluted to deal with in a post but expenditures cannot be simply tied to a party member and say that party is more loose with money. It is extremely difficult to sort out but needless to say that both parties will do what they need to in order to get what they want.

Both are potentially fiscally irresponsible.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Why wouldn't you just adjust for inflation?

It shouldn't be that difficult to adjust for inflation. If every President increased the debt 100% the later ones would be doing far more damage then the earlier ones. It's why percent is a inaccurate statistic in this situation. To use it would literally be meaningless.

By the way, FDR is the worst President according to percentage and was a Democrat but again, could care less. Show me what he spent, after adjusting for inflation.

Click to expand...

He was not asking about damage done he was asking how could the budget increase so much under a Republican president whose party platform is all about shrinking budgets and small government.

If this was so important to the republicans the budgets would not increase so much regardless of inflation.

And besides that you are not making any sense, just because the dollar value is higher in 2015 than 1949 that does not automatically mean more damage was done, the true measure would be the rate on inflation during those years.

This the very definition of moving the goalpost.

When you increase the budget by 186% there is no nuance you grew government immensely.

Now there is a argument to be made about who has the power to implement these increases and who implemented those actual policies because congress is just as powerful a influence if not more.

This also does not factor in how much debt was added to increase the budget which is the most important thing to analyze.

L.T. Fan said:

Dealing strictly with percentages can be a little deceiving as to actual dollar changes. The actual numbers show the amount the deficit increases while percentage of increase compares one amount to another. Example a billion dollar increase in the amount this year may be say 20 % of the amount of this years deficit over last year but last years deficit was a half billion but and was still 40% of the previous years deficit.

Amounts and percentages are thrown around with a lot of spin. The actual dollars are still increasing the overall deficit at a record pace even though the increase may not be as high a percent this year but still a deficit. It's confusing. Just look at the actual dollar figure to get a truer representation.

Click to expand...

Truer representation of what?

He asked a question about how much bigger the budget got while each president was in office, there is nothing really confusing about that.

Jiggyfly said:

Truer representation of what?

He asked a question about how much bigger the budget got while each president was in office, there is nothing really confusing about that.

Click to expand...

Why don't you answer his question if you don't like what we responded.

Jiggyfly said:

And besides that you are not making any sense, just because the dollar value is higher in 2015 than 1949 that does not automatically mean more damage was done, the true measure would be the rate on inflation during those years.

This the very definition of moving the goalpost.

When you increase the budget by 186% there is no nuance you grew government immensely.

Click to expand...

Jesus, you're either extremely confused or you're just making shit up to argue. No one was talking about the budget and it increasing. The point that was originally raised was the National Debt and the amount it increases under each individual President. I'm guessing that maybe you don't understand the difference between spending and the national debt. They are two very different things.

And yes, if you adjust for inflation (Again I'm not sure you understand what that means) you can look at a pure number to see who actually increased the national debt by the biggest amount which is all that matters. Why you adjust for inflation is because a dollar in 1949 was worth a lot more then a dollar in 2016. So you shouldn't punish Obama for having a larger figure then someone in 1949. You can use the inflation rate to put everyone on an equal playing field.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Jesus, you're either extremely confused or you're just making shit up to argue. No one was talking about the budget and it increasing. The point that was originally raised was the National Debt and the amount it increases under each individual President. I'm guessing that maybe you don't understand the difference between spending and the national debt. They are two very different things.

And yes, if you adjust for inflation (Again I'm not sure you understand what that means) you can look at a pure number to see who actually increased the national debt by the biggest amount which is all that matters. Why you adjust for inflation is because a dollar in 1949 was worth a lot more then a dollar in 2016. So you shouldn't punish Obama for having a larger figure then someone in 1949. You can use the inflation rate to put everyone on an equal playing field.

Click to expand...

Yeah my bad I misread.

But my initial point still remains if you increase the deficit by over 100% you have still grown the debt an enormous amount.

And inflation still is irrelevant because we are talking about the increase of the deficit not how much the dollar amount was.

We are not talking about pure dollar numbers we are talking about increase as a percentage.

And I have shown on every occasion I know what I am talking about, the fact that you keep trying to act like I don't is very comical.

But please continue to act like increasing the deficit over 100% can in any way be explained away by inflation.

And if you want to look at the actual numbers.

U.S. Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent
Why the Winner Is...Barack Obama

By Kimberly Amadeo
Updated October 26, 2016
What's the best way to determine how much of the $19 trillion U.S. debt was created by each President? The most popular method is to look at the debt level when each President took office. It's easier to look at a graph showing the percent of the debt accumulated under each President. It's also important to compare the debt as a percent of economic output.

But these aren't accurate ways to measure the debt contributed by each President.

Why? The President doesn't have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. That's because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous President.

For example, President Bush took office in January 2001. He submitted his first budget in February. But that was for FY 2002 which didn't begin until October 1. For the first nine months of his new term, Bush had to live with President Clinton's last budget. That was FY 2001, which continued until September 30 2001. It's why no new President is accountable for the budget deficit in his first year in office. It was created by his predecessor.

Yes, it's confusing. But the Federal fiscal year is set up that way to give the new President time to put together his budget during his first month in office. For more, see Federal Budget Process.

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President
One way to measure the debt by President is to sum all his budget deficits.

That's because the President is responsible for his budget priorities. Each year's deficit takes into account budgeted spending and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes. For details, see Deficit by President and Deficit by Year.

But there's a difference between the deficit and the debt by President.

That's because all Presidents can employ a sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit. They can borrow internally from other government sources. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987. That's because there were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in ​U.S. Treasury notes. The President can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasuries.

Barack Obama - The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's two terms. He added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase, in seven years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.

He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over ten years. But these savings didn't show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. But that was a 101% increase to the debt. It was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That's the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of between $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA. These were known as the Bush tax cuts and they further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048% increase over the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover's last budget. Of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. The New Deal cost billions. But FDR's debt major contribution to the debt was World War II spending. He added $209 billion to the debt between 1942-1945. For more, see FDR Economic Policies.

Woodrow Wilson - President Wilson was the second largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. Although he only added $21 billion, this was a 727% increase over the $2.9 billion debt level of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. In fact, the Second Liberty Bond Act was enacted during his Presidency, giving Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.

Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960:

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
FY 2015 - $327 billion.
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase in the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.

FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.

FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.

Jiggyfly said:

Yeah my bad I misread.

But my initial point still remains if you increase the deficit by over 100% you have still grown the debt an enormous amount.

And inflation still is irrelevant because we are talking about the increase of the deficit not how much the dollar amount was.

We are not talking about pure dollar numbers we are talking about increase as a percentage.

And I have shown on every occasion I know what I am talking about, the fact that you keep trying to act like I don't is very comical.

But please continue to act like increasing the deficit over 100% can in any way be explained away by inflation.

Click to expand...

It's not explaining anything away. You're still not understanding it. Obama is the President who has increased the deficit by the largest amount of money. Adjusting for inflation would actually make those numbers look more reasonable when comparing them to FDR for example.

If the national debt is 1 dollar when I take over as president and I increase the debt to 2 dollars (100% increase), that is not the same thing as someone who increases the debt by a trillion dollars (From one trillion dollars to two trillion dollars also 100%). What a President is handed for a debt by previous Presidents should have no bearing on the positive or negative effect of the current President's debt. Simple enough right?

If there is one thing you have continually shown you don't understand it is finances and the terminology associated with it.

Cowboysrock55 said:

It's not explaining anything away. You're still not understanding it. Obama is the President who has increased the deficit by the largest amount of money. Adjusting for inflation would actually make those numbers look more reasonable when comparing them to FDR for example.

If the national debt is 1 dollar when I take over as president and I increase the debt to 2 dollars (100% increase), that is not the same thing as someone who increases the debt by a trillion dollars (From one trillion dollars to two trillion dollars also 100%). What a President is handed for a debt by previous Presidents should have no bearing on the positive or negative effect of the current President's debt. Simple enough right?

If there is one thing you have continually shown you don't understand it is finances and the terminology associated with it.

Click to expand...

Wait what?

Did you not drop this gem?

Yeah the best measure would be dollar increase adjusted for inflation. Percentage is a pretty meaningless statistic when it comes to an increase in the deficit.

Click to expand...

Nobody is comparing Obama to FDR the question was how does a president of a party who preaches small government double a deficit?

I posted the actual numbers did you even look at them?

Reagan and both bushes added more actual money to the deficit as well as percentage increases to the deficit over Clinton so get out of here with that bullshit dollar for dollar nonsense.

I already said that no president should have the deficit tied only to him did you miss that as well?

I have shown time and time again I have a better grasp of this stuff than you and I actually show the numbers to back it up.

Since you want to play this game.

Obama 7.917 trillion
GWB in adjusted dollars 6.56
Reagan in adjusted dollars 3.80
GHB in adjusted dollars 2.67
Clinton in adjusted dollars 1.91

So what point where you trying to make.

Republicans have added a higher percentage to the deficit and actual money in adjusted dollars.

Now this is juicy stuff.

WikiLeaks reveals Hillary-world vexed by 'Bill Clinton Inc.'

By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 8:35 PM ET, Thu October 27, 2016

PHILADELPHIA, PA - JULY 28: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton acknowledges the crowd as she arrives on stage during the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo C
The anxiety dates back to when Chelsea Clinton began to take on a greater role in the family foundation
The campaign at times expressed frustration with the foundation
Washington (CNN)A handful of the emails and documents hacked from the private email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, detail the at-times uncomfortable overlap between the family charity and the public and private sector careers of the Clintons, dating back long before Clinton's formal campaign for president began.

The anxiety -- centered around the nexus of Clinton Foundation fundraising, paid speeches and requests for access to former President Bill Clinton dubbed "Bill Clinton Inc." by a top aide -- dates back to late 2011, when Chelsea Clinton began to take on a greater role in the family foundation and spearheaded an effort to clean house.

None of the documents released, however, showed a clear indication that any of the paid speeches or access to Bill Clinton directly resulted in influence at Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Expressing concern about the relationship to foreign donors and her parents' work and any appearance of conflicts of interest as Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Chelsea Clinton pushed to hire law firms to audit the foundation's operation. The review found problems with management, budgeting and potential conflicts of interest, recommending more oversight and a more independent board. The Foundation adopted many of the recommendations.

Podesta's hacked email contained foundation details from the time because he was working as a special adviser while the foundation's chairman recuperated from an illness.
One newly released document was a memo prepared by Doug Band, Bill Clinton's former top aide, for the attorneys who were conducting the audit. In the memo, Band details his own consulting company, Teneo, and its relationship to the foundation's top donors as well as how those top donors also enriched Bill Clinton through what Band called "Bill Clinton, Inc."



Band detailed how he set up for-profit deals for the former President, both involving money and "as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family -- for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like."

Band's memo covers 2001 to 2011, during which time "President Clinton's business arrangements have yielded more than $30 million for him personally with $66 million to be paid out over the next nine years, should he choose to continue with the current engagements."
He sent the memo to Podesta in mid-November 2011 for feedback.

Questions about the foundation have plagued Clinton's campaign throughout the primary and general election. The Clintons have vehemently denied any conflicts of enrichment or improper dealings, emphasizing the charity's high esteem in the world and by watchdogs for the work it does. Over the summer, the foundation began announcing steps it would take if Clinton were elected to minimize potential for conflicts of interest, including banning foreign donations.

The complex nature of the Clintons' personal and professional relationship with the foundation has continued to invite politically motivated criticism, though investigations by Congress and independent groups of Clinton's archives at the State Department and the WikiLeaks emails have failed to turn up any single smoking guns.

Republicans and Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, have seized on the document after long accusing the Clintons of using the foundation to enrich themselves and abuse the power of the State Department, pointing to the overlap between Clintons' private paid speeches and appointments and foundation donors.
"Mr. Band called the arrangement unorthodox. The rest of us call it outright corrupt," Trump said at a rally Thursday. "In fact, the Clinton Foundation even hired a law firm to find out if their pay to play scheme would jeopardize their charitable status with the IRS."

"This memo is the smoking gun for how the Clintons used their foundation to create a massive for-profit paid speaking and consulting business to enrich themselves," GOP Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement Thursday. "All of their talk about charitable work masks the fact they were eager to get their own cut of the action. That the Clintons raked in millions of dollars while these same donors had business before Hillary Clinton's State Department points to a rampant pay-to-play culture that would be on full display should Hillary Clinton be elected president."

In the email, Band wrote of his own role: "Since President Clinton left office, I have sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds for the Foundation."
WikiLeaks has been releasing the Podesta emails in tranches daily for more than two weeks. The campaign has refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of individual emails, but has accused the Russian government of being behind the hacking to meddle in the US election. WikiLeaks and Moscow have denied the charge.

Band and the campaign have declined to comment on the documents. But Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, offered a defense of her leadership at the State Department Thursday.
"The State Department has made clear that Hillary Clinton's actions were made in the best interests of American foreign policy and that she never made decisions because of donations to the Clinton Foundation," Caplin said in a statement. "The Clinton Foundation discloses its donors online and all of Hillary and Bill Clinton's income has been disclosed publicly in nearly 40 years of tax returns and her personal financial disclosure forms, so none of the relationships being reported today are new."
Teneo, meanwhile, said in a statement that the company "never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind" from its relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

Campaign stress
Campaign manager Robby Mook began to get his arms around the foundation as early as October 2014, emailing Mills to ask how closely Clinton would be tied to it going forward.
"One question," for the foundation, he said, "is whether it will still have and/or use her name next year. Do you know what their plan is for that? It only matters for research and press purposes -- i.e. it will invite press scrutiny and she'll be held accountable for what happens there. ... It's a discussion that should be had at some point in my view."
Mills only replied, "Like this."

In another email chain about the foundation, Hillary Clinton's close adviser, Huma Abedin, emailed with Mook about a Clinton Foundation conference in Morocco in 2015 that Clinton herself was supposed to appear at. Clinton ultimately did not go, and the email conversation was about her backing out at the last minute.

Abedin wrote Mook that the Moroccans agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative Africa conference entirely predicated on the idea that Clinton herself would appear.
"The condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation," Abedin wrote. "If hrc was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter. CGI also wasn't pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn't their first choice."

New DC routine: Wake up, search WikiLeaks, wince
WikiLeaks hack collateral damage can be deeply personal
Abedin said it was Hillary Clinton's idea to approach the Moroccans and make the request, which came with a substantial donation.

"Our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," Abedin wrote. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it."
The issue had also been discussed by Abedin and other aides months earlier -- in November 2014 -- in regards to potential scheduling issues for 2015. The later emails were from January, preceding the May 2015 conference, which Clinton ultimately did not attend.

Mills wrote the team in April 2015 that she had discussed with Clinton what could be done about the foundation were Clinton to run for president.

"I connected with HRC this am regarding the steps she will take with regard to the Foundation should she announce a decision to explore a run for the Presidency," Mills said, offering to schedule a call for more.
Podesta at one point expressed frustration with pre-campaign decision-making to confidante Neera Tanden, a Clinton supporter and president of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress.
In an email from September 2015, Podesta obliquely referenced previous "terrible decisions," though it was unclear what specifically he was referring to amid another storm of criticism over Clinton's private server use as secretary of state.

"We've taken on a lot of water that won't be easy to pump out of the boat," Podesta wrote. "Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts."

Continued

'Spoiled brat'

Though it's unclear whether Podesta replied to the emailed memo from Band due to WikiLeaks' haphazard release strategy, it is not the first time he or the foundation has popped up as a source of frustration for Hillary Clinton's team.

In an email released in one of the first batches from WikiLeaks, Band emailed Podesta and top Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills complaining about Chelsea, calling her a "spoiled brat."
"I don't deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things," Band wrote. "She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of focus in her life."

That chain of emails appears to be a precursor to the draft of Band's memo that was released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday. Taking place a few days before Band sent the updated memo to Podesta, the complaints from Band about Chelsea came in a thread with Mills and Podesta offering suggestions to Band on how to shape a memo of the same subject.

Band was apparently frustrated with Chelsea's direction of the audit of the organization and its web. In 2012, the law firm the memo was crafted for presented its findings to the foundation, which restructured.

Less than two weeks before Band's exchange with Podesta and Mills, Chelsea Clinton had emailed Podesta, Mills and the attorneys an update on her work to "professionalize" the organization, saying she was to meet with Band soon.

She said she'd been receiving "concerns" from people about the "Foundation and/or my father's world" and was encouraging those people to talk to attorneys "candidly."

Chelsea said it she also relayed that it was "critical that as we move to professionalize the Foundation for the future that professionalism starts with this process - people continue to share things with me."
"I continue to want -- and to try -- to disintermediate myself from this muddle, edify the corporate audit and existential process we are in - while also being a responsible board member, daughter and person," she wrote.

She added that one of the shared concerns from an anonymous source was that her "father was told today of explicit examples at CGI of Doug/ Teneo pushing for -- and receiving -- free memberships -- and of multiple examples of Teneo 'hustling' business at CGI -- and of people now having quit at CGI."
The tension between Band and Clinton continued for months, with Band forwarding a friendly email from Chelsea to Podesta and Mills in January.

"She sends me one of these types of emails every few days/week," Band wrote. "As they say, the apple doesn't fall far(.) A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking a knife in the back, and front."

Beyond WikiLeaks and the campaign

Emails previously released through a 2015 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, highlighted how Band communicated frequently with Clinton's closest aides at the State Department, communications that included requests to set up meetings between State Department officials and prominent Clinton foundation donors.

"Impossible to get fred eychner a seat at the state dinner?" Band Wrote to Abedin and Capricia Marshall in January 2011, referring to businessman and philanthropist Fred Eychaner, who had given millions to the foundation. That message was from the latest batch of emails released by the conservative watchdog group Thursday.

In a 2009 email from an earlier release in August, Band directed Abedin and Mills to put Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor, in contact with the State Department's "substance person" on Lebanon.

"We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re Lebanon," Band wrote. "As you know, he's a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp."
"It's jeff feltman," Abedin responded, referring to Jeffrey Feltman, who was the US ambassador to Lebanon at the time. "I'm sure he knows him. I'll talk to jeff."

While it's not always clear what happens with Band's requests, many appeared to be deflected. Feltman told CNN in August that no one spoked to him about Chagoury and that he never met with him.
Band's emails also included requests to help find government jobs for associates.
Band lobbied Clinton aides for a job for someone else in the State Department. In the email, Band told Mills and Abedin that it is "important to take care of (redacted)." Band is reassured by Abedin that "Personnel has been sending him options."

In another email from Thursday's release dated November 2010, Band sent a note to Abedin saying, "for the woman I mentioned for her to get an appointment to the embassy Here is the info As soon as possible pls."

When asked about specific incidents, the State Department has maintained it found no evidence of preferential treatment and/or policy decisions being influenced by foundation donations during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

CNN's Ryan Browne, Jeremy Diamond, David Fitzpatrick and Laura Koran contributed to this report.