Hacked Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton's Delicate Dance With Elizabeth Warren

It was the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren double-whammy: a speech on paid leave from Hillary Clinton's then-primary challenger and, within days, a talk about debt-free college from the Massachusetts senator. Newly publicized emails show Warren's influence was a source of stress for the Clinton campaign years before she became the party's presidential nominee.

"I do... think that it will get quite a lot of attention," senior policy adviser Ann O'Leary wrote in an email to senior Clinton campaign staffers. "... the pressure will continue to mount."

It was one in a series of hacked emails made public this week by WikiLeaks, illuminating the Clinton campaign's delicate dance as it courted Warren's favor, and its fears at the specter of her deciding to endorse Sanders for the Democratic nomination. They also illuminate the freshman senator's sway, particularly on Warren's pet topic of financial reform.

The Clinton campaign has refused to confirm or deny the emails' authenticity, but has suggested at least some quotes are fabricated. The emails are allegedly obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

O'Leary's email, above, went out in June of 2015, one of several that suggest Warren was long a worry for the campaign.

Take this angry December 2014 missive from one longtime Clinton aide, Philippe Reines.

Reines wrote in regards to a New York Times piece about liberal MoveOn.org's reported million-dollar plan to draft Warren into a presidential run, saying:

"This is more than a little annoying. Making noise is one thing. Spending seven figures is another. She voted for the war, you punished her already, get over it. I don't know who funds them, but don't we have Hollywood friends with ties to MoveOn who can tell them to cool it?"

Other emails evidence Warren's ability to throw her weight around, even as a freshman senator.

In a November 2014 email, Clinton aide Huma Abedin writes about "problems" in scheduling a meeting with Warren, first slated for June and later pushed back to December:

"They do not want intermediaries discussing the relationship or the potential policy differences as they feel that is happening too much. They want to have a direct conversation about economic policy."

A subsequent email chain about that planned in-person confab laboriously brainstorms Clinton's best approach—how to come off prepared, yet candid; to manage fallout if and when the meeting leaked to the press; to leave a good impression.

"It would just be such a big deal for this meeting to go well and have EW walk out feeling positive and on board," wrote Clinton aide Robby Mook.

The emails show influence on economic policy appears to have been the senator's main goal, and suggest Warren's long-delayed endorsement served to maintain her leverage on such matters.

Fear of a Warren-Sanders endorsement is evident in an email exchange with Mandy Grunwald, a former Warren strategist and senior adviser on communications for Clinton. She wrote with reticence about an October 2015 draft of a pending Clinton op-ed on financial reform.

"I am still worried that we will antagonize and activate Elizabeth Warren by opposing a new Glass Steagall," she wrote, referring to a Depression-era law, repealed under Clinton's husband, that separates commercial banking from securities activities.

Warren has advocated for its reinstatement, and the email suggests the senator might take umbrage, should Clinton omit it from her planned column. Grunwald wrote:

"My understand(ing) from HRC is that she left her call kind of leaning toward endorsing Glass Steagall. I understand that we face phoniness charges if we 'change' our position now -- but we face political risks this way too. I worry about Elizabeth deciding to endorse Bernie."

Clinton then and now has opted not to endorse the law's reinstatement. But, perhaps in a concession to Sanders and/or Warren, the 2016 Democratic Party platform calls for an “updated and modernized version” of the law.

“Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits or pose an undue risk to Main Street,” the platform states.

Image via C-SPAN