Mediaboss Marketing

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: As of today, President Trump has been in office for 36 days. Theres already a growing chorus of voices calling for his impeachment. Nearly 900,000 people have signed an online petition entitled "Impeach Donald Trump Now." Thousands of protesters poured into the streets Monday for "Not My Presidents Day" marches across the country. Thousands more stormed Republican town halls this week to confront Republican leaders over their support for Trump.

Even the city of Richmond, California, has joined the movement. On Tuesday, the Richmond City Council voted unanimously to approve a resolution calling on Congress to consider Trumps impeachment, arguing Trump is in violation of the Constitutions Emoluments Clause, which prohibits people holding federal office from accepting payments from foreign governments.

The demand for Trumps impeachment comes as he presides over an understaffed White House in near constant crisis. This comes as White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus sought unsuccessfully to have the FBI refute news reports that Donald Trumps campaign advisers were in frequent contact with Russian intelligence agents ahead of Novembers election. Thats according to CNN, which reported on Thursday the FBI declined to publicly corroborate Priebuss denial. Priebuss outreach to the FBI violated policies intended to limit communications between the White House and the FBI on pending investigations. Priebus denied the reports during an interview Sunday on Meet the Press.

REINCE PRIEBUS: I know what they were told by the FBI, because Ive talked to the FBI. I know what theyre saying. I wouldnt be on your show right now telling you that weve been assured that theres nothing to The New York Times story, if I actually wasnt assuredand, by the way, if I didnt actually have clearance to make this comment.

AMY GOODMAN: Allegations of White House communications with the FBI during the investigation into Russias influence have raised questions about whether the Trump administration has violated ethics restrictions meant to protect such investigations from political influence. Theyve also drawn comparisons to former President Richard Nixons 1972 discussion with aides who used the CIA to push the FBI away from investigating the Watergate burglary that later led to Nixons resignation.

Will the constant chaos, confusion and conflicts of interest in the Trump administration lead to President Trumps impeachment? Well, for more, we go to someone whos been at the center of the unraveling of a presidency and a vote for impeachment. Thats right, President Richard Nixons White House counsel, John Dean. Hes the author of several books, including The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It and Conservatives Without Conscience, as well as Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches.

John Dean, welcome to Democracy Now!

JOHN DEAN: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: So, we have 36 days so far into this presidency. It took a second term of office for President Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee voted on articles of impeachment against him. He would later resign, so he wasnt impeached. But can you talk about where Donald Trump is right now?

JOHN DEAN: Well, what I see and hear, in following it, are echoes of Watergate. If you recall, Watergate ran about 900 days. In other words, it went on for years, starting with a bungled burglary at the Democratic National Committee and right up to Richard Nixons resignation, followed by the conviction of his top aides. So it ran a long time. What were seeing is very accelerated. Its partially responsible because of the media and the technology today, but its also the behavior of Trump and his aides, as well as the medias vigilance on this. So were seeing things accelerated. And what I see or hear are echoes of Watergate. We dont have Watergate 2.0 yet, but we have something that is beginning to look like it could go there.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I wanted to turn right now to what took place in Richmond, California. It became the first U.S. city to call for an investigation into whether to impeach President Trump. A resolution approved by the Richmond City Council states Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits people holding federal office from accepting payments from foreign governments. These are some of the city officials who voted unanimously in favor of the impeachment resolution.

COUNCILMEMBER JAEL MYRICK: Ordinarily, it would be odd to be talking about thewell, everything about this administration is odd. But it would be odd to be talking about the impeachment of a president only a month into his term. Unfortunately, with this president, its oddly appropriate.

COUNCILMEMBER JOVANKA BECKLES: The word is very, very clear that the residents of these United States are not in alignment with his movement of hate, his movement of fear, his movement of bullying and intimidation, and his movement of just out-and-out lies.

AMY GOODMAN: Voices of the city councilmembers in Richmond, California. Do you think what theyre accusing President Trump of could lead to his impeachment?

JOHN DEAN: It could lead there, Amy, if the Republicans didnt control both houses of Congress. Its a beginning. It takes a lot of momentum, much more than one city. It takes hundreds of cities. It takes really a national change of attitude about this president before were going to have an impeachment. Right today, given the fact that the House and Senate are controlled by the Republicans, theyre not going to impeach their president. As long as he gives them what they want and signs into legislation or signs into law a lot of the things that theyve had in their dreams for many years, theyre not going to give him any problem. Soand hes not going to give them any problem, because he doesnt want to have a fight with them. So, its going to be a while. Impeachment is not a legal process. Its a quasi-legal process, but its primarily a political process. And were not there yet. Now, a lot of people might like it. Its not going to happen until the political process reaches that stage.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you about this latest breaking news out of CNN and also The New York Times, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus seeking unsuccessfully to have the FBI refute news reports that Donald Trumps campaign advisers were in frequent touch with Russian intelligence agents ahead of Novembers election, CNN also reporting Thursday the FBI declined to publicly corroborate Priebuss denial, Priebuss outreach to the FBI violating policies intended to limit communications between the White House and the FBI on pending investigations. And this goes back to Watergate, when you were at the White House.

JOHN DEAN: It does.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what is improper here, and possibly what is illegal here? And talk about your position as White House counsel at the time. What were you seeing happening there? And what these allegationswhy they are so significant?

JOHN DEAN: Theres actually nothing illegal about talking to the FBI. Nobody has to talk to the FBI when they come to see them or knock on their door, unless theyre carrying a subpoena or acting directly for a grand jury. To my knowledge, theres no grand jury at this stage of any kind of inquiry into Mr. Trumps or his aides conduct. So, theres probably nothing overtly illegal. There is a policy that was written in the late 2000s between the FBI and anybody in the rest of the executive branch, or the Congress, for that matter, talking to them about a ongoing investigation. That appears to be the regulation that may have been violated. And what happened is, one of the assistant directors pulled Priebus aside in the White House after a meeting and just said The New York Times story is a little bit overboard.

AMY GOODMAN: McCabe of the FBI.

JOHN DEAN: Yes, yes, excuse methe FBI investigation was a little bit overboard as reported by The New York Times. And it was just a passing remark. And then Priebus tried, apparently, to reach back and get more out of them. And thats where he probably crossed the linea regulatory line, not a legal line. So, but this is a

AMY GOODMAN: This is pressuring both McCabe and then a call to the head of the FBI, Comey

JOHN DEAN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: to get them to publicly say that these stories about the contact between Trumps people and Russia were not true.

JOHN DEAN: It was an effort on behalf of the White House that failed. Comey was not about to buy into it. He has an ongoing investigation, and he wasnt about to undercut it by giving that kind of comment to Priebus. So, thatthis investigation has to play out. And it will play out. It will play out on Capitol Hill. It will play out in the FBI.

Russia kind of breaks down into three categories. Theres the pre-election activity: Did the Trump campaign have contact with Russians and somehow know that they were hacking into the DNC, trying to hurt Hillary and help Trump? Thats the first question. Then theres the period between the election and the inauguration, when Flynn was having contact with the ambassador. Did the president, and how manywho else on his staff was involved in those efforts to try to possibly undercut the Obama administration? And, of course, the third big area that theyre investigating is: What is the truth or falsity of the dossier that appeared from the MI6 former employee, a fellow by the name of Steele, who reported what he was finding from some of his contacts in Russia as to whether or not Russia had compromised Donald Trump? Those are sort of the big three areas theyre looking at in the Russian investigation. And any one of those could cause Mr. Trump a serious problem.

AMY GOODMAN: Back in 1972, you had Richard Nixon discussing with aides using the CIA to push the FBI from investigating the Watergate burglary. Were you in on those discussions?

JOHN DEAN: What happened is, before that happened, I had been overI had been called over by the acting director of the FBI, Pat Gray, to have an update and a report. And I came back and reported to Haldeman what was going on. Its interesting, Amy. And Ive gone through every single Watergate conversation for the book I did, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It. We transcribed everything, about 600 tapes that had never been heard before. So I tracked it from the beginning to the end. And what happened in that conversation is Haldeman sort of took what I told him and pushed it much further than either Mitchell or I thought appropriate, and tried to sell the president on this as being a tool to use the CIA to cut off the FBI. Now, that was later called an obstruction of justice. Im not sure, technically, it was. But what it did is it caught Richard Nixon in a lie, because he had denied he had known anything about any cover-up until I told him much later, when I started having direct dealings with him. And it was the lie that caught him more than that particular incident.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to break and then come back to this discussion. Were talking to John Dean, who served as counsel to the presidentthat was President Nixonauthor of a number of books, including The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It and Conservatives Without Conscience, as well as Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. Well be back with him in a minute, and then well go to our exclusive interview with Seattle Seahawks football star Michael Bennett, why he chose not to go on an Israeli government-sponsored trip to Israel. Stay with us.

Go here to see the original:
As Calls Grow to Impeach Trump, Former Nixon Counsel John Dean Sees "Echoes of Watergate" - Democracy Now!

It may be the most widely debated and commented upon newspaper slogan since ... well, has there ever been a widely debated newspaper slogan?

The Washington Post added a new phrase beneath its online masthead this week Democracy Dies in Darkness and the commentary flowed immediately. The slogan quickly trended on Twitter, drawing tweets even from the Peoples Daily newspaper in China. It was fodder for a few late-night cracks from Stephen Colbert, who suggested some of the rejected phrases included No, You Shut Up, Come at Me, Bro and We Took Down Nixon Who Wants Next?

Others called it ominous, awesome, and heavy-handed. Slate offered an alternative list: 15 Metal Albums Whose Titles Are Less Dark Than The Washington Posts New Motto.

The addition of the dramatic and alliterative phrase was generally misinterpreted as an indirect reply to President Trumps phrasemaking about the news media (dishonest, the enemy of the American people, etc.). But thats not the case.

The Post decided to come up with a slogan nearly a year ago, long before Trump was the Republican presidential nominee, senior executives said. The paper hasnt had an official slogan in its 140-year existence, although it did get some mileage with a long-running advertising tagline, If you dont get it, you dont get it.

The papers owner, Amazon.com founder Jeffrey P. Bezos, used the phrase in an interview with The Posts executive editor, Martin Baron, at a tech forum at The Post last May. I think a lot of us believe this, that democracy dies in darkness, that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light, he said at the time, speaking of his reasons for buying the paper.

Bezos apparently heard the phrase from legendary investigative reporter Bob Woodward, a Post associate editor. Woodward said he referenced it during a presentation at a conference that Bezos attended in 2015 in which Woodward talked about The Last of the Presidents Men, his most recent book about the Watergate scandal.

But Woodward, who has used the phrase in reference to President Nixon for years, said he didnt coin it; he read it some years earlier in a judicial opinion in a First Amendment case. He couldnt recall the specifics of the case or the name of the judge who wrote the opinion.

It goes way back, he said. Its definitely not directed at Trump. Its about the dangers of secrecy in government, which is what I worry about most. The judge who said it got it right.

Woodwards source appears to be Judge Damon J. Keith, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, who ruled in a pre-Watergate era case that the government couldnt wiretap individuals without a warrant. In his decision, Keith apparently coined a variation on The Posts motto, writing that Democracy dies in the dark.

In any case, the phrase was at the center of discussions when a small group of Post employees, including Baron and Publisher Fred Ryan, began meeting last year to develop a slogan. One planning document for the group suggested finding a positive variation on the early contender Democracy Dies in Darkness.

The goal of the papers slogan, the document said, would be to communicate that The Post has a long-standing reputation for providing news and information with unparalleled analysis and insight. ... Our position must be conveyed disruptively so we can shake consumers out of their news-as-commodity mindset.

It added that any slogan must be memorable and may be slightly uncomfortable for us at first. It also had to be lofty, positive [and] not bossy and pithy enough to fit on a T-shirt.

The group brainstormed more than 500 would-be slogans. The choices ranged from the heroic (Dauntless Defenders of the Truth) to the clunky (American democracy lives down the street. No one keeps closer watch.) to the Zen-like (Yes. Know.).

The group ultimately ended up where it started with Democracy Dies in Darkness.

Which means that the slogan, which will be added to print copies of the paper next week, could be among the most famous four words that Woodward has ever contributed to The Post. In time, the phrase might even rival All the Presidents Men, the memorable title of the bestseller Woodward wrote with Carl Bernstein about Nixons fall.

Well, Woodward said, its better than Follow the money, the famous movie line that Woodwards character got from his anonymous Watergate source, Deep Throat.

Read the rest here:
The Washington Post's new slogan turns out to be an old saying - Washington Post

Whatever you think about 7th District Rep. Dave Brat and he certainly inspires strong opinions, both pro and con he deserves credit for the town hall he held on Tuesday night in Blackstone.

Granted, he should have chosen a location closer to the heart of the district, rather than one that seemed designed to evade or inconvenience his critics. But if that was the aim, it failed. The audience raked Brat over the coals, interrupted him, booed him and heckled him. He kept his composure.

Many Republican congressmen have been facing similar crowds at other boisterous town halls across the country. Good for them. The events give regular citizens a chance to sound off and be heard by the people who represent them and rule over them. Both sides of the exchanges probably learn something.

The air has been full lately with grim warnings about imminent dangers, both foreign and domestic, to the American political system. The recent town halls offer an encouraging reminder that reports of democracys demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Continue reading here:
Editorial: Dave Brat gets an earful of democracy - Richmond.com

Driving through Alabama on Presidents Day, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg swung by the newsroom of The Selma Times-Journal. In a post to his 86 million followers Monday night, he thanked journalists for their efforts to surface the truth and keep their communities informed.

Zuckerbergs post comes on the heels of his nearly 6,000-word manifesto that offered an ambitious vision for Facebooks global role. Its an important declaration of principles that can help restore trust in news and information delivered on digital platforms. The statement implies a responsibility to share benefits with producers of content, acknowledges the importance of accurate information and seeks to engage communities in civil discourse. This welcome change of direction couldnt come at a more critical time.

As Zuckerberg knows, democracy requires an informed electorate, able to separate fact from fiction. But thats never been more difficult.

TV, the web and social media have combined to give citizens information to support any position and confirm any bias, facts be damned. But information is not journalism, and data begs to be organized and interpreted. The common foundation of everyday facts, the starting place from which we discuss differences, is eroding. By chasing clicks and taking the presidential bait, journalists have and will continue to lose ground. And so will democracy.

We need to deal with both short-term attacks on journalism and the longer-term consequences for our democracy.

The short-term answer is plain to see, but hard to achieve: Do the job.

Journalism 101 requires the full, accurate, contextual search for truth, regardless of how its packaged or on what platform its presented. That hasnt changed.

But much else has. Recent attacks on journalism couldnt have caught it in a weaker state. The transition to digital has decimated many newsrooms and given rise to new kinds of information companies with, until now, a different set of values.

Google, Facebook and others have supplanted the power of newsrooms by repackaging their journalismalong the way mixing it with other web content branded as news but not subject to the same ethical standards and traditionsand giving voice and access to hundreds of millions of users.

Technological disruption of the news industry is not a new phenomenon, of course. In the middle of the last century, Jack Knight built a successful newspaper empire against a backdrop of familiar forces: technological change, a shifting social order at home and unrest abroad. He knew that troubled times demanded a publishers steady, principled hand.

While a majority of Americans are spending more time consuming news on social media platforms, the leaders of these companies have, until recently, declined to accept their role as the most important publishers of our time. They have shown scant interest in judging wheat from chaff while chasing market share.

The good news is thats changing, and Zuckerberg is leading the way. He and others in Silicon Valley would be well served by turning to Jack Knights core values for guidance. In our digital age, it may seem counterintuitive to look to a man who had ink in his veins for advice. But the basic principles about the role of information and the media in our democracy that Knight embraced remain critically important.

First: Get the business model right. Knight believed in profitability and its achievement through a quality product and innovation. Facebooks statement last week suggests a way forward for platforms and publishers. Profit and purpose should be mutually reinforcing, not antithetical.

Second:The product has to be demonstrably true to be believed. Knight wrote, simply, get the truth and print it. There is objective truth, and it matters, even if it wont sit well with everyone. But a popular information platform that lacks standards will lack credibility and if you lack credibility, youll lose business. Facebook, as I read Zuckerbergs manifesto, understands this.

Third: Use technology to engage the reader. Knight was an early adopter. It was the telephone, after all, that allowed him to reach beyond his hometown of Akron and become an editor of multiple newspapers at once. He later embraced the fax and early internet, always searching for new ways to engage readers and get the news out.

The reluctant publishers of Silicon Valley know that technological innovation can drive progress. Its not enough to use technology to amass clicks and shares; use it also to get accurate information to people as conveniently and seamlessly as possible. Technology has shrunk our world in remarkable ways, but if speed and connectivity displace substance and meaning, we lose civic value.

To preserve civic value, and restore faith in the free press, todays new publishers should heed yesterdays values. It would be good for businessand for democracy.

Alberto Ibargen is president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Read this article:
Can Zuckerberg Save Journalism Or Democracy? - Huffington Post

What is the Democracy Voucher Program? To learn about what the Democracy Voucher Program is, please visit the About the Program page.

Can I still apply to receive Democracy Vouchers? Yes. Apply now to receive your $100 in Democracy Vouchers

Frequently Asked Questions View the list of frequently asked questions here. If these do not answer your questions, please feel free to contact us at democracyvoucher@seattle.gov or call (206) 727-8855.

Are you a registered voter? You do not need to apply and will automatically receive your Democracy Vouchers by mail after January 3, 2017.

Not sure if you are a registered voter? Visit the King County Elections' website to check if you are a registered voter and/or update your address.

Information for Seattle Residents Visit the Seattle residents' page for more information about how Seattle residents may participate in the Democracy Voucher Program.

Information for Candidates Visit the Candidates' page for information about how to qualify as a candidate in the Democracy Voucher Program. Interested candidates are strongly encouraged to contact Polly Grow, the Campaign Finance Auditor and Trainer before starting a campaign.

See the original post:
Democracy Voucher Program - DemocracyVoucher | seattle.gov