Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON On July 27, 2016, Donald J. Trump stood behind a lectern in a Miami suburb and asked the Russian government to intervene in the 2016 election.

Russia, if youre listening, I hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, Trump told a crowded press conference, referring to messages his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, kept on a private server and deleted. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Twelve months later, top U.S. intelligence officials have said Russian state-backed entities did something similar to what Trump asked for: They hacked and released internal Democratic Party emails to embarrass Clinton and aid Trump. The leaked materials dominated media coverage for weeks, notably in the lead-up to Election Day itself.

Whats unclear and currently under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and three congressional committees is whether Trump and his campaign were involved in that foreign interference effort.

Trump himself says the remark last year was sarcastic, and there is no proof yet of criminal collusion. But a pile of evidence thats drawn attention since he made the comment shows a pattern of open cooperation. And the latest big story about Trump-Russia contacts regarding a June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., other campaign aides and a well-connected Russian lawyer proves there was a willingness in the Trump camp to accept Russian help even before Trumps statement.

In March testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI agent Clint Watts explained that the Trump team and Moscow-linked media, including the site Wikileaks, spent months amplifying each others sharing of false information and conspiracy theories, helping the Kremlin get more bang for its buck.

Part of the reason active measures [by Russia] have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures at times against his opponents, Watts said. He described Trumps Oct. 11 promotion of a fake news report published on Russias Sputnik News, and how former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort pushed a different false story that Watts traced back to Russian sources.

He denies the intel from the United States. He claims that the election could be rigged, Watts said. They parrot the same lines.

The Russian social media influence campaign also spent time trying to boost disaffection among supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), targeting a constituency Trump repeatedly reached out to,Watts noted.

A few days after that hearing, the popular blog Lawfare shared a similar assessment in a post titled Of Course Theres Evidence Trump Colluded With Russian Intelligence. They provided an appendix listing the many, many times candidate Trump praised the leaks and denied growing U.S. intelligence suggesting Russia was behind them something he has continued to do as president.

And in May, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, issued a reminder that theres more than enough smoke to suggest a fire.

What we do not have right now is conclusive proof that President Trumps team colluded with the Russian government. But a lack of conclusive proof is not the same thing as a lack of evidence, and we should not confuse the two, Smith said in a press release. There is sufficient evidence to justify the appointment of a special prosecutor, there is enough evidence for Congress to continue investigating, and there is enough evidence that the American people should be deeply concerned about the Presidents dealings with Russia. We do the truth a disservice when we blur those two questions, and it is important that we make every effort to keep this distinction clear.

Smith noted the case of Manafort, who ran Trumps presidential campaign until the New York Times revealed in August of last year that Ukrainian investigators believed he had received $12.7 million in undisclosed payments from a pro-Russian political party. (The Times has since shown that Manafort was in debt to pro-Russian interests just before he began working for Trump, and Manafort has spoken with Senate investigators about his role in the meeting with the Trump son.)

Smith also mentioned Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy adviser who flew to Moscow last July to deliver a speech slamming the U.S.approach to the world and promoting Russias foreign policy. In 2016, a Foreign Intelligence Service Court judge determined that the FBI was probably correct in considering Page a Russian agent. And he cited Roger Stone, who was a Trump adviser for decades and loud promoter of the materials taken from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Smith also noted the multiple undisclosed meetings between Trump officials like Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Its also become clearer over time how desperate Trump is to quash the Russia investigation. To that end, he has already fired FBI director James Comey, threatened Mueller and Sessions despite support for them within the GOP, and repeatedly attempted to switch the focus back to Clintons alleged wrongdoing.

Its striking that all this is often still forgotten in coverage and conversations of the affair. In discussing Trumps links with Russian media election efforts, Lawfares writers attempted to explain why this is the case. We have collectively discounted this cooperation for two related, and quite perverse, reasons: It was overt and public and it was legal, they wrote. The consequence has been that we largely ignore it in discussing the matter.

Contributing to the confusion is the public fascination with uncovering something secret, the real desperation to find that one damning clue that will explain it all, and the difficulty reporters and the public have in realizing that the traditionally hawkish GOP could now share interests with Moscow.

But the current tendency to forget Trumps public call on Russia to hack his opponent is a worrying sign. Russian interference is far from over, and Moscow does its best to make its efforts public to take advantage of the way open liberal democracies work, and avoid clear incrimination of Russia or its partners, experts on Kremlin strategy argue. Unless Americans gain a better understanding of how this kind of influence works, theres little reason to believe it will end, no matter how the Trump-Russia case concludes.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump Asked For Russian Help In The Election 1 Year Ago Today - HuffPost

President Donald Trump speaks in the Rose Garden at the White House on Wednesday in Washington.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

In a fusillade of Twitter posts this week, President Donald Trump blasted his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for failing to pursue probes of Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey. It is unclear whether the presidents posts will spur his attorney general and the Justice Department to pursue investigations into either individual. It is increasingly clear, though, that Trump has no compunction about using the machinery of federal law enforcement as a weapon against his political opponents. What he probably doesnt realize is that he is committing a crime by doing so.

There are 120,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers in the United States, all of whom reportat least indirectlyto the president. Meanwhile, thefederal criminal code runs to 868 pages, with many crimes defined vaguely and many rarely enforced. If the president wants to use the vast investigative and prosecutorial infrastructure at his disposal to go after his rivals, its likely that federal law enforcement officers will be able to findsome provision that his opponents have violated. Even if not, the president could make his opponents lives miserable with ceaseless probes and baseless charges.

But the very breadth of federal law enforcement power has, at least since Richard Nixon abused it, given rise to a strong norm of independence from political control. While the president is the nominal head of the executive branch and can order the Justice Department to follow his priorities, he must not use his authority to criminalize political opposition or harass his opponents.

A now mostly forgotten political scandal from George W. Bushs second term shows what can happen when an administration tries to transform the Justice Department into a political weapon. To put that scandal in context: Each of the federal judicial districts has a U.S. attorney who serves as its chief federal prosecutor. The president can fire any one of them at any time. In 2006, Bush dismissed nine, includingmost controversiallythe U.S. attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias.

Iglesias says he was fired after a number of Republican officials in the state pressured him to bring corruption charges against a prominent Democratic politician in therun-up to the 2006 midterm election. That would potentially violate obstruction of justice laws, which make it a crime for anyone to corruptly influence a grand jury investigation oragency proceeding (among other matters). A subsequent Justice Departmentreport recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Bush administration officials had broken the obstruction laws in the course of the Iglesias firing. The report stated: [W]e believe that pressuring a prosecutor to indict a case more quickly to affect the outcome of an upcoming election could be a corrupt attempt to influence the prosecution in violation of the obstruction of justice statute. The report added that the obstruction laws didnt just apply to the indictment of an opponent prior to an electionthey could apply to pressuring a prosecutor to take partisan considerations into account under other circumstances as well.

A special prosecutor was ultimately appointed to investigate the Iglesias firing and eventually concluded that there was insufficient evidence that any Bush administration official had pressured the New Mexico U.S. attorney. But all along, the Justice Department proceeded on the assumption that administration officials could be charged with obstruction if they had sought to influence Iglesias investigation for partisan purposes. In that case, there was no smoking gun: no tweets in which the president intimated that he would fire the prosecutor unless the prosecutor brought charges against the presidents political rival. (Twitter was only a fewmonths old then, and Bush wasnot a user.)

Is Trump pressuring Sessions to pursue cases on the basis of partisan considerations? Seems like it.

Today, by contrast, the gun smokes in 140-character plumes. In one of his posts, Trump asked why his beleaguered attorney general wasnt looking into Clintons crimes and Russia relations. In others, he complained of Comeys illegal leaks of memos to the New York Times and berates Sessions for taking a VERY WEAK position on leaks and on Clintons alleged mishandling of classified material. In yet another, he blasted Sessions for failing to replace the acting FBI director with someone who will go after Clinton with vigor. On Wednesday, theWashington Post published a piece sourced to four people familiar with the issue indicating that Trump may fire Sessionsa leak that may be aimed at Sessions himself.

Is Trump pressuring his attorney general and the acting FBI chief to pursue cases on the basis of partisan considerationsthe sort of conduct the Justice Department said could amount to criminal obstruction? Seems like it. If Trump follows up by replacing Sessions, the parallels to the Iglesias firing will be even stronger, except that this time there will be ample evidence of the presidents motive.

Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the countrys most important cases.

To be sure, Trumpas presidenthas a constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and he might argue that this is what motivates his interest in the Clinton and Comey cases. But if a jury could be convinced that Trumps motives are political rather than in the public interest, then his advocacy for action against Clinton and Comey could be considered corrupt, thus amounting to criminal obstruction. That, at least, appears to be the implication of the Justice Department report regarding the Iglesias episode, and it is consistent with the way the obstruction laws have been interpreted in other contexts.

Top Comment

Certainly Mueller is already collecting all the necessary documentation on this particular crime, right? At this pace, Mueller is going to have to leave some felonies out of his final report just for the sake of brevity. More...

Trumps power over the Justice Department might dissuade prosecutors from pursuing obstruction charges against him. But the Justice Department is staffed with career attorneys committed to the rule of lawand in many cases protected by civil service regulations. It is not so clear that they can be browbeaten by the president. Plus, whether or not Trump can be indicted while still president, he will find himself in legal jeopardy after he leaves office. And then there are his aides and associates; if any of them have assisted Trump in his campaign to pressure the Justice Department, they are complicit in a crime.

The vast reach of federal criminal law and law enforcement leaves us vulnerable to the risk that Trump will use these resources for political ends, as he already seems to have suggested. But Trump is vulnerable to the same forces that he seeks to unleash on his rivals. In an effort to ensnare his opponents, he may be laying his own trap.

The rest is here:
The Obstruction of Justice Case Against Donald Trump - Slate Magazine

Donald Trump and Melania Trump walk off the stage after his rally Tuesday in Youngstown, Ohio.

Justin Merriman/Getty Images

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump took a reprieve from the chaos engulfing his administration, traveling to Youngstown, Ohio, to commune with his fans and supporters in a campaign-style Make America Great Again rally. The event was typical Trump fare: exuberant and improvisational, with the occasional feel of a tent revival. And Trump brought his greatest hits, blasting Democrats, the news media, and other opponents for the crowds enjoyment.

The president also addressed immigration, and there his rhetoric took a darker turn. Trump has always described unauthorized immigrants in harsh, disparaging terms. But here he went further, spinning a lurid and explicit tale of extreme violence against innocent people.

Youve seen the stories about some of these animals, said the president.

Its easy to file this under Trumps usual anti-immigrant demagoguery, specifically his preoccupation with crime committed by Hispanic immigrants. Recall his presidential announcement speech, where he assailed the Mexican government for sending criminals and rapists to the United States, as well as his (and Attorney General Jeff Sessions) recent fixation on MS-13, a gang with origins in Central America. In a June rally in Iowa, the president stated that they like to cut people, and on Thursday, he mentioned them in a tweet: Big progress being made in ridding our country of MS-13 gang members and gang members in general. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

Despite the connection to those earlier statements, the Youngstown riff was different. It was especially detailed and graphic. And while the racial content of this kind of rhetoric has always been clearthe immigrants are always nonwhite, the victims are typically whitethis was unusually explicit. Trump wasnt just connecting immigrants with violent crime. He was using an outright racist trope: that of the violent, sadistic black or brown criminal, preying on innocent (usually white) women. Even considering his 1989 jeremiad against the Central Park Fivewhere he demanded the death penalty for the five black and Latino teenagers wrongly convicted of raping a white womanthe Youngstown rhetoric was sensational and excessive.

What it wasnt, however, was unique. Rhetorically, Trumps Youngstown speech recalls the openly racist language found in the early 20th century among white reporters, pamphleteers, and politicians who expressed the prejudices of the era. In Southern newspapers, for example, writers described the alleged crimes of black offenders with gruesome and sensational detail, usually to justify lynchings and other forms of extrajudicial violence. A miserable negro beast attacked a telephone girl as she was going home at night, and choked her, reads a 1903 report from a newspaper in Greenville, Mississippi. The writer of a 1914 pamphlet titled The Black Shadow and the Red Death spun terrible tales of black crime, including one where cocaine and whiskey led a half-drunken negro beast to kill a little school girl with a pretty head.

Politically, what President Trump was doing in Ohio has a clear antecedent in the racial demagoguery common in the Jim Crow South. Rather than campaign on what they would do for voters, Southern politicians fanned flames of race hatred. This nigger baitinglabeled as such by observers at the timewas how they built emotional connections with their audiences and tarred their (often equally racist) opponents as unacceptable proponents of racial equality. You people who want social equality vote for Jones. You men who have nigger children vote for Jones, declared South Carolina Gov. Coleman Livingston Blease in his 1912 re-election campaign against state Supreme Court Justice Ira Jones, blasting his opponent as a supporter of rights for black Americans.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the weeks biggest political news.

Creative Commons

Lawmakers like James Vardaman in Mississippi and Cotton Ed Smith of South Carolina earned national notoriety for their vicious advocacy of white supremacy on the campaign trail. This style of politics did not end as the 20th century progressed; in 1958, Alabama Attorney General James Patterson ran for governor and wonbeating a fresh-faced George Wallaceas a staunch opponent of civil rights, backed by the states Ku Klux Klan. In two re-election races, one in 1984 and the other in 1990, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms ran race-baiting campaigns. Against thenGov. Jim Hunt, he distributed literature warning of black registration drives and black political figures such as Jesse Jackson. And against Harvey Gantt, the black mayor of Charlotte, Helms ran one of the most breathtakingly racist ads of the modern era.

Trump isnt yet running for re-election, but he is in dire political straits. According to FiveThirtyEights aggregate measure of his popularity, just 38.5 percent of Americans approve of his presidency, compared with 55 percent who disapprove. Hes caught in a feud with his attorney general, theres in-fighting among his senior staff, and hes facing backlash from within the armed services on account of a cynical attempt to stoke anti-transgender bias for political gain. Its possible, perhaps even likely, that the presidents riff in Youngstown was just another digression, a rant that emerged from the stew of resentments and prejudices that seem to form Trumps psyche.

But the additional timing of his statement on transgender service members suggests otherwise. On Friday Trump will visit Long Island, where 15 members of MS-13 were arresteda trip that would fit a political plan to demagogue Hispanic immigrants as imminent threats to white Americans, and white women in particular. Trump is aware that hes flailing, and to rebuild supportto re-establish that bond with his votershes turning to an old, crude, and dangerous rhetorical well.

Follow this link:
Make America Afraid Again - Slate Magazine

PresidentDonald Trumpmade clear his dissatisfaction with Sen.Lisa Murkowski(R-Alaska)Wednesday,whenhe tweetedthat she let down her party and the nation by voting againstRepublicans attempts to repealObamacare.

But apparently Trumps public disapproval is not the only way the administration plans to make his anger known.

TheAlaska Dispatch Newsreported Wednesday night that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Alaskan Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) after Tuesdays health care vote to let them knowher positionhad put some of their state-specific projects in jeopardy particularly those pertaining to energy.

Sullivan told the outlet that Zinkes phone call carried a troubling message, and the interior secretary made it clear to him that the call was in response to Murkowski voting no on the motion to proceed on Tuesday.

She was only one of two Republicans, along with Sen.Susan Collins(Maine), to break from party lines on the vote.

While Murkowski did not respond to Alaska Dispatch News requests for comment regarding the phone call, the senator seemed unfazed by the presidents attempts at publicly shaming her.

Were here to govern. Were here to legislate,Murkowski told MSNBCafter Trump sent his tweet. Were here to represent the people who sent us here. Every day shouldnt be about campaigning.

Murkowski does not face reelection until 2022.

View post:
Donald Trump Is Reportedly Seeking Revenge On Alaska Over Health Care Vote - HuffPost

Shortly after winning the presidential election in November, then President-elect Donald Trump vowed to not take the $400,000 salary he was set to earn as the United States' commander-in-chief.

"No, Im not gonna take the salary. Im not taking it," he told CBS's Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes .

In April, Trump donated his first-quarter salary of $78,333.32 to the National Park Service to fund the agency's battlefield preservation efforts, a program that is currently $229 million behind in deferred costs.

Subscribe to The Worlds Most Powerful Women, Fortunes daily must-read for global businesswomen.

And on Wednesday he gave his second-quarter pay worth $100,000 to the Education Department to help fund a STEM-focused camp for students, according to a department press release .

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the "generous gift" showed the president's "commitment to our nations students and to reforming education in America so that every child, no matter their ZIP code, has access to a high-quality education."

Trump's budget proposal, meanwhile, seeks to cut the Education Department's budget by 13% . It proposes slashing the budget of the Interior Departmentwhich houses the National Park Serviceby 12% .

DeVos said the beneficiary of Trump's donationthe camp focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathis part of the department's effort to encourage students to explore the fields. She referenced a STEM summer reading event for young girls that she and Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and adviser, attended on Tuesday, saying the participants "got to explore, create and experiment in a collaborative environment."

"Todays and tomorrows economy requires engaged students, boys and girls, are prepared for STEM careers," DeVos said in a statement.

View original post here:
Donald Trump Just Donated $100000 of His Salary to Betsy DeVos' Education Department - Fortune