Mediaboss Marketing

The most important question that Donald Trump was ever asked in a press conference is suddenly easy to identify: Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?

President Trumps answer last spring was dubious.

He replied that aside from Mike Flynn (who ostensibly resigned as national-security adviser for misleading Vice President Pence about a meeting with Russias ambassador) he was not aware of any of his campaign advisers having had contacts with Russia.

Then Trump went much farther:

Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me a few days ago. We had a very good talk, especially the second one ... I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine.

Months ago, in The Presidents Untruths Are Piling Up, I summarized the many ways in which people Trump deals with have a lot to do with Russia and its power brokers.

But back then, a truth about Trumps inner-circle had yet to out.

Today, thanks to reporting by The New York Times, the public knows that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a June 9, 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower, having been told that she was flying in from Moscow to pass along documents that would incriminate Hillary Clinton as part of Russia and its governments support for Mr. Trump.

Trump Jr. invited his fathers campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting, forwarding them an email with the subject, Russia - Clinton - Private and Confidential. Both Manafort and Kushner attended.

Perhaps Donald Trump knew that all this was going on, which would make his statement at the press conference last spring a particularly shameless lie, even by his standards. Only a fool would ever again trust a politician who they caught in a lie like that.

Then again, maybe Trump was oblivious to the meeting that took place in Trump Tower. But if its the latter, that means that Trump was so ignorant about what happened inside his own campaign that he didnt even know about a meeting his own son scheduled for the purpose of colluding with the Russian government, even though both his campaign manager and his son-in-law were also in attendance. That would mean his closest advisers were actively keeping him in the dark.

Both possibilities, though, point to the same conclusion: The president cannot be believed. Either Trumps denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he is a shameless liar; or Trumps denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he was utterly clueless about at least one major effort to collude, and thus cannot credibly attest that there were not other efforts to which he wasnt privy.

Dont read more into those assertions than is there.

There is still no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign successfully colluded with the Russian government (despite Trump Jr.s intent to do so); no evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committees emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president. But one matter should be beyond dispute, even by Americans who think favorably of the president and his agenda: Trumps denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed. Only independent investigators can clear him of suspicion. The benefits of all doubts are lost once a man tells so many untruths.

More here:
Why Donald Trump's Russia Denials Can No Longer Be Believed - The Atlantic

Trump attends Sunday service at the International Church of Las Vegas in hopes of gaining religious support on October 30, 2016.

By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

On Tuesday, an indelible image began circulating on Twitter: a prayer circle in the Oval Office, with a tight close-up on the presidents shoulders (and unmistakable helmet of hair), ringed by religious leaders laying hands on his back. Vice President Mike Pence, whose evangelical roots are well-known, is just about the only person recognizable in the image. But how did Donald Trump, who once referred to communion as my little wine and my little cracker, wind up here?

This isnt the first time Trump has participated in public prayer as presidentafter he announced the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on January 31, he tweeted a photo of a prayer with Mike and Karen Pence, his sons, and other leaders, including the late Justice Antonin Scalias wife and son.

The latest image wasnt shared by the president, but by Evangelical pastor Dr. Rodney Howard-Browne, who wrote that he and his wife, Dr. Adonica Howard-Browne, were asked to the White House to pray over the president.

Yesterday was very surreal for @ahowardbrowne & I. 30 years ago we came from South Africa to America as missionaries. Yesterday I was asked by Pastor Paula White-Cain to pray over our 45th Presidentwhat a humbling moment standing in the Oval OfficeLaying hands and praying for our PresidentSupernatural Wisdom, Guidance and Protectionwho could ever even imaginewowwe are going to see another great spiritual awakening.

The Howard-Brownes, who have a weekly broadcast on Dish channel 269, first began as missionaries in South Africa before taking their work to America in the late 1980s. Rodney heads Revival Ministries International, for which the Howard-Brownes travel around the United States 46 weeks of the year, according to the organizations Web site.

In March 2016, Rodney wrote a Facebook post titled Donald Trump Is the New World Orders Worst Nightmare, on singaporechristian.com, where he detailed his choice to back Trump in the election as a check against a global conspiracy to destroy America:

Trump does not censor his wordslike politicians dohe says what he thinkswhich appeals to people. I am not saying I agree with everything he has said, or that he knows everything he is signing up for, but I do believe that he will put knowledgeable people around him who share the same values as we patriotic Americans do.

Now that Trump occupies the White House, the Howard-Brownes are clearly remaining in his corner. The evangelical duo was invited to the White House by Paula White-Cain, a Pentecostal Christian televangelist who serves as a spiritual adviser to the president. As NBC News noted at the time of Trumps inauguration, Whites relationship with Trump first began when he cold-called her afterwhat else?seeing her on TV. White, who was one of several people to pray over the president before his swearing-in, spoke to NBC News about the presidents relationship with religion; she used language familiar to evangelical Christians, and maybe less familiar for Trump, whose own church claimed he was not an active member.

As the Los Angeles Times noted in April, Trumps relationship with religion has been a fairly unclear one. As he wooed the religious right during his campaign, he struggled to answer even the most basic questions about his faith, naming Second Corinthians as Two Corinthians and failing to come up with a favorite Bible verse. But Trumps brand of Christian faithcriticized by someseems to be one that televangelists accept.

I know that Donald is saved, White told NBC News. Hes absolutelyreceived Jesus Christ as his lord and savior . . . I understand on a much more personal level his walk . . . He doesnt know our Christian-ese or language . . . But that doesn't mean he's not a man of faith.

However untraditional Trumps show of faith might be, hes just the latest in a line of Christian presidents. Former president Barack Obama, no matter what Trump himself might have argued, organized occasional, private prayer circles and received advice from prominent spiritual leaders [each year on his birthday].

Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush prayed with other religious and political leaders, images of which can be found on the Web site for the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. And Bill Clinton regularly attended church services as president.

This Oval Office prayer circle is likely not the last to occur during the Trump administration era. When Trump began campaigning for president in 2015, a video emerged, which featured televangelist Robert Jeffress and others praying over the then-presidential hopeful.

As Politico noted thenand as is no doubt true today, the TV president has found his kind of Christians.

Losing to wind next to his helicopter in Scotland.

Losing to wind at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

Losing to wind as he heads to Indiana.

Losing to wind while hes in Scotland to discuss bankrolling an anti-wind-farm campaign in order to fight an off-shore development near his luxury golf resort.

Losing to wind in the presence of Tom Brady.

Losing to wind while waving.

Putting up a good fight but ultimately losing to wind in Scotland.

PreviousNext

Losing to wind next to his helicopter in Scotland.

By Michael McGurk/Alamy.

Losing to wind at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

By Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images.

Losing to wind as he heads to Indiana.

By Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images.

Losing to wind while hes in Scotland to discuss bankrolling an anti-wind-farm campaign in order to fight an off-shore development near his luxury golf resort.

By Danny Lawson/PA/A.P.

Losing to wind while he talks to Patriots owner Robert Kraft before a game.

From Splash News.

Losing to wind at the house on the Isle of Lewis, Scotland, where his mother was born before she immigrated to the United States in 1929.

From PA/Alamy.

Losing to wind while boarding the Marine One helicopter at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

By Jonathan Ernst/Reuters.

Losing to wind while leaving One World Trade in New York.

By Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images.

Losing to wind in the presence of Tom Brady.

From Boston Herald/Splash News.

Losing to wind while waving.

By Rob Carr/Getty Images.

Putting up a good fight but ultimately losing to wind in Scotland.

By Michael McGurk/Rex/Shutterstock.

Read more:
Donald Trump's Oval Office Prayer Circle, Explained - Vanity Fair

Donald Trump Jr. walks offstage after Donald Trumps debate against Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on Sept. 26.

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Get ready for the latest defense for Donald Trump Jr.s actions: He had a First Amendment right to collude with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. This defense, which has been advanced by noted First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh and others, posits that he cannot be charged under campaign finance laws for soliciting a foreign contribution because seeking and providing such information would be protected political speech, or at least protected for an American to receive. Its a dangerous argument which fails to recognize the compelling interest promoted by Congresss ban on foreign contributions: specifically guarding American self-government against foreign intrusion.

Lets first start with the statute Trump Jr. may have violated. Federal law makes it a potentialcrime forany person to solicit (that is, expressly or impliedly ask for) the contribution of anything of value from a foreign citizen.

While we do not know enough to say that Trump Jr. should be charged with violating this statute, emailsreleased by Trump Jr. himself on Tuesday (as the New York Times was about to report on them) provide more than enough detail to merit an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. We know that Trump Jr. got an email from his friend stating that the Crown prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This high level and sensitive information was being presented as part of Russia and its governments support for Mr. Trump.

Trump Jr. replied almost immediately:If its what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

It seems obvious that I love it constitutes solicitation in this instance. And there is a very strong argument to be made that very high level and sensitive information coming from the government of Russia is a thing of value for purposes of federal campaign finance law. The Federal Election Commission has said that providing free polling information to a candidate is a thing of value. It has said that when Grover Norquists Americans for Tax Reformgave a list of conservative activists in 37 states to the BushCheney campaign in 2004, this was a thing of value which had to be reported by the campaign, even if the list was publicly posted on the groups website. It said that Canadian campaign literature which an American candidate wanted to borrow from in his own campaign is a thing of value, even if its value is nominal or difficult to ascertain. It said that opposition research provided by a political group to Republican candidates can count as an in-kind contribution. And a federal court, in the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, said that a thing of value need only have subjective value to the recipient.

In the case involving the Canadian campaign literature, the FEC said the solution was for the campaign to buy it at fair market value, not to take it for free. And in the case involving the polling data, the court distinguished between volunteering for a campaignwhich is OK, even for foreignersand providing things of value that the campaign would otherwise buy, including information.

So heres where the First Amendment argument comes in. Professor Volokh argues that applying the FEC statute against Trump for getting a Russian government oppo dump must violate Trump Jr.s First Amendment rights because otherwise it would prevent all campaigns from obtaining mere information from a foreign individual. What if foreign individuals came forward during the campaign with dirt on Trumps travails in Russia and gave it to the Clinton campaign? Would that violate the law? Could a campaign not even speak to a foreign individual?

If a law is substantially overbroad, Volokh argues, it could be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds against all people, including Trump Jr., even if a narrower lawfor example, against taking information from a foreign governmentcould pass constitutional muster.

Should it ever come down to a prosecution of Donald Trump Jr., I think courts wouldand shouldreject these arguments. One way to do so would be to read the statute more narrowly to proscribe actions like Trump Jr.s: campaigns taking compiled information for free that they would have paid significant value to receive from a foreign sourceor at least a foreign government.

Should it ever come down to a prosecution of Donald Trump Jr., I think courts would reject these arguments.

Campaign finance laws are usually justified on the grounds of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. But the laws barring foreign interference are different: They are about protecting self-government and the right of the American people themselves to decide who our elected officials and representatives are. As the FEC acknowledged in 2007, Congress passed and strengthened the foreign contribution ban with a broad scope out of a legitimate fear of interference in American electoral processes. It is a concern which has only been heightened by recent reports of Russian hacking into state voting and election systems in the 2016 campaign, as well as Russian proliferation of propaganda and Twitter botdriven fake news and the countrys hack of the Democratic National Committee.

Right after the Supreme Court decided the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, freeing corporations to spend money in elections independent of campaigns on the grounds that such independent spending cannot corrupt democracy, a Canadian lawyer living in New York named Benjamin Bluman brought a similar suit. He argued that his independent spending of 50 cents to make flyers and hand them out in Central Park in support of President Barack Obama should not be a crime because he could not corrupt the process.

A three-judge district court, in an opinion by conservative D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, roundly rejected the argument and affirmed the broad scope of the foreign contribution ban in Bluman v. FEC: It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process. The Supreme Court thought this result was so self-evident it summarily affirmed the lower court judgment withoutscheduling argument and without issuing a separate decision. That is how obvious the countrys interest is in preventing foreign influence over our elections.

To let someone off the hook who solicited very high level and sensitive information from a hostile government because there may be cases in which information from a foreign source does not raise the same danger to our national security and right of self-government is to turn the First Amendment into a tool to kill American democracy.

Put aside the incredulity Trump World would deserve if it pivots from saying there were no campaign contacts with the Russian government to acknowledging the contacts and saying they were just free speech. As a matter of protecting American democracy, the argument is pernicious and threatens the very core of what it means for we the people to decide who governs us.

Read the original post:
Donald Trump Jr.'s Free Speech Defense - Slate Magazine

But as the Russian election-meddling drama intensifies, these are not normal times.

Trump will serve as guest of honor at France's Bastille Day national military parade on the 100th anniversary of America's entry into World War I, invoking American triumphs abroad with a dash of pageantry that could help lift a struggling presidency and position him as a strong commander-in-chief.

His trip also offers the chance for Trump to forge a strong relationship with an increasingly influential world leader, France's new president, Emmanuel Macron, and to embrace the ceremonial spurs of the presidency to show Americans back home that he is up to the job.

But this looks almost certain to become Trump's third visit to Europe dominated by questions over the role Russia played in his election. This time, it's the admission -- via emails his son, Donald Trump Jr. released -- that Trump Jr. set up a meeting last year with a woman he believed was a Russian government lawyer brandishing Kremlin dirt on Hillary Clinton.

If Trump, as scheduled, holds a press conference with Macron on Thursday, it's almost certain he will be called upon -- or volunteer -- to address the meeting and the wider issue of alleged collusion with the Russians.

The President sought to get out ahead of that confrontation on Wednesday, telling Reuters in an interview that he did not know about the meeting when it took place last June.

"No, that I didn't know until a couple of days ago when I heard about this," he said.

It wouldn't be the first time that the Russia drama has smudged out White House efforts to promote Trump's global agenda.

His first trip to Europe in May was shadowed by questions about his failure to mention NATO's principle of mutual self defense -- questions lent added weight by his uncritical past statements about Russia.

Just last week, at the G20 summit in Germany, Trump saw his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin spoiled by differing US-Russia interpretations of discussions on election meddling. As the Russia intrigue deepened, the President has stayed out of view since returning home at the weekend with no public events set for three days.

A Republican source said Trump was angry that what he considered a successful visit to Poland and Germany last week was overshadowed by Russia. Now Russia headlines are likely proliferate once again.

Still, there are serious geopolitical issues at stake in Trump's trip that could benefit from his attention and may yield progress. And his interaction with Macron will highlight a remarkable study in contrasts.

Macron, 39, came from nowhere politically and, like Trump, overturned establishment politics and got elected president. But with unexpected political dexterity, he abruptly changed the face of French politics in a way Trump, 71, has been unable to do in America, by winning a subsequent parliamentary election and injecting a mood of optimism after years of failed presidencies.

He's also become a rising star on the global stage and is already seen as a fulcrum and leader of the West, alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"In less than two months, Macron will have hosted two of the world's most controversial leaders, Putin and Trump," said Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, director of the German Marshall Fund's Paris office. "Despite some criticism within the French political class, these bilateral meetings were generally perceived as successful diplomatic 'coup' signaling that France is back on the diplomatic scene."

Trump, like Macron, a scourge of established political forces, also defied the odds to win. But while Macron prospered, Trump lurched into a political crisis as soon as he was inaugurated.

Many world leaders see him as the antitheses of what the West stands for. Trump has infuriated Europeans by pulling out of the Paris climate accord, and is seen as an agent of intolerance and instability among the political classes across much of Europe.

The invitation also hints at Macron's strategy of reinvigorating France as a major world power, and a determination to ensure that despite antipathy in Europe towards Trump's approach, the US remains engaged in the West.

With Trump at odds with Merkel, Macron is setting himself up as a bridge between America and the rest of Europe.

The new French leader wants to make clear that despite sharp differences over climate and trade, and global outlook, the alliance between France and the US is vital for the good of the international order.

"We want to stress the importance of the enduring French-US relationship whatever current disagreements there might be at present," a senior French official said on condition of anonymity.

One reason why France wants to keep the US engaged is its desire to enshrine its role as the major European defense partner with the United States and in fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq and inside Europe.

Trump is likely to repay Macron's hospitality with a firm restatement of the alliance, and the importance of France's global role, always an important consideration in French politics.

"We have a long history -- not always marching in lockstep, but (we are) real friends and real allies," a senior administration official told reporters Tuesday. "And so there are clear parallels to our partnership and our alliances 100 years ago and today, no question about that."

"Macron will have to show firmness on issues that are critical to French national interests and values, if he wants to be perceived in France as the 'winner' of the meeting," de Hoop Scheffer said. "He will have to demonstrate his own negotiating skills and not be seen as making too many concessions."

French officials also believe that it is important that Macron and Trump, despite their differences, establish a workable personal connection.

So, after the two men meet for talks on Thursday, and a news conference that could highlight the difference between them, they will dine together with their wives, Melania and Brigitte.

Link:
Trump meets Macron, shadowed by Putin - CNN

Sen. Ben Sasse (left) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (right) have yet to disown Trump.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Joshua Roberts/Reuters, Yuri Gripas/Reuters, Joshua Roberts/Reuters.

These are dark times in Trumpworld. Politico reports that President Trump is using his relatively light schedule to watch TV and fume about the latest scandal, which makes him sound very relatable but also very sad. The New York Times, meanwhile, offers a portrait of a White House crippled by infighting and completely unable to keep its story straight in the wake of new revelations about Donald Trump Jr.s apparent eagerness to cooperatesome would say colludewith the Russian government to give his fathers presidential campaign a boost.

I have no insight into what the Trump clan will do to contain the damage in the days to come. What Im more interested in is how Republicans in Congress might react to the ongoing Trump meltdown. Will they abandon the president en masse? Will they stick with him until the bitter end? Id divvy GOP lawmakers up into three main categories: those who see themselves as potential Trump successors; swing staters who fear for their political survival; and the GOP leadership in the House and Senate, who care first and foremost about passing legislation.

A short while ago, I argued that ambitious Republicans should start laying the groundwork for a 2020 campaign right now. The obvious counterargument is that even contemplating a primary challenge against Trump is hilariously premature, as he continues to enjoy the support of the vast majority of Republican voters. Thats certainly true, and it remains a decent reason to hang back.

The deeper problem for those pushing the GOP agenda is that its not all that popular, Trump or no Trump.

As the events of the past few days remind us, however, its not clear the president is all that deft when it comes to handling a bona fide political crisis, and tying yourself too closely to Trumps political fortunes is looking less and less like a safe bet. And besides, could anyone blame a politician for setting himself or herself up as a Plan B for Republicans in the event of presidential self-immolation? The challenge is that if youre going to run for the GOP presidential nomination, youll need to win over people who at one point or another supported Trump. That means there might be such a thing as being too eager to abandon the president outright. The decision to throw Trump under the bus will have to be made more in sorrow than in anger.

Consider the tack taken by Ben Sasse, the youthful senator from Nebraska, whos already being asked about his presidential ambitions, and who is already artfully dodging questions about his intentions. On one level, Sasse has been quite quick to condemn Trump, rapping him across the knuckles for intemperate tweets and cozying up to Vladimir Putin, and going so far as to describe the presidents attacks on the hosts of MSNBCs Morning Joe as beneath the dignity of your office. But hes not sticking his neck out by, say, calling for impeachment.

How might Sasse and others in the same boat, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, start ramping up their criticism? Raising questions about the propriety of keeping Jared Kushner as a senior adviser to the president might be a good place to start. Sticking up for Robert Mueller in his role as special counsel is a no-brainer. And if Trump and his allies cant right the ship in a week or two, and if the president starts bleeding GOP support? Thats when the gloves can come off.

Now, say youre a backbencher who cares about nothing more than getting re-elected. Has the time come to distance yourself from the president? If your seat is even remotely competitive, the answer is clearly yes. There is a reason why Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican representing a swing district in New Yorks Long Island, felt the need to scold Donald Trump Jr. in a tweet. To have any hope of winning re-election, Zeldin knew he had to demonstrate some modicum of independence. This is part of a larger pattern: Many of Trumps most frequent GOP critics, among them Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, are up for re-election in 2018 in states where Democrats are gaining ground. Mind you, many anti-Trump Republicans in Congress are as motivated by ideological or character-based objections to Trump as they are by political calculation. But dont be surprised if Republicans representing purple and blue states are the ones who are keenest to take Trump to task.

Then there are the Republicans, led by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who are primarily focused on passing legislation that will move the country in what they take to be a more conservative direction. The goal of pushing through the GOPs long-standing domestic policy priorities has given Republicans reason to put aside any concerns they might have had about Trump.

By now, however, its become clear that an understaffed and inexperienced Trump White House is incapable of knocking heads together and moving the GOP agenda forward. To the contrary, mixed messages from the president (one day the GOPs Obamacare overhaul is terrific, the next day its inexcusably mean) and the constant whiff of scandal have stopped the GOP agenda dead in its tracks. A cynic might say that Trumps incompetence could be a blessing in disguise, as passing unpopular legislation could bite Republicans in the behind come 2018. But thats small comfort to GOP lawmakers who care most of all about having legislative accomplishments to crow about.

Will these Republicans leave Trump twisting in the wind? Im not so sure. The deeper problem facing those who care about pushing through the GOP agenda is that its not all that popular, Trump or no Trump. A weak Trump has at least some reason to play ball with a GOP Congress. He doesnt have much of a substantive agenda of his own, and hes in no position to cut deals with Democrats. If Trump is ensnared in ever more investigations, or if he is somehow removed from office, the Ryan-McConnell agenda may well be doomed. That means Ryan and McConnell will likely prefer the devil they know, at least for now.

Link:
When will Ben Sasse, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan abandon ... - Slate Magazine