Mediaboss Marketing

Alicia Shepard, Opinion contributor Published 5:17 p.m. ET July 23, 2017 | Updated 6:51 p.m. ET July 23, 2017

Sean Spicer's tenure as White House press secretary got off to a rocky start from Day One. On Trump's first full day in office, he lambasted journalists over coverage of the crowd size at the inauguration. (July 21) AP

Sean Spicer resigns as White House spokesman July 21, 2017.(Photo: Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images)

No tears for poor Sean Spicer, who finally resigned as White House press secretary after a series of humiliations that are too numerous to count.

Hell be fine. Thats how it goes in the Washington bubble or, as some call it, the swamp.

A politician or political operative is caught in a sex scandal, forced to resign over ethics charges, fired for incompetence, convicted of corruption or leaves office in some ignominious fashion and instead of slinking away, they prosper. Agents and bookers come after them with lucrative book deals, speaking engagements and jobs as political pundits on cable news.

Its likely Spicer will be offered all three, and is on his way to becoming a multi-millionaire if he plays his cards right. His biggest decision: Move forward as a Trump booster and apologist or try to regain the integrity and respect he previously held as communications director for the Republican National Committee?

Trump critics failing their own ethics tests

Trump is playing health care games with lives. Where are the grown-ups?

Theres no shame or conflict of interest too big to preclude a lucrative future in Washington.

Republican Newt Gingrich was forced to resign as Speaker of the House in 1998, after being dogged by a long-running ethics problem while in Congress that assured he would not be re-elected as speaker. Gingrich paid a fine of $300,000 and admitted he "engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." Gingrichs infidelity, while simultaneously demanding President Clinton resign over his affair with an intern, was classic Washington hypocrisy.

But today, Gingrich is a de facto Trump spokesperson appearing on Fox News and quoted often as a kind of minence grise in newspapers. And his wife, Callista Gingrich, the woman he had an affair with for six years while he was Speaker and married, has been appointed ambassador to the Vatican.

Another who has done well is former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, fired by Trump in June 2016 after various controversies that included a misdemeanor battery charge (later dropped) for grabbing a reporters arm. CNN quickly scarfed him up for a paying gig, but that didnt last. Hes now working for the conservative One America News Network and reportedly shopping a book.

Spicer quit after six months and one day because he disagreed vehemently with President Trumps decision to make wealthy hedge fund financier, Anthony Scaramucci, White House communications director. Trump ignored Spicers concerns that Scaramucci would add to an already-chaotic press office, not reduce it.

While Spicer technically resigned, his job has been in jeopardy practically from his first day in the White House. Bookies had odds on chances Spicer would be fired.

Whats astonishing is how long it took for Spicer to resign.

Its difficult to imagine which humiliation Spicer will miss most: Comedian Melissa McCarthy parodying him on NBCs Saturday Night Live, late-night comics ridiculing him, checking his integrity at the White House door or, most embarrassingly, not having authority as chief spokesperson to speak for the president.

Many were stunned to watch Spicers hastily called press briefing the day after the inauguration. He angrily read a statement that some reporters engaged in deliberately false reporting about the number at Trumps swearing in. National Park Service pictures clearly showed more people attended President Obamas 2008 inauguration.

This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period, said Spicer, in an on-camera meltdown, where he refused to take questions.

This was just the beginning of Spicers dissembling, distorting, exaggerating and avoiding questions altogether. His press briefings got so contentious, and at times, Spicer so tongue-tied, that they became must-watch TV, until the White House pulled the plug three weeks ago, ending the diversion.

Awkward moments between Spicer and the press abounded. Too many times, reporters asked questions that Spicer, as the presidents spokesperson, couldnt answer because he was not in the loop. Further humiliation came June 2, when CNN flashed on the screen: Presidents Spokesman Says He Cant Speak for the President.

One might expect the presidents press spokesperson to be well-briefed on the big news of the day, but that was often not the case. Trump had campaigned vigorously on repealing the Affordable Care Act. When a reporter asked if the president had seen the secret health care bill Senate Republicans were crafting, he replied, I dont know. Spicer also said he didnt know if the president accepted the U.S. intelligence communitys conclusion the Russians had hacked the 2016 election.

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

To win in Trump era, liberals must first listen to his voters

Trump contradicted Spicer many times, catching him off-guard and again, humiliating him. When Trump fired Comey, Spicer stood before the press, saying Trump made the decision based on a Justice Department recommendation. It was all him, Spicer, said referring to the memos author, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

Shortly after Spicers explanation, Trump said in an NBC interview, he had decided he would get rid of Comey regardless of the Justice Department memo. In other words, it was all Trump.

Spicer plans to leave at the end of August, and there will be some measure of relief. No more uncomfortable questions about whether his job is safe. No more parading his lack of credibility or struggling to get his story straight. No more compromising positions. No more half-truths (we hope).No more conflicting timelines. No more dashing behind White House shrubbery to avoid cameras.

He should be able to sleep better as he tries to regain his integrity if indeed thats what he intends to do.

Alicia Shepard is a veteran media writer and a former ombudsman for NPR. Follow her on Twitter@Ombudsman

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2uVRWrY

Original post:
Sean Spicer's choice: Boost the Donald Trump brand or rebuild his own? - USA TODAY

Donald Trump Jr.'s legal team is expanding its operation, bringing on D.C.-based attorney and longtime regulatory lawyer Karina Lynch, his team told ABC News.

Lynch also confirmed to ABC News that she is joining the team.

Donald Trump Jr. is one of the people connected to the Trump administration whom the Senate Judiciary Committee has said it wants to interview as part of its investigation into possible Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Lynch had been at the law firm Williams and Jensen since 2000, and became a principal in 2005, according to the firm's website.

She "concentrates on legislative, regulatory, and oversight issues affecting various sectors of the health care industry and clients with an interest in education and tax policy," her bio says.

Before that, she spent five years on Capitol Hill, serving as counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Government Affairs, which was chaired by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

She had previously served as investigative counsel for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

See the rest here:
Donald Trump Jr. adds DC-based attorney to legal team - ABC News

Sophia Buono, Opinion Contributor Published 8:51 a.m. ET July 23, 2017 | Updated 7:54 p.m. ET July 23, 2017

March for Life in Washington on Jan. 27, 2017.(Photo: Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images)

Democratic organizer and activistAndrew Redlawsk wrote a column for USA TODAY arguing that progressives need to listen to and engage with Trump voters in order to get the country back on the right path. In an effort to advance that dialog, we asked Notre Dame senior Sophia Buono, a USA TODAY Opinion intern and Trump voter, to reply below and for Redlawsk to continue the conversation in another piece.

After the presidential election, I kept my mouth shut.

I knew of the reactions students had received when they revealed that they had voted for Donald Trump: Some experienced coldness from friends, others got more abusive responses. One friend told me that at a board meeting of a student clubshe sat on, leaders announced that any members who stated that they had voted for Trump would be dismissed.

Contained in all these reactions were the same questions: Dont you care about undocumented immigrants? Women? Muslims? Blacks? Hispanics? LGBTQ people?

I answer each of those questions with an emphatic yes. I see every human being as unique, preciousand beautiful. I enjoy engaging with people of all kinds that is one of my favorite things about college.

With that in mind, Mr. Redlawsks call to stop condescending and start listening means a lot to me. For that message, I am very grateful, and I will strive to live it, too.

Taking that opportunity to speak to the open ear, I would like to explain what motivated me to vote for Donald Trump. Its not that I want to return to a traditional America of the past. Its not that I see Trump as the real answer to all of Americas problems. And at least I sincerely hope its not that Im ignorant and bigoted.

The reason why I voted for Trump is simple: I could not, in good conscience, vote for Hillary Clinton.

My conviction surpassed a mere aversion to her personality or email habits. Rather, it stemmed from the fact that she was an actively pro-abortion candidate.

To win in Trump era, liberals must first listen to his voters

Trump voters and foes can seek common ground on life: Response to Buono

Why let one issue, which has been settled by the Supreme Court since 1973, dominate my decision? At the core of it lies the unchanging gravity of the issue.

With every ounce of logic within me, I am convinced that the small thing inside a pregnant woman is a human life. To directly undo that life is to kill. And because that life is defenseless and innocent, to kill it is always wrong. It is a direct attack on human life which, as I stated, is always unique, preciousand beautiful.

We could argue about the merit of my conviction, but what matters here is to establish it as a core value of mine and one that is not so unreasonable as to be immediately dismissed.

Therefore, I cannot without contradiction support a candidate who endorsedabortion, aidedits distribution, and pushedfor measures that would constrain those who oppose it.

Even so, why Trump instead? It is hard to paint him as an infallible crusader for life. Whats more, voting for Trump could imply that I cared about unborn fetuses more than the people who felt threatened by his words. That, I repeat, is untrue.

I say this to every human: If any candidate advocated a practice whose primary purpose was to make you helpless and kill you, I would never vote for such a candidate.

President Trump, to put it gently, has many flaws. Nevertheless, voting for him was the surest way for me to help prevent a presidency that would tighten the grip of abortion in America. I find that cause essential to help the whole nation: Without defending themost vulnerable and voiceless, I cannot consistently defend anyone.

Some of my fellow voters had similar convictions but decided to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate. For them, a vote for Trump would only constitute participation in a lesser evil, or it did not promote enough good to justify the decision. I understand and respect those decisions, but I concluded otherwise. I believe that participation in democracy is a vital responsibility, and I did not want to throw away my vote in any way. Furthermore, despite the ambiguity of his stance on the issue, Trump indicated that he could help protect pro-life values through actions such as the Supreme Court justice appointment and preserving the Hyde Amendment, which withholds certain federal funds from being used for abortion.

I know that to completely ground my voting decision, I must not be content with just voting. Especially becauseI do not agree with all of President Trumps ideas, I must work within society to help promote policies of justice and fairness. Along the way, I hope to connect with those who disagree with me and work with them to support this beautiful nation of ours.

I only ask that after being heard, my core value the protection of life may be respected and protected, not ignored.

Sophia Buono is a senior at the University of Notre Dame and a College Fix summer intern at the Editorial Page of USA TODAY. Read Andrew Redlawsk's original column here and his last word here.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vN5LFq

Excerpt from:
I voted for Donald Trump to save lives: Response to Redlawsk - USA TODAY

President Trump will make a dummy visit to the United Kingdom this year, amid concerns that an official visit from the U.S. president could embarrass Queen Elizabeth, according to a report from The Daily Mail.

The trial visit, which will not include the traditional pomp and circumstance of an official visit, will include talks with Prime Minister Theresa May.

Trump will be invited by to the U.K. for an official visit only if the dummy run is a success, according to the British publication.

The trial trip is reportedly due to concerns that Trumps boisterous and untraditional behavior could embarrass the queen.

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

A Guardian report surfaced in June saying Trump had expressed concerns during a phone call with May about protests should he visit, reportedly telling her he did not want to visit unless he had support from the British public.

However, Downing Street and the White House maintained that the visit was still on despite the Guardian report.

The president has tremendous respect for Prime Minister May, a White House spokesman told The Hill at the time.That subject never came up on the call."

The president caused controversy when he criticized Londons Mayor Sadiq Khans response to terror attacks in central London in June.

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"

Khan responded in an interview with Channel 4 News, saying, I dont think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump to make test run for UK visit : report - The Hill

When it comes to possible collusion with Russia, Donald Trumps most interesting defenders dont reside on the political right. They reside on the political left.

Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich arent defending a principle. Theyre defending a patron. Until recently they were ultra-hawks. Now, to downplay Russias meddling in the 2016 elections, they sound like ultra-doves. All that matters is supporting their ally in the White House.

For left-wing defenders like Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald, by contrast, ideology is king. Blumenthal and Greenwald loathe Trump. But they loathe hawkish foreign policy more. So they minimize Russias election meddling to oppose what they see as a new Cold War.

Its a genuinely principled position. The problem is that principles are blinding them to facts.

On Tuesday on the Tucker Carlson show, Blumenthal laid out the progressive case against Russia hysteria. His first point was that, by obsessing about the Russia scandal, Democrats are forfeiting the chance to outline a genuinely progressive alternative to Trump. For the corporate sellout establishment that cant agree on a big economic message, that doesnt favor single payer [health care], Blumenthal argued, this is just convenient because this gives them a way of opposing Trump without having to do anything remotely progressive.

This is wrong. While its true that Democratic politicians and liberal pundits have spent a lot of time discussing the Russia scandal, its not true that they havent done anything remotely progressive. To the contrary, Democrats in Congress have opposed Trumps agenda more militantly than did congressional Democrats during the Reagan and George W. Bush years. In 1981, 48 Democrats in the House and 37 in the Senate voted for Reagans tax cuts. In 2001, 10 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate supported Bushs. By contrast, every House Democrat opposed Trumps first big legislative push, repealing and replacing Obamacare. (Had a repeal bill come to a vote in the Senate, Democratic opposition would likely have been unanimous there too.)

Its the same with Supreme Court nominations. In 1986, every Senate Democrat voted to confirm Antonin Scalia. In 2005, half of Senate Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts. This year, only three Democratic Senators voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Part of this, of course, is partisan sorting. There are fewer Democrats from conservative states and districts than there were decades ago. But its also because Democratic members of Congress are more responsive to their liberal base. In 2001, Californias Dianne Feinstein voted for Bushs tax cuts. A California Democrat voting for a Trump tax cut would be inconceivable today.

Blumenthal is right that Democrats dont have a big economic message. But thats not primarily because of the Russia scandal. Parties that are out of power rarely have a clear agenda. Its hard to develop a clear message when you dont have a clear leader. Narratives emerge during presidential campaigns. And the early evidence is that the progressive themes Bernie Sanders pushed last yearsingle-payer health care, free college tuition, a $15 minimum wagewill carry more weight inside the Democratic Party in 2020 than they did in 2016.

Blumenthals second argument is that the anti-Moscow line Democrats are now pushing will come back to haunt them. It will be repurposed by the political establishment so that anyone on the left who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or of corporate free trade will be painted as Russia puppets. Greenwald has made a similar argument. On Monday he savaged a new foreign policy group, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which brings Clinton campaign veterans together with neoconservatives like Bill Kristol. The song Democrats are now singing about Russia and Putin, wrote Greenwald, is one the neocons wrote many years ago, and all of the accompanying rhetorical tacticsaccusing those who seek better relations with Moscow of being Putins stooges, unpatriotic, of suspect loyalties, etc.are the ones that have defined the neocons smear campaigns for decades.

Theres a basis to this fear. Democrats have unleashed dangerous forces by getting to the GOPs right on foreign policy before. In 1992, for instance, Bill Clinton criticized George H.W. Bush for not deposing Saddam Hussein. In so doing, he helped lay the foundation for the push for regime change that culminated a decade later in the Iraq War. (A war I mistakenly supported.)

But the problem with downplaying Russian election meddling because youre afraid it will fuel militarism is that it evades the central question: How worrisome is the meddling itself? When it comes to Russians interference in the 2016 election, progressives like Blumenthal are behaving the way many conservatives behave on climate change. Conservatives fear that progressives will use climate change to impose new regulations on the economy. And because they oppose the solution, they claim theres no problem.

As with climate change, the evidence that Russia interfered in last years election appears quite strong. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA all believe with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 designed to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. The CIA and FBI also believe with high confidenceand the NSA believes with moderate confidencethat Putin was trying to elect Trump. They claim the Kremlin did this, in part, by stealing and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials. It also obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.

Its easy to say that because Americas intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, progressives shouldnt believe them now. But there are critical differences. In 2002, the intelligence agencies faced intense pressure from the Bush White House and Pentagon to make Saddam Husseins weapons programs seem more menacing. They faced no similar political pressure to exaggerate the severity of Russias election meddling.

Whats more, officials in France and Germany say Russia has tried to subvert their elections too. And in his email to Donald Trump Jr., Rob Goldstone, who was arranging a meeting with a lawyer close to figures in the Kremlin, wrote about Russia and its governments support of Mr. Trump. Blumenthal can deride a bootlicking press and a bootlicking kind of liberal opposition that believes all intelligence agencies. But Special Counsel Robert Mueller and four congressional committees are investigating the intelligence agencies conclusions. By the end of their inquiries, Americans will have a much fuller picture of Russian involvement in last years election than they had about Iraqi WMD on the eve of the Iraq War.

Blumenthal and Greenwald have an ideological problem. On foreign policy, they are anti-interventionists, or what Walter Russell Mead calls Jeffersonians. They believe that Americas empire threatens not only peace and justice abroad, but liberty at home. They want the United States to stop defending its imperial borders in Eastern Europe, South and East Asia, and the Middle East, because they believe such efforts cost Americans money, cost American lives, and create a pretext for surveillance that makes Americans less free.

Thats a totally legitimate view. As Mead notes, John Quincy Adams, Walter Lippmann, and George Kennan were all, in different ways, Jeffersonians. Andrew Bacevich and Ron Paul are today. And American foreign policy, which is dominated by an interventionist bipartisan elite, can benefit from a Jeffersonian critique. How does it benefit ordinary Americans to continue an endless, almost certainly unwinnable, war in Afghanistan? Why is the United States considering expanding NATO when it means pledging American lives to defend countries that many Americans have never even heard of?

But its one thing to oppose defending the American empire. Its another to oppose defending the American homeland. By intervening in the 2016 election, Russia did not threaten American influence in Afghanistan or Ukraine or Syria. It threatened America itself.

Near the heart of American democracy lies the idea that Americansnot foreign governmentsshould choose Americas leaders. It appears Russia challenged that by mounting a widespread, largely clandestine, campaign to get a particular candidate elected. And to make matters worse, the candidate it helped elect himself poses a serious threat to the rule of law in the United States.

Already, American liberal democracy is weaker because of what Russia did. If Russia casts doubt on the legitimacy of future American electionsby hacking into voting machines or spreading disinformation to discredit the resultsit could do even greater harm. If Blumenthal and Greenwald are indignant about Kris Kobachs efforts to limit Americans ability to choose their leaders, they should be indignant about Vladimir Putins too.

In his interview with Carlson, Blumenthal attacked Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin for calling Russias meddling a political Pearl Harbor. But in some ways, its an apt analogy. Until December 7, 1941, Americas conflict with Japan had been waged far from Americas shores. Tokyo wanted a sphere of influence in East Asia, its own Monroe Doctrine. The United States wanted to deny Japan hegemony over China, Indochina, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. It was a contest over imperial frontiers. Then, on December 7, Japan unexpectedly crossed the Pacific and attacked the United States itself. Suddenly, even Jeffersonians had to acknowledge that Japan constituted a threat.

Similarly, in recent years the United States has waged proxy battles against Russia in places like Ukraine, Syria, and Afghanistan, which are far from American shores. Jeffersonians can legitimately argue that Americas struggle for influence in those countries does more harm than good.

But last year, Russia unexpectedly attacked the United States itself in ways that genuinely harmed ordinary Americans. Trying to prevent Russia from doing so again doesnt make you an imperialist or a hawk. No matter how anti-interventionist you are, you need to protect your own country.

Blumenthal and Greenwald need not respond to Russias meddling by supporting NATO expansion or greater military intervention in Syria. But Jeffersonians should offer their own vision for how the United States protects its elections. If that involves treaties and international organizations rather than sanctions and arms sales, thats fine. If it involves American pledges to restrain its overseas cyber attacks, thats fine too. What America badly needs is a debate, across the ideological spectrum, about how to safeguard American democracy from the new foreign threats that technology enables.

Jeffersonians can play a crucial role in responding to that problem. But not if they are so afraid of the potential answers that they deny theres a problem at all.

See original here:
Donald Trump's Defenders on the Left - The Atlantic - The Atlantic