Mediaboss Marketing

Quarantining and social distancing hasnt slowed downReal Time with Bill Maher. The late night show and host Bill Maher have been on a roll in recent weeks and that trend looks to continue tonight.

Despite hosting the show and conducting interviews from his backyard, Mahers show has produced some of its best episodes in recent memory. Week after week, Maher has made headlines for his opinions or for the engaging debate hes had with guests.

Whether people agree with Maher or not isnt necessarily important.Real Timehas long been the most provocative show in late night. These shows during the pandemic have solidified that while Maher continues to dominate the conversation on everything from media coverage to Chinese wet markets.

Fans can expect more of the same tonight. Heres a complete breakdown of theReal Time with Bill Maherguest lineup:

Real Timekicks off with a returning guest. Former Attorney General Eric Holder is set to make his third appearance on the show.

Holder served as Attorney General under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2015. He is currently the chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee dedicated to reforming gerrymandering.

In his interview with Maher, Holder can speak to the Justice Departments role in the pandemic response, the job of current Attorney General Bill Barr, and how districting could influence the presidential election.

Another returning guest is on the schedule.New York Timescolumnist Bret Stephens is back for the seventh time.

In addition to his column, Stephens can be seen on MSNBC. On the COVID-19 pandemic, he has argued that the national lockdown is bad both for public health and from a political perspective. He claims that the model used in New York City should not be applied to the entire country.

There is an increasing restlessness when it comes to quarantining in the U.S. Maher and Stephens should get into the pros and cons of reopening the country in the coming weeks.

Matt Taibbi rounds out tonights guest lineup. He has made several appearances onReal Timebefore, though his last spot was in 2015.

Taibbi is a contributing editor atRolling Stone, an author, and host of the Useful Idiot podcast. He and Maher could discuss media coverage of the pandemic, the response by the Trump administration, and concerns over the spread of misinformation.

Who are you most excited to see on tonights show? Let us know in the comment section below.Real Time with Bill Maherairs at 10:00 PM ET on HBO.

View post:
Whos on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, May 1? - Last Night On

REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER continues its 18th season FRIDAY, MAY 1 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT), with a replay at 12:30 a.m., exclusively on HBO. Allowing Maher to offer his unique perspective on contemporary issues, the show, which is currently being filmed remotely from his home, includes virtual one-on-one interviews with guests. This week's guests include former Chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Eric Holder; New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor Bret Stephens; and Rolling Stone contributing editor and podcast host, Matt Taibbi.

The show is also available on HBO NOW, HBO GO, HBO On Demand and partners' streaming platforms.

Politico has hailed Maher as "a pugnacious debater and a healthy corrective to the claptrap of cable news," while Variety noted, "There may not be a more eclectic guest list on all of television."

Maher headlined his first special on the network in 1989 and has starred in 11 HBO solo specials to date.

The executive producers of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER are Bill Maher, Sheila Griffiths, Marc Gurvitz, Dean Johnsen, Billy Martin; co-executive producer, Chris Kelly; producer, Matt Wood; director, Paul Casey.

View original post here:
Scoop: Coming Up on a New Episode of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER on HBO - Friday, May 1, 2020 - Broadway World

The poker boom represented a time of bliss for pros and amateurs alike. Spanning from 2003 to 2006, the boom saw live and online poker explode in terms of players, tournament prize pools, and news coverage.

Not surprisingly, many players hoped and prayed for a second upsurge. They grabbed hold of any bit of hope that they thought could result in another rapid growth period.

Below, you can see the 7 biggest factors that were supposed to cause another boom. None of these aspects have come to fruition and caused a poker goldrush to date.

Poker experienced its biggest rise when the internet game operated in a grey area. Most governments completely ignored online poker up until the mid-2000s.

This lack of government regulation allowed the game to thrive.

Sites like Partypoker, PokerStars, Absolute Poker, UltimateBet, and Full Tilt made fortunes by serving the global market.

However, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and Black Friday (U.S. v. Scheinberg) put a damper on this unchecked market.

Happening in 2006 and 2011, respectively, these US legal actions convinced payment processors to quit serving Americans and even led to the downfall of certain sites.

Ever since, the US and other countries have begun regulating online poker. Nations like the UK, Denmark, France, Italy, and Spain offer broad legislation that covers their national playing pools.

America, however, has yet to legalize the game on a federal level. Instead, only a handful of states (e.g. New Jersey, Pennsylvania) have legalized and regulated online poker.

Given that the US was key to the original poker boom, this broken-up market has really hurt the internet games development. Regulation has also been too slow to provide any substantial growth or benefits from legal online poker.

The rest of America is served by smaller grey-market sites that dont generate a fraction of the traffic that Partypoker, Stars, and Full Tilt drew at their heights.

Barack Obama was inaugurated as the US President in 2008. Players had high hopes that the poker-loving President would undo all the harm caused by the UIGEA.

As a senator in Illinois, Obama regularly hosted a home game. The Democrat also expressed hope that Congress would repeal the UIGEA and regulate online poker on a federal level.

However, Republicans controlled Congress at the time and had no intentions of lightening up on internet gambling. The Obama administration didnt really have the power nor political motivation to wage a war for the game.

During Obamas time in office, Preet Bharara, US District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, initiated Black Friday.

Bharara didnt seek permission from the Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder at the time. This is just one more sign that Barack didnt have any real control over online pokers fate.

With close to 2.8 billion people between them, China and India represent 35% of the worlds population. It only stands to reason that they could collectively usher in their own poker boom.

Many have been waiting for poker to take off in either country. India is experiencing its own boom today. Adda52 has been particularly popular among Indian players.

However, Indias poker boom isnt having much of a global effect. Its instead confined to the countrys borders.

China, meanwhile, still has extremely restrictive gambling laws in place. It also exhibits quite a bit of control over its citizens.

India and China could still cause a mini-poker boom. As for now, though, theyve yet to bring these dreams to fruition.

Released in 1998, Rounders has become a cult classic thats still popular among poker players today. It was especially impactful shortly after it was released and has inspired notable pros to take up the game.

2003 WSOP Main Event champ Chris Moneymaker cites Rounders as one of the key reasons why he began playing. Coincidentally, Moneymaker is considered the biggest sparkplug for the poker boom.

Rumors have been floated about a potential Rounders sequel for years. Co-star Ed Norton mentioned the possibility during a 2014 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Co-writer Brian Koppelman also mentioned the possibility in 2019 by tweeting, Its never too late [for a Rounders sequel].

But more than two decades later, Rounders 2 isnt in production or even scheduled with a major studio. Assuming it is made, the sequel would face a near-impossible task of living up to the first movie.

After paying a $731 million fine to the US Department Justice following Black Friday, PokerStars avoided having to admit to money laundering charges. This agreement helped them remain eligible for return to the US online poker market.

Stars legally made their way back into America in 2016. They gained licensing through the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.

Some viewed this NJ foothold as a launching point for PokerStars expanding across the country. The enthusiasm was well warranted given that Stars still dominated the online poker market at the time.

Four years later, PokerStars has only managed to expand to Pennsylvania. Theyre also much more committed to casino gaming and sports betting (through Fox Sports deal) than poker these days.

Perhaps Stars may dedicate more effort towards the game that made them famous if regulation opens up. For now, though, theyre capitalizing on casino and sports gambling.

In the fall of 2008, Michael Phelps was fresh off another dominating Olympic performance. He captured eight gold medals and set multiple records in Beijing.

Phelps mania was at an all time high. So, the poker world jumped when they read news of The Baltimore Bullet hanging out in poker rooms.

Friends with pro player Jeff Gross, Phelps began dedicating more time to his poker hobby in 2008. He piqued more interest after finishing ninth place ($5,213) in a Caesars Palace Classic tournament.

Given Phelps status, some wondered if he could be the marquee attraction that would inspire millions of people to take up the game. Many speculated on what sites might sponsor Phelps.

In the end, though, he was just enjoying his time away from the pool. Michael Phelps eventually returned to competitive swimming and won four golds and two silvers at the 2012 London Olympic Games.

Now retired from swimming, Phelps still enjoys playing poker from time to time. But he shows no interest in being the bannerman for the game.

A reverberation from Black Friday, popular poker TV shows went off the air in the early 2010s. High Stakes Poker, Poker After Dark, and PokerStars Big Game were the most-notable shows to disappear.

The sites and companies that sponsored these programs pulled their advertising after Black Friday. Poker TV remained largely in limbo until Poker After Dark (2017-19) and Poker Night in America (2017 onwards) returned.

These shows offered the promise of bringing poker to the masses again. Each show featured prominent players just as programs before it had done.

Poker After Dark went off air in 2019. PNIA continues to run and offers entertaining action. But as a whole, the poker TV scene isnt quite what it used to be.

As it were, the poker boom is a one-time event thatll never be replicated. Another mini boom could potentially happen but nothing like what occurred during the mid-2000s.

A perfect mixture of factors came together to rapidly increase the popularity of online poker and the game as a whole.

The internet game was new, Moneymaker showed that any amateur could win, and TV shows began interesting casual viewers.

Online poker is far from new today. The game is also tougher due to the average players skill level being much higher today.

The good news is that live tournaments are more popular than ever. The World Series of Poker keeps setting attendance records year after year.

Countries and states are also sharing their online player pools in some cases. The more linked player pools there are, the bigger cash games and tournaments can grow.

Nevertheless, a second poker boom just doesnt seem in the cards. After believing in one or more of the previously discussed 7 factors, many people have given up on the notion of boom #2.

Read the original:
Factors That Should Have Started the Next Online Poker Boom - BestUSCasinos.org

Even as a pandemic hastrapped voters and candidates indoorsand consumed American politics, one key element of the presidential campaign may remain virtually unaltered: the vice presidential selection process.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has said he is modeling his vice presidential search after the efforts of past Democratic presidential campaigns, including thevetting discreetly helmedby Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy in 2008 that yielded his own selection to President Barack Obama's ticket.

Biden must make the choice at an unprecedented time for American politics, when typical campaign rallies have been replaced with virtual town halls from his Delaware home. But while much of traditional campaigning is reliant on door knocking and voter interactions, the process that has informed recent vice presidential campaigns was done remotely to begin with.

Sources with insight into the "pre-vetting" process tell CBS News that Biden's picks have further winnowed since March, when the former vice presidenttold "The View" thathis shortlist hovered around 11 women, citing the immense resources required to investigate each candidate.

Five to eight candidates are now being seriously considered, CBS News has learned, though the sources said a "dark horse" candidate could be added.

The former vice president has yet to publicly name who will lead the effort, which will likely be manned by a fleet of accountants and attorneys. Lawyers from Holder's powerhouse firm, Covington & Burling,already serve as counselto Biden's presidential campaign.

"It doesn't mean that strategists inside the campaign have no input. But you want to give security to the people who are being vetted that the information they turn over will remain private," explained Bob Shrum, a top adviser to John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The first stage of the search has likely already begun, say veterans of past vice presidential picks, with aides scouring the internet, press clippings, and public records. Similar to the routine carried out by campaign opposition research teams, this probe can largely be carried out even during quarantine.

"Oftentimes, that first and even second round of vetting is really remote. They don't even know about it. You just sort of announce they're being vetted," said Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager.

Once Biden's list is sufficiently narrowed, vetters need shortlisters' cooperation to continue the audition. Potential running mates must complete lengthy questionnaires, turn over troves of personal records, and submit their families to invasive interrogations of their public and private lives.

"I got a call from Senator Obama, I think it was probably late May or early June," said former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who was extensively vetted by Mr. Obama's search in 2008. "I was in the middle of the meeting. And he basically asked me if I'd be willing to be vetted for vice president."

James Johnson, the Democratic operative who helped lead Mr. Obama's vetting processin its early days, was already waiting downstairs for Sebelius.

"He made two things very clear. First, not to talk about the process with anyone. And two, I needed to alert my family that this was coming," Sebelius said.

When Mr. Obama asked Biden, the then-Delaware senator immediately turned down the vetting offer as he feared, in part, turning into a "punchline" like some previous former vice presidents with limited duties, he wrote in his 2017 memoir. Biden called the vetting process a "difficult" decision, but after prodding by his family and a secretive trip to Minneapolis for an additional meeting, Biden felt more comfortable with the process going forward.

While a presidential candidate can sometimes overcome a blemish on his or her past by publicly confronting it, a potential vice president needs to survive vetting in a vacuum.

"Sometimes there are presidential candidates who probably would have a greater chance of being a presidential nominee than a vice presidential nominee," said Joel Goldstein, a scholar of the vice presidency who teaches at St. Louis University Law School.

Several running mate finalists recounted thorough searches by vetters, uncovering embarrassing details untouched even by other official and campaign background checks.

"I would call it skeletons and lawsuits," said former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who faced vetting by the presidential campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Obama. "In other words, rumors. Sometimes you are asked directly, and you try to be as candid as you can."

One strategist familiar with Hillary Clinton's 2016 vice presidential search worried candidates being vetted this year could be wary of divulging personal information over the phone or on a video call. As past candidates have narrowed their lists to a handful of names, they or at least their trusted advisors have met with the finalists, taking extraordinary measures to keep their encounters secret and secure.

"Kerry interviewed me at the top of a warehouse before choosing Edwards in Phoenix. James Johnson held our secret meeting at a hotel room near Dulles Airport, wearing a rain jacket like those detectives do," joked Richardson.

However, social distancing wrought by the spread of COVID-19 has already reshaped one assessment: a potential running mate's performance on stage with the nominee's message.

"You need to see how each candidate matches each other at these rallies and the personal chemistry, you can't really do it virtually. You want to see the candidates in front of voters, in front of crowds," said Richardson.

Bans on large gatherings have transformed Biden's public campaign, forcing him to broadcast events online from his Delaware home.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer fueled speculation last week, joining Bidenon his campaign's podcast. Another rumored running mate -- California Senator Kamala Harris -- called in Wednesday to a virtual fundraiser with Biden.

"You want someone who can do well in the vice presidential debate. Because the job of the vice presidential candidate, in their highest moment of visibility, is that debate. To go after the other nominee and the other party and do it effectively," says Shrum.

When Senator Amy Klobuchar recalled the previous Democratic debates as she endorsed Biden in early March, he interrupted her to point out "all which you won."

But beyond a pick's public chemistry with the nominee and their campaign, Democratic campaign veterans say the nominee's final decision often ends with an intensely private assessment.

"I met with Barack Obama for three and a half hours. They want to see what the comfort level is like, after all you're going to be in a foxhole together," recalled former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

Obama's selection in 2008 came down to Biden and Bayh, according to multiple Democrats on the campaign at the time, but an additional disadvantage plagued Bayh: a Republican governor would have selected Bayh's replacement in the Senate.

"It was an honor to be considered, but to be in that final three, anyone will tell you that it can feel like a colonoscopy. Except they use the Hubble Telescope," Bayh said.

Jack Turman contributed reporting

Read more here:
Veepstakes in the age of coronavirus - CBS News

The recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to authorize Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to investigate alleged war crimes in Afghanistan includes allegations that U.S. personnel committed torture when interrogating prisoners there and in other ICC member countries. The prosecutor has identified the potential defendants as CIA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations. Whether those officials are ultimately charged will likely turn on whether they had the required criminal intent or whether they justifiably relied in good faith on assurances by the Justice Department that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques they participated in were lawful.

Article 30 of the ICCs Rome Statute requires that the defendant had the mental state of intent and knowledge. Article 32 acknowledges that some mistakes of law may negate that mental state. Therefore, U.S. personnel who relied on the Department of Justices (DOJs) legal advice may not be criminally responsible even if that advice turned out to be wrong.

This notion of reliance in good faith to negate criminal responsibility is not new. The U.S. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, adopted by a vote of 90-9 in the Senate, provides that:

it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.

In 2009, President Barack Obama said that it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder later affirmed that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. And the Senates May 2018 confirmation of Gina Haspel as CIA director was an implicit endorsement of her explanation that CIA personnel involved with the detention and interrogation program relied on legal guidance, and adhered to it in good faith.

CIA Reliance on Legal Guidance

When CIA Director George Tenet was first presented with a proposal to use enhanced interrogation techniques in April 2002, he did what international humanitarian law wants a superior to do: he asked if it was legal. Despite intense pressure to prevent a second attack on the United States after 9/11, Tenet waited four months for DOJ to answer that question. He authorized the use of proposed interrogation techniques only after he was assured that they were legal. During the next two years, whenever any doubt was raised over the legality of those techniques, Tenet said the CIA would not continue using the techniques unless DOJ found them to be legal. In each instance, DOJ affirmed the techniques legality.

The original advice of DOJ attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee that the techniques were legal was reaffirmed, in one form or another, throughout Tenets tenure by DOJ attorneys Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin and Steven Bradbury, and consistently supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ashcroft briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. They endorsed the techniques. President George W. Bush wrote in his book that he, too, approved the interrogation techniques.

Of course, a defendant cannot claim to have relied on DOJ advice if he knew DOJ was misled or if he authorized or condoned interrogation techniques materially different than those approved by DOJ. The Senate Intelligence Committees 2014 report claims that the CIAs use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the field diverged from what the CIA requested to use and later reported to DOJ. To overcome the defense of good faith reliance on DOJ opinions, the ICC prosecutor will have to examine such claims as to each potential defendant, as well as whether the acts known to that defendant were so egregious that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the practices were unlawful, despite the legal advice.

Not Yet Tested at the ICC

Although good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a well-established defense in American criminal law, it has not yet been tested at the ICC. The advice at issue in the Afghanistan investigation context was that the enhanced interrogation techniques should not result in the infliction of severe pain. The ICC statutes accompanying list of elements of crimesprovides thatit is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator intended that the pain would be severe. However, the ICC will likely not be prosecuting the actual persons who inflicted the pain, but rather higher-level officials. So any prosecution of top officials would have to be brought under a theory of co-perpetration, which requires that the remote defendant had to be aware that his conduct would bring about the elements of the war crime of torture, which includes the infliction of severe pain.

Now that the Appeals Chamber has settled the question of jurisdiction, the criminal intent issue appears to be the ICC prosecutors greatest obstacle in bringing charges against U.S. personnel.

The ICC also has a requirement to ensure that it is the court of last resort (admissibility). It can only bring charges where national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute the case themselves (complementarity) and where the crimes are sufficiently important (gravity). Since the United States has decided not to prosecute those who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations, the defendants cannot benefit from complementarity. And the ICCs bar for gravity has been set very low in the recent Appeals Chamber decision in the Al Hassan case, likely dooming the argument that the number of torture victims is too few for the ICC.

Bensouda already has shown her willingness to assign some of her limited resources to investigating those crimes. Having devoted those resources, she or her successor would not, in the end, decline to bring charges against U.S. personnel simply for fear of alienating the United States and its allies or because the defendants may not be easily arrested. While U.S. nationals accused at the ICC may never be arrested unless they travel to an ICC member country, threats and bluster by a U.S. administration will not deter the prosecutor from seeking an arrest warrant. It also is unlikely that the fractured United Nations Security Council will bail out the United States by ordering the Afghanistan investigation be deferred, as it has the power to do under Article 16 of the ICC Statute, or outright ban prosecution of non-party nationals, as proposed by Senator Ted Cruz.

Instead, if charges are not brought at the ICC, it will likely be based on the inability to establish the criminal intent of those U.S. officials most responsible for the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Original post:
ICC Afghanistan Torture Investigation Likely to Turn on Criminal Intent - Just Security