Mediaboss Marketing

We interrupt the hellscape that is 2020 with the news that we are somehow still talking about Hillary Clintons emails.

Clintons legal team argued before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday against a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. Clinton was noticed for an in-person deposition, and argued against attending. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled against Clinton in March, saying she had to be deposed in person. After that, Clintons team pulled out an interesting and seldom-successful legal maneuver: they filed a petition for mandamus against the judge. Mandamus is a legalese for forcing a government official to do their job properly.

Typically, litigants unsatisfied with adverse rulings simply appeal those rulings; petitioning for mandamus is far from a go-to legal strategy. And yet, two very high-profile cases hit courtrooms this week, both hoping that mandamus will save them.This particular case is extra odd, even for mandamus cases.

The appellate court first invited and then ordered the DOJ to come to oral arguments over Clintons deposition.

At those arguments on Tuesday, lawyers for Clinton (and her longtime aide Cheryl Mills, who was also noticed for a deposition) argued that Clinton and Mills have already turned over tens of thousands of messages, and that the real purpose for the depositions was to harass them on the national stage. Clintons attorney, David Kendall, called the deposition social media fundraising and said that Judicial Watch sought it solely to create video footage that can be used for partisan, political attack ads.

Whatever one thinks of Benghazi and the emails and the SCIF and all of that, though, there appears to be something just under the surface here that requires a little attention. The Justice Department was not nearly as interested in saving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a deposition as it was from rescuing Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross or former Vice President Dick Cheney from depositions. The difference may be related to the fact that theres another high-profile mandamus case going on in the D.C. Circuit. That one is about the prosecution of Michael Flynn.

The D.C. Circuit ordered U.S. District JudgeEmmet Sullivanto explainwhy he didnot to immediately dismiss theFlynn prosecution, despite the DOJs motion to drop the case. Sullivan responded, as ordered, by Monday. The appellate court ordered this explanation after Flynns legal team filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus in the hopes that Sullivan would be directed to dismiss the case. On Tuesday night, the D.C. Circuit ordered oral arguments in the case.

On the Flynn case, Judge Sullivans lawyer Beth Wilkinson wrote that It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime.

It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district courts legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendants plea, they argued.

The DOJ went to bat Flynn against Sullivan, saying that although a writ of mandamus isdrastic and extraordinary it is entirely appropriate and warranted in this case.

The district court plans plans to subject the Executives enforcement decision to extensive judicial inquiry, scrutiny, oversight, and involvement. Under the Supreme Courts and this Courts precedents, it is clear and indisputable that the district court has no authority to embark on that course, DOJ concluded.

Oralargumentsin the Clinton case were held telephonically due to the pandemic and went nearly three times longer than the court had scheduled. During the arguments, both Judge Nina Pillard (a Barack Obama appointee) and Judge Thomas Griffith (a George W. Bush appointee) called mandamus an extraordinary remedy to be used only rarely.

Those statements seemed to dovetail with Judicial Watchs argument against mandamus, calling such a writ the most potent weapon in the judicial arsenal.

Mark Freeman, arguing on behalf of the DOJ, said that Clintons would-be deposition was different from past cases in which the DOJ did oppose the depositions of high-level policymakers. And hows this for some more legal crossover? Judge Sullivan was the one who slammed Clintons use of a private email server, saying that, we wouldnt be here today if this employee had followed government policy. Whats more, Beth Wilkinsonrepresented Clinton staffers during the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of States use of a private server.

While the Flynn case was not specifically mentioned during Tuesdays oral arguments, it loomed large in the courtroom. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins (another Obama appointee) is currently the only judge assigned to both the Clinton case and the Flynn case. However, as these cases proceed, it is possible that the entire D.C. Circuit could eventually join the fray.

[screengrab via CBS]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more here:
DOJ Backed Writ of Mandamus in Michael Flynn Case, But Opposed It When Hillary Clintons Emails Were Involved - Law & Crime

Former US Secretary of StateHillary Clinton on Tuesday slammed her former election rival US President Donald Trump over attacking the peaceful protestorsat the Lafayette Square in Washington DC. Taking to Twitter, she stated that it was a "horrifying" use of presidential power against the citizens of the country. She further added that this act has no place anywhere.

The US Law Enforcement on Monday used tear gas, rubber bullets, and other tactics to clear out the peaceful protesters before the given curfew at the Lafayette Square in Washington DC so that Trump could take a photo in front of the St John's Church. While the curfew was 7 pm, the protesters were tear-gassed around 6:30 pm.According to international media reports, the law enforcement had given no warning and the firing was sudden. The protesters were protesting against the tragic death of George Floyd who was killed by a police officer.

Read:US President Trump spends Memorial Day retweeting sexist personal attacks on women

George Floyd's tragic death hasnot only angered millions across the world but it has also fueled a fresh wave of protests in various US states. Several protestors also converged outside the White Houseshouting "Black Lives Matter" and "I can't breathe". The focus of the protests is the alleged institutional bigotry and consequent brutalityin American police forces. Meanwhile, severalpolice squads have also joined the protestors in order to express their stand against police brutality and racism.

On Sunday, as many as40 cities and Washington DC across the United States imposed curfews in response to the continuing protests. According to international media reports, around 5,000 National Guard members have been activated in 15 states, as well as in Washington DC, along with 2,000 other members who are prepared to activate if needed. Meanwhile, around 4,000 people across the US States have been arrested during the protests.

Read:Protesters tear-gassed so Trump can walk to photo-op Church; outrage scorches Twitter

Police officer Derek Chauvin had handcuffed George Floyd and made him beg for breath after arresting him in Minnesota. In a video of the incident that went viral all over the social media, Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck which resulted in hisdeath. According toCommissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MDPS) John Harrington, the police officer has been fired from his job and has been takeninto custody by the criminal bureau. He added that a trial for the case will begin soon, with the officer facing third-degree murder and manslaughter charges.

Read:WHO pushes to keep ties with US despite Trump's exit plan

Read:Listen to the sirens blare as Trump triggers 3 rows in one go amid George Floyd protests

Read more from the original source:
Hillary Clinton slams Trump for tear-gassing peaceful protestors; calls it horrifying - Republic World - Republic World

A three-judge appeals court panel heard arguments this week from Hillary Clintons lawyer and Judicial Watch as the former secretary of state seeks to avoid a deposition about her private email server and the Benghazi attack talking points.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, argued Tuesday that the depositions of Clinton and Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, ordered by a D.C. district court judge was necessary to understand whether Clinton attempted to avoid the Freedom of Information Act when she improperly used a private server to conduct her State Department business and whether the agency adequately searched for all her emails.

It is certainly within the authority of the district court to hear from the agency head herself about whether there was intent," said Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca.

Clinton wanted to short-circuit this process by using the most potent weapon in the judicial arsenal to prevent the district court from ever being able to reach a determination of whether there was ever an adequate search," Cotca said.

The FBI investigated Clinton's use of the server, hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Although former FBI Director James Comey found Clinton was extremely careless in handling classified emails, no criminal charges were recommended against anyone following the bureaus "Midyear Exam" investigation. Clinton deleted 33,000 supposedly non-work-related emails.

Why is it that four years after the FBI closed its investigation that there are still additional Clinton emails that are being produced. Why were they not searched or produced or located earlier? Cotca asked, later adding, Even today, the State Department does not know what is the universe of Clinton emails from the State Department that is the significant issue here."

The Judicial Watch lawyer said deposing Clinton would help determine if she had tried to "thwart FOIA."

Clintons legal team asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus, a corrective order which would instruct the lower court to change its ruling ordering Clinton and Mills to be deposed. U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said in March, "It is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton."

We intervened in the case Secretary Clinton did when it became clear that her deposition might be an issue, said David Kendall, Clinton's attorney, who was also appearing for Mills.

Two of the three judges on the panel Obama appointee Nina Pillard and George W. Bush appointee Thomas Griffith stressed that issuing a writ of mandamus would be an extreme move. Pillard also claimed that Judicial Watch's concern about a leaky vessel during the State Departments search for Clinton's emails appeared unfounded."

Judge Robert Wilkins, another Obama appointee on the panel, asked: Why wouldnt it be relevant to depose Secretary Clinton or Ms. Mills to clarify who may have corresponded with either of them or in general about the Benghazi talking points?"

Kendall contended that the only relevant question was: Are there any more documents to produce?

The Clinton lawyer claimed that the real purpose" of the depositions "is harassment."

A State Department review of email practices of dozens of former agency officials and aides to Clinton found some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system. But investigators uncovered no persuasive evidence of systematic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.

Mark Freeman, the Justice Department attorney representing the State Department, said the Trump administration didnt support Clintons petition for mandamus.

The State Departments approach to all of these [Clinton] cases from the beginning has just been to get through them to respond to the FOIA requests, to push through any district court litigation, and to bring all these cases, and indeed the entire chapter, to a close, Freeman said, adding, "We have not asked this court to issue the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, and we have not supported the petition at issue here.

The virtual hearing stretched over an hour and a half. The appeals court will likely issue an opinion on whether they will be granting Clinton's request to avoid the deposition in the next few weeks.

Judicial Watch also wants to question Clinton and Mills about the talking points for former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice's appearances on television shows following the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Members of Ansar al Sharia launched a coordinated assault on Sept. 11, 2012, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Clinton, Rice, and others incorrectly blamed the attack on a YouTube video.

Some of the Tuesday arguments were reminiscent of the debate over the Justice Departments move to drop charges against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Instead of immediately agreeing with that decision, D.C. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan appointed an outside amicus, after which the Flynn legal team pursued a writ of mandamus with the D.C. appeals court in an effort to force Sullivan to allow the case to be dismissed. DOJ lawyers weighed in in favor of mandamus in that case.

Cheryl Mills's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, is representing Sullivan in that case. Wilkins is on the three-member panel that will decide whether to grant mandamus.

Read more here:
Hillary Clinton asks appeals court to help her dodge Judicial Watch deposition on emails and Benghazi - Washington Examiner

Barack Obama has a favorite saying on the campaign trail: Dont boo vote.

And young protesters, galvanized by police brutality and a rash of political disappointments, seem to be sketching out a present-day response:

Sure, maybe. But first, some well-directed fury.

Im tired. Im literally tired. Im tired of having to do this, said Aalayah Eastmond, 19, who survived the 2018 massacre at her high school in Parkland, Fla., became a gun control advocate, saw many legislative efforts stall and is now organizing protests in Washington over police violence against fellow black Americans.

Ms. Eastmond could be forgiven, she suggested, for doubting that the electoral system would meet the moment on its own: We do our job, she said, and then we dont see the people we vote in doing their job.

As nationwide demonstrations continue to simmer, interviews with millennial and Generation Z protesters and activists across racial lines reflect a steady suspicion about the value and effectiveness of voting alone. Their disillusionment threatens to perpetuate a consistent generational gap in election turnout, hinting at a key challenge facing Joseph R. Biden Jr. The former vice president, who announced Friday evening that he had earned a majority of delegates in the Democratic primary contest, has struggled to generate youth enthusiasm despite the demographics broad disapproval of President Trump.

To some degree, this dynamic has figured in political fights across the decades: Voters are disproportionately old; marchers are disproportionately young. (Even in the 2018 midterms, when youth engagement spiked compared with four years prior, turnout registered at about 36 percent for voting-age citizens under 30 and nearly twice that for those 65 and up, according to Census Bureau data.)

But the frustrations of todays younger Americans also speak to the particular conditions of the era, with a preferred candidate in the last two Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, falling short twice and a sense that those in office have done little to stem a flood of crises.

The deaths of black people at the hands of law enforcement. The relentless creep of climate change. Recurring economic uncertainty this time amid a pandemic exacerbated by missteps across the federal government.

In an ideal world, all of these issues would be solved by going out and voting, said Zoe Demkovitz, 27, who had supported Mr. Sanderss presidential campaign, as she marched against police violence in Philadelphia. I tried that. I voted for the right people.

And this, she concluded, adding an expletive, still happens.

Democratic leaders are plainly aware of this perception and mindful that a stronger showing from Hillary Clinton among young voters four years ago probably would have turned her fortunes.

Some have moved in recent days to explicitly urge protesters not to overlook November.

In a post on Medium, Mr. Obama disputed the notion that racial bias in criminal justice proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time.

Eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices, the former president wrote, italicizing liberally, and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.

Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, suggested that protests were so valuable in part because they helped introduce new leaders to old systems. At 79, Mr. Clyburn still delights in reminding audiences that he met his wife in jail after a civil rights march in 1960.

I stayed involved, Mr. Clyburn said, and Im now in the United States Congress.

Some younger protesters do not dismiss this prospective path or the wisdom of voting, however grudgingly.

But they say several of the most stinging policy letdowns in recent years have come after nominal election successes.

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio won office in 2013 with a pledge to dramatically reform the citys police culture, memorably showcasing his biracial family throughout his campaign. Through a recent stretch of demonstrations that included the arrest of his own daughter, Mr. de Blasio has largely defended the departments approach despite news accounts and videos of officers responding to peaceful protests with often striking aggression.

The mayors transformation has been so pronounced that I have trouble wrapping my head around it, said Ritchie Torres, 32, a Bronx city councilman now running for Congress.

For younger New Yorkers, he said, it was a reminder that electing ostensibly like-minded leadership was not enough. Young people rightly and clearly see the limitations of voting, he said, calling it a necessary but insufficient condition for political engagement.

Even Mr. Obamas White House tenure, made possible in large part by his strength with younger voters, has come in for mixed appraisals.

Evan Weber, 28, the political director for the Sunrise Movement, a group of young liberal environmental activists, cited the dissatisfaction among progressives his age over Mr. Obamas record on financial reform and some climate issues. People are turning to protest out of necessity, Mr. Weber said. We have grown up millennials and especially Generation Z with a system that has either delivered too little or not at all.

People of color have signaled a particular weariness with the implication that voting is a cure-all, especially given the scale of voter suppression efforts and other barriers to the ballot.

Jess Morales Rocketto, 33, a progressive strategist and former campaign aide to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, said the standard get-out-and-vote message tended to sound most palatable to people who were planning to vote anyway.

What were really wrestling with is not whether or not people vote but whether people believe institutions matter, she said. That disillusionment is actually about the fight for a generation of civic participation.

On that score, some academics say, the protests might help.

Daniel Q. Gillion, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, said that his research detailed in a recent book, The Loud Minority, about the importance of demonstrations since the 1960s showed that areas with meaningful protest activity often saw increased turnout in subsequent elections.

Whether younger Americans find a candidate to believe in is another matter. Jason Culler, 38, who also attended the march in Philadelphia, predicted that the current election cycle would not produce leaders who adequately reflected the crowds filling the streets.

Not this election, not the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, he said. These people dont represent us, thats why were out here still fighting the same thing.

If nothing else, such persistence has proved a point, especially for certain participants.

Ms. Eastmond, the Parkland survivor, recalled the skepticism two years ago that she and other teens stirred to action by the shooting would remain as engaged in political activism as the months passed.

She does not hear those doubts so much anymore.

People were questioning: A lot of the people in that movement, where are they now? she said. Im here. Im just one person, but Im here.

Jon Hurdle contributed reporting from Philadelphia, and Isabella Grulln Paz from New York.

Visit link:
Young Protesters Say Voting Isnt Enough. Will They Do It Anyway? - The New York Times

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy

President Donald Trumps most dangerous adversary in the November election is not Joe Biden.

Its Donald Trump.

Trump just cant resist shooting himself in the foot. (Perhaps his bone spurs are acting up.) His wholesale negativity, impulsiveness, inattention to detail and love of personal insults, taunts and conspiracy theories aimed at nearly everybody and everything have eroded his chances to win reelection.

Obviously, he is losing women, African-Americans and immigrants, particularly Hispanics. Even younger evangelicals are having their doubts.

But his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic and the general chaos of his presidency have alienated the particularly vulnerable elderly (23% of voters), who yearn for safety and stability.

His base is estimated to be 40% to 43% of voters. So he needs non-Republicans (read disenchanted Democrats), independents and other swing voters who helped him win in 2016.

But last time, voters who disliked his opponent, Hillary Clinton, helped tip the scales. Biden seems far more popular than Hillary. So, to coin a phrase, 2020 is a whole new ballgame. Or, as former Rep. David Trott, R-Mich., has said, 2016 was a perfect storm, meaning unlikely to reoccur.

Gordon Rowley, Wakefield

MLK would endorse message of Black Lives Matter

Since the death of Martin Luther King the white establishment has very effectively bastardized his message.

The message, often kept under wraps, is that racism, militarism and capitalism are the root causes of the darkness that has engulfed the United States of America. Until we address these issues there will only be more darkness.

King also spoke of urban riots that have and continue to engulf our country when he quoted Victor Hugo who said: "If a soul is left in the darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness."

King also spoke to non-violence when he said "If you want Peace then work for Justice."

He also said, "Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of Justice."

Martin Luther King's message knows no time period, and if he were alive today he would be in the streets in the name of "Black Lives Matter." He would be calling out to the powers and principalities that spread the darkness. He would be shining his light.

Just as Martin Luther King, ours is to cast out this darkness. It's not too late, but only if we are willing to act.

Martin Lepkowski, Wakefield

Threat to teachers jobs is being forgotten

Hundreds of public school teachers across Rhode Island are facing layoffs as the coronavirus pandemic threatens to wreak havoc on state and local budgets, and state leaders are offering few clues on how much aid districts should expect for the fiscal year that begins next month.

These are the people who sacrifice their lives for our children and they can expect no help at all from the inept individuals who run the state.

We have a governor who praises demonstrators for not rioting, an inept mayor who cant control his own city, and United States senators and congressmen who are hiding.

It seems that these people are able to provide funds for everyone else in this state except for the people who can help control our future. And judging by what has taken place this past week, we need our teachers very badly. Our so-called governor and the rest of our local political leaders should be ashamed of themselves, and by the way, where is the outcry for justice for these wonderful people? Do they have to take to the streets looting, burning and attacking police officers to be heard?

It seems that is how we express our feelings today.

John Cervone, North Providence

Provocateurs, including Trump, to blame for violence

Much of the violence accompanying the legitimately angry demonstrations protesting racial discrimination in major cities across the country is attributed to hooligans and provocateurs, who undermine the legitimacy of otherwise peaceful, albeit angry, demonstrations. I experienced this in the 60s, participating in multiple demonstrations that were co-opted by extremist fringe elements, to the point that I became reluctant to participate in mass demonstrations.

However, provocateurs in particular typically operate under a cloak of secrecy not so our provocateur-in-chief, President Trump. His actions throughout this crisis have not only lacked compassion for the victims of discrimination and empathy for the anger of the African-American community, but have shamefully inflamed tensions. Why are our elected officials, especially Republicans, so accepting of his divisive behavior?

Martin Huntley, Providence

Woodrow Wilson doesnt deserve a glowing tribute

After watching the events of rage which have been unfolding over the past few days in America and then reading Daniel Harrington's glowing My Turn commentary on former President Woodrow Wilson (Woodrow Wilson radically transformed the nation, May 31) it led me to wonder just what kind of a rock has Mr. Harrington been living under?

Perhaps Wilson was not the most virulent racist to ever occupy the Oval Office but he's in the top two. When Wilson took office in 1912 there were numerous federal positions being held by African Americans. They were quickly cashiered. If in fact Wilson did not give the order to fire them he was most certainly complicit as most of them were terminated. In one instance a black man who held a critical job and could not be fired was forced to work in a cage so no white worker had to come in contact with him.

It was not only blacks Wilson despised. He also described Poles, Hungarians and Italians as "men of the lowest class." I guess Wilson must have thought so little of Jews and the Irish that they weren't even worth a scant centimeter of his bile.

Wilson was a true "Son of the South." He was a descendant of a Confederate soldier. When he was elected president there was jubilation in Dixie and huzzahs of "the South shall rise again."

Is Mr. Harrington aware that at Wilsons alma mater, Princeton, students have been agitating for his name to be removed from all buildings on campus? I am not attempting to be a revisionist and try to rewrite history but at some point, the sheet has to be taken off the looking glass and historical figures must be seen warts and all.

We are all entitled to our opinion on what constitutes a great man, but how prophetic the headline over Mr. Harrington's article "Woodrow Wilson radically transformed the nation."

Charles Sinel, Pawtucket

Read more from the original source:
Letters: Trump's worst adversary; MLK and Black Lives Matter; and more - The Providence Journal