Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

The photography of Trump’s presidency is a huge break from Obama’s – The Verge

Many of the most iconic photos of Barack Obamas presidency came from Pete Souza, the official White House photographer. Granted extensive access to Obama, he shot the Osama Bin Laden war room photo, moments the president shared with Michelle Obama, the many famous images of the president interacting with kids, and countless more. These carefully composed photos so defined the public image of Obama that it nearly made Souza a household name.

In its visual representation, as in so many other respects, the Trump administration has made a break with the past. Most of what we see of Trump comes from either the traveling pool of press photographers or the smartphones of his staff. On the one hand there are Getty Images or Reuters shots of Trump standing at podiums (or pretending to drive a truck). And on the other, we get unusually informal images of him posing with world leaders or appearing to be caught off guard. In the meantime, the White Houses Flickr account was purged, and the Photos section was removed from the official website.

Trump has a staff photographer, but we havent seen much of her work

The new administration does have an official photographer in Shealah Craighead, who was hired in late January. She was the personal photographer for first lady Laura Bush, as well as the photo editor for Vice President Dick Cheney. So far very few of her photos have been published. The majority exist in one 50-image gallery on the presidents official Facebook page or are scattered around Instagram. A few others seem to show up in the graphics created for the official @POTUS Twitter account. Wherever they can be found, the pictures we see appear to show Craighead has little in the way of special access to Trump.

If you look at the archive of the White Houses Flickr account under Barack Obama, Souza was already taking a wider variety of photos of Obama, from loosening his tie on Inauguration Night to stressing during a budget meeting two weeks later.

Craigheads photos are instead mostly taken from a distance. She appears to be situated with, or even behind the White House press pool. Even the few photos of Trump or his daughter Ivanka that you could consider behind the scenes are still taken from far away. If anyone has the access that Souza had, its people like Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway, who are only armed with smartphones.

Considering Trumps desire to circumvent the traditional media, its surprising that he has not taken advantage of the position of official White House photographer, which gives the president a powerful way of controlling his image directly.

Some of the changes in the role of White House photographer can likely be attributed to organizational chaos in the administration. Outgoing Obama White House photo editor Al Anderson told the National Press Photographers Association that the Trump administration didnt take the time to build a team before Inauguration Day, and that Craighead asked him to stay at the White House while the photo department was restaffed. Anderson says that military photographers had to be brought in to help cover the inauguration, while Craighead tried to both organize coverage and take photos herself. Craighead declined to comment and the White House did not respond to inquiries.

Seeing fewer images from the White House might be better from a photojournalistic perspective

If the administration continues to downplay the official photographer role, it might not necessarily be a bad thing, according to Liz Losh, an associate professor at William and Mary who has written extensively about the visual culture of government.

From the standpoint of photojournalism, a lot of people would argue this is better, Losh tells The Verge. The control that the Pete Souza image had, it created an image of surplus and abundance of images of the president, but it became invisible how much those images were controlled.

John Bredar wrote the book about the history of White House photographers, and he agrees with Losh to an extent. I remember from interviewing [Pete Souza] back in 2010, that he was saying something like 90% of their selects, 90 to 95% of their selects, meaning his and his picture editor, were being uploaded to Flickr, and that maybe 5% were being filtered out for a variety of different reasons by [Obamas press secretary] Josh Earnest at the time.

In 2013, Obama came under fire when photojournalists from mainstream outlets noticed that Souza was uploading large numbers of photos from events and engagements to which they hadnt been invited. The White House Correspondents association and 37 news outlets sent a letter to then press secretary Jay Carney that compared the behavior to that of Soviet Russia. The New York Times described the protest as a mutiny.

Instead of leveraging the White House photographer, Trumps team has published large numbers of photos taken by phone-wielding staffers. We often see the same pic collages, thumbs-up photo ops, and phone conversation photos. This is in keeping with Trumps campaign. Trump kept the campaign press pool on a different plane, so the only behind-the-scenes looks we got of him were informal, often taken casually and at a distance. The photos were typically blurry, underexposed, and poorly composed. The campaign appeared to prioritize graphics, screenshots of tweets, and videos over high-quality photography.

Some of the most iconic images of the administration have also come from bystanders taking photos with their phones, like when a Mar-A-Lago guest snapped a photo of Trump using his cell phones flashlight to look at what appeared to be sensitive documents.

Losh argues that viewing Trump mainly through spur-of-the-moment cellphone snaps and the editorially independent photojournalists means were getting a more accurate portrayal of the president than we would if the official photographer was more active. Often these offhand photos can drive small news cycles of their own.

Bredar says hes holding his judgement on Craigheads role until he sees more of her work. Whats more, he says its hard to define the role of a White House photographer, because its not a position thats prescribed its more of a kept tradition. Bredar says it wasnt until the Johnson or Ford administrations that we really knew what kind of access the photographer had.

There was no Flickr stream, there was no kind of way to put photos out, and to some extent, the official White House photographers work was kept under wraps except for under some rare circumstances, he says.

As for the smartphone photos, Bredar says hes a bit wary about how theyre being handled since its unclear if theyre being managed or archived by the White House picture editor. Its also not clear if ones been hired after being asked last minute to stay on, Al Anderson left the post after two weeks.

Its not clear if any of these smartphone photos are being properly managed or archived

From the perspective of someone who looks at history kind of with a students eye, those are valuable documents to understand what was going on, Bredar says. And if nobodys kind of avidly collecting or managing that, thats one issue, and potentially a significant loss to the country.

Bredar and Losh both agree that the Trump administration is off to a bizarre start visually. Usually when a new president comes in, theres a huge amount of buzz ahead of time about who the photographers going to be within that photo community, Bredar says. And you didnt really hear that kind of conversation through this campaign.

The Trump team could settle in, and Craigheads role could evolve. But sometimes, Bredar says, that takes a very long time to happen.

If you look at Ollie Atkins, who was Nixons photographer, he reported to [press secretary] Ron Ziegler, and they had total control over him. He wasnt allowed to go in [the Oval Office] without Zieglers approval, Bredar says. Thats why Nixons presidency is often remembered for stiffly posed photos with people like Elvis Presley. Sound familiar?

It wasnt until Atkins learned that Nixon was telling his family about his decision to resign in 1974, Bredar says, that the photographer protested enough to get access to a truly intimate moment. He was rewarded with a set of iconic, if awkward, photos of the Nixon familys darkest hour. Those are the best photos that Ive seen from Ollies work.

View original post here:
The photography of Trump's presidency is a huge break from Obama's - The Verge

The Watergate-sized scandals rocking the Trump and Obama administrations – New York Post

Just when you thought Washington couldnt get worse, were swamped by sensational headlines and breathless reports about Russia, wiretaps and criminal leaks of classified material.

Throw in a leading congressmans late-night meeting at the White House, and it all has the feel of a second-rate movie plot. But dont you dare tune out, because we are witnessing an unprecedented event: two potential Watergate-sized scandals involving two presidents are emerging simultaneously.

Did Donald Trump collude with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton? Did Barack Obama politicize law enforcement and intelligence-gathering to spy on Trump and destroy his presidency?

Those are extraordinary questions, all the more so because the race to answer them is happening on parallel tracks. The usual partisanship has become a winner-take-all war to paint the other sides president as guilty of un-American conduct.

Scandal No. 1 started with reports that Russian hackers tried to tip the presidential election to Trump. Soon came the added charge that Trumps team was working with Vladimir Putin, as described in the discredited dossier about Russian hookers.

Clinton insisted often that Trump was guilty of something, and her media handmaidens still fan the smoke in a desperate search for flames. Though there is zero evidence so far, the continuing FBI investigation gives Democrats an opening to make up their own facts, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did Friday by suggesting that Russia is blackmailing Trump.

The next piece of collusion evidence will be the first, but that hasnt stopped the lefts fantasies about impeaching Trump. Some are breaking the law to build their case.

That brings us to Scandal No. 2, which got a late start, but its moving fast and is closer to pay dirt. As far fetched as it might have seemed when Trump first charged that Obama wire-tapped him, there is compelling evidence that Trump was onto something very big.

Numerous media reports continue to reveal that federal agents gathered secret information about Trumps team and used it to sabotage him. If it can be proven that a sitting president used government authorities to spy on a candidate who then became president and orchestrated leaks of classified material, Watergate, by comparison, really would be a second-rate burglary.

The odds favor the possibility that Obama was the king of dirty tricks. Consider that Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama defense official whose portfolio included Russia, said in a March 2 interview that was little noticed until last week that she had urged the Obama White House and congressional Dems to gather information about Trump and protect it from the new administration.

If they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staffs dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence, Farkas told MSNBC. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.

She added: We have good intelligence on Russia ... Thats why you have the leaking. People are worried.

Farkas later tried to walk back her claims, but too late. Her next speech should be to a federal grand jury.

Her apparent admission that national security leaks came from Obama officials working to undermine Trump is a major development, and The New York Times added an important wrinkle Friday. Perhaps inadvertently, a Page One story dropped the usual reference to surveillance on Trump associates and cited intelligence reports that showed that President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

To my knowledge, that is the first report anywhere to say that Trump himself was picked up on surveillance. If true, its a bombshell that changes everything.

When was Trump overheard? Who was he talking to? How does the Times know it was incidental instead of intentional, except that a leaker said so?

The story doesnt answer those questions, yet says Trumps claim of being wiretapped was debunked.

Wrong. Its been denied, but hardly debunked.

Furthermore, its a crime for anyone to leak Trumps name to the Times and to unmask any American citizen who was not the target of surveillance. Yet Trump is at least the sixth person from his circle to be publicly identified as being picked up by Obama-era surveillance.

The accumulating evidence that Trump and his team were targeted by American agents is now properly part of congressional investigations, but the pattern also deserves a criminal probe.

Watergate references can be trite, but the end of Richard Nixon offers lessons about where we go from here. For one thing, finding and squeezing a knowledgeable insider is crucial, and Farkas is a good starting point for the Justice Department.

Because she later served as an adviser to Clintons campaign, its also worth exploring whether she was a conduit with the Obama White House, and whether she leaked secret data to the media.

A second Watergate lesson is that the war isnt over until the home team waves the white flag. Recall that it was Republicans who convinced Nixon it was time to go.

So the GOP is key to the outcome of the Trump-Russia probe, and Dems will have a say about whether the leak investigation implicates Obama.

Heres the really frightening possibility: What if both presidents turn out to be guilty? What the hell do we do then?

Gov, Blas are lefty cellmates

Gov. Cuomo and Mayor deBlasio are personal enemies but, politically, more like twins. Their desire to close Rikers Island is the latest example of their shared radicalism.

The leftward march is no coincidence. Both have their eye on a national Democratic audience even as they run for re-election: de Blasio this year, Cuomo next. Both also hope to get ahead by running against the policies of President Trump.

Its hard to believe theres room for another New Yorker on the national stage, with Trump in the White House and Sen. Chuck Schumer the big Dem dog in the Senate. Then again, Trumps victory is convincing lots of long shots that lightning can strike them, too.

DeBs tab? Put it on the house

Now that the citys Conflict of Interest Board has slapped a $50 limit on gifts to Mayor deBlasios legal-defense fund, speculation grows that hell stick taxpayers with the bill. Heres a better idea: As Ive noted, de Blasio owns two private homes in pricey Brooklyn, and a reader estimates their combined market value could be $5 million. The mayor is rich, and can pay his own legal bills. He should sell the houses instead of sticking taxpayers with another corruption tax.

Haha, Bharara!

Preet Bharara hasnt lost his sense of humor. The former federal prosecutor tweeted about Albany:

#BREAKING: Bold, sweeping, principled ethics reforms finally enacted in New York State! The swamp, drained. #AprilFools.

See the original post:
The Watergate-sized scandals rocking the Trump and Obama administrations - New York Post

Obama was terrible for economic growth – New York Post

On Thursday we closed the book on the Obama economic miracle and its a miracle we are not in a recession.

Last week the Commerce Department released its third revision for fourth-quarter 2016 gross domestic product. The number came in at a paltry 2.1 percent, meaning that growth during President Obamas final year in office the end of an Error of Hope landed with a big thud at just 1.6 percent.

That low-water mark puts the Obama presidency in last place among all the post-World War II presidents when it comes to economic growth.

There have been 13 post-WWII presidents, beginning with Harry Truman, who had the disadvantage of beginning in the aftermath of war in 1946, during which the economy contracted 11.6 percent four times the contraction any other negative year since and even he bested Obamas economic record!

Truman, a moderate Democrat, also posted the two best years of growth on record: 1950 at 8.7 percent and 1951 at 8 percent, and there was no zero percent interest rate to gin up the economy back then.

Thirteenth of 13 presidents is no mild distinction. Obama had eight full years to enact a growth policy, while many of his predecessors never had two complete terms. George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had just four years each, Gerald Ford had less than three years and Richard Nixon had five.

Im not the least bit surprised the Obama economy was a failure. Ive chronicled it for more than seven years in this column.

Here are the average growth rates for each president:

See more here:
Obama was terrible for economic growth - New York Post

Meet the Obama Holdovers Who Survived Trump’s Sweep – The … – New York Times


New York Times
Meet the Obama Holdovers Who Survived Trump's Sweep - The ...
New York Times
Thomas A. Shannon Jr., second from left, who rose to the No. 3 post in the State Department in the Obama administration, welcomed Secretary of State Rex W.

and more »

See the original post:
Meet the Obama Holdovers Who Survived Trump's Sweep - The ... - New York Times

Obama Spied, Media Lied – PJ Media

Holy smoking gun, Batman!

Once you waveaway all the smoke created by our dishonest media, the story of this past week was pretty simple. The Trump-Russia-Conspiracy narrativeis falling apart. The Obama-Spied-on-his-Political-Opposition narrative is coming together. The media has given credence to Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff's hysterical charges about howthe Republican chair of the committee, Devin Nunes, made his latest discoveries. But Schiff is a dishonest McCarthyite, spewing insinuations and accusations without any proof toback them up. Nunes, on the other hand, has obviously gotten hold of solid intel showing that Obama spied on Trump and his people, pretty much as the president tweeted back on March 4.The willing Democrat executioners of truth i.e. the news staffs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and theNew York Times give equal weight to the statements of both men, making it seem like the House Intelligence Committee has simply descended into partisan bickering. But that's a lie. Nunes has found something. Schiff is smearing him and the president. Those two actions do notdeserve the same sort of coverage.

An intelligence whistle blower has apparently shown Nunes documents containing intelligence gathered on members of Trump's transition team. Though this intelligence may have been gathered legally i.e. as part of a wiretap onforeigners at least two of the names of Americans, including the name of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, were illegally revealed and shared widely. Other names were made obvious even though they remained concealed. None of the investigations seems to have had anything to do with Russia.

You can tell that Nunes has got this stuff solid because after he saw the documents he first informed the media, then informed the president, then informed the media that he had informed the president. The White House has since invited members of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to view certain documents which may or may not be the ones Nunes saw. That's a lot different thanSchiff making McCarthyite noise about there being "more than circumstantial evidence" that Trump works for SMERSH. Schiff and other Democrats have tried to confuse the issue with cries that Nunes isn't playing fair and demands that he recuse himself.

But in a stunning piece of video, a former Obama official who went on to advisethe Hillary Clinton campaignessentially confirmed that she was urging theprevious administration to abuse intelligenceon the Trump people. Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense, told Mika Brzezinski earlier this month: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy. That the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about... the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence." But Farkaswas already out of the administration and advising Hillary. Why the helldid sheknow anything about secret intelligence?

More:
Obama Spied, Media Lied - PJ Media