Mediaboss Marketing

This article has been updated.

It has been tricky for President Trump and his allies to retroactively figure out how to explain his tweets about then-President Barack Obama wiretapping Trump Tower. Trump himself has pointed in various directions random news reports, a headline in the New York Times, etc. and his allies have, over time, embraced a variety of other theories. The most likely explanation continues to be the one that emerged shortly after he first tweeted the allegation: Hed read a Breitbart article summarizing a claim made by radio host Mark Levin and ran with it in an unfounded direction.

A hallmark of Trumps public persona, though, is that he is never (or only very, very rarely) wrong. Many of his supporters, asked to choose between what Trump says and what the media says in response, are similarly inclined to side with and try to rationalize what Trump has argued.

Two weeks ago, that rationalization took the form of embracing the vague assertions of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), whose announcement that hed seen not-very-exculpatory documents quickly metastasized into a political problem for Nunes himself as it became clear that the trigger for his seeing those documents was someone in the administration.

This week, a new and unlikely hero: Evelyn Farkas.

Farkas is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia who served in that role from 2012 until she resigned at the end of October 2015. On March 2, she appeared on MSNBCs Morning Joe, discussing a New York Times article about how the Obama administration had tried to ensure that evidence of Russias involvement in the election would not be lost under Trump.

HOST MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You actually knew about this attempt to get and preserve information and, full transparency, were doing some work yourself. Tell us about that.

FARKAS: Well, 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 people that 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 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. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.

We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.

BRZEZINSKI: A lot going on today.

FARKAS: But thats why you have the leaking.

To defend President Trump's wiretapping claims, White House press secretary Sean Spicer brought up statements Obama official Evelyn Farkas, who left the administration in 2015, made on television in recent weeks. (Reuters)

During his daily news briefing on Thursday, press secretary Sean Spicer twice referred to those comments from Farkas, which had been featured on conservative radio and on Fox News website the day prior.

[I]f I can go back for a second to something that the Obama administrations Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense noted very clearly on the record, Spicer said, that they were engaged in an effort to spread information about Trump officials that had come up in intelligence. Thats not that is several networks. Evelyn Farkas made that proclamation about what was going on during the Obama administration regarding the Trump team. So that is something that they made very clear on the record.

Asked about it by radio host Hugh Hewitt, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus called it incredible.

[I]ts so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck shes talking about, Priebus said.

The headline on the Fox News story summarized the defense: Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team.

Youll notice that were a few steps removed from the Trump tweets themselves. Trumps wiretapping claims were somehow validated by what Nunes had seen granting Trump the flexibility that wiretapping didnt necessarily mean an actual wiretap but instead broad surveillance and that his phones meant communications systems that may not have been actual phones and may not have been actually his and may not have been actually at Trump Tower. But then the administration was forced to defend how Nunes got that information in the first place, which is how we end up at Farkas: It wasnt necessarily someone at the White House who leaked that information to Nunes (though reporting suggests that it was).

Spicer again:

[I]f you look at Obamas Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this information around, that they went around and did this. And she said, Thats why there are so many leaks. They have admitted on the record that this was their goal to leak stuff. And they literally she said on the record Trumps team. There are serious questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think thats really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.

Thats not really what Farkas said. She said that she had encouraged people in the administration and on Capitol Hill to investigate links between the Trump campaign and Russia in the window before Trump took office and to protect that information from the incoming administration, lest the methods used to collect it be compromised and the information buried. That concern that the truth be known, she said, is why information was being leaked and she hoped what wasnt leaked was protected.

Update: Farkas spoke to The Posts Karen De Young on Thursday night, saying that she didnt give anybody anything except advice. In an interview with the Daily Caller, she said, I had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasnt in government anymore and didnt have access to any.

To some extent, this is all framing. If youre inclined to believe that Trump was unfairly targeted by the Obama administration, you will read Farkass comments as Spicer does. If you are inclined not to, you may have a different interpretation.

Its critical to remember here, though, that Farkas wasnt a part of the administration. Shes someone who had access to information about Russia while she worked for the Defense Department, but she left that role before Trump won a single vote in a single primary. She certainly still knew people within the administration, and she mentions them. But the only thing she attributes to people who still worked for the administration is that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill precisely what the Times story said.

This is mostly sleight of hand. The question of why Trump tweeted what he did has largely been answered, with even Nunes admitting that theres no evidence Trump was wiretapped. The question of how Nunes got his information is still a bit uncertain, but its coming into focus. It seems pretty clear, though, that unless your question is the already-answered one of whether or not there was any investigation into Trump at all what someone who didnt work for Obama at all during 2016 said two days before Trumps tweets didnt have much to do with any of it.

Excerpt from:
The latest attempt to validate Trump's wiretapping claim? An Obama official who left in 2015. - Washington Post

Obama administration officials were so concerned about what would happen to key classified documents related to the Russia probe once President Trump took office that they created a list of document serial numbers to give to senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a former Obama official told NBC News.

The official said that after the list of documents related to the probe into Russian interference in the U.S. election was created in early January, he hand-carried it to the committee members. The numbers themselves were not classified, said the official.

Related: Flynn and Nunes Fallout Grows Ominous For Trump White House

The purpose, said the official, was to make it "harder to bury" the information, "to share it with those on the Hill who could lawfully see the documents," and to make sure it could reside in an Intelligence committee safe, "not just at Langley [CIA hq]."

Read the rest here:
Obama Officials Made List of Russia Probe Documents to Keep Them Safe - NBCNews.com

After eight years of the often thankless work required of the leader of the free world, Barack Obama seems to be enjoying doing what he wants. He's visited the British Virgin Islands, Hawaii and French Polynesia. He's gone kite-surfing, played golf, visited an art gallery and caught a Broadway play. After all the time and energy he put into running for president and being president, most Americans probably think he's entitled to tend to his own needs.

But not everyone agrees. The headline on an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggests that he get to work on a formidable new task: "Obama Should Make Saving Chicago His Pet Project."

Which gives us an opportunity to discuss the post-presidential Obama. Expect to read many, many uninvited suggestions for how he should spend his time. The author of this commentary, Chicagoan Gary MacDougal, who served as CEO of Mark Controls Corp. and chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, wants the former president to take on the mission of reducing violence in the city where he once lived.

"He and Mayor Rahm Emanuel should form a citywide task force to find a way to stop the killing and start saving lives," writes McDougal, who once served on a task force with him. "Mr. Obama is extremely popular in Chicago's black community and young gang members who have ignored all previous calls to put down their guns might listen to him." The objective, says McDougal, "would be to make Chicago the safest large city in the country."

This suggestion brings to mind The Onion article that ran after the 2008 presidential election: "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job." Obama may think he's done enough in the way of public service by shepherding the economy out of a severe recession, enacting a major health care overhaul, revamping financial regulation and taking steps against climate change. If you think all that didn't take a toll, compare photos of Obama in 2008 with those of 2016.

He has other pressing obligations, including some of value to people in Chicago. Planning, financing and building his presidential library and museum on the South Side will demand a lot of his attention before the planned 2021 opening. Obama has reportedly already started work on a memoir encompassing his White House years and it no doubt will run longer than the 464-page "Dreams of My Father," which covered less consequential years.

Why should he be the person to tackle violence in Chicago? Obama has spent little time here since becoming president. He and his wife Michelle have rented a house in Washington, where they are expected to stay at least until 15-year-old Sasha completes high school. He has no special expertise in crime prevention, and the relationships he once had with ordinary Chicagoans are no longer fresh. By now, others know the terrain much better than Obama does.

Besides, combating violence and its causes is really the job of the mayor, the City Council and the police superintendent. We're not convinced a panel of worthies, no matter who they might be, would do a lot to instill peaceable behavior among gang members or other violent residents. But if a task force holds any promise, plenty of other locals could lend it credibility. How about the Rev. Otis Moss III, Chance the Rapper, the Rev. Michael Pfleger or Dwyane Wade? Community leaders whose names are not famous could be enlisted. Local business executives could offer help creating avenues for employment to steer young people out of trouble. Corporations and foundations ought to be encouraged to invest more in blighted areas.

Obama's library and museum could be part of this effort, but it's too much to expect the former president to be the savior of Chicago. In the first place, he has too many other things on his plate. In the second, who would want to break the news to Michelle?

View post:
Should Obama save Chicago? That's asking too much. - Chicago Tribune

"With respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on March 31. "We need to focus on now defeating ISIS." (Reuters)

Conservatives who excoriated President Barack Obama for acquiescence to genocide in Syria should be just as vocal when it comes to the Trump administration. Indeed, the Trump administration seems to have thrown in the towel entirely on seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, thereby consenting to Irans effective domination of the country and to Russias success in defending its allies Iran and Syria.

On Thursday, both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,let it be known that the United States no longer seeks Assads ouster:

The United States diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn countrys president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administrations initial and public stance on Assads fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down. The shift drew a strong rebuke from at least two Republican senators. . . .

In Ankara on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assads longer-term status will be decided by the Syrian people.

In a written statement, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued that the statements signaled a shift to a Faustian bargain with Assad and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin sealed with an empty promise of counterterrorism cooperation. He warned: Such a policy would only exacerbate the terrorist threat to our nation. Not only would we make ourselves complicit in Assad and Putins butchery that has led to more than 400,000 Syrians killed and six million refugees, but we would empower ISIS, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist terrorists as the only alternative to the dictator that the Syrian people have fought for six years to remove. McCain concluded: Trying to fight [the Islamic State] while pretending that we can ignore the Syrian civil war that was its genesis and fuels it to this day is a recipe for more war, more terror, more refugees, and more instability. I hope President Trump will make clear that America will not follow this self-destructive and self-defeating path.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) likewise denounced the apparent decision. If the press reports are accurate and the Trump Administration is no longer focusing on removing Assad, I fear it will be the biggest mistake since President Obama failed to act after drawing a red line against Assads use of chemical weapons, Graham said in a written statement. To suggest that Assad is an acceptable leader for the Syrian people is to ignore the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people by the Assad regime. Leaving him in power is also a great reward for Russia and Iran.

Outside foreign policy experts were puzzled.

Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me: There remain at least two key unknowns: 1) Will the Trump Administration truly counter Irans regional ambitions in Syria, as it has promised to do (and which the Obama administration refused to do lest such a policy threaten the Iran nuclear deal)? 2) Will the Trump administration take the necessary steps post-victory in Raqqa to ensure that Sunni grievances are addressed in such a way that son-of-ISIS does not emerge from the ashes of ISIS? He continued: If the answer to both questions is yes, then the Administration will find itself taking measures that have the effect of driving Assad from power, even without declaring that as a goal, since Assad cannot long survive in a Syria in which Iran is on the defensive and Sunni grievances are addressed. If, however, the answer to either of these questions is no, then Assad could be around for a long, long time. In other words, rather than correcting the horrendous Obama policy, Republicans will have made it their own.

Is this a definitive policy decision?Frankly, its hard to know precisely what the administration intends, because Tillerson declines to interact with the media and the State Department no longer bothers to hold press briefings. Whether it is irreparable or permanent is the question, said Eric Edelman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. A good secretary, like George Shultz, understands that there is enormous subject matter expertise at State but little in the way of political judgment. The mark of a good secretary is to co-opt the knowledge and put [it] in the service of policy. So far, I cant tell whether or not that is happening but the initial auguries are not good. Conservatives who blasted Obama for the very same policies have no justification for refusal to do the same when a Republican administration follows his amoral and strategically disastrous policies.

Read the rest here:
Team Trump doubles down on Obama's horrendous betrayal of Syria - Washington Post (blog)

Earlier this week, liberals accused White House press secretary Sean Spicer of being racist and sexist for telling veteran White House reporter April Ryan to stop shaking her head.But newly resurfaced video reveals that Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary under former President Barack Obama, once said much worse to the American Urban Radio Networksreporter even comparing Ryan to his child.

Ryan asked Gibbs in December 2009 about former Obama social secretary Desiree Rogers seemingly wallowing in the spotlight at the first official state dinner of the Obama administration.Traditionally, the social secretarys responsibility at such functions is to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only those who were invited to the event were allowed in, according to the Washington Post.

That evening, Michaele and Tareq Salahi managed to crash the White House event, a security breach that prompted a congressional investigation. Some observers at the time, speculated the Salahis security breach may have been a direct result of Rogers actions.

Weeks after the incident, Ryan asked Gibbs about the stunning breach.

Is there concern in this White House that she came out being, someone might have called her [Rogers] the bell of the ball, overshadowing the first lady, Ryan asked.

Gibbs responded, I havent heard that.

Ryan followed up, saying, Its been bantered around Washington.

Thats not a station I live in, Gibbs replied.

Ryan continued to press, pleading with Gibbs to just answer the question, please.

Are you done speaking so I can? a testy Gibbs shot back.

Oh, yes, Im done, Ryan assured.

Gibbs reiterated that he had not heard that particular criticism.

The President, the first lady, and the entire White House staff are grateful for the job [Rogers] doesand thinks she has done a terrific and wonderful job pulling off a lot of big and important events here at the White House, he said.

Ryan wasnt satisfied with that answer.

[Rogers] came by herself to this state dinner, did the president invite her? Ryan asked, as Gibbs attempted to call on another reporter.

No, thats a real question. Do not fan it off, Ryan said. Did she invite herself when the president asked when her name was going on the list, and social secretaries are the ones that put their names on that list?

Was she at the dinner? April, April, calm down. Take a deep breath. Now see? I do this with my son and thats what happens, Gibbs said.

That comment was followed up with a collective ohhh from the White House press corps.

Dont play with me. Im being serious, Ryan shot back.

Was she at the dinner? Yes, shes the social secretary, Gibbs continued.

Social secretaries are not guests of the dinner, Ryan pointed out.

Gibbs replied, Im going to get back to weightiertopics like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.

Original post:
Flashback: Former Obama press secretary once told April Ryan to 'calm down' - TheBlaze.com