Mediaboss Marketing

It's not every day you see more than one president in the same place and it's especially rare to see three. So when Presidents Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton joined forces at New York's Radio City Music Hall on Thursday evening for a conversation with late-night host Stephen Colbert, it's no surprise that big things happened.

"An Evening with the Presidents" which was hosted by Mindy Kaling and featured musical guests Lizzo, Queen Latifah, Ben Platt, Cynthia Erivo and Lea Michele set a national fundraising record even before the program began, bringing in an estimated $25 million for the Biden Victory Fund, which aims to help President Biden win reelection in November.

Tickets for the event ranged from $225 on the low end to as high as $500,000 with all the VIP perks. To get a photo with all three commanders-in-chief at the event, guests were looking at a $100,000 price tag.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty

Biden, Obama and Clinton comprise half of all living U.S. presidents. The other Democrat in the group 99-year-old Jimmy Carter has been in hospice care for more than a year, and while Republican George W. Bush is on good terms with his liberal counterparts, he would be an unusual guest to find at an explicitly Democratic fundraiser.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty

Donald Trump, meanwhile, also passed through New York City on Thursday for unrelated reasons, and attended the wake of a slain police officer on Long Island hours before Biden's fundraiser began.

Angela WEISS / AFP via Getty

As election season heats up, Trump finds himself bogged down by a host of civil and criminal cases that have led to steep fines and numerous court appearances. The former president's first criminal trial is slated to begin in Manhattan on April 15, centered around 34 felony counts related to alleged hush money payments.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty

Though Trump is polling stronger than many predicted when he first entered the race in 2022, he faces a major cash disadvantage compared to Biden that will only be exacerbated by Thursday's star-studded event.

Read the original here:
Obama, Clinton and Biden Join Forces to Defeat Trump: See Their Reunion - PEOPLE

NEW YORK In a rarity in presidential history, three Democratic presidents gathered here Thursday to publicly pillory and mock another former occupant of the Oval Office, blasting Donald Trump on the economy, immigration, abortion, his character and even his golf game.

At a fundraiser that President Bidens campaign said raised more than $26 million, former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton took turns laying out the stakes of the upcoming election, repeatedly telling the sold-out crowd of 5,000 why Trump should never be president again.

Weve got not just a nominee, but frankly a party and an entire infrastructure that increasingly seems unconcerned with the essence of America, Obama said at the event, which took place at Radio City Music Hall and featured celebrity performers including Mindy Kaling, Ben Platt and Lizzo.

Clinton mocked Trump for taking credit for Democrats accomplishments. I listened to him tell us how terrible the American economy was all during 2016, Clinton said. And then, by January 2017, after the inauguration, it had become wonderful, miraculously, overnight.

Biden indirectly responded to concerns about his age by comparing himself to Trump. This guy denies theres global warming, he said. This guy wants to get rid of not only Roe v. Wade, which he brags about having done, he wants to get rid of the ability of anyone anywhere in America to have the right to choose. All the things hes doing are so old. A little old and out of shape.

The fundraiser, which Bidens campaign said broke records for a political event, capped a stretch of stepped-up activity for the president and represented the latest effort by his allies to flip the script on the presidential race in which Biden has faced Democratic anxiety over his age and sagging approval ratings.

In recent weeks, Bidens campaign has taken a feistier tone in mocking Trump, aiming to present him as the feeble and struggling candidate in the race. On Thursday, Biden, who is 81, said he would be happy to challenge Trump, 77, to a round of golf.

I told him this before when he came into the Oval before he got sworn in, Biden said. I said, Ill give you three strokes if you carry your own bag, Biden said to laughter.

While the crowd of Democratic donors who paid between $225 and $500,000 to attend and, in some cases, take pictures with the presidents was mostly friendly, the event was interrupted multiple times by pro-Palestinian protesters. Outside, a large crowd of demonstrators chanted Genocide Joe! and blasted Bidens handling of the war in Gaza, with some clashing with police.

All three men remarked on the war, reflecting on the difficulty of trying to solve intractable challenges such as Middle East peace as president. Biden said there have been too many innocent victims, Israeli and Palestinian, in the conflict.

Obama said Biden faces a heart-wrenching crisis that is more complex than many want to acknowledge. I think people understandably oftentimes want to feel a certain surety in terms of how those decisions are made, Obama said. But a president doesnt have that luxury.

When protesters continued shouting, Obama shot back: No, no listen. You cant just talk and not listen. Thats what the other side does. And it is possible for us to understand that it is possible to have moral clarity and have deeply held beliefs, but still recognize that the world is complicated and it is hard to solve these problems.

During the rest of the conversation, which was moderated by comedian and late night host Stephen Colbert, the three presidents repeatedly answered questions by turning their fire against Trump. Clinton blasted Trump for working to sink a bipartisan immigration deal, saying Trump was good at branding and blaming but not solving problems.

Obama said that during Trumps four years in office, basic American ideals were not just de-emphasized, but were violated. Biden attacked his predecessor for his handling of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, saying we had no president that day.

While the three men and Colbert spent considerable time focusing on Trump, Obama at times used his remarks to emphasize the importance of making an affirmative case for Biden.

I think its worth adding, its not just the negative case against the presumptive nominee on the other side, Obama said after Biden gave his first answer and spoke mostly about Trump. Its the positive case for somebody whos done an outstanding job.

Obama has previously expressed his concerns about the state of Bidens campaign for reelection. In a private lunch with Biden last year, Obama urged Biden to bolster his campaign apparatus and move more aggressively to block Trumps planned march to the White House.

Trump was also in New York on Thursday, to attend the wake of a New York City police officer, Jonathan Diller, who was killed in the line of duty Monday.

We have to get back to law and order, Trump, who has often blamed Biden for instances of violent crime, told reporters outside the wake. We have to do a lot of things differently because this is not working. This is happening too often.

Colbert took the opportunity of Thursdays event for a dig at Trump for the multiple criminal charges against him. This is an especially exciting and rare occasion, Colbert said. Three presidents have all come to New York. And not one of them is here to appear in court.

While Biden has opened up a considerable fundraising advantage against his predecessor, Trump and his aides are aiming to close the gap. He plans to hold a fundraiser next week in Mar-a-Lago hosted by several billionaires, with one adviser saying the event could raise $33 million.

On Friday, Biden planned to meet with his campaigns top officials in New York during a campaign finance retreat, where his team was set to provide a comprehensive briefing on the state of the presidential race, according to campaign aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategizing.

The event was slated to include a briefing on the latest polling, discussion about potential paths to victory and an overview of how the campaign is spending its resources in battleground states.

Josh Dawsey, Jeff Stein, Michael Scherer and Elizabeth Dwoskin contributed to this report.

See original here:
At glitzy Biden fundraiser, three presidents unite to blast Trump - The Washington Post

First, there was the era of true crime, then the era of true crime podcasts. Now, we're in the era of shows about true crime podcasters.

Bodkin, an upcoming Netflix series, will follow in the footsteps of Only Murders in the Building by riffing on the world of people making binge-able content out of the grisly and gory. The comedy-thriller will revolve around a group of podcasters hitting the Irish coast in search of a decades-old scoop.

Here's everything we know about Bodkin.

Bodkin revolves around a group of podcasters who set their sights on a remote town in Ireland (the titular Bodkin) which, years earlier, fell victim to a spate of unsolved disappearances. Thinking they're just digging up the facts of a cut-and-dry cold case, the trio end up embroiled in something much darker and weirder than they were expecting. Against the backdrop of an idyllic seaside town with all of its rural quirks, they start to unravel everything about the case.

Executive producer of the series, Tonia Davis, says the series is a wickedly wry thriller which questions truth, narrative, and the very purpose of each. Interrogating the morals of the people who profit off true crime is not all that new. Landmark podcasts like S Town and Serial or shows like Making a Murderer helicoptered hoards of rubber-neckers into small towns, making armchair detectives out of anyone with a headphone jack. While Only Murders in the Building puts a more farcical spin on the ecosystem of true crime podcasters, it seems like Bodkin will straddle the line of drama and comedy more closely. And it seems like the West Cork podcast, which focused on an unsolved murder in Schull in Ireland, was an inspiration here (as it was for a recent episode of Black Mirror).

The cast of Bodkin is a transatlantic affair. Up top, you've got Will Forte, probably best known for his tenure on SNL and the post-apocalyptic comedy The Last Man on Earth (2015). He'll be playing Gilbert, one of those Americans who's convinced they're actually Irish. He's the presenter of a true crime podcast looking for the scoop on Bodkin's three missing strangers.

Then, there's Siobhn Cullen, the Irish actress known for the likes of Paula (2017) and The Limehouse Golem (2016). She stars as Dove, an investigative journalist hired by Gilbert to do the brunt work of digging into Bodkin's secrets. Elsewhere on the team, we have Robyn Cara playing Emmy, the podcast's eager researcher and Chris Walley playing Sen OShea, a Bodkin local who gets wrapped up in the group's investigation.

Behind the camera is a whole other story, though, as the team behind the series includes none other than Michelle and Barack Obama. The pair's Higher Ground company produced the series, which Nash Edgerton will direct.

Every true crime podcast needs a good tease, so it stands to reason that every show about a true crime podcast needs one too. Netflix has released the first trailer for Bodkin, which provides just the right amount of mystery and intrigue to have you hypothetically hitting subscribe on Gilbert's show.

See more here:
Netflix's Obama-backed comedy series Bodkin will parody the West Cork podcast - British GQ

The Federal Communications Commission will vote to restore net neutrality rules, a move that would reverse a controversial FCC ruling from 2017.

Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced the vote on Wednesday. It has a very good chance of passing, given that of the five commissioners of the FCC board, three are Democrats. The initial move to end net neutrality during the Trump era was met with fierce backlash online.

The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential, Rosenworcel said. After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair.

A return to the FCCs overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet, she added.

Net neutrality is the requirement that internet service providers do not discriminate based on the source or destination of data. It classifies providers as common carriers under Title 2 of the Communications Act, meaning they can be regulated more heavily as if they were telecommunications providers.

The push to restore net neutrality began last year when the commission voted to consider a proposed rule to reverse the 2017 vote ending it, which was spearheaded by then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. He was pilloried online at the time, with critics incorrectly predicting it would result in dire consequences for internet users.

Critics had contended that certain websites or platforms would end up getting throttled or charged extra, but those fears never materialized.

The April vote will undoubtedly receive pushback from the Republican commissioners at the FCC.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In a dissent last October, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said that the proposal to return the Obama-era net neutrality rules was bad regulation.

It should be clear by now the FCCs efforts to provide utility-style regulation of the internet is not good policy, Carr said. Its proponents keep on layering on new shades of lipstick.

Link:
FCC to vote on reinstating Obama-era net neutrality rules - Washington Examiner

U.S. intelligence skews its findings to find favor with both Republican and Democratic policymakers, including former presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, a sweeping new study by the Pentagon-backed RAND Corporation finds. The study draws on interviews, some anonymous, with nearly a dozen current and former U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers.

Despite the popular deep state characterization of the intelligence community as a rogue army running roughshod over elected leaders, the study concludes the exact opposite. It portrays an intelligence community that naturally tilts its reports and forecasts to curry favor with presidents and their high-level policymakers in Washington, regardless of party or issue.

Policymakers most frequently introduce bias in intelligence assessments from a desire to minimize the appearance of dissent, while the IC intelligence community tends to introduce bias through self-censorship, the report says.

The study, Has Trust in the U.S. Intelligence Community Eroded? Examining the Relationship Between Policymakers and Intelligence Providers, was sponsored by the Pentagon.

From 9/11 to January 6, theres hardly a shortage of intelligence failures to properly assess the big picture or anticipate crises, leading to a decline in trust by policymakers, some of whom have decried the intelligence community as a monolithic deep state outside of their control.But the study suggests that these policymakers often have themselves to blame for pressuring the intelligence community to come to certain conclusions in line with their political interests in many cases successfully.

Through his time in office, President Trump and other administration officials consistently sought to influence and, in some cases, bias intelligence, the study finds. Interviewees cited almost a dozen such examples, some unsurprising (Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, the Muslim travel ban, and the characterization of antifa) but others less obvious (mass shootings and the SolarWinds hack).

Far from the Hollywood picture of intelligence operatives as ruthless Jason Bourne types, interviewees complained about the pressure analysts and management faced from White House policymakers, with one likening it to bullying.

The culture of fear was real, one former intelligence official told RAND. The IC gets tired of being bullied, then they withdraw.

Individuals looked to avoid conflict and please political masters.

Individuals looked to avoid conflict and please political masters, the study says of the intelligence community analysts and officials, adding that the CIA and other agencies have an incentive to elicit positive feedback from policymakers in order to maintain [their] relevance.

Across multiple administrations, this dynamic of fear appears to have infected the highest echelons of the intelligence community. Former CIA Director Gina Haspel declined to push back on Trumps equivocations regarding the intelligence communitys conclusion that Saudi Arabias de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the study notes. (Haspel had reportedly been ordered by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to attend a congressional briefing where she could have challenged Trumps statements. She didnt attend.)

The report identifies Russian meddling in elections as among the most prominent scenarios in which the Trump administration pushed to influence the outcome of intelligence analysis.

With election interference, there were attempts to directly impact/change what the intelligence said, a former official told RAND. The IC was going to say that Russia did something, but policymakers would insist on adding more language, like something else about Iran.

Another former official described election security as the third rail of intelligence topics, describing congressionally mandated intelligence reports on foreign interference as an awkward process.

Ironically, despite Trumps repeated insinuations of a deep state bent on undermining him, the very intelligence agencies ended upwatering down assessments in order to avoid confrontations. As the study observes, IC analysts looked to avoid conflict with policymakers and avoid charges of being part of the deep state.

The intelligence communitys deference to its political masters was by no means confined to the Trump administration. One former official toldRAND that the process always involves some degree of give and take between analysts and policymakers. Indeed, the report provides a number of examples of intelligence bias during the Obama administration.

John A. Gentry, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst during the Obama administration, is quoted as saying that superiors told analysts to avoid specifically identified terms that might trigger criticism of administration policy, the study notes. Gentry also said that during the Obama years, intelligence analysis suffered from politicization by omission: leaving out issues from regular updates or assessments because the results might displease superiors.

In 2015, the year before Trump was elected, a survey of the members of the U.S. Central Command the Pentagons combatant command for the Middle East found that over 65 percent of respondents believed that their analysis was suppressed or distorted in the face of evidence due to editorial disagreement, politicization, or a mismatching with existing analytic lines, the study also notes.

Another example was alleged by a former official at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Obamas former CIA Director Michael Hayden, the report notes, has written that the community turned a blind eye to Russian information operations due to the administrations efforts to broker new diplomatic relations with Moscow. Not until 2015 did the U.S. come to grips with Russian efforts, by then just a year out from the 2016 elections famously marred by Russian meddling.

Rather than in the direction of Langley, the Pentagon, or any intelligence agency,RAND concludes that the IC largely tilts toward the White House and its army of political appointees.

Clearly the intelligence community tilts its findings; but rather than in the direction of Langley, the Pentagon, or any intelligence agency,RAND concludes that it largely tilts toward the White House and its army of political appointees.

The RAND report provides an accurate picture of how much the intelligence-policy relationship sometimes departs depressingly far from the ideal of intelligence providing unbiased analysis to policymakers who use it to inform their decision-making, Paul Pillar, a former national intelligence officer who is now a fellow at Georgetown Universitys Center for Security Study as well as the Quincy Institute, told The Intercept.

The report shows the variety of ways in which policymakers who are determined to use intelligence not to inform decisions but instead to sell their already established policies can pollute the process, ranging from blatant arm-twisting to subtle effects on the minds of intelligence officers who do not want to rock the boat, Pillar said.

See the original post:
Spy Agencies Skewed Intel to Please Trump, and Obama Too - The Intercept