Mediaboss Marketing

Should Donald Trump, Jr., have taken that meeting? Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, asked Christopher Wray, President Trumps pick to be the director of the F.B.I., at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. Graham had just read out the e-mail exchange between Trump, Jr., and Rob Goldstone, whom Graham, in as concise a description as anyone has come up with, referred to as someone connected to the Miss Universe pageant and has ties to Russian entertainment. Goldstone said that Russian officials were reaching out with incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, as part of an effort to influence the 2016 election; Trump, Jr., professed to love the idea, and put in motion plans for a meeting. In asking whether that was wise, Graham was embarking on a ritual that has become a hallmark of the half year since the Inauguration: a Trump nominee is asked to state something that seems blindingly obviousthat he respects the rule of law, say, or knows that torture is illegal, or doesnt like it when Vladimir Putin tries to shape an American election. And yet, because of the terrible behavior of this President and the people around him, the questions come across as fraught, often initially causing even the most adept respondentsWray is an experienced corporate litigator and a former Justice Department officialto fumble them.

Well, Senator, I dontI, I, Im hearing for the first time your description of it, so Im not really in a position to speak to it, Wray said. (Later, he told Senator Chris Coons, of Delaware, that he hadnt even had a chance to read any of the newspaper coverage.)

Graham interrupted him: Let me ask you this: If I got a call from somebody saying the Russian government wants to help Lindsey Graham get relected, theyve got dirt on Lindsey Grahams opponent, should I take that meeting?

Senator, I think you would want to consult with some good legal advisers before you did that, Wray replied.

The exchange could have ended there, but Graham asked for a little more: Should I call the F.B.I.?

I think it would be wise to let the F.B.I. . . . Wray began.

Youre going to be the director of the F.B.I., pal! Graham said, in a way that suggested that we were no longer living in a time in which just being told what was wise would be understood as a clear instruction. So what I want to hear you tell every politician, If you get a call from a foreign government suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the F.B.I.

Wray took the shortest of breaths and then, shifting his voice to the sort one might hear in an elementary-school-civics video, delivered, To the members of this committee: any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nation-state or any non-state actor is the kind of thing the F.B.I. would want to know.

All right, so Ill take that we should call you, and thats a great answer, Graham said. With that, Wray seemed to regain his footing. And yet it was an answer that did no more, basically, than describe a function of the F.B.I. Whether one takes that as rising to greatness may say more about the nonfunctioning state of certain politics than anything else. The job that Wray is up for is open because Trump fired the former director, James Comey , because, by Trumps own account, Comey paid too much attention to warnings about Russian interference. That investigation is now in the hands of a special counsel, Robert Mueller .

Graham went on to ask whether Trump, Jr.,s claim, in a statement, before the e-mails came out, that the meeting was meant to be about adoptions was misleading. Wray said that he just didnt have the context to answer; Graham asked him to get back to him. And, at another point, he put Wray through the Trump Twitter-response test. After Trump, Jr., appeared on Sean Hannitys Fox News show on Tuesday, and portrayed the Russia meeting as a normal part of campaigning, his father tweeted, My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad! Witch hunt is a phrase that Trump has used before in tweeting about questions regarding Russia and his campaign. Odds are that Wray, and the rest of us, will hear it applied to other areas related to the F.B.I.s dealings.

Do you believe that, in light of the Don, Jr., e-mail and other allegations, that this whole thing about Trump campaign and Russia is a witch hunt? Graham asked him. Is that a fair description of what were all dealing with in America?

Wray began to demur, citing his imperfect knowledge, when Graham pressed him: Im asking you , as the future F.B.I. director, do you consider this endeavor a witch hunt?

I do not consider Director Muller to be on a witch hunt, Wray said. It was a careful answer, not quite contradicting the President by leaving open the possibility that othersthe Democrats, the Fake News Networkwere indeed chasing wraiths in Trump Tower.

That is further, nonetheless, than most Republicans have gone in confronting Trumps absurdities. Graham is one of the handful of G.O.P. senators who never endorsed their partys candidate. But Graham never suggested an alternative, either, making it clear that he did not believe that Clinton was an option. Other parts of Grahams questioning made it clear how extremely limited, and limiting, the opposition of even the most Trump-averse Republican elected officials continues to be. Graham and other Republicans used part of their time to disparage Comey. This matters because, as Jeffrey Toobin pointed out this week , in a look back at Watergate, historically it is the Presidents own party that has to abandon him before it makes sense to speak about anything close to impeachment. And before Graham got to what he called the e-mail problems weve had with Donald, Jr., Donald Trump, Jr., the last few days, he questioned Wray closely about a Politico piece on possible efforts by Ukrainian officials to get negative information about Donald Trump to the Clinton campaign. Will you look into this? the senator asked the nominee.

Id be happy to dig into it, Wray said. And with that assuranceof yet another Clinton investigationLindsey Graham, for one, was satisfied.

Read this article:
Lindsey Graham, Christopher Wray, and the Limits of Republican Resistance to Trump - The New Yorker

Following the series of emails released by Donald Trump Jr. on Tuesday, Rep. Bill Flores, who represents Texas's 17th Congressional District, said he thinks the President's best move is to remove all of his children from his administration, whether they hold an official position or not. "I'm going out on a limb here but I would say I think it would be in the President's best interest if he removed all of his children from the White House. Not only Donald Trump (Jr.), but Ivanka and Jared Kushner," Flores told CNN affiliate KBTX, which is based in Bryan, Texas, on Thursday morning.

Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, serve as senior advisers to the President. Trump Jr. does not hold an official position.

Flores' comments follow revelations related to Trump Jr.'s email exchange about a meeting he arranged with Kushner, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer in order to discuss potentially damaging information against Hillary Clinton.

"I do find issues with the meeting, that it's a meeting that should not have taken place," Flores said on KBTX. "I think he probably thought he was looking out for his father's best interests."

Flores later issued a statement praising the President as well as his family members' success in private businesses.

"Through no fault of their own, the presence of President Trump's adult children in the White House has caused some distractions from the work the Trump administration is doing on behalf of hardworking American families," Flores said in the statement. "Given the liberal media's unwavering scrutiny of the Trump administration, it may be beneficial for the president to do all he can to remove any distractions from the administration so that he can focus on our conservative agenda."

Flores comments are significant because he hails from the President's own party, but plenty of Democrats also are calling out Trump's children in the wake of the Trump Jr. revelations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued Kushner should lose his access to sensitive information.

She emphasized, "I'm more concerned about them obeying the law. It's not outside the law for them to be there, I think," referring to Kushner holding a senior West Wing position. But on his previously undisclosed meetings with Russian officials, Pelosi said, "you lie on a disclosure form -- that's a crime. You do it multiple times, that's arrogant and a crime."

"The GOP must hold Kushner accountable for the false statements on his national security disclosure form and revoke -- his security clearance must be revoked immediately. You know that the numbers keep growing as to the false statements," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Trump has defended his children several times this week, including Trump Jr. and Ivanka.

"My son is a wonderful young man. He took a meeting with a Russian lawyer, not a government lawyer, but a Russian lawyer," the President said alongside French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Thursday. "It was a short meeting. It was a meeting that went very, very quickly, very fast."

In the House appropriations committee, Democrats also took aim at his son-in-law's security clearance.

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was head of the Democratic National Committee when it was hacked during the 2016 campaign, proposed an amendment to a spending bill for the Justice Department that would revoke the security clearance of anyone working in the executive office of the President who was under federal criminal investigation.

Wasserman Schultz made clear that Kushner was the target of the measure.

"Revoking Jared Kushner's security clearance would send a clear signal to anyone who would consider aiding and abetting a foreign enemy state to affect the outcome of a US presidential election that they will not be entrusted with our nation's most sensitive information," she said.

Republicans accused Wasserman Schultz of a political stunt and the amendment failed on a 22-30 party-line vote.

View original post here:
Texas Republican: President's best interest to remove Trump children from White House - CNN

Major websitessuch as Facebook, Google and Netflixare speaking uptodayto oppose an effort by Republican policymakers who areseeking to undothe government's net neutrality regulations thosefederalrules passed in 2015 aimed at making sure Internet providers like Verizon or AT&T can't manipulate what you cansee online.

But joining them is a curious corner of the Web: 4chan, the message-board site that's known for producing anavalanche of pro-Donald Trump memes during the 2016 presidential campaign thatmade the GOP nomineea viral sensation on social media and, many argue, helped usher him into the Oval Office. It's Trump's own telecom regulators who, now, are spearheading thevery repeal effort that so many websites areprotesting this week. And 4channers are irate about it.

Message boards across 4chan showed a special message to visitors Wednesday aimed at highlighting how the roll-back of the net neutrality rules could allowInternet providers to block access to the site, known for producing anavalanche of pro-Trump memes during the 2016 campaign that helped make theGOP nominee a viral sensation on social media.

"Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality, or else we may all end up banned from 4chan," the bannerreads.

Asa community that exists almost entirely online, 4chan is dependent on its users being able to access the site anytime so it's no surprise to see its members defending net neutrality. But the irony is inescapable: A communitythat worked so tirelessly to overthrow the system by backing Trump is now fearing for its existencein the face of the chaosit helped create.

4chan users expressed alarm over the regulatory proposal by Ajit Pai, Trump's pick for Federal Communications Commission chair.

"I really just want to ban throttling and ban data caps," wrote one userWednedsay on 4chan's technology board, /g/, accusing Internet providers of trying to line their pockets.

Some speculated that those sounding the alarm over the net neutrality rules' looming repeal were secretly corporate lackeys, while others fired back that the consensus on 4chan hadalways been in favor of net neutrality.

Conversation quickly shifted to debate the finer points of broadband competition in the United States.

"If big providers throttle speeds on services like Netflix, wouldn't that just siphon customers away from these big providers towards other providers that don't throttle?" one user wrote.

"The customers can't go to anyone else," another replied, "because there's little competition in large swathes [sic] of geographic regions of the country."

Thetone Wednesday on 4chan's politics board, /pol/, sharply contrasted with the sentiment therethe day after Trump won the election. As my colleague Abby Ohlheiser reported at the time, 4chan users said they were "trembling out of excitement" after having "actually elected a meme as president."

Fast forward several months, and the posts on /pol/ now read like this.

"Hopefully /pol/ can be unanimous on this, and not disagree with it just to be ironic or edgy. Just this once," wrote another user, who added that as much as he or she hated "agreeing with liberal[s] they're right on this one.(((internet service providers))) will get way too much power if we let them."

A spokesperson for 4chan didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the original here:
Even 4chan is opposing the Republican plan for net neutrality - Washington Post

Jul. 12, 2017 at 9:15 AM

When President Trump sent out a crude tweet about the appearance of MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski late last month, several GOP lawmakers, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, criticized the comments on Twitter. But when much more significant news broke in recent days that Donald Trump Jr. once sought negative information about Hillary Clinton from sources tied to the Russian government Republicans in Congress responded very differently: with muted criticism and, wherever possible, outright silence.

Reporters have had to chase down congressional Republicans on Capitol Hill to ask questions about the controversy. Few Republican lawmakers have commented on social media. And when Republicans have chosen to answer questions about Trump Jr., they have avoided bashing the president himself by, in many cases, offering careful, measured statements that highlight the role of the special counsel and congressional committees investigating issues related to the Trump campaign and Russia.

That caution is significant because it is the Republican reaction and especially the congressional Republican reaction to Russia stories that really matters most. Numerous recent news stories have explored the legal implications of Trump Jr.s meeting with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer and whether it could violate campaign finance rules or other laws. (The recent developments also ensnared Jared Kushner, the presidents senior adviser and son-in-law, who attended the meeting with Trump Jr.) But when it comes to President Trump, the Russia story is a political debate as much as a legal one. Its not clear whether a president can even be indicted for a crime, much less convicted. In many ways, Congress is the sole judge and jury of a president: It can impeach him, remove him from office or call for his resignation. And right now, Congress is led by Trumps party.

So it doesnt matter much that Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia thinks Trump Jr. may have committed perjury or even treason, or that former federal prosecutors are telling Politico that the Trump Jr. news is extremely damaging and shows an intent to collude with Russian government. What matters is what Republicans think. Heres what theyre saying so far:

A few Republicans were more critical, but they were the usual suspects, members of what is essentially a Trump-skeptic wing in the Senate. Arizona Sen. John McCain predicted, Therell be many more shoes that drop. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that Trump campaign officials should not have taken the meeting. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said that Trump Jr. should be interviewed by the committee. All three senators are longtime Trump critics who declined to back him during the 2016 campaign, but even their statements were hardly blistering.

Fox News, which dwarfs those publications in terms of audience and influence on the right, reacted differently, casting Trump Jr. as a victim. Sean Hannity, perhaps the most pro-Trump member of the national media, interviewed Trump Jr. on Tuesday evening and allowed him to repeatedly attack the press.

The vice president is working every day to advance the presidents agenda, Pences press secretary, Marc Lotter, said in a statement on Tuesday. He was not aware of the meeting. He is also not focused on stories about the campaign especially those pertaining to the time before he joined the campaign.

That might look like a defense of the president. But read the statement closely. It claims that the vice president did not know about the meeting and points out that the meeting occurred before Pence joined the ticket, which sounds like Pence suggesting that the Russia controversy does not involve him and drawing a line between himself and the presidents son, son-in-law and ultimately Trump himself. He does not defend Trump Jr. or Kushner at all.

But overall, the Republicans muted reaction should not be surprising. Even after the Watergate break-in, the resignations of some of Richard Nixons top aides and his dismissal of the attorney general and deputy attorney general, many in his party stood by him until his resignation. Presidential scandals have revealed a consistent pattern: Members of Congress largely back the president if hes a member of their party.

This doesnt mean Republicans will back Trump forever, particularly if the special counsel or the congressional committees unearth more unflattering evidence. And if Democrats win control of the House or the Senate in 2018, that will change the tenor of Congresss Russia debate.

But for now, Republicans are in charge, and they dont seem to be abandoning Trump yet.

Continued here:
Republicans Matter Most, And They Don't Seem To Care Much About Trump Jr. - FiveThirtyEight

Trump to Pat Robertson: Putin Would've Preferred 'President Hillary Clinton'

Cant-spell?: Dem Sen Uses Misspelled Poster to Bash GOP on Health Care

Greg Gutfeld reacted to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's announcement that he is leaving the Republican Party.

Scarborough made the announcement on "The Late Show" on CBS.

In the 1990s, Scarborough represented the Florida panhandle for several terms in Congress before resigning.

Gutfeld called Scarborough a "weird Matt Perry" who "chases the spotlight until it dims, then he moves on."

He said Scarborough was "sanctimonious" by announcing his departure from a party that appeared to care little that he was a member.

Gutfeld said that "Morning Joke" Scarborough played both sides during the rise of President Trump.

"Joe indulged him, flattered him ... used him to get ratings," Gutfeld said. "When he saw Donald outgrew him, he imploded."

Since Trump's election, Scarborough has referred to Trump as a "goon" and the "greatest liar that has ever sat in the White House."

Jesse Watters pointed out that, with Scarborough's change of party ID, MSNBC no longer has the "talking point" that they employ a Republican host.

Watch the monologue above.

'You Specialize in Moral Outrage': Sparks Fly as Tucker Battles Romney Adviser on Russia Threat

Steyn: Putin Would Never Collude via a 'Ludicrous Azerbaijani Pop Star's Publicist'

Read more from the original source:
Gutfeld on 'Morning Joke' Leaving The Republican Party - Fox News Insider