Mediaboss Marketing

FBI Director James B. Comey said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. (Reuters)

FBI Director James B. Comey made one thing abundantly clear Monday: There is zero evidence that Donald Trump or Trump Tower was wiretapped during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign.

I have no information that supports those tweets, Comey told House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), confirming that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had found any evidence of the alleged wiretapping after a very close look.

Comey's denial of wiretapping comes on the heels of similar statements by former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., former president Barack Obama and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

For Trump to continue to make the case that he was wiretapped by Obama during the 2016 election, you must believe that the current FBI director is lying in a public, nationally televised congressional hearing. And that the former director of national intelligence was lying. And that Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, is lying that Britain was not involved in a wiretapping program at the behest of the American government.

That's a very, very, very, very tough sell.

Now, there are ways around this and a number of the Republican members on the Intelligence Committee are taking Trump's lead in suggesting them. The prime pushback is that when Trump used the word wiretapping, he didn't actually mean wiretapping. Instead he meant a broader palette of potential means of surveillance. And so, by denying, specifically, the words wiretapping, Comey and the rest are playing word games and not broadly denying that someone, somewhere was watching or listening to the Republican presidential nominee.

It is possible in the broadest sense of that word that such a theory could have some validity. But it is the longest of long shots, and to believe it, you have to believe that people like Comey and Clapper purposely obfuscated when asked direct questions about whether Trump was being surveilled.

Given Comey's flat denial of any evidence of Trump Tower being wiretapped, there will be increased pressure on both Trump and Republican members of Congress to back off that position and apologize for it. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Will Hurd (R-Tex.) have already called on Trump to apologize to Obama. It's hard to imagine that other GOPers won't follow that lead in light of Comey's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday.

Trump is another matter. His offhand remark at a joint news appearance Friday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that perhaps he and she had both been wiretapped by the Obama administration suggests he isn't planning to leave the issue alone much less apologize for it.

And we know that for 35 to 40 percent of the public, that will be enough; they simply trust Trump more than they trust any intelligence official or media outlet.

But that's sort of beside the point. Trump is the president of the United States. There is now ample evidence that a very serious accusation he made about a former president is simply not true. Standing by it now is simply irresponsible.

Read the original post:
James B. Comey complicated the life of every Republican elected official today - Washington Post

Orlando attorney Kevin Morenski on Monday announced his plans to run as a Republican against Democrat Aramis Ayala for Orange-Osceola state attorney in 2020.

Much of the focus at his news conference at the Orange County Courthouse, however, was on Ken Lewis, a fired former assistant state attorney who Morenski said would be his top assistant if elected.

Lewis was fired in 2016 after writing in a Facebook post in the hours after the Pulse massacre that all Orlando clubs are "zoos; utter cesspools of debauchery and downtown Orlando was a "melting pot of third world miscreants and ghetto thugs."

Morenski, 31, a family law and criminal defense attorney, said he was running in response to Ayalas decision not to seek the death penalty in capital cases.

Ayala said Thursday she would not seek capital punishment for Markeith Loyd, charged with killing Orlando Police Lt. Debra Clayton and his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon. Gov. Rick Scott removed Ayala from the case, but she filed a motion Monday to stay that decision.

I share the outrage an overwhelming number of you feel about of the loss of faith in the position of state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties, Morenski said on the courthouse steps.

The people deserve a state attorney who is honest, ethical and dignified to serve in that capacity, he said. And above all, the people deserve a state attorney who will honor their oath to this community and follow the law. Every decision I make will not be made out of political expediency, cronyism, or an ulterior purpose.

Morenski cited Ayalas death penalty decision, as well as what he called playing the race card during her 2016 campaign in explaining why he decided to run. He also said she went too far in making an example of six employees fired over a cocaine- and marijuana-use scandal, saying two of the fired employees had no connection to the cocaine use and were unfairly targeted.

He also criticized Ayalas predecessor, Jeff Ashton, for using the Ashley Madison online dating website in his work office. Ayala defeated Ashton in the Democratic primary last year, which determined the election with only a write-in Republican challenger.

I am a Republican, and it was shameful that the Republican Party failed to give you a real choice in 2016, he said. That will change, that must change.

Morenski said Lewis, the best and most experienced homicide prosecutor this office had, would be his chief assistant if elected. That should dispel any thoughts or concerns about my administrations qualifications.

Lewis said Morenski had a powerful message, and felt that it was enough of an emegency situation that announcing more than three years before the election was warranted. He also admitted, I dont know Mr. Morenski, but [he] reached out to me Saturday and I said I would listen to what he had to say.

Lewis said the posts that led to his firing were satire, my Facebook page is satire. It has nothing to do with how we do our jobs over here. My record speaks for itself right here in this courthouse.

slemongello@orlandosentinel.com, 407-418-5920 or @stevelemongello

Death penalty decision looms large over Aramis Ayala's political future

See the original post:
Republican attorney announces 2020 run against State Attorney Aramis Ayala - Orlando Sentinel

By Timothy M. Gill By Timothy M. Gill March 20 at 5:00 AM

How will the Trump administration relate to Russia? Many inquiring minds want to know. Much of the news media has focused on whether President Trump will eliminate U.S.economic sanctionson Russia. But heres something else that could have a big effect on U.S.-Russia relations: Will Trump modify U.S. democracy programs?

The origins of U.S. democracy programs

Since the 1980s, several U.S. government agencies have been dedicated to helping build democracy around the world, by delivering financial and technical support for government institutions, political parties and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. agencies in question include the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) within the State Department; and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its associated groups, including the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Before these groups came on the scene, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ran these kinds of efforts.

These programs are highly controversial.

[Why Russia is far less threatening than it seems]

Supporters contend that these groups often keep democratic hope alive in states with authoritarian governments. But some academic critics and foreign government leaders argue that these agencies back political parties and NGOs that champion neoliberal economic policies and U.S. national security interests. Other critics assert that sometimes agencies like USAID and the NED support organizations and actors that have sought to overthrow sometimes violently existing governments, such as in Bolivia, Georgia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Thats certainly what many foreign governments fear. Since the success of some of the color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, several governments have tried to stop U.S. democracy assistance programs in their countries. In 2003, the Belarusan government prohibited foreign funding for political organizations in the country; it continues to pass legislation in that vein, such as prohibiting NGOs from holding funds in foreign banks. In 2010, Venezuela after accusing several NGOs of taking U.S. funding to overthrow the Chvez government also passed legislation criminalizing foreign funding for political parties and politically oriented NGOs. And in 2013, Bolivia expelled USAID from the country.

Putin doesnt like U.S. democracy programs, either

You can count Russian President Vladimir Putin as an opponent of U.S. democracy programs that fund civil society groups, especially within Russia.

[Like Trump, Putin issued lots of executive orders early on. They mostly didnt work.]

And the Duma has taken action. In 2006, it passed laws criminalizing NGOs that threaten Russian national sovereignty and its unique character. In 2012, it passed laws declaring that NGOs that receive foreign funding are foreign agents, a term that was last used during the days of the Soviet Union.

Amnesty International has reported that 148 groups have received this designation over the past four years. As a result, these groups have faced heightened intimidation from the Russian government, as well as tarnished reputations. They alsoremain subject to stricter registration requirements and have found the acquisition of foreign funding much more difficult. Some groups have even shut down.

[Trumps news conferences look a lot like Putins. Should you worry?]

Not long after the passage of this legislation, the government also expelled USAID from the country. And in 2015, Putin banned the NED from the country and prohibited NGOs from receiving any funding from the group.

The United States has continued democracy programs despite local prohibitions.

Nevertheless, USAID and the NED have continued to fund organizations, even where thats against the local countrys laws. In Venezuela, for example, the United Stateshas openly continued funding civil society organizations, even listing that in its annual budgets, albeit without naming recipients.

USAID and the NED are undoubtedly keeping their plans in the country secret. However, the NED and its leaders continue to openly counter Russian ideological efforts throughout Eurasia. For instance, when NED President Carl Gershmantestified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2016, he said that one of the NEDs five main focuses includes pushing back against an information offensive by Russia and other authoritarian regimes.

Through various actions, Putin has made it clear how much he despises these programs and sees them as interfering with Russian sovereignty. Russia Today, for instance, regularly runs critiques of these efforts. So will he raise this issue with the Trump administration?

Trump could scale back U.S. democracy programs in Russia.

But how will Trump respond?

Trumps budget plans to cut funding for the State Department and USAID. He has said that he will strengthen U.S. ties with Russia. As part of his America First agenda, will he eliminate U.S. democracy programs?

Thats very difficult to predict. Both Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have a history of praise and involvement with Russia. Tillerson, for instance, tried to start several oil ventures in Russia, which were eventually blocked by U.S. economic sanctions. But the democracy and development community within the U.S. government will certainly push to continue its efforts in Russia and the broader Eurasia region.

The most important decision in U.S.-Russia relations remains, of course, whether to continue sanctions. But watch this as well: Will U.S. democracy-promoting organizations be allowed to continue working with civil society groups in Russia and its neighbors? If not, that will be a clear signal of changed relations between the two powers.

Timothy M. Gill is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Inter-American Policy and Research at Tulane University, and his research examines U.S. democracy promotion efforts in Venezuela.

Continue reading here:
Putin is waiting to see whether Trump will fund pro-democracy programs - Washington Post

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuchs nomination to the Supreme Court got underway today, and one thing is already clear: As this process unfolds, Democrats need to hammer away at Gorsuch to reveal his views on judicial independence. Doing this requires a focus on President Trumps unprecedented attacks on the judiciaryand, more generally, his relentless undermining of our democracy.

Trumps authoritarian tendencies demand this approach, and the stakes are extraordinarily high. Trumps attacks on the judiciary, for instance, are so far outside the mainstream of normal presidentialbehavior that it would be malpractice for Democrats to fail to make this a subplot. In other words, the Democratic opposition to Gorsuch must be based on far more than his judicial philosophy and history.

More is at stake here than Gorsuchs allegiance to the ideology of the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society. One would expect any Republican president to nominate an anti-abortion, pro-business, originalist jurist to the Supreme Court, and Democrats are right to question Gorsuch on these and many other aspects of hisjudicial philosophy. But Trump is not an ideological conservative who has given a great deal of thought to constitutional originalism.

Rather, Trump views the judiciary as a tool for his own financial and political ends. And thats why the politics around the Gorsuch nomination are new and dangerous.

Trump has a long history of assailing federal judges, first using his bully pulpit as a candidate and now using his power as president, to subvert the separation of powers that undergird our democracy. It is clear from his public statements that the president wants a judiciary that doesnt question him, his motives, his edicts or his power.

Some Democrats today did make these issues front and center. For instance, as Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) told Gorsuch this morning,I need to know that you can be an independent check and balance on the administration that has nominated you, and on any administration that follows it.

And Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) laid a robust groundwork for compelling Gorsuch to be explicit in stating his independence not only from Trumps political manipulations, but also from his assault on the separation of powers. Blumenthal caustically called out Trumps campaign of vicious and relentless attacks on the credibility and capacity of our judiciary to serve as a check on lawless executive action, adding that the presidenthas shaken the foundation of respect for judicial rulings. Without respect for judges, and their independence, Blumenthal went on, our democracy cannot function.

Blumenthal then pointedly told Gorsuch:You have a special responsibility here this week, to advocate and defend the independence of our judiciary against those kinds of attacks. Given the looming constitutional crisis arising out of the FBI investigation into Russias interference in our election, which we now know is focused on the possibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, he added, the independence of the judiciary [is] more important than ever and your defense of it is critical.

In questioning Gorsuch later this week, Democrats should follow this lead and be explicit and direct, placing Trumps long string of attacks on the judiciary front and center. As a candidate, Trumpvilifiedthe federal judge presiding over the fraud case brought by former students of Trump University, saying he was unable to be impartial because he was (variously, in Trumps own words) Spanish, Hispanic and Mexican.

Since becoming president, Trump has launched an offensive against the judiciary over rulings blocking his executive orders banning refugees and migrants from Muslim-majority countries. He uses Twitter and campaign speeches to erode one of the very foundations of our democracy an independent judiciary as a check on executive overreach. These attacks energize his base while undermining the Constitution.

Whats more, Trump dangled nomination promisesas a kind of quid pro quo to win over a skeptical but crucial Republican voting bloc. Last June, when Trump was struggling to win over the leadership of the religious right, Trump promised approximately athousand evangelical leaders that he would pick pro-life justices, according to audio of his remarks that wasleaked to the media. Admitting that he had not been on this side of the issue until very recently, Trump made clear that his primary aim in picking judges was horse-trading for his own electoral benefit.

Trumps other efforts to undermine our democracy such as his repeated claims that millions voted illegally in our election, via voter fraud also deserve an airing out in this context. Those vote-fraud comments suggest a major national crackdown on voting rights might be in the works. And as Ari Berman reports, Gorsuch could be the deciding vote on whether to weaken the remaining sections of the [Voting Rights Act] and whether to uphold discriminatory voter-ID laws and redistricting plans. So it is crucial that Gorsuch be compelled to offer his views of Trumps unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, as well as his views on the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

Trumps extensive assaults on our democracy make the Gorsuch hearings unlike any others in recent memory. And just as Senator Blumenthal did today, Democrats should treat them as such.

Read the original here:
Democrats must make the Gorsuch hearings about Trump's contempt for our democracy - Washington Post (blog)

Observer

Democracy Has Existed in the Americas Longer Than We Thought Observer The theory that democratic societies existed in pre-colonial Mesoamerica was first introduced by anthropologist Richard Blanton, of Indiana's Purdue University, in a 1996 essay he co-authored for Current Anthropology, after excavating at several sites ...

Go here to see the original:
Democracy Has Existed in the Americas Longer Than We Thought - Observer