Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton was back in Washington the other day, giving a speech to a womens group.

As we all stop to look fear in the face, the result has not only been action, but passion, said the woman who nearly everyone thought would now be the nations first female president. Never lose your optimism, your persistence and your resistanceresistance, of course, being a key phrase for those opposing the man who beat Clinton.

Other than that, the only time Ive seen Hillarys image is when President Trump greeted a tour group at the White House and happened to stand next to a portrait of the former first lady.

Theres the occasional sighting at a Broadway play or during a walk in the Chappaqua woods. But the woman who would now be dominating the news if 70,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had gone the other way is instead edging into the spotlight after a bitter defeat.

The question now: Has the Democratic Party moved on from Clintonism?

Both the left and right are asking that question as the party tries to rebuild in the Trump era. I have no idea who might emerge for 2020, given the strikingly thin bench, or whether the party wants to go further left or try to recapture the working-class voters that it lost to Trump.

It seems the Democrats havent really had that debate, even with the low-profile chairmans race won by Tom Perez. But some in the media are starting to examine the rubble left by 2016.

Its not that Hillary herself has a political future. In a Rasmussen poll, 58 percent of likely voters dont want her to run again, while 23 percent would like to see that.

But a Clinton-like candidate might face the same lack of excitement for a program of incrementally improving government, even without her flaws as a candidate.

On the other hand, a Bernie-style populist could connect on issues like trade, but might simply be too liberal to win a general election.

Bill Clinton, as it happens, gave a talk yesterday that chastised Trump without naming him, using such code words as "nation-state":

The whole history of humankind is basically the definition of who is us and who is them, the former president said. He said some people--the guy who defeated his wife?--have found more political success and met the deep psychic needs people have had to feel that their identity requires them to be juxtaposed against someone else.

Whats interesting is how Salon sees Clinton as having blundered by pretty much running as the anti-Trump:

Of all the strategic blunders made by Hillary Clintons presidential campaign, the most consequential apart from neglecting the Rust Belt states may have been the campaigns ill-advised decision to portray Donald Trump as an outlier in the GOP who did not represent true Republican values.

In the early stages of her campaign, Clinton went out of her way to defend the Grand Old Partys reputation and highlight some of the conservative critiques of Trump, so as to emphasize her opponents uniquely deplorable nature.

That backfired spectacularly, the piece says, by alienating progressives and boosting Trumps underdog status.

Heres the money part:

The grand irony here, of course, is that liberals not leftists are the ones who have started to sound increasingly like alt-right conspiracy theorists. While alt-right Info-Warriors spew their conspiracy theories about the deep states planning a coup against Trump or about former President Barack Obamas wiretapping of Trump Tower, liberals have gone in the other direction, embracing their own overwrought conspiracy theories with an all-powerful Vladimir Putin at the center of it all.

But Putin is not responsible for the Democratic Partys losing control of nearly 1,000 state legislature seats and all three branches of government during the Obama years.

National Review, by contrast, thinks the party remains in the Clintonian grasp:

If you want to understand why Donald Trump is in the White House, you only need to glance at Hillary Clinton. She was a grim and mediocre candidate. She inspired few. She terrified many. And yet, in certain circles, this reckoning has failed to sink in. Meanwhile, the Clinton hagiography continues.

But the argument seems to rest on some attention being paid to Chelsea Clintons tweets. Such as this one about Trumps planned EPA cutbacks: How is clean water controversial? Who thinks its ok for anyone to drink toxic water? Truly asking as I just dont get it.

Chelsea can say whatever she wants, but I dont see her as a future party leader. This piece, however, says 2017s odd Clinton-related frenzy reflects something more: Namely, the failure of the Left to recognize their Hillary problem.

No one knows what the political landscape will be like after four years of Trump. But if the Democrats think they can win back the White House just by running against him, as opposed to offering a positive alternative, they will be repeating Hillarys mistake.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

View post:
After Hillary: Are the Democrats ready to move beyond Clintonism? - Fox News

By: Reuters | New York | Published:March 10, 2017 11:15 am Republican Donald Trump triumph and Democrat Hillary Clinton. (Source: File Photo)

Cable channel HBO said on Thursday it is planning a dramatized TV miniseries about the extraordinary 2016 U.S. presidential, one of the first of several such projects being discussed in Hollywood. No casting, title or broadcast date was announced for the HBO project, which comes from the same team that produced the award-winning Game Change film about the 2008 election that starred Julianne Moore as then Republican vice-presidential contender Sarah Palin.

The 2016 election campaign that saw Republican Donald Trump triumph over Democrat Hillary Clinton last November was one of the most dramatic in living memory. It is also the subject of a TV miniseries treatment being developed by Zero Dark Thirty movie screenwriter Mark Boal, the Hollywood Reporter said in February.

Watch What Else Is Making News:

A third miniseries project, looking at the behind-the-scenes drama of Trumps campaign, is also making the rounds in Hollywood, entertainment website Deadline reported last month.

The announcement by HBO, a unit of Time Warner, appeared to mark the first of the various ideas to win a commitment from a major broadcaster. HBO said its series would be based on an upcoming book by political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the campaign. Jay Roach, who directed Emmy-winner Game Change will return to direct, and Tom Hanks is one of the executive producers.

Len Amato, president of HBO Films, said in a statement that the project promises to vividly capture the most unique and impactful event in modern American politics.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump- Hillary Clinton election campaign to get HBO miniseries treatment - The Indian Express

Forbes

Filing Your Taxes Is Not Self-Incrimination, Rules Court Forbes So he took the Fifth. The court had an easy time with his argument, and rejected the claim. The Fifth Amendment does grant a privilege against self-incrimination. However, that doesn't mean you can just refuse to file taxes. The mere act of filing an ...

Read more:
Filing Your Taxes Is Not Self-Incrimination, Rules Court - Forbes

5524836

This replaced his order from January which was challenged in courts everywhere. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the January order should be stayed indefinitely rendering the order unenforceable while in litigation. The court got it wrong completely. Rather than fighting in the liberal 9th Circuitwhich has a staggering 80% reversal rate the second highest in the nation the Administration issued a new more narrow order andavoided the confusing implementation of the January order.

Now we are back in court the 9th Circuit naturally. Thats where the activist judges are. 72% of the judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were appointed by democrats.Hawaii along withIsmail Elshikh Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaiisued to block the revised order. The 38 page lawsuit is assigned to US District JudgeDerrick Watson a 2013 appointee of former President Obama. It was no accident it was brought in Hawaiiwhere two of the three federal judges are Obama appointees.

Lets discuss Hawaiis verbose-yet-meritless lawsuit. Theres 29 pages of policy arguments not legal ones.

Its a litany of reasons why Hawaii and the Imam think the order is a big scary monster thats embarrassing and keeps the Imams Syrian mother-in-law from visiting even though she hasnt come to visit since 2005.Theres only 7 pages of legal claims. Lets look at the 29 pages of irrelevant material first. They lay out some policy reasonswhy the executive order, they say, isnt a good idea.

Lead counsel is Neal Katyal former Solicitor General of the US.Professor Katyal is a brilliant lawyer whom I have met several times and is as nice a guy as you could ever meet.Reasonable minds can disagree and we disagree.

Pages 1-2. Hawaiians cant receive visits from or be reunited with people affected by the order. Universities cant recruit as well. The Imam has to live in a country where people think the government disfavors a religion. The order hurts Hawaiis economy.

Response: Theres no constitutional right to receive visits from foreigners. Those words arent in the Constitution. So what if universities cant recruit from 6 nations for a while. National security is more important. What would a terrorist attack do to recruiting? If the Imam thinks the government has established a disfavored religion hes entitled to his opinion but this order affects ANYONE of any religion from a mere six nations. Muslims from every other country remain unaffected by the order. The Hawaiian economy is booming and its speculative at best to think a handful of affected people will change that.

Pages 7-10. These are campaign speeches and other cherry-picked remarks where Trump advocated ideas about immigration and a relationship between terrorism and immigration.

Response: His campaign remarks arent relevant. He wasnt President, the order doesnt mention Muslims and doesnt apply to any single religion.

Pages 11-15. These describe the January Order.

Response: Thats irrelevant. This is a new order. We arent litigating the first.

Pages 16-19. These describe the rollout of the first order, chaos at airports, and confusion in its implementation.

Response: Its true that the rollout couldve been smoother but this is a new order. We arent litigating the first.

Pages 20-25. These quote and describe the new order.

Response: Millers comments are irrelevant because the new order didnt exist then. It doesnt matter what Miller says. It matters what the order says.

Pages 25-30. These rehash in more detail the initial claims. The Imams mother-in-law cant visit, other residents cant receive certain visitors, it makes people feel bad, it harms the economy etc. This is a policydebate. If the Imams mother-in-law cant visit Hawaii for now and her last visit was in 2005 one wonders if this is a real or pretend problem.

Pages 31-37. The legal arguments. They arelegallyincorrect for astonishingly simple reasons:

COUNT 1. First Amendment-Establishment Clause

Hawaii and the Imam allege The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from Officially preferring one religion over another. They also allege the order has the effect of disfavoring Islam.

Heres what the Constitution actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Ive given you both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Exercise Clause. Read them together.Executive orders are not acts of Congress. Theres no language in the order that mentions Islam. The order does disfavor unfettered entry into the US from the six nations (temporarily) regardless of religion. Muslims fromaround the globe enter the US daily and will continue to despite the order. The Establishment Clause claim islaughable.

COUNT 2: Fifth Amendment-Equal Protection

Hawaii and the Imam allege The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the FederalGovernment from denying equal protection of the laws, including on the basis of religion and/or national origin, nationality, or alienage.

The Fifth Amendmentdoes not mention the words Equal Protection. Thats the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree that all peoplewho have rightsunder the Constitution are entitled to equalprotection. Thats simple. But heres the big problem for the plaintiffs: Non-citizens outside of the US have no constitutional rights whatsoever.The peopleto who have constitutional rights are the people of the US or those present within the US. We dont export US Constitutional Rights. Otherwise, the Navy Seals wouldve needed a search warrant to enter Bin Ladens house. There is no constitutional right that belongs to any alien to enter the US. Permanent residents and visa holders have statutory and otherpermissions.

COUNT 3: Fifth AmendmentSubstantive Due Process

Plaintiffs claim The right to international travel is covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Really? Letslook. No person shall be held to answer for a capitalcrime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

I dont see any mention of international travel there. Maybe Hawaii has special reading glasses and can see it.

COUNT 4: Fifth Amendment-Procedural Due Process

Plaintiffs claim citizens may assert liberty interests with respect to noncitizen relatives who are deprived of due process

Wrong. It isnt possible to deprive someone of something they dont already possess due process rights.

COUNT 5: Immigration and Nationality Act

Plaintiffs claim the order exceeds the Presidents authority under 8 U.S.C 1182(f) and 1185(a).

Wrong.Article 1, section 8, clause 4 gives plenary (absolute) power over immigration to Congress. Congress has delegated that authority broadly to the President.Section 1182(f), states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Click here to read 1185(a). It begins with Unless otherwise ordered by the President .

COUNT 6: Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Who knew the left liked RFRA? They claim RFRA grants citizens the right to welcome visitors from anywhere in the world. It does not.

Count 7: Substantive Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act through Violations of the Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act, andArbitrary and Capricious Action

Thats the run everything up the flagpole and see if someone salutes approach. This fails for the same reason:Non-citizensoutside the United States have no US constitutional rights. Thats why we have borders and why Article 1 specifically grants plenary power to the Federal government over immigration.

The line must be drawn somewhere and its at the border. We know where it is. Thats where US constitutional rights evaporate. This is common sense stuff that shouldnt stand a chance in court. But its the 9th Circuit. If Hawaii wins it will land in the full US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit should get reversed again.

Link:
Hawaii V. Trump: A Legal Nothing-Burger - Daily Caller

Immigration Law

Posted Mar 09, 2017 04:50 pm CST

By Lorelei Laird

An ABA amicus brief filed March 8 argues that immigration courts should be required to consider ability to pay and flight risk before deciding on bond.

The brief (PDF) was filed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Sessions, a class action that argues that the federal government violates the Fifth and Eighth amendments as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act when immigration judges set bond without consideration of the noncitizens ability to pay, flight risk or dangerousness.

When bonds are imposed without consideration of less restrictive conditions or the noncitizens financial resources, they may inadvertently cause a noncitizen to be detained solely because of his or her inability to pay, the brief says. That outcome violates bedrock constitutional protections.

The underlying lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. According to the complaint (PDF), bond for lead plaintiff Xochitl (so-chee) Hernandez was set at $60,000 in March 2016, even though her sole crime during more than 25 years in the United States was shoplifting. Hernandez came to the United States without authorization as a teenager and is eligible for processes that could legalize her status. But she cannot afford the bond and remains jailed at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility.

Another lead plaintiff, Cesar Matias, is a Honduran national seeking asylum in the United States because he was persecuted at home for his sexual orientation. He has been detained for more than four years in a city jail in Orange County, the complaint says, because he cannot afford the $3,000 bond set by an immigration court.

The ACLU noted that immigration judges and ICE agentsboth of whom may set bondrequire the full amount of cash bond before release and often set five- or six-figure bond amounts without considering the noncitizens ability to pay. This is not authorized by the INA, the complaint says, and violates the Eighth Amendments excessive bail clause and the rights to due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. A Central California district court issued a preliminary injunction that required consideration of ability to pay and less restrictive conditions of release before imposing bond.

The ABA asked the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit to affirm that ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that pretrial detention violates noncitizens of their fundamental right to liberty, the brief says, and this is permissible only when theres a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the detention. When decision-makers dont take ability to pay into account, the brief says, they violate constitutional principles. They also hurt detained peoples abilities to defend their cases, deprive citizen children of their parents, and overburden the immigration detention and court systems, at a substantial cost to the public.

The ABA has expressly opposed routine detention of noncitizens in the 2006 Report 107E, the brief notes, and has recommended bond or bail only as a last resort in its Criminal Justice Standards and Civil Immigration Detention Standards.

See more here:
ABA endorses requirement to consider poverty, flight risk when immigration courts set bond - ABA Journal