Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Thespotlight is now onPresident Barack Obama and his administrations allegedsurveillance ofthe Trump campaign, as well as his aides reported efforts to spread damaging informationaboutTrump throughout government agencies to facilitate laterinvestigations and, possibly, leaks to the media.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

On Sunday morning, the White House released a statement indicating that the president would ask the congressional committees investigating Russian hacking theories to add the question of whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.

Media outlets continued to repeat that the story wasbased on no evidence, though the evidence was plain.

President Donald Trump originallytweeted about the alleged surveillance which radio host Mark Levin called a silent coup by Obama staffers keen toundermine the new administration on Saturday. Levins claims, reported at Breitbart News early Friday, were in turn based on information largely frommainstream outlets, including theNew York Timesand theWashington Post. Heat Street was one non-mainstream source, but the BBC also reported similar information in January. So, too, did the UKGuardian, which is a mainstream source (albeit with a decidedly left-wing slant, hardlyfavorable to Trump).

All day Saturday, former Obama staffers tried to put out the fires. A spokesperson for President Obama responded and Obama aide Valerie Jarrett tweeted:

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor anyWhite House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

As Breitbart News Matthew Boyle noted, however, it was a non-denial denial. It is worth examining the statement in detail.

Note that this sentencedoes not disputeany of the key factual allegationsat issue: that the DOJ approached the FISA court for permission to spy on Trump aides; that surveillance, once granted, continued after no evidence was found of wrongdoing; that the Obama administration relaxed National Security Agency rules to facilitate the dissemination of evidence through the government; and that Obama staffers allegedly did so, the better to leak damaging (and partial) information to the media.

In addition, there is reason to doubt the claim that the White House never interfered: theNew York Timesreported in January that intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

Moreover, the first part of the sentence raises doubts about Lewiss entire statement. Lewis could simply have said: NoWhite House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the DOJ. That would have been a clear denial. Instead, hereferred toa cardinal rule that supposedly existed.

All that does is create deniability for the rest of the White House in the event that evidence turns up that someonewas, in fact, involvedwith a Department of Justice probe. (No doubt Obama will be outraged to find out if someone broke the cardinal rule, and will claim to havefoundout through the media, rather than directly.) The Obama communications operation is notoriouslycareful with the way denials are worded.

As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor anyWhite House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.

This is a meaningless denial, since the FISA court deals with communications with foreigners, with U.S. citizens potentially swept up in the investigation. It would have beenpossible for the DOJ to approach the FISA court with a request to monitorforeignentities allegedly communicating with the Trump campaign, using those intercepts as a wayto monitor the Trump campaign itself. According to news reports cited by Andrew McCarthy, that couldhave been precisely what happened.

And, again, this sentence does not deny that someone in the Obama administration may have ordered such surveillance.

Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

What we have here is a blanketdenial craftedto protect President Barack Obama himself,but allowing him to admit later once the facts emerge that his administration was, in fact, up to something. In addition,the Democrats have been adept at constructing elaboratechains of communication to create plausible deniability for higher-ups. That is how the bird-dogging scheme through which left-wing activists instigated violence at Donald Trumps rallies was arranged for the Clinton campaign. (The organizer behind that scheme visited Obamas White House 340times, meeting Obama himself 45 times.)

As theNew York Times supposedly the paper of record recently reported, there is no evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election. But there is ample evidence that the outgoing Obama administration could have used intelligence agencies to carry out a political agenda against Trump. The media, as Mark Levin pointed out again on SundaysFox and Friends, simply refuse to report their own earlier reports.

Even without Trumpsmore sensational accusationsof wiretapping, it is, so far, undisputedthat there have been manyleaks of classified information to damage Trump, and that the Obama administration took steps that couldhavemade such leaksmore likely. (Charles Krauthammer who is skeptical of deep state theories called this the Revenge of the Losers on Friday.)Those are serious allegations that the former administration is likely going to have to explain to Congress.

But if the Obama administration did order surveillance of the Trump campaign during the election; and if Obama or any other White House officials knew about it (or created a plausible deniability scheme to allow such surveillance while preventing themselves from knowing about it directly); thenthere is an even bigger problem.

It would then seem that the Russia hacking story was concocted not just to explain away an embarrassing election defeat, but to cover up the real scandal.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. His new book,How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Formatting has been changed to improve clarity.

See the original post:
DeepStateGate: Democrats' 'Russian Hacking' Conspiracy Theory Backfires - Breitbart News

|

Posted: Mar 05, 2017 12:01 AM

Now that President Trump has followed through on his campaign promise and started the deportation process for criminal illegal aliens, Democrats and the media are united in outrage. One talking point dominates all others: Immigrants have a much lower crime rate than Americans do, so its unfair to target them. This begs the question: To these liberals, how many American victims of illegal alien crime would it take to for it to matter to you?

There are regular reports of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens horrific gang-related murders have occurred recently in New York, Washington, D.C., and Houston but the true crime rate among illegal aliens is not known. Most states do not keep those records for reasons we can only guess, plus there is no way of knowing the real number of illegals in the country. That fact hasnt stopped liberal commentators and politicians from stating unequivocally that we Americans are the real crime problem in this country.

Although it may be true, and from a sheer numbers standpoint it undoubtedly is, its also irrelevant. Victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens would not have been victims if those people were not in this country. Every person murdered by an illegal alien would still be alive.

This is a simple fact those who spout this made-up statistic hope people dont realize, because their entire argument would fall apart if they did.

Kate Steinle, the young woman murdered in San Francisco by an illegal alien with multiple convictions and deportations, would not have been murdered that July day in 2015 if the man who did it had not been in the country illegally in the first place.

Democrats dont care. In addition to doing all they could to ignore Steinles murder, they even voted against Kates Law, which would impose a minimum sentence of five years for already-deported illegal aliens who re-enter the country. Like I said, Democrats dont care.

Democrats would rather pander for the potential votes of illegal aliens should they be granted citizenship than defend Americans.

At President Trumps address to a joint session of Congress, Democrats went so far as to invite illegal aliens and their children to be their guests in the House gallery.

In the build up to the speech, one woman in particular garnered a lot of Democratic and media sympathy.

The children of recently deported illegal alien Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos were invited guests to the presidents speech, and their plight was widely reported in incredibly sympathetic, if not accurate, terms.

CNN had five reporters (seriously, five people) file a story on them entitled, Trumps speech disheartens deported moms kids. If Guadalupe had hired a PR firm, it couldnt have drafted a more glowing press release.

Guadalupes sad tale of woe was easy to find across the media, but the reason she was deported wasnt as readily available.

The New York Times, of all places, is where you can find it, though its only casually mentioned in their story.

After mentioning Guadalupe had been meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for nearly a decade, the Times noted these annual meetings were a requirement since she was caught using a fake Social Security number during a raid in 2008 at a water park where she worked.

Thats a politically correct way of saying she committed fraud or stole someones identity the Times doesnt say which. But those are the only ways an illegal alien could get a legitimate job.

Although certainly not murder or drug dealing, neither option is a victimless crime either an American was denied a job by fraud and/or another had their identity stolen. And thats the real truth Democrats dont want you to think of illegal aliens have countless victims who may not know for years, if ever, that they were victims.

Still, Democrats do not care.

This is to say nothing of the cost to society. The cost of educating illegal alien children is significantly higher than Americans because of the language barrier. This siphons off valuable taxpayer resources from American children, usually from poor urban areas, making those children victims of illegal immigration.

Again, Democrats do not care. Theyd rather focus on an illegal alien being arrested after giving a defiant press conference than reality.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime simply because not all illegal aliens are members of MS-13 or Democrats want to pretend it is. Real people suffer real consequences when someone enters the country illegally or overstays a visa.

The question is: What is the magic number of Americans who must be victims of these crimes before Democrats will care more about those victims than about the potential voters now in our country illegally? If recent actions are any indication, no number is high enough.

Go here to see the original:
For Democrats, How Many American Victims Are Enough? - Townhall

Bradenton Herald

First Amendment applies to Trump, too Bradenton Herald After reading Mr. James Frazier's Feb. 28 letter to the editor Trump's scorn of media disturbing, I have a question: Is the letter rhetoric or is he saying everyone is protected by the First Amendment except the president of the United States ...

Excerpt from:
First Amendment applies to Trump, too - Bradenton Herald

There is the smell of freshly brewing coffee in the air. The sun is just starting to come up. It is Sunday morning! Thump! Yes, Yes!

That is the sound I was waiting to hear! The Union-Bulletin newspaper being delivered to my front door.

Coffee cup in hand I go retrieve the paper from my front porch. I flip through the sections to my favorite part of the paper, the Perspective section.

First I read the editorial, then I look at the political cartoons, followed by Our Readers Opinions and individual columnists. During the reading and digesting of the material I go from agreeing to disagreeing, happy to sad, to disbelief and mad.

In my Sunday morning pursuit of knowledge I have sharpened my skills as a citizen of our wonderful country.

I would like to praise the Union-Bulletin for upholding the United States Constitutions First Amendment! You folks in the press are the light that burns away the darkness so the truth is illuminated by your piercing rays!

Please keep asking the tough questions and follow them up! Just a note to say I appreciate you and our country needs you now more than ever!

See more here:
U-B upholding the First Amendment | Letters To Editor | union ... - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, and ensures that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, no abridging the freedom of speech, no infringing on the freedom of the press, no interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, and no prohibition against the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I am becoming more and more alarmed at the present administrations attack on our sacred First Amendment rights. I preface this letter with this amendment because I feel few Americans know or even care about the words contained within it.

During the most recent presidential campaign, and most glaringly in the first month of this administration, a constant demonizing of the press and the inference that the press cannot be trusted are becoming more unnerving every day. Recently, White House press secretary Sean Spicer spun his press conference restriction of not inviting four high-profile news outlets, stating that the room was "just too small." President Trump revealed in a tweet not one hour later that the press restriction was due to Trumps personal belief that these outlets reports fake news or are failing.

Clearly, Trump is seeking to control the press corps, limiting it to those he believes will write the news he wants written. No other president in modern history has attempted to squash the press like this.

Republican Sen. John McCain said in a recent interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, "I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital." The Arizona senator, who was just re-elected to another six-year term, added that in order to preserve democracy, a free and many times adversarial press is essential. Thats how dictators get started, he continued. They get started by suppressing a free press; in other words, a consolidation of power. When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press.

This constant attack on the press is the first step at the chipping away of our First Amendment and our democracy. We live in a 24/7 social media culture. It is our responsibility to weigh carefully what is said and videotaped and then held up against the untruths that seem to follow. We cannot become indifferent or complacent when a threat such as this occurs.

Kathleen Afflerbach

Quakertown

More:
Constant attacks on press chip away at 1st Amendment | Letters to ... - The Intelligencer