Mediaboss Marketing

This weekend, the New York Times scraped the fresh scabs off Democrats wounds from 2016. In an extended piece, the Times provided us with the best account so far of the deliberations inside the FBI as it investigated Hillary Clinton and debated how best to announce the results of that investigation to the public. It should surprise no one that there wasnt exactly a playbook for handling a serious criminal investigation of a major-party nominee for president, and neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed standard operating procedures.

At the beginning, the DOJ toned down its public statements on the Clinton probe, calling it a matter rather than an investigation, even as the FBI possessed a document by a Democratic operative that implied that Attorney General Loretta Lynch wouldnt allow the investigation to derail Clintons campaign. When Bill Clinton turned up in Lynchs airplane, it caused understandable dismay inside the FBI, and Comey became convinced that he should announce the results of the investigation rather than the attorney general.

Later, when potentially relevant e-mails were unexpectedly discovered on Anthony Weiners laptop, the FBI faced an agonizing choice: Should it disclose that it had re-opened the investigation?

The question consumed hours of conference calls and meetings. Agents felt they had two options: Tell Congress about the search, which everyone acknowledged would create a political furor, or keep it quiet, which followed policy and tradition but carried its own risk, especially if the F.B.I. found new evidence in the emails.

In my mind at the time, Clinton is likely to win, Mr. Steinbach said. Its pretty apparent. So what happens after the election, in November or December? How do we say to the American public: Hey, we found some things that might be problematic. But we didnt tell you about it before you voted? The damage to our organization would have been irreparable.

Comey chose to disclose, and the rest is history. Heres FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver making the succinct case that Comeys letter to Congress could have turned the election:

In an election this close, it seems foolish to argue that the Comey letter didnt make some difference, but its equally foolish to pretend that lots of other things didnt make an equal or bigger difference. As for blame? Well, thats easy:

It was all Hillary Clintons fault. All of it.

She made the decision to flout standard practice, sound policy, good sense, and the law by setting up a homebrew server and using a private e-mail for official business, including the sending and receiving of classified information.

She made the decision to lie, repeatedly, about what shed done.

She made the decision to press forward with her campaign and pressure Democratic leaders (including superdelegates) to join her team while misleading them every step of the way.

She led the Democratic party off the 2016 cliff.

In all these things, of course, she was merely imitating the master manipulator, her own husband. Remember how skillfully Bill Clinton transformed the public debate over his own perjury? Remember how he and his team coaxed a sympathetic press into making the propriety of the investigation the main story, rather than the underlying tawdriness and corruption of his conduct?

This is the Clinton way. This is what they do. They do what they want, when they want, how they want, and then indignantly demand that everyone else conduct themselves with maximum restraint and with complete consideration of the Clinton familys political goals. In other words, they embrace vice while demanding compliance and cooperation from everyone else, including law enforcement.

In reality, vice tends to leave virtue with a dilemma. Hillary Clintons misconduct put the DOJ and the FBI in an impossible position: What do you do when a presidential candidate herself is under known criminal investigation, and when the public is broadly aware of extraordinarily damaging facts about the candidates conduct? Do you quietly close it with minimal comment, or do you address the facts? What do you do when you re-open an investigation you publicly closed? These are the choices Hillary forced on the FBI and the DOJ.

There may come a time to more fully evaluate the FBIs conduct toward the Trump team, but we dont have nearly enough facts to make the kind of judgments we can make regarding the investigation of Clintons e-mail scandal. Clinton evaded prosecution on the strength of her name and through the horrible precedent set by the DOJs deal with David Petraeus. She should be grateful that shes not in prison, not outraged that shes not president. She brought this all on herself.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

READ MORE:

Original post:
It Was All Hillary's Fault - National Review

Flickr

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been accused of many murders of individuals working close to her. A recent fake news article suggested that Clintons assistant Johnston Wilson (J.W.) McGill died under mysterious circumstances. However, there are no concrete facts supporting the claim that McGill was found dead after suffering an apparent heart attack. Where did this fake news article originate?

In April 2017, the web site geopolitica.ru published the article claiming that McGill, an assistant for the former Secretary of State, had died under mysterious circumstances. You can read text from the fake story below.

Johnston Wilson McGill, 34, was pronounced dead on his couch by a private doctor after suffering an apparent heart attack. It has happened just days after being summoned to appear before Trey Gowdys congressional committee to testify about Hillary Clintons email server. McGill was one of Clintons aides. The death was reported hapanned [sic] at her home of natural causes.

[]

Does this whole thing seem a little bit odd to anyone else? It feels oddly like weve seen things like this happen before to people who could possibly incriminate Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, as the doctor who pronounced has an impeccable record and is an authorized coroner in new York, the findings will be accepted and entered into public record.

However, there is no truth to this rumor. Although the Geopolitica.ru story is currently being circulated on social media, this text originally appeared on The Last Line of Defense, an entertainment web site with a penchant for fake news. According to a disclaimer on the web site, all of its content is satirical.

The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real.

Although there is no truth to this rumor that did not stop conspiracy theorists from quickly starting to spread the claim that McGill was killed in an attempt to keep Clinton out of jail. Here are some examples of people sharing and discussing the fake news article about Clinton.

Besides the origin of the story with a known fake entertainment news site, there is no record of a Johnston Wilson McGill working on Clintons staff. Additionally, there are no genuine news reports about his alleged death.

Furthermore, Trey Gowdy concluded his investigation into the Benghazi email scandal in July 2016. Although this article does not include a date for the death of the fictional McGill, the web sites appear to have published the story in March and April of 2017, according to Snopes.

What did you think of the fake news about another murder at the hands of Clinton? Have you seen people sharing the story falsely on social media? Let us know in the comments section.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Webcast, May 4th: The Death of Email Marketing and How to Avoid It

Follow this link:
Hillary Clinton's Assistant J.W. McGill Dead Under Mysterious Circumstances Is Fake News - Business 2 Community

5612988

Hillary Clintons Department of State aides allegedly threatened a South Asian prime ministers sonwith an IRS audit in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of a close friend and donor ofClintons, The Daily Caller News Foundations Investigative Group learned.

ABangladesh government commission was investigating multiple charges of financial mismanagement at Grameen Bank, beginning in May 2012. Muhammad Yunus, a major Clinton Foundation donor, served as managing director of the bank.

Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and permanent U.S. resident, recalled the account of the threatened IRS audit to TheDCNF. The allegations mark the first known instance in the U.S. that Clintons Department of State used IRS power to intimidate a close relative of a friendly nations head of state on behalf of a Clinton Foundation donor.

Wazed told TheDCNF it was astounding and mind boggling that senior State Department officials between 2010 and 2012repeatedly pressured him to influence his mother to drop the commission investigation.

The commission report was released in early 2013.

They threatened me with the possibility of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service, he said. I have been here legally for 17 years and never had a problem. But they said, well, you know, you might get audited.'

They would say over and over again, Yunus has powerful friends and we all knew they were talking of Secretary Clinton. Everybody knew it was Mrs. Clinton, Wazed told TheDCNF.

The Prime Minister originally disclosed in general terms the pressure exerted on her son at a February reception in Munich.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy had to face pressure from the US State Department to keep Muhammad Yunus as the Grameen Bank managing director, the Dhaka Tribune reported.

Hillary Clinton phoned me and exerted the same pressure. Even the U.S. State Department summoned my son Joy three times and told him that we would face trouble, Hasina added.

Hasina said State Department officials told Joy that Clinton would not take the matter lightly.

Convince your mother, she recalled Joy quoting officials.

However, Hasina never provided details of the ordeal her son faced until his interview with TheDCNF.

The World Bank alsodecidedto rescind a $1.2 billion loan to Bangladesh while the IRS was pressuring Joy in 2012. The money was requested in order to build a key bridge near the capital city of Dhaka. The World Bank leveled bribery charges against two Canadian officials, but a Canadian court later acquitted both individuals.

Former Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who twice met with then-Secretary of State Clinton, told TheDCNF it was apparent there were links between the World Bank loan cancellation and Yunus. Moni now is chairwoman of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs.

Whether there was any abuse by the U.S. Government or the secretary of state, that I cannot say, Moni said. I can only say we saw two facts: One was the communications from the State Department, and then the other one was the withdrawal of World Banks loan.

But she was more direct about Yunusrole in the World Bank cancellation.

Professor Yunus obviously tried to punish or tried to retaliate and punish the government of Bangladesh, especially [Prime Minister] Sheikh Hasina, she said.He knew how important the Padma [bridge] was for our economy, for our peoples government, and it would revive the whole of south of Bangladesh.

Obviously, he tried to use that to get out of the situation he was in, and he wanted to punish the government, she said.

Wade claimed he received threats from all levels of the State Department.

The threats came from all levels. It came from the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh to pretty senior officials within the State Department.

Wade regularly met many State Department officials as he lived near the nations capital. He considered many to be friends and colleagues, but the tone and substance of the discussions radically changed beginning in 2010.

Previously, we pretty much discussed many issues, things like trade, finance or national security. But then, the only thing they would be harping on was Yunus. They had one obsession, to save Muhammad Yunus.

Clinton met with Yunus three times as secretary of state while the Bangladesh government investigation was underway, according to an August 2016 Associated Pressreporton Clinton Foundation donors.

Throughout the Bangladesh governments investigation, He (Yunus) pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him, AP reported.

Nonprofit government watchdog Judicial Watch obtained Clinton emails thatshowed her aide Melanne Verveer regularly updated Clinton on Yunus ongoing plight.

Clinton also supported Yunus in other ways. The U.S. Agency for International Development, part of State Department, partnered with the Grameen Foundation for a $162 million micro-finance project in 2009. The agency separately awarded $2.2 million to the foundation.

Yunus first ran into trouble when a 2010 Norwegian documentary chargedthat he diverted nearly $100 million of Grameen Bank funds to finance his private enterprises.Yunus presently owns more than 50 private and nonprofit companies, ranging from Grameen Telecom to firms in the fashion industry and even a yogurt company.

Wazed said word of the $100 million diversion did not sit well with many Bangladeshis who earn an annual per-capita income of $1,314.

The whole Grameen Bank embezzlement issue was important for us, Wazed said. You know, he took $100 million from Grameen bank and transferred to his private trust to create 57 personal, private sector projects.

Wazed added that Yunus eventually paid it back, but thats not the point. He took the money, and the bank is a state-bank not authorized to provide big business loans.

After the Bangladesh government commission report came out in 2013, officials removed Yunus as managing director. They invoked a rule stating bank executives can only work up to the age of 60. Yunus was 70 at the time.

Prior to the scandal, Yunus was a high-flying bank executive who championed micro-credits, small loans to try to lift the poor out of poverty.

He won the admiration and later financial and political assistance of the Clintons when the former president was governor of Arkansas.

The Clintons also frequently hostedYunusat their foundations annual Clinton Global Initiative galas in New York. He was a heavily promoted as a CGI speaker nearly every year from 2008 to 2016, according to the foundations website.

Yunus was awarded the 2006 Noble Peace Prize, reportedly with backroom lobbying by Bill Clinton.

As a New York Senator, Clintonsuccessfully pushed Congress to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. Then-President Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nations highest civilian award, in 2010.

Yunus, in turn, was a donor to the Clinton Foundation. Grameen America, one of Yunus major American organizations, gave between $100,000 to $250,000 to the foundation, according to the Clinton Foundation website. His Grameen Research group donated $25,000 to $50,000.

TheDCNF contacted both Grameen America and the Clinton Foundation seeking comment but received responses from neither.

Follow Richard on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Visit link:
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Aides Threatened Prime Minister's Son With IRS Audit, He Says - Daily Caller

On Tuesday, as the FEC case restarted in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court, Johnson's attorney said his decision not to cooperate with the government stems in part from the Swallow case.

Johnson was ordered to a 30-day jail sentence for refusing to testify and has been held in solitary confinement since he was returned to a California federal prison where he is serving an 11-year sentence for his conviction in another case.

"He had not been in this situation until after he refused to testify in the John Swallow case," Kara Porter told U.S. District Judge Dee Benson. Johnson understands that failing to respond to the FEC's demands for evidence comes with consequences, Porter said, but he doesn't trust the government.

FEC attorney Kevin Hancock said Johnson should have to explain with specificity just why he fears the government if he plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Porter disagreed and said she wasn't aware of any requirement for defendants to "identify their fear level." Johnson, she said, has good reason for his caution. Past promises of immunity offered to Johnson by federal prosecutors in exchange for information in other cases were ignored, triggering both the criminal case brought against him and the FEC civil action, she said.

Any missteps or statement he makes could be seen as inconsistent by government attorneys and grounds for new criminal charges.

"Mr. Johnson is understandably skeptical about the federal government's intentions toward him," Porter said.

Swallow's attorney Scott C. Williams told Benson he believes Johnson has cause for concern. The FEC case, he told Benson, is based largely on supposedly confidential statements Johnson was "incentivized" to make in 2013 interviews with state and federal agents investigating alleged acts of corruption by Swallow and his predecessor Mark Shurtleff.

Since then, Johnson has told the Swallow defense team that his statements to agents are "not reliable" and that if deposed or called to testify he would deny that Swallow had aided and abetted him in any election-fraud scheme.

Benson sided with the FEC's attorneys, however, ordering Porter to file a response to the government's motions for evidence that offers some explanation of Johnson's refusals.

Johnson and Swallow have denied involvement in any scheme or effort to illegally bundle campaign contributions.

FEC attorneys say the funds went to the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., as well as Shurtleff during the 2009-2010 election cycle.

Court papers say all the money came from Johnson, once a successful internet marketer, who was directed by Swallow to push the money through conduit contributors.

Under FEC rules, individual campaign contributions are capped at $2,400.

On Tuesday the FEC said it is preparing subpoenas for each of the individuals they believe were repaid by Johnson or his companies for making contributions.

jdobner@sltrib.com

Continued here:
Jeremy Johnson to invoke Fifth Amendment in campaign scheme ... - Salt Lake Tribune

Anthony Levandowski, the Uber executive and former Waymo employee at the center of a trade-secrets lawsuit between the two firms, wont be able to use the Fifth Amendments protections against self-incrimination to prevent Uber from turning over documents in the case, an appellate court ruled today.

Levandowski is the key figure in the suit that Waymo, the self-driving car unit spun off by Google parent Alphabet, filed in February. Waymo has accused Levandowski of stealing 14,000 files, amounting to 9.7 gigabytes of highly confidential data, before leaving the company in January 2016. He went on to start Otto, a driverless trucking startup that was acquired by Uber last year for $680 million.

Waymo alleges that Levandowski started talking with Uber about forming a self-driving car startup Uber would be interested in buying as early as mid-2015. It has urged the court to bar him from any work related to Ubers self-driving-car efforts.

Levandowski isnt a named defendant in the suitthose are Uber and Ottobut as a central figure he has retained his own counsel. In late March, Levandowski invoked the Fifth because of the potential for criminal action, precluding Uber from disclosing certain information requested by the court.

After multiple appeals, the court denied Levandowskis request as it applies to the documents sought from Uber. We are not persuaded that the district court erred in its ruling requiring defendants to produce an unredacted privilege log, states an order from the US court of appeals for the federal circuit, according to a copy viewed by Quartz. The unredacted privilege log is the evidence the court ordered Uber to produce and which Levandowski said could potentially incriminate him.

Mr. Levandowski has therefore failed to establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the order concludes.

Levandowskis failed bid to use the Fifth here could prove very bad for Uber if it forces the company to serve up incriminating documents. Even without those documents, William Alsup, the federal judge overseeing the case, has called Waymos case against Uber extraordinary, saying earlier this month, I have never seen a record this strong in 42 years.

Correction: An earlier version of this story suggested the court denied Levandowskis ability to take the Fifth Amendment; what it specifically rejected was the argument that his Fifth Amendment rights should preclude Uber from turning over potentially incriminating documents sought in the case.

Read next: Waymo is hitting Uber where it hurts

See original here:
The Uber engineer accused of stealing 14000 documents from Waymo can't use the Fifth Amendment to stop Uber from ... - Quartz