Mediaboss Marketing

The Fix's Callum Borchers and Aaron Blake explain President Obama's tough choices about how to react to Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

The Washington Post is reporting Friday morning that President Barack Obama knew in August that Russian President Vladimir Putin was waging an extraordinary cyberwar on the U.S. presidential campaign, both to discredit the election and try to help Donald Trump win. The Obama administration did not publicly acknowledge all of this until after the election, in December.

In the last few months of the election campaign, behind the scenes and sometimes publicly Democrats in Congress were extremely critical of the president for not telling the public about what was happening.

Top members of theObamaadministration have since defended that decision as the best of bad choices. Former homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson toldCongress earlier this week: "We were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the of the election process itself."

So what really happened? Here is a timeline ofhow the Obama administration responded tothe Russian meddling and how he was criticized for it.

1960: Russians have been trying to influence outcomes and perceptions of U.S. elections since around this time, say intelligence experts today.

July 2016:Nearly 20,000 election-year emails from Democratic National Committee staff members are published by WikiLeaks, on the evethe 2016 Democratic National Convention. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigns as chairwoman over some of the emails. Some intelligence Democrats point the finger at Russia.

Middle of summer 2016:Top Democrats in Congress say they realized the extent of the hacking, and that it was from Russia. "In the late summer of last year, it became apparent that the Russians were doing more than gathering foreign intelligence that they were in fact dumping it in a way designed to potentially influence outcomes, not by affecting the vote machines, necessarily, but by affecting American public opinion with the dumping of these emails," recalled Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a recent committee hearing.

Late July:The U.S. government makes a concerted effort to investigate Russia meddling in the election. As former CIA director John Brennan recalled toCongress in June 2017: "When it became clear to me last summer that Russia was engaged in a very aggressive and wide-ranging effort to interfere in one of the key pillars of our democracy, we pulled together experts from CIA, NSA and FBI in late July to focus on the issue, drawing in multiple perspectives and subject matter experts with broad expertise to assess Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."

July 27:Trump calls on Russia to hack Clinton's emails to see if she didn't turn any over to the FBI that she should have.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says it's "far-fetched" and "ridiculous" to say Russia hacked Democratic Party emails to help him become president. (Reuters)

July 27: Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who are among the eight members of Congress who get regular classified briefings by intelligence officials, write to President Obama "urging that the administration declassify and release any intelligence community assessments related to the DNC hack, and develop a swift and powerful response."

Early August: The Washington Post reports that Obama received an "eyes only" envelope by courier from the CIA that"detailed Russian President Vladimir Putins direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race" and to help Trump win. "An intelligence bombshell," The Post called it.

August 2016: The Obama administration discovers some entity trying to break into voter registration systems across states.

Also August: Then-Republican nominee Trump starts saying the election is rigged.

Also August:Then-CIA director John Brennan calls his counterpart in Russia and tells them to knock it off.

Aug. 15: The Department of Homeland Security issues a statement warning state governments that some kind of entity was trying to hack into states' voter registration systems. Then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson would go on to issue several other statements over the next few months. "In the late summer, fall, I was very concerned about what I was seeing, and this was on my front burner all throughout the pre-election period in August, September, October and early November to encourage the states to come in and seek our assistance," he told Congress in June 2017. "And I'm glad that most of them, red and blue, did."

September 2016: Obama directly confronted Putin at a world leaders meeting in China, telling him to stop -- or else, according to Post reporting.

September: Top members of Congress get a secret briefing by the intelligence community that Russia is interfering in the election, but to what end, they aren't sure. The intelligence community privately saysagencies are conducting a broad investigation. The Washington Post later reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the accuracy of this in those secret meetings.

Sept. 22: Frustrated that the Obama administration still had not made a public statement about the extent of Russian hacking, Schiff and Feinstein, the top Democrats on Congress's intelligence committees, take matters into their own hands and issue a rare public statement attributing the hack to Russia and senior levels of the Russian government. Here it is in full:

Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the electionwe can see no other rationale for the behavior of the Russians. We believe that orders for the Russian intelligence agencies to conduct such actions could come only from very senior levels of the Russian government. We call on President Putin to immediately order a halt to this activity. Americans will not stand for any foreign government trying to influence our election. We hope all Americans will stand together and reject the Russian effort.

[Meet Adam Schiff, the Democrat becoming the face of opposition to Trump]

Sept. 28:McConnell and the other top three congressional leaderswrite a letter urging states to use the federal government's help to prevent hacking into their voter registration systems. It makes no mention of Russia.

Oct. 7: The Russian government hacked into Democrats' emails, according to a public statement by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Johnson. They conclude "that the intelligence community is confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." This marks the first public U.S. acknowledgment that the Russian government interfered in the election.

Also Oct. 7: The Washington Post publishes an Access Hollywood video of then-candidate Trump bragging about grabbing women's private parts, burying the intelligence community's announcement about Russia.

November-December 2016: Seven Democratic senators send a short letter to Obama to ask him to declassify details of Russian meddling. "We believe there is additional information concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election that should be declassified and released to the public,"they say.

Dec. 6: Top Democrats send another letter to President Obama asking him to brief "all members of Congress on Russian interference in the U.S. election."

Dec. 9: The Washington Post reports on a secret CIA assessment that concludes Russians intervened in the U.S. election to try to help Trump win the presidency, rather than with the sole goal of undermining Americans' confidence in their electoral systems.

Obama orders a comprehensive review of what happened, going back to 2008, with plans to make it public, The Post reports.

Dec. 29:Obama announces sanctions on Russia for election meddling, kicking out 35 Russians expected to play a role in the hacking and taking over two Russia compounds in the U.S.

December-January: President-elect Trump repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the intelligence community's public assessments and private briefings to him that Russia hacked in the election to help him win. "It could have been China," he said as recently as May 2017.

Jan. 6: In what The Washington Post calls a "remarkably blunt assessment," the intelligence agencies release a declassified report saying that Putin ordered the hacking and elevation of fake news in the United States to help Trump win. It determines: Russia developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump and repeatedly sought to artificially boost his election chances.

May and June 2017: Former Obama intelligence officials go before Congress to assert that Russia interfered in the election. Former CIA director Brennan testifies before Congress and says this: "It should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 presidential election process and that they undertook these activities, despite our strong protests and explicit warning that they not do so."

Former CIA director John Brennan testified May 23 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about Russia's influence on the 2016 presidential election. (The Washington Post)

June 2017: Former Obama intelligence officials defend waiting until October to announce what they had known for several months, that Russia was interfering in the election. Here's Johnson speaking to Schiff this week:

This was a big decision, and there were a lot of considerations that went into it. This was an unprecedented step. First, as you know well, we have to carefully consider whether declassifying the information compromises sources and methods. there was an ongoing election, and many would criticize us for perhaps taking sides in the election. So that had to be carefully considered. One of the candidates, as you'll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way. And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the of the election process itself.

This was this was a very difficult decision. But in my personal view, it's something we had to do. It got careful consideration, a lot of discussion. My view is that we needed to do it, and we needed to do it well before the election, to inform the American voters of what we knew and what we saw, and that it would be unforgivable if we did not, pre-election. And I'm glad we did it.

Continue reading here:
The emerging timeline of Obama and Russia that is giving Democrats heartburn - Washington Post

Republicans are divided over whether to work with Democrats on spending measures for the 2018 fiscal year, which begins in October.

Conservatives say Republicans should go their own way and pass a budget and spending bills that make deeper cuts to spending and reflect GOP values.

Centrist members say that strategy is unrealistic and will increase the chances of a shutdown or, worse, a continuing resolution that would simply maintain existing funding levels. The only way to avoid that outcome, they say, is to work with Democrats.

If we dont have a bipartisan budget agreement, theres a very good chance well end up with a continuing resolution, said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a House moderate.

Dent says a bipartisan deal is the inevitable end game for Republicans.

Its hard to deal with tax reform and infrastructure if youre battling over keeping the government funded, he said.

A meeting of House Republicanson Wednesdaydemonstrated how little progress has been made on the overall strategy for funding the government.

"This meeting was just to collect opinions, and there were many opinions, said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla).

I think everyone understands where it ends is a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to fund the government. Whats being discussed now is, how does the House form its position in advance of that eventuality? he added.

But for all the moderates pushing to cut to the chase and deal with Democrats, a larger group is pushing to go it alone.

The House Budget Committee, for example, has been negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus over balancing top-line spending numbers with cuts to welfare programs. That approach would yield few, if any, Democratic votes.

Rep. Tom GravesTom GravesRepublicans divided on seeking budget deal with Democrats Budget process drags as GOP struggles for consensus House conservatives support summer omnibus to pre-empt shutdown fight MORE (R-Ga.) has promoted a plan to pass the 12 separate appropriations bills through subcommittees as usual, but then combine them into one omnibus bill before the August recess.

I would say there is certainly consensus on passing all 12 appropriations bills as soon as possible, but there are questions on the mechanics and timing, Graves said.

That process, Graves said, would allow conservatives to take control of the budget conversation and ensure that a last-minute, bipartisan deal wouldnt be negotiated by leadership to avert a government shutdown.

The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes a majority of House Republicans, has backed the idea.

The game of financial and political brinksmanship has yielded few, if any, victories for conservatives, RSC Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) said.

But moderates believe that passing purely partisan budget and appropriations bills will result in an even worse outcome: a continuing resolution that leaves government spending on auto-pilot.

Those numbers are going to change because at some point in the process you have to have Democratic cooperation, said Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of both the House Budget and Appropriations committees.

House Republicans and members of the Trump administration agree that a continuing resolution, which would keep 2017 spending levels in place, would preempt progress on many of the partys priorities.

I dont want to get a CR. A CR means that the president that we have now would essentially be working off the same language and the same numbers that Obama did, so whatever we need to get the process done is what we have to do, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).

A continuing resolution would also preclude other Republican plans, such as increasing defense spending or building Trumps border wall.

Dent said he hopes that Republicans will seek Democratic support not only on spending, but also on increasing the debt ceiling. Failure to address the debt ceiling would result in a U.S. debt default and could be a body blow to financial markets and the economy.

Of course this will happen, because the alternative is unthinkable, said Dent. The question is how much drama will we endure between now and the time that happens.

Scott Wong contributed.

Read more here:
Republicans divided on seeking budget deal with Democrats - The Hill

On the campaign trail, Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, ran on a platform of tougher immigration laws. Next week the U.S. House of Representatives will take up two measures that will address aspects of immigration reform, according to Politico.

One of the pieces of legislation is Kate's Law, which increase penalties for individuals who attempt to reenter the United States after having been deported.

Kate Steinle was killed last year in San Francisco by a person who been deported multiple times and continually returned to the U.S. As Politico notes, Trump mentioned Steinle's death often while campaigning.

The other piece of legislation to be considered addresses sanctuary cities. This legislation would lead to stricter penalties for localities that do not work with federal officials on enforcing national immigration laws.

Politico reports that the law, written by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), would require municipalities to comply with federal officers to keep immigrants imprisoned in order to be held until they can be picked up for deportation.

Read the original here:
House to address immigration reform next week - Independent Journal Review

The State

Immigration activist praises South Carolina during forum The State Ali Noorani, the executive director of the Washington-based National Immigration Forum, discussed coalition-building to address immigration reform at a roundtable discussion Thursday at Greenville Technical College. The luncheon brought together ...

Excerpt from:
Immigration activist praises South Carolina during forum - The State

Documentarian Brian Knappenberger took a keen interest in the lawsuit Hulk Hogan brought against Gawker. Not because of the tawdry details, though there were plenty of those: The wrestler sued the media company for invasion of privacy over a sex tape it published in 2012 featuring him and the wife of his friend Bubba the Love Sponge Clem.

Knappenberger was more interested in what the trial meant for the First Amendment. As soon as the jury sided with Hogan and put Gawker on the hook for an astounding $140million the filmmaker knew he had to get to work on his next movie.

Of course, that was long before he realized how much deeper the story went. It was before the revelation that Peter Thiel, a wealthy entrepreneur with a grudge, bankrolled the lawsuit that put Gawker out of business; before Thiel supported Donald Trump for president; and before Trump, who promised during his campaign to open up our libel laws, became leader of the free world.

Sometimes documentaries come along at the ideal moment. Chalk it up to luck or a futurists understanding of the zeitgeist, but Knappenbergers Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press is right on time as it begins streaming on Netflix on Friday. Its a crucial moment to consider what it means for the First Amendment, not to mention society, that a billionaire with a bone to pick could use his money to get the legal system to do his bidding.

Thiel had despised Gawker ever since it published a story about him in 2007 with the title Peter Thiel is totally gay, people. And he wasnt alone. Gawker had a well-earned bad reputation. A pioneer of online journalism, the company prized speed over fact-checking and became infamous for its questionable news judgment and snarky, cavalier attitude. Its Gawker Stalker feature was the tip of the iceberg, raising privacy concerns with its crowdsourced map that tracked the movements of celebrities.

But Gawker also broke legitimate stories, including one about the many women who had accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault.

As legendary lawyer and First Amendment advocate Floyd Abrams puts it in the movie: We dont get to pick and choose what sorts of publications are permissible.

And yet, Thiel did. He didnt see his court case as a threat to the First Amendment, he explained, because he didnt view Gawker as a journalistic enterprise. The co-founder of PayPal (and an early Facebook investor) declared putting Gawker out of business his most philanthropic deed. He maintained that the company was a singularly sociopathic bully.

But thats an absurd thing to say in a media environment in which Alex Jones basically says Sandy Hook didnt happen, Knappenberger said in a recent interview, referring to the conspiracy-theory-spewing Infowars radio host, who also spread lies about Pizzagate. Gawker is singularly sociopathic for posting this tape of a public person who had bragged about his sex life? Its not necessarily tasteful, but its certainly not sociopathic.

Nobody Speak shows that the Hogan-Gawker case is only one piece of a worrisome trend. In Nevada, for example, another moneyed magnate and Republican donor, Sheldon Adelson, secretly paid $140million to buy the Las Vegas Review-Journal a newspaper that had been critical of him in the past. Adelson, like the man he supported for president, has a history of suing journalists who write unflattering stories about him.

The wealthiest citizens clearly exert outsize power in our society, which becomes more problematic as the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to widen. The Fourth Estates job is to hold the powerful accountable, and yet the distrust of institutions especially the news media puts free speech in a precarious spot.

Technology and other factors like inequality are shifting and changing the ground we walk on, said Knappenberger, whose films The Internets Own Boy and We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists also deal with technology and society. The way those forces are rubbing up against what you might think of as traditional values freedom of speech and democracy and acquisition of power and money that stuff is really shifting, and I dont think we quite know where its going.

Knappenberger said he could tell at the time that what was happening with Hogan and Gawker was connected to what was happening on the campaign trail.

Trump was always in this film from the beginning, he said. There was a palpable hatred of the media in the courtroom. The judge on the case, Jeb Bush appointee Pamela Campbell, had no sympathy for Gawker. Nor, apparently, did the jury.

Theres legitimate criticism, Knappenberger said of journalism. That its too corporatized or too cozy with power. For too long, [journalists] traded softball stories for access, and people are starting to call bulls---.

But the director is heartened by the response to the new presidency as reporters have been energized by a hunt for scoops that has led to seemingly nonstop breaking-news bombshells.

Meanwhile, Trumps ability to change libel laws appears to be limited, despite a menacing tweet after a New York Times story he didnt like.

That doesnt make the threat against free speech and real facts any less real. Lets not forget what happened in that Florida courtroom.

This became something much, much bigger, and it does point to something critical at the heart of whats going on right now, Knappenberger said. If money is leveraged against civil liberties and speech, what else is important? Its not that thats the only important thing. Its that how do you care about anything else? How do you tackle anything else without speech?

Go here to see the original:
A movie about Hulk Hogan's court case shows how the First Amendment is under attack - Washington Post