Mediaboss Marketing

Wrong-headed

The Daily Press Editorial Board's July 23 stance, "Foundation of our freedom," is one of the most vividly foolish analyses of recent times. The thesis that President Donald Trump's criticism of today's press and media is an assault on the constitutional rights of a "foundation of our freedom," the free press.

In fact, President Trump has engaged in no such attack against the First Amendment right of a free press. His criticisms of the press are directed at the content of what many of today's journalists and publishers print, not at the constitutional rights of journalists and institutions to publish what they choose.

If his criticisms of the press threaten the very institution of the free press, then the fusillade of criticism by the press against President Trump threatens the institution of the presidency.

I doubt that any news agency would admit to that outrage.

Randolph Scott

Newport News

Credibility matters

The July 23 editorial, "Foundation of our freedom," taking to task those who undermine one of this country's basic freedoms, was factual, well-stated and critical for citizens to read at this time in our country's continuing efforts to be credible.

By attacking our First Amendment rights, our efforts to remain a beacon to others is threatened. The First Amendment, whether we agree or not agree, allows us to express ourselves through the written word, protests, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.

Fake news is not included in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Jo-Ann L. Mahony

Hampton

Follow this link:
July 25 Letters: First Amendment - Daily Press

For the second day in a row, President Trump slammed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and threw in old foe Hillary Clinton. Nathan Rousseau Smith (@fantasticmrnate) reports. Buzz60

Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions at a presidential campaign rally in 2016 in Madison, Ala.(Photo: John Bazemore, AP)

WASHINGTON If President Trump was listening to the broadcast of Jeff Sessions's contentious Senate confirmation hearing backin January, he would know why his demands this week for his attorney general to investigate Hillary Clintoncrossed a bright ethical line.

This country does not punish its political enemies,'' Sessions told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He went on to acknowledge that his own critical remarks of Clinton during the 2016 presidential election disqualified him from launching such an inquiry.

I believe the proper thing for me to dowould be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton,'' Sessions said.

Since Trump first publicly expressed frustration with his attorney generallast week specifically over his March decision to recuse himself from overseeing the widening Russia investigation Sessions has said very little.

Yet the attorney general's own remarksnearly eight months ago underscoretheminefield of potential conflicts of interest inherentin Trump's request to investigate a political opponent and the president's apparent disregard for the traditional independence of the Justice Department.

Trump's continued insistence that Sessions reopen the Clinton inquiry into her use of a private email server,lawmakers and former federal prosecutors said Tuesday, represents atroubling and undisguised attempt to manipulate the criminal justice system.

"Prosecutorial decisions should be based on applying facts to the law without hint of political motivation,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "To do otherwise is to run away from the long-standing American tradition of separating the law from politics regardless of party.''

Others, however, saw even more serious implications in the recent series of Trump's disparaging comments about Sessions, coupled with the calls for a renewed Clinton investigation.

"To make a demand like this in public, while implying that the attorney general's job is in jeopardy, almost feels like an attempt at blackmail,'' said Patrick Cotter, who has prosecutedhigh-profile organized crime figures."It reeks of a crude mob deal that even most mobsters wouldn't stoop to.

"I'm no fan of Attorney General Sessions, but I believe the president is threatening his own attorney general,'' Cotter continued. "He's essentially telling Sessions, 'If you want to keep your job, you better start an investigation of Hillary Clinton.' "

One day after describing his own attorney general as "beleaguered," Trump fired off a series of tweets Tuesday morning criticizing Sessions for taking "a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes." He also publicly questioned why Sessions was not pursuing reportsfrom early this yearthat officials in Ukraine also sought to interfere in the election.

Later that day, at a White House press conference, Trump reassertedhis "disappointment'' with Sessions' recusal from the current Justice Department inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians who sought to influence the election. The decision was "unfair" to the presidency, he said.

Trump refused to answer questions, however, about whether he intended to dismiss the attorney general. "Time will tell,'' Trump said.

Related:

After President Trump's public attacks, can Jeff Sessions survive as attorney general?

President Trump again knocks Attorney General Jeff Sessions, calling him 'beleaguered'

After attacking AG Jeff Sessions for failing to investigate Hillary Clinton, Trump won't say if he will fire him

Trump: If I'd known Sessions would recuse himself on Russia I wouldn't have picked him

Yet Trump's renewed focus on prosecuting Clinton after spending a half-year in office is notable also because it represents a departure from his own post-election statements in which he expressed little interest in pursuing further inquiries into his defeated campaign foe.

Less than two weeks after the election, Trump told the New York Times that he did not want to hurt the Clintons. Then-FBI Director James Comey, who wasabruptly dismissed by Trump in May, formally closed the Clinton investigation just days before the November election without recommending criminal charges.

"I really don't,'' Trump said then. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.''

What's more, Kellyanne Conway, now a White House adviser, was more definitive when she told MSNBC last year that Trump also hoped that Congress would forego further investigation into the former secretary of State's activities.

"I think when the president-elect, who's also the head of your party, tells youbefore he's even inaugurated that he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content to members'' of Congress,'' Conway said then.

Now,Trump is sending a very different message by appearing to turnthe case into a make-or-break issue for the continued tenure of his attorney general, analysts said.

William "Bill'' Barr, who served as attorney general in the administration of George H.W. Bush, said there is nothing inherently illegal or unethical for a president to recommend an investigation.

"But in the current context,'' Barr said, "it would be viewed as political.''

During the campaign, Trump and his surrogates used the Clinton case as a rallying cry all along the trail, often leading chants of "Lock her up!"

Now that he's president, however, Trump's continued pursuit of Clinton could easily be viewed not only as an attempt to punish a political rival or exert undue influence on investigators.

Regardless of whether Trumpconvinces the Justice Department to take up an inquiry, Trump's latest push on this front is "unprecedented," said former federal prosecutorScott Fredericksen.

"The suggestion that he wants to prosecute and imprison a political rival crosses a very bold and historical line that establishes the independence of the Justice Department,'' Fredericksen said. "That line is what separates our American democracy from a third-world dictatorship. A very important line may have been crossed here.''

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2v5R8B2

The rest is here:
Analysis: Trump's demand for AG Jeff Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton is an ethical minefield - USA TODAY

A group of House conservatives has filed an amendment asking the Justice Department for information related to former FBI Director James Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email case.

The amendment, first reported by the Washington Post, demands information on "leaks by James B. Comey," on "the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators" and Comey's decision to "usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against" Clinton.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a co-sponsor of the amendment, told the Washington Examiner he aims to "push back" against "accusations" that are distracting from the agenda of President Trump and Republicans in Congress.

"The bottom line is we are tired of passively letting people make accusations to overcrowd our agenda and they ought to respond to claims we know exist about their misconduct," Biggs said in an interview, referring to Clinton and other Democrats targeted in the amendment, including Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama's national security adviser.

The amendment requires the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to explore the Justice Department and FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

"For the past several years, Democrats have obstructed justice and blocked every Congressional investigation imaginable," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, another sponsor of the amendment, in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "Both parties have criticized James Comey over the past year for his performance as FBI director. Even Sen. Feinstein [Dianne] says there should be an investigation into Loretta Lynch and James Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation. Let's have a special counsel for that and see how serious congressional Democrats are about getting to the truth."

The amendment, also sponsored by Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and Mike Johnson, R-La., will be attached to a bill from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., that requests the Justice Department provide documents related to Comey's firing.

In recent days, Trump has complained on Twitter that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has not moved to investigate Clinton on other issues unrelated to her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. However, when he was president-elect, Trump said that he would not pursue a new investigation of Clinton.

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't," Trump told reporters in November. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious."

The conservative-authored amendment asks the Justice Department to explain why the FBI did not further investigate Clinton for "selling access to the U.S. State Department through Clinton Foundation donations."

Biggs insisted he and his colleagues did not file their amendment to do the bidding of Trump.

"This is a matter of seeking justice," Biggs said. "It's what this is always about. If you don't seek justice, people lose faith and confidence in their representatives."

In addition to Clinton and Comey, the amendment targets Rice, who some conservatives argue inappropriately sought the identities of people close to Trump -- in a process known as "unmasking" -- whose communications were captured after the election in surveillance of foreigners by U.S. spy agencies.

The conservative co-sponsors ask the Justice Department to say whether Comey had advance knowledge of Rice's unmasking request.

Other information sought includes communication between Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last month in which the former FBI director described his interactions with Trump, and evidence of "any or all" leaks by Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt dating to 1993.

Schmidt broke the story detailing memos that Comey wrote about his conversations with Trump.

Originally posted here:
House conservatives gunning for probe of James Comey and Hillary Clinton - Washington Examiner

A quote caught my eye (and others' eyes) over the weekend. It was from Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, and it was about how Democrats move forward with a new slogan A Better Deal and new policies.

When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you dont blame other things Comey, Russia you blame yourself, Schumer (D-N.Y.) told The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe and David Weigel. So what did we do wrong? People didnt know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.

I certainly read that as a not-so-veiled shot at Hillary Clinton, who has spent plenty of time blaming things not named Hillary Clintonsince November 2016 for her election defeat. Fox News went so far as to say: Schumer tells Clinton 'blame yourself.'"And, notably, it comes from none other than Clinton's former New York colleague in the Senate.

Others disagreed, believing it was a more general statement about the party. Some even pointed to Schumer's use of the we personal pronoun in the second part of the quote suggesting that he was talking about the party as a whole and not Clinton specifically.

Here's what I think we can say for sure: Regardless of whether this quote was aimed at Clinton, she's definitely on the receiving end. It's undeniably a rebuke of her choice of public statements since the 2016 election, and it shows how some Democrats believe Clinton's decision to continue re-litigating things something she apparently plans to do at length in a forthcoming book is going to make it tougher for her party to move forward.

Clinton has offered a number of reasons for her loss, including Russia's hacking, James B. Comey's late disclosure of newly discovered Clinton emails,misogyny and debate questions. Clinton has said she takes absolute personal responsibility for her loss, but her repeated claims that she was the target of unfair and nefarious attacks suggest otherwise.

Anytime you write about Clinton making these excuses, her defenders are quick to pounce. It's possible that Russia did, in fact, tip the scales, they argue! FiveThirtyEight has done an analysis that suggests Comeyprobably did lose the election for her! And you can certainly make a credible case for either; we'll simply never be able to know for sure, because it would require psychoanalyzing millions of people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin about something that happened months ago.

The point is that it's kind of neither here nor there at this juncture especially when it comes to Democrats' efforts to climb out of their historically deep hole in Congress and in the states. And Schumer's comments show exactly how fruitful an exercise he believes all of that is in the meantime.

Irrespective of whether he was sending a message to Clinton and her defenders, they should consider it a commentary on her and their unwillingness to let go of the 2016 election and the many ways in which they feelthey were wronged. Regardless of those feelings, Schumer seems to be arguing that the fact the Democrats were even in a position to lose to the most unpopular president-elect in modern history is an indictment of them. He doesn't want the party to continue trying to rely on how unpopular Trump is moving forward, and looking backward makes it more difficult to dothat.

That's a message that can't help but be about his former colleaguefrom New York.

Read the rest here:
Chuck Schumer's shot at Hillary Clinton? - Washington Post

Today's Highlight in History:

On July 26, 2016, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major political party at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

On this date:

In 1775, the Continental Congress established a Post Office and appointed Benjamin Franklin its Postmaster-General.

In 1788, New York became the 11th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

In 1847, the western African country of Liberia, founded by freed American slaves, declared its independence.

In 1887, the artificial language Esperanto, intended as a universal form of communication, was published by its creator, Dr. L.L. Zamenhof.

In 1908, U.S. Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte ordered creation of a force of special agents that was a forerunner of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In 1945, the Potsdam Declaration warned Imperial Japan to unconditionally surrender, or face "prompt and utter destruction." Winston Churchill resigned as Britain's prime minister after his Conservatives were soundly defeated by the Labour Party; Clement Attlee succeeded him.

In 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act, which reorganized America's armed forces as the National Military Establishment and created the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 1952, Argentina's first lady, Eva Peron, died in Buenos Aires at age 33. King Farouk I of Egypt abdicated in the wake of a coup led by Gamal Abdel Nasser.

In 1971, Apollo 15 was launched from Cape Kennedy on America's fourth successful manned mission to the moon.

In 1986, Islamic radicals in Lebanon released the Rev. Lawrence Martin Jenco, an American hostage held for nearly 19 months. American statesman W. Averell Harriman died in Yorktown Heights, New York, at age 94.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In 1992, singer Mary Wells died in Los Angeles at age 49.

Originally posted here:
Today in history: Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major political party. - Shelby Star