Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trumps brand-new communications director got a glimpse of the challenge he faces this weekend. As Anthony Scaramucci toured the Sunday shows, promising a new era of better relations and positive vibes, his boss was firing off his most active string of Twitter complaints in some time, taking shots at Democrats, Republicans, the press, James Comey, Robert Mueller, andfor the second time in less than a weekhis own attorney general:

The presidents choice of words to describe Attorney General Jeff Sessions is bizarre, though the condescending mockery matches the tone he often uses for adversaries. To paraphrase Trump, somebodys doing the beleaguering, and that person is Trump himself, who railed at Sessions during an interview with The New York Times last week, saying he wished he hadnt appointed him, and that Sessionss decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation was unfair to Trump.

The demand for a closer look at Hillary Clinton, however, is more significant, and appeared in several other weekend missives:

As Trumps troubles deepenas they continue to do, both politically and legallyhe and his defenders have ever more frequently invoked Hillary Clinton as an excuse and a distraction. The more partisan precincts of Fox News, for example, continue to hammer away at Clintons emails, or to bury Trump-related news under buzzy headlines about the defeated Democratic presidential candidate. Conservative media has also tried to elevate an example of apparent inappropriate Democratic conversations with the Ukrainian government to the level of the Russia investigation; my colleague Uri Friedman parses that comparison here. On Monday, former Representative Jason Chaffetz strangely asked why Congress was questioning Jared Kushner, a top Trump campaign official who met with Russian nationals, and not Chelsea Clinton for Benghazi, an incident that occurred when the Clinton daughter was not working at the State Department, and which has also been extensively investigated. (The best guess is that Chaffetz is referring to emails Hillary Clinton sent her daughter around the time of the attack.)

This is a familiar rhetorical technique called whataboutism: Any flaw or critique is parried by pointing to some other individuals own sins, imagined or real, equal or worse. The technique is a logical fallacy, since one persons crimes do not excuse anyone elses. Even if Clinton ought to be investigated, that doesnt get Trump off the hook.

When Will President Trump Fire Robert Mueller?

But Trumps Clinton whataboutism is perplexing for two big reasons, both of which boil down to the fact that he is president of the United States. First, he evinces no understanding of why his situation as commander in chief is different from that of a defeated candidate. Second, his messaging ignores the fact that as president he is the boss of the attorney general and Justice Department.

Why does Trump get more attention than Clinton? Because hes president, of course, but also because the allegations against him are new. Every time I write about Trump these days, I receive an email or several demanding to know why Im not reporting on the uranium case. The answer is that I did: In early 2015, I wrote about the uranium as well as the broader ethical challenges of the Clinton Foundation and the miasma of scandals hovering over Clintons candidacy. One reason that the press is paying less attention to these matters is simply that they were already covered in details, years ago.

Of course its also relevant that Clinton is now a private citizen, following her loss to Trump. Trump cant stop invoking his victory in November 2016, but he also seems unwilling to reckon with the consequences of it. For example: The president of the United States receives much more scrutiny than failed candidates. That doesnt mean that allegations against people who are not the president should not be investigated (beware double-whataboutism, a rhetorical tactic that should be left to professionalsor, even better, no one), but allegations against the president and his aides are also far more important because Trump is currently the nations chief executive and in a position of great power. This seems almost too obvious to state, and yet it is the most fundamental response to Trumps complaints.

In enumerating the things that he feels ought to be investigated, Trump mentions her deleted emails, the uranium deal, the Russia reset, and her speeches, for which Clinton and her husband Bill received hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the emails were extensively investigated by the FBI, the director of which delivered a report that was stingingly critical of Clinton but also said there was no basis for criminal charges. Some analysts, including Nate Silver, believe that Director James Comeys October 28 letter briefly reopening the investigation handed the election to Trump. Trump ought to know this, since his administration cited Comeys overly public handing of the Clinton scandal as a reason for firing him, only for the president to then change his story and say he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. (The changing and badly incomplete stories offered by Trump and his son are another reason theres so much focus on Russia.)

Cleared of a criminal investigation, Hillarys emails, Russia reset, and speeches are all political sins, rather than legal ones. (Trump has misrepresented the uranium case in his public statements.) The U.S. system is designed to handle political and errors of judgment: It puts candidates to a vote. This works both ways. The president, unlike his aides, is exempt from background checks, on the basis that the American people have deemed him fit to view sensitive information. Voters rendered their verdict on Clintons decisions by not electing her. Thats the outcome Trump wanted, and yet he cant seem to accept it.

But heres the truly confusing part of this: If Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate Clinton, all he has to do is order that. Even before his recent lash-out at Sessions, Trump has been publicly critical of the Justice Departments legal strategy in defending his travel ban (even as he repeatedly undercuts the lawyers with public statements). Not only that, but hed be fulfilling one of his frequent campaign promises. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly said hed investigate Clintons alleged crimes and to lock her up.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is not, as far as is known, pursuing an investigation into Clintons emailsalthough, as my colleague Adam Serwer notes, Mueller is entitled to look at more or less anything he likes. But Trump is sending mixed messages, as he has also tried to force Mueller into a narrow investigation using public threats.

Theres no reason Trump couldnt instruct the Justice Department broadly to investigate any of these mattersalthough doing so might be politically disastrous. It would look like reprisal against a political rival, especially given the previous FBI investigation clearing Clinton; it would be a transparent stab at distracting from his own problems; and it might create a domino effect of problems at the Justice Department.

Start with Sessions. The root of Trumps fury at Sessions is that he recused himself from Russia investigations. Sessions also pledged, during his Senate confirmation hearings, to recuse himself from any Clinton-related investigations, given his rhetoric about her during the campaign. Trumps statements about Sessions have left the inescapable impression that the president wants to force Sessions out, though he reportedly rejected a resignation offer in June, and Sessions said last week he has no intention to resign now. Nonetheless, Mike Allen reports that Trump is considering sacking Sessions in favor of Rudy Giuliani, another former campaign surrogate. A Giuliani confirmation hearing, especially following a Sessions firing, could be explosive, and Giuliani would likely face pressure to also recuse himself from a Clinton decision.

Trump could go to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, though his relationship with Rosenstein is even worse. In the same interview in which he bashed Sessions, Trump (incorrectly) claimed that Rosenstein was a Democrat from Baltimore no one knew. In fact, hes a Bethesda Republican who Trump nominated as deputy attorney general. But if the president instructed Rosenstein to open an obviously politically motivated investigation, he might refuse, and either resign or force Trump to fire him. Then the country would be sliding into Saturday Night Massacre territory, the same scenario that would likely happen if (or when) Trump attempts to fire Mueller.

Firing Sessions, much less Rosenstein, would probably be a political catastrophe for the White House. Yet Trump fired Comey, even though the political risks were great. At the moment, that gamble doesnt seem to have paid off, since the firing led directly to Muellers appointment as special counsel.

Any such attempt to launch an investigation assumes that Trump really cares about Clintons alleged misdeeds, which is not necessarily the case. Part of this is simply Trumps instinctive tendency, outlined by Peter Beinart last week, to compare himself to others. More than anything, however it seems to represent Trumps need for a foil. Trump prospered as a politician because he was an underdog. He made his name falsely impugning President Obamas citizenship. He rose through the crowded Republican field by first attacking Jeb Bush and then relentlessly mowing down the rest of his rivalsLiddle Marco, Lyin Ted, and the rest. Trump then used the same maneuver during the general-election campaign, playing himself against Clinton.

Now, however, he is no longer an underdog, and he is no longer an outsider. As president of the United States, he is the ultimate insider. The Democratic Party is adrift and largely leaderless, but in a perverse way that makes Trumps messaging harder, since he has no one to use as a foil. The president has at times attacked Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama. But none of these has taken the place that Obama and Clinton once filled for him. Its lonely at the top, and even worse, theres no one else to make fun of up there.

See the original post:
But What About Hillary Clinton? - The Atlantic

Even though weve discussed how Game of Thrones teaches us everything we need to know about white America, breaking down the political and social metaphors embedded within each episode requires a keen eye and the ability to understand the language of literary analogy. The messages hidden beneath the layers of turmoil and conflict sometimes need decoding by a professional, which is why I am here to explain the nuanced meaning of whats going on in Westeros. But lets be honestyou didnt need me this week.

Im pretty sure I can skip this weeks explainer becauseeven if your eyes had been plucked out by the three-eyed raven, you could still see that this weeks episode was all about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. Titled Stormborn, episode 2 of the second season was basically a recap of the entire 2016 presidential election, set in the Seven Kingdoms and ...

Wait. Am I the only one who noticed this? You mean you have no clue what Im talking about? OK, let me break it down for you:

The episode opened at the DNC (Dragonstone National Convention) with Daenerys giving the keynote speech as the partys nominee for queen. Like Hillary, Daenerys opened her speech talking about how Cersei is only supported by three of the Seven Kingdoms (Or as we know them, the basket of deplorables). Daenerys assumeslike Hillary Clintonthat she should be queen because of her family ties and her white privilege (the dragons).

Her political advisers thought it was important to get a minority endorsement, so she sent a raven to Jon Snow and the Starks in the North. Apparently, Daenerys has no idea that the black community frowns on her shenanigans because of what happened in the previous Clinton Targaryen administration but everyone knows: The North remembers.

Things got a little tense when Daenerys had to question Debbie Wasserman Schultz about the emails Varys about his underground network of spies and back-channel messages, but in the end, her advisers devised a plot to rally their base in the parts of the Seven Kingdoms where they have the most support. Basically, her plan is to become queen by winning the Electoral College.

Of course, we know how that ended.

Meanwhile, at the RNC (Red Keep National Convention) in Kings Landing, Cersei opened her speech warning her constituents about how Daenerys was coming with the savage Dothraki hordes and Unsullied terrorists who will surely rape and pillage the civilized wives and children of Westeros. No one even raised his or her hands to ask how castrated men could possibly rape anyone, but well get to that later.

Cersei weaved wonderful yarns about how the whites will be in trouble if the Targaryen administration gets control of the Iron Throne, including stories about them destroying noblemen and (gasp!) freeing slaves.

The other conservatives are skeptical of Cersei becauseeven though she pretends to be self-madethey know she inherited all her power and money from her father. But just like the Republicans, they are more interested in keeping their power in Westeros, so they make threats and outlandish promises of cabinet positions in exchange for loyalty.

Now that Samwell Tarly is enrolled in maester school, his knowledge of the health care system highlights the need for universal health care in the Seven Kingdoms. While I believe that a little shea butter would have cured Lord Mormonts skin condition when he first contracted his irreversible Acute Ashiness Syndrome, most doctors have refused him medical care on the basis of his pre-existing condition.

Now he is forced to try an experimental procedure thats not FDA approvedwhich is why Jon Snow needs to rule the Iron Throne and institute the public option. Hes been shot by arrows, suffered numerous concussions and stabbed repeatedly, so he knows the importance of good insurance. Hes still on the insurance plan provided by the Nights Watchs union, which is one of the best providers in all of the Seven Kingdoms. We know this becauseeven though it isnt mentioned in the books or on the TV showwhen he died and the Red Witch brought him back to life, she didnt even ask him for a co-pay!

Plus, I believe that the valuable stem cell research done at Maester University could help Grey Worm become sullied again. However, in the case of Grey Worm and Missandei, now we know: Its not the size of the boator even that you have a boat, becausein the minds of wypipothe fetishization of blackness is so strong, they imagine a castrated black man is still powerfullyvirile.

You know what they say: You can take a Stark out of the North, but you cant take the North out of a Stark. Even though Arya has learned how to blend in with the whites, all she ever wanted to do was get back to her hood and chill with her fam. Thats all shes ever desired.

... That, and reparations. Arya has wanted reparations since day one. Unlike a lot of people who blabber about it, Arya tookaction. She made a list and checked it twice. Shes like Reparations Santa Claus, and just when she was going to make a special delivery to Cersei Trump, she heard about the family reunion, so shes headed back home.

Sansa, meanwhile, is trying to warn Jon Snow against trusting Daenerys Clinton, because she doesnt trust anyone with that much white privilege. Sansa understands that Jon wants to believe that the Seven Kingdoms will unite to fight the Alt-White Walkers.

Ultimately, like Sansa, we all agree that a Hillary Targaryen administration will probably be marginally better than a Donald Lannister presidency, but we cant forget that Daenerys ultimately wants what Hillary wantsfor us to bend the knee. Sansa knows. Arya knows. We Superpredators know.

The North remembers.

View post:
Sunday's Game of Thrones Episode Was All About Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Staying Woke - The Root

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

And theyre off thats the tenor of Mondays politics, as Jared Kushnerheaded to the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify that he did not collude with Russia to sway U.S. elections.

And everybodys got an opinion but the most surprising so far is from Sen. Chuck Schumer. Giving credit where credits due: The leftist senator from New York finally said something that actually makes sense.

He said, in an interview with The Washington Post noted by Fox News, that Hillary Clinton had nobody but herself to blame for her election loss that her tendency to point fingers at, say, Russia was a bit off base.

When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, Schumer said, you dont blame other things [former FBI chief James] Comey, Russia you blame yourself. So what did we do wrong? People didnt know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.

Going in to Mondays widely anticipated testimony from Kushner, this message was a heck of a gift from one of the Democratic Partys biggest horses.

After 1 year of investigation with Zero evidence being found, Chuck Schumer just stated that Democrats should blame ourselves, not Russia, President Donald Trump tweeted.

It was a perfect segue to cast Russian light back on the Clintons where it rightly belongs.

Trump tweeted: So why arent the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?

The reference, in part, was to recent revelations about former Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, that he failed to fully disclose some of his green energy involvements. In 2011, Podesta was appointed to the board of a company called Joule Unlimited. Shortly after he was appointed, an investment fund founded by Vladimir Putin gave $35 million to Joule. But Podesta failed to disclose his full relationship with Joule when he was brought on board as a counselor to Barack Obama in 2014, as noted by the New York Post.

In short, Clintons top campaign chief and a senior counselor to Obama sat on Joules board alongside top Russian officials as Putins Kremlin-backed investment fund funneled $35 million into Joule, wrote Peter Schweizer, for the Post. No one looking at the Podesta fact pattern can claim to care about rooting out Russia collusion and not rigorously investigate the tangle of relationships.

But its Kushner the left is after its Kushner the Democratic leadership, like Rep. Adam Schiff, finds an interesting target.

Trump, on Twitter, took him to task.

Sleazy Adam Schiff, Trump wrote, the totally biased Congressman looking into Russia, spends all of his time on television pushing the Dem loss excuse!

It didnt take long for Schiff to respond.

With respect Mr. President, he wrote on his own Twitter account, the problem is how often you watch TV, and that your comments and actions are beneath the dignity of the office.

What is this, Week Bazillion of the Democratic-driven effort to draw a parallel between Trumps win of the White House and Russia interference in the 2016 elections?

Heres a thought: When even Schumer, one of the lefts loudest partisans, is suggesting its time to move on with the party messaging its really time to move on.

Read the original:
Trump, Schumer, Clinton, Kushner and the 'sleazy' Adam Schiff - Washington Times

The prosecution of two Rabobank traders from London, Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan tossed out their convictions and, in a rare step, dismissed the indictment against them because the government used tainted testimony from its main witness.

The Financial Conduct Authority in England first started looking at Libor manipulation at Rabobank. Under British law, an individual working for a bank under investigation can be required to answer questions or face imprisonment for refusing to comply with the request. In exchange, the statements cannot be used directly against the person at a subsequent proceeding, although they can be used to develop new leads in a case

The British regulator dropped its investigation after Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti testified, and then prosecutors in the fraud section in the Justice Department took up the case, filing charges against the two men in 2014.

Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti were convicted after a trial on conspiracy and wire fraud charges involving their role in manipulating the submissions made by Rabobank that were used to set Libor. The governments theory was that they accommodated requests from the banks derivatives traders rather than making a good-faith estimate of the actual borrowing rate for that day. Evidence included a response to a traders request, I am fast turning into your Libor bitch!!! not a helpful comment.

Even with questionable messages, however, prosecutors needed a witness to explain what was taking place inside the bank and that the defendants knew they were acting improperly. That turned out to be Paul Robson, a co-worker subject of a Financial Conduct Authority enforcement action in Britain who also pleaded guilty in the United States for his role in the Libor manipulation.

Mr. Robson proved to be an effective witness, providing what the Second Circuit described as significant testimony against the two defendants, stating in court that the Libor submissions were nonsense and a charade.

The problem was that he carefully reviewed the defendants immunized statements to the Financial Conduct Authority and the appeals court found that the knowledge gained from them helped shape his testimony. It noted that Mr. Robsons own statement to the British authorities was toxic to the governments case because he later changed the description of the roles of Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti in setting Libor to reflect what they said.

The crucial legal issue was whether a grant of immunity by a foreign government in requiring testimony should be treated the same as if a witness received that protection from an American court. The Second Circuit was quite clear in its answer: The Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony.

The protection afforded under United States law is broader than in Britain, prohibiting any indirect use of an immunized statement to aid the prosecution. The Second Circuit concluded that Mr. Robsons testimony was tainted by what he read, even though prosecutors never introduced the statements in court.

Thus, any use of the statements against the defendants at their trial, like having a witness review it to assist in giving testimony, is a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights that can require reversal of a conviction. The cornerstone case for that proposition is United States v. North, a decision overturning the conviction of Oliver L. North because his immunized testimony before Congress in the Iran-contra hearings affected the recollection of a witness at his criminal trial.

The Second Circuit also dismissed the indictment because it found that the grand jury indirectly received Mr. Robsons views on the defendants involvement in manipulating Libor through the testimony of a F.B.I. agent, so the decision to indict the two men was also tainted by the immunized statements.

The appeals court had no sympathy for the governments complaint that applying the constitutional protection would make it more difficult to work with foreign governments to prosecute cases involving cross-border violations. The practical outcome of our holding today is that the risk of error in coordination falls on the U.S. government (should it seek to prosecute foreign individuals), rather than on the subjects and targets of cross-border investigations, the judges wrote.

Although prosecutors can seek a new indictment and a second trial, they may not use Mr. Robson or any other witness who might have reviewed the immunized statements made by Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti. That most likely means the case is over because there does not appear to be enough evidence, beyond some questionable messages, to show their intent to manipulate Libor submissions.

The decision will present a significant challenge to the Justice Department in pursuing fraud cases in which it works with foreign prosecutors and regulators to gather evidence. Many nations, especially in Europe, require those involved in the financial services sector to provide testimony during an investigation, and now any use of that power to gather evidence could make it more difficult to prove charges in the United States.

Prosecutors in this country are well aware of the potential pitfalls of prosecuting someone granted immunity because it requires showing that every piece of evidence to be used at trial is untainted by the immunized statements. Future investigations of international wrongdoing will have to avoid tripping the Fifth Amendment protection if a target is required to provide a statement.

The fallout from the Second Circuits decision is already being felt in the prosecution of two former Deutsche Bank traders accused of manipulating Libor. One of the defendants was compelled by the Financial Conduct Authority to testify and has asked that the court to scrutinize whether his statements have tainted the governments evidence.

Even if there are no Fifth Amendment issues, when the reliability of a crucial cooperating witness is open to question, the governments case can go straight down the drain.

The New York Times reported that the prosecution of two former JPMorgan Chase traders, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, involved in transactions that culminated in 2012 in over $6 billion in losses for the bank, ended last Friday when the Justice Department announced it was dropping the case. Called a nolle prosequi motion, which means to be unwilling to pursue, prosecutors told the Federal District Court in Manhattan that Bruno Iksil, the major witness involved in the trades, who received the nickname London Whale for the outsize bets, was no longer a reliable witness.

Mr. Iksil created a website called London Whale Marionette to give his version of what happened, stating that this account looks quite different from the testimonies that I gave to the authorities. His admission that previous statements may not be accurate was certain to provide defense lawyers fodder for cross-examination to undermine his credibility if the case went to trial.

Whether that was ever going to happen was another question about the case. The Justice Department acknowledged in its motion that it was unable to extradite the two defendants from their home countries, Spain and France, so long as they stayed away from a nation that would send them to the United States.

Blaming Mr. Iksils commentary as the reason for dismissal could be a convenient face-saving means to drop a prosecution that was never going to reach the courtroom. The indictment of Mr. Martin-Artajo and Mr. Grout had languished since 2013, and the charges never reached anyone in JPMorgans senior management, despite Mr. Iksils claims that those well above him encouraged the risky trading. The bank paid out $920 million to settle multiple civil investigations of how it reported its losses.

The demise of the Libor and London Whale prosecutions shows how difficult it is for federal prosecutors to pursue charges in cases that reach across markets and involve defendants acting largely outside the United States.

One byproduct may be that the Justice Department will be more hesitant when it seeks to hold individuals responsible for misconduct by global financial companies, raising the prospect of even less accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

See the original post:
Libor and London Whale Cases Show Hurdles With Foreign Defendants - New York Times

O.J. Simpson will serve the remainder of his prison time in protected custody. Officials changed his status for safety reasons after a parole board voted unanimously last week to approve his release.

Simpson could walk out as soon as October 1, after serving nine years for armed robbery in Nevada.

65 Photos

From football fields to Hollywood to courtrooms, see O.J. through the years

In 1995, he was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan reports the case is still an open investigation for the Los Angeles Police Department.

A reported 13.5 million people tuned into Simpson's parole hearing last week. That's far fewer than the estimated 150 million people who watched his 1995 acquittal.

Still, it shows the O.J. obsession lives on, as well as the debate over who killed Nicole Brown and Goldman.

"I'd just like to get back to my family and friends and believe it or not, I do have some real friends," Simpson said in court last week.

It's unclear what life outside prison will look like for Simpson. But one thing is certain it'll be a world well acquainted with his past.

"People will always want to be a part of the O.J. case," Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson said. "They'll always be looking for evidence that the LAPD missed. That's because it's a mystery that to some has not been solved."

28 Photos

On October 3, 1995 "The Trial of the Century" ended with the acquittal of former football star O.J. Simpson for double-murder - Where are all the...

A string of TV films this past year reignited America's fascination with Simpson's acquittal.

"The word 'open' for an investigation can mean so many things," Levinson said. "It may simply mean that because O.J. was acquitted, and they've never found another murderer, there's no reason to shut it down."

Immediately following the 1995 verdict, Simpson vowed to find justice for his ex-wife in a statement read by his son, Jason: "I will pursue as my primary goal in life, the killer or killer who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman."

But no additional arrests were made. Simpson went on to release what was called a fictional account of the crime entitled, "If I did it." That book caused former Simpson trial juror Lionel Cryer to have a change of heart.

"The book was the turning point for me to go to the feeling that he probably did kill those people," Cryer said.

Simpson has repeatedly maintained his innocence. Last year, there appeared to be a possible break in the case when a knife was reportedly discovered on the property Simpson once owned. But the tip led nowhere, leaving the case largely where it was in the 1990s.

"O.J. cannot be tried again because of double jeopardy, but he certainly can be questioned," Levinson said. "In fact, he doesn't have Fifth Amendment protection anymore."

The LAPD wouldn't provide any additional details in the case. Legal experts say there are plenty of challenges that go with investigating a crime that is more than 20 years old. Among them, the fact that prosecutors are dealing with decades-old evidence and memories.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

View original post here:
Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? - CBS News