Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton is even less popular now than she was when she was running for president and according to an article in the Huffington Post, thats because shes a woman.

A little background: According to a Bloomberg poll that was released earlier this week, Hillary Clintons favorability rating is now at 39 percent lower than the 43 percent rating that she had during her presidential run making her the only losing candidate since 1992 to not see an increase in favorability after losing an election, according to Gallup data cited by the Huffington Post.

Now, why could that be? Could it be because she insists on blaming other people including some of the people who supported her for her loss? Could it be because shes still so desperately trying to look cool and hip that shes hocking Nasty Woman T-shirts for Samantha Bee on Twitter? Is it her bitterness, or her stubborn refusal to accept the past?

In other words: Could the difference in Clintons post-election approval rating be, in fact, her own post-election behavior, seeing as its distinctly different from the post-election behavior that we saw from John McCain or Mitt Romney?

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, but good ol HuffPost has decided to focus on something else instead:

There is, of course, one thing that sets her apart from the pack of failed candidates: Clinton is a woman, Emily Peck writes in the article, titled Why Hillary Clinton Is Really Unpopular Again.

Women with strong ambitions and opinions typically take a likability hit, Colleen Ammerman, director of Harvard Business Schools Gender Initiative, told HuffPost.

A mountain of research on women leaders has found that the idea of a powerful woman runs counter to most peoples expectations for whats considered feminine quiet, supportive, nurturing and definitely not ambitious.

According to Peck, people tend to hate strong women who voice their opinions. Therefore, the reason that Clinton keeps becoming less and less popular is because she just keeps voicing and voicing her opinions!

Now, Id never argue that sexism doesnt make it tough to be a woman in a position of power. Of course it does. A lot of people are uncomfortable with female leaders but in this case, I think to chalk up Hillary Clintons post-campaign unlikability to that would be to ignore the obvious truth: Hillarys main problem has not been that shes voicing her opinions as a woman, but what those opinions actually are.

Although Peck claims that Clinton said she took personal responsibility for her defeat, anyone who has been paying attention knows that Clinton doesnt really blame herself for her loss. How do I know? Well, because every chance she gets, shes blaming someone else for her loss.

First its sexism, then its the media, then its Internet content farms in Macedonia. She even had the nerve to blame the Democratic National Committee. Yes, the same DNC that wanted her to win so badly that it broke the rules to help her, the same DNC whose chairwoman had to resign after it got busted rigging the nomination process in her favor. I mean seriously: If I were Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I got myself fired for helping rig the nomination for Clinton? And then she essentially blamed me for losing? Well, Ive got to say, shed lose a couple of likability points from me, too. In fact, Hillary Clinton has blamed so many damn people for her election loss that it in itself could explain the decline in her post-election popularity. After all, maybe the reason that some of the people who liked her before dont like her now is that they have since been blamed for her losing.

Peck says that it isnt so much about what Hillary Clinton is actually saying, as it is the fact that shes saying it as a woman. I say for the love of God, dont encourage her.

Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.

More:
Hillary Clinton Is Even Less Popular Now Than She Was During the Election, HuffPo Blames Sexism - National Review

Anthony Scaramucci deleted tweets in which he previously criticized Donald Trump hours after accepting his new job as White House communications director on Friday.

Scaramucci also previously expressed support for his boss's old rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obamaeven donating money to their campaigns.

In December 2011, Scaramucci referred to the "Trump spectacle" in a tweet about Mitt Romney. Two months later, the new White House pick tweeted a National Journal article about Trump endorsing Newt Gingrich in the 2012 race: Odd guy. So smart with no judgment.

The deleted tweets were spotted by freelance journalist Josh Billinson, who Scaramucci briefly blocked.

I'm just shocked he hadn't deleted them earlier, Billinson told The Daily Beast. That he could've been in the running for communications director and not even thought to check what he had publicly said about Trump in the past is wild to me.

In December 2015, Scaramucci attacked Trump's call for a border wall between Mexico and the U.S.

"Walls don't work. Never have never will. The Berlin Wall 1961-1989 don't fall for it," he tweeted, above a picture of the wall.

Scaramucci, a Wall Street millionaire, also donated to Obama and Clinton's presidential campaigns. Scaramucci gave $5,600 to Obama in 2008 and $4,600 to Clinton in 2007. (Scaramucciwrote in November 2011 that he voted for Obama and Bill Clinton.)

Ahead of the 2016 election, Scaramucci said he hoped Clinton would be the next president.

I hope she runs [in 2016], she is incredibly competent, he tweeted in April 2012, adding she was "the real deal."

I like Hillary," he also tweeted. "Have to go with the best athlete. We need to turn this around. Another tweet said a Hillary run makes everyone better.

He responded to a tweet from Vanity Fair asking When did Hillary Clinton Become the Coolest Person on the Planet? by writing: When she stopped caring about her image.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

By 2015, Scaramucci turned on Clinton: Hillary will be out of race before Thanksgiving[.] the democratic nominee will be a governor.

But he was far from pro-Trump.

On a Fox News appearance in August 2015, Scaramucci called Trump a "hack politician" whose rhetoric is "anti-American and very, very divisive." He warned Trump to "cut it out now" and "stop all this crazy rhetoric."

Scaramucci also tweeted a quote from a David Cameron interview where he bashed Trump for making a fundamental mistake of trying to blame all of Islam and all Muslims for what is the ideology and the actions of a minority.

"It is a fight within Islam, overwhelming majority see Islam as a religion of peace, want to live in multiracial/ethnic/faith democracies," Scaramucci tweeted.

Scaramucci was a founder of a global investment firm who served as the national finance co-chair for Romneys 2012 campaign. As soon as Scaramucci was named, Sean Spicer quit as White House communications director.

A month after his critical tweets, Scaramucci citing robocalls Trump made for the Romney campaign.

Kudos to The Donald for making Gov Romney's journey to the 45th Presidency a touch easier. His support has been invaluable, he tweeted in March 2012.

Scaramucci endorsed Scott Walker and then Jeb Bush before joining the Trump Finance Committee in May 2016.

The new comms director tweeted that Bush will make a great president in 2015.

Joanna Purpich contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Anthony Scaramucci Loved Hillary, Gave to Obama, and Deleted Anti-Trump Tweets - Daily Beast

Corruption: Amid the trivial fault-finding by the media of President Trump's every move, it's important to note that the very same pundits who now rip Trump have completely ignored the growing scandal of Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play tenure as secretary of state. It's reasonable to wonder why no charges have yet been filed, yet the media, blinded by their Trump hatred, seem strangely incurious.

The legal investigative think tank Judicial Watch recently released 448 pages of documents that it dug up from the U.S. State Department, the fruit of months of Freedom of Information Act requests and document-digging. The documents are damning, showing even more instances of Hillary Clinton performing official favors for those who donated to the Clinton Foundation and certain political campaigns.

To put it even more bluntly, the emails make a prima facie case for a criminal prosecution of Clinton. As Judicial Watch notes:

"InJuly 2009, in reference to the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Clinton Global Initiative head Doug Band told (Huma) Abedin that she "Need(s) to show love" to Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical (DOW). Band also asked for Liveris to be introduced to Hillary, "andhave her mentionboth me and wjc." Dow gave between $1 million and $5 millionto the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. Band also pushes for Clinton to do a favor forKarlheinz Koegel, a major Clinton Foundation contributor, who wanted Hillary Clinton to give the 'honor speech' for his media prize to 'Merkel.' "

Further, "The emails reveal that onJune 19, 2009, Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, passed a long a letter for Hillary Clinton for Clinton donor Richard Park. Park donated $100,000 to Bill Clinton as far back as 1993 and is listed by the Clinton Foundation as a $100,000 to $250,000 donor."

This wasn't all, not by a long shot. Ben Ringel, a Clinton donor, emailed top Clinton aide Huma Abedin seeking a U.S. visa for an unnamed Iranian woman. Ringel donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Foundation head Band shows up in numerous emails, seeking favors, including trying to get people jobs in the State Department. At times, the Clinton Foundation's top executive seems almost to be an adjunct State Department official.

In August 2009, for instance, Band tried to get his candidate installed as ambassador to Barbados. Abedin answered: "I know, he's emailed a few times. But she wants to give to someone else." In another instance earlier that year, Band sought a "career post" in East Timor for someone. Abedin told him that Hillary Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills was working on that request "under the radar."

Still other emails show a stunning contempt for any notion of protecting classified information, with emails revealing sensitive matters being routinely exposed on Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's unsecured email server, ranging from classified emails from U.S. ambassadors to the planned schedule for President Obama while in Cairo, Egypt, to a sensitive document of a Clinton phone call with "Chinese Foreign Minister Yang."

All on a server that many experts believe was probably hacked by the Chinese, the Russians, or both.

Old news, you say? Hardly. As most know, the hoo-ha over Donald Trump Jr.'s talks with Russian officials revolves around a somewhat mysterious yet nearly ubiquitous Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya, who purported to have some dirt on Hillary Clinton that she would exchange for help with the Global Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that imposed sanctions on Russians who were deemed to be human-rights violators.

Now, if you reach way back in your memory banks, recall that Bill Clinton, on June 29, 2010, gave a speech in Moscow for $500,000, paid for by the Russian government-tied financial firm Renaissance Capital. And also remember that before Bill's speech was made, Hillary had refused a congressional request to reject visas for several Russian officials who were thought to be implicated in human-rights abuses.

Which raises a big question: Was Bill's speech a quid pro quo for Hillary's help?

Subsequent events suggest the answer was yes. For despite Hillary Clinton's and President Obama's hopes of a "reset" with Russia, Congress in 2012 passed the Global Magnitsky Act. And for the record, Renaissance Capital was allegedly party to the scandal that led to the Magnitsky Act.

Documents from WikiLeaks show that Hillary was aware of the potential trouble this could create for her campaign. As Jesse Lehrich, part of the Clinton campaign's "Rapid Response Communications" team, wrote in May of 2015: "With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC's oppostion to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow."

In an ironic addendum, it was to get help with avoiding restrictions under the Magnitsky Act that Veselnitskaya sought to meet with Donald Trump Jr.

Collusion? There's plenty of it. As we've noted repeatedly in the last year, the conflicts of interest and criminal collusion between Hillary Clinton's State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the Russians, among others, are numerous and profound. They warrant a thorough investigation. Why Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been tasked to look into the pathetically trivial meetings between the Trump camp and a handful of Russians not a violation of any law we're aware of is inexplicable.

RELATED:

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead But The Case Against Hillary Isn't

Clinton Scandals: Let The Investigations Continue

Scandals At State: How Clinton, Kerry Used Office To Enrich Their Families

Scandal Without End: Is The Clinton Foundation A Fraud?

6/24/2017 Mohammad bin Salman is the new Saudi Crown Prince and the succession shake up could have big impact on the...

6/24/2017 Mohammad bin Salman is the new Saudi Crown Prince and...

Here is the original post:
Clinton Scandal Only Deepens So Why Is Trump, Not Hillary, Targeted For Investigation? - Investor's Business Daily

NBC's Andrea Mitchell / Getty Images

BY: Andrew Kugle July 21, 2017 11:08 am

NBC anchor Andrea Mitchell said in an interview published Tuesday that she may have been "too aggressive" covering Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election and could not think of any instances during her career when she showed bias in her reporting.

Fashion magazine Women's Wear Daily asked Mitchellifshethought there was ever a time when she went too far and showed bias in her reporting.

"Do you feel that you've ever gone too far where you've shown bias in your reporting?," reporter Alexandra Steigrad asked.

Mitchell could not recall any instances when shewas biased.

"Everything is subjective to a certain extent. Let me think about that. I'm sure there have been times where I haveeither through not enough reporting or through some sort of incipient opinionlet something creep in. I can't think of it," Mitchell said.

Mitchell added that she may have been too aggressive while covering Clinton.

"Maybe I've been too aggressive at times? I know some of the candidates that I've covered might think I've been too aggressive," Mitchell said. "I know that Hillary Clinton didn't like being asked a lot of the questions she got asked on rope lines, but if she had had more news conferences and been more accessible, maybe we wouldn't have to chase her down at rope lines. That is what everyone had to do."

During the 2016 campaign, Mitchell noted how she had trouble keeping up with Clinton's stamina. She claimed the following month that accusations that former interim Democratic National Committee chair and CNN political analyst Donna Brazile fed the Clinton campaign a town hall question was "completely knocked down."

In another instance, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill wrote something on his phone and showed it to Mitchell before she asked Clinton a softball question. Mitchell denied that she was fed a question.

Days before the election, Mitchell declared that the FBI probe intoClinton's private email server was "the worst possible situation" for the country.

Despite Mitchell's "aggressive" coverage, Clinton still professed her admiration for the NBC and MSNBC host during a press conference.

"I love you, Andrea. You are indefatigable," Clinton said, laughing. "You're my kind of woman, I'll tell you what."

Mitchell said during the Women's Wear Daily interview that Trump's actions are demeaning the presidency.

"I think it diminishes and demeans the presidency. It affects the credibility of the White House as well as the way people view our institutions, and that includes the media," Mitchell said.

More here:
Andrea Mitchell: I May Have Been 'Too Aggressive' Covering Hillary Clinton, 'Can't Think of' Instances of Biased ... - Washington Free Beacon

The Second Circuit yesterday became the first court of appeals to address a criminal appeal regarding the governments investigation into the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Its decision in United States v. Allen reversed the convictions of two former Rabobank employees accused of using their roles in the banks LIBOR submission process to rig the global interest benchmark, and not only reversed the convictions but dismissed the operative grand jury indictment. The court concluded that the government had improperly used the defendants compelled testimony against them, holding that the Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony applies even when the testimony was compelled by a foreign sovereign. The decision may well have a significant impact on the increasing number of extra-territorial investigations conducted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), in which it partners with foreign agencies to investigate and prosecute cross-border activity.

The pair Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti were initially investigated by the United Kingdoms Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). During the investigation Allen, Conti, and other Rabobank employees were interviewed by the FCA; Allens and Contis interviews were compelled by threat of imprisonment, though they were granted direct use immunity. The FCA later brought an enforcement action against one of their co-workers, Paul Robson, disclosing relevant evidence against him, including Allens and Contis compelled testimony. During this exchange, Robson reviewed the materials over the course of two or three successive or nearly successive days, admitting to having underlined, annotated, and circled certain passages of both Allens and Contis testimony. But, in short order, the FCA then dropped the case and the DOJ stepped in.

A grand jury returned indictments against Allen and Conti in 2014, charging both with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and several counts of wire fraud. Robson was the sole source of certain material information for the indictment, including the source of testimony provided by FBI agent to the grand jury that Allen and Conti had participated in rigging LIBOR.

Before trial, the defendants moved under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to dismiss the indictment or suppress Robsons testimony. The Supreme Courts decision in Kastigar held that the government may compel testimony from witnesses, in spite of their invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, where it confers immunity from use of that testimony and evidence derived therefrom in a subsequent criminal case. The upshot is that the government must show in cases where such testimony is at issue that its proof rests on evidence other than the compelled statements and the fruits thereof. The district court in this case resolved that it would instead address any Kastigar concerns i.e., issues regarding the use of compelled testimony under Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause at trial.

The pair were convicted. After a post-trial Kastigar hearing, the district court held that Robsons reading, marking up, and annotating the compelled testimony, and the fact that material parts of the FBI agents grand jury hearsay testimony had been derived solely from Robson, were not enough to taint the evidence Robson provided because the government had shown an independent source for such evidence, to wit, [Robsons] personal experience.

The Second Circuit disagreed. It held first that the Fifth Amendments prohibition on government use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies, even when a foreign sovereign is the actor that compelled the testimony, noting that Amendment protects against the use and derivative use of compelled testimony against an accused in such a proceeding.

Second, it held that when the government attempts to use a witness like Robson, who has been substantially exposed to a defendants compelled testimony, it is the governments burden under Kastigar to show, at a minimum, that the witnesss review of the compelled testimony did not shape, alter, or affect the evidence used by the government.

It third held that a witnesss bare, generalized incantations that reviewing those materials did not taint his or her testimony (as was the case here via leading questions of Robson at the Kastigar hearing, which produced nothing more than bare, self-serving denials from Robson) are insufficient to meet this burden of proof.

And it lastly it had no trouble concluding that introducing testimony provided by Robson a key cooperator and prominent witness before the trial and grand jury (via a hearsay presentation) was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Robsons had been the only testimony refuting Allens and Contis central argument that they had not actually engaged in rigging the LIBOR benchmark. This finding as to testimony both at trial and before the grand jury resulted in the dismissal of the indictments against Allen and Conti.

The Court rejected the governments counterarguments, including that prohibiting the use in United States Courts of testimony compelled by a foreign authority could seriously hamper the prosecution of criminal conduct that crosses international borders, by among other things, inadvertently or negligently obstructing federal prosecutions. The court noted that this risk already exists within our own constitutional structure, and that 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.

Original post:
Fifth Amendment Concerns Result in Overturned Convictions in First ... - Lexology (registration)