Mediaboss Marketing

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

"We will probably never know the answer to that question," said Kobach, who, not for nothing, is running President Trump's Commission on Election Integrity. "Because even if you could prove that a certain number of votes were cast by ineligible voters, for example, you wouldn't know how they voted."

We do, in fact, know the answer to that question.

He provided no evidence for that claim -- likely because, well, there is no evidence to provide.

It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now.

That Kobach, who is leading a commission devoted to "election integrity," would repeat something that has ZERO evidence to back it up is remarkable. Just to be totally clear: This is not a "he said, he said" issue. Everyone in a position to know -- except Trump -- says Clinton won the popular vote.

What's even more amazing is that the Trumpian focus on the popular vote is totally pointless. We decide our presidents by the electoral college -- which Trump won! No one is disputing that fact! Trump is the president through inauguration day 2021 no matter what happened in the popular vote.

Let's say it together: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Donald Trump is the president.

See, that wasn't too painful!

More here:
Trump's 'election integrity' chief won't say if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote - CNN

The Democratic establishment appears to not be learning any lessons. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Donald Trump is one of the least popular politicians in the history of the United States. Yet, Trump is still more popular than Hillary Clinton. Let that sink in.

According to the latest Bloomberg National Poll, Trump has a net favorability of 41% whereas Clinton has a net favorability of 39%. If Democrats are to escape the political wilderness, they will have to leave Clinton and her brand of politics in the woods.

Now, there is no doubt that Clinton has suffered sexist double standards just as Barack Obama encountered racist double standards. Trump labeled her Crooked Hillary and his supporters rallied around the chant Lock her up. Rich in hypocrisy, Trump has continued to attack Clinton for her emails even though his son has proven to have done much worse.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to pin all of Clintons unpopularity on sexism and the conspiracies of the extreme right. The Bloomberg poll demonstrates that more than one-fifth of Clinton supporters say they now have an unfavorable view of her. Based on follow-up interviews with poll participants, many Clinton voters expressed that their negative feelings were not simply due to her losing but were about the Democratic partys positioning for the future.

Even though Clinton has blamed everyone but herself, it is clear that her campaigns failure to galvanize voter turnout was one of the biggest reasons why Trump won. Her checkered record on progressive policies, bland centrist message and the Democrats presumption that Trumps nomination sealed their victory probably did not help.

Clinton has largely kept a low profile since the election, occasionally sending Twitter barbs in Trumps direction. The best case scenario for Democrats is for Clinton and her family to stay away. The wise thing for the party to do is to abandon the failed Third Way centrist politics that she and her husband have come to exemplify.

Even so, the Democratic establishment appears to not be learning any lessons. Kamala Harris, the first-term California senator rumored to be a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, recently mingled with top Clinton donors and supporters in the Hamptons. Apparently tying rising talent to the infrastructure of a politician less popular than Trump is the game plan for moving forward.

Playing mostly defense against Trump and talking a lot about Russia, the Democratic establishment has struggled to develop an alternative message that Americans find attractive. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, only 37% of the country believes Democrats stand for something. Even the new sticker options for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are depressingly shallow. Some of the slogans read: Make Congress Blue Again and I Mean, Have You Seen The Other Guys?

Although the establishment comes across as unimaginative and clueless, it is not as if Democrats lack other options. Bernie Sanders has become and remains the most popular politician in the whole country. His bold and progressive populist campaign may have lost out to Clinton in the primaries, but it may reflect a more viable blueprint for the future. The question is whether Clinton loyalists will put aside their purity politics and be pragmatic enough to change the direction of the party.

Looking across the pond, Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party provides another example to learn from. Dismissed by Blairite centrists in his own party, Corbyn not only over-performed in the general election, he rewrote British politics.

As Matthew Yglesias argued in Vox, Corbyns electoral map looks a lot like Clintons; not only did he inspire young voters in a similar way to how Sanders did here, Corbyn ran on a bold policy agenda. In an age in which voters are characterized as irrational creatures who dont vote because of policy, YouGov found that the top reason supporters backed Labour was because of the partys social democratic manifesto.

Democrats have become a tale of two wings. If the Clintonite establishment wing comes across as hopelessly uninspiring, the Berniecrat progressive wing has appeared energetic and full of ideas. Consider the #PeoplesPlatform sponsored this week by Sanders Our Revolution alongside other organizations, such as Democratic Socialists of America, Womens March and Fight for 15. This platform which Americans can sign a petition for urges Democrats in Congress to support bills, such as Medicare for All, Free College Tuition, Voting Rights and Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights.

Certainly, Democrats might not win all of these progressive measures in Congress. But fighting for these measures would not only shift the political terrain, it would attract Americans desperately looking for a positive alternative to the Republicans.

Clinton did not provide a true alternative to the status quo. Democrats should look elsewhere for a blueprint forward and leave her politics far behind. Remaining attached to her would be political madness. The majority of Americans know it.

Read the original post:
Hillary Clinton is more unpopular than Donald Trump. Let that sink in - The Guardian