Mediaboss Marketing

Taking Selina out of the White House is a wise move on showrunner David Mandels part, though perhaps as disappointing to some viewers as it is to Selina herself. When Veep premiered in 2012, critics hailed it as a mordant satire that was, if anything, just a bit too broad and nihilistic to adequately reflect the complexity of American politics. Along with shows like House of Cards, its appeal lay in identifying the Washington archetypes of our time, however crudely sketched. Veep, Carina Chocano wrote in The New York Times, captured our post-Reagan, post-Clinton, post-Bush, 24-hour tabloid news and internet-haterade dystopia.

Like its creator Armando Iannuccis previous comedies The Thick of It and In the Loop, Veep painted a grim world where no one ever accomplished anything, where all power was illusory, where every promise of progress was used cynically to manipulate voters or (worse) was rendered impossible to execute by a hopeless political system. We all know the White House would work so much better if there wasnt a president, Ben Cafferty (Kevin Dunn), the White House chief of staff, wearily reminds Selina in season two. But there is, so we work around that.

While this sensibility proved a rich seam for satire in the Obama years, White House politics as usual have now yielded to something altogether more chaotic. With the real-world targets of Veeps first five seasons ushered off the stage, the show reckons with the disappointed personal ambitions of those who surrounded Meyer. Her staffers are all dramatically worse off than they were when we saw them last, forced to weather the kind of disorder and humiliation that generates the most riveting character drama. Amy (Anna Chlumsky) is managing a gubernatorial campaign for her Nevadan fianc, for whom she exhibits almost as much open contempt as she does for his constituents; Dan (Reid Scott) is co-hosting a CBS morning show, limited to terrorizing his rivals through puff pieces instead of attack ads; Ben is hired, then quickly ousted, by the millennials at Uber. But there is good news for the Jonah Ryan (Timothy Simons) fans out there: Jonah, who began the series as a powerless underling, is now a freshman congressmanthe sole political survivor of the Meyer era.

In the year since she left office, Selina herself has spent some time at the spa (a Meyerism for a psychiatric facility), launched an obligatory foundation, and started work on her memoir. Only her body man, Gary (Tony Hale), and former Ryan staffer Richard Splett (Sam Richardson) remain by her sidethe two Fools left to care for their exiled Lear. They do their best, which doesnt count for much, because all Selina really wants is to be president again. Before the season premiere is over, she announces her plans for another run, then scraps them just as quickly. One thing seems certain as we embark on Veeps sixth season: Selina Meyer will remain, at least for now, a private citizen.

Which leaves us to confront what is, by now, the only reason for watching the show: not to spy on the imagined (and authentically filthy) inner workings of our nations capital, but to follow the characters and relationships we already know so well. In this shift, Veep reminds us that it has always been about the human fears and anxieties and desires that are the smallest but most recognizable unit of any political system. Relieved of its original, insidery focus, Veep feels not like it has drifted away from its center, but as though it has stripped away everything but its core.

Read this article:
Selina Meyer, Hillary Clinton, and Life After Political Defeat - New Republic

As the Justice Department puts it, former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been tasked to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.

No effort should be spared in getting to the bottom of what actually occurred, and whether Russia presently seeks to interfere with our political process.

Unlike the inferences that have been made about President Trump and his campaign, many of which rely on rumor, innuendo, conspiracy theories and deliberate falsehoods, the Clintons extensive relationship with Russian interests has been documented and reported by some of the nations leading journalists.

For instance, an article in the April 23, 2015 New York Times by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire is titled, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal. The headline says it all.

While these reporters produced a very detailed and important story, they lacked subpoena power and the investigative resources of the FBI.

In his statement announcing Muellers appointment, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.

It is this very chain of command that has prevented a review of potential criminality by the Clintons and their associates, and may well have compromised the security of the United States.

As originally reported in the October 24, 2016 Wall Street Journal, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now acting FBI director, has significant political and financial ties to the Clintons through his wife.

The actions of then-FBI Director James Comey, then McCabes boss, provide even more reasons to question the impartiality of the FBI.

Comey sought to exonerate Hillary Clinton on the possible mishandling of classified material during the heat of a presidential campaign. I can think of no other similar instance in the history of the FBI where it provided such a service to a political candidate.

Although he was not a prosecutor, and it was not his decision, Comey suggested that to prosecute Hillary Clinton would be to unfairly single her out. From his statement at the time:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

In other words, context is important. Yet Comey totally ignored the context of the emails. The Clintons appear to have operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, including Russian, many of which are unsavory and criminal. Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the motivation for maintaining a private email server, which Comey surely realized but chose not to investigate.

Of course, further up the chain of command was Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was also compromised. Her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton not only underscored her poor judgment, but more consequentially, her bias and lack of independence.

Before he was even sworn in as president, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpRNC chair: Comey would have reported it if Trump crossed a line Johnny Depp: I'd take over 'SNL's' Trump impersonation Warren: I would 'absolutely' support impeachment if Comey memo is true MORE announced on November 22, 2016 that his administration would not prosecute Hillary Clinton, making it a political decision rather than a law enforcement decision, which it should have been, based on evidence and a full review by the new attorney general.

The Clintons have been extraordinarily lucky, benefitting from political decisions by both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, various media accounts describe Mueller and Comey as friends, and there is also the danger that Mueller will extend to Comey some form of professional courtesy from one former FBI director to another.

Mueller has an opportunity to rise above all this and conduct an independent, thorough and fair investigation of Russian influence in our elections. To be taken seriously, it must include the Russian relationship with the Clintons.

Peter Flaherty is president of the National Legal and Policy Center.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the original post here:
Mueller shouldn't forget to investigate Clinton's Russia ties during Trump probe - The Hill (blog)

What is the role of the Democratic National Committee in presidential elections? Is it to sway the vote toward a safe, solid and respected insider who will supposedly drive the party straight into the White House, or is it to provide voters the ultimate decision as to which campaign will take the ballot, without any bias or partiality?

That is the question at the heart of a class-action lawsuit charging the Democratic National Committee with fraud, deceptive conduct and negligent misrepresentation over the course of the 2016 primaries, in which Vermont SenatorBernie Sanders was defeated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic ticket. Jared Beck, a Harvard law expert and one of the attorneys backing the suit, has demanded the DNC repay its donors and Sanders supporters for contributions made throughout the election, citing a misappropriation of public funds.

Related: Was the 2016 Election Rigged Against Bernie Sanders?

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Article 5, Section 4 of the DNCs charter states the organization will operate with total neutrality throughout the course of the Democratic primaries. Court documents revealthe organization'slawyers made a lengthy case suggesting impartiality isnothingmore than a political promise, howevereven though the defense claimed it did not support any specific campaign over another.

Did the DNC rig the election for Hillary Clinton? A class action lawsuit demands retribution for Bernie Sanders' supporters who donated to his campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election. Reuters

If the lawsuit gets past a pending motion to dismiss the case, currently under consideration with no specific time frame by afederal judge in southern Florida (with a hard-liner reputation on squashing corruption), Sanderssupporters have a chance of fundamentally shaping how the DNC and the Democratic Party conduct their business.

But progressives shouldinsteadfocus their efforts on working within the DNC right now to stop"the real opponent" currently in Washington,rather than hoping a class-action lawsuit shifts the way the institution operates in the upcoming midterm elections and general election in 2020, according to Scott Bolden, a Democratic strategist and former chair of the D.C. Democratic Party.

That opponentfor liberals, many independents and conservative Democrats alikebeing the Donald Trump administration.

Protesters gathered to rally against President Donald Trump's firing of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, outside the White House in Washington, May 10, 2017. Reuters

"The DNC is not as dangerous as Donald Trump is,"Bolden tells Newsweek. "Sanders supporters are forceful, theyre vocal, but they havent learned how to win yet. The importance of the DNC fraud lawsuit is that it shows theyre trying to change the rules and regulations and the leadership of the DNC so they can win in upcoming elections."

Attorneys for the DNC and its former chairperson, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, attempted to dismiss the lawsuit on multiple occasions, originally claiming it wasnt properly served by Beck and his team, before stating there are no enforceable obligations for the organization to practice neutrality during the primaries.

That argument could be deadly to their chances of garnering support from Democrats, liberals and independents who grew inspired by Sanders'message of change in the Democratic Party last year.

"What if Apple went into a court of law and said, 'We actually dont believe we have any enforceable obligations to our shareholders,'"Beck said in an interview last week. "What do you think would happen to the Apple stock price?"

Meanwhile, strategists like Bolden say the partys best shot at winning back control of the House and Senate in 2018 would be to adapt its approach in engaging with Sanders supporters and working families who feel unrepresented by either party at the moment.

"I think the Democrats are still trying to win support from Sanderssupporters, and whether they have been successful to date is still an open question,"Bolden says. "You still have this lawsuit. You still have progressive factions who believe they and Sanders were wronged by the DNC. But at the end of the day, you cant prove he didnt get enough votes to beat Hillary because of the committees actions.... What you can do is move forward together, which is something [DNC Chair] Tom Perez and Sanders will have to continue to fight for."

Read more here:
Did the DNC Help Hillary Clinton Beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim at Leadership - Newsweek

New York Times

Hillary Clinton Starts Onward Together, a New Political Group New York Times Credit Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images. Hillary Clinton on Monday announced the launch of Onward Together, a new political group aimed at advancing progressive causes by harnessing grass-roots opposition to President Trump's policies. Mrs. Clinton, 69 ... Hillary Clinton launches 'Onward Together,' a political group designed to resist Trump's agendaChicago Tribune Hillary Clinton officially launches 'resistance' outside groupCNN Hillary Clinton launching new political groupWashington Post ABC News -CNBC -Fortune -Politico all 72 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton Starts Onward Together, a New Political Group - New York Times

Update: Ryan said through spokesman Doug Andres: "We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nation's secrets is paramount. The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration."

Speaker Paul Ryan spoke on the importance of classified information at a press conference on July 7, 2016. (Speaker Paul Ryan)

In July 2016, few in Washington were more incredulous that the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime for sending and receiving classified information on her private email server than House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

Ryan issued one of the Republicans' irate statements:

No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions.

And then he held a news conference, where he asked the Obama administration to stop giving Clinton, who was the Democrats' newly minted presidential nominee, classified briefings. Individuals who are 'extremely careless,' close quote, Ryan said, using the term then-FBI director James B. Comey used to describe Clinton's email practices, should be denied further access to information. (That proposal never got anywhere). (Ryan's office reached out to underscore that he thought Clintonshould be able to receive classified briefings if she became president, since you can't deny presidents classified information.)

The message was clear: Ryan thought the FBI should have charged Clinton for a crime for sending and receiving classified information on a private email server she used exclusively as secretary of state.

Ryan piped up again about this 11 days before the election, when Comey told Congress his team had found new emails related to Clinton that they were looking into. The FBI did not describe it as a reopening of an investigation, but Ryan sure did:

We're spending so much time parsing Ryan's words about a candidate in an election that is now over because suddenly, it's not Clinton who is on the receiving end of criticism about the way she handled classified information. It's President Trump.

[Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador]

The Washington Post's ace national security team reported Monday that while in an Oval Office meeting last week with top Russian officials, Trump told them highly classified information about the Islamic State. The information he told to the Russian ambassador and foreign minister is so secret it's not even relayed to some U.S. allies, let alone a country that most intelligence officials think meddled in the U.S. election.

During the May 10 meeting at the White House with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, Trump began describing details about an Islamic State terror threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft, according to current and former U.S. officials. (The Washington Post)

It is all kind of shocking, a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials told The Post's Greg Miller and Greg Jaffe. Trump seems to be very reckless and doesnt grasp the gravity of the things hes dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And its all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.

Reckless. That's exactly the word Ryan used in another statement, issued in September, after the FBI released its report of its interview with Clinton. The FBI's investigation demonstrates, Ryan said, Hillary Clintons reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state.

It's also the exact word that at least oneformer intelligence official used to describe the fact Trumpshared information so secret it requires a code word just to talk about it among U.S. officials.

The Fix's Aaron Blake rounded up their comments to Miller and Jaffe:

Perhaps reckless is in the eye of the beholder. As president, Trump has the authority to declassify government secrets, while anyone else in government (like secretaries of state) does not.

In his initial statement about Trump's comments to Russian officials, Ryan made no attempt to provide cover for the president.

But it's going to take a lot more explaining from Ryan and all the other Republicans who bashed Clinton, including Trump why this situation is somehow less careless and less reckless and less dangerous than the one they lambasted Democrats for just a few months ago.

Read this article:
Paul Ryan might regret having said this about Hillary Clinton - Washington Post