Mediaboss Marketing

Last weekend, The New York Times published a long piece about the effect the FBI had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign. As we all know, Donald Trump won a comfortable victory in the Electoral College while falling about 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.

I believe that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to energize the Democratic Party base and who failed to deliver to the electorate a principled reason to vote for her. Yet when the Times reporters asked her why she believes she lost the race, she gave several answers, the first of which was the involvement of the FBI. She may be right.

Here is the back story.

In 2015, a committee of the House of Representatives that was investigating the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, learned that the State Department had no copies of any emails sent or received by Clinton during her four years as secretary of state. When committee investigators pursued this -- at the same time that attorneys involved with civil lawsuits brought against the State Department seeking the Clinton emails were pursuing it -- it was revealed that Clinton had used her own home servers for her emails and bypassed the State Department servers.

Because many of her emails obviously contained government secrets and because the removal of government secrets to any non-secure venue constitutes espionage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, which passed it on to the FBI. A congressionally issued criminal referral means that some members of Congress who have seen some evidence think that some crime may have been committed. The DOJ is free to reject the referral, yet it accepted this one.

It directed the FBI to investigate the facts in the referral and to refer to the investigation as a matter, not as a criminal investigation. The FBI cringed a bit, but Director James Comey followed orders and used the word "matter." This led to some agents mockingly referring to him as the director of the Federal Bureau of Matters. It would not be the last time agents mocked or derided him in the Clinton investigation.

He should not have referred to it by any name, because under DOJ and FBI regulations, the existence of an FBI investigation should not be revealed publicly unless and until it results in some public courtroom activity, such as the release of an indictment. These rules and procedures have been in place for generations to protect those never charged. Because of the role that the FBI has played in our law enforcement history -- articulated in books and movies and manifested in our culture -- many folks assume that if a person is being investigated by the FBI, she must have done something wrong.

In early July 2016, Clinton was personally interviewed in secret for about four hours by a team of FBI agents who had been working on her case for a year. During that interview, she professed great memory loss and blamed it on a head injury she said she had suffered in her Washington, D.C., home. Some of the agents who interrogated her disbelieved her testimony about the injury and, over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, asked Comey for permission to subpoena her medical records.

When Comey denied his agents the permission they sought, some of them attempted to obtain the records from the intelligence community. Because Clintons medical records had been digitally recorded by her physicians and because the FBI agents knew that the National Security Agency has digital copies of all keystrokes on all computers used in the U.S. since 2005, they sought Clintons records from their NSA colleagues. Lying to the FBI is a felony, and these agents believed they had just witnessed a series of lies.

When Comey learned what his creative agents were up to, he jumped the gun by holding a news conference on July 5, 2016, during which he announced that the FBI was recommending to the DOJ that it not seek Clintons indictment because no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. He then did the unthinkable. He outlined all of the damning evidence of guilt that the FBI had amassed against her.

This double-edged sword -- we wont charge her, but we have much evidence of her guilt -- was unprecedented and unheard of in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both Republicans and Democrats found some joy in Comeys words. Yet his many agents who believed that Clinton was guilty of both espionage and lying were furious -- furious that Comey had revealed so much, furious that he had demeaned their work, furious that he had stopped an investigation before it was completed.

While all this was going on, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Clintons closest aide, Huma Abedin, was being investigated for using a computer to send sexually explicit materials to a minor. When the FBI asked for his computer -- he had shared it with his wife -- he surrendered it. When FBI agents examined the Weiner/Abedin laptop, they found about 650,000 stored emails, many from Clinton to Abedin, that they thought they had not seen before.

Rather than silently examine the laptop, Comey again violated DOJ and FBI regulations by announcing publicly the discovery of the laptop and revealing that his team suspected that it contained hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails; and he announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation. This announcement was made two weeks before Election Day and was greeted by the Trump campaign with great glee. A week later, Comey announced that the laptop was fruitless, and the investigation was closed, again.

At about the same time that the House Benghazi Committee sent its criminal referral to the DOJ, American and British intelligence became interested in a potential connection between the Trump presidential campaign and intelligence agents of the Russian government. This interest resulted in the now infamous year-plus-long electronic surveillance of Trump and many of his associates and colleagues. This also produced a criminal referral from the intelligence community to the DOJ, which sent it to the FBI.

Yet this referral and the existence of this investigation was kept -- quite properly -- from the press and the public. When Comey was asked about it, he -- quite properly -- declined to answer. When he was asked under oath whether he knew of any surveillance of Trump before Trump became president, Comey denied that he knew of it.

What was going on with the FBI?

How could Comey justify the public revelation of a criminal investigation and a summary of evidence of guilt about one candidate for president and remain silent about the existence of a criminal investigation of the campaign of another? How could he deny knowledge of surveillance that was well-known in the intelligence community, even among his own agents? Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality, into a bitterly contested campaign having been warned it might affect the outcome? Why did he reject the laws just commands of silence in favor of putting his thumb on political scales?

I dont know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

Continue reading here:
Andrew Napolitano: Hillary Clinton and the FBI...again - Fox News

On the eve of his 100th day in office, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a self assessment of his administrations achievementsand Russia is unimpressed.

Washingtons evaluation of its foreign policy particularly irked some of Russias top parliamentarians, with some saying Hillary Clinton, Trumps bitter rival for the presidency, would be proud of such a record. The boast that the White House has further isolated Syria and Russia at the United Nations through successful diplomacy with President Xi Jinping of China, opened the floodgates of pent up disillusionment with the candidate Moscow once hoped would be more amenable to Russian ambitions.

Senators criticizing the statement claim Trump is shaping up to be as bad a president for Moscow, if not worse, than his predecessor Barack Obama.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Senator Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee called Trumps assertion that Russia is isolated totally untrue on Facebook and accused the U.S. of putting China in a highly awkward position by speaking on their behalf.

Through claims about isolating Russia in the U.N. the Trump administration is on the same course as Obamas and it will arrive at the same failure, Senator Alexey Pushkov chimed in on Twitter. This is self-deception. A false, impossible goal.

Read More: Russias foreign minister sees harder times for U.S.-Russia ties now than during the Cold War

Today his administration is following Clintons line, Pushkov added on Twitter, after saying Clinton would likely be in awe of Trumps achievements so far and decide that their disputes during their respective campaigns were in vain.

Trumps pro-Russian statements during his campaign and his pledge to get along with Russia, earned him criticism, both from within his own Republican Party, usually the hardliner on Russia in U.S. politics, but also from Clinton and the Democratic Party.

However, despite investigations into the Russian links of some of his campaign aides, the Trump administration has completed a firm tilt against Russian foreign policy. Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have reiterated U.S. support for NATO, Ukraine and maintaining sanctions on Russia until it reigns in its insurgency in its southern neighbor, and have criticized Russian support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump ordered a strike on the regime earlier this month that prompted the Kremlin to deem ties between Moscow and Washington worse now than under Obama.

Senator Franz Klintsevich, head of the Committee on Defense, argued that the White House statement shows Trump not only failed to overcome the anti-Russian trend of U.S. foreign policy he did not even try to, state news agency RIA Novosti reported.

Now it would not be an exaggeration to call him more Catholic than the Popewith regard to Russophobia he surpassed even his predecessor, Klintsevich said.

The speaker of Russias top federal assembly Valentina Matviyenko issued a more optimistic note on Friday, telling RIA that she believed U.S-Russia relations were not beyond redemption and would improve, but not quickly. The Russophobic inclinations ruling Congress and a large enough part of the American establishment will not change with a mere stroke of a pen, she said.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump's First 100 Days: Hillary Clinton Would Be in Awe, Says Russian Senators - Newsweek

Labeled an "elitist" by his rival Marine Le Pen, criticized for his first round victory celebrations, and then overshadowed in his home town by the far-right candidate, Macron has spent much of the past week on the back foot.

It's why he's not moving his furniture into the lyse Palace just yet -- instead taking a lesson from the 2016 US election, in which Hillary Clinton suffered a surprise defeat.

"That was almost certainly the mistake Hillary Clinton made," Emmanuel Macron told CNN's Melissa Bell on Thursday.

"I'm absolutely not playing that game. Right from the first day, that hasn't been the way I defended myself or how I fought."

Macron may have won the first round vote and have been endorsed by several of his rivals but the past week has brought new problems for the 39-year-old, who is seeking to become the nation's youngest leader since Napoleon.

First, it was his celebrations after winning the first round -- at an upmarket brasserie in Paris -- which caused consternation. The celebration led many to believe he had already declared himself President. He was accused of being out of touch with the public, playing perfectly into Le Pen's accusation that he remains part of the "elite."

"I am in the middle of employees who resist to wild globalization. I am not with the managers who eat petit fours," Le Pen said, according to BFMTV.

While she received cheers and posed for selfies, Macron faced a far more hostile reception when he entered the factory.

Macron stopped to talk to workers and answer questions while describing Le Pen's visit as a stunt.

And on Thursday, in an interview that aired on French national channel TF1, Macron -- a millionaire investment banker and former government minister -- bristled at the notion he's a candidate for France's elite.

"I am not the candidate for a little group or a kind of nomenclature," he said. " I am going to protect the middle classes and the most vulnerable in France.

"I have a policy for education, for labor. That is what is specific about my project. [It] speaks to the whole of France, the entirety of the country, the towns and the countryside, the farmers and the industrialists, the workers and the entrepreneurs."

He also made a point of differentiating himself from Le Pen, who has rallied supporters with an anti-European Union message.

While Le Pen has advocated taking France out of the EU and closing the country's borders, Macron has called for closer integration.

"I will not be against Berlin. I am with Berlin," he said. "We have differences. We have disagreements, but I will not tell the French today that I am going to defend their interests against Berlin."

"Europe is a construction: Ours. We decided to create Europe. We did it for our peace, for our prosperity, for our liberty."

While most polls have Macron well ahead going into the May 7 runoff he remains cautious.

He rejected accusations that he lacks the experience required for the job and says "there is no ideal age to become President of the Republic."

"Every day since the beginning of the campaign, I have never considered myself as the favorite," he said.

"The lack of experience is due to my age. I do not have the experience of politics but of the government, the private sector and the public service. I think it is important, Ms. Le Pen does not have that experience."

CNN's Vasco Cotovio, Melissa Bell, Judith Vonberg, Bryony Jones and Hilary Clarke contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Emmanuel Macron vows to avoid 'the mistake Hillary Clinton made' - CNN

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton / AP

BY: Madeleine Weast April 26, 2017 10:52 am

Hillary Clinton's top spokesmen for her failed 2016 presidential campaign rushed to defend Chelsea Clinton on social media this week after the former first daughterclaimedagain that she is not running for public office.

On Monday night, Chelsea Clinton responded on Twitter to a Vox writer who asked who will challenge her in the Democratic primary for New York's 17th congressional district.

"I'm not running for anything*," Clinton wrote, indicating the asterisk meant, "Apparently periodic reminder may mean twice a day reminding."

The former first daughter received backlash for the Twitter exchange, causing senior communications officials from her mother's 2016 campaign to quickly come to her defense.

Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton's former national press secretary, responded within an hour and defended his former boss's daughter by criticizing President Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump.

Josh Barro, a senior editor at Business Insider,wondered why "ex-Clinton staffers do [Chelsea Clinton's] comms work like it's their job."

Nick Merrill, another one of Hillary Clinton's former press secretaries, jumped in to criticize Barro, coming to Chelsea Clinton's defense.

Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress and a policy adviser who worked with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended their daughter with a sarcastic joke about her running for home association president when she is 65.

Chelsea Clinton recently dispelled rumors that she will run for public office in the near future but appeared to leave the door open for a potential future in politics.

"If someone steps down or something changes, I'll then ask and answer those questions at that time," she told Variety. "But right now, no, I'm not running for public office."

Here is the original post:
Hillary Clinton's Fmr Campaign Spokesmen Rush to Defend Chelsea From Social Media Detractors - Washington Free Beacon

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

[T]he Democratic Party is extremely weak and incapable of organizing people.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, April 3, 2017.

Finally, the Democrats admit it wasnt the Russians, James B. Comey or sexism that brought Hillary Clinton down. We are now told by journalists, leading Democrats, and even a former Democratic presidential candidate, that it was the inept dysfunction of the party itself, Hillary, and her abused and frightened team that has reduced them all to irrelevant, vapid political busybodies.

The poor sops. For such a long time, they told us they were beset by evil Russians, a dastardly FBI director, and that ubiquitously hideous misogyny. Such drama and international intrigue. But we now know the Democratic Partys woes are not, at all, akin to a James Bond movie. Alas, theyre more like the Gong Show.

The other week, Hillary Clinton made much of a book shes working on that, she attested, pins the blame for her failure on the Russians, Mr. Comey and sexism. Sadly, someone beat her to the real story and actually reports the truth of the matter.

In Shattered, authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes spoke with more than 100 people involved with the campaign, which they describe as miserable even before it started. In great detail, they describe a dysfunctional campaign, disconnected candidate, and campaign teams wracked by infighting.

In a review of the book, Entertainment Weekly noted, Although Shattered is filled with examples of bad decisions and mishandled crises, it posits the Clinton campaigns main failure was Hillarys inability to explain her motivation for seeking the presidency.

Oh, so it was her fault? Thats going to leave a mark. Unless, of course, Mr. Allen and Ms. Parnes are actually Russian agents. Or working for Mr. Comey. Or maybe they, too, are souped-up misogynists being paid by the Koch Brothers. Or something.

The blame game, however, is now so dead, even Sen. Bernard Sanders and new leftist leaders of the Democrats are admitting in public that the party is in trouble.

On CBS Face the Nation, Mr. Sanders was blunt: Well, I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing, he told host John Dickerson. Clearly, the Democratic Party has got to change. And, in my view, what it has got to become is a grass-roots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations, a party, John, that speaks to the pain of the working class in this country.

Fascinatingly, Mr. Sanders recognizes its the party itself that is the problem, but then inexplicably goes on about changing the decision-making process and how they get their money, still refusing to admit that after eight years, we didnt want any more of what liberals were selling.

The Democrats problem isnt cosmetic; rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic wouldnt have kept her from sinking. Mr. Sanders comments offer up a shocking revelation: The Democrats still dont understand what happened in 2016, and they have no idea how to adapt.

The issue isnt about bottom up decision-making, its the fact that they cant even begin to address the economic and national security issues that matter most to Americans. Mr. Sanders pandering about their party needing to speak to the pain of the working class of the country is also an insult.

It was the Democratic Party and then-President Barack Obama that inflicted that pain on every class of Americans. And yet here is Uncle Bernie trying to pretend the Democrats have been dropped onto Earth from Mars, really, really outraged about whoever it was that set this country on fire.

Rep. Keith Ellison, the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made his feelings clear about whos responsible for the destruction of the party itself. He blames Barack Obama. At a University of Minnesota event he noted, Barack Obama could have been a better party leader. Given that we lost a lot of statehouse seats, governorships, secretaries of state, his true legacy is in danger. I think he cant say that he wasnt part of those losses. Hes really good at getting himself elected. Your legacy is not a building that hes going to construct in Chicago housing his presidential papers.

Ouch.

Finally, someone in the party is admitting the obvious, even if it was cautiously stated: Mr. Obama destroyed the party while creating his own cult of personality. This is so obvious, Josh Earnest, Mr. Obamas former press secretary and now a contributor at MSNBC, said this: What Deputy Chairman Ellison just said is true. Barack Obama didnt run to be a party leader, he ran to be president of the United States.

But then Mr. Earnest admitted this disaster was on Mr. Obamas mind because, There are consequences for this deterioration of Democratic strength all across the country for the presidents legacy.

This was a perfect summation of the inept malevolence of Mr. Obama, the man. His enablers and sycophants admit that only Mr. Obama matters, and in their scramble to fundamentally transform America, he may have damaged the United States, but in true malignant, narcissistic fashion, his lasting legacy is the destruction of the Democratic Party.

With nary a Russian in sight.

Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

Originally posted here:
Hillary Clinton's failure was due to the Democrats - Washington Times