Mediaboss Marketing

Tuesday, July 5, shall forever be known as the anniversary of former FBI Director James Comeys foray into politics.

Six years ago today, Comey held an infamous press conference at the height of the 2016 presidential election, in which he announced that although Hillary Clinton hadnt committed any crimes in using a private email server as secretary of state, shed still done things Comey personally thought were extremely careless.

In hindsight, I think its clear July 5 was also a foundational moment for Trumps perversion of the Justice Department.

Comeys announcement may well have helped tank Clintons campaign. (Hes kinda, sorta, not-really apologized for his language at the press conference, and a late-stage announcement that he was investigating new Clinton emails). But I argue the political impact goes even deeper than 2016. In hindsight, I think its clear July 5 was also a foundational moment for Trumps perversion of the Justice Department. Comey showed Trump the value of a DOJ willing to launch or close investigations based on pretext and politics.

In fact, Trump was so impressed with how Comeys Clinton investigation worked in his favor that he reportedly asked Comey to end an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and to meddle in the investigation into Trump, as well.

Comey didnt go along with his boss, but by then Trump was so hooked on the drug that is fascism he merely fired Comey with hopes of replacing him with a more loyal stooge.

After Comey was fired, Trump embarked on a scorched earth campaign to establish a more servile DOJ. He pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Comeys second-in-command, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, for his role in the Russia probe. Then, Trump pressured Sessions himself to resign. Trump briefly named the masculine toilet" guy (a.k.a. Matthew Whitaker) acting attorney general before appointing Bill Barr, the ultimate Trump sycophant, as his new AG.

Short of literally waging an insurrection, Barr did pretty much everything Trump wanted as attorney general, from targeting his political critics to surprise, surprise opening pretextual investigations to varnish Trumps image.

During his four years in office, Trump cycled through a series of DOJ officials whom he used and discarded. But you never forget the first time. And Comey showed him why.

Ja'han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer. He's a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include "Black Hair Defined" and the "Black Obituary Project."

Here is the original post:
'It changed everything': Comey and '16 outcome - MSNBC

LOS ANGELES -- Weeks prior to the 2016 presidential election, candidate Donald Trump began to toss some new red meat to his carnivorous supporters -- the possibility of a rigged election. His poll numbers pointed to a defeat, possibly a resounding one. Democrats, myself included, were not especially worried about the outcome.

As Nov. 8 approached, Trumps warnings about a fixed election grew more frequent and more vehement, jacking up the belligerence of the MAGA crowd beyond the usual racist anti-immigration frenzy and customary Hillary Clinton-bashing.

At the time, many of my fellow Democratic friends and I believed that Trump was a harmless blowhard who enjoyed the adulation of raucous rally crowds and hoped for no more than a resurrection of his failed TV career. Many pundits held similar opinions.

Blowhard, yes. Harmless, no.

To many observers, this rigged-election business seemed a lame, pre-emptive attempt at cushioning the blow when Trump lost by an embarrassingly wide margin. Many of us believed that Trump might even be relieved by a loss, sparing him from a job for which he had no experience or qualifications. He was just interested in polishing his brand, we told ourselves, and he certainly did not want any nosy congressional investigations of his murky financial empire. After all, he had refused to reveal his tax returns, so there was reason for curiosity.

Clearly, we were being nave. Granted, this was before candidate Trump had had the power to actually do anything other than make promises about a wall and rant about rapists and murderers invading America from the southern border, but his rabid followers -- of which, surprisingly, there were millions -- were no less moved by his descriptions of what he intended to do as president. His rallies were packed and no less unruly and inflammatory than they are today. Suddenly, the possibility of a stolen election became an effective propaganda ploy. Hillary was a criminal, Trump told his troops, and her election would be a travesty. (Remember Lock her up!?)

If he had lost in 2016, how far would Trumps hard-core loyalists have gone to see him installed as president?

In swing states like Pennsylvania, Hillary lost by just over 44,000 votes; in Wisconsin, it was a deficit of approximately 23,000 votes; in Michigan, a mere 11,000. Had she won those swing states and a few others by narrow margins, resulting in her election, would Donald Trump have cried foul even after recounts in each swing state showed no substantial cases of fraud? No doubt his followers would have been enraged -- but how enraged? Enraged enough to take action?

John Blumenthal

Would Trumps hard-core devotees have been angry enough to go to great lengths to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton?

Would the Big Lie have been born as early as 2016?

At the time, congressional power lay solidly with Republicans in both Houses Paul Ryan was House Speaker; Mitch McConnell was Senate Majority Leader; congressional committees were chaired by Republicans. By then, McConnell had already proven himself to be primarily interested in power after all, he had vocalized his goal to make Barack Obama a one-term president and later denied our 44th president his constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

And the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency was anathema to a great many Republicans.

Would some swing-state election officials have disqualified Democratic ballots? Would legislators have overturned their states votes? Would the House of Representatives have refused to certify some Clinton electors? In other words, would we be where we are now six years ago, in the midst of a Big Lie movement and its accompanying existential threats to democracy?

A stretch of the imagination? Probably, but certainly no more surreal than the shocking facts about Jan. 6 that are now being exposed before our very eyes.

An award-winning novelist and former magazine editor who co-authored the movie, Blue Streak, John Blumenthals work has appeared in The Los Angeles Times,The Chicago Sun-Times,Playboy, Publishers Weekly, Salonand Huffington Post. This was written for The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this opinion column to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.

Read this article:
What if Trump had used the Big Lie in 2016, if hed lost that election? John Blumenthal - cleveland.com

On June 7, I won the Democratic Party primary in New Jerseys Seventh Congressional District, on my way to what I hope will be my third term in the House. The same day, I also accepted the nomination of the new Moderate Party, formed substantially by state Republicans fed up with the extremism of a party led by Donald Trump.

The Moderate Party is an experiment: an alliance between Democrats of all stripes, independents and moderate Republicans hoping to win an election while pursuing a reform to the election laws that could empower swing voters to save our democracy from toxic polarization.

Third-party candidates have long been viewed as spoilers in American politics, for good reason. Ralph Nader and Jill Stein had no chance of winning the presidency, yet drew enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 to help tip those elections to Republicans. On the right, libertarian candidates tend to draw votes away from Republicans.

It doesnt have to be that way. In several states, including New York and Connecticut, third parties can channel their energy into endorsing and placing on the ballot candidates who also run as Democrats or Republicans, giving their members the option to cast tactical votes for a major party candidate under a banner that better reflects their values. This is known as fusion voting, when two parties fuse and form a coalition to support the same candidate.

Fusion parties were common in 19th century America. During the 1890s in North Carolina, for example, Republicans and Populists ran a unified slate that temporarily ousted the white supremacist Democratic majority.

In New York, the main parties operating under this system, the Working Families and Conservative Parties, occupy the left and right wings of the political spectrum. But if fusion parties were permitted nationwide, the political force most likely to form one would be the center. Such a party might be especially attractive to Republicans disgusted with their national partys embrace of election lies, vaccine denial and QAnon conspiracy theories, but who are turned off by the left wing of the Democratic Party and remain reluctant to pull its lever.

I represent the median Congressional district in America half the districts are more Democratic, and half more Republican. The voters I meet every day in my district have views that defy tribal party stereotypes, no matter which party they have registered with.

They support the police whether its protecting our homes from criminals or our Capitol from insurrectionists. They think we should enforce our immigration laws, but that our economy needs and our nation should welcome legal immigrants. Theyre pro-business, but think corporations should pay taxes, and that the success of American business depends on leading the world to clean energy. They support the Second Amendment, but with reasonable restrictions like background checks and red flag laws.

In the small towns and suburbs I represent, there is also a yearning for community. They want politicians to focus on fighting inflation, not fueling culture wars.

Thanks to gerrymandering, its been estimated that only around 40 of Americas 435 House districts are truly competitive. Most elections are thus decided in primaries that push Democrats left and Republicans right, encouraging each side to fight and block the other rather than find common ground. Even in middle- of-the-road districts like mine, primaries can give an advantage to more extremist candidates. For example, the Republican nominee in my race, Tom Kean Jr., was once seen as a moderate. But this year, facing a contested primary, he sent a mailer to voters bragging that no matter what Trump does, Kean has his back.

A centrist fusion party could restore to Americans in the middle some of the leverage they have lost. Were hoping New Jersey will be a test case for national reform. My state banned fusion parties in 1921, under the influence of major party machines. The new Moderate Party is filing a legal challenge to this law, arguing that Americans have a right to form parties that nominate the candidates of their choice.

Imagine if my Republican House colleagues Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger could form a party of moderate voters and offer the validation that comes with its line on the ballot to the next Democratic presidential nominee so long as that nominee promised to respect the Constitution and to govern from the center. If I were to win my congressional race by, say, two points, and five or 10 of those points came from supporters of the Moderate Party, I would work hard to keep their support. After all, if I didnt, they could endorse someone else possibly a Republican in the next election.

Our political system today rewards and encourages divisiveness that has already led to violence and could tear our country apart. We need new rules that promote responsible leadership and cooperation.

Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, represents the Seventh Congressional District.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Original post:
Opinion | A Viable Third Party Is Coming, and Its Starting With a New Jersey Lawsuit - The New York Times

Hillary Clinton said this week she would endorse President Biden for a second term if he decides to run in 2024 as questions swirl about whether the soon-to-be octogenarian chief executive will do just that.

Hes the sitting president, Clinton told NBC News Yamiche Alcindor on Wednesday at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

When Alcindor followed up by asking, Would you endorse him?, Clinton sounded incredulous.

Look, I would endorse our sitting president yes, of course, she said. This is a silly question.

Lets go with the person most likely to win, the former first lady, US senator and secretary of state added. Joe Biden beat in a huge landslide victory in the popular vote Donald Trump. I think that says a lot.

Alcindor later told MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell that Clinton said absolutely not when asked if she would consider a third White House run after unsuccessful presidential bids in 2008 and 2016.

Biden has repeatedly insisted that he intends to run for re-election, but doubts persist due to his advanced age (he would be 81 on Election Day 2024) and stubbornly low approval ratings.

On Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris raised even more questions after she walked back a remark indicating Biden had already decided to run.

The president intends to run and if he does, I will be his ticket-mate, Harris told reporters on Air Force Two en route to San Francisco. We will run together.

On Monday, Harris appeared on CNN and emphatically told host Dana Bash, Joe Biden is running for re-election and I will be his ticket-mate.

Earlier this year, the president indicated he would be sticking with Harris as his running mate if he chooses to run.

Are you satisfied with her work on this issue [of voting rights]? And can you guarantee, do you commit that she will be your running mate in 2024 provided that you run again? NBC News reporter Kristen Welker asked the president at a January news conference.

Yes and yes, Biden said.

Do you care to expand? Welker asked.

No, theres no need to. I mean, shes going to be my running mate, number one. And number two, I did put her in charge. I think shes doing a good job, Biden said.

If he runs for a second term, Biden will face an uphill climb to regain support among American voters. His average approval rating recently hit a record low of 38.8%, with 56.9% of Americans disapproving of his performance, according to data compiled by RealClearPolitics.

Since he took office, Bidens approval rating has plummeted as his administration attempts to grapple with a series of crises including the botched troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, supply chain backlogs and soaring inflation.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton will back Biden 'if he decides to run' in '24

Hillary Clinton piled on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Tuesday, calling him a person of grievance full of resentment and anger.

The former first lady, US senator and secretary of state as well as twice-defeated presidential candidate made the jaw-dropping comment during an interview with CBS Mornings host Gayle King.

I went to law school with him, said Clinton, a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School. (Thomas received his J.D. from the school a year later.) Hes been a person of grievance for as long as Ive known him. Resentment, grievance, anger.

Thomas has been the subject of an onslaught of outrage over his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Center, which overturned the courts landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and returned the issue of abortion to each of the 50 states.

In his opinion, Thomas insisted the court reconsider and correct precedents based on the legal doctrine of substantive due process including decisions that established the right to free contraception use and same-sex marriage across the country.

Clinton said the concurrence was Thomas way of signaling conservatives and Republican-led state legislatures to find cases and pass laws targeting those rights.

I may not win the first, the second or third time, but were going to keep at it, Clinton claimed Thomas was saying.

The people he is speaking to are the, you know, right-wing, very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures, she added. And the thing that is well, theres so many things about it that are deeply distressing but women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.

Conservatives ripped Clinton for her comments while defending Thomas personal character.

Deplorable, irredeemable, a person of grievance, resentment, and anger The hatred Hillary Clinton has for conservatives is palpable, tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Just an absurd accusation, added Ohio GOP Senate candidate J.D. Vance. Justice Thomas is one of the warmest people Ive ever met. He has this amazing quality where he treats everyone with kindness regardless of their station.

Thomas is a happy, gracious, compassionate guy who has the reputation for literally none of these things, agreed Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs.

Clarence Thomas is literally the one person on the Supreme Court even the libs who work there say is always smiling and happy, tweeted radio host Erick Erickson. Clinton is literally the one politician in America whose paid staff have to assure us shes likable.

Others implied a racial motivation for Clintons remark.

Difficult to ignore how Thomas who didnt even write the majority opinion in Dobbs is seemingly always the target of this kind of ire, tweeted The Federalist senior editor David Harsanyi.

So theyve settled on the angry black man and its totally fine to do this on national tv, opined Spectator contributing editor Stephen L. Miller.

Thomas critics have included Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage across the US.

Obergefell accused Thomas of protecting himself in his concurrence by omitting the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that declared it unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage. Thomas, who is black, has been married to his wife, Ginni, who is white, since 1987.

Its a clear indication that if its a case that impacts him directly, its safe, Obergefell told CNN Newsroom on Sunday. But if its a case that protects other people, other people who are unlike him, then were not very safe.

The right to interracial marriage is only six years older than a womans right to abortion, Obergefell added. Half of your country lost the right to control their own body, and that should terrify everyone in this nation who believes in our ability.

Our nation has a much longer history of denying interracial marriage. Do we want to go back to the late 18th century, the originalist whos saying we can only interpret the Constitution as of the time it was written? When that Constitution was written, We, the People did not include blacks, indigenous people, it did not include women, it did not include queer people. That is not a more perfect union, he continued.

We should be moving forward, not backwards, he added. And this court is taking us backwards, this extreme court is taking us backwards.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton blasts Clarence Thomas as person of grievance after ...