Mediaboss Marketing

A year after Ukraine official and alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella left President Trumps White House, a picture of him shaking Barack Obamas hand was published on a close friend's wedding website.

The Oval Office photograph, obtained by the Washington Examiner, is circulating among Trump allies who consider it evidence that the alleged whistleblower is biased against Trump and had partisan motivations when he filed an Aug. 12 complaint that sparked impeachment proceedings.

In the photograph, a smiling Ciaramella, then Ukraine director on the National Security Council at the White House, is shown shaking Obama's hand. They are standing in front of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln by George Henry Story.

Ukraine specialist Eric Ciaramella poses for a photo with former President Barack Obama at the White House. The photo was published on the website for a friend's 2018 wedding.

A Republican close to the White House said the photo was evidence Ciaramella supported Obama and its selection for the wedding website indicated he considered the Oval Office image a "glamour shot." "This photo confirms that career intelligence and foreign service officials serving at the highest ranks of the Trump White House have their own agenda and their own policy viewpoints," the Republican source said.

The website for the September 2018 wedding of Mat Calabro, a Connecticut high school friend of Ciaramella, is now defunct. The two friends traveled through Central and Eastern Europe together in the summer of 2005, and Ciaramella was a best man at Calabro's wedding in Newport, Rhode Island.

An Obama photograph was prized by White House staff during his time in office. When aides departed the NSC, they were given the chance to have a photo with the president, according to former aides. Staff still at the council when Obama left office were given the chance to get a photograph. It appears this was the occasion for Ciaramella to secure his keepsake image. Trump discontinued the tradition of routinely posing with departing staff.

This picture raises serious questions about how this sham impeachment process started, a senior Trump administration official said. Its no surprise that [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff has now changed his story about letting the falsely labeled whistleblower testify.

Ciaramella, 33, is a career CIA analyst who is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council under the director of national intelligence. From 2015, Ciaramella was the NSC's Ukraine director, the post currently occupied by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who has testified against Trump and with whom Ciaramella still has professional dealings. The Washington Post has suggested that Vindman spoke to the whistleblower about the July 25 telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Early in the Trump administration, Ciaramella was briefly acting NSC senior director for European and Russian affairs, while still Ukraine director, before Fiona Hill took over. During recent congressional testimony, Hill was unable to recall Ciaramella's name. Ciaramella was cited in a key passage of special counsel Robert Mueller's report in connection with the meeting between Trump and Russian officials in the Oval Office the day after James Comey was fired as FBI director.

The CIA officer worked with Joe Biden, then vice president, on Ukraine policy and was Biden's guest at a State Department banquet in October 2016. Ciaramella finished his White House assignment as assistant to national security adviser H.R. McMaster in June 2017.

Before he left the White House, Ciaramella came under attack from prominent right-wing figures on social media who believed he opposed Trump. Some White House officials suspected him of leaking, but one person familiar with his work under Trump called Ciaramella a nonpartisan patriot who was unfairly smeared by wack jobs.

A whistleblower submitted a complaint to the Intelligence Community's inspector general on Aug. 12 that said Trump pressed Zelensky during the July 25 phone call to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter.

Republicans, led by Trump, are focused on the whistleblower amid a second week of televised impeachment hearings. They claim that the whistleblower coordinated his efforts with Schiffs staff, which he contacted for guidance before filing the complaint.

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, said during a Tuesday hearing that Democrats flip-flopped on whether the whistleblower should testify. Its as if the Democrats put the whistleblower in their own witness protection program, he said.

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower, recently told the Washington Examiner that one potentially favorable outcome would be similar to former FBI official Mark Felt, who disclosed he was Deep Throat in his '90s. Felt had been named in press accounts before Richard Nixons resignation, but a lack of confirmation kept people guessing.

The whistleblowers legal team has declined to confirm or deny reports purporting to name its client. The attorneys and Democrats say his identity is irrelevant. The whistleblower had only secondhand knowledge of details, whereas lawmakers now are questioning witnesses with firsthand knowledge. Republicans believe it is important to establish the origins of the complaint against Trump.

Ciaramella and Calabro did not respond to emails seeking comment.

More here:
PHOTO: Alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella shakes hands with Barack Obama in Oval Office - Washington Examiner

Fox News host Mark Levin vented his spleen about the impeachment of President Donald Trump, and said we need to retroactively impeach President Barack Obama in order to impeach Trump as well.

On Thursday nights edition of Hannity, Levin launched into a rant about the current impeachment inquiry, which just wrapped up a week of public hearings that featured extensive testimony on Trumps plot to extort political favors from Ukraine by withholding military aid.

Along the way, Levin managed to rope in President Obama, our last popularly-elected commander-in-chief, and said If you want to impeach, you need to retroactively impeach Obama.

Unfortunately for Levin, the United States Constitution provides no mechanism for impeaching a president retroactively. The most relevant section to Levins argument would be Article II Section 4, which states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The clause clearly states that removal from office shall occur following impeachment and conviction. President Obama won reelection in 2012 earning more votes than his opponent in the process and was constitutionally ineligible to run for a third term.

Once Obama completed his second term in office in January of 2017, and was one of the few who attended Trumps inauguration, he was no longer in office. Hence, Obama could not be removed from office at any point subsequent to that.

Watch the clip above, via Fox News.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more from the original source:
Mark Levin Wants to Retroactively Impeach Barack Obama, Which Isnt a Thing You Can Do - Mediaite

ATLANTAIve seen the word gentrification used for housing and neighborhood displacement, but never did I ever imagine that a person could attempt to gentrify an actually race of people.

But last night, Joe Biden proved me, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and the rest of black America wrong. When Booker got his chance to speak on the subject of race, he reminded America that he has a long history with black voters, noting he has been one since the age of 18. Hes been a city councilman in Newark, N.J., and was its mayor before becoming a U.S. senator. He then took Biden to task for his comments earlier this week that he would not support marijuana legalization and that it is a gateway druga ridiculous claim that isnt supported by the research.

This week I hear him literally say that I dont think we should legalize marijuana, Booker said. I thought you might have been high when you said it.

He went on to say that marijuana is already legal for the privileged and that the war on drugs is a war on black and brown people. Biden, who said in a recent townhall that he does not support legalizing marijuana at the national level, changed his tune last night and said he supports legalization.

I asked Booker if he was satisfied with Bidens response.

[Bidens] not in support of legalization and thats problematic, Booker told me after the debate. Hes not in favor of doing the kind of things to that would create the kind of environment where in this country African Americans would not continue to be disproportionately incarcerated for marijuana crimes. In 2017, there were more marijuana arrests than all violent crime arrests combined. And, disproportionately, they are low-income people and African-Americans. Privileged people at Ivy League schools do not get arrested for their marijuana experimentation. It is low-income people, often disproportionately minorities, in communities in cities all around this country. So to me thats unacceptable.

Then Biden went into an odd defense of his record with black people.

Im part of that Obama coalition, Biden said. I come out of the black community, in terms of my support. If you notice, I have more people supporting me in the black community that have announced for me, because they know me, they know who I am. Three former chairs of the [Congressional] Black Caucus, the only African-American woman that has ever been elected to the United States Senate. A whole range of people.

I was surprised he didnt mention Corn Pop (Rest in peace).

Harris, currently the lone dully elected black female senator, quickly interjected, Nope, thats not true. The other one is here.

Biden was referring to former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill), who has endorsed the former vice president. Still, his erasure of Harris was pretty glaring.

As Ive written before, Biden really is not leading with black voters because he has earned their respect during the 2020 primary cycle. He is leaning into Obamas legacy because he knows that is the only thing that is keeping him in the race. There were moments during the debate in which he stuttered through his remarks and seemed as if hed lost track of his thoughts.

He knows that he won the hearts of black voters standing in as Obamas attack dog, a job he honestly performed quite well. I cannot say for certain, but I am willing to bet that he also knows that black people, especially during this cycle, are anxious and may very well vote out of fear instead of the hope that Obama inspired. For a wide range of reasons, Harris and Booker arent trending very well in the polls and mainstream media are pushing the narrative that black Americans are worried that it will take a white man to defeat a white supremacist in the general election.

There is no whiter white man in the race than Joe Biden, whose troubling history with black issues are well-documented.

The point of a long primary season is to weed out candidates whose flaws prove too much to withstand scrutiny. But Biden is very much in this race and there doesnt seem to be much that is hurting his support among black voters. Last nights omission of Harris wasnt a flub. It was a total diss of the California senator. You cant claim to support black women and at the same time not recognize the history-making significance of one standing just a few feet away from you.

When Biden mentioned that Obama picked him because of his standing in the black community, he sounded ridiculousor did he? No one truly knows why Obama picked Biden, but it was very likely because he knew he needed a white man to win over much of white America that wasnt as comfortable with Obamas history-making campaign as black people were.

Now, the scenario is in reverse. Biden may very well feel he is the great white hope black Americans feel they need to beat Trump. Is it entitled and arrogant? Yes. Does it minimize Harris and Booker? One could make a strong argument that it does. But does it make him wrong to feel that way?

Nope. Why wouldnt he lean into Obama and brag so boldly about his connection to Obama? It has gotten him this far.

Until he loses the primary or the general election, he has no reason not to continue sounding like a white man whose claim to fame is riding the coattails of Barack Obamas legacy.

And why not? Black voters seem more than OK with giving Biden a free ride without him even offering to chip in for gas.

See more here:
Post-Debate Analysis: Joe Biden Wants You to Know That the Blacks Really, Really Like Him - The Root

You have to feel for John Waters.

The good news is that the Baltimore-based writer and filmmaker just got nominated for a 2020 Grammy Award in the Spoken Word category for his latest book, Mr. Know-It-All: The Tarnished Wisdom of A Filth Elder.

The bad news is that hes up against Michelle Obama, one of the most popular people on the planet, who was nominated for the audio version of her bestseller, Becoming.

Waters, who has been nominated for a Grammy before, is taking it all in stride.

This is my second nomination in the Spoken Word category, Waters said in an email. The first time it was for the audio book of Role Models and Joan Rivers died and beat me. This time, Michelle Obama will live and beat me too.

He has a suggestion for the Grammy broadcast, though.

I wish we could read each others books aloud at the awards ceremony, he said. She could be Mrs. Know It All and I could be Mr. Not Becoming.'

Regardless, he said, I am honored to be included with all five of the nominees.

Others nominated in the Spoken Word category, which includes poetry, audio books and storytelling, are: Sekou Andrews and String Therapy for Sekou Andrews and String Therapy, Eric Alexandrakis for I. V. Catatonia: 20 Years as a Two Time Cancer Survivor, and various artists for the Beastie Boys Book Michael Diamond, Adam Horovitz, Scott Serratt and Dan Zitt, producers.

The 62nd Grammy Awards ceremony will air Jan. 26 on CBS.

Ed Gunts is a local freelance writer and the former architecture critic for The Baltimore Sun.

View original post here:
John Waters to face off against Michelle Obama at the 2020 Grammys - Baltimore Fishbowl

Did Barack Obama just cancel himself?

Thats the question an editor here asked me on Saturday, as we watched comments Mr. Obama had made about the 2020 race reverberate across social media.

In case you missed it: Mr. Obama expressed some thoughts at a meeting of wealthy donors in Washington on Friday night. Aides billed the event as a chance for him to calm some of the anxiety that establishment party types are expressing about the Democratic field. Mr. Obama did that, reminding them of how brutal his primary fight was against Hillary Clinton in 2008 and, hey, that turned out O.K., right?

Then, Mr. Obamas remarks veered into his own worries about the field.

I dont think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters havent heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately thats going to activate them, he said. People rightly are cautious because they dont have a lot of margin for error.

This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement, he added. They like seeing things improved, but the average American doesnt think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.

No one was mentioned by name. While Mr. Obama has spoken privately with nearly all the candidates, hes been very careful to avoid even the appearance of influencing the race.

But it was pretty clear who Mr. Obama was talking about this time Senators Elizabeth Warren (big, structural change) and Bernie Sanders (political revolution).

I was covering his remarks and there wasnt much reaction from the room at the time. But by the next morning, tweets were flying, a hashtag had been created people proudly proclaimed they were #TooFarLeft and voters, activists and strategists were chattering.

And, boy, did they have plenty to say. Mr. Obama got a resounding chorus of O.K. boomer from liberal activists, who questioned his record on issues like health care, climate change and immigration.

Of course, as readers of this newsletter know, Twitter is not real life. The views of Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those in the wider electorate. Twitter Democrats are whiter, more liberal and more politically active, according to a New York Times analysis from earlier this year.

People close to the former president say he wasnt bothered by the reaction. At this point in his life, he feels liberated to give what he sees as his best advice to his fellow Democrats based on his political experiences.

And hes giving voice to concerns from moderates that have been bubbling up for several weeks now as Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders have shown resilience in the polls. But Mr. Obamas sentiments are in direct conflict with what the more liberal activists who have an outsize role in the partys politics and the nominating process have been expressing.

Still, its worth noting that my colleague Jenny Medina was at the California Democratic Convention in Long Beach on Saturday and none of the political types she spoke to had seen the Twitter backlash to Mr. Obamas comments.

If Mr. Obama was right about one thing, its that the disconnect between the wings of the party is real.

I want to know what you all think about Mr. Obamas remarks.

Is he right that Democrats are playing risky politics by pushing to the left? Or, is his brand of more centrist politics simply not meeting todays fierce urgency of now?

Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. Please include your name and location. We may feature you in an upcoming edition of this newsletter!

Democrats scored a big victory in a second red state over the weekend, when Gov. John Bel Edwards won re-election by more than 40,000 votes in Louisiana. His victory came less than two weeks after another Democratic win, a narrow one in the Kentucky governors race.

President Trump had invested political capital in both off-year races, seeing potential Republican victories as a way to steady his political footing amid the drumbeat of impeachment news.

In rallies before the elections, he cast the contests as a referendum on himself.

You got to give me a big win, please, O.K., the president pleaded with his supporters last Thursday in Bossier City, La.

Yet, officials on both sides of the aisle said those Democratic victories came in spite of the impeachment inquiry not because of it.

It was not a help, Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, who was deeply involved with all three races as head of the Democratic Governors Association, told me on Sunday evening. Candidly, it made it more difficult, if anything.

Weve spent a lot of time analyzing how impeachment may be affecting our politics. These two races give us the start of an answer.

For months, Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to start House impeachment proceedings, pointing to the reluctance of her members who had flipped more moderate, suburban districts in the midterms, handing Democrats control of the chamber.

Now we have some evidence for the political rationale behind her hesitation: In deeply conservative states like Louisiana and Kentucky, which Mr. Trump won in 2016 by 20 points and 30 points, the House impeachment process rallied his base, according to Ms. Raimondo encouraging Mr. Trumps voters to turn out and defend him.

But any Republican backlash against impeachment wasnt enough to elevate the Republican candidates who had tied themselves to Mr. Trump. In these two governors races, the pro-Trump turnout was still smaller than the coalition of African-Americans and moderate whites in suburbs and cities energized to come out and support the Democrats, who were well known in their states. (Republicans did pick up a win in the Mississippi governors election.)

That dynamic happening in conservative states should be a big, flashing danger sign for the president, who will be fighting for his re-election in far more purple places.

Much of the outcome of the 2020 race is likely to depend on whether either party or an event like the impeachment inquiry is able to alter that balance.

Join Jennifer Steinhauer, a Washington correspondent for The Times, on Dec. 5 in Washington, D.C., for a discussion with four of the 131 women of the 116th Congress.

Dont miss this opportunity to hear these four trailblazing women share their personal perspectives on what it means to be a woman and a woman in power in 2019. Included in the ticket price is a copy of the new book The Women of the 116th Congress: Portraits of Power. Buy tickets here.

What do you do with $7,000 of surplus campaign shoelaces?

Our far-flung political reporter Jenny Medina sends along this report: Representative Eric Swalwells extra swag from his short-lived presidential campaign has finally found its forever home.

See original here:
Barack Obama Cant Be Bothered - The New York Times