Mediaboss Marketing

Lesli Margherita always has something amazing up her sleeve and this time she has pulled together a scathing and hilarious re-write of HAMILTON's "You'll Be Back". Addressed to Trump supporters feeling that buyer's remorse as the presidential administration draws constant attention for gaffs and bumps, Margherita as Hillary Clinton lounges in a pantsuit and fuzzy hot pink slippers and reminds the country what could have been.

Prior to a return to Matilda, to Margherita most recently starred as Mona Kent in the Broadway premiere of Dames at Sea. She won the Laurence Olivier Award for her performance in Zorro the Musical in London's West End. Fancy. Go to leslimargherita.com to see her other fancy jobs, like starring opposite Taye Diggs & Topher Grace in the upcoming feature Opening Night. She wrote a book, Neckpunch and Carry On (available on iTunes) and her cabaret shows continue to be performed across the country.

See original here:
STAGE TUBE: Margherita's Hillary Clinton Sends Out a Message to Trump Supporters: 'You'll Be Back' - Broadway World

My latest Counter Propa article highlights the U.S. Russia uranium deal that sent 20% uranium capacity to Russia. In 2015, The New York Times stated As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Has Vox or POLITIFACT analyzed this quote?

Or just Trumps wild accusations?

The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Vox, POLITIFACT, and others havent commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trumps awkwardly worded claims.

Hillary Clinton didnt give up 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obamas administration to approve the deal.

Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?

Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clintons speech at a Moscow bank?

Theres absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Also, nothing said at Trumps press conference refutes the fact Uranium One officials donated millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia.

After Trumps recent press conference, millions of Clinton loyalists gleefully read a POLITIFACT piece titled Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium.

That POLITIFACT piece references another POLITIFACT article titled In a nuclear claim, Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton gave up one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia.

Both articles rate the truthfulness of Trumps accusation that Clinton gave up (or was solely responsible) for the uranium sale.

As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in todays neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.

Frist, Clinton didnt even intentionally use a private server, so she didnt give up 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself.

The issue POLITIFACT, Vox and others conveniently circumvent is the New York Times quote stating As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Did millions of dollars to her Foundation influence Clinton?

Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last years AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to Americas Secretary of State:

This story (if Trump were the subject) would spark outrage today. Instead, Vox and others defended Clinton and denied any possible conflict to interest.

As for the uranium deal (approved under an Obama administration that eventually sanctioned Russia for alleged election tampering), its similar to Clintons weapons deal scandal reported by the International Business Times. Read the International Business Times article titled Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clintons State Department.

This all gets back to the POLITIFACT articles.

POLITIFACT states The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didnt act unilaterally.

And this is supposed to be a good thing?

The New York Times states The deal made Rosatom one of the worlds largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clintons State Department that approved a deal bringing Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

President Obamas administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.

If Putin is Americas great adversary, why did Clintons State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?

Why didnt President Obama veto the deal?

Why did Uranium One officials feel the need to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale?

This blind spot within American media is the reason Trump won the White House. Clinton engages in an overt controversy, and the American press focuses solely on the semantics within Trumps accusation. With Clinton, its never using a private server to hide information. Everything is merely a coincidence, or theres enough semantic leeway for plausible deniability. Yoga emails were deleted, not Clinton Foundation emails.

As for the billions lost in Haiti linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hatian-born journalist Daddy Cherry demands the Clintons Return Haitis Earthquake Billions.

Congratulations, vigilant and daring American press, whose only goal is to defeat Trump. Youve again focused on Trumps wild accusations, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Once again, America is playing Trumps game (fact checking based on semantics, as opposed to the overall picture) and refusing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a genuine conflict of interest. This paved the way for Trumps recent conflicts of interest.

Sure, Hillary Clinton didnt give up 20% of U.S. uranium.

Trump is wrong about Clinton giving the uranium to Putin.

Also, its 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, thats true.

There, feel better now DNC?

You shouldnt if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynns phone calls, or Trumps contacts with Russia.

I highlight the impact of the Obama administrations uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:

In the McCarthy era atmosphere of todays Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?

For every fact-checking piece mocking Trumps claims, simply reread the original NYT story. The New York Times explains the possible quid pro quo arrangement in a now legendary piece by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:

Again, would this be condoned if Trumps foundation had accepted millions from uranium one?

Also, why were Uranium One donations not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors?

Thered be widespread calls for impeachment if this happened with Trump, and people would be right.

The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars, as the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of Uranium One. Uranium One was already owned by the Kremlin, while the Podesta Group was lobbying on behalf of Uranium One. The Obama administration sold U.S. uranium to a company that was essentially owned by Putin.

The fact 9 agencies had to sign off on the deal is irrelevant. If Clintons State Department, under Obama approved the deal, this shows Hillary Clinton was never worried about Russian aggression or influence.

Uranium One officials felt the need to donate to Clintons Foundation during the uranium deal, and that brings up the question of Clintons influence on Obamas administration.

Most importantly, the Clinton Foundation coincidentally shut down its Global Initiative, shortly after Clinton lost, and no longer accepts foreign donations.

Why did Bill and Hillary shut down the Clinton Global Initiative?

Could it be that the Clintons no longer have access to give to donors?

Or is it only Trump who has conflicts of interest?

The Clinton Foundation did accept millions of dollars from Uranium One during the sale, approved under Obamas administration, while the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of company owned by Russia. In addition, the Panama Papers reveal Clintons ties to the Kremlin. Therefore, its a fact Clinton and President Obama presided over the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. If the fact Uranium One officials donated millions amid the deal doesnt bother you, then theres a job waiting for you at Vox.

H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication.

See more here:
Yes, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid US Russian Uranium Deal - Huffington Post

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came under fire for conducting government business on her personal email account, on a private device, via a private server. She later deleted thousands of emails without an independent review as to whether the deleted emails pertained to the publics business.

The concern in both of these cases is that the publics business is being conducted in the shadows, in breach of the ethical obligation that all public servants have to be transparent and accountable.

Both Clinton and White House staff may have violated federal public records laws if they deleted electronic documents required to be preserved. However, because they deleted communications on their own accord we cant know.

This is not just a problem on the national stage. San Francisco supervisors have been criticized for using a messaging app called Telegram that also deletes messages immediately.

After San Jose city council members conducted public business on private email, the city of San Jose was taken to court for refusal to turn over those private communications in a response to a Public Records Act request.

The citys stance is that it would be too burdensome on city resources to monitor the private emails of public officialsnot to mention the invasion of privacy that would result. The San Jose case is currently before the California Supreme Court.

Transparency in government is an ethical virtue. For the public to retain its trust in government, it must have confidence that those in public service are at all times acting in the best interest of the public. As stewards of the public trust, government leaders and employees have a fiduciary responsibility to act in a manner that is accountable to the public.

The California Constitution actually mandates that the publics ability to know what government is doing is a fundamental right. The preamble to the Brown Act-Californias open meeting law- makes a clear case as to why:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Open government policies such as public record regulations and open meeting laws ensure that those in government are acting for the common good, and they help keep a check on corruption.

All these noble concepts are for naught, however, if we do not stand up for our rights and require that the peoples business be conducted in the open. There are obvious exceptions for national security and personnel matters, but for the most part those in government have a responsibility to govern in a transparent manner.

The president should sign an executive order requiring that digital communications between executive branch employees be transmitted in such a way as to allow retention for the public record. Likewise, the State of California should update its open government laws to prohibit the use of private email accounts and devices to conduct public business.

To quote President Ronald Reagan, If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, as Jefferson cautioned, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed. It is up to us to assert our right to government in the light, not the shadows.

Hana Callaghan directs the government ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California. The opinions expressed are her own. She wrote this for The Mercury News.

Excerpt from:
Opinion: From San Jose council to Clinton to Trump, transparency matters - Milpitas Post

Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, was shot 10 times in the back and head the night of Oct. 10, 2012, by one or more agents firing through the border fence into Nogales, Sonora. Agents said they were assaulted by rock throwers. The Republic

A Texas case going before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2017, could determine whether the family of a teenager killed in Nogales, Mexico, will be able to sue the Border Patrol agent who fired the fatal shot through the border fence. Here, two of many bullet holes are circled on the emergency medical office building in Nogales, Sonora, where Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, died after being shot by a. Border Patrol agent on the other side of the fence.(Photo: Charlie Leight/The Republic)

A Texas case going beforethe U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesdaycould determinewhether the family of a teenager killed in Nogales, Mexico, will be able to sue the Border Patrol agent who fired the fatal shot through the border fence.

The high court will hear oral arguments in Hernandez vs.Mesa, a case involving the 2010 killing of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, 15, in Juarez, Mexico. A Border Patrol agent firing from the U.S. side of the border killedthe teen as he peered out from behind a train trestle on the Mexican side.

A definitive rulingby the Supreme Court would determine whether people standing inMexico and killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents have a constitutional right to sue for damagesin the U.S.

The circumstances of the Texas case are similar to a 2012 shooting in Nogales, Mexico, where Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, was shot 10 times in the back and head by Border Patrol Agent Lonnie Swartz. Swartzfired through the slats in the border fence from Nogales, Arizona. Swartz saidrocks were being thrown, prompting him to fire numerous times,reload his gun and fire again.

After the shooting, Swartz began to vomit and said, "I shot and there's someone dead in Mexico," according to court filings. Witnesses said no rocks were thrown.Theformerassistant commissionerof Customs and Border Protection'sOffice of Internal Affairs said the same in a deposition, also noting that it wasimplausible for rocks thrown from Mexico to hit someone on the U.S. side of the fence becausethe Mexican side is about 25 feet lower in the area where the shooting took place.

Swartz has been charged with second degree murder in federal court.

Elena Rodriguez's family also filed a civil suit against Swartz in U.S. District Court in Tucson. In July2015, U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins ruledElena Rodriguezwas entitled to protections of the Fourth Amendment "even as a non-citizen standing on foreign soil."The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

An appeal of that decisionwas heard in October by a three-judge panel of the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Appellate Judge Milan Smithsaid that because of the similar legal issuesin the Nogales and Juarez cases, the 9th Circuit ordinarily would have waited for the Supreme Court to rule in the Juarez case. However, Smith saidit was necessary for the 9th Circuit to move ahead with oral arguments in the Nogales case in casethe Supreme Court'sdecision in the Texas caseresults ina 4-4 tie.

The Supreme Court has had just eight justicessince the death last yearof Justice Antonin Scalia.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The cases "involve almost identical legal issues," said attorney Sean Chapman, who represents Swartz in both the criminal and civil cases." That's what is interesting about it. ... It's incredibility similar to the Rodriguez case in Arizona. I'm waiting to see what theydo."

If the Supreme Court deadlocks,the 5th U.S.Circuit Court of Appealsruling that Guereca's family cannotsue the Border Patrol agent in the U.S. would stand in the 5th Circuit.Then the 9th Circuit could rule on the Elena Rodriguez case, Chapmansaid.

"I think the 9th Circuit is waiting to see what happens on Hernandez," he added.

If the Supreme Court were to deadlockand the 9th Circuit rulesthat Elena Rodriguez's family does have the right to sue, then the issue likely would head back to the Supreme Court because two appellatecourts would have divergent rulings, Chapman said.

However, if the Supreme Court does not deadlock and rules definitively for or against, it "presumably is going to set the law for these cross-border shootings for at least several generations," said Steve Shadowen, an attorney for the Guereca family, whosecase is before the Supreme Court.

The parents of Sergio Adrian Guereca, a Mexican teenager killed in Juarez in 2010 by a Border Patrol agent shooting across the U.S.-Mexico border, speak out about their son's death in a 2014 interview. Nick Oza/azcentral.com

There have been at least six such cross-border shooting cases since 2010, including the cases in Juarez and Nogales.

Once the Supreme Court rules, "it takes a long time, if ever, for the law to change," Shadowen said.

Both the 5th and 9th Circuit courtshave argued over whether the case should be brought under the Fourth or Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

In the Texas case,a 5th Circuit panel ruled the family had a right to sue the agent under the Fifth Amendment but not under the Fourth Amendment. That ruling was later reversed.

The 9th Circuit judges asked questions alongsimilar lines as the5th Circuit panel. They said theFourth Amendment refers to the right of the people, which is interpretedas rights of U.S. citizens. Butthe Fifth Amendment refers more broadly to any person,making it easier toapply to a non-citizen standing in Mexico.

Shadowen said he feels confident in the Juarez case that will be argued Tuesday before the Supreme Court.

"From the beginning we knew we were in the right legally and morally and we still feel that way," Shadowen said.

Border fence in Nogales, Arizona.(Photo: Nick Oza/azcentral)

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2ljBcDp

Read this article:
Supreme Court: Can Mexican citizens sue Border Patrol agents in cross-border killings? - AZCentral.com

As Donald Trump prepares for his inauguration, he is struggling with opposition from the US media, intelligence agencies, government apparatus, parts of the Republican Party and a significant portion of the American population. Impressive obstacles appear to prevent him exercising arbitrary power.

He should take heart: much the same was said in Turkey of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2002 when he led his Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the first of four election victories. He faced an army that, through coups and the threat of coups, was the ultimate source of power in the country, and a secular establishment suspicious of his Islamist beliefs. But over the years he has outmanoeuvred or eliminated his enemies and using a failed military coup on 15 July last year as an excuse is suppressing and punishing all signs of dissent as terrorism.

As Trump enters the White House, the AKP and far right nationalist super majority in the Turkish parliament is this month stripping the assembly of its powers and transferring them wholesale to the presidency. President Erdogan will become an elected dictator able to dissolve parliament, veto legislation, decide the budget, appoint ministers who do not have to be MPs along with senior officials and heads of universities.

All power will be concentrated in Erdogans hands as the office of prime minister is abolished and the president, who can serve three five year terms, takes direct control of the intelligence services. He will appoint senior judges and the head of state institutions including the education system.

These far-reaching constitutional changes are reinforcing an ever-expanding purge begun after the failed military coup last year, in which more than 100,000 civil servants have been detained or dismissed. This purge is now reaching into every walk of life, from liberal journalists to businessmen who have seen $10bn in assets confiscated by the state.

The similarities between Erdogan and Trump are greater than they might seem, despite the very different political traditions in the US and Turkey.

The parallel lies primarily in the methods by which both men have gained power and seek to enhance it. They are populists and nationalists who demonise their enemies and see themselves as surrounded by conspiracies. Success does not sate their pursuit of more authority.

Hopes in the US that, after Trumps election in November, he would shift from aggressive campaign mode to a more conciliatory approach have dissipated over the last two months. Towards the media his open hostility has escalated, as was shown by his abuse of reporters at his press conference this week.

Manic sensitivity to criticism is a hallmark of both men. In Trumps case this is exemplified by his tweeted denunciation of critics such as Meryl Streep, while in Turkey 2,000 people have been charged with insulting the president. One man was tried for posting on Facebook three pictures of Gollum, the character in The Lord of the Rings, with similar facial features to pictures of Erdogan posted alongside. Of the 259 journalists in jail around the world, no less than 81 are in Turkey. American reporters may not yet face similar penalties, but they can expect intense pressure on the institutions for which they work to mute their criticisms.

Turkey and the US may have very different political landscapes, but there is a surprising degree of uniformity in the behaviour of Trump and Erdogan. The same is true of populist, nationalist, authoritarian leaders who are taking power in many different parts of the world from Hungary and Poland to the Philippines. Commentators have struggled for a phrase to describe this phenomenon, such as the age of demagoguery, but this refers only to one method and that not the least important by which such leaders gain power.

This type of political leadership is not new: the most compelling account of it was written 70 years ago in 1947 by the great British historian Sir Lewis Namier, in an essay reflecting on what he termed Caesarian democracy, which over the previous century had produced Napoleon III in France, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. His list of the most important aspects of this toxic brand of politics is as relevant today as it was when first written, since all the items apply to Trump, Erdogan and their like.

Namier described Caesarian democracy as typified by its direct appeal to the masses: demagogical slogans; disregard of legality despite a professed guardianship of law and order; contempt of political parties and the parliamentary system, of the educated classes and their values; blandishments and vague, contradictory promises to all and sundry; militarism; gigantic blatant displays and shady corruption. Panem et circenses [bread and circuses] once more and at the end of the road, disaster.

Disaster comes in different forms. One disability of elected dictators or strongmen is that, impelled by an exaggerated idea of their own capacity, they undertake foreign military adventures beyond their countrys strength. As an isolationist Trump might steer clear of such quagmires, but most of his senior security appointments show a far more aggressive and interventionist streak.

A strength of President Obama was that he had a realistic sense of what was attainable by the US in the Middle East without starting unwinnable wars as President George W Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential election campaign, Trump showed signs of grasping as Hillary Clinton did not that Americans do not want to fight another ground war in the Middle East or anywhere else. But this naturally limits US influence in the world and will be at odds with Trumps slogan about making America great again.

The disaster that Namier predicted was the natural end of elected dictators has already begun to happen in Turkey. The Turkish leader may have succeeded in monopolising power at home, but at the price of provoking crises and deepening divisions within Turkish society. The country is embroiled in the war in Syria, thanks to Erdogans ill-judged intervention there since 2011. This led to the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) establishing a de facto state in northern Syria and Isis doing the same in Syria and Iraq. At home, Erdogan restarted the war with the Turkish Kurds for electoral reasons in 2015 and the conflict is now more intractable than ever.

Every few weeks in Turkey there is another terrorist attack which is usually the work of Isis or a faction of the PKK although the government sometimes blames atrocities on the followers of Fethullah Gulen, who are alleged to have carried out the attempted military coup last July. In addition to this, there is an escalating financial crisis, which has seen the Turkish lira lose 12 per cent of its value over the last two weeks. Foreign and domestic investment is drying up as investors become increasingly convinced that Turkey has become chronically unstable.

Erdogan and Trump have a further point in common: both have an unquenchable appetite for power and achieve it by exploiting and exacerbating divisions within their own countries.

They declare they will make their countries great again, but in practise make them weaker.

They are forever sawing through the branch on which they and everybody else are sitting.

Excerpt from:
The terrifying parallels between Trump and Erdogan - The ...