Ex-FBI official: ‘Crime may have been committed’ by Donald Trump
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview that aired Sunday that a “crime may have been committed” when President Donald Trump fired the head of the FBI and tried to publicly undermine an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. McCabe also said in the interview with “60 Minutes” that the FBI had good reason to open a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was in league with Russia, and therefore a possible national security threat, following the May 2017 firing of then-FBI Director James Comey. “And the idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, “Why would a president of the United States do that?” McCabe said. He added: “So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?” Asked whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was onboard with the obstruction and counterintelligence investigations, McCabe replied, “Absolutely.” A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday night. McCabe also revealed that when Trump told Rosenstein to put in writing his concerns with Comey — a document the White House initially held up as justification for his firing — the president explicitly asked the Justice Department official to reference Russia in the memo. Rosenstein did not want to, McCabe said, and the memo that was made public upon Comey’s dismissal did not mention Russia and focused instead on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation. “He explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo,” McCabe said. “And the president responded, “I understand that, I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.” Trump said in a TV interview days after Comey’s firing that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he fired Comey. Those actions, including a separate request by Trump that the FBI end an investigation into his first national adviser, Michael Flynn, made the FBI concerned that the president was illegally trying to obstruct the Russia probe. “Put together, these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed,” McCabe said. “The president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey.” McCabe was fired from the Justice Department last year after being accused of misleading investigators during an internal probe into a news media disclosure. The allegation was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington for possible prosecution, but no charges have been brought. McCabe has denied having intentionally lied and said Sunday that he believes his firing was politically motivated. “I believe I was fired because I opened a case against the president of the United States,” he said. In the interview Sunday, McCabe also said Rosenstein in the days after Comey’s firing had proposed wearing a wire to secretly record the president. McCabe said he took the remark seriously, though the Justice Department last September — responding last September to a New York Times report that first revealed the conversation — issued a statement from an unnamed official who was in the room and interpreted the remark as sarcastic. McCabe said the remark was made during a conversation about why Trump had fired Comey. “And in the context of that conversation, the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House. He said, “‘I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there,’” McCabe said. In excerpts released last week by CBS News, McCabe also described a conversation in which Rosenstein had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. The Justice Department said in a statement that Rosenstein, based on his dealings with Trump, does not see cause to seek the removal of the president. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is seeking her party’s nomination for president, told reporters after a campaign event Sunday in Las Vegas that if the people around Trump believe he cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a duty to invoke the 25th Amendment. A favorite target of Trump’s ire, Warren said she has no special knowledge on whether there are grounds to remove Trump from office but said that “there are a whole lot of people who do see him every day who evidently were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Report: Poverty and crime put 5 Alabama cities on list of 50 worst places to live
A list of the 50 worst cities in America to live in has been compiled by 24/7 Wall Street, and five Alabama cities have made the list. 24/7 is a web based news source which according to their website that has seen articles “republished by many of the largest news sites and portals, including MSN Money, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Time.com, USAToday, and The Huffington Post”. According to the study’s authors the list was determined metrics that rank “high crime rates, widespread poverty, weak job markets, and little in the way of entertainment options or cultural attractions.” California had the most cities on the list with ten. You can view the entire methodology here. Lowest on the list is Arab, located in Marshall County. With a population of around 8,200, the poverty rate is more than 17 percent. With 549 violent crimes per 100,000 people, it is in the top 25 percent of cities for that measure.That is more than double the national average. 24/7 Wall Street says “Few U.S. cities are shedding jobs faster than the northern Alabama city of Arab. In the last five years, the number of people working in the city declined by 9.8%, even as employment across the U.S. as a whole climbed by 6.1%.” Next is Fairfield, which comes in just one place higher, at 34th. Part of the Birmingham metropolitan area, Fairfield has a population of nearly 11,000 with just over 25 percent living below the poverty line. Their violent crime rate of 1,905 per 100,000 people puts them in the top 10 percent, while the median home value of $96,000 puts that in the bottom 25 percent. Like Arab, unemployment is a major problem. While national unemployment is 4.1 percent, Fairfield comes in at 7 percent. Pritchard ranks 12th on the list. A key factor in this is job loss, losing 17 percent of their jobs in the last five years, one of the highest rates in the country. Over that same period, employment nationally went up 6.1 percent. Perhaps because of this job loss, the median salary in Pritchard is $25,000 (less than half of the U.S. median), and their population dropped by 3.4 percent. Pritchard’s poverty rate (35.1 percent) and violent crime rate (1,826 per 100,000) are in the top 10 percent nationwide and the median home value ($67,400) is in the bottom ten percent. Anniston comes in at ninth place. Anniston has the most violent crimes per 100,000 people (3,434) of any city in the country, 24/7 Wall Street reports. The poverty rate of nearly 30 percent is in the top ten percent nationally, and the city’s population has declined nearly five percent in the last five years. At the same time, the number of people working within that city is just over 10 percent. Coming in as the sixth worst city in America in which to live, and the worst in Alabama, is Bessemer. Just behind Anniston, Bessemer comes in second for violent crimes per 100,000 people (2,986) according to 24/7 Wall Street. “Nearly 30% of residents live in poverty, and more than one in three residents have low access to grocery store or super markets. The typical Bessemer home earns less than $32,000 a year, well below the U.S. median annual household income of $57,652,” the site reads. Changes on the way? Things could be changing. Gov. Kay Ivey has made workforce development a key initiative, and companies and government entities are moving into Alabama or expanding, bringing tens of thousands of jobs with them. Ivey won the Business Council of Alabama‘s (BCA) 2018 Chairman’s Award for pro-business initiatives which had, at that time, already brought an $8 billion investment and 16,000 jobs to the state. “Governor Ivey’s support of a thriving business climate has been key to landing coveted economic projects including the new Toyota-Mazda plant and its 4,000 anticipated jobs to north Alabama,” said BCA chairman Gary Hand. “Governor Ivey supports a business environment which grows tech companies and she continues to be a strong recruiter of companies in the automotive, aviation, and aerospace sectors.”
Birmingham Councilor Lashunda Scales: hold parents accountable for their kids’ crimes
Violence is beginning to feel all too familiar in Birmingham, Ala. Over Labor Day weekend, eight teenagers were shot in the Magic City, one when someone fired multiple rounds from outside of his home into his bedroom in East Lake, another seven outside of WorkPlay Theatre on Sunday evening following a dispute that began inside the club. One Birmingham City Councilor thinks it’s time to start holding parents accountable for these senseless acts of violence that their children commit. “I’ve been trying to get a bill sponsored where we could put some teeth into holding parents accountable for what they call ‘Capricious Acts’ or contributing to acts of violence of their children,” Scales explained. Scales has asked the Jefferson Delegation to help write legislation that would make stiffer penalties for parents whose children commit violent crimes — including fines and potential jail time. “If these parents know that the child has either a gun in their possession, a knife, and communicating with friends who may not be necessarily in the child’s best interest and they know this is creating a gang activity, we are saying to you parents, you are our best police,” Scales told WBRC. She continued, “We need parents to understand the severity of what’s happening in our streets amongst children who are under the age of 17. So, what I believe will happen is when parents have to pay out of their pocket, when parents are being placed in jail because they knew they had contributed to the violent acts of their children, then that’s going to make them get on to those children and they will do the things that they need to do as parents.” Scales said she when she was growing up parents were more involved and it’s time for that to happen again. “When we were growing up… you didn’t have to worry about the police too much because your momma and your daddy took care of that business,” Scales said at the Council meeting. “The police cannot do what a parents is supposed to be doing. The police are supposed to pick up where we leave off. That doesn’t mean we leave what we’re supposed to be doing. At some point we’re going to have to take personal responsibility.” “At the end of the day we’re going to have to establish some kind of respect for authority. And we’re going to have to hold everybody accountable.” No police chief is going to solve the crimes of this city alone. It’s going to take all of us working together.” Watch the full City Council meeting below:
Randall Woodfin takes unorthodox approach: ‘Give me me your gun… I’ll help you find a job’
Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin is taking an unorthodox approach to tackling his city’s crime problem. He’s telling residents that if they’re down on the luck and have a gun to turn it over to him, and he’ll personally help them find a job. “Give me your gun and I will personally help you get a job,” Woodfin said Saturday morning while speaking with members of the Birmingham Association of Black Journalists according to AL.com. Thus far in 2018, there have been 34 homicides within Birmingham’s city limits. Only five have been classified “justifiable,” which is perhaps the reason Woodfin is thinking outside of the box on how to curb crime in his city and offering to personally get involved in the solution. “We have a full breach of public safety in this community,” he continued. “If we don’t attack crime, nothing else matters.” But Woodfin doesn’t think he holds all the answers to the city’s problems — he says he’s also open to hearing suggestions from others. “There is an element in our city that doesn’t care about other people’s lives, Woodfin explained. “If any organization has a better way of stopping them than arresting them, show me. I will sit with them as long as needed… I’m willing to talk with any group, but they’ve got to be on the solutions end.”
No Alabama city makes list of America’s top 100 safest
With fears of falling victim to cybercrime and mass shootings topping the list of crime worries among Americans, according to the most recent Gallup polls, the personal-finance website WalletHub took an in-depth look at 2017’s Safest Cities in America. To determine where Americans can feel most protected against life’s hazards, including nonphysical forms of danger, WalletHub’s analysts compared more than 180 U.S. cities across 35 key metrics broken down into three categories: home and community safety, natural disaster risk, and financial safety. They weighted each category and gave every city a score from 1 to 100. WalletHub analysts considered only the city proper, excluding cities in the surrounding metro area, and based its rankings on data from federal agencies, realty websites, and various nonprofit organizations. None of Alabama’s four largest cities broke the top 100 safest citiest on WalletHub’s list. Here’s how Alabama cities ranked: Montgomery: 107 Home and Community Safety Rank: 106 Financial Safety Rank: 172 Natural Disaster Risk Rank: 189 Huntsville: 113 Home and Community Safety Rank: 107 Financial Safety Rank: 86 Natural Disaster Risk Rank: 142 Mobile: 123 Home and Community Safety Rank: 118 Financial Safety Rank: 156 Natural Disaster Risk Rank: 107 Birmingham: 145 Home and Community Safety Rank: 126 Financial Safety Rank: 177 Natural Disaster Risk Rank: 135 Here’s a look at how Alabama compares to the rest of the country: Source: WalletHub
Alabama lands in top ten for least safest states in America
In order to help American families find the most secure places to lay down roots, personal finance site WalletHub released a new report of 2017’s Safest States in America revealing the safest and most dangerous states in the country. “With every new headline about a mass shooting, terrorist attack, hate crime or natural disaster, many of us fear for our safety and that of our loved ones,” the report read. “Safety is a fundamental human need. And we require some form of it, such as personal and financial protection, in every setting of daily life. But we’re likely to feel more secure in some states than in others.” Released during National Safety Month, in the new study WalletHub analysts compared the 50 states across 37 key safety indicators grouped into five different categories. The data set ranges from assaults per capita to unemployment rate to total loss amounts from climate disasters per capita. The Yellowhammer State was ranked 40th overall, weighed down by particularly low scores for both financial safety (48th out of 50) and emergency preparedness (44th). Personal and residential safety (33rd) and workplace safety (35th) fared little better. The only bright spot on Alabama’s safety report card is road safety (11th). Here’s a look at how Alabama compares to the rest of the country: Source: WalletHub
FBI reviews handling of terrorism-related tips
The FBI has been reviewing the handling of thousands of terrorism-related tips and leads from the past three years to make sure they were properly investigated and no obvious red flags were missed, The Associated Press has learned. The review follows attacks by people who were once on the FBI’s radar but who have been accused in the past 12 months of massacring innocents in an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, injuring people on the streets of New York City, and gunning down travelers in a Florida airport. In each case, the suspects had been determined not to warrant continued law enforcement scrutiny months and sometimes years before the attacks. The internal audit, which has not been previously reported, began this year and is being conducted in FBI field offices across the country. A senior federal law enforcement official described the review as an effort to “err on the side of caution.” The audit is essentially a review of records to ensure proper FBI procedures were followed. It’s an acknowledgment of the challenge the FBI has faced, particularly in recent years, in predicting which of the tens of thousands of tips the bureau receives annually might materialize one day into a viable threat. Investigations that go dormant because of a lack of evidence can resurface instantly when a subject once under scrutiny commits violence or displays fresh signs of radicalization. FBI Director James Comey has likened the difficulty to finding not only a needle in a haystack but determining which piece of hay may become a needle. Though there’s no indication of significant flaws in how terrorism inquiries are opened and closed, the review is a way for the FBI to “refine and adapt to the threat, and part of that is always making sure you cover your bases,” said the law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter by name. The pace of the FBI’s counterterrorism work accelerated with the rise of the Islamic State group, which in 2014 declared the creation of its so-called caliphate in Syria and Iraq and has used sophisticated propaganda to lure disaffected Westerners to its cause. By the summer of 2015, Comey has said, the FBI was “strapped” in keeping tabs on the group’s American sympathizers and identifying those most inclined to commit violence. Social media outreach by IS has appealed to people not previously known to the FBI but also enticed some who once had been under scrutiny to get “back in the game,” said Seamus Hughes, deputy director of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. “The fact that there was a physical location and a caliphate announced, it helped kind of drive folks back in when they might have drifted away,” Hughes said. The review covers inquiries the FBI internally classifies as “assessments” — the lowest level, least intrusive and most elementary stage of a terror-related inquiry — and is examining ones from the past three years to make sure all appropriate investigative avenues were followed, according to a former federal law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the process. Assessments are routinely opened upon a tip — whether from someone concerned about things such as activity in a neighbor’s garage, a co-worker’s comments or expressions of support for IS propaganda — and are catalogued by the FBI. The bureau receives tens of thousands of tips a year, and averages more than 10,000 assessments annually. FBI guidelines meant to balance national security with civil liberties protections impose restrictions on the steps agents may take during the assessment phase. Agents, for instance, may analyze information from government databases and open-source internet searches, and can conduct interviews. But they cannot turn to more intrusive techniques, such as requesting a wiretap or internet communications, without higher levels of approval and a more solid basis to suspect a crime or national security threat. The guidelines explicitly discourage open-ended inquiries and say assessments are designed to be “relatively short,” with a supervisor signing off on extension requests. Many assessments are closed within days or weeks when the FBI concludes there’s no criminal or national security threat, or basis for continued scrutiny. The system is meant to ensure that a person who has not broken the law does not remain under perpetual scrutiny on a mere hunch that a crime could eventually be committed. But on occasion, and within the past year, it’s also meant that people the FBI once looked at but did not find reason to arrest later went on to commit violence. In the case of Omar Mateen, that scrutiny was extensive, detailed and lengthy. Mateen, who shot and killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub in June, was investigated for 10 months in 2013 and interviewed twice after a co-worker reported that Mateen had claimed connections to al-Qaida. As part of a preliminary investigation, agents recorded Mateen’s conversations and introduced him to confidential sources before closing the matter. That kind of investigation is more intensive than an assessment and permits a broader menu of tactics, but it also requires a stronger basis for suspicion. Mateen was questioned again in 2014 in a separate investigation into a suicide bomber acquaintance. Comey has said he has personally reviewed that inquiry’s handling and has concluded it was done well. The FBI in 2014 also opened an assessment on Ahmad Khan Rahimi, who last September was charged in bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey, based on concerns expressed by his father. The FBI said it closed the review after checking databases and travel and finding nothing that tied him to terrorism. Esteban Santiago, the man accused in the January shooting at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport that killed five people, had also been looked at by the FBI. He had walked into the bureau’s office in Anchorage, Alaska, two months earlier and claimed his mind was being controlled by U.S. intelligence officials. In that case, too, the FBI closed its assessment after interviewing family members and checking databases. Each act of
Paul Manafort had plan to benefit Vladamir Putin government
President Donald Trump‘s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests. Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work. “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.” Manafort’s plans were laid out in documents obtained by the AP that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear. The disclosure comes as Trump campaign advisers are the subject of an FBI probe and two congressional investigations. Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates coordinated with Moscow to meddle in the 2016 campaign. Manafort has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and misguided, and said he never worked for Russian interests. The documents obtained by AP show Manafort’s ties to Russia were closer than previously revealed. In a statement to the AP, Manafort confirmed that he worked for Deripaska in various countries but said the work was being unfairly cast as “inappropriate or nefarious” as part of a “smear campaign.” “I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Manafort said. “My work for Mr. Deripaska did not involve representing Russia’s political interests.” Deripaska became one of Russia’s wealthiest men under Putin, buying assets abroad in ways widely perceived to benefit the Kremlin’s interests. U.S. diplomatic cables from 2006 described Deripaska as “among the 2-3 oligarchs Putin turns to on a regular basis” and “a more-or-less permanent fixture on Putin’s trips abroad.” In response to questions about Manafort’s consulting firm, a spokesman for Deripaska in 2008 — at least three years after they began working together — said Deripaska had never hired the firm. Another Deripaska spokesman in Moscow last week declined to answer AP’s questions. Manafort worked as Trump’s unpaid campaign chairman last year from March until August. Trump asked Manafort to resign after AP revealed that Manafort had orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation until 2014 on behalf of Ukraine’s ruling pro-Russian political party. The newly obtained business records link Manafort more directly to Putin’s interests in the region. According to those records and people with direct knowledge of Manafort’s work for Deripaska, Manafort made plans to open an office in Moscow, and at least some of Manafort’s work in Ukraine was directed by Deripaska, not local political interests there. The Moscow office never opened. Manafort has been a leading focus of the U.S. intelligence investigation of Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a U.S. official. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the investigation were confidential. Meanwhile, federal criminal prosecutors became interested in Manafort’s activities years ago as part of a broad investigation to recover stolen Ukraine assets after the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych there in early 2014. No U.S. criminal charges have ever been filed in the case. FBI Director James Comey, in confirming to Congress the federal intelligence investigation this week, declined to say whether Manafort was a target. Manafort’s name was mentioned 28 times during the hearing of the House Intelligence Committee, mostly about his work in Ukraine. No one mentioned Deripaska. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday that Manafort “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” in the campaign, even though as Trump’s presidential campaign chairman he led it during the crucial run-up to the Republican National Convention. Manafort and his associates remain in Trump’s orbit. Manafort told a colleague this year that he continues to speak with Trump by telephone. Manafort’s former business partner in eastern Europe, Rick Gates, has been seen inside the White House on a number of occasions. Gates has since helped plan Trump’s inauguration and now runs a nonprofit organization, America First Policies, to back the White House agenda. Gates, whose name does not appear in the documents, told the AP that he joined Manafort’s firm in 2006 and was aware Manafort had a relationship with Deripaska, but he was not aware of the work described in the memos. Gates said his work was focused on domestic U.S. lobbying and political consulting in Ukraine at the time. He said he stopped working for Manafort’s firm in March 2016 when he joined Trump’s presidential campaign. Manafort told Deripaska in 2005 that he was pushing policies as part of his work in Ukraine “at the highest levels of the U.S. government — the White House, Capitol Hill and the State Department,” according to the documents. He also said he had hired a “leading international law firm with close ties to President Bush to support our client’s interests,” but he did not identify the firm. Manafort also said he was employing unidentified legal experts for the effort at leading universities and
Jeff Sessions says murder uptick threatens progress on crime
Attorney General Jeff Sessions painted a grim vision of violence in America on Tuesday, telling state law enforcement officials that a recent uptick in murders threatens to undo decades of progress. He pledged to “put bad men behind bars.” In his first major policy speech as attorney general, Sessions promised that combating violent crime would be a top priority of the Justice Department. He warned of a surging heroin epidemic with drugs pouring in from Mexico, of police officers made to feel overly cautious for fear of being captured on “viral videos” and of rising homicide rates in big cities. “We are diminished as a nation when any of our citizens fear for their life when they leave their home; or when terrified parents put their children to sleep in bathtubs to keep them safe from stray bullets; or when entire neighborhoods are at the mercy of drug dealers, gangs and other violent criminals,” Sessions said, according to prepared remarks to the National Association of Attorneys General. Sessions promised that his Justice Department would prioritize cases against violent offenders, aggressively enforce immigration laws and work to dismantle drug cartels. He announced the creation of a multi-agency task force, to be headed by the deputy attorney general, to propose crime-fighting legislation and study crime trends. He said the task force would include the heads of Justice Department agencies such as the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Although it is true, according to FBI statistics, that homicide and other violent crimes have recently been on the rise, the numbers are nowhere close to where they were in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it’s hardly clear that the recent spike reflects a trend rather than an anomaly. Sessions’ early focus on drug and violent crime is a radical departure for a Justice Department that has viewed as more urgent the prevention of cyberattacks from foreign criminals, international bribery and the threat of homegrown violent extremism. Yet Sessions made no apologies for his focus on violent crime, saying he was concerned the increase could be part of a “dangerous new trend.” “We need to enforce our laws and put men behind bars,” said the former Alabama senator and federal prosecutor. “And we need to support the brave men and women of law enforcement as they work day and night to protect us.” He also indicated that, unlike his Democratic-appointed predecessors, he believes some police officers have pulled back on enforcement because of anxiety their actions could be recorded on video and scrutinized by the public. “They’re more reluctant to get out of their squad cars and do the hard but necessary work of up-close policing that builds trust and prevents violent crime,” Sessions said. FBI Director James Comey has floated the idea that the change in police behavior could help explain increases in crime, although former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch both refused to embrace that idea. Past attorneys general have used their appearances before their state counterparts to make policy pronouncements. In 2014, for instance, Holder said state attorneys general were not obligated to defend laws in their states banning same-sex marriage if the laws discriminate in a way forbidden by the Constitution. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
The Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton Twitter war: Bludgeon vs. stiletto
Back in June, when Donald Trump slammed President Barack Obama‘s endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Twitter, the Democrat’s campaign was quick to tweet back a chilly three-word response: “Delete your account.” It was a telling exchange, and not just because it set the stage for what has become the country’s first nationwide Twitter election. It also highlighted the striking, and very different, ways both presidential hopefuls have used the service to hone their messages, hurl accusations at one another and speak directly to voters — in effect, bypassing traditional media while also relying on it to amplify their retorts. So entrenched has Twitter become in the 2016 election that it can be difficult to remember just how new it is in this context. Four years ago, candidates Obama and Mitt Romney were just testing the waters with social media. This year, it’s a major source of information — political and otherwise — for a huge number of Americans. In a Pew Research Center poll last January, 44 percent of adults said they had learned about the election in the previous week from social media, more than cited print newspapers. “People are using Twitter to connect more directly to the live events, moments and candidates of this campaign in a way that voters have never been able to do before,” says Adam Sharp, Twitter’s head of news, government and elections. STILETTO VS. BLUDGEON The candidates are certainly making the most of it. While Trump says he writes many of his tweets himself, especially at night, Clinton’s staff acknowledges producing the vast majority of hers. And Trump is definitely ahead by one crude measure: His followers outnumber Clinton’s, 12.7 million to 10 million. The former reality-TV star and GOP presidential nominee draws outsized attention for what he’s tweeting and retweeting on a near-daily basis, most recently for his attacks on fellow Republicans and unsupported claims that the Nov. 8 election will be “rigged.” During his primary campaign, Trump drew regular news coverage for Twitter assaults that bludgeoned opponents with insults and sometimes baseless charges. Trump’s approach hasn’t changed much in the general election, although his focus on his political opponent sometimes wavers. While he constantly refers to Clinton as “Crooked Hillary” and has continued to criticize the media for reporting that he is falling behind in the polls, he’s also launched long, and sometimes late-night, Twitter broadsides on a beauty queen, the Muslim family of a slain U.S. soldier and a federal judge. The Trump campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment. When the Clinton camp goes on the attack, by contrast, it uses Twitter more as a stiletto than a club. “Delete your account” is a popular internet meme, an arch putdown that suggests someone just said something so embarrassingly stupid that they should just slink away and disappear. The response was an immediate hit that ricocheted around blogs and news sites for days; it’s been retweeted more than half a million times. Trump is “that rough individual who will say anything,” a stance that his supporters find “very refreshing,” says Ian Bogost, a communications professor at Georgia Tech. Clinton’s tweet, by contrast, “signals to her base that she’s with-it on the internet,” he noted in an earlier piece in the Atlantic. In his first debate with Clinton on Sept. 26, Trump denied saying that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Clinton’s social media team immediately pounced, retweeting Trump’s own 2013 tweet in which he said just that. After Clinton referred to a large fraction of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables ” for their sexism and racism, Trump retweeted a 2012 Obama tweet that argued the country doesn’t need a president “who writes off nearly half the country.” But Trump has also drawn fire for repeatedly retweeting white nationalists and promulgating at least one image condemned as anti-Semitic, an association Trump denied. SEIZING THE WHEEL Unsurprisingly, the two campaigns have very different social media goals. Trump, who joined Twitter in 2009, has long used the medium as a direct channel to the public for promoting himself and testing the political waters — for instance, by fueling the lie that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Trump’s campaign staffers do sometimes seize the wheel, as when the account tweeted “thoughts and prayers ” for NBA star Dwayne Wade following the shooting death of his cousin in August. Trump’s first tweet on the subject 82 minutes earlier had noted the shooting and crowed, “Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!” Some analysts have noticed that most Trump-y tweets from Trump’s account originate from a different mobile device than ones that could have come from any traditional politician. That has spawned endless jokes — mainly on Twitter, naturally — along the lines of how his campaign staff fails to take away Trump’s phone during his tirades. The Clinton campaign takes a more traditional approach, operating as its own massive brand rather than as a singular, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants candidate. (Rare tweets directly from the candidate are signed “-H.”) Many of the campaign’s tweets are the typical boilerplate of politics — thanks to supporters, reiterations of the candidate’s positions, forwarding news of endorsements and other developments. Clinton’s approach hasn’t always fared well; an early tweet asking people to share how student debt makes them feel in “3 emojis or less ” quickly backfired. Responses on Twitter included, “This is like when your mom tries to be hip in front of your friends and totally fails at it.” THE DIGITAL 100 Twitter is just part of a much larger Clinton digital presence run by a 100-person “digital team” that extends from Twitter to Snapchat to Quora to YouTube to Pinterest. It’s designed to draw in a broad range of voters, from young, social media savvy fans to Pinterest moms, while also working to undercut her rival on some of his favorite stomping grounds. Clinton’s digital team offered Snapchat filters during the GOP convention that let people paste old Trump
Face to face one last time: Debate night for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump‘s long and acrimonious battle for the White House is speeding toward the end, with the candidates taking the debate stage Wednesday night for one final prime-time showdown. For Trump, the debate is perhaps his last opportunity to turn around a race that appears to be slipping away. His predatory comments about women and a flood of sexual assault accusations have deepened his unpopularity with women and limited his pathways to victory. Trump has denied the accusations and his supporters remain intensely loyal, but there are few signs he’s attracting the new backers he desperately needs. Clinton takes the stage with challenges of her own. While the electoral map currently leans in her favor, the Democrat is facing a new round of questions about her trustworthiness, concerns that have trailed her throughout the campaign. The hacking of her top campaign adviser’s emails revealed a candidate who is averse to apologizing, can strike a different tone in private than in public, and makes some decisions only after political deliberations. The last in a trio of presidential debates, Wednesday’s contest in Las Vegas comes just under three weeks from Election Day and with early voting underway in more than 30 states. At least 2.1 million voters have cast ballots already. Trump has leaned on an increasingly brazen strategy in the campaign’s closing weeks, including peddling charges that the election will be rigged, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud in U.S. presidential contests. H(s running mate, Mike Pence, has insisted they’ll accept the election results. On Wednesday, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, seemed to undercut Trump’s argument by saying she didn’t believe there was widespread voter fraud. “Absent overwhelming evidence that there is, it would not be for me to say that there is,” Conway told MSNBC. Trump has also charged that Clinton attacked and intimidated women involved with her husband’s affairs, bringing three women who accused former President Bill Clinton of unwanted sexual contact and even rape to sit in the audience for the second debate. The former president has never been charged with crimes related to the encounters, though he did settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. Trump is bringing President Barack Obama‘s half-brother, Trump supporter Malik Obama, as his debate guest Wednesday night. Clinton is bringing billionaire and frequent Trump critic Mark Cuban and Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman, one of the former secretary of state’s highest-profile Republican backers. Republicans want Trump to close the campaign by focusing on Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy some privately concede may not be enough at this point for him to win but could help GOP Senate candidates salvage their races. The businessman has shown flashes of renewed focus in recent days, including highlighting recently released FBI documents detailing a senior State Department official’s request that the FBI help reduce the classification of an email from Clinton’s private server. One of the FBI documents, the notes from an investigator’s interview with an unnamed bureau official, suggested the FBI and the State Department official had discussed a quid pro quo to let the FBI to deploy more agents in foreign countries. But the FBI and State Department said this week that the two issues, while discussed, had never been linked. Campaigning Tuesday in Colorado, Trump called the matter “felony corruption” and worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. The Republican National Committee said Wednesday it had written the State Department’s inspector general requesting a “full investigation,” though the inspector general already looked into the broader issue of Clinton’s emails classification last year. Clinton, who has meticulously prepared for the three debates at the expense of time in battleground states, visibly rattled Trump in their first showdown by using his own controversial comments about women and minorities against him. The businessman was on the defense at the start of the second debate — which came days after the release of a video in which he brags about kissing and grabbing women — but ended on stronger footing, hammering Clinton for being a creature of Washington who won’t be able to bring about change. The Republican has acquiesced to some advisers who pressed for him to do more serious debate preparations. Still, he’s continued to eschew the mock debates and multi-day prep sessions for which he’s mocked Clinton. “She’s been doing this for 30 years and now she has to do debate prep for five days,” Trump said. “You know what the debate prep is? It’s resting. It’s lying down and going to sleep.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Updates from the 1st presidential debate
The Latest on the first of three presidential debates between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump (all times EDT): 10:45 p.m. Both candidates concluded the first presidential debate by saying they will accept the outcome if the other wins. Hillary Clinton spoke directly to viewers and said, “It’s not about us, it’s about you.” Donald Trump initially dodged the same question, saying he would make a “seriously troubled” America “great again.” He added: “I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton will.” But Trump finished his answer by saying that if Clinton wins, “I will absolutely support her.” ___ 10:43 p.m. Hillary Clinton is punching back at Donald Trump’s assertions that she doesn’t have the “stamina” to be president. Trump has questioned whether Clinton has the physical fitness to be president and he repeated the criticism to her directly during the debate. Clinton’s response? Trump shouldn’t talk about stamina until he’s tried out the busy schedule she kept up as secretary of state. Trump didn’t answer moderator Lester Holt’s original question about his past comments that Clinton doesn’t have the “presidential look.” Clinton suggested the remarks were about gender, and she reminded the crowd of Trump’s past comments calling women “pigs” and other derogatory names. ___ 10:42 p.m. Donald Trump says NATO needs to “go into the Middle East with us” to combat the Islamic State group. And he is taking credit for NATO focusing resources on combating terrorism. In fact, the alliance agreed in July to contribute aircraft and conduct training in Iraq and has increased intelligence coordination there. And NATO set up an anti-terrorism program in 2004 — years before Trump criticized them as a presidential candidate. Earlier this year, Trump criticized NATO for not focusing on terrorism. He said that afterward, he saw an article reporting that NATO was opening a new, major anti-terrorism division. He said Tuesday that NATO’s action was “largely because of what I was saying, and my criticism of NATO.” ___ 10:40 p.m. Donald Trump is avoiding a specific declaration on how he would use nuclear weapons if he’s elected president. The Republican nominee said during the first presidential debate that he “would not do first strike” because “once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over.” That statement suggests he would not authorize a nuclear attack unless the U.S. was struck first. But in the same answer Trump said he “can’t take anything off the table.” He mentioned adversary nations such as North Korea and Iran. President Barack Obama has considered changing existing policy to state clearly that the United States would not deploy nuclear weapons without first being attacked by nuclear weapons. But he met resistance and has elected not to make such a shift. ___ 10:38 p.m. Hillary Clinton is accusing Donald Trump of being too easily provoked to keep the United States from going to war — perhaps even one involving nuclear weapons. Trump says: “I have much better judgment than she does. I have much better temperament.” That drew laughs from some in the debate crowd, and prompted Clinton to exclaim: “Woo! OK!” Clinton then pivoted to policy, defending the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Clinton said Iran was “weeks away” from a nuclear bomb when she became secretary of state — and says the Obama administration thwarted that progress. She continued that Trump didn’t have “good judgment or the right temperament” because he could take the country to war over small issues, like being mocked on Twitter. ___ 10:35 p.m. Donald Trump is continuing to insist he opposed the Iraq War before the U.S. invasion despite evidence to the contrary. Trump says during the debate that he “did not support the war in Iraq,” calling that charge “mainstream media nonsense.” But there is no evidence Trump expressed public opposition to the war before the U.S. invaded. Trump was asked in September 2002 whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with Howard Stern. Trump briefly hesitated, then responded: “Yeah, I guess so.” Presented with the comment during the debate, Trump responds: “I said very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows.” He’s also telling reporters to call Fox News host Sean Hannity to confirm private conversations he said they had about the war. Hannity is a top Trump supporter. Clinton voted in favor of the invasion in 2002 while she was a New York senator. She has since said it was a mistake. ___ 10:27 p.m. Donald Trump is interrupting the moderator of the first presidential debate to insist he has the best temperament for the office. Trump repeatedly made the assertion after clashing with moderator Lester Holt over his early support for the Iraq War. Then he segued to his temperament. “I think my strongest asset by far is my temperament,” Trump said. “I know how to win.” Clinton and her allies have repeatedly hit Trump over his temper and inability to take criticism. ___ 10:23 p.m. Hillary Clinton says one key to fighting terrorism in the United States is working closely with Muslims living here. Clinton says Donald Trump has “consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home.” She says Muslim people can provide information that law enforcement may not be able to obtain anyplace else. Both candidates were asked to explain how they would combat terrorism in the U.S. Clinton says her plan includes an intelligence surge to obtain “every scrap of information” and to “do everything we can to vacuum up intelligence from Europe, from the Middle East.” ___ 10:20 p.m. Hillary Clinton says defeating the Islamic State group and taking out its leaders would be a top priority as president. Clinton says she’s hopeful the Islamic State group would be pushed out of Iraq by the end of the year. She says the U.S. could then help its allies “squeeze” the terrorist group in Syria. Clinton says she would do everything possible to take out the group’s leaders, and make that one of her administration’s organizing principles
