RUTHFULLY YOURS

Netflix announced Monday that Barack and Michelle Obama have signed “a multi-year agreement” to produce television shows and movies for the company’s rapidly growing line of original content.

The Obamas are slated to produce scripted and unscripted series as well as documentaries and feature films, according to a Netflix tweet announcing the deal.“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” the former president said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement that the Obamas “are uniquely positioned to discover and highlight stories of people who make a difference in their communities and strive to change the world for the better.”

Obama has frequently bemoaned the polarized state of the media eco-system since leaving office. A New York Times report published in March indicated that the Obamas will avoid overtly partisan programming in favor of a broader aspirational message. One project reportedly under consideration would feature debates over contentious national issues moderated by the former president.The Obamas’ compensation remains undisclosed but the couple were reportedly paid $60 million for their joint memoir, indicating that taste-makers believe consumers are eager for Obama-produced content.

Netflix announced today that former President Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama have struck a “storytelling partnership” with the video-on-demand service that will unfold in front of and behind the camera.

Netflix, which carries movies as well as original TV series, has about 125 million members in more than 190 countries.

The agreement with the Obamas is a “multi-year” pact, the company said, “to produce films and series” with the company.

“The Obamas will produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features,” the company said.

The Obamas’ new production company is called Higher Ground Productions. Michelle Obama declared in her 2016 Democratic National Convention speech “when they go low, we go high.”

The company did not reveal how much the deal is worth

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

“Barack and I have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire us, to make us think differently about the world around us, and to help us open our minds and hearts to others,” said Michelle Obama. “Netflix’s unparalleled service is a natural fit for the kinds of stories we want to share, and we look forward to starting this exciting new partnership.” CONTINUE AT SITE

As I wrote a few days ago, the American media is broken. That description already sounds outdated as we now witness the media’s rebranding of the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign as a vital national security effort: “Of course the Trump campaign was being spied on! It was for their own good!”

A brave group of journalists—aided by key amplifiers in social media, cable news, and talk radio—continues to push back on the media’s sycophantic service to the Democratic Party in which so many reporters, news personalities and political pundits are invested. Now, reporters who tried to convince us Trump was nuts for claiming Obama’s FBI spied on him are spinning hard to persuade us that an “informant” isn’t really a “spy.” But these antidotal journalists and influencers are not letting them get away with it.

My first piece highlighted the efforts of Andrew McCarthy, Mollie Hemingway, Sean Davis and Lee Smith. Here is the remainder of the group, as well as a shout-out to the influencers who have helped explain this story to the people who may not have time to read a 2,000 word article.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave… when first we practice to deceive.”

This quote is attributed to Sir Walter Scott, a Scottish historian and novelist. Too bad he wasn’t available for a sermon at the royal wedding this past weekend, rather than social justice preacher Bishop Michael Curry. The House of Windsor certainly wove a tangled web over the decades.

The Deep State has been weaving its own tangled web of Russian collusion for the past two years beginning with Russia supposedly hacking the 2016 election, creating the electoral outcome they desired. It has since morphed into Trump colluding with the Russians, despite zero proof on the one-year anniversary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s free-for-all investigation by his merry band of partisan Democrats.

It’s now to the point that Mueller’s team is investigating anyone in Trump’s circle who ever ate a bowl of borscht or drank a sip of Russian vodka. At a time when this couldn’t get any more ridiculous, look no further than the Washington Post for a version of “can you top this?”

A few days ago, the WaPo published an opinion piece entitled, “The FBI didn’t use an informant to go after Trump. They used one to protect him.”

Sure, they did. I can’t wait to read from the WaPo how Iran wants nukes to “protect” Israel or that that sanctuary cities are for the “protection” of legal, law-abiding residents of those cities.

If you’re a fading Baby Boomer, you’re faintly amused that the FBI code-named its Trump-Russia investigation “Crossfire Hurricane.” It’s an homage to the Rolling Stones golden oldie “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — which, come to think of it, might just be a perfect handle for John Brennan, the former Obama CIA director whose specter hovers over each critical juncture of the case.

The young’uns may not believe it, but back before it was known as “classic rock,” you couldn’t just play your crossfire hurricane on Spotify. You had to spin it. Fittingly, that is exactly what the New York Times has done in Wednesday’s blockbuster report on the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

Anyone examining FBI and Justice Department abuses is smeared and ridiculed.

President Trump is opening a whole new chapter in the war between him and the investigators pursuing him. Today, he tweeted: “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

It’s unclear how the Justice Department will respond. In March, Justice’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, announced he would be examining exactly how the DOJ set about employing the so-called Steele dossier to help obtain permission from a special court, the FISA court, to eavesdrop on Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page. Apparently, Trump is demanding that the DOJ now look at a range of recent developments, including the news that an FBI informant was fishing for information from Trump officials before any Justice investigation of possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia was supposed to have begun.

For well more than a year, we’ve heard about the “Did Trump Collude with Russia” storyline that the special counsel Robert Mueller is pursuing. In recent months, a parallel narrative has been developing. In this account, for which a case is slowly building, figures inside the Obama administration and in the Hillary Clinton campaign may have actively spied on and tried to undermine Trump’s presidential campaign.

But anyone who broaches the thought that there might be two stories relating to 2016 campaign skullduggery rather than just one is viciously attacked. When radio and TV host Mark Levin stitched together mainstream media reports to allege that FISA-court warrants had been sought by the Justice Department to investigate Team Trump, he was branded a conspiracy theorist by Trump critics. He has since been vindicated.

Trump foes have also launched attacks against Kimberly Strassel, my former colleague at the Wall Street Journal. She has done pathbreaking reporting on the Justice Department’s refusal to turn over documents on its 2016 actions to the House Intelligence Committee, chaired Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).

Nunes believes that the American people deserve to know whether or not their intelligence agencies have followed the law.

On Friday, the Washington Post’s David von Drehle sniffed that “there’s nothing surprising about pundits under the influence of the president attacking U.S. intelligence agencies while minimizing the threat from Russia.”

But it’s Nunes who has faced the most vitriolic attacks. Nunes believes that the American people deserve to know whether or not their intelligence agencies have followed the law. “Someone has to watch the watchers,” he told me recently. “The Constitution vests Congress with oversight powers over the executive branch.”

But that’s not how the media see it. Last month, Jason Zengerle of the New York Times wrote a scathing profile of Nunes, whom he dismissed in a tweet as someone “who’s been propagating (and/or falling for) conspiracy theories since before the Deep State was even a gleam in Donald Trump’s eye.”

1.I Helped Start the Gaza Protests. I Don’t Regret It. by Ahmed Abu Ratima, New York Times

2. A Grotesque Spectacle in Jerusalem Michelle Goldberg, New York Times

3. Trump’s Failure in Jerusalem New York Times

4. A Hope ‘Each Bullet Was Justified’: Israelis Reflect on Gaza Deaths A day after their soldiers killed 60 mostly unarmed Palestinians in Gaza, Israelis were defiant, defensive or blasé. By ISABEL KERSHNER and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

5.Amid Debate and Violence, Trump Delivers Embassy Victory to Christian Base By ELIZABETH DIAS