Archives par mot-clé : marketing

House Intelligence chair says ‘it’s possible’ Trump’s communications were intercepted during transition

House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes went to the White House on Wednesday afternoon to personally brief President Trump about intelligence he says he has seen regarding surveillance of foreign nationals during the presidential transition.

The surveillance could have inadvertently picked up the president or members of his transition team, the chairman said.

“What I’ve read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal. I don’t know that it’s right,” Nunes said to reporters outside the White House. “I don’t know that the American people would be comfortable with what I’ve read.”

“The president needs to know these intelligence reports are out there,” Nunes added. “I think the president is concerned, and he should be.”

Trump was asked whether he felt vindicated after his meeting with Nunes in his claims that he was wiretapped during the campaign at his Trump Tower headquarters by President Barack Obama’s administration. That claim has been roundly rejected by members of the intelligence community, including FBI Director James B. Comey and Nunes himself, who again dismissed the wiretapping allegation Wednesday outside the White House.

“I somewhat do. I must tell you I somewhat do,” Trump said when asked the question by reporters. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.”

Before heading to the White House, Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) on what he learned, and he also spoke with reporters. He said that U.S. intelligence agencies may have picked up communications involving Trump as part of court-approved surveillance of foreign intelligence targets in the period between Trump’s election and his inauguration.

Nunes did not, however, brief his ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), about the contents of what Schiff said were intercepts.

Schiff said that he now has a “profound doubt” about whether the Intelligence Committee can conduct a credible investigation. He contended that Nunes’s actions in informing the White House before speaking to colleagues are proof that an independent commission should be formed to investigate Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and possible ties between Trump associates and Russian officials.

“You don’t take information that the committee hasn’t seen and present it orally to the press and the White House before the commitee has even had a chance to vet whether it’s significant,” Schiff stated. “It casts quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work.”

Schiff said that he hoped the latest developments were not part of an effort by the White House to divert attention from the fact that Comey denied that the previous administration had wiretapped Trump’s phones.

“I have to hope that this is not part of a broader campaign by the White House to attempt to deflect from the director’s testimony earlier this week.”

Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters that Trump was one of various members of the Trump team whose communications probably were intercepted through “incidental collection,” or surveillance of the communications of foreign nationals who may be in contact with or talking about U.S. citizens.

The chairman would not answer the question of whether anyone associated with the White House was the source of the new information.

“From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection,” Nunes said. “We don’t know exactly how that was picked up, but we’re trying to get to the bottom of it.”

He added that “it’s possible” that Trump’s personal communications were captured that way by the U.S. intelligence community.

Nunes stressed that he has no information that Russia had anything to do with the surveillance. The intelligence panel — along with the FBI — is investigating Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and the suspected ties of Trump’s associates to the Kremlin.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that Nunes was headed to the White House on Wednesday afternoon to brief the president. Spicer said he did not know anything more about the matter than what Nunes had just said on Capitol Hill.

“He briefed the media before he briefed us,” Spicer said at his daily news briefing, adding, “Hopefully, we can share more” after the meeting.

U.S. intelligence agencies targeting foreign nationals regularly pick up communications to, from or about U.S. citizens, permanent U.S. residents, and U.S. corporations and organizations, a category referred to as incidental collection.

Nunes said the situation will be clarified after he receives a full list of American citizens who were “unmasked” during the surveillance. He said he expects to receive such information by Friday from the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA.

The NSA sweeps up phone calls and emails around the world, looking for intelligence that might be of interest to U.S. officials. When they hear something or read something of interest in a call, an email or a fax, intelligence analysts will write up a report based on the information.

In those reports, the names of U.S. people are “minimized” to remove their identities and protect their privacy. But senior U.S. officials can ask the NSA and other intelligence agencies to provide them with the names if they believe the information would allow them to better understand the intelligence.

The House Intelligence Committee chairman emerged to make the new claims in a series of public statements on Wednesday afternoon, two days after a public hearing by his panel in which Comey rejected Trump’s allegations that he had been wiretapped by Obama during the campaign.

“President-elect Trump and his team were put into intelligence reports. It’s probably fine, but the president himself needs to see this because clearly there was surveillance that was conducted,” he said.

Nunes’s statements came on the same afternoon that House Republicans were struggling to secure enough votes to pass their health-care overhaul. Ryan and Trump have put their political muscle behind the plan, which Ryan hoped to get to the House floor by Thursday. More than two dozen conservatives do not support the plan, said a spokeswoman for the House Freedom Caucus, which would be enough to defeat the bill if they continue to oppose it.

Schiff explained that in his talks with Nunes on Wednesday afternoon, most of the names of American citizens were not “unmasked” in the intelligence reports to which Nunes referred, but were concealed in such a way that made it easy to ascertain their identities.

“Because the committee has still not been provided the intercepts in the possession of the Chairman, it is impossible to evaluate the Chairman’s claims. It certainly does not suggest — in any way — that the President was wiretapped by his predecessor,” Schiff stated.

Nunes delivered a series of statements to the press to explain what he described as new information. He said he was especially concerned with “who ordered the unmasking” of individuals in intelligence reports that were “disseminated widely” throughout the Obama administration.

“The unmasking really bothers me. There has to be a reason for the unmasking,” he told CNN after going to the White House. “We have to know who ordered the unmasking.”

Nunes said that Trump “has every right to get a hold of these reports just like the last administration was able to read them.”

Outside the White House on Wednesday, Nunes focused on the dangers inherent in incidental collection.

“The reason that we do this and that we have all these procedures in place is to protect American citizens” Nunes said, adding that there is a “certain threshold met to make it into intelligence products.”

“Maybe they didn’t meet the minimum qualifications. There are things to me that don’t reach the level of intelligence value. You have to ask yourself why did they end up in intelligence reports.”

On Monday, Comey denied publicly that Trump had been wiretapped in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Comey also stated that the FBI was investigating Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and the suspected links of Trump’s associates to the Kremlin.

The intelligence chairman is the first high-ranking lawmaker to assert that intelligence agencies may have picked up conversations between Trump and foreign nationals. Nunes, who served on the Trump transition team, has focused more squarely in his rhetoric on leaks to the intelligence community about Russia’s alleged intent during the presidential campaign and communications between Trump aides and Russian officials. He has said the only “major crimes” he is aware of are the leaks to the news media on those topics.

At least one Trump adviser was caught up in the incidental collection. Michael Flynn was ousted as national security adviser after U.S. intelligence officials intercepted his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The president dismissed him because Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the content of those calls.

John Wagner and Adam Entous contributed to this report.

Bang Digital Media Announces $250000 Marketing Contract

Submit the press release

Two-Year Multi-Channel, Multimedia Deal May Surpass $1 Million

DENVER, March 22, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bang Holdings Corp. (OTCQB:BXNG), through its subsidiary Bang Digital Media, is a digital advertising company that provides content and its influencer-based marketing network to the legal cannabis industry, today announced it has been awarded a two-year, $250,000 licensing and management contract from a Colorado-based cannabis company.

/EIN News/ — Slated for launch in April 2017, the contract includes performance bonuses that can increase its total value to over $1 million.  The contract provides for Bang Digital Media to develop and deliver social media management, content creation, video production, and the building of a unique social media website and app. The customer’s name is not being disclosed at this time for competitive reasons.

“Not only are we coordinating the entire digital strategy for this organization, but we are also promoting the launch of its 13,000 square-foot facility in Denver into a beautiful new brick and mortar space designed with a community theme,” said Steve Berke, Chief Executive Officer of Bang Digital Media. „We are thrilled to partner in this exciting project and are confident it will serve as a solid example of the multichannel, multimedia marketing initiative that Bang is uniquely qualified to successfully implement.

“I love this partnership because it rewards performance,” Berke said. “Bang will be compensated for every impression and video view, so this is a fantastic opportunity for Bang to showcase our talent, unique digital cannabis marketing platforms and, strategically, to further solidify our position and reputation in the U.S. cannabis community,” Berke concluded.

About Bang Holdings Corporation

Bang Holdings Corporation (OTCQB:BXNG), through its subsidiary Bang Digital Media, provides brand management, cannabis related digital content and influencer-based marketing for the cannabis industry. While major media providers restrict online marijuana advertising, Bang Holdings’ marketing networks allow cannabis companies to directly reach cannabis enthusiasts.

Since launching its digital channel 4TwentyToday across multiple digital platforms in 2014, Bang Digital Media’s network has grown to reach more than 1.5 million engaged enthusiasts and has generated around 620 million content views. Bang’s expanded network of marijuana-friendly social influencers reaches an additional 20 million potential customers. For more information, please visit www.bangholdings.com.

Forward-looking Statements
Certain matters discussed in this press release may contain statements, estimates and projections that involve risks and uncertainties in Bang Holdings’ business that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by the statements made herein. Such statements, estimates and projections constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Bang Holdings undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The recipient of this information is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. No representations or warranties are made as to the accuracy of such forward-looking statements or whether any of the projections included herein will be realized.

Investor/Media Contact:
                    Brandon Thompson, Vice President, Investor Relations
                    Phone: 844-565-5665
                    bthompson@irpartnersinc.com
                    
                    Company Contact:
                    Lee Molloy
                    Phone: 303-681-4426
                    lee@bangholdings.com

Primary Logo

Chipotle launches kids’ video series

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. has released an original video series to help educate families and kids ages 7 to 10 about where their food comes from and how it is prepared, the company said Wednesday.

The Denver-based fast-casual operator said the unbranded series, called “RAD Lands,” is available for download exclusively on iTunes. It was created in partnership with CAA Marketing and The Magic Store, which created the Emmy-nominated series “Yo Gabba Gabba!”

The series features such celebrity chefs, musicians and YouTube personalities, including Amanda Freitag, Michael Voltaggio, Duff Goldman, the Neon Trees, Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips and rapper Biz Markie. Segments also include instruction on preparing snacks and meals. 

“Chipotle is ensuring that better food is accessible to everyone,” Mark Crumpacker, Chipotle chief marketing and development officer, said in statement. “We created ‘RAD Lands’ to educate young eaters and their parents about food in an entertaining and engaging way.

“We don’t advertise to kids, so the show is completely unbranded. We hope that it sparks conversation and curiosity among families, ideally leading to smarter and more informed choices about food.”

“RAD Lands” episodes feature an animated segment called « The Cultivators » that follows a small rebel squad’s journey to help save the galaxy’s plants and animals.

Season one is available exclusively on iTunes in the United States and Canada for $4.99. Alternatively, families can download the first episode for free, and the remaining five episodes for $1.99 each. 

As part of the “RAD Lands” launch and to support school lunches, Chipotle will donate $100,000 to the Chef Ann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works with schools nationwide to provide the tools and resources they need to serve healthful and nutritious meals to students. 

To enhance the program’s reach to educators and students, Chipotle has partnered with Discovery Education, a leading provider of digital education content for K-12 classrooms, for RAD Lands In School. That online program for elementary students will launch later this spring, pairing “RAD Lands” episodes with lesson plans and activities.

To see more about “RAD Lands,” visit chipotle.com/radlands.

Chipotle, which was founded in 1993, has more than 2,200 restaurants. 

Contact Ron Ruggless at [email protected]

Follow him on Twitter: @RonRuggless

Google’s YouTube losing major advertisers upset with videos

ATT, Verizon and several other major advertisers are suspending their marketing campaigns on Google’s YouTube site after discovering their brands have been appearing alongside videos promoting terrorism and other unsavory subjects.

The spreading boycott confronts Google with a challenge that threatens to cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.

YouTube’s popularity stems from its massive and eclectic library of video, spanning everything from polished TV clips to raw diatribes posted by people bashing homosexuals.

But that diverse selection periodically allows ads to appear next to videos that marketers find distasteful, despite Google’s efforts to prevent it from happening.

Earlier this week, Google vowed to step up its efforts to block ads on « hateful, offensive and derogatory » videos. But that promise so far hasn’t appeased ATT, Verizon and other advertisers.

Trump to GOP critics of health care bill: ‘I’m gonna come after you’

President Trump stormed Capitol Hill on Tuesday to sell the House Republican leadership’s plan to overhaul the health-care system, warning his party that not passing the legislation would yield a political crisis and sweeping electoral defeats.

The president addressed a closed-door meeting of House Republicans days before the measure is expected to come to a vote on the House floor.

Trump used both charm and admonishment as he made his case, reassuring skittish members that they would gain seats in Congress if the bill passed — and singling out Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, in front of colleagues.

“I’m gonna come after you, but I know I won’t have to, because I know you’ll vote ‘yes,’ ” Trump said, according to several Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting. “Honestly, a loss is not acceptable, folks.”

For Trump, who talked up the House bill the previous evening at a raucous rally in Kentucky, the presentation was the latest example of his mounting urgency to secure a major legislative victory in the early months of his presidency and repeal the signature law of President Barack Obama.

“That’s just the demeanor of this president. He wants to get this bill done,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), a Trump ally. “I don’t hear that as a threat. It’s a statement of reality.”

“Read ‘The Art of the Deal,’ ” Perdue said, referring to Trump’s book, when asked whether Trump thinks keeping members on edge is effective.

But Trump’s ability to translate his negotiation skills from the business world to the congressional realm — and to rouse his party behind him — remained unclear by late Tuesday as Meadows and other Republicans stayed firmly on the fence.

After the meeting, Meadows told reporters that the president had not closed the sale, describing the call-out as merely good-natured and insisting that conservative holdouts will continue to press for a tougher package.

“I’m still a ‘no,’ ” Meadows said. “I’ve had no indication that any of my Freedom Caucus colleagues have switched their votes.” The group has about 30 members.

Meadows said he didn’t take Trump’s remarks that he would “come after” him too seriously: “I didn’t take anything he said as threatening anybody’s political future.”

View Graphic What’s next for the Obamacare replacement bill

Said Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), a supporter of the bill: “Oh, he was kidding around. I think.”

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later in the day: “Mark Meadows is a long-time, early-supporter of the president. He had some fun at his expense this morning during the conference meeting.”

Asked whether Trump believed that Republicans who opposed the bill would be damaged at the ballot box, Spicer answered: “I think they’ll probably pay a price at home.”

Spicer explained that statement was not a threat but “a political reality.”

Trump, who when angered has turned on Republicans on numerous occasions in the past, is putting his considerable political weight behind a proposal crafted by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that would represent a powerful if symbolic achievement for the president and the speaker if the House approves it. Even if it passed, the legislation would face an uphill battle in the Senate.

No Democrats are expected to support the legislation, meaning Republican leaders can afford to lose no more than 21 Republicans on the House floor. The House Rules Committee is slated to meet at 10a.m.

“We made a promise and now it is the time to keep that promise,” Ryan said. “If we keep that promise, the people will reward us. If we don’t keep our promise, it will be very hard to manage this.”

Ryan minimized the chance that Freedom Caucus members could band together to bring down the measure and said that conservatives should be pleased that many of their demands would likely be in the legislation — such as limiting the expansion of Medicaid and including work requirements for those who receive coverage from the program for the poorest Americans.

Ryan said conservatives will eventually realize that pushing for more extensive changes, such as ending payments to states that accepted the Medicaid expansion, could jeopardize the legislation’s chances in the Senate.

“If you get 85 percent of what you want, that’s pretty darn good,” he said. “We don’t want to put something in this bill that the Senate is telling us is fatal.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a cautiously optimistic tone Tuesday. He confidently promised that the Senate would forge ahead with plans for votes on the health- care legislation but left the immediate success of the venture in the hands of House leaders.

“If the House passes something, I will bring it up,” McConnell said. “We’ll try to move it across the floor next week.”

McConnell also cautiously avoided confronting mounting criticism of the bill from within Senate GOP ranks. He instead dismissed the concerns as a natural part of the legislative process and assured reporters that he would consider the legislation quickly to clear the way for a vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

“We will reach a conclusion on health care next week,” McConnell said. “Because we’re going to judge Gorsuch the week after that.”

On Tuesday afternoon, several Republican senators — including those from states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act — expressed reservations about the House bill and said it would need to change significantly to win their support.

Sen. John Boozman (Ark.) said he wasn’t sure what the House bill will ultimately contain.

“I don’t really know what the American Health Care Act consists of right now. It’s constantly changing,” he said.

“Arkansas and its governor would very much like to keep the [Medicaid] expansion,” Boozman said. “So I think at the end of the day, there will be some compromise.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, Boozman’s fellow Arkansan, also said Tuesday that he “still cannot support” the House bill.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) expressed reservations about the Medicaid revisions, saying she wants the bill’s backers to “show me” how the legislation would be fair to her state.

Unlike some lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — who recently visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., to talk health care with the president — Murkowksi said she hasn’t been similarly wooed.

“I have not gone to Mar-a-Lago,” she said, chuckling. “I did go to the White House last week — no, two weeks ago — to talk about energy.”

Perdue said Trump was engaged in selling the House bill to senators.

“A few votes get to be more critical here,” he said. “He’s been having dinners. . . . He’s listening and trying to probe what it will take to get this bill done and how to fix it right.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has pressed Trump to abandon the bill, insisted that the legislation is fading in the House.

“There are enough conservative votes for it not to pass in its current form,” he said. “Negotiation begins in real earnest in the next 24 hours or so once they discover they don’t have the votes. My count is there are more than enough votes to stop the Ryan plan.”

Some GOP governors also have weighed in.

In a letter Tuesday to every member of Michigan’s congressional delegation, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) warned that the House GOP bill “shifts significant financial risk and cost from the federal government to states without providing sufficient flexibility to manage this additional responsibility.” Individual letters were sent to each House member detailing how many residents in their districts depend on both traditional Medicaid and the expanded Medicaid program created by the Affordable Care Act.

The House vote is expected to be narrow after a Congressional Budget Office study found that 14 million fewer people would have insurance by 2018 under the GOP proposal.

Trump arrived on the Hill to address the private meeting of House Republicans shortly after 9 a.m. Tuesday, bringing with him many of his top White House aides. They included senior adviser Stephen K. Bannon, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior policy adviser Steven Miller.

After the meeting, Trump was confident that the legislation will pass the House.

“We’re going to have a real winner,” he told reporters. “There are going to be adjustments but I think we’ll get the vote on Thursday.”

Inside the room, however, Trump did not get into much detail about what needed to be adjusted for the bill to win approval. He focused more on the political risks and rewards of passage, telling Republicans that they “kept passing and passing and passing” repeal bills under President Obama and would be punished if they did not make good on their campaign promises.

“We won’t have these crowds if we don’t get this done,” he said, referring to his Monday night rally in Kentucky.

“If we get this done, and tax reform, he believes we pick up 10 seats in the Senate and we add to our majority in the House,” said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), the first member of Congress who endorsed Trump’s presidential bid. “If we don’t get it done, we lose the House and the Senate.”

The president’s sales push comes after Ryan and other House leaders released key proposed changes to the legislation on Tuesday night that they hope will help secure the bill’s passage.

The tweaks addressed numerous GOP concerns, including the flexibility the package would give states to administer their Medicaid programs and the amount of aid it would offer older Americans to buy insurance. The changes are the product of two weeks of negotiations that stretched from the Capitol to the White House to Trump’s Florida resort.

The bill’s proponents also appeared to overcome a major obstacle Monday after a key group of hard-line conservatives declined to take a formal position against the bill, known as the American Health Care Act.

The House Freedom Caucus has threatened for weeks to tank the legislation, arguing that it would not do enough to undo the seven-year-old Affordable Care Act. Their neutrality gives the legislation a better chance of passage: If the group of about three dozen hard-right GOP members uniformly opposed the bill, it could block its passage.

Their decision not to act as a bloc frees House leaders and White House officials to persuade individual Freedom Caucus members to support the measure — a process that Meadows, the caucus chairman, said is ­underway.

“They’re already whipping with a whip that’s about 10 feet long and five feet wide,” he said Monday. “I’m trying to let my members vote the way that their constituents would want them to vote. . . . I think they’re all very aware of the political advantages and disadvantages.”

Some of the changes announced Monday were made to placate conservatives, such as accelerating the expiration of the ACA’s taxes and further restricting the federal Medicaid program. But a major push was made to win moderate voters, including a maneuver that House leaders said would allow the Senate to beef up tax credits for older Americans whose premiums could increase greatly under the GOP plan.

There were signs Monday that the bill had growing support among the moderate wing of the House GOP. Rep. Tom MacArthur (N.J.), who had voted against the leadership in an early procedural vote on the health-care legislation, said that he was “satisfied enough that I will support the bill.”

MacArthur said he was assured that the measure would do more for older and disabled Americans covered under Medicaid and that an additional $85 billion in aid would be directed to those ages 50 to 65.

“That’s a $150 billion change in this bill to help the poor and those who are up in years,” he said.

MacArthur told reporters Tuesday that he is satisfied with the way the House amendment is structured and that he trusts that the Senate will further refine the legislation. He also said he is confident that the new changes will be enough to sway many of the approximately 50 members of the Tuesday Group, which he co-chairs.

“I believe the majority will vote for the bill,” MacArthur said after the meeting with Trump.

Several House Republicans from Upstate New York won an amendment that would allow counties in their state to keep hundreds of millions of dollars of local tax revenue that they forward to the state government to fund its Medicaid program. One member, Rep. Claudia Tenney, told the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that her support of the bill was conditioned on the amendment’s inclusion.

The Freedom Caucus had pushed for a variety of alterations, including an earlier phaseout of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and a more thorough rollback of the insurance mandates established under the law.

But for political and procedural reasons, few of the group’s major demands stand to be incorporated into the bill.

“It’s very clear that the negotiations are over,” said Meadows, who met with White House officials at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday.

Many Freedom Caucus members left Tuesday’s meeting resolved to continue to oppose the bill.

“The president always does a good job in these settings,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the caucus. “But the legislation is still bad, and doesn’t do what we told voters we would do.”

Under the group’s rules, it can take a formal position to oppose the bill if 80 percent of its members agree.

Meadows said after Monday night’s meeting that taking a hard position against the bill “creates some dynamics within the group that perhaps we don’t want to create,” hinting at tensions in the group’s ranks.

One of its members, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), provided one of just three votes against the AHCA in the budget committee. But he decided to support the bill last week when he met with Trump in the Oval Office, emboldening House leaders who think that even hard-liners will be hard-pressed to oppose Trump.

Said Meadows: “This is a defining moment for our nation, but it’s also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus. There are core things within this bill as it currently stands that would violate some of the principles of the Freedom Caucus.”

Attending the group’s meeting Monday were three senators who oppose the House bill: Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). They can block the bill in their chamber, where Republicans hold a two-seat majority. Cruz said he told the House members that the leadership strategy of pursuing distinct “phases” of legislation was a dead end and that they need to push for changes in the present bill.

“The Senate Democrats are engaging in absolute opposition and obstruction, and it is difficult to see that changing anytime soon,” Cruz told reporters after leaving the meeting.

Trump’s visit Tuesday was his first appearance at the weekly House Republican Conference meeting since he became president. He last privately addressed Republican lawmakers as a group at the party’s policy retreat in Philadelphia in late January and has met with small groups of members on several occasions since.

Trump won the backing of Palmer and several other conservatives Friday when he agreed to change the Medicaid portion of the bill, including giving states the option to institute a work requirement for childless, able-bodied adults who receive the benefit. Those changes were included in the leadership-backed amendments that will be incorporated into the bill before it comes to a final vote.

To address concerns expressed by a broader swath of GOP lawmakers — conservatives and moderates alike — leaders said they hoped to change the bill to give older Americans more help to buy insurance.

House leaders said they intended to provide an additional $85 billion in aid to those ages 50 to 64, but the amendment announced late Monday did not do so directly. Instead, the leaders said, it “provides the Senate flexibility to potentially enhance the tax credit” for the older cohort by adjusting an unrelated tax deduction.

That workaround, aides said, was done to ensure that the House bill would comply with Senate budget rules and to ensure that the CBO could release an updated analysis of the legislation before the Thursday vote.

David Nakamura, Mike DeBonis and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

Britain and US ban most electronic devices in cabins on flights from several Muslim-majority countries

Britain joined the United States on Tuesday in banning passengers traveling from airports in several Muslim-majority countries from bringing laptops, tablets and other portable electronic devices on board with them when they fly.

The U.K. ban applies to six countries, while the U.S. ban applies to 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries.

Fliers can still travel with these items, but they must be packed in their checked baggage on U.S.- and U.K.-bound flights from airports across the countries, including busy transit hubs in Istanbul, Dubai and Doha, Qatar.

The British ban also includes some cellphones and is expected to apply to all airports in the six nations. The countries included in the British ban are Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia.

“Direct flights to the U.K. from these destinations can continue to operate to the U.K. subject to these new measures being in place,” a government spokesman said.

It’s unclear when the ban will take effect. “The affected airlines have already been informed, and we expect the measures to be in place in the next couple of days,” the spokesman said.

However, when contacted Tuesday evening, some of the affected British airlines were unable to provide specifics. British Airways referred the question back to the Department for Transport.

Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office updated its risk assessment website to say the measures would take effect “in the coming days but no later than 25 March.”

The decision to announce the ban was made during a meeting on aviation security measures held Tuesday by British Prime Minister Theresa May, who had chaired similar meetings over the last weeks. British authorities also said they had reached out to U.S. officials before the announcement.

A government spokesman added that six British and eight foreign carriers were affected by the ban.

A spokesman for the prime minister’s office said the measures were based on the “same intelligence the U.S. relies on.”

The U.S. restrictions were prompted by a growing concern within the government that terror suspects who have long sought to develop hard-to-detect bombs hidden inside electronic devices are still pursuing that goal and may have put renewed effort into that work, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it.

Officials have said that in 2014, U.S. authorities were increasingly worried that suspected terror bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who was already instrumental to al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch in several bomb plots, might be helping terrorists in Syria develop new, harder-to-detect improvised explosive devices.

This new prohibition on devices stemmed from concerns that those individuals may have renewed or made progress with those efforts, according to people familiar with the matter.

John Pistole, a former senior FBI official who also led the Transportation Security Administration during the Obama administration, said al-Asiri is a major concern for U.S. counterterrorism officials.

“To my knowledge, he’s still out there, and he shares his recipes with a number of people,’’ Pistole said. Restrictions like those announced this week, he said, “are a way of trying to be as tailored as much as possible to reduce the risk.’’

Pistole, now president of Anderson University in Indiana, said aviation security officials are particularly concerned about improvised explosive devices built out of non-metals, because a majority of the world’s airports lack the screening measures to detect such bombs.

New limitations on carry-on items “are both an actual physical deterrent and an overall deterrent so the bad guys see this and say, ‘They’re onto us.’ That’s a win for the good guys because then you have time to push the terrorists off to another location, another time, another type of attack. It gives law enforcement and security services more opportunity to identify and disrupt plots,’’ Pistole said.

Federal officials initially described the ban as indefinite. But a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, David Lapan, said the directive runs until Oct. 14, and could be extended for another year “should the evaluation of the threat remain the same.”

James Norton, a homeland security consultant who was a ranking official at the Department of Homeland Security when the liquid ban went into effect just over a decade ago, said a sudden change like this signals a significant threat.

“It seems fairly urgent,” Norton said. “My initial reaction is this is based on some sort of information that the intelligence community came across as a whole. They are trying to address it working with the airlines and the countries directly trying to implement some sort of a plan.”

He said the ban against liquids went into effect Aug. 10, 2006, after British and U.S. intelligence uncovered a plot to simultaneously blow up as many as 10 U.S.-bound passenger jets with liquid explosives hidden in carry-on luggage. Authorities arrested 24 suspects that day and launched new security measures that snarled air traffic. Travelers had to undergo special inspections after drinks and most other liquids and gels were banned as carry-on items.

“That happened overnight based on a bunch of arrests on an incredible threat,” Norton said Norton. In this case, the response suggests urgency to prevent devices from going onto U.S. bound aircraft from those specific countries.

“Evidence can be anything,” Norton said. “It is hard to know until they make some sort of announcement in terms of why they are doing this — why they picked those countries and those flights. My guess is just like with the liquid ban that they came across a potential threat.”

British terrorism experts were baffled by the move however, and said the differing specifics of the American and British bans appeared contradictory. Whereas Tunisia is included in the British ban, for instance, airports in that country are not affected by U.S. restrictions.

“I suspect that the U.K. included Tunisia in its ban due to the fact that airlines regularly fly out of that country into Britain,” said Daniel Falkiner, a London-based security analyst.

“As to why the U.S. has included airports from five more nations in its ban; this may be linked to the Trump administration’s emphasis on displaying an abundance of caution when addressing the threat of terrorism to the U.S., regardless of the potential this may have on relations with partners and allies,” Falkiner said.

“In contrast, the U.K. has very close political and security ties with the Gulf States, for example, which may mean London is more content than Washington is with the security protocols at major regional hubs like Dubai,” Falkiner said.

Security experts also said that it would be extremely unusual for the British government to announce such extensive restrictions — which affect flights from tourist destinations of British travelers such as Tunisia or Egypt — without the emergence of new details in recent weeks.

But another U.S. security expert questioned how the ban was applied.

“Why should I feel safer if the laptop is stowed in the belly of the plane and the perpetrator can use his iPhone to set if off?” said a senior official with an international travel organization. “I’m not personally privy to what [information] the TSA or DHS has, but I just don’t get it.”

The official, who asked not to be identified because he works in the industry, said that the logistics of enforcing the laptop ban will be daunting, particularly in instances where passengers take connecting flights elsewhere in the world before boarding a plane bound for the U.S.

“You’ve got to wonder, if somebody’s connecting and doesn’t have access to his checked bag to put his laptop in, what does he do?” the official asked. “I guess people will figure out that if you’re connecting in Casablanca, you’d better have your laptop in your checked bag.”

Under the restrictions, travelers to the United States from 10 mostly Middle Eastern airports will be required to put all personal electronic devices larger than a cellphone or smartphone in their checked baggage. U.S. airlines are not affected by the ban because none offer direct U.S.-bound flights from the affected airports.

Ten airports in eight countries — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — are affected. Officials said the airports were selected based on the “current threat picture.”

The airports are: Queen Alia International Airport (AMM) in Jordan, Cairo International Airport (CAI) in Egypt, Ataturk International Airport (IST) in Turkey, King Abdulaziz International Airport (JED) and King Khalid International Airport (RUH) in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait International Airport (KWI) in Kuwait, Mohammed V International Airport (CMN) in Morocco, Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Qatar, and Dubai International Airport (DXB) and Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH) in the United Arab Emirates.

Officials said the change will affect passengers who travel on roughly 50 daily flights. Crew members are not included in the device ban. The British ban does not include crews either.

Turkey’s transport minister, Ahmet Arslan, criticized the ban, telling reporters in Ankara that it was not “beneficial” for passengers and that Turkey already has stringent security measures in place, according to Turkey’s semiofficial Anadolu news agency. He added that Turkish officials had spoken about the regulations with their American counterparts and were discussing whether the Trump administration should “step back.”

Word of the ban was first made public Monday afternoon — not by administration officials but in a tweet sent out by Royal Jordanian Airlines. Initially, U.S. officials declined to comment on the report, saying only that they would provide an update “when appropriate.”

In the tweet, which was later deleted, airline officials advised passengers of the new requirements that would affect travelers on its flights to New York, Chicago, Detroit and Montreal.

Emirates Airlines issued a similar statement Tuesday, saying “electronic devices larger than a cellphone/smartphone, excluding medical devices, cannot be carried in the cabin of the aircraft” on U.S.-bound flights. The U.S. routes of Emirates include Dulles International Airport.

U.S. officials began outlining the new rules to carriers Sunday.

The International Air Transport Association, which represents international carriers, issued a statement Tuesday, say a number of airlines had been contacted by TSA in regard to the new U.S. restrictions.

“IATA is working with its members and the TSA to achieve greater clarity on required actions,” the statement said. The group asked travelers going through the affected airports to add extra time to their travels.

“Safety and security is the top priority of everyone involved in aviation,” the statement said. “Airlines comply with government requirements and they can do this most effectively when measures are well coordinated.”

Officials said airlines will have 96 hours to comply with the restrictions. Carriers that fail to follow them risk losing their authorization to operate in the United States.

James Buck, a professional photographer from Burlington, Vt., was vacationing in Jordan when he read about the ban on Facebook on Monday. As of Tuesday, he said it was still unclear if his Royal Jordanian flight to Montreal scheduled to leave at 3 a.m. Thursday from Queen Alia International Airport will be affected.

“It is really scary because I don’t know what the ban is about. I don’t know if there is a specific threat,” he said. “It only applies to these airlines, so should I try to rebook myself on another airline to get out of here?”

Like other travelers, Buck has plenty of questions about the ban. He said he hasn’t heard from the airline or seen any government notices for travelers. The questions from travelers on social media, mostly, are about what exactly the ban means. Does it apply to his cameras. Can he bring a big smartphone?

“It’s troubling to me that the State Department hasn’t posted a travel warning on its website or any travel explanation,” said Buck, a former Washington Post employee. “Is there any current situation that we need to be aware of? It is unbelievable that the information was disseminated so poorly.”

Information that travelers have received also has been conflicting and inaccurate, he said. First, he read that the ban would take effect immediately and last only 96 hours. Then the airline said it had 96 hours to implement the ban and that it would last indefinitely.

Buck had been traveling in Jordan since March 13, photographing sites and the desert, and carrying equipment that is worth half his annual salary, he said.

“I’ve got a backpack full of cameras and a laptop and stuff,” he said, adding that he’d spent the entire day Tuesday driving all over Amman trying to find a hard case. “No luck.”

Noack reported from London; Barrett and Lazo reported from Washington. Lori Aratani, Ashley Halsey and Carol Morello contributed from Washington. Zeynep Karatas contributed to this report from Istanbul.

How Facebook’s Big Bet on Video Could Change TV

Facebook is aggressively ramping up its video strategy, cultivating content whether it comes from users, advertisers or Hollywood, or is developed internally. With its nearly two billion monthly users, the social network could make a big dent in traditional TV and help usher in a major shift towards social TV, Wharton experts say. The social network’s latest video push is partly due to a need to find more ad spaces. In its latest earnings call, Facebook says growth in the second half of 2017 will slow due to a peaking ad load, or how many ads are served up to users.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg is also tipping his hat to a fast-growing trend: Digital video viewing is exploding. According to Cisco Systems, video accounted for 60% of mobile data traffic in 2016 and should rise to 78% by 2021. The Interactive Advertising Bureau says ad spending on U.S. mobile video rose 178% in the first half of 2016 from a year ago, comprising more than 40% of the $3.9 billion total online video market. “Social media is moving from text to pictures to video, so Facebook is following its consumers,” says Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger.

Facebook’s video efforts include the recent launch of Facebook Live, which is a live-stream service similar to Twitter’s Periscope. The social network also created an app for Apple TV and other set-top boxes so people can watch its videos on a TV screen. It debuted 360-degree videos and reportedly is planning to add episodic shows from Hollywood — or produce its own original content — up to 30 minutes long. The company has hired Ricky Van Veen, co-founder of video site CollegeHumor, as creative chief, and also MTV executive Mina Lefevre to develop original TV shows.

“Although Facebook has not historically been a media company, it makes sense that they want to [prevent] their massive user base from moving to other online sites that have scripted show offerings. Therefore, they are capitalizing on a very ‘hot’ area right now — online scripted shows,” says Shawndra Hill, senior fellow at the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative.

“The democratization of content, production and consumption has already begun.”–Shawndra Hill

“It could possibly be a perfect marriage between a large, engaged user base, new and exciting content, and perhaps most importantly, an already healthy advertising ecosystem that users are very familiar with,” Hill adds. “Even more interestingly, Facebook has a way to reach millennials, a group of viewers that companies find hard to reach by traditional advertising.”

Wharton marketing professor Pinar Yildirim further points out that the lines are already blurring between social networks and media companies. “Both are ultimately about content creation — whether by users or professionals — and consumption,” she says. Folks now are using social media and watching TV concurrently. “Combining the two, or allowing individuals to also interact over networks while consuming content, is eliminating one friction.”

Indeed, “the world is moving in the direction of consuming more media content online. As people spend an increasing proportion of their day using online services for scripted content, it will be even more difficult to grasp consumer attention via linear TV,” Hill says. “Attention will be fragmented by online services.”

But social TV needs good content to thrive. To encourage creators, Facebook took a page from YouTube and agreed to share ad revenues. It will keep 45% of the pot, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, in a departure from industry practice, Facebook has banned pre-rolls, or ads that play in front of the content, in favor of those that play in the middle of the video for a better user experience. Facebook also is paying some celebrities and media firms to create Live videos.

“Videos are a good way to elicit engagement. For example, they draw more comments than photos,” says Kartik Hosanagar, Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions who has written a research paper on Facebook. However, “one challenge for Facebook has been that its users have slowed down in terms of the amount of content and updates they now post on the social network. Also, Facebook has been looking for ways to diversify its business. In light of these two observations, the decision to go into video starts to make sense.”

The Race for Ad Dollars

Facebook and Google already attract the most online advertising dollars. With the video push, Facebook and Google’s YouTube “may replicate their mobile advertising dominance,” according to a report by Bloomberg Intelligence. To be sure, there are plenty of other video contenders. “Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Yahoo and Twitter all aim to compete for new video ad dollars,” the report said. Also in the running are Hulu and Amazon. Thus far, Netflix is avoiding commercials.

“People just want to see what their high school buddies are doing — and making it a standalone entertainment service might not work.”Peter Fader

“All of these services will aim to crowd out one another. For the consumer, however, it will be great to have fresh new content that is both similar to traditional TV via existing TV network partnerships, and innovative [services] by introducing solutions like virtual reality, where viewers themselves can be ‘part’ of shows,” Hill says. “I foresee a lot of innovation and evolution in this space before we can say for sure what is most interesting to viewers. In any case, the barriers are low right now for people to switch around and watch all solutions (from Hulu to YouTube to Facebook). However, this might not always be the case, as content providers think through pricing for their solutions.”

YouTube is making changes to be more competitive. It will do away with 30-second ads that cannot be skipped starting in 2018 in favor of other unskippable formats, like six- and 20-second ads. Netflix is looking into creating versions of its content that look better on small screens. Facebook has launched an ad campaign — reportedly the biggest in its history — encouraging marketers to create video clips that would display well on smartphones.

“The key is to design the content to fit the medium,” Berger says. “Understand how consumers are using these mediums and what they are looking for, and build content that matches” the format. Adds Katherine Milkman, Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions: “My research suggests that if the goal is to create viral content, then making sure the content elicits an emotional response is key. The types of emotions that make your heart race … are more useful for creating a viral response than emotions that dampen excitement, [such as] sadness. Making it useful, surprising and interesting is also important.”

Hill points out that these ads are useful to Facebook advertisers because they “open the door to do more precise one-to-one marketing. From an advertiser’s perspective, the most exciting aspect of these services is that viewers can be reached both inside their living room and just about anywhere else — on the subway or a plane, for instance,” Hill says. “In addition, these services will know exactly who is watching and for how long, since viewership will be linked to an individual-level user ID.”

“Will it be successful? It’s anyone’s guess. Consumers have enough options for video today.”–Kartik Hosanagar

Hill adds that since people are already online, “advertisers can provide calls to action that land viewers on the relevant web pages to get information or make a purchase — or even better, the calls to action can be voice-activated to simply say ‘purchase’ in the future to reduce the likelihood that people turn away from shows. Once online media solutions have reached the point where they are replacing linear TV in significant numbers, TV and ad measurement the way we know it now will be dead.”

Facebook Premium?

Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader says Facebook ought to consider a premium service that includes videos and other content and services accessible only to paying members. “Look at Amazon Prime and how they leveraged it in so many different directions” including bundling digital video, two-day shipping, e-book rentals and other perks, he points out. “Who can deny the success of that? [Facebook needs] to be looking in that direction.”

It should learn from the missteps of struggling YouTube Red, the video site’s premium service that is free of ads, carries original content developed by YouTube and allows offline playback. “It’s just not clear to me how different the [subscriber] experience is,” Fader says. “With Amazon, it had free shipping, etc. Maybe [YouTube Red’s proposition] just wasn’t enough.” YouTube Red costs $10 a month or $120 a year, higher than Amazon Prime’s $99 yearly cost.

But will people want to watch TV on Facebook? Perhaps “people just want to see what their high school buddies are doing — and making it a standalone entertainment service might not work,” Fader says. “But on the other hand, it now has such a share of mind [and] it is such a huge platform that it makes sense for the advertiser to go there.” He points out that Facebook has already evolved during its 10-year history and it could become a multifaceted platform one day.

One thing is clear: There is a definite shift away from traditional TV. “I think we’ll move away from thinking of scripted shows as TV,” Hill says. It will all just be content. “We will soon enter a world where we call content connected media and it will be watched over the internet. The democratization of content, production and consumption has already begun. There will continue to be many players in this space initially, but we will eventually converge to a few large players, I think.”

Will Facebook be one of those remaining players in video? “Will it be successful? It is anyone’s guess. Consumers have enough options for video today. For social video, there is YouTube. For premium content, we have Hulu and Netflix,” Hosanagar says. “So it’s unclear what niche Facebook can occupy in that market. Unless Facebook identifies a clear niche … it’s not clear it will have mass market success.”

Google announces new brand safety controls for display & video advertisers

A day after Matt Britton, Google’s EMEA head of operations, apologized for advertisers’ ads appearing adjacent to extremist content — after a stream of advertisers announced they were puling ad from Google’s ad networks — the internet giant’s chief business officer announced new brand safety controls.

As Marketing Land has reported, the Google Display Network includes many extremist sites propagating right- and left-wing ideologies, hoaxes and misinformation. The company updated its policies to address mirepresentative sites in November but did not address brand safety concerns of ads appearing alongside extremist content and misinformation.

Philipp Schindler, Google chief business officer, wrote that as of Tuesday, the company is “taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content. This includes removing ads more effectively from content that is attacking or harassing people based on their race, religion, gender or similar categories. This change will enable us to take action, where appropriate, on a larger set of ads and sites.”

The changes are also meant to address complaints of brand messaging appearing on exremist videos on YouTube. Schindler said Google will “ensure that ads show up only only against legitimate creators in our YouTube Partner Program — as opposed to those who impersonate other channels or violate community guidelines” and take another look at its ad policies.

The changes as Schindler announced them:

  • Safer default for brands. We’re changing the default settings for ads so that they show on content that meets a higher level of brand safety and excludes potentially objectionable content that advertisers may prefer not to advertise against. Brands can opt in to advertise on broader types of content if they choose.
  • Simplified management of exclusions. We’ll introduce new account-level controls to make it easier for advertisers to exclude specific sites and channels from all of their AdWords for
  • Video and Google Display Network campaigns, and manage brand safety settings across all their campaigns with a push of a button.
  • More fine-tuned controls. In addition, we’ll introduce new controls to make it easier for brands to exclude higher risk content and fine-tune where they want their ads to appear.

Schindler continued to assert that the company mostly gets it right and has controls like topic exclusions and site category exclusions. Yet he added that advertisers will have more visibility into where their video and display ads appear and that the company is reviewing its polices.


About The Author