‘Revolving door’? Ties between consultancy, gov’t raise questions about Benghazi probe

Meet Beacon Global Strategies.
The online bios for its founders and managing directors suggest no group knows more about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Obama administration's response. Yet the consulting firm has deep ties to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others involved in the controversy – ties so intertwined with the administration and Capitol Hill that they raise questions about an upcoming hearing where former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell is slated to testify.
"It is like a revolving door on steroids," Bill Allison, whose Sunlight Foundation is a nonprofit that supports government transparency, told Fox News, adding that Washington's “revolving door” is a bipartisan problem.
"Republicans have gone through the revolving door, Democrats. … It says an awful lot about Washington and how hard it is to really be independent in Washington.”
READ BEACON'S REGISTRATION AS AN LLC
Morell, who also is a national security analyst for CBS News and has a book deal, joined the Beacon firm after retiring from the CIA last year. In doing so, he joined an organization already stacked with ex-government officials. Among them is Philippe Reines, whom the New York Times magazine recently described as Clinton's "principal gatekeeper." According to Beacon’s website, Reines traveled to more than 110 countries with the then-Secretary of State as part of her senior team.
Another employee, Jeremy Bash, was a former chief of staff to Leon Panetta at both the CIA and Defense Department. Andrew Shapiro was a Clinton policy adviser at the State Department whose portfolio included ridding Libya of shoulder-launched missiles called MANPADs. 
And it includes Republican J. Michael Allen, who was a former majority staff director for the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers.
In November 2012, Morell testified before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed session about Benghazi, when Allen was still staff director. In May 2013, Morell testified for a second time in a closed session about Benghazi and the so-called talking points – the administration’s flawed public narrative initially blaming a protest for the attack, which killed four Americans.
Morell now is expected to testify for a third time in early April before the same panel -- the House Intelligence Committee, where his colleague Allen once worked -- after Republican allegations he misled the Senate Intelligence Committee over the talking points. The next hearing is expected to be public.
READ J. MICHAEL ALLEN'S FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Business records reviewed by Fox News show that in April 2013, Beacon Global Strategies registered as an LLC. 
Congressional rules require immediate notice to the ethics committee when a senior Hill staffer, who earns more than $120,000, negotiates for outside employment. Allen falls into this category.
A Nov. 19, 2012 Memorandum to all House Members, Officers and Employees, posted on the Ethics Committee website states:
"Certain House staff must notify the [Ethics] Committee within three (3) business days after they commence any negotiation or agreement for future employment or compensation with a private entity. Staff subject to this disclosure requirement are those employees of the House who are paid at or above an annual rate of $119,553.60. …”
"The term 'negotiations' connotes 'a communication between two parties with a view toward reaching an agreement' and in which there is 'active interest on both sides.'”
It adds: "Employees also should avoid situations that might be viewed as presenting even a risk that the individual might be improperly influenced by personal financial interests."
Disclosure forms, obtained by Fox News from the congressional clerk's office and written in Allen's handwriting, state that he filed with the ethics panel in July -- almost three months after Beacon registered. Fox News asked Allen when he began informal discussions with Beacon, as opposed to formal negotiations for employment, and whether at the time of Morell's May 2013 testimony, Allen was aware the former deputy director of the CIA might join Beacon.
In light of Morell's upcoming testimony, and given the apparent discrepancy between Morell's November 2012 and May 2013 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Fox News also asked Allen what steps he took to further investigate whether Morell had misled lawmakers.
After exchanging emails over a four-and-a-half hour period, Beacon Global Strategies LLC provided a lengthy statement to Fox News on behalf of Allen. While not providing specifics, Beacon provided "the overall timeline of the firm’s formation and the subsequent personnel actions."
While Allen is listed on the website as a founder, Beacon's statement indicates he was not approached until two months after its registration.
The statement said:
"This firm was founded on the strong belief that keeping America secure must be a nonpartisan endeavor, and is dedicated to acting in a truly bipartisan manner. We not only adhere to all governing ethics rules and laws, we strive to go above and beyond those requirements and hold ourselves to the high ethical and professional standards we did throughout our decades serving in government. As for the timeline: this company was formally created by the three original partners in April of 2013. Mr. Allen was approached at the end of June, at which point he filed a ‘Notification of Negotiations or Agreement for Future Employment’ with the US House of Representatives Committee on Ethics. He subsequently filed a ‘Statement of Recusal’ with the same committee. Upon accepting the offer to join the firm in July, he promptly and fully disclosed such to Congressional officials. Mr. Morell was not approached until November. Therefore, nobody could have been influenced by events that were not yet planned and had not yet occurred."
Fox News spoke Monday with Rogers, chairman of the committee, who underscored the fact that no congressional panel has done more to investigate Benghazi than his -- and that Morell is now being recalled for a third time, where, in an open forum, all issues can be addressed, including allegations that Morell misled the Senate Intelligence Committee. 
As for Beacon, in a September interview with Defense News shortly after the firm launched, Reines indicated it may be a temporary stop. "In terms of going back in, I think we all want to, but we also know that life doesn't necessarily work out so cutely."

Watergate Revisited? A hard look at the Obama-Nixon comparison

Is Barack Obama acting like Richard Nixon?
As someone who lived through the massive criminality and mendacity of Watergate, I take these comparisons seriously.
The shorthand “Watergate” stands for more than what the Nixon White House dismissed as a third-rate burglary at Democratic headquarters; it encompasses other break-ins, wiretaps, tax audits, hush money, cover-ups and perjury that sent many administration officials to jail and drove a president from office.
So for some on the right to accuse the current president of Nixonian behavior is a heavy charge indeed.
Here’s how Victor Davis Hanson frames it in National Review:
“Nixon tried to use the Internal Revenue Service to go after his political enemies — although his IRS chiefs at least refused his orders to focus on liberals…
“Nixon ignored settled law and picked and chose which statutes he would enforce — from denying funds for the Clean Water Act to ignoring congressional subpoenas.
“Nixon attacked TV networks and got into personal arguments with journalists such as CBS’s Dan Rather…
“Nixon wanted the Federal Communications Commission to hold up the licensing of some television stations on the basis of their political views…
“Nixon went after ‘enemies.’ He ordered surveillance to hound his suspected political opponents and was paranoid about leaks.”
Pretty bad stuff, right?
Now Davis lays out the particulars against this administration:
“The IRS? So far, the Obama-era IRS has succeeded in hounding nonprofit tea-party groups into political irrelevancy… 
“The FCC? According to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, Obama’s agency, until outrage arose, had planned ‘to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.’…
“Enemies? Federal authorities jailed a video maker for a minor probation violation after the Obama administration falsely blamed him for causing a riot that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi in September 2012…
“Going after reporters? Obama regularly blames Fox News by name for its criticism…
“Ignoring the law? The Affordable Care Act as currently administered bears little resemblance to the law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president. Federal immigration law is now a matter of enforcing what the president allows and ignoring the rest.
“Wiretaps? Well, aside from the electronic surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency, the Obama Justice Department secretly monitored Fox News reporter and sometime critic James Rosen.”
The problem with most of these examples is there’s no evidence that Obama ordered, or knew about, these efforts. And that’s very different from Nixon, who as we know from the secret tapes, would talk about breaking into the Brookings Institution.
One prominent exception would be the surveillance of journalists such as those at the Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. Obama may not have personally known in advance, but his attorney general, Eric Holder, did.
Perhaps one day evidence will emerge that the president or his top aides encouraged the IRS Cincinnati field office to crack down on conservative groups, but so far there’s no proof.
The FCC’s aborted effort to question TV newsrooms about bias and philosophy was incredibly boneheaded and disturbing, but there is no sign of White House involvement—as opposed to Nixon’s FCC challenging the licenses of two Washington Post stations.
Did Obama order the filmmaker jailed? He rips Fox all the time, but he has sat down with Bill O’Reilly twice.
It is troubling that the president keeps unilaterally changing the implementation of ObamaCare. But it was George W. Bush who ramped up the practice of “signing statements” that reserved his right to ignore parts of newly passed congressional laws. (The House on Wednesday passed an "enforce the law" act on a largely party-line vote, and the administration is threatening a veto.)
Criticize Obama all you want. Davis has a point that civil libertarians who railed against Republican presidents have given Obama a pass (on such issues as NSA surveillance, I would add). But Nixonian conduct is an awfully high bar to clear unless you can show that a president personally condoned lawbreaking.

No special prosecutor for IRS scandal: Here’s the back story

Conservatives are up in arms over the Justice Department’s refusal to name a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal.
And that’s basically how the media covered it, as an Eric Holder vs. Ted Cruz argument.
But there’s some important history here that helps explain why the Obama administration is, in effect, able to investigate itself. And it’s a debate that goes to the heart of public confidence in government.
The attorney general’s office disclosed its decision in a letter to Cruz, saying the appointment is “not warranted” there is no “conflict of interest” in the Justice Department pursuing the case. The letter said the probe is being conducted by “career prosecutors and law-enforcement professionals…without regard to politics.”
The Texas senator fired back that Holder’s department is abandoning a “bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance.”
So how can the administration be trusted with such a sensitive probe? The reason Holder was able to make that decision goes back to Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Nixon was essentially pressured into allowing the appointment of a Watergate special prosecutor after his attorney general resigned and he needed Senate approval for a successor. The new AG, Elliott Richardson, named Archibald Cox, who proved so aggressive that Nixon had fired him (after Richardson and his deputy refused to do so and quit) in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre.
Public sentiment toward special prosecutors was favorable after Cox’s successor, Leon Jaworski, completed his work. Jimmy Carter pushed through a 1978 ethics law that included a provision for naming more neutral-sounding independent counsels. When allegations were made against a range of top federal officials, the attorney general was required to recommend such an appointment by a special three-judge panel, unless a preliminary inquiry found the charges to be “insubstantial.”
Ronald Reagan opposed extending the law, and it was narrowed in 1983. But a spate of high-profile investigations -- against Carter aide Hamilton Jordan, Reagan’s Labor secretary Ray Donovan, and Reagan’s attorney general, Ed Meese -- resulted in no charges.
Along came independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, who launched the $48-million Iran-contra investigation (into charges that money from U.S. arms sales to Iran was improperly diverted to Nicaraguan rebels).  Most Republicans wound up hating the law, believing that Walsh had too much unchecked power and was out of control.
After the Supreme Court upheld the law's constitutionality, Republicans helped filibuster the law to death in 1992. But Clinton signed a new version into law two years later -- and independent counsels pursued several of his Cabinet members. After Ken Starr’s investigation of the Whitewater land deal morphed into the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Democrats hated the law as well. It expired in 1999 without much fuss from either party.
That means every administration now gets to make the call on whether to call in an outside prosecutor not under Justice Department control.
When the IRS inspector general found improper targeting of conservative groups in the Cincinnati office, Obama called the conduct “inexcusable.” Last month, though, he told Bill O’Reilly there was not a “smidgen of corruption” in the IRS.
The problem is the same one that gave birth to the post-Watergate law. If Justice finds no higher-ups were involved in the IRS misconduct, would that finding have credibility with the public? Would an outside probe have more credibility, or spiral out of control?
With the independent counsel law dead and buried, we’re not likely to find out.
Nate Silver Gives GOP Nod
The data whiz who called President Obama’s election and has now moved to ESPN just gave the Republicans a favorable forecast for November.
Nate Silver says the GOP has a 60 percent chance of taking control of the Senate.
  Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington.

Hillary Clinton Distances Herself From Obama

Just over a year after leaving her job as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has offered views on foreign policy that analysts said seem part of an effort to distance herself from the Obama administration as she prepares a possible 2016 White House run.
In appearances this month, Clinton struck a hawkish tone on issues including Iran and Russia, even while expressing broad support for the work done by Obama and her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry.
Clinton said in New York on Wednesday night she was "personally skeptical" of Iran's commitment to reaching a comprehensive agreement on its nuclear program.
"I've seen their behavior over (the) years," she said, saying that if the diplomatic track failed, "every other option does remain on the table."
Just two weeks earlier, Clinton was forced to backtrack after she drew parallels between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler at a closed-door fundraiser. In comments leaked to the media by a local reporter who attended the event, Clinton said Putin's justifications for his actions in the Crimean region were akin to moves Hitler made in the years before World War Two. "I'm not making a comparison, certainly, but I am recommending that we can perhaps learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said the next day at an event in Los Angeles.
As secretary of state, Clinton was a key player in a U.S. effort to reset relations with Russia, a policy that critics say now appears to be a glaring failure.
Clinton's recent rhetoric on Iran and Russia is part of a renewed focus on foreign policy for the former first lady and New York senator, who is widely considered the Democratic presidential front-runner in 2016 if she chooses to run.
She has been giving speeches across the country since leaving the State Department, but Wednesday's address was her first on-the-record event in recent months focused solely on international relations.
"Secretary Clinton is distancing herself a bit on foreign policy matters from the administration recently," said John Hudak, a Brookings Institution fellow and expert on presidential campaigns. "This is a pretty standard practice for anyone looking to succeed the sitting president, even within the same party."
"It's one of the first steps for her to say, 'We're not the same candidate,'" he said.
Clinton's office did not respond to questions about the issue.
Creating space between her position and Obama's is a "smart move," said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who worked for the 1996 presidential re-election campaign of Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton.
"The present administration is in a no-win situation with Russia, with Syria and in the Middle East," Sheinkopf said before Clinton's New York speech. "Making a distance from them can only help."
During her four-year tenure in the State Department, Clinton helped lead the charge on imposing strong sanctions on Iran, which she mentioned in her New York speech to a pro-Israel audience - including several Democratic lawmakers - at an American Jewish Congress dinner honoring her.
In late January, Clinton sent a letter to Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, calling herself a "longtime advocate for crippling sanctions against Iran," but urging that Congress not impose new sanctions during negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program.
She said that like Obama, she had no illusions about the ease or likelihood of reaching a permanent deal with Iran following an interim agreement reached under Kerry.
"Yet I have no doubt that this is the time to give our diplomacy the space to work," a stance she reaffirmed on Wednesday.
Republicans have promised to make Clinton's State Department record an issue if she runs for the White House, focusing on the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.
The Republican National Committee has condemned Clinton's handling of the Benghazi assault, suggesting in a recent research note that "Benghazi is still the defining moment of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State."
Some political analysts see her toughening rhetoric as more than a campaign tactic, and fitting with her foreign policy statements before joining the Obama administration. They said that could broaden her appeal to voters if she chooses to run, a decision she has said will not come until the end of this year.
Clinton, while a senator, voted in 2002 for a resolution authorizing U.S. military action against Iraq, a position that hurt her with liberal primary voters in her losing battle with Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
"Making a credible and forceful case for America's place in the world - that's the kind of thing she's likely to say and continue to say," said Josh Block, a former Clinton administration official and now an executive at the Israel Project in Washington. "Those are messages that will resonate with Democrats and independents, as well as some Republicans." (Editing by Peter Cooney and Douglas Royalty)

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/foreign-policy-president-run/2014/03/22/id/561085#ixzz2woRpDGz3
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Facing tough Senate races, Reid, fellow Dems turn their attack on Koch brothers

  Political attacks on the Koch brothers have emerged as a key, practically everyday part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democratic Party’s 2014 election strategy -- accusing the wealthy conservative donors of trying to buy elections and block aid to Ukraine.
The attacks began in earnest last month when the Nevada Democrat in notable floor speeches accused Charles and David Koch of being “un-American” and “trying to buy America” and continued straight through this week.
“Across the country Republican Senate candidates are embracing a dangerous agenda that’s good for billionaires like the Koch Brothers and bad for nearly everyone else in the country,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said Thursday in announcing a record-breaking February fundraising haul of $6.8 million.  
That Democrats would attack the Kochs, or mount a counter-attack, is to be expected, considering how their money was instrumental in helping conservative nonprofits assist Republicans in taking the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Furthermore, Reid argues the Kochs are really trying to "buy" elections to advance their self-serving corporate interests of lower taxes and less regulation.
In this cycle, the brothers have already given a reported $30 million to nonprofits such as Americans for Prosperity to help pay for attack ads on ObamaCare and against incumbent Senate Democrats, as they try to defend their party’s six-seat majority in the upper chamber in an increasingly tough political environment.
The group has already spent a reported $700,000 in ads against Arkansas Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor, who is trailing challenger and Arkansas GOP Rep. Tom Cotton by 3 percentage points, according to an averaging of polls by nonpartisan RealClearPolitics.com
The Koch-backed attacks have also extended into a money war with the pro-Democrat group Senate Majority PAC, which spent a reported $3 million on ads on tough Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina and drew a sharp response.
On Friday, Philip Ellender of Koch Industries told Politico the ads marked “the latest round in a series of attacks and attempts to silence private citizens who dare to disagree with the policies of the Majority Leader and the [Obama] administration.”
Ellender also said Reid specifically has decided to focus on “intimidating political opposition and squelching dissent,” instead of creating jobs and improving the lives of Americans.
Republicans, though, are hardly the only ones benefiting from the political spending of well-heeled backers.
Former hedge fund manager and California billionaire Tom Steyer reportedly is planning to spend at least $100 million (half of it his own money) on attack ads this year against candidates who aren’t supporting efforts to address climate change.
And until recently, even some moderate Senate Democrats were enjoying donations from the Koch brothers’ political action committee. But as that money shifted directions, Democrats stopped holding their tongues.
Charles Koch, 78, and David Koch, 73, inherited a small oil company from their father. They expanded worldwide into chemicals, textiles, paper and other products, building a hugely profitable and privately held conglomerate.
Long active in conservative politics, they seized on the 2010 Citizens United court ruling that allows unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, often without disclosing donors. They helped found Americans for Prosperity, which reported spending $122 million on elections in 2012. In addition, Charles Koch helped start the Washington-based Cato Institute in the late 1970s. The family has given millions to the Libertarian-minded think tank over the years but was involved in a public dispute with leaders several years ago.
As part of the Democratic offensive this year against the brothers, and the apparent attempt to keep criticism about them in the news cycle, Reid and fellow Senate leaders last week suggested the brothers are behind congressional Republicans agreeing to support a Ukraine aid package only in exchange for delays in IRS rules that would impact the political activities of nonprofits like Americans for Prosperity.
Reid returned to the Senate floor last week to say that when Republican senators rush to defend the Koch brothers, they are also defending the brothers’ “radical philosophy.”
He challenged Republicans by asking, “Is even one of you willing to stand up and disavow the Koch brothers’ radical agenda?”
Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter has publicly defended the brothers, saying at a recent town hall meeting that they are “two of the most patriotic Americans.”
“God bless the Koch brothers," said Vitter, according to YouTube video posted by trackers American Bridge. “They’re fighting for our freedom.”

Louisiana bans use of welfare benefits for tattoos, lingerie, jewelry

BATON ROUGE, La. –  Louisiana welfare recipients will be prohibited from spending the federal assistance at lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores, under new limits enacted by state social services officials.
The Department of Children and Family Services announced the emergency regulations late Thursday. They cover the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program — commonly known as welfare benefits — and the Kinship Care Subsidy Program.
Both programs pay cash assistance to low-income families for items like food, clothing and housing.
DCFS Secretary Suzy Sonnier said the agency decided to ban the use of electronic benefit cards, which work as debit cards, at stores that don't sell items that are considered basic needs for families.
"This rule will not affect families who currently use the program as intended, which is to provide food, shelter and clothing for families," Sonnier said in a statement.
About 3,500 households in Louisiana receive welfare benefits, and about 2,400 households get kinship care subsidies, according to the department. Average payments are $192 per month for welfare and $419 a month for kinship care.
The emergency regulations come a week after WAFB-TV in Baton Rouge reported that an Ascension Parish lingerie store posted a sign noting that it accepted the welfare benefits card along with most credit cards.
Also barred in the latest restrictions from taking welfare debit cards are video arcades, bail bond companies, cruise ships, psychics, adult-entertainment businesses, nightclubs, bars and any businesses where minors are not allowed.
Violators of the new regulations will stop receiving welfare benefits for a year for a first offense, two years for a second offense and permanently for a third offense, according to the social services department.
The department also said it is seeking to enact the restrictions in law and allow the state to fine retailers who don't follow the guidelines. Rep. Chris Broadwater, R-Hammond, will sponsor the bill for consideration in the current legislative session.
"I hope that we can meet the spirit of intent of the program while also ensuring that state and federal tax dollars are being used appropriately," Broadwater said in a statement.
Last year, the social services agency enacted new regulations that banned the spending of welfare money on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets. Those regulations also included prohibitions on the use of a welfare electronic benefit card at liquor stores, gambling sites and strip clubs, as required under a recently-passed federal law.
Tracking violations may be difficult, however, because the welfare money can be taken off the electronic benefit card as cash through an ATM. Social services officials said they rely on businesses and the public to report suspected violations.

Issa subpoenas ATF over 'mismanaged' gun operation

Rep. Darrell Issa has subpoenaed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for information about what he calls a "dangerously mismanaged" program, which originally was launched to get crime guns off the street. 
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs, has been looking into complaints about the program for months. Under the operation, ATF agents set up storefronts in multiple cities to try and entice criminals to sell their crime guns, unwittingly, to the government so they could be traced. But their tactics and missteps, including using mentally disabled people, drew criticism.   

ADVERTISEMENT

Issa, R-Calif., claimed this week that the ATF has stonewalled him by withholding documents and shown a "complete lack of cooperation." 
"I have no choice today but to issue the enclosed subpoena," he wrote to ATF Director B. Todd Jones. "... The time for hollow promises is over." 
Details on problems with the program first emerged last January, when The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on missteps in Milwaukee under the program known as Operation Fearless. In that operation, thousands of dollars in merchandise, as well as several guns, were reportedly stolen from ATF agents. 
Details of other similar operations in other cities later emerged, including claims that one operation was located across the street from a middle school. House committees are now investigating, on the heels of the controversy over the botched anti-gun trafficking Operation Fast and Furious. 
ATF agents, though, have defended the storefront program, saying lawmakers overstate the problem. 
"Putting this into context, there were deficiencies with the storefront operations, but there have been many successes and it still remains a viable technique when managed well," ATF Deputy Director Tom Brandon told lawmakers recently. 
The operation in Milwaukee, despite its flaws, resulted in dozens of arrests.

notorious fraudster was behind costly EPA regulations

Another Democrat ??

John Beale, the former EPA official who fooled his bosses into believing he worked for the CIA, was deeply involved in crafting costly environmental standards which still are having an impact today -- though he came into the job with little, if any, environmental experience. 
The details were included in a 67-page report from Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which claims the fraudster's role should now throw those rules into question. 
The report is the product of months of research into the case of Beale, a top official in the Office of Air and Radiation, who was sentenced to prison in December for defrauding the agency with his CIA lie. It details Beale's role in crafting an aggressive regulatory approach which the report dubs the "EPA Playbook." 
"Ultimately, the guiding [principle] behind the Playbook is the Machiavellian [principle] that the ends will justify the means," the report says. 
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., top Republican on the committee, said in a statement that the study "connects the dots between John Beale and the numerous air regulations that he's responsible for." 
The EPA already has come under scrutiny for failing to act earlier on warning signs about Beale's behavior and fraudulent activity. But the report also calls into question the regulatory work Beale had done over an EPA career that began in the late '80s -- and its lingering impact on businesses today. 
"The product of his labors have remained intact and have been shielded from any meaningful scrutiny, much the same way Beale was protected by an inner circle of career staff who unwittingly aided in his fraud," the report says. "Accordingly, it appears that the Agency is content to let the American people pay the price for Beale and EPA's scientific insularity, a price EPA is still trying to hide almost twenty years later." 
Beale was first brought on as a career employee by his friend Robert Brenner in 1989, after a stint working as a consultant for the agency. According to the Senate GOP report, he had no environmental experience, and his federal legislative experience was limited to an unpaid internship for a senator. Yet he was brought on at the maximum pay level for an employee of his kind -- at a level typically reserved for people with 20 years' experience, according to the report. 
In 1995, Beale and Brenner apparently began working on what are known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM). This was a far-reaching process to regulate pollutants in the air -- the push to regulate Particulate Matter covered small particles ranging from smoke to soot to fumes to dust. According to the report, Beale and the rest of the agency ran with the project. 
"Under Beale's leadership EPA took the unprecedented action of proposing standards for the two pollutants in tandem and aggressively tightened the standards to controversial levels," the report said. 
The report goes on to argue that the 1997 standards that resulted "set in motion" the way the EPA issues regulations under the Clean Air Act. The report alleges that this included "inflating benefits while underestimating costs." 
Asked for comment on the Republican report, EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson acknowledged Beale's role in the air quality rules but noted he was among many people involved in that process. 
"While Mr. Beale did work on the rules mentioned in the report, he was just one of a large number of people from a number of disciplines across the Agency who provided input on those rules," she said in an email. Those rules, she noted, for the most part were upheld by the courts. 
"Since that time, both standards have been re-reviewed and re-issued by the EPA," Johnson said. "The standards followed the routine open, transparent and public process, providing opportunities for public and interagency review and comment prior to their finalization." 
Despite Republican accusations, the agency defends its air quality standards as firmly grounded in science. 
The Senate GOP study details specific regulations that relied on these standards, including the EPA's controversial regulations on coal-fired power plants. Amid these and other rules, dozens of power plants have been slated for retirement in recent years. 
The report says the air quality standards have also been used to defend 32 major rules since 1997, which together account for billions of dollars in costs to U.S. businesses. 
The so-called "playbook" for implementing EPA rules began during the 1997 process, and allegedly included inflating benefits of proposed rules, as well as using a controversial tactic known as "sue-and-settle" -- where a "friendly" group sues the agency and settles on "mutually agreeable terms." The report says Brenner and Beale were behind that "playbook." 
Republicans argue in the study that Beale reached the "pinnacle of his career" during that 1997 process, and used that status to defraud the agency for years. 
The inspector general's investigation, which later uncovered the fraud, found Beale received improper bonuses until 2013 -- the improper bonuses ended up totaling about $500,000.  This, while he was taking off time supposedly to work for the CIA. 
Since the fraud was made public, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has been credited by some with initially flagging Beale's activities and expenses. EPA bosses say they were duped by his CIA story, despite the warning signs. 
An EPA spokeswoman said earlier that Beale "went to great lengths to deceive and defraud the U.S. government over the span of more than a decade" and the agency has "put in place additional safeguards to help protect against fraud and abuse related to employee time and attendance." 
Brenner retired from the agency in 2011.