Wednesday, April 15, 2015

DEA chief tells House committee she can't fire agents involved in sex parties


With the Secret Service still smarting from its 2012 prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, another federal law agency is in hot water over an even more salacious sex scandal - in the same country.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Michelle Leonhart, Tuesday faced a grueling three-hour inquisition from the House Oversight Committee over an Inspector General's report that found DEA agents in Bogota, Colombia engaged in "sex parties" with prostitutes and that the parties were paid for by the very drug cartels the DEA was sent to fight.
"This behavior is not acceptable," Leonhart said in her opening statement. "It is my hope that the additional training and guidance we have provided to all personnel - particularly those stationed overseas - will prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.”
Her contrition did little to calm members of either party, who were incensed - not only at the infraction itself -  but also at the weak discipline meted out to the still unnamed participants - a maximum of a two-week suspension.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Leonhart, "Do you have any idea how absurd all of that sounds to an ordinary human being?"  Leonhart repeatedly explained that a maze of civil service system protections for government workers prevents her from firing federal employees.
A furious Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., accused Leonhart of looking the other way.
"That's what's happening in your agency! You're protecting the people who solicited prostitutes who had 15 to 20 sex parties, went through this whole operation, and used taxpayer money to do it."
The Department of Justice Inspector General's report, released last month, found that corrupt local police officers in Bogota "arranged” the "sex parties" with prostitutes funded by the local drug cartels for the DEA agents at their government-leased quarters, over a period of several years.
The report found that "although some of the DEA agents participating in these parties denied it, the information in the case file suggested they should have known the prostitutes in attendance were paid with cartel funds." 
It also claimed that local police protected the DEA agents’ property, including weapons, computers and smart phones, while the parties were ongoing. None of the devices was believed to have been compromised.
Under tough questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Leonhart also denied knowing whether any of the prostitutes were underage. "I don't know that," she said.
The response prompted a frustrated Gowdy to shout back, "You have to work with agents over whom you can't discipline and have no control. And you have no control over their security clearance. What the hell do you get to do?”
The report said the behavior exposed agents to possible coercion, extortion, and blackmail.
Lynch told Leonhart he wants the unnamed agents involved to be "named and shamed."  And another, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., asked her, “Do you think you’re the right person for this job?

Senate approves bill changing how Medicare pays doctors


The Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation permanently overhauling how Medicare pays physicians late Tuesday in a rare show of near-unanimity from Congress.
The legislation headed off a 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare fees that would have taken effect Wednesday, when the government planned to begin processing physicians' claims reflecting that reduction. The bill also provides billions of extra dollars for health care programs for children and low-income families, including additional money for community health centers.
Working into the evening, the Senate approved the measure 92-8 less than three weeks after the House passed it by a lopsided 392-37.
The bill's passage brought statements of praise from both President Obama and Republican congressional leaders.
"It's a milestone for physicians, and for the seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicare for their health care needs," Obama said in a statement before later adding "I will be proud to sign it into law."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said approval of the bill was "another reminder of a new Republican Congress that's back to work. And while no bill will ever be perfect, this legislation is a sensible compromise with wide bipartisan support; we look forward to the President following through on his commitment to sign it."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who crafted the compromise bill with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the reform's passage "a big deal."
"For the first time in nearly two decades - and without raising taxes - Congress has come together in a bipartisan way to pass meaningful entitlement reform," Boehner added. "And while much more must be done to rein in unsustainable entitlement spending, this agreement represents an important step in the right direction."
Top Democrats in Congress also expressed support for the legislation.
"Tonight is a milestone for the Medicare program, a lifeline for millions of people," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
The bill's chief feature was its annulling of a 1997 law aimed at slowing the growth of Medicare that has repeatedly threatened deep cuts in reimbursements to physicians and led to threats by doctors to stop treating the program's beneficiaries. Congress has blocked 17 reductions since 2003, an exercise that invites intense lobbying and difficult choices about finding budget savings that both parties detested.
Instead, the measure would create a new payment system with financial incentives for physicians to bill Medicare patients for their overall care, not individual office visits.
While Democrats touted the legislation's added funds for children and the poor, Republicans were claiming victory in changes the bill makes in Medicare that would have a long-term though modest impact on the huge program's finances.
However, conservatives were unhappy that two-thirds of the bill's $214 billion, 10-year costs were financed by simply making federal deficits even bigger, while liberals wanted added money for children and women's programs.
While $141 billion of the measure's costs over the decade would come from added federal red ink, about $35 billion would come from Medicare beneficiaries, mostly by raising the medical and prescription drug premiums paid by some upper-income recipients starting in 2018. Though the affected beneficiaries already pay higher premiums than lower-earning people, Congress seldom increases costs on seniors, fearing retribution come the next Election Day from older voters.
The bill would raise another $37 billion by cutting Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and other providers.
Before passage, senators rejected six amendments, three from each party, that were all but sure to lose but let lawmakers demonstrate their disapproval of provisions they opposed.
A Democratic proposal to extend the two years of extra money the measure provided for the popular Children's Health Insurance Program to four years lost on a 50-50 vote -- short of the 60 votes needed to prevail. By 58-42, the chamber rejected an effort by conservatives to force Congress to find enough savings to pay for the entire measure without increasing federal red ink.
Senators also faced conflicting pressures from lobbying groups.
The American Medical Association and other providers' organizations were urging lawmakers to pass the bill. AARP, the senior citizens' lobby, wanted legislators to back an amendment ending Medicare's annual coverage limits for therapy but stopped short of urging the bill's defeat without that change.
Conservative groups including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America pressed lawmakers to support the GOP amendment -- which lost -- to require Congress to pay for the entire bill.
The 21 percent cut in doctors' fees technically took effect April 1. Citing federal law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stopped processing those claims two weeks ago -- in effect giving lawmakers time to complete the legislation. The agency processes around 4 million Medicare payments for doctors daily.

Congress first asked Hillary Clinton about personal email use in 2012, letter shows



Hillary Clinton ignored questions from congressional investigators in December 2012 about her use of a personal e-mail account while secretary of state.
The latest revelation comes days after Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The announcement followed weeks of questions for Clinton about her use of a personal e-mail account housed on a sever set up in her New York home to conduct all official business as America's top diplomat.
Fox News has obtained a copy of a letter dated Dec. 13, 2012 that was sent from then-House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to Cabinet secretaries, including Clinton, inquiring about their e-mail habits. The committee was conducting an investigation into the Obama administration handled the use of personal e-mail by its officials.
The letter contained eight questions related to officials' use of personal e-mail accounts. The very first question asked by Issa was "Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business? If so, please identify the account used." Subsequent questions asked about whether "alias e-mail" accounts and text messages were used to conduct official business.
The fourth question asked for written documentation of agency archiving and record-keeping procedures as they related to the use of non-official e-mail accounts, while the fifth question asked, "Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?"
Clinton's last day as Secretary of State was Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the date of Issa's letter, which requested a response by Jan. 7, 2013 at the latest.  The New York Times reports that Issa's committee did not receive any response from the State Department until March 27, and even that amounted to a recounting of the department's e-mail policy. The Times reported that the State Department's letter said that employees using personal accounts "should make it clear that his or her personal e-mail is not being used for official business."
Clinton's use of a personal e-mail account, first reported last month by The New York Times, enabled her to shield most of her messages from scrutiny by members of Congress and the media. She has previously said she used one account for convenience because she did not want to go to the trouble of carrying more than one electronic device.
Last month, the House select committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, subpoenaed all of Clinton's personal emails. They received no response. So far, Clinton has turned over 55,000 pages of her emails, 300 of which are related to Benghazi.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

MSM Cartoon


States slam the brakes on Iran, enact tough economic sanctions


While the United States and Iran edge closer to a nuclear deal, nearly two dozen U.S. states are imposing their own sanctions against Tehran – a move some say could derail fragile talks between the two countries.
The states, though, say they aren’t budging. In fact, Kansas and Mississippi are even considering adding more sanctions.
Several states across the country have put their own measures in place to punish Iran-linked companies operating in certain sectors of its economy, directing public pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divesting from the firms and sometimes barring them from public contracts, Reuters reported.
In more than half of those states, restrictions will only expire if all federal sanctions against Iran are lifted – an unlikely scenario.
Typically, U.S. states coordinate their measures with federal sanctions on Iran. However, the states’ divestment actions are, in fact, much more strict when it comes to foreign firms with Iran links.
Georgia, Florida and Michigan are just three states that say they have no intention of changing their policies on Iran -- even if progress is made on a federal level.
“Our investment sanctions are not tied in any way to President Obama’s negotiations with the Iranians,” Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Fla., told Reuters. “They would have to change their behavior dramatically and we would not be necessarily guided by President Obama or any other president’s opinion about the Iranians.”
Officials in New York and Oregon told Reuters they would first need to review any changes made on the national scene before they would be able to comment on how it may affect their current policies.
Even if a federal deal passes, new local legislation would have to be passed in Illinois and Connecticut before legal changes could be made to change their divestment policies.
Florida, an early adopter of divestment policies going after Iran, pulled $1.3 billion out of companies like PetroChina – a Chinese oil and gas company that has ties to Iran. Michigan divested $185 million of its pension funds from companies like HSBC and Vodafone.
The icy relationship between the U.S. and Iran has recently shown some signs of thawing, but many caution that so much discord between the state and federal government over Tehran shows signs of weakness.
On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to take up a bill that requires Obama to give Congress a say in any deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama has threatened to veto the bill, which he says undermines his ability to negotiate.

Jordan's King Abdullah II says airstrikes increasing inside Syria and Iraq


Jordan’s King Abdullah II said Monday that airstrikes have increased inside Syria and Iraq following the murder of a Jordanian pilot burned to death earlier this year by Islamic State terrorists.
Abdullah, who was interviewed on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” said he has not ruled out using ground troops inside Iraq.  He also talked about the possibility of taking out ISIS fighters one stronghold at a time.
"We stepped up big time. We are at the moment he only Arab country in Syria alongside the United States," Abdullah told Baier. "We are the only Arab country operating alongside the Iraqis in Iraq alongside the coalition. As the Iraqis and the coalition increase their tempo for the next operation in Iraq, so will Jordan increase their tempo inside of Iraq."
In the wide-ranging interview, Abdullah also said the Middle East's relationship with the West is undergoing an evolution.
"I think the relationships have changed. I think Arab spring was a lesson for all of us in the region on how we deal with our friends. We express our views to our Western allies. I think the difference is now is that we express them quite strongly."
He also said that America’s role in the Middle East has changed and for him it has been “a wakeup call.”
"We need to stand more on our two feet and make our own decisions and be more bullish and straightforward about it. At the end of the day, I think I know what's best for the country and for the region."
Beyond security, Abdullah told Baier one of his biggest worries is the economy. Jordan’s economy has been fairly resilient in the past but new political pressures are testing its strength.
Energy security has been hit hard by volatility in the region as well as a growing unemployment rate that currently sits at 13 percent.
"There are 1.5 million Syrian refugees in our country, that's almost 20 to 21 percent of our population," Abdullah said. "This year only 28 to 29 percent of the refugee budget is being covered by the whole international community and the rest we have to cover. That's pretty depressing quite honestly."

Rubio announces 2016 GOP presidential campaign, vows to restore, reinvent American Dream


Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio on Monday announced his 2016 presidential candidacy, asking for the chance to create a new American Dream and to be part of a new generation of leaders.
"My parents achieved what came to be known as the American Dream,” said Rubio, a first-generation Cuban-American, at his official announcement. “But now, too many Americans are starting to doubt whether achieving that dream is still possible. … Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”
Rubio becomes the third Republican senator to officially launch a 2016 White House bid.
“I announce my candidacy for president of the United States,” Rubio said in his announcement in Miami, one day after Hillary Clinton made public her campaign, officially establishing herself as the Democratic front runner for the White House next year.
Rubio had hinted for days that he would announce his candidacy this week and pre-empted himself early Monday by saying he feels “uniquely qualified” to talk about the future.
The 43-year-old senator chose to make his candidacy speech at the Freedom Tower -- the Miami landmark that was the first stop for tens of thousands of fleeing Cuban exiles during the 1960s and 1970s, for his announcement speech.
“It is truly a symbol of our nation’s identity,” said Rubio, who gained speaking momentum throughout his roughly 15-minute speech.
With aspirations of turning his relative youth into a benefit, Rubio promised to move politics beyond the past, a jab at Clinton and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- a likely GOP presidential candidate and his one-time political mentor.
"In many countries, the highest office in the land is reserved for the rich and powerful,” he told hundreds packed inside the venue as the temperature outside climbed to 87 degrees. “But I live in an exceptional country where even the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege.”
He also said the dream is slipping away for too many families and that young Americans face unequal opportunities to succeed.
Rubio is hoping to make inroads with groups that have long eluded Republicans -- including young people, minorities and the less affluent.
He spoke briefly in Spanish during his speech, honoring his late father.
He appeared to see an opportunity to cast the presidential contest as one between a fresh face representing a new generation of leadership and familiar faces harking back decades -- namely, the 62-year-old Bush and the 67-year-old Clinton.
"Too many of our leaders and their ideas are stuck in the 20th century," he said. "The time has come for our generation to lead the way toward a new American century."
The swipe at Bush was implied; with Clinton, he was more direct.
"Just yesterday, we heard from a leader who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow," he said.
Democrats began criticizing Rubio hours before his official announcement.
"He's a follower, peddling the same tired Republican playbook," said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "Marco Rubio has pandered to the Republican base throughout his whole career."
The first-term senator has in recent months outlined specific policy proposals on foreign and domestic issues.
On Monday, he repeated the call to repeal ObamaCare, backed school choice, vowed to protect the lives of the unborn, re-establish America’s support for Israel and called out Cuba and Venezuela for human rights violations.
Rubio is set to return Tuesday to Washington to join a Senate hearing on a proposed deal with Iran on its nuclear ambitions.
Rubio faces steep challenges to the nomination, including a well-funded one that Bush is expected to offer. The son of one president and brother of another, Jeb Bush was governor while Rubio was speaker of the Florida House. The two formed a close bond, but a presidential campaign would be certain to test the strength of their friendship.
Another challenge is whether he can win over conservatives, upset with his early support of comprehensive immigration-reform legislation passed two years ago by the Senate. Conservatives and other critics said the plan was tantamount to providing “amnesty” to the millions of people who have entered the United States illegally.

Senate panel votes Tuesday on Iran bill that gives Congress say on nuclear deal


How much say Congress has on a possible nuclear deal with Iran will be tested Tuesday as a controversial bill goes up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The Obama administration has been very critical of legislation that would give Congress a final say in approving or rejecting a deal.
In an interview with The New York Times, Obama said the newly agreed on framework of a nuclear deal with Iran represents a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon and to move toward stabilizing the Middle East.
On Monday, the administration stepped up its lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill.
"The way the legislation is currently written is something that we strongly oppose," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. "But, again, we continue to have extensive conversations with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a foreign trip to meet with members of the House to discuss the negotiations. Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and senior officials in the intelligence community were holding classified briefings Monday and Tuesday with members of the House and Senate.
Earnest said some Republicans are "rigidly partisan" and will reject any deal just because Obama supports it. He said that while there is some Democratic opposition, administration officials will continue to talk with members of his party. So far, the president and other senior administration officials have made more than 130 telephone calls to members of Congress to discuss the negotiations.
"I think there are some Democrats who will listen to this pitch," Earnest said. "I don't know if it will convince them all, but there is a strong case to make and it's one that we intend to continue making."
At the White House, Obama met with Jewish leaders. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is intensely skeptical that international negotiators can reach a verifiable deal with Iran, which has threatened to destroy Israel, some American Jewish groups have backed the international negotiations.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters that he spoke with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, earlier in the day. McCarthy said he told Corker that if the Senate approves the bill, the House will vote on it.
"It's my intention to bring it to the floor of the House and move it," McCarthy said at a news conference as Congress was returning from a two-week spring break.
Republicans and Democrats maintain that Congress should have a say on an international deal with Tehran to curb its nuclear program and have lined up behind legislation. The White House has pushed back, threatening a presidential veto while warning that the bill could scuttle the delicate talks involving the United States, Iran and five world powers.
"Lines in the sands have moved back," McCarthy said, claiming the U.S. has back-tracked on some of the demands it had at the beginning of the talks. "A lot of the questions will be why have they moved back and will Iran ever be able to have the capability of having a nuclear weapon? That's a key question."
Under the bill, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential executive means. But the bill would prohibit him for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions that Congress levied on Iran. During that 60-day period, Congress could hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on any final nuclear agreement with Iran.
If Congress passed a joint resolution approving a final deal -- or took no action -- Obama could move ahead to ease sanctions levied by Congress. But if Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving it, Obama would be blocked from providing Iran with any relief from congressional sanctions.
Iran says its program is for civilian purposes, but the U.S. and its partners negotiating with Tehran suspect Tehran is keen to become a nuclear-armed powerhouse in the Middle East, where it already holds much sway.
The bill has led to a political tug of war on Capitol Hill, with Republicans trying to raise the bar so high that a final deal might be impossible, and Democrats aiming to give the White House more room to negotiate with Tehran.
Senators of both parties are considering more than 50 amendments to the measure introduced by Corker and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

CartoonsDemsRinos