Saturday, October 8, 2016

Clinton called for 'open trade and open borders' in private, paid speeches

WikiLeaks appears to reveal Clinton's Wall Street speeches

Hillary Clinton told bankers behind closed doors that she favored "open trade and open borders" and said Wall Street executives were best-positioned to help reform the U.S. financial sector, according to transcripts of her private, paid speeches leaked Friday.
The leaks were the result of another email hacking intended to influence the presidential election.
Excerpts of the speeches given in the years before her 2016 presidential campaign included some blunt and unguarded remarks to her private audiences, which collectively had paid her at least $26.1 million in speaking fees. Clinton had refused to release transcripts of the speeches, despite repeated calls to do so by her primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The excerpts were included in emails exchanged among her political staff, including Campaign Chairman John Podesta, whose email account was hacked. The WikiLeaks organization posted what it said were thousands of Podesta's emails. It wasn't immediately clear who had hacked Podesta's emails, though the breach appeared to cover years of messages, some sent as recently as last month.
Among the emails was a compilation of excerpts from Clinton's paid speeches in 2013 and 2014. It appeared campaign staff had read all Clinton's speeches and identified passages that could be potentially problematic for the candidate if they were to become public.
One excerpt put Clinton squarely in the free-trade camp, a position she has retreated on significantly during the 2016 election. In a talk to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she said her "dream" is "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders" and asked her audience to think of what doubling American trade with Latin America "would mean for everybody in this room."
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has made opposition to trade deals a cornerstone of his campaign.
Podesta posted a series of tweets Friday night, calling the disclosures a Russian hack and raising questions about whether some of the documents could have been altered.
"I'm not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump," Podesta wrote. "Don't have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked."
Podesta's comments came just hours after U.S. officials publicly accused the Russian government of directing cyberattacks on political organizations and American citizens in an attempt to interfere with U.S. elections.
The joint statement from the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department cited disclosures of "alleged hacked emails" on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks as being "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
The statement didn't refer by name to the affected political institutions, but federal authorities are investigating cyberattacks on the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement, "It's not hard to see why she fought so hard to keep her transcripts of speeches to Wall Street banks paying her millions of dollars secret."
The emails released Friday included exchanges between Podesta and other Clinton insiders, including campaign manager Robby Mook. Most were routine, including drafts of Clinton speeches, suggested talking points for campaign surrogates and suggested tweets to be sent out from Clinton's account.
The excerpts include quotes from an October 2013 speech at an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs, in which Clinton conceded that presidential candidates need the financial backing of Wall Street to mount a competitive national campaign.
"Running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it," Clinton said. "New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy."
In the same speech, Clinton was also deferential to the New York finance industry, exhorting wealthy donors to use their political clout for patriotic rather than personal benefit. She also spoke of the need to include Wall Street perspectives in financial reform.
"The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Clinton said.
In an April 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council, Clinton said politicians must balance "both a public and a private position" while making deals. Clinton gave an example from the movie "Lincoln," and the deal-making that went into passage of the 13th Amendment, a process she compared to sausage-making.
"It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be," Clinton said. "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."
Clinton's speeches often touched on technology and privacy. In an April 2014 speech to JPMorgan, she denounced National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden for going abroad, saying, "if he really cared about raising some of these issues and stayed right here in the United States, there's a lot of whistleblower protections."
But she told her audience that her time in the public eye left her sympathetic to privacy concerns.
"As somebody who has had my privacy scrutinized and violated for decades, I'm all for privacy, believe me," she said.
Speaking on international affairs, Clinton's comments were largely in line with her positions as secretary of state, if sometimes more blunt.
"The Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on Earth over the course of the last 30 years," she told the Jewish United Fund at a 2013 dinner.
The speech transcripts were produced under an agreement Clinton routinely imposed on any organization that hired her to speak. The contracts, such as ones crafted by the Harry Walker Agency, required the organizations to hire, at their own expense, a stenographer who would provide the transcripts to Clinton and not keep copies for themselves.
In some cases, the contracts themselves were obtained by news organizations under public records laws because Clinton was being paid to speak by public universities or colleges.

'Horribly embarrassed' Billy Bush won't lose job over leaked Trump tape


Billy Bush is “horribly embarrassed” by the Donald Trump tape — while TV insiders are tittering that it must have been leaked by staffers on his former show “Access Hollywood.”
And while we’re told producers at “Today” and NBC News are appalled by his conversation with the presidential hopeful, Bush’s job at the morning show is safe.
An NBC insider said: “It happened 11 years ago … Billy was in a different place. He was a lot younger and more immature. He’s definitely embarrassed by this, but his job at ‘Today’ is safe.”
Another TV source continued, “Trump supporters might not care, but the ‘Today’ show will … they want Billy to look like ‘nice funny’ Billy, not a frat boy. The problem is that what to do if his interview subjects bring it up? He’ll have to address it on TV.”
Of his rival Matt Lauer, who isn’t happy about Bush being his heir apparent, the source added, “Somewhere in New York, Matt Lauer is having a big belly laugh.”
Bush told us in a statement, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago — I was younger, less mature and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Trump apologizes for lewd remarks in video statement amid GOP uproar


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump released a midnight video statement early Saturday apologizing for crude comments about women that he made on a 2005 audio tape as two Republican senators called on him to drop out of the presidential race.
In the video, Trump said the remarks "don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize."
However, Trump turned on his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the latter part of the statement, accusing her of having "bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated" her husband's "victims."
"I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people," Trump said. "Bill Clinton has actually abused women ... We will discuss this more in the coming days." The video closed with Trump reminding viewers to tune in to his second presidential debate with Clinton in St. Louis Sunday night.
The video and audio released Friday by The Washington Post and NBC News recorded a conversation between Trump and "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush in which Trump described an attempt to have sex with a married woman. He also brags about women letting him kiss and grab them because he is famous.
"When you're a star they let you do it," Trump says. "You can do anything." He later used a crude term for part of a woman's anatomy.
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
Trump initially offered a statement of apology shortly after the video was released, saying he was sorry "if anyone was offended." He released the video statement after the scope of the damage became clear.
The remarks were met with shock and anger on all sides of the political spectrum. Sen. Mike Lee called Trump a "distraction" in a statement on his Facebook page and said it was "time for him to step aside so we can focus on the winning ideas that will carry Republicans through to a victory in November."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox13 Utah that he could no longer support Trump for president, calling the remarks "abhorrent and offensive." Chaffetz did not say whom he would support instead.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert also withdrew his endorsement of trump, and former Gov. Jon Huntsman did call for the candidate to step aside and let running mate Mike Pence take his place
Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., also called for Trump to "step aside," adding "his defeat at this point seems almost certain."
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., facing a tough re-election fight, tweeted that Trump should drop out and the Republican Party should "engage rules for [an] emergency replacement."
Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill expressed fears that Trump's comments could jeopardize the GOP's chances of holding onto the Senate after the November elections.
"This is bad," one senior GOP source told Fox News early Saturday. "We're going to have to re-evaluate everything."
However, the source doubted that the Republican National Committee would take the drastic step of forcing Trump to vacate the top of the presidential ticket, saying "I don't see it happening a month out. Plus, would [RNC chairman] Reince [Priebus] do that? I doubt it."
Priebus, who has stood by Trump after prior provocative comments, decried the real estate mogul's latest comments in a brief statement.
"No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever," Priebus said.
Republicans were particularly worried about the impact on Senate races in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the latter of which has a high number of highly educated female voters. The Nevada Senate race could also be an issue because of Hispanic voters who may be offended by Trump's prior comments about Mexican immigrants and former Venezuelan Miss Universe Alicia Machado.
When asked where the Trump comments wouldn't impact Senate candidates, one senior source replied "Alabama," a state Trump is likely to carry next month and where Sen. Richard Shelby faces little opposition for re-election.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Border Crossing Cartoons





Authorities caught barely half of illegal border crossers last year, report finds


Immigration authorities caught just over half of the people who illegally entered the U.S. from Mexico last year, according to a report commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security that offers one of the most detailed assessments of border security ever compiled.

The report found that 54 percent of people who entered illegally between border crossings got caught in the 2015 fiscal year. That's much lower than the 81 percent success rate that Homeland Security cited publicly using a different counting method.

The 98-page report was completed in May, and Homeland Security officials have declined to release it, despite urging from some members of Congress. The Associated Press obtained a copy from a government official involved in border issues who acted on condition of anonymity because the department has not made the report public.

The department said Thursday that the report was "one building block provided by a research organization" toward developing more reliable measures of border security and that its methodology needed refinement.

"DHS does not believe it is in the public interest to release, and it would be irresponsible to make policy or other judgments on the basis of analysis that is incomplete and remains a work in progress," spokeswoman Marsha Catron said.

The report offers some of most detailed measures yet of how secure the border with Mexico is -- a major issue in a presidential campaign that features Republican nominee Donald Trump calling for a wall along the entire 1,954-mile border. The report includes enough material to argue that the government has made big strides or that it is falling woefully short.

In terms of people, 170,000 eluded capture during the 2015 fiscal year, 210,000 the previous year, and 1.7 million in 2005. The number of people who eluded capture is larger when including those who escaped detection at border crossings or who entered by sea, which is the responsibility of Homeland Security agencies outside the Border Patrol. Adding those, 200,000 people got away last year, 260,000 in 2014, and 1.9 million in 2005.

The huge drop in illegal entries over the last decade coincides with major increases in border security spending, which has reached $14 billion annually. The report notes more serious consequences imposed on illegal crossers during that period, which include jail time.

Immigration experts have also cited the significant decline in job opportunities after the Great Recession that began at the end of 2007. Still, sharp declines in illegal entries have continued in recent years as the economy improved.

"This is the first solid evidence we have that the border buildup of the last 20 years has indeed made some significant difference in deterring and reducing illegal entries across the southern border," said Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Border Patrol's capture rate on the Mexican border was 55 percent in 2014 and 36 percent in 2005, according to the report prepared for Homeland Security by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded research organization. The Border Patrol achieved an 11-point improvement in 2014 after years of slow but steady gains. The report does not offer an explanation for the sudden improvement.

The report, which includes an appendix of more than 100 pages on methodology and a review of previous efforts to count border crossers, offers detailed analysis going back to 2000, shortly before the U.S. erected hundreds of miles of fences along the Mexican border, added surveillance gear and doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. Homeland Security has been under pressure to show if those multibillion-dollar investments yielded results.

The primary measure that Homeland Security has released for public consumption is the number of Border Patrol arrests, which tells how many people got caught but not how many got away. Arrests dropped to the lowest level in 44 years in 2015, down 80 percent from a peak of nearly 1.7 million in 2000.

For the last two years, the department has released an "interdiction effectiveness rate" that measures the percentage of people who got caught among all who attempted to enter between crossings on the Mexican border. The figure includes those who set foot in the U.S. and turned around and asylum-seekers. It was 81 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2015.

The report obtained by the AP takes a different approach. It does not credit the government for people who turn around or turn themselves in to agents to seek asylum, a common occurrence among Central American women and children who have entered the country in large numbers over the last five years, many of them fleeing drug-fueled violence.

The report says there were 140,000 asylum seekers on the Mexican border last year and 170,000 in 2014, compared to about 20,000 a year a decade ago. Homeland Security's practice of counting those as captures goes a long way toward explaining why its success rate was so much higher.

The report also counts people who entered the country illegally at border crossings -- typically by presenting fake or stolen documents to immigration inspectors. Homeland Security does not publish those numbers. The report says 28,000 escaped detection last year, down from 46,000 in 2014. The capture rate improved to 39 percent from 29 percent.

Counting border crossers who elude capture is a mammoth and imprecise task but one that many experts believe is necessary to judge whether the border is secure. Homeland Security approaches the job by tracking physical evidence, such as footprints in the desert and other signs of human presence, and by agent sightings. The internal report uses that information, along with migrant surveys and techniques developed by social scientists.

FBI files reveal missing email 'boxes' in Clinton case, allegations of evidence tampering

How the FBI is trying to meet Clinton email deadline
Buried in the 189 pages of heavily redacted FBI witness interviews from the Hillary Clinton email investigation are details of yet another mystery -- about two missing “bankers boxes” filled with the former secretary of state’s emails.
The interviews released earlier this month, known as 302s, also reveal the serious allegation that senior State Department official Patrick Kennedy applied pressure to subordinates to change the classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public.
The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS)." The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.
The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”
The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “
Clinton’s chief lawyer at Williams & Connolly, who leads all Clinton-related legal matters, is David Kendall. He has successfully represented Bill and Hillary Clinton together and separately throughout decades of their legal entanglements since the 1980’s, ranging from the former president’s sex scandals to missing billing records for Hillary Clinton’s work as a partner in The Rose Law Firm on behalf of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and Capital Management Services.
In the documents provided by Kendall’s law firm, the witness told the FBI they were “unable to locate any of her emails from January-April 2009.” This timeframe is crucial as it covers the start of Clinton’s term as secretary of state and when she set up a private server for all government business, in turn skirting public records laws.
In the same Aug. 18, 2015, interview, on page 42, the State Department witness also told the FBI there was a deliberate effort to change sensitive Clinton emails bearing the “B(1)” code -- used in the Freedom of Information Act review process to identify classified information -- to the category of “B-5.” That category covers Executive Branch deliberations, “interagency or intra-agency communications including attorney client privileges,” and makes material exempt from public release.
Over five pages of the single-spaced summary notes, the witness, whose name is redacted, alleges Clinton’s team which included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy played classification games to confuse and obfuscate the formal FOIA review process.
“(Redacted) believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process. Specifically, STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau upgraded several of CLINTON’s emails to a classified level with a B(1) release exemption. (Redacted) along with (redacted) attorney, Office of Legal Counsel called STATE's Near East Affairs Bureau and told them they could use a B(5) exemption on an upgraded email to protect it instead of the B(1) exemption."
In early May 2015, the witness reported, "… KENNEDY held a closed-door meeting with (redacted) and (redacted) DOJ's Office of Information Programs where KENNEDY pointedly asked (redacted) to change the FBI's classification determination regarding one of CLINTON's emails, which the FBI considered classified. The email was related to FBI counter-terrorism operations.”
This appears to be one of two emails that kick-started the FBI probe in the summer of 2015. Fox News first identified the two emails containing classified information as well as sensitive law enforcement information sent by Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan to Clinton’s unsecured server.
State Department spokesman John Kirby consistently has stated the majority of the 2,100 Clinton server emails containing classified information were "retroactively classified" and not classified at the time they were sent and received. But that explanation is disputed by seasoned intelligence officials. Even the State Department witness cast doubt on the claim in the FBI interview:
"(Redacted) heard the argument that some of CLINTON'S emails were unclassified back in the 2009-2012 timeframe when they were initiated, but were later classified due to various circumstances. It was very rare for something that was actually unclassified to become classified years after the fact."
Asked this week about the FBI 302 and the claims Kennedy, one of the department's most senior executives, tampered with the FOIA review process, State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau said they "strongly refute those claims."
She added, "The department has complete confidence that the … attorneys performed the highest professional and ethical standards, including, with connection, with the review and release of Secretary Clinton's emails."
Kennedy, in his FBI interview on Dec. 21, 2015, “categorically rejected” the allegations of classified code tampering. While the section is partially redacted, it appears the FBI asked Kennedy about the credibility of the accusing witness. He said she “says it like it is” and has “no fear of telling truth to power.”
The conflicting statements indicate either the junior State Department employee or Kennedy misled or lied to federal agents which can be a criminal offense.
Fox News first reported on the intelligence community’s deep concerns that the process was tampered with, as lawyers with Clinton ties were alleged to be involved at the State Department.
Fox News was told in August 2015 that Kennedy was running interference on Capitol Hill. Two sources confirmed that Kennedy went to Capitol Hill and argued one of the emails that kick-started the probe did not contain classified material, citing a 2011 Irish Times newspaper report to claim the information was already public.
According to congressional testimony, at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who was at the IRS during the Lois Lerner email scandal and later handled the release of documents to the Benghazi congressional committee.
Duval once worked for the same firm as Kendall and has since left the State Department.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

White House coordinated with State Department, Clinton campaign on email issue, documents show

Lawmakers question destruction of Clinton aides' laptops
Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.
Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.
In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.
The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.
Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs, and strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Issue One and an expert on ethics and campaign finance, said the email exchange would probably raise no legal concerns because federal law permits members of the White House staff to engage in some political activity.
Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement has dogged her campaign for months, with Republicans and other critics saying it shows a carelessness with government secrets and undermines her claim to good judgment. Donald Trump’s campaign posted a statement on his website last month saying the Obama White House knew Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server.
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the arrangement was a mistake, but she has rejected the notion that national secrets were placed at risk. Her campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the new email disclosures.
The emails highlight the revolving door between the State Department, the White House and the Clinton campaign in early 2015 as Mrs. Clinton geared up to run for president.

Hurricane Matthew could bring political storm surge to Washington


Hurricane Matthew is poised to hit Washington, D.C.
Hear this out for a moment.
Forecasters predict the storm will tear through the Florida, Georgia and Carolina coastlines over the next two days. It could be the most-potent hurricane to crash the U.S. mainland in more than a decade. Just a few days ago, severe weather specialists pondered the chances of Matthew lashing the outskirts of the nation’s capital, a la Hurricane Hazel in 1954. But a big trough in the jet stream is too far north to suction Matthew into the Beltway region. The storm is now expected to perform a curly-q once it whipsaws the southern U.S. rather than drifting northward.
But alas, those are the meteorological models.
Check out the political models.
If past is prologue, Hurricane Matthew could well be a full-blown Cat 5 on the political version on the Saffir-Simpson scale when it makes landfall in Washington.
Congress is out of session until after the election. Lawmakers just approved a temporary spending bill last week to avoid a government shutdown. It’s likely Congress will wrestle with a broad, so-called “omnibus” package to again fund the government come Christmastime. And if Matthew is as bad as meteorologists expect, a debate about emergency assistance for Florida could dominate the conversation.
Keep in mind that lawmakers just stitched aid for flooding in Louisiana onto last month’s temporary spending measure. A storm of Matthew’s magnitude could prompt a reprise of such efforts – only for a different part of the country.
In politics, Mother Nature is the most democratic force in the universe. Earthquakes rattle California. Wildfires char the mountain west. Floods soak the Mississippi delta. Tornadoes spin through the Great Plains. Blizzards grip the Midwest. Ice storms paralyze New England. Hurricanes boil just off the Gulf Coast. Volcanoes belch in Hawaii.
Every part of the country has its own type of disaster. So when the earthquakefirefloodtornadoblizzardicestormhurricanevolcano strikes a given lawmaker’s district or state, they’re calling on Washington and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to chip in.
This goes for Democrats and Republicans. You thought all politics was local? Natural disasters are even more quintessentially provincial.
For years, a natural disaster would strike and Congress would quickly attach some disaster relief dollars onto the next big appropriations bill. It was just how they did things in Washington. Members of Congress – regardless of party – were loath to oppose any of those packages. Why? Well, this month it might have been a wildfire out west. But if you’re a congressman from New England, winter and an ice storm are coming. An earthquake may have just jolted San Francisco. But senators representing the Great Plains know tornado season is up next spring.
Congress infused FEMA with plenty of cash ahead of time a few years ago to sidestep these appropriations crises. That approach mitigated some spending fights after each individual natural disaster. But it’s impossible to anticipate what’s necessary following each calamity.
Resistance to providing some emergency relief after various natural disasters materialized in 2011 and 2012 as Republicans won control of the House of Representatives. In 2010, voters elected Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers to specifically slash spending. Coughing up additional aid heaped billions of dollars onto the deficit.
Superstorm Sandy punished the East Coast in late October, 2012. Then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, struggled to engineer enough votes to approve an aid package. There was hope Congress would pass the assistance package in late December of that year. But it was not to be.
Congress finally approved the Sandy aid plan in early 2013. The House okayed the plan 241-180. But despite holding the majority, a scant 49 Republicans joined 192 Democrats to vote aye. The vote on the Sandy measure represented the fewest members of the majority party to vote for a major piece of legislation which the House passed in years.
That roll call revealed something fascinating: almost all Republicans in favor were either members of leadership, committee chairs, moderates – or represented areas near the Gulf Coast subject to hurricanes. In other words, Sandy wrecked New York City and the northeast U.S. But those lawmakers who endured Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and other storms knew they couldn’t oppose such a plan to help another region. A nay vote would be hypocritical.
Of course no one knows what devastation Matthew might mete out. But one thing’s for sure: storms thousands of miles away from Washington often rip through the Beltway. Examine the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how it helped tarnish the GOP brand. That helped Democrats score House and Senate control in 2006.
Another example is Category 5 Hurricane Andrew which smashed southern Florida in late August, 1992. The Administration of President George H.W. Bush failed to order an evacuation ahead of Andrew. Moreover, FEMA didn’t distribute the necessary aid.
“Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?” exploded Kate Hale, head of the Dade County, Florida Emergency Management division. “For God’s sake, where are they?”
The biggest concern with many of these hurricanes is the storm surge. That’s the wall of water that tears through communities. Congress must figure out a way to fund the government again this fall. And complicating those efforts could be a political storm surge washing through Capitol Hill that wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen when lawmakers left a few days ago.

CartoonsDemsRinos