Trump is the Biggest Failure in History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets to 58%
Mar 23, 2017 13:50:14 #
eagleye13 wrote:
" live here....we don't give a fk what you pe... (show quote)
Dummy Boy said it best:
10 things we know about Eagle
1. He's an idiot
2. He gossips like a high school teenager
3. He never provides anything profound
4. He hates America
5. He thinks he's a conservative, but he's a provocateur
6. He hates people that don't agree with them and then gossips about them
7. He's pathetic
8. He thinks that he is wise, but being snarky is not wise.
9. He thinks youtube is a viable source of confirmed evidence
10 He thinks that chemtrails exist.
Mar 23, 2017 13:55:31 #
Progressive One wrote:
Dummy Boy said it best: br br 10 things we know a... (show quote)
10 things you DON'T want to know about prog1 and his alter egos. OK, I won't tell you.
Mar 23, 2017 13:58:39 #
A blow to Supreme Court pick
The justices reject a standard Gorsuch helped establish regarding the rights of disabled students.
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH took the high court ruling in stride. “That’s fine. I will follow the law,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Justin Sullivan Getty Images)
By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — The final day of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee got off to an awkward start Wednesday when the Supreme Court unanimously overruled the foundation of one of his opinions in a case involving the rights of children with disabilities.
It was an embarrassing moment for President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, breaking shortly after Gorsuch sat down for the third day of a confirmation hearing that has otherwise gone smoothly.
Pouncing on the decision, Democratic senators quickly asked Gorsuch for a reaction.
“That’s fine. I will follow the law,” Gorsuch told Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) in a self-depreciating tone that has been his trademark during the hearing. He laughed and said that he had been handed the ruling on the way to the bathroom during a short break. “If I was wrong, senator, I’m sorry.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) came to Gorsuch’s defense, noting that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge’s 2008 ruling itself had not been overturned, though it had played a key role in another case that was the subject of Wednesday’s high court ruling.
The high court’s ruling Wednesday bolsters the rights of millions of disabled children. Justices ruled for the parents of a Colorado boy with autism who had removed their son from a public school because he was screaming in class, climbing on furniture and making no progress. They enrolled him in a private school that specialized in autism, where he flourished.
They then sued the school district for a reimbursement, citing the federal law that promises a “free, appropriate public education” to all children with disabilities.
They lost in the 10th Circuit Court in Denver, which said the public school program was adequate because it was “merely … more than de minimis,” or minimal. This phrase came from the 2008 opinion by a three-judge panel, including Gorsuch.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said that standard was too low. The federal law “demands more. It requires an educational program that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” he said in Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District.
A child’s individualized learning program “must be appropriately ambitious in light of the circumstances,” Roberts said. “The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”
The rest of the day went better for Gorsuch.
In response to questions from Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Gorsuch distanced himself from Bush administration policies that authorized waterboarding of detained prisoners. She cited a 2005 document on which Gorsuch had hand-written the word “yes” next to a passage that said aggressive interrogation techniques had yielded valuable intelligence.
What information did he have showing these techniques were effective? she asked.
Gorsuch said he did not have clear memory of this from 12 years ago. “My recollection,” he said, “is that that was the position that the clients were telling us. I was a lawyer. My job was an advocate, and we were dealing with the detaining litigation. That was my involvement.”
Gorsuch served one year in the Justice Department before being appointed to the 10th Circuit in 2006.
The judge also refused Feinstein’s request to endorse or accept the notion of assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill. She cited California’s end-of-life option act.
“I, in my life, have seen people die horrible deaths,” she said. “The suffering becomes so hard.”
Gorsuch said he could discuss this issue because he wrote a book on the topic before he became a judge. In his testimony, he repeated his view that dying people have a right to refuse further treatment, something the Supreme Court recognized 20 years ago.
“At one point, you want to be left alone,” he said.
But his book questioned the legality of allowing doctors to give willing patients medicine that could end their lives.
He said doctors may give patients heavy medication for pain, so long as they do not intend the patient to die.
“I drew a line between intent and knowingly,” he said.
david.savage@latimes.com
The justices reject a standard Gorsuch helped establish regarding the rights of disabled students.
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH took the high court ruling in stride. “That’s fine. I will follow the law,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Justin Sullivan Getty Images)
By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — The final day of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee got off to an awkward start Wednesday when the Supreme Court unanimously overruled the foundation of one of his opinions in a case involving the rights of children with disabilities.
It was an embarrassing moment for President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, breaking shortly after Gorsuch sat down for the third day of a confirmation hearing that has otherwise gone smoothly.
Pouncing on the decision, Democratic senators quickly asked Gorsuch for a reaction.
“That’s fine. I will follow the law,” Gorsuch told Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) in a self-depreciating tone that has been his trademark during the hearing. He laughed and said that he had been handed the ruling on the way to the bathroom during a short break. “If I was wrong, senator, I’m sorry.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) came to Gorsuch’s defense, noting that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge’s 2008 ruling itself had not been overturned, though it had played a key role in another case that was the subject of Wednesday’s high court ruling.
The high court’s ruling Wednesday bolsters the rights of millions of disabled children. Justices ruled for the parents of a Colorado boy with autism who had removed their son from a public school because he was screaming in class, climbing on furniture and making no progress. They enrolled him in a private school that specialized in autism, where he flourished.
They then sued the school district for a reimbursement, citing the federal law that promises a “free, appropriate public education” to all children with disabilities.
They lost in the 10th Circuit Court in Denver, which said the public school program was adequate because it was “merely … more than de minimis,” or minimal. This phrase came from the 2008 opinion by a three-judge panel, including Gorsuch.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said that standard was too low. The federal law “demands more. It requires an educational program that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” he said in Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District.
A child’s individualized learning program “must be appropriately ambitious in light of the circumstances,” Roberts said. “The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”
The rest of the day went better for Gorsuch.
In response to questions from Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Gorsuch distanced himself from Bush administration policies that authorized waterboarding of detained prisoners. She cited a 2005 document on which Gorsuch had hand-written the word “yes” next to a passage that said aggressive interrogation techniques had yielded valuable intelligence.
What information did he have showing these techniques were effective? she asked.
Gorsuch said he did not have clear memory of this from 12 years ago. “My recollection,” he said, “is that that was the position that the clients were telling us. I was a lawyer. My job was an advocate, and we were dealing with the detaining litigation. That was my involvement.”
Gorsuch served one year in the Justice Department before being appointed to the 10th Circuit in 2006.
The judge also refused Feinstein’s request to endorse or accept the notion of assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill. She cited California’s end-of-life option act.
“I, in my life, have seen people die horrible deaths,” she said. “The suffering becomes so hard.”
Gorsuch said he could discuss this issue because he wrote a book on the topic before he became a judge. In his testimony, he repeated his view that dying people have a right to refuse further treatment, something the Supreme Court recognized 20 years ago.
“At one point, you want to be left alone,” he said.
But his book questioned the legality of allowing doctors to give willing patients medicine that could end their lives.
He said doctors may give patients heavy medication for pain, so long as they do not intend the patient to die.
“I drew a line between intent and knowingly,” he said.
david.savage@latimes.com
Mar 23, 2017 14:00:26 #
Manafort, ex-aide to Trump, once worked to help Putin
associated press
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, the Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort that he never worked for Russian interests.
Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under President George W. Bush grew worse.
Manafort pitched the plan to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10-million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the Associated Press.
Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.
Manafort’s plans were laid out in documents obtained by the Associated Press that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear.
The disclosure comes as Trump campaign advisors are the subject of an FBI inquiry and two congressional investigations. Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates coordinated with Moscow to meddle in the 2016 campaign. Manafort has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and misguided, and said he never worked for Russian interests. The documents show Manafort’s ties to Russia were closer than previously revealed.
In a statement, Manafort confirmed that he worked for Deripaska in various countries but said the work was being unfairly cast as “inappropriate or nefarious” as part of a “smear campaign.”
Deripaska became one of Russia’s wealthiest men under Putin.
associated press
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, the Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort that he never worked for Russian interests.
Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under President George W. Bush grew worse.
Manafort pitched the plan to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10-million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the Associated Press.
Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.
Manafort’s plans were laid out in documents obtained by the Associated Press that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear.
The disclosure comes as Trump campaign advisors are the subject of an FBI inquiry and two congressional investigations. Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates coordinated with Moscow to meddle in the 2016 campaign. Manafort has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and misguided, and said he never worked for Russian interests. The documents show Manafort’s ties to Russia were closer than previously revealed.
In a statement, Manafort confirmed that he worked for Deripaska in various countries but said the work was being unfairly cast as “inappropriate or nefarious” as part of a “smear campaign.”
Deripaska became one of Russia’s wealthiest men under Putin.
Mar 23, 2017 14:01:04 #
Judgment day for the AHCA
O n Thursday, House Republicans and President Trump face their first big test since the election that put the GOP in complete control of the federal government. The House will be voting on a bill to repeal much of the healthcare reform law Democrats pushed through Congress in 2010, replacing it with a skinflint alternative that’s projected to leave 24 million more people uninsured in a decade. It’s a horrible proposal, and the main hope for the country is that dissident Republicans will kill it because it’s not awful enough for them.
The GOP leadership’s “American Health Care Act” abandons one of the core goals of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) — extending insurance coverage to more people — while doing little or nothing to hold down medical costs or improve care. Instead, it would give a sizable tax break to high-income households and the healthcare industry by canceling Obamacare’s tax increases; slash federal spending on Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor and the disabled; and offer new subsidies and insurance rules that are projected to trim premiums for better-off Americans and younger, healthier people not covered by large employer plans.
Republicans are fond of arguing that Obamacare is “collapsing,” a reference to the dwindling number of insurers serving the non-group markets in several states, and the large premium increases in many of those markets last year. Never mind that the vast majority of people served by Obamacare’s insurance exchanges received federal subsidies that shielded them from the brunt of those price hikes. Sadly, many of those families’ subsidies would melt away under the GOP plan, which would provide smaller tax credits tied to age, not income or location. As a result, they would face unaffordable premiums and impossibly high out-of-pocket costs.
To the far-right Republicans in the House Freedom Caucus, that’s simply not bad enough. They apparently don’t want the federal government providing any subsidies whatsoever for these consumers, even though it spends $235 billion annually subsidizing the insurance policies that employers provide their workers. They also want every shred of Obamacare wiped from the books, which Republicans can’t do under the procedures they’re using to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Top Republicans tried to mollify the Freedomites by proposing an even tougher crackdown on Medicaid, making it harder for states to enroll more of their poor residents and easier for them to cover fewer. Because heaven knows the healthcare system in this country works that much better when more Americans go uninsured and have to wait for treatment until their ailments become severe enough for an emergency-room visit.
Yet the Freedomites remain on the fence, as do a number of Republicans who don’t think this bill’s big idea — letting insurers sell cheaper plans that stick their customers with a bigger share of their medical bills — is a good thing for their constituents. They’re absolutely right about that. If the holdouts prevail, it will be a huge loss for Trump and the House GOP leadership. But it will be a welcome win for most of the rest of us.
O n Thursday, House Republicans and President Trump face their first big test since the election that put the GOP in complete control of the federal government. The House will be voting on a bill to repeal much of the healthcare reform law Democrats pushed through Congress in 2010, replacing it with a skinflint alternative that’s projected to leave 24 million more people uninsured in a decade. It’s a horrible proposal, and the main hope for the country is that dissident Republicans will kill it because it’s not awful enough for them.
The GOP leadership’s “American Health Care Act” abandons one of the core goals of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) — extending insurance coverage to more people — while doing little or nothing to hold down medical costs or improve care. Instead, it would give a sizable tax break to high-income households and the healthcare industry by canceling Obamacare’s tax increases; slash federal spending on Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor and the disabled; and offer new subsidies and insurance rules that are projected to trim premiums for better-off Americans and younger, healthier people not covered by large employer plans.
Republicans are fond of arguing that Obamacare is “collapsing,” a reference to the dwindling number of insurers serving the non-group markets in several states, and the large premium increases in many of those markets last year. Never mind that the vast majority of people served by Obamacare’s insurance exchanges received federal subsidies that shielded them from the brunt of those price hikes. Sadly, many of those families’ subsidies would melt away under the GOP plan, which would provide smaller tax credits tied to age, not income or location. As a result, they would face unaffordable premiums and impossibly high out-of-pocket costs.
To the far-right Republicans in the House Freedom Caucus, that’s simply not bad enough. They apparently don’t want the federal government providing any subsidies whatsoever for these consumers, even though it spends $235 billion annually subsidizing the insurance policies that employers provide their workers. They also want every shred of Obamacare wiped from the books, which Republicans can’t do under the procedures they’re using to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Top Republicans tried to mollify the Freedomites by proposing an even tougher crackdown on Medicaid, making it harder for states to enroll more of their poor residents and easier for them to cover fewer. Because heaven knows the healthcare system in this country works that much better when more Americans go uninsured and have to wait for treatment until their ailments become severe enough for an emergency-room visit.
Yet the Freedomites remain on the fence, as do a number of Republicans who don’t think this bill’s big idea — letting insurers sell cheaper plans that stick their customers with a bigger share of their medical bills — is a good thing for their constituents. They’re absolutely right about that. If the holdouts prevail, it will be a huge loss for Trump and the House GOP leadership. But it will be a welcome win for most of the rest of us.
Mar 23, 2017 14:01:52 #
Top Republicans tried to mollify the Freedomites by proposing an even tougher crackdown on Medicaid, making it harder for states to enroll more of their poor residents and easier for them to cover fewer. Because heaven knows the healthcare system in this country works that much better when more Americans go uninsured and have to wait for treatment until their ailments become severe enough for an emergency-room visit.
Mar 23, 2017 14:05:39 #
News of spying imperils russia inquiry
Trump team said to have been included in foreign surveillance.
DEVIN NUNES of Tulare, House Intelligence Committee chairman, said he was alarmed that “details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration ... were widely disseminated.” (Mark Wilson Getty Images) ADAM B. SCHIFF of Burbank, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said Nunes must decide whether to lead the investigation or “act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both.” (Win McNamee Getty Images)
By David S. Cloud, Michael A. Memoli and Brian Bennett
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies inadvertently intercepted communications involving the Trump transition team late last year, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday, a disclosure that President Trump said “somewhat” vindicated his claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama.
But Democrats immediately disputed that claim, asserting that the intercepts appeared to be court-authorized intelligence gathering that did not target Trump or his aides and may not have disclosed their names even in classified intelligence reports.
Rather than confirming Trump’s claims, the disclosures by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), chairman of the House committee, sparked an uproar that threatened to obliterate attempts to conduct a bipartisan congressional investigation into whether Trump aides coordinated with Russian intelligence agencies during the 2016 presidential race.
Nunes said he had learned of “dozens” of classified reports that recounted communications between members of Trump’s transition team — and possibly the then-president-elect himself — and individuals who were legally targeted for government eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.
When asked by a reporter whether he felt vindicated by the disclosure, Trump responded, “I somewhat do.... I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.”
Although Nunes said the surveillance had picked up Trump transition officials inadvertently and appeared to be authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he said he was alarmed that “details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.”
In response, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, the top Democrat on the House committee, criticized Nunes for briefing Trump on the material before he shared it with the committee.
“The chairman will either need to decide if he’s leading an investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both,” Schiff said at a Capitol Hill news conference.
He called Nunes’ actions a “profound irregularity,” adding, “I have expressed my grave concerns with the chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way.”
The brawl between the two Californians came two days after they led a nationally televised House hearing that showed an unusual degree of comity and bipartisan cooperation. That goal now appears in jeopardy.
“Chairman Nunes is deeply compromised and he cannot possibly lead an honest investigation,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
During Monday’s hearing, FBI Director James B. Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers said they had “no information” to confirm Trump’s claims on Twitter that he was wiretapped.
Comey also disclosed that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump’s aides coordinated with Russian authorities. That investigation began last July and officials said Wednesday it was separate from the surveillance Nunes disclosed.
Nunes and other Republicans used the five-hour hearing to argue that leaks of classified information, especially those involving U.S. surveillance, were a threat to national security and should be prosecuted.
The actual targets of the surveillance that picked up the Trump team’s conversations were not disclosed. It could have involved foreign diplomats based in the United States or other foreign government officials.
Nunes implied that unidentified sources who provided him the information came from within the intelligence community. Former congressional aides disputed Nunes’ claim that intelligence officials had acted improperly in conducting the surveillance or circulating the reports.
“Without knowing exactly what was brought to Nunes, it’s hard to know whether or not this is serious or the normal course of business of our intelligence community trying to figure out what foreign governments are up to,” said Mieke Eoyang, a former House Intelligence Committee staffer who is now with Third Way, a Washington think tank.
Under the law, identities of Americans whose communications are picked up by intelligence eavesdropping of foreign targets are supposed to be kept confidential unless the conversations relate to espionage or some other potential crime that warrants investigation.
Details about Americans picked up by surveillance can be included in intelligence reports circulated within the government — a step known as “unmasking” — if senior officials decide that the information is necessary to understand the intelligence.
The FBI is required to get a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a federal law governing eavesdropping, in order to intercept telephone conversations, emails, texts and other communications involving foreign intelligence operatives and Americans suspected of espionage.
As long as the identities of Trump transition officials were properly masked, intelligence agencies would have few qualms about circulating intelligence reports about what a foreign leader said, especially if the conversation seemed to touch on possible policy changes by the foreign government, the former officials said.
U.S. intelligence agencies are always trying to gather information about possible policy shifts by foreign governments, and their conversations with transition officials would be a possible source of such information, former officials say.
It is also possible that such reports were written to leave little doubt that the foreign officials’ conversations had been with a Trump transition official, they said.
In some cases, intelligence officials may have decided to unmask transition officials involved in the conversation to make the significance of the intelligence report clear.
“The president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there,” Nunes said. He said “it appears” the surveillance was authorized by FISA warrants.
Trump’s decision during his transition to shun many briefings from U.S. government officials and to use his own channels to reach out to foreign leaders may have contributed to an increased flow of intelligence reports about what foreign leaders were saying, the former officials said.
On Dec. 2, for example, Trump spoke with Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan, in a conversation that at least temporarily threatened to upset delicate relations between the U.S. and the Chinese government.
It was believed to be the first call between a president or president-elect with a Taiwanese leader since 1979, when the U.S. recognized Chinese governance and cut ties with Taiwan.
Nunes said he wanted to know who wrote the classified reports and “who ordered the unmasking of additional names.”
Schiff said Nunes had told him the Trump transition officials were not identified in the intelligence reports, but that Nunes said “he could still figure out the probable identity” from other information in the reports.
During Monday’s hearing, Republicans repeatedly cited the case of Michael Flynn, who was ousted as Trump’s national security advisor last month after news reports disclosed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about phone conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
The calls were picked up by surveillance targeting the Russian envoy, and a description of the contents was leaked to the Washington Post after the Justice Department warned the White House that Flynn could be subject to blackmail.
On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee asked for records related to whether Flynn had disclosed his foreign business dealings as required by law.
Flynn was paid to speak at a 2015 Moscow event for RT, the Russian news agency that U.S. intelligence considers a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
The committee sent letters seeking the records to the FBI, the White House, the Defense Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Such surveillance was likely how Flynn’s communications with Kislyak came to light, the former officials said.
david.cloud@latimes.com
michael.memoli @latimes.com
brian.bennett@latimes.com
Trump team said to have been included in foreign surveillance.
DEVIN NUNES of Tulare, House Intelligence Committee chairman, said he was alarmed that “details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration ... were widely disseminated.” (Mark Wilson Getty Images) ADAM B. SCHIFF of Burbank, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said Nunes must decide whether to lead the investigation or “act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both.” (Win McNamee Getty Images)
By David S. Cloud, Michael A. Memoli and Brian Bennett
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies inadvertently intercepted communications involving the Trump transition team late last year, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday, a disclosure that President Trump said “somewhat” vindicated his claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama.
But Democrats immediately disputed that claim, asserting that the intercepts appeared to be court-authorized intelligence gathering that did not target Trump or his aides and may not have disclosed their names even in classified intelligence reports.
Rather than confirming Trump’s claims, the disclosures by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), chairman of the House committee, sparked an uproar that threatened to obliterate attempts to conduct a bipartisan congressional investigation into whether Trump aides coordinated with Russian intelligence agencies during the 2016 presidential race.
Nunes said he had learned of “dozens” of classified reports that recounted communications between members of Trump’s transition team — and possibly the then-president-elect himself — and individuals who were legally targeted for government eavesdropping for foreign intelligence.
When asked by a reporter whether he felt vindicated by the disclosure, Trump responded, “I somewhat do.... I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.”
Although Nunes said the surveillance had picked up Trump transition officials inadvertently and appeared to be authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he said he was alarmed that “details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.”
In response, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, the top Democrat on the House committee, criticized Nunes for briefing Trump on the material before he shared it with the committee.
“The chairman will either need to decide if he’s leading an investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both,” Schiff said at a Capitol Hill news conference.
He called Nunes’ actions a “profound irregularity,” adding, “I have expressed my grave concerns with the chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way.”
The brawl between the two Californians came two days after they led a nationally televised House hearing that showed an unusual degree of comity and bipartisan cooperation. That goal now appears in jeopardy.
“Chairman Nunes is deeply compromised and he cannot possibly lead an honest investigation,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
During Monday’s hearing, FBI Director James B. Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers said they had “no information” to confirm Trump’s claims on Twitter that he was wiretapped.
Comey also disclosed that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump’s aides coordinated with Russian authorities. That investigation began last July and officials said Wednesday it was separate from the surveillance Nunes disclosed.
Nunes and other Republicans used the five-hour hearing to argue that leaks of classified information, especially those involving U.S. surveillance, were a threat to national security and should be prosecuted.
The actual targets of the surveillance that picked up the Trump team’s conversations were not disclosed. It could have involved foreign diplomats based in the United States or other foreign government officials.
Nunes implied that unidentified sources who provided him the information came from within the intelligence community. Former congressional aides disputed Nunes’ claim that intelligence officials had acted improperly in conducting the surveillance or circulating the reports.
“Without knowing exactly what was brought to Nunes, it’s hard to know whether or not this is serious or the normal course of business of our intelligence community trying to figure out what foreign governments are up to,” said Mieke Eoyang, a former House Intelligence Committee staffer who is now with Third Way, a Washington think tank.
Under the law, identities of Americans whose communications are picked up by intelligence eavesdropping of foreign targets are supposed to be kept confidential unless the conversations relate to espionage or some other potential crime that warrants investigation.
Details about Americans picked up by surveillance can be included in intelligence reports circulated within the government — a step known as “unmasking” — if senior officials decide that the information is necessary to understand the intelligence.
The FBI is required to get a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a federal law governing eavesdropping, in order to intercept telephone conversations, emails, texts and other communications involving foreign intelligence operatives and Americans suspected of espionage.
As long as the identities of Trump transition officials were properly masked, intelligence agencies would have few qualms about circulating intelligence reports about what a foreign leader said, especially if the conversation seemed to touch on possible policy changes by the foreign government, the former officials said.
U.S. intelligence agencies are always trying to gather information about possible policy shifts by foreign governments, and their conversations with transition officials would be a possible source of such information, former officials say.
It is also possible that such reports were written to leave little doubt that the foreign officials’ conversations had been with a Trump transition official, they said.
In some cases, intelligence officials may have decided to unmask transition officials involved in the conversation to make the significance of the intelligence report clear.
“The president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there,” Nunes said. He said “it appears” the surveillance was authorized by FISA warrants.
Trump’s decision during his transition to shun many briefings from U.S. government officials and to use his own channels to reach out to foreign leaders may have contributed to an increased flow of intelligence reports about what foreign leaders were saying, the former officials said.
On Dec. 2, for example, Trump spoke with Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan, in a conversation that at least temporarily threatened to upset delicate relations between the U.S. and the Chinese government.
It was believed to be the first call between a president or president-elect with a Taiwanese leader since 1979, when the U.S. recognized Chinese governance and cut ties with Taiwan.
Nunes said he wanted to know who wrote the classified reports and “who ordered the unmasking of additional names.”
Schiff said Nunes had told him the Trump transition officials were not identified in the intelligence reports, but that Nunes said “he could still figure out the probable identity” from other information in the reports.
During Monday’s hearing, Republicans repeatedly cited the case of Michael Flynn, who was ousted as Trump’s national security advisor last month after news reports disclosed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about phone conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
The calls were picked up by surveillance targeting the Russian envoy, and a description of the contents was leaked to the Washington Post after the Justice Department warned the White House that Flynn could be subject to blackmail.
On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee asked for records related to whether Flynn had disclosed his foreign business dealings as required by law.
Flynn was paid to speak at a 2015 Moscow event for RT, the Russian news agency that U.S. intelligence considers a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
The committee sent letters seeking the records to the FBI, the White House, the Defense Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Such surveillance was likely how Flynn’s communications with Kislyak came to light, the former officials said.
david.cloud@latimes.com
michael.memoli @latimes.com
brian.bennett@latimes.com
Check out topic: Quality service!
Mar 23, 2017 14:07:41 #
I put this info together for others; ones that can think rationally.
To see the hypocrisy of "Progressives".
"You can tell that this is the wakeup call to action many needed.....you can see the new level of mobilization, awareness and consciousness. the freeways have been blocked with thousands out here in LA.....Trump has his work cut out for him and his racist supporters in the sticks got him there.....will not be of any help to him…" - "Progressive?" One
So at least PO is out in the open.
To see the hypocrisy of "Progressives".
"You can tell that this is the wakeup call to action many needed.....you can see the new level of mobilization, awareness and consciousness. the freeways have been blocked with thousands out here in LA.....Trump has his work cut out for him and his racist supporters in the sticks got him there.....will not be of any help to him…" - "Progressive?" One
So at least PO is out in the open.
Mar 23, 2017 14:17:12 #
All of Trumps people are screwy....damn!!
Labor nominee frustrates Democrats
At Senate hearing, R. Alexander Acosta dodges questions on key workplace rules.
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.), left, greets Labor secretary nominee R. Alexander Acosta before his confirmation hearing. Democrats pressed Acosta about his record as a Justice official and federal prosecutor. (Win McNamee Getty Images)
By Jim Puzzanghera
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s second nominee for Labor secretary, law school dean R. Alexander Acosta, frustrated Democrats at his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday by dodging questions about how he would handle some key workplace rules enacted by the Obama administration.
But Acosta, a former Justice Department official, had strong support from Republicans during the hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and he appeared on track for confirmation.
That was a sharp contrast to Trump’s first pick for the job, Southern California fast-food executive Andy Puzder, who withdrew last month after some GOP senators balked at voting for him amid a series of controversies. On Tuesday, Puzder said he is stepping down as chief executive of CKE Restaurants.
Acosta is a much more conventional pick than the outspoken and flamboyant Puzder.
The dean of the law school at Florida International University in Miami since 2009, Acosta acted like a lawyer in cautiously answering some tough questions.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the committee’s chairman, cited Acosta’s experience of having been confirmed twice before by the Senate for federal jobs as a reason why the hearing “went very well.”
“I have no doubt you’ll be confirmed,” Alexander told him at the end of the three-hour hearing.
If that happens, Acosta would be the only Latino in Trump’s Cabinet.
Acosta told senators that the experiences of his parents, Cuban immigrants who lived “paycheck to paycheck,” taught him the value of having a job. He pledged to push for increased opportunities and enforce workplace safety rules.
“Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be a partisan issue,” Acosta said.
He also said he would not bow to “inappropriate” political pressure and suggested he would resign if he believed he could not follow a directive from Trump.
But Democrats pressed Acosta about his record as a Justice official and federal prosecutor, as well as his views on Obama initiatives to expand overtime pay, place new requirements on retirement advisors and protect workers from exposure to potentially deadly silica dust.
Some of the toughest questions came from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who helped lead the fight against Puzder.
After telling Acosta she was glad he was Trump’s nominee instead of Puzder, Warren told him, “the test for secretary of Labor is not are you better than Andrew Puzder. The test is will you stand up for 150 million American workers.”
Warren tried to get Acosta to commit to not weakening the silica dust rule, to fight a legal stay of the expanded overtime requirements and to give his view on the retirement advisors rule. He would not.
Acosta cited executive orders by Trump for cabinet secretaries to review existing regulations and one specifically directing the Labor Department to look at the retirement advisors rule. Known as the fiduciary rule, it requires investment brokers who handle retirement funds to put their clients’ interests ahead of other factors, such as their own compensation or company profits.
The Labor Department has delayed implementation of the rule, which was set to take effect next month, to conduct the review.
Acosta said he would have to follow the executive order.
Warren said he was dodging questions that she indicated she would ask after a meeting two weeks ago.
“If you can’t give me straight answers on your views on this, not hide behind an executive order…. Then I don’t have any confidence you’re the right person for this job,” she said.
In response to questioning from other senators, Acosta indicated he was in favor of increasing the threshold for overtime pay.
In 2015, the Obama administration moved to more than double the annual salary threshold of $23,660, above which workers qualify for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. It hadn’t been raised since 2004 and is not adjusted each year for inflation.
“I think it’s unfortunate that rules that involve dollar values can go more than a decade without updating,” he said, noting that leads to large increases that can disrupt businesses.
He acknowledged Republican concerns about the new annual overtime threshold of $47,476, which was finalized by the Labor Department last spring. In November, a Texas federal judge blocked the rule from going into effect.
Acosta noted that a simple cost of living adjustment would move the threshold to about $33,000 and suggested he might be open to that. But when pressed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Acosta would not be pinned down.
No Republican on the committee indicated any problems with his nomination.
But some Democrats in addition to Warren expressed concerns about Acosta, who was head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division from 2003 to 2005 under former President George W. Bush.
Acosta was criticized in a 2008 inspector general’s report for not sufficiently supervising a subordinate whose hiring decisions “favored applicants with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered to be overly liberal.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told Acosta that he “at best ignored an extraordinary politicization of the work of this critical division — and at worst, actively facilitated it.”
Acosta promised her he would not allow political views to be considered in the hiring of staffers.
“That conduct should not have happened,” he said. “It happened on my watch … and I deeply regret it.”
After serving in the Justice Department, Acosta became U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com
Twitter: @JimPuzzanghera
Labor nominee frustrates Democrats
At Senate hearing, R. Alexander Acosta dodges questions on key workplace rules.
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.), left, greets Labor secretary nominee R. Alexander Acosta before his confirmation hearing. Democrats pressed Acosta about his record as a Justice official and federal prosecutor. (Win McNamee Getty Images)
By Jim Puzzanghera
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s second nominee for Labor secretary, law school dean R. Alexander Acosta, frustrated Democrats at his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday by dodging questions about how he would handle some key workplace rules enacted by the Obama administration.
But Acosta, a former Justice Department official, had strong support from Republicans during the hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and he appeared on track for confirmation.
That was a sharp contrast to Trump’s first pick for the job, Southern California fast-food executive Andy Puzder, who withdrew last month after some GOP senators balked at voting for him amid a series of controversies. On Tuesday, Puzder said he is stepping down as chief executive of CKE Restaurants.
Acosta is a much more conventional pick than the outspoken and flamboyant Puzder.
The dean of the law school at Florida International University in Miami since 2009, Acosta acted like a lawyer in cautiously answering some tough questions.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the committee’s chairman, cited Acosta’s experience of having been confirmed twice before by the Senate for federal jobs as a reason why the hearing “went very well.”
“I have no doubt you’ll be confirmed,” Alexander told him at the end of the three-hour hearing.
If that happens, Acosta would be the only Latino in Trump’s Cabinet.
Acosta told senators that the experiences of his parents, Cuban immigrants who lived “paycheck to paycheck,” taught him the value of having a job. He pledged to push for increased opportunities and enforce workplace safety rules.
“Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be a partisan issue,” Acosta said.
He also said he would not bow to “inappropriate” political pressure and suggested he would resign if he believed he could not follow a directive from Trump.
But Democrats pressed Acosta about his record as a Justice official and federal prosecutor, as well as his views on Obama initiatives to expand overtime pay, place new requirements on retirement advisors and protect workers from exposure to potentially deadly silica dust.
Some of the toughest questions came from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who helped lead the fight against Puzder.
After telling Acosta she was glad he was Trump’s nominee instead of Puzder, Warren told him, “the test for secretary of Labor is not are you better than Andrew Puzder. The test is will you stand up for 150 million American workers.”
Warren tried to get Acosta to commit to not weakening the silica dust rule, to fight a legal stay of the expanded overtime requirements and to give his view on the retirement advisors rule. He would not.
Acosta cited executive orders by Trump for cabinet secretaries to review existing regulations and one specifically directing the Labor Department to look at the retirement advisors rule. Known as the fiduciary rule, it requires investment brokers who handle retirement funds to put their clients’ interests ahead of other factors, such as their own compensation or company profits.
The Labor Department has delayed implementation of the rule, which was set to take effect next month, to conduct the review.
Acosta said he would have to follow the executive order.
Warren said he was dodging questions that she indicated she would ask after a meeting two weeks ago.
“If you can’t give me straight answers on your views on this, not hide behind an executive order…. Then I don’t have any confidence you’re the right person for this job,” she said.
In response to questioning from other senators, Acosta indicated he was in favor of increasing the threshold for overtime pay.
In 2015, the Obama administration moved to more than double the annual salary threshold of $23,660, above which workers qualify for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. It hadn’t been raised since 2004 and is not adjusted each year for inflation.
“I think it’s unfortunate that rules that involve dollar values can go more than a decade without updating,” he said, noting that leads to large increases that can disrupt businesses.
He acknowledged Republican concerns about the new annual overtime threshold of $47,476, which was finalized by the Labor Department last spring. In November, a Texas federal judge blocked the rule from going into effect.
Acosta noted that a simple cost of living adjustment would move the threshold to about $33,000 and suggested he might be open to that. But when pressed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Acosta would not be pinned down.
No Republican on the committee indicated any problems with his nomination.
But some Democrats in addition to Warren expressed concerns about Acosta, who was head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division from 2003 to 2005 under former President George W. Bush.
Acosta was criticized in a 2008 inspector general’s report for not sufficiently supervising a subordinate whose hiring decisions “favored applicants with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered to be overly liberal.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told Acosta that he “at best ignored an extraordinary politicization of the work of this critical division — and at worst, actively facilitated it.”
Acosta promised her he would not allow political views to be considered in the hiring of staffers.
“That conduct should not have happened,” he said. “It happened on my watch … and I deeply regret it.”
After serving in the Justice Department, Acosta became U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com
Twitter: @JimPuzzanghera
Mar 23, 2017 16:34:28 #
Cool Breeze wrote:
Its all smoke and mirrors! They have no plan!
they may be working on their plan. it will surly be better than paying for 11 plus million peoples insurance and their doctors visits and hospital stays. under obumers plan every tax payer will have to foot the bill for all of those who were uninsured. they are subsidized . we would get to pay . at least when they weren't insured we only payed for the ones who needed health care , not all of them.
Mar 23, 2017 17:08:38 #
jeff smith wrote:
they may be working on their plan. it will surly be better than paying for 11 plus million peoples insurance and their doctors visits and hospital stays. under obumers plan every tax payer will have to foot the bill for all of those who were uninsured. they are subsidized . we would get to pay . at least when they weren't insured we only payed for the ones who needed health care , not all of them.
so who doesn't need health care?
Mar 23, 2017 17:11:30 #
Hawaii Republican Resigns From Party After Criticizing Trump
Cathy Bussewitz / AP
Mar 22, 2017
(HONOLULU) — A Hawaii lawmaker who says she was pressured to give up her leadership post at the statehouse after criticizing President Donald Trump resigned Wednesday from the Republican Party.
Rep. Beth Fukumoto said members of the GOP refused to oppose racism and sexism including a suggestion by Trump to create a Muslim registry during his campaign.
"As a Japanese-American whose grandparents had to destroy all of their Japanese artifacts and items and bury them in the backyard to avoid getting taken and interned, how could I not have said anything?" Fukumoto asked. "And how could my party have not said anything?"
Fukumoto was voted out of her post as House Minority Leader in February after calling Trump a bully in a speech at the Women's March in Honolulu, saying many of his remarks were racist and sexist and had no place in the Republican Party.
Since then, she sought feedback from her constituents about leaving the GOP and said three-quarters of the more than 470 letters she received supported the move.
She said she agrees with many Democratic positions on affordable housing and equitable taxes, and hopes to join that party.
Hawaii Democratic Party leader Tim Vandeveer said Democrats will give Fukumoto a fair shake, but some members are concerned about her past voting record on civil rights and women's issues.
"Changing political parties is not like changing jackets, just because the weather's better on our side of the street," Vandeveer said.
Fukumoto voted against same-sex marriage when it came before the Legislature in 2013. She said Wednesday she voted that way to represent the majority of her constituents, but if she was voting on her own, she would have voted yes.
On reproductive rights, Fukumoto said she does not believe in abortion in all three trimesters but does not want to rescind individuals' rights once they have been granted.
"We have choice laws in Hawaii and I'm not looking to repeal those laws," she said.
Members of the Democratic Party on Oahu will ultimately decide whether to accept Fukumoto, but the process could take months, Vandeveer said.
Fukumoto said she's received letters of encouragement from Democrats and Republicans in nearly every state.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz welcomed her to the party in a tweet, saying he's proud of her courage.
Republican state Rep. Cynthia Thielen, a Fukumoto ally who voted against removing her from leadership, said, "the tiny party's brand is further weakened and its relevance to the wider, diverse constituency looks bleak."
With Fukumoto's departure, Hawaii has just five Republican state representatives and no Republican state senators.
Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Fritz Rohlfing declined to immediately comment because he had not yet reviewed Fukumoto's resignation letter.
Cathy Bussewitz / AP
Mar 22, 2017
(HONOLULU) — A Hawaii lawmaker who says she was pressured to give up her leadership post at the statehouse after criticizing President Donald Trump resigned Wednesday from the Republican Party.
Rep. Beth Fukumoto said members of the GOP refused to oppose racism and sexism including a suggestion by Trump to create a Muslim registry during his campaign.
"As a Japanese-American whose grandparents had to destroy all of their Japanese artifacts and items and bury them in the backyard to avoid getting taken and interned, how could I not have said anything?" Fukumoto asked. "And how could my party have not said anything?"
Fukumoto was voted out of her post as House Minority Leader in February after calling Trump a bully in a speech at the Women's March in Honolulu, saying many of his remarks were racist and sexist and had no place in the Republican Party.
Since then, she sought feedback from her constituents about leaving the GOP and said three-quarters of the more than 470 letters she received supported the move.
She said she agrees with many Democratic positions on affordable housing and equitable taxes, and hopes to join that party.
Hawaii Democratic Party leader Tim Vandeveer said Democrats will give Fukumoto a fair shake, but some members are concerned about her past voting record on civil rights and women's issues.
"Changing political parties is not like changing jackets, just because the weather's better on our side of the street," Vandeveer said.
Fukumoto voted against same-sex marriage when it came before the Legislature in 2013. She said Wednesday she voted that way to represent the majority of her constituents, but if she was voting on her own, she would have voted yes.
On reproductive rights, Fukumoto said she does not believe in abortion in all three trimesters but does not want to rescind individuals' rights once they have been granted.
"We have choice laws in Hawaii and I'm not looking to repeal those laws," she said.
Members of the Democratic Party on Oahu will ultimately decide whether to accept Fukumoto, but the process could take months, Vandeveer said.
Fukumoto said she's received letters of encouragement from Democrats and Republicans in nearly every state.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz welcomed her to the party in a tweet, saying he's proud of her courage.
Republican state Rep. Cynthia Thielen, a Fukumoto ally who voted against removing her from leadership, said, "the tiny party's brand is further weakened and its relevance to the wider, diverse constituency looks bleak."
With Fukumoto's departure, Hawaii has just five Republican state representatives and no Republican state senators.
Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Fritz Rohlfing declined to immediately comment because he had not yet reviewed Fukumoto's resignation letter.
Mar 23, 2017 17:29:54 #
Progressive One wrote:
Hawaii Republican Resigns From Party After Critici... (show quote)
Typical. A bunch of copy and paste Liberal crap from someone whose last original thought died of loneliness. You Liberal twerps brag about the wonders of California, and how California doesn't need any help. That is, until the help looks like it's about to dry up.
Newsflash, you morons..... Stop paying for half of Mexico's health care. Use the money to pay for Governor Moonbeam's space cadet programs.
Self-righteous, holier-than-thou Liberals who are all talk; as long as the talk doesn't involve any of their money.
Mar 23, 2017 17:32:15 #
Progressive One wrote:
Manafort, ex-aide to Trump, once worked to help Pu... (show quote)
Whoopee shit. Look at Hillary Clinton and John Podesta if you want dealings with "the Russians."
Mar 23, 2017 17:33:25 #
Loki wrote:
Typical. A bunch of copy and paste Liberal crap fr... (show quote)
we'll stop paying red states...that'll help greatly.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.