[The Hill] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has opened an inquiry into allegations the FBI worked with the British spy who authored a controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump during the 2016 election.
In a Monday letter to FBI Director James Comey, Grassley asked for records pertaining to any agreements the agency may have had with Christopher Steele. The MI6 agent wrote an explosive memo on behalf of Trump’s political enemies alleging that the Russians had compromising information on the president.
Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the memo in a private meeting in January.
Shortly after, several news organizations published the unverified allegations, which the White House denied.
In late February, The Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement with Steele whereby the British spy would continue his investigation on behalf of the bureau.
"While Trump has derided the dossier as 'fake news' compiled by his political opponents, the FBI’s arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproved, to be worthy of further investigation," the Post reported at the time.
Continued on Page 47
h/t Instapundit
Democrat super-lobbyist Tony Podesta was paid $170,000 over a six-month period last year to represent Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, seeking to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.
Podesta, founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, is listed as a key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. But, at least, he wasn't talking to Russian Ambassador. Continued on Page 47
This is the inevitable expected result when Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP bought into the following shtick 'What are you gonna replace it with?' Thanks, guys!
After months of confusion and secrecy, House Republicans have finally revealed their Obamacare repeal legislation. While it's useful to have House Republicans on the record with a legislative plan, the plan doesn't offer any estimate for how much it would cost, or how many people it would (or wouldn't) cover. In general, it's not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.
The bill would replace Obamacare's subsidies with a system of tax credits and halt the law's Medicaid expansion at the end of the decade while grandfathering in many beneficiaries over the long term and giving states $100 billion in funding to work with to care for hard case patients. All in all, it's a fairly conventional Republican plan, modified in ways designed to mitigate recent political objections.
Continued on Page 47
#5
In general, it's not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.
That's because it doesn't. It doesn't repeal Obamacare; it modifies it. The mandate & penalty is gone, but the exchanges are still there, the wealth transfers subsidy is still there, and the death spiral will continue. Nothing substantive changed here.
One more point - if Congress and their staff were subject to this law, full unconditional repeal would have been done by now. Since they're isolated from this shit law they've inflicted on everybody else, they simply don't give a flying fuck.
#10
If this bill passes, the exchanges will disappear as will most of the employer health plan taxes that were the source of your (e.g. working American) health plan premium and deductible increases.
Subsidies in the form of tax credits will help offset the costs of community underwriting and guaranteed issue. And people who liked their plans but lost them will be able to participate in the market once again.
So be of good cheer. This is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: regular joe ||
03/07/2017 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Thanks, regular joe. I just kind of skimmed it and obviously missed key parts. That's what I get for doing posts that require research in the middle of tax season.. For some reason, the Obamacare law bugs the living hell out of me and I want to see it die, if for no other reason to see Obama's 'legacy' take it in the shitter.
#12
Most Rantburgers could have figured out sustainable plan on a cocktail napkin. But no, we got this unkillable monstrosity.
Anyway interstate works for insurance groups not individual plans. Here's why: local docs set the prices. For example, Idaho docs charge less than NY docs, but that doesn't help you if you're a NYer.
Posted by: Regular joe ||
03/07/2017 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It could still work. Depending on where you live it will cost more just like car insurance, but not as much as having just a state exchange as the insurance company can spread the cost over several states. That will take into account the price fluctuations for each region.
#4
I think Judicial Watch's FOIA request/lawsuit is going to wind up being the tipping point as the stuff Judicial Watch is asking for was leaked to CNN and the NYT already so the CIA has no excuse.
#8
I actually tie this in with the Wikileaks disclosure. There's a part of the files that say the CIA could impersonate foreign countries to blame the hacking upon them.
DNC/Russia hacking anyone? Maybe that's the big story about to break open.
Posted by: Charles ||
03/07/2017 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Wikileaks: Michael Hastings death confirmation! Street word was he was working on a story re: Podesta....why would the CIA be interested in the accidental death of a Buzzfeed journalist unless they orchestrated it? The first installment should have the roaches running....
#11
Or from a car wreck, mugging attempt, work-out mishap, suicide, erotic self asphyxiation...
I'm thinking of 'while leasurly walking in Ft. Marcy Park he became so despondent about Hillary's loss that he shot himself in the back of the head -- twice.'
But in truth I really hope he has a long, healthy, life so he can watch the dismantling of his life work and legacy to its full bitter end.
[Zero Hedge] Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury regarding records related to the investigation of retired United States Army Lieutenant General Michel Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency et al. (No.1:17-cv-00397)). (The National Security Agency refused to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence records about communications between Gen. Flynn and Amb Kislyak.)
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agencies failed to respond to a January 25, 2017, FOIA request seeking:
Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the investigation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak between October 1, 2016 and the present.
This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all related warrants, affidavits, declarations, or similar records regarding the aforementioned investigation.
For purposes of clarification, please find enclosed a CNN report regarding the investigation, which cites information that was provided to CNN by members of the Intelligence Community.
In its complaint Judicial Watch asks the court to order the agencies to search for all records responsive to its FOIA requests and demonstrate that they employed reasonable search methods; order the agencies to produce by a specific date all non-exempt records and a Vaughn index of all withheld records; and instruct the agencies to cease withholding all non-exempt records.
On January 23, 2017, the establishment shot itself in the foot as CNN reported that the government was investigating Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump:
Continued on Page 47
"More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general[em added], are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government."
#3
Kinda blows a hole in all of Josh Earnest's comments over the last few days.
That and the famous Hillary tweet in October that someone fed her information about the FISA warrant to bug Trump's campaign.
AND the WikiLeaks dump shows that the CIA can false flag a "Russian" hack attempt with stolen or captured Russian Malware...
Ha Ha, that and the NTY January articles give me the feeling that like that Secret Service guy saying this was going to blow sky high in the Democrats face, things are going to get interesting...
#4
Every single judge on the FISA Court as of today was appointed during Obama’s Presidency!
Five of the current eleven judges on the court are scheduled to be on the court for President Trump’s entire first term with six of the judges’ terms expiring before January 2021. Seven of the judges are scheduled into the year 2020.
"How did our extensive intelligence apparatus come to be misused against members of the Trump campaign?
Well, the simplest answer seems to be Team Obama misled the courts:
This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all."
Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[The Hill] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has opened an inquiry into allegations the FBI worked with the British spy who authored a controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump during the 2016 election.
