Mediaboss Marketing

A remark that President Trump made to Fox News on Wednesday isnt sitting well with the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who is now suggesting that the commander-in-chiefs comments, if true, could be compared to the actions of government leakers.

In an exclusive interview with Foxs Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, President Trump suggested "the CIA was hacked and a lot of things were taken." He added "that was during the Obama years. That was not during us."

The president may have been referring to the recent publishing of what are alleged to be CIA documents and hacking tools by the website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that the leaks are real, and highlight what he calls the devastating incompetence of the agencys cybersecurity. The CIA has yet to confirm whether the materials are, in fact, authentic.

On Thursday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, took serious issue with the presidents suggestion that the agency was hacked. And Schiff says that, if true, the presidents comments are akin to the actions of those who leak government secrets.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS STAND BY TRUMP WIRETAPPING CLAIM

"It would be one thing if the presidents statements were the product of intelligence community discussion and a purposeful decision to disclose information to the public, but that is unlikely to be the case," Schiff said in a statement.

He added that while he thinks "the president has the power to declassify whatever he wants... this should be done as the product of thoughtful consideration and with intense input from any agency affected. For anyone else to do what the president may have done, would constitute what he deplores as 'leaks.'"

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows a record 73 percent of voters have confidence in the CIA, up from 67 percent in December.

In recent weeks, the president has made clear his distaste for leakers. On February 24, the president lamented on Twitter that "the FBI is totally unable to stop the national security 'leakers' that have permeated our government for a long time Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect."

Critics point to his support for WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign as evidence to the contrary. I love WikiLeaks, then-nominee Trump said during campaign remarks in October.

The investigation into possible CIA hacking isn't the only thing over which Schiff seems to be at odds with Trump. On Wednesday, Schiff and House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) repeated their assertions that they have yet to see any evidence that supports the president's claim that Trump Tower was the subject of wiretapping.

TRUMP GIVES CIA POWER TO LAUNCH DRONE STRIKES

And on Thursday, the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee took that assertion one step further, suggesting in a statement that they have seen no evidence that Trump Tower was under surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.

In a March 4 tweet, the president suggested that "Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory." When asked on Wednesday why he didnt withhold comment until he had proof of his claim, President Trump told Tucker Carlson don't forget, when I say wiretapped, those words were in quotes [T]hat really covers surveillance and many other things. And nobody ever talks about the fact that was in quotes, but that's a very important thing.

New Fox polling also suggests that 76 percent of voters think President Trump should produce documents to back his claim about the wiretaps.That includes 63 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

The Department of Justice has until Monday to comply with an order from the House Intelligence Committee to gather evidence related to President Trump's surveillance claim, though Rep. Nunes suggests he expects some of that evidence on Friday.

Monday is also when the committee expects to hold its first open hearing on Russia's interference in the 2016 race and possible contacts between Trump associates and Russia. FBI Director Comey is expected to face direct questioning at that hearing, and it isnt just the House thats looking for answers.

Senator Lindsay Graham suggested earlier this week that subpoenas arent out of the question if lawmakers dont get the information theyre looking for.

"Congress, Graham said, is going to flex its muscles."

See original here:
House Democrat says Trump may have leaked government secrets - Fox News

INDIANAPOLIS John Zody was re-elected Saturday as the Indiana Democratic Party chairman, staving off challenges from two other candidates.

Zody secured a second four-year term over challengers John C. Aguilera, a former two-term Lake County councilman and four-term state representative, and state Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago. Both Randolph and Aguilera are from East Chicago.

Zody in a news release on the party's website said he was "humbled and honored" to have been re-elected.

"I want to thank my opponents for their ideas and thoughts during this race. We learned hard lessons in 2016 but the aftermath has provided us with an enormous opportunity. To capitalize on this opportunity, we must be proactive," Zody said in the release.

Randolph, a four-term state lawmaker, previously had said he believed the Indiana Democratic Party needed a new leader after Democratic candidates lost in every statewide election last year. Aguilera had echoed that sentiment when he announced his intent to run.

"To win, we must develop a sustainable statewide organization, focus on outreach, develop a talent pipeline and carry a carefully-crafted message based around the values that makes us Democrats," Zody said in the news release. "Hoosier Democrats are ready. Im ready to go to work. This is our way forward, together.

Cordelia Lewis Burks was re-elected vice chair. Rick Sutton was elected to serve as party secretary, and Henry Fernandez was elected to serve as treasurer.

Excerpt from:
Zody re-elected as Indiana Democrat party chair - nwitimes.com

The Call-In: Answering Your Questions About The Republican Health Care Plan NPR On this week's edition, we answer your questions about the Republican health care proposal. Facebook; Twitter. Google+. Email. Get The Stories That Grabbed Us This Week. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, these are the NPR stories that keep us ...

Original post:
The Call-In: Answering Your Questions About The Republican Health Care Plan - NPR

The 9th Circuit the largest and most important of the 13 federal court circuits in the country, encompassing 11 Western states and territories and covering nearly 20% of the U.S. population is under siege. Four Republican congressmen have introduced bills to break up the circuit in various ways. All four bills have a chance of passing. None of them makes any sense.

The arguments for splitting the U.S. Courts for the 9th Circuit are perennial: Its too big, too slow and, most of all, too liberal. But none of these complaints is sound. Moreover, breaking up the court would add considerable costs while potentially lowering the quality of judging.

Most of the justifications offered for splitting the 9th Circuit have to do with its size, and it does indeed hear a lot of cases more than 55,000 civil and criminal cases in its district courts in 2015 alone, along with 12,000 appeals in its appellate court.

Big doesnt always mean bad, however. The 9th Circuit may do a lot, but its pretty efficient. The circuit has pioneered mediation units and screening panels to help solve cases early, and it disposes of nearly half its appeals that way. It methodically allocates resources, assigning extra judges to areas faced with a shortage. The appellate court broadcasts arguments on the Web, allowing citizens to watch proceedings without traveling to a courthouse. The 9th Circuit doesnt handle cases any more slowly than other circuits if you account for the number of cases assigned to each judge.

Another common rationale for carving up the circuit is its supposedly high reversal rate in the Supreme Court, which last year hit 79%. That sounds high until you realize the Supreme Court on average reverses lower-court decisions 70% of the time. (The 6th Circuit, comprising just four Midwestern states, had a reversal rate of 81%.) The 9th Circuit also encompasses some of the most experimental states in the country, including Arizona, which frequently passes innovative immigration laws; Oregon, with its expansive individual-rights laws on assisted suicide and marijuana; and, of course, California. If anything, its surprising the Supreme Court doesnt reverse decisions from the 9th Circuit more often.

The real cause behind the efforts to split the circuit is that its appellate court is perceived as too liberal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has been a conservative bugaboo since the 1970s, when President Carter and a Democratic supermajority in Congress doubled the number of judges on the court and appointed some of the most liberal jurists in American history. Right-wing radio hosts and politicians love beating up on the nutty 9th.

But in reality, the courts liberalism has declined dramatically. Judges appointed to the court by Presidents Clinton and Obama have been steadily more centrist, while Republican appointees have remained conservative.

Meanwhile, the real-world costs of splitting the 9th Circuit are extremely high. So high that every prior effort to split the circuit there have been seven or eight attempts since the early 1990s has failed. Division would double the bureaucracy and infrastructure to the tune of some $200 million up front and $35 million a year for taxpayers. Businesses could face twice the litigation and compliance costs depending on where they operate, and they might have to wrangle with different interpretations of federal law throughout the West. This is one reason why Congress has modified circuit borders only twice, in the 1920s and the 1980s, in response to requests from judges. By contrast, the 9th Circuits judges have historically voted to remain cohesive.

If lightening the caseload is the reason to break up the circuit, there is simply no good way to achieve that goal. California cases make up nearly two-thirds of the circuits work, and drawing a line in the middle of a state with different federal law on either side would wreak havoc. Each of the pending congressional proposals to split the circuit would siphon only 20% to 30% of its current cases, a figure so small that one of the new circuits would be back up to the 9th Circuits current numbers within a decade or so. Not to mention that putting California in its own circuit, or with just a few other states, would probably create one that is even more liberal.

Additionally, the quality of appellate judging might suffer from a smaller circuit. When the same judges sit together over and over, they become very familiar, which can foster discord or, worse, an over-willingness to defer to one another. Indeed, Congress would do well to consider merging some of the smaller circuits, rather than breaking up a bigger one.

On the 9th Circuit, the Court of Appeals assigns its three-judge appellate panels randomly from its scores of active, senior and visiting judges. The circuits geographic spread means a case arising out of California might be heard by judges from Idaho, Hawaii or Washington, allowing for a great variety of perspectives to inform the courts judgment. The judges sit in different frequencies and in different months. Their relationships are professional rather than personal, in part because of their number and distance.

Shifting the circuits borders around wont change the overall number of cases per judge or the way its judges decide legal questions, either. There are liberal judges from Montana and Arizona, and there are conservative judges from California and Oregon. If Congress really wants to speed up the 9th Circuit and influence the way it decides precedent-setting cases, it should create more judgeships. Compared with the other circuits, the 9th is understaffed; it should have at least five more appellate judgeships and 21 more district judgeships.

Adding judges might be particularly alluring to Republicans because it would allow them to make use of the gift former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid now regrets giving them the ability to appoint federal judges without the risk of a filibuster.

The last time a party controlled the White House and had filibuster-proof power to appoint federal judges was in the 1970s, when Carter gave the 9th Circuit its hyper-liberal reputation. If congressional Republicans took this route, they could shift the courts political leanings without creating problems for litigants and businesses along the West Coast.

There is one final advantage to keeping the 9th Circuit intact: Republicans would retain their favorite culprit. After all, what would they do without the nutty 9th to blame?

Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

More:
The Republican case for breaking up the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes no sense - Los Angeles Times

By Susan Cornwell | WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON Deeply divided Republicans squeezed their U.S. healthcare overhaul, backed by President Donald Trump, through a key House of Representatives panel on Thursday despite defections by three conservatives who consider it too similar to the Obamacare law it is intended to replace.

Trump's first major legislative initiative still faces an uphill battle in the full House and later the Senate despite ongoing efforts by the White House and Republican leaders to satisfy conservative opponents.

The Budget Committee vote was 19 to 17, with Republican Representatives David Brat, Gary Palmer and Mark Sanford - all members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus - joining the panel's Democrats in voting against it. The committee brought provisions approved last week by two other panels into a single bill, helping pave the way for a later vote on the House floor.

Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, could not afford to lose more than three from their ranks on the committee for it to pass.

"I don't think we are anywhere near passage," Brat said after the vote, noting that Republican conservatives as well as moderates had problems with the bill.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act, the signature legislative achievement of former President Barack Obama, enabled about 20 million previously uninsured Americans to obtain medical coverage. About half of those were through the law's expansion of eligibility and increased funding for the Medicaid government health insurance program for the poor.

The close vote illustrated the problems Republican leaders may encounter in corralling enough votes in their party to win passage on the House floor amid unified Democratic opposition. The measure now goes to the Rules Committee before reaching the House floor.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan congressional agency, forecast on Monday that the legislation would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by 24 million by 2026, while cutting $337 billion from federal budget deficits over the same period. The bill faces opposition from leading healthcare providers, including doctors and hospitals.

"We are on track and on schedule," House Speaker Paul Ryan, who unveiled the legislation last week and is its chief champion in the House, said after the committee's vote. He added that while the main parts of the bill "are going to stay exactly as they are," Republicans were making unspecified "improvements and refinements."

Ryan told a news conference that Trump was "deeply involved" and "helping bridge gaps" among Republican lawmakers to get a consensus plan.

'CONSTITUENCY OF ONE'

Conservatives were unmoved. "There's no natural constituency for this bill," said Republican Representative Raul Labrador, another Freedom Caucus member.

"The Left is really mad about it. The Right is really mad about it. The middle is really mad about it. And so far it just seems to be a constituency of one, which is Washington insiders, people that are just trying to get something passed so they can get to the next issue."

Trump administration officials and House Republican leaders have said they hope to get the bill to the House floor by the end of the month so it can go to the Senate before lawmakers' mid-April recess.

Conservatives want a quicker end to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, which the bill has set for 2020, and want to add work requirements for some Medicaid recipients. They also call the age-based tax credits to help people buy insurance on the open market an unwise new entitlement.

The White House said it was discussing changes with House Republican leaders. Trump told a Fox News interviewer on Wednesday that much of the bill would still be negotiated, especially as it moves from the House to the Senate.

Conservative advocacy groups praised the Republicans who voted "no." Club for Growth President David McIntosh said it makes no sense for Ryan and Budget Committee chair Diane Black to force Republicans "to walk the plank and vote for a bad bill that they've already admitted needs to be changed."

Black asked fellow Republicans who had doubts not to "cut off the discussion" by voting no.

After approving the legislation, the panel adopted four non-binding Republican recommendations for changes before it moves to the House floor, including one by the conservative Palmer on adding work requirements for able-bodied, childless Medicaid recipients.

The other recommendations called for no longer encouraging people to sign up for insurance through Medicaid, giving states more flexibility in designing Medicaid programs, and changing the bill's tax credits to help lower-income people more.

Democrats have called the Republicans' plan a blow to the elderly and the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich.

Representative John Yarmuth, the committee's top Democrat, said the legislation was "not a healthcare bill; it is an ideological document." He said the bill imagined a "fantasy land where young people don't get sick, and apparently they don't grow old either, because they don't have to worry about being priced out of the market."

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Doina Chiacu, David Morgan and Yasmeen Abutaleb; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Dan Grebler)

WASHINGTON The Republican head of a congressional panel investigating accusations of Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election said on Sunday a leak involving former Trump aide Michael Flynn was a crime and that the panel was probing whether other names were leaked.

BEIJING With warm words from Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ended his first trip to Asia since taking office with an agreement to work together with China on North Korea and putting aside trickier issues.

WASHINGTON U.S. House Republicans are working on changes to their healthcare overhaul bill that would implement a work requirement for the Medicaid program for the poor, as well as boost tax credits for older, lower income people, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Sunday.

Originally posted here:
Republicans split, conservatives angry as healthcare overhaul inches ahead - Reuters