Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that he believes there is a paper trail regarding the unmasking of American citizens in the intelligence community.

Careful logs are kept about this, Im told, so if Susan Rice unmasked anybody we should have a record of it, he told Fox News. I guarantee there is paper trail of all of this.

Mr. Paul also said he was the the victim of intelligence eavesdropping, but he doesnt know why his conversations would be of interest to the intelligence community, unless it was politically motivated.

I have no idea. I really dont have any ties to Russia surely, I dont believe Ive met the ambassador. I might have met him once at a reception. But for them to draw a link from me to any foreign country would be a real stretch. I dont know why they would have unless its for political purposes.

See the rest here:
Rand Paul says there must be a 'paper trail' with unmasking ...

Sen. Rand Paul took Department of Homeland Security Chief John Kelly to task during a senate panel on Tuesday over his agencys practice of seizing citizens phones when trying to re-enter the U.S.

The last time you were here we talked about citizens coming across the border and being threatened with non-entry or detention if they did not divulge the contents of their phone, Paul said to Kelly.

And your response was, I just dont believe were doing it.

RELATED:Rand Paul: We should repeal Obamacare like Republicans promised, not just fix it

Paul continued, So we asked some questions in writing and were still waiting on the response, and its been about six weeks or so. But I thought I would list for you a couple of the public episodes of this happening.

Sen. Paul listed specific cases of this occurring:

This year a NASA engineer, and a U.S. citizen, was pulled aside after coming back from Chile. They demanded the pin for his phone and they handed him a form that explained how CBP (Customs and Border Protection) had the right to copy the contents of his phoneall the contents of his phone.

Two citizens were returning from Canada. NBC did an investigation of 25 different cases of U.S. citizens being told to turn over their phones, unlock them or provide passwords.

A U.S. citizen was taken off of a flight in L.A. handcuffed and released after a Homeland Security agent looked through his phone for 15 minutes.

A U.S. citizen journalist also had their phone taken.

Paul concluded his examples with, So I guess my question is, is your answer still I just dont believe were doing it?

We dont do it routinely unless there is a reason why, so thats a change, responded Kelly. We do it whether they are citizens or non-citizens coming in.

Of the million or so people that come into the country, half of one percent is checked, and always according to the law, Kelly said. Now, typically, the officers who are engaged in the frontline defense at the ports of entry, in their questioning of individuals for whatever has tipped them off will cause them to have certain conversations [] but again senator, very seldom done and always for a reason and always within the law, Kelly added.

Youre just fine with the policy that arbitrarily takes someones phone and says you cant come back into the country? Paul asked.

Not arbitrarily; theres a reason why they do it, senator, Kelly responded.

Well, no, the thing is, it is arbitrary, unless there are rules as to how you do it, Paul replied. What are the rules? In our country, if you want to look at my phone, you call a judge, in my country. You know, so, this wouldnt necessarily be American jurisprudence if youre just saying we might have some internal rules. Have you published what your rules are?

Whether theyre published or not, or specific enough to publish, I dont know but I can certainly get back to you, Kelly said.

Paul voiced his dissatisfaction, I can tell you Im not happy with the policy and I wish it were different, and we have actually introduced legislation to try to stop you from doing this, and to make you go to a court, the way we do it in our country typically.

We go to a court and you ask a judge, and you have to present evidence, Paul said.

RELATED:Rand Paul and Ron Wyden introduce a bill that would stop warrantless phone searches at the border

The senator seemed to imply that these phone searches have become so commonplace that some have been advising U.S. travelers to leave their phones at home with traveling outside the country.

People are now talking, Paul said. There are people giving you advice to not take your phone abroad because when you come back home your country wont let you come home unless you let them look at your entire life.

I think theres a point of which we give up so much of our liberty to travel, thathas it been worth it? Paul asked.

We can live in a secure state if we clampdown and we have no freedom to travel, and we give up all of our privacy to travel, Paul added. I just dont think thats necessary.

Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) introduced the Protecting Data at the Border Act in April, which would make it illegal for border or law enforcement officials to search or seize U.S. citizens data via their phones or other devices without probable cause.

Disclosure: I co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul has a tense exchange with DHS head John Kelly over US citizens having their phones seized at the border - Rare.us

Has anyone read the writing of President Grover Cleveland on his presidential statue across from the courthouse? It states "A truly American sentiment recognizes the dignity of labor and the fact that honor lies in honest toil."

He also was known for stating that government wasn't supposed to take care of the people, but that the people were supposed to take care of their government. Remember John F Kennedy's famous quote during his inauguration? "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

What has happened in 120 years? Compare these fine Democrats with the Democratic Party we're stuck with today. The mentality seems to be "Let's see how many resources we can steal from the most productive and self-controlled households in America, so we can enable those whose lifestyle choices are 180 degrees opposite."

Sadly, our GOP choice of leadership doesn't really excite me either. There seems to be one more alternative. I wish the media could give more exposure to the Libertarian Party. I have some red flags, but like their thoughts on everyone taking responsibility for their actions, and no one should be required to subsidize me if I make wrong choices and vice versa.

Libertarian Party Minnesota

District 8 Chairman, state coordinator

Continued here:
LETTER: Libertarian Party deserves coverage - International Falls Journal

Republicans in Kansasbroke ranks with the state's conservative governor Tuesday night, voting to raise tax rates and put an end to a series of cuts.

TheGOPrevolt isa defeat for Gov. Sam Brownback, who overhauled the state's tax system beginning in 2012,part of whatcalled a "real-live experiment" in conservative governance. Yet the economic boom Brownback promised has not materialized, leavingthe state government perennially short on money and forcedto reduce basic services.

Kansas's legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, but moderate GOP lawmakers joined with Democratsto override Brownback's veto of the bill to increase taxes. Eighteen of the state's 31 GOP senators and 49 of the 85 Republican members of the House voted against the governor.

Tuesday's vote was a rebuke not only for Brownback, but also for Republicansin Washington who have advocated similar cuts in taxes at the national level -- includingPresident Trump. Although Republicans in Kansas are giving up on the experiment, Trump and his alliesare hoping totry again.

The principles Trump endorsed during the campaignand in the early stages of his presidency arebroadly similar to those enacted in Kansas.As Brownback did, Trump has proposed bringing down marginal rates, getting rid of brackets andgiving a new break to small businesses.

That is no coincidence, since Brownbackis well connected to the Republican policymaking establishment in Washington.Trump and Brownback have shared economic advisers, andwhen Brownback was a U.S. senator, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), now the speaker of the House,served as his legislative director.

The victory for Brownback's opponents resulted in part from their gains in last year's election. Voters -- frustrated that public schools were closing early and the state's highways were in visible disrepair -- rejected Brownback's allies in favor of more moderate Republicans or Democrats.

"It was a hard vote for a lot of people to make last night," said Rep. Melissa Rooker, a moderate Republican who represents a suburb of Kansas City. "Kansas has had a turn to the far right, and we seem to be centering ourselves."

The legislationundoes the essentialcomponents of Brownback's reforms. The governor had reduced the number ofbrackets for the state's marginalrates on income from three to two. The legislature will restore the third bracket, increasing taxes on the state's wealthiest residents from 4.6 percent to 5.2 percentthis year and 5.7 percent next year.

Marginal rates on less affluent Kansanhouseholds will increase as well, from 4.6 percent to 5.25 percent by next year for married taxpayers makingbetween $30,000 and $60,000 a year and from 2.7 percent to 3.1 percent for those earning less than that.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) spoke at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 23, and pushed for less government regulations. "When have we added more government anywhere that's taken more taxes and you end up with a product that's more efficient that costs you less?" he asked. "What's your example?" (The Washington Post)

The legislationalso scraps a plan to bring those rates down even more in future years,one of Brownback's promises to conservative supporters.

Finally, the legislatureeliminated a cut Brownback had put in place to help small businesses. Analysts said thatthe provision had becomea loophole, as many Kansans were able to avoid paying taxes entirely by pretending to be small businesses.

Initially, the state forecast thatabout 200,000 small businesseswould take advantage of the break. As it turned out, about 330,000entities would useKansas's new rule. Thatdiscrepancysuggests that tens of thousands ofworkers claimed that their incomes were from businesses they owned rather than from salaries.

State budget analysts project the tax increase will raise an additional $600 million annually.

"What we were able to do in the last 24 hours can allow us to start down that road, to begin repairing all the damage done after living with Gov. Brownback's failed tax experiment for five years," said Annie McKay, who is the president of Kansas Action for Children, anadvocacy group in Topeka.

The Trump administration unveiled their proposal to overhaul the tax code on April 26, outlining sharply lower tax rates but fewer tax breaks. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Proponents argued that reducing taxes would stimulate the state's economy. "We have worked hard in Kansas to move our tax policy to a pro-growth orientation," Brownback said in a statement on vetoing the legislation. "This bill undoes much of that progress. It will substantially damage job creation and leave our citizens poorer in the future."

Since 2012, however, the pace of economic expansion in Kansas has consistently lagged behind that of the rest of the country.

Last year,Kansas's gross domestic product increased just 0.2 percent, federal data show, compared to 1.6 percent nationally. That was an improvementfor Kansas, though:At the end of2015, the state was in what many economists would describe as a recession, with the economycontracting two quarters in a row.

Last year's election substantially weakened Brownback's support in the legislature. In November, Democrats picked upa seat in the Senate, which has 40 members, and 12 seats in the House, which has 125. In primary elections in August, Republican voters had forced out 14incumbent alliesof the governor, replacing them with more moderate candidates.

OtherGOP lawmakers who supported Brownback retired last year, and moderate Republicans won a few of those seats as well. Rooker, the GOP legislator, said her former colleagues werenot eager to confront frustrated voters in another campaign, or to deal with the fiscalheadaches Brownback's policies had created if they did win reelection.

The legislature began this year's session with the government in a deficit of $350 million.

"People expect us to take care of business efficiently and appropriately," Rooker said. "I just think it was the pressure building. Something had to be done."

"The elections reflected a mood in Kansas that possibly Kansas politics had shifted too far to the right," said Rep. Don Hineman, a moderate Republican who represents a rural district in western Kansas. "It was time to return to a more centrist position, which is where Kansas has traditionally been governed from."

For the past several years, legislative sessions have been protracted as lawmakers have struggled to find solutions to the state's fiscal woes. That pattern continued this year, and Hineman hopes that with the tax increase enacted, lawmakers can finally leave Topeka this weekend.

On Saturday, he hopes to head back to hisfamily's farm, which his son operates. This week, they are putting in grain sorghum. "Im anxious to get back home, and my son is anxious for me to be home, because he would like to have me on the tractor," Hineman said.

See the original post here:
Kansas Republicans raise taxes, ending their GOP governor's 'real live experiment' in conservative policy - Washington Post

The Congressional Budget Office has released its score on the revised American Health Care Act. Here's what's in the report. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

THE MORNING PLUM:

In recent days, a procession of GOP senators has paraded forth and declared in somber tones that the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare may be failing. Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader from Kentucky, recently said he didnt see a path yet. Or, as GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham put it:I just dont think we can put it together among ourselves.

But some Democratic Senate aides dont buy it. With a Senate vote now expected this month, they are bracing for several scenarios in which Republicans produce surprise tactics at the last minute that enable them to pass something. This would then get them through to the next stage negotiations between the House and Senate which would have the virtue of increasing the pressure on reluctant holdouts to pass the final bill, pulling the trigger and destroying the Affordable Care Act for good.

One such scenario involves writing a bill that defers dealing with some of the tough details just to get through to conference committee, where the Senate and House bills would be reconciled, a Democratic aide tells me. In this rendering, the aide says, McConnell puts together something very limited to go to conference, putting off hard decisions until the final bill is written with the White House at the table.

Right now, Republicans face several obstacles. One is that some senators from states that have expanded Medicaid there are 20 GOP senators from such states are balking at the Medicaid cuts in the House bill. The measure that passed the House would cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and restructure the program to transfer more control to the states (which means more cuts and more draconian conditions, and fewer covered) and do away with the ACAs Medicaid expansion. Senate Republicans are mulling a version that would roll back the Medicaid expansion a bit more slowly. This would create a smoother glide path,claims Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), in a bit of very smooth rhetoric that glides over the likelihood that the Senate version will still cut Medicaid for untold numbers of poor people.

Senate Republicans are also mulling subsidies that are somewhat more generous than the House bill (which overall would leave 23 million additional people uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office). And Axios reports that the Senate version might also soften the House bill by allowing states to waive the requirement that insurers cover essential health benefits while not allowing them to waive the prohibition on jacking up premiums for people with preexisting conditions, a provision in the House bill. But we simply dont know what the Senate bill will look like just yet.

Democratic aides are preparing for several tactics that Senate Republicans could employ toget moderates to support the bill. One is to create a placeholder or shell bill that does not work out too many details of the Medicaid cuts, allowing moderates to say they will protect Medicaid in conference negotiations, a senior Democratic aide tells me. If they try this route, Democrats will absolutely hold every single Republican senator accountable for that vote, the aide says. Republicans will be voting to dismantle our health-care system, and well make sure people understand that.

Republicans are dead-set on getting to 50 votes so they can jam some version of Trumpcare through the Senate,Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told me in an emailed statement. So Democrats are looking at every possible scenario.

Conceptually, they could leave unaddressed many of the details of the Medicaid cuts and work them out in conference, Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at George Washington University, tells me, while cautioning that this is speculative. They can deal with a vague Senate provision and a detailed House provision in conference.

A second scenario might be to insert language into the bill that obfuscates its true legislative impact. They could put language in the bill that would make a political statement about, say, protecting those with preexisting conditions, even as the policy consequences would be different, Binder says. Or, Binder suggests, it could include weaselly language on Medicaid cuts, such as: Nothing in this bill should be construed to limit people entitled under the law to Medicaid coverage. Binder explains: The goal would be to insulate themselves from criticism that they are throwing people off Medicaid.

Of course, all of this is a reminder of a basic fact about this whole debate: The GOPs massively regressive designs on the ACA which at bottom constitute rolling back health coverage for untold millions of people to finance a huge tax cut for the rich are deeply unpopular. By exposing those true designs to the public, this debate has succeeded in making Obamacare more popular and has underscored public opposition to rolling back the historic coverage expansion it has achieved, despite all its real flaws and need for improvement.

And so, the CBO could do serious damage to any such GOP tactic by releasing a score of the Senate bill (when it is done) that shines a harsh light on what the bill would actually do. But Andy Slavitt, a former acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama administration, unleashed a tweet storm pointing out that, by keeping their bill behind closed doors for as long as possible, Republicans might limit the time that the public and the press have to absorb the CBO scores implications before holding a vote.

The bottom line is that whatever tactics Republicans use, if they can get something passed in the Senate, and get Senate and House Republicans into some form of negotiations designed to reconcile the two versions, the prospects of final success go up substantially.

The virtue of getting everyone into the same room is to get them out of the public eye, where they can come to a final agreement that then would be put to an up or down vote in both chambers, Binder tells me, adding that at that point, the situation would be, this is it: Are you for or against getting rid of Obamacare? This would increase the pressure on individual Republicans who are skittish. To be sure, its possible that Republicans could still fail. But success is also a very real possibility.

* COMEY FEARED BEING LEFT ALONE WITH TRUMP: The New York Times reports that then-FBI Director James B. Comey privately told Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he didnt want to be left alone with President Trump, after the president pushed him to end the Michael Flynn probe:

His unwillingness to be alone with the president reflected how deeply Mr. Comey distrusted Mr. Trump, who Mr. Comey believed was trying to undermine the F.B.I.s independence as it conducted a highly sensitive investigation into links between Mr. Trumps associates and Russia, the officials said. Current and former law enforcement officials say Mr. Comey kept his interactions with Mr. Trump a secret in part because he was not sure whom at the Justice Department he could trust.

That last bit previews how Comey will probably answer questions at tomorrows hearing about why he did not disclose his concerns earlier about Trumps efforts to influence the probe.

* COMEY WILL REFUTE TRUMP: CNN reports that at the hearing, Comey will refute Trumps claim that Comey repeatedly told him he is not under investigation:

One source said Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation. Another source hinted that the President may have misunderstood the exact meaning of Comeys words, especially regarding the FBIs ongoing counterintelligence investigation.

Trump would neverbotch or distort the nuances of an extremely consequential conversation involving his own culpability. Would he?

* WHY TRUMP TURNED ON SESSIONS: It has been widely reported that Trump has grown furious with Sessions after he recused himself from the Russia probe. The Wall Street Journal adds a telling detail:

He privately berated several top aides in the Oval Office after learning of Mr. Sessions recusal, and he has since then repeatedly expressed frustration about that decision, one White House official said. The president, who has denied any involvement with Russias alleged hacking of Democratic and other political organizations during the election, viewed Mr. Sessions decision as a sign of weakness, the official said.

A sign of weakness! As I suggested yesterday, Trump, in true autocratic fashion, simply cannot brook any prioritization of process and law over loyalty to Trump.

* GET READY FOR DAN COATSS TESTIMONY TODAY: The Post reports that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has told associates that Trump asked him to intervene to get Comey to back off the probe of Michael Flynns Russia ties:

After the encounter, Coats discussed the conversation with other officials and decided that intervening with Comey as Trump had suggested would be inappropriate, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.

Coats is set to testify today before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and hell surely be asked for more details on why he viewed Trumps intervention as inappropriate.

* LARGE MAJORITY GETS WHY TRUMP FIRED COMEY: A new Post-ABC News poll finds that 61 percent say Trump fired Comey to protect himself, rather than for the good of the country. Fifty-sixpercent say Trump is not cooperating with probes into Russian meddling. But:

Large majorities of Republicans say Trump fired Comey for the good of the country (71 percent) and that he is cooperating with investigations into Russias election influence (77 percent).

Also: 55 percent have low trust in what Comey is saying about all this, but an even higher 72 percent distrust what Trump is saying, so Comey may have the credibility edge tomorrow.

* DEMOCRATIC PARTY ID ADVANTAGE EXPANDS: Gallup finds the Democratic advantage in party identification over Republicans has grown, with 45 percent self-identifying as Dems or Dem-leaners, while 38 percent self-identify as Republicans or GOP-leaners:

The growing Democratic advantage in recent months is mostly attributable to a decline in Republican affiliation rather than an increase in Democratic affiliation. Since November, the percentage of Republicans and Republican leaners has fallen four percentage points, while there has been a one-point rise in Democratic identification or leaning.

Gallup adds that Trumps unpopularity may be a key factor in the drop in people self-identifying as Republicans, and that this could boost Dem chances in 2018.

* AND THE QUOTE OF THE DAY, KINSLEY-GAFFE EDITION: At last nights debate in the special election for a House seat in the Atlanta suburbs, GOP candidate Karen Handel answered a question about the minimum wage this way:

This is an example of a fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative. I do not support a livable wage.

A Kinsley Gaffe, for you young uns out there, refers to Michael Kinsleys well-known formulation that a gaffe is when apolitician tells some obvious truth he isnt supposed to say.

See the original post here:
Make no mistake. Republicans can still succeed in destroying Obamacare. - Washington Post (blog)