April 2, 2017


News and Views


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/lindsey-graham-jokes-about-michael-flynn-devin-nunes-town-hall-n741601
Lindsey Graham Jokes About Michael Flynn, Devin Nunes at Town Hall
by VAUGHN HILLYARD
APR 1 2017, 7:21 PM ET

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Sen. Lindsey Graham at a town hall on Saturday again pledged he will ensure a "bipartisan and fair" investigation into Russia's alleged meddling in the presidential election — and said recent developments involving Michael Flynn are "getting weirder by the day."

"We're going to follow the evidence and not let politics get in the way," Graham told the overwhelmingly anti-Trump crowd.

Play Sen. Graham on Flynn Immunity Request: Didn't See That Coming Facebook Twitter Embed
Sen. Graham on Flynn Immunity Request: Didn't See That Coming 1:01
Graham, a Republican, also joked about the situation involving Flynn, just days after the former national security adviser offered to testify in exchange for immunity.

"We're going to talk about the Flynn deal," Graham said from the town hall stage with a chuckle. "It's getting weirder by the day, isn't it? Yeah."

Related: Flynn's Immunity Request Rejected By Senate Intel Committee

Image: Lindsey Graham
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. questions Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch at a confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017. Susan Walsh / AP
Graham openly questioned how the Trump campaign "missed" the fact that Flynn was registered as a foreign agent for Turkey during the campaign. He also poked at Flynn's comments in 2016 that individuals connected to Hillary Clinton who sought immunity were essentially admitting guilt to a crime.

"You know, Flynn said himself, 'If you want immunity, you must, you know, be guilty,'" Graham quipped.

He suggested that the investigations by the committees in Congress and the FBI should also look at former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's business dealings while he led the GOP nominee's campaign last year.

"Let's see what kind of business dealings he had. So, when issues arise, about people around the campaign or in the Trump administration have deals that don't sound right or look right, we'll look at it," Graham said.

Related: FBI Making Inquiry Into Ex-Trump Campaign Manager's Foreign Ties

Graham indicated to the crowd that the integrity of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation is keeping him from outright calling for an independent commission to look into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Play MARCH 31: Flynn's Immunity Request Rejected By Senate Intelligence Committee Facebook Twitter Embed
MARCH 31: Flynn's Immunity Request Rejected By Senate Intelligence Committee 2:00

The senator expressed skepticism over the House Intelligence Committee's investigation, suggesting the panel's chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, is running astray.

"Nunes. The House. They're off in a ditch," Graham said.

Related: Flynn, Nunes Fallout Over Russia Probe Grows Ominous for White House

The several hundred that gathered on Saturday widely embraced Graham's remarks about his commitment to investigating any potential Russia connections. He warned the crowd that future interference by the Russians could impact the U.S. again, and also roil European politics in elections from France to Germany.

But on other issues Graham addressed on Saturday, the riled-up crowd spit back dissatisfaction.

Graham said he would vote to change Senate rules to prevent Senate Democrats from filibustering the confirmation proceedings for Judge Neil Gorsuch.

"If I have to, I will vote to change rules because I am not going to allow President Trump to be denied the same opportunity that every president has had for 200 years because you're mad and you can't accept the outcome of an election," he said to jeers.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-intelligence-committee-rejects-immunity-michael-flynn-n741061
Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request Rejected By Senate Intelligence Committee
by Ken Dilanian and Kasie Hunt
April 1, 2017 8:20 AM ET

Video -- What does Michael Flynn's request for immunity mean for Russian investigation? 3:38
Photograph -- Russian President Vladimir Putin sits next to retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as they attend an exhibition marking the 10th anniversary of RT (Russia Today) television news channel in Moscow on Dec. 10, 2015. Mikhail Klimentyev / Kremlin via Reuters, file

The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News.

A senior congressional official with direct knowledge said Flynn's lawyer was told it was "wildly preliminary" and that immunity was "not on the table" at the moment. A second source said the committee communicated that it is "not receptive" to Flynn's request "at this time."

The senior congressional official also said that Flynn's lawyer had conveyed the offer of testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution to the Justice Department.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D.-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged in a statement that the Justice Department's interest in Flynn's testimony could take precedence over Congress' wish to hear from him.

He also said there are "many more witnesses and documents to obtain" before the House Intelligence Committee can consider any immunity request — specifically citing a background check document that would show whether Flynn reported work he did for any foreign entities.

And, Schiff noted, "we should first acknowledge what a grave and momentous step it is for a former National Security Adviser to the President of the United States to ask for immunity from prosecution."

President Donald Trump tweeted early Friday that Flynn was right to ask for immunity.

In September, while discussing aides to Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, Flynn told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that "when you are given immunity that means you've probably committed a crime."

As NBC News reported Thursday, Flynn told the Intelligence Committee he was willing to be interviewed about the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia in return for a no-prosecution guarantee.

Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, confirmed in a statement that discussions had taken place with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and said "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it."

However, Kelner said, "out of respect" for the committees, he and Flynn would not comment on the details of the discussions — and he accused the media of being "awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo."

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurance against unfair prosecution," Kelner said in his Thursday statement.

Flynn, a retired lieutenant general who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency before being pushed out by the Obama administration, advised the Trump campaign beginning in 2015.

He served as President Trump's national security adviser for three weeks before resigning for what the Trump administration said was misleading Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn was paid $45,000 plus expenses to speak at the 10th anniversary gala of the RT television network in Moscow in December 2015, while he was already an adviser to Trump. The U.S. considers RT, which is state-sponsored, to be a propaganda outlet.

Prior to Trump's inauguration, on the day that President Obama announced sanctions against Russia as punishment for interfering in the U.S. election, Flynn spoke on the phone with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

A U.S. intelligence official told NBC News that Flynn had discussed the hacking-related sanctions with Kislyak prior to Trump's inauguration. Flynn told the Washington Post he didn't discuss sanctions with Kislyak, then said he couldn't remember whether they had discussed sanctions.


SO FAR THERE IS NO LIMIT ON HOW MUCH MONEY/ASSETS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAY MAKE/KEEP, ONLY ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT SUGGESTIONS FOR AN OVERALL WAGE CEILING FOR PEOPLE IN GENERAL. OF COURSE, THAT WILL BE VERY HARD TO PUT INTO PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY. GO TO “MAXIMUM WAGE WIKIPEDIA.”

WE MAY HATE TO SEE ALL THOSE EXTREMELY FAT CATS UP THERE AT THE TOP OF THE LADDER, BUT SO FAR IT ISN’T ILLEGAL. PRES. CARTER IN HIS OP ED BELOW SAYS WE ALREADY HAVE BECOME AN OLIGARCHY. CARTER, THOUGH, PARTICULARLY BLAMES CITIZENS UNITED FROM ACCELERATING THE GREAT DIVIDE. LIKE SO MANY, I DO OFTEN SAY OR IMPLY THAT THE UBERWEALTHY ARE REPUBLICANS, BUT I MUST CONFESS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE OFTEN VERY WEALTHY, ALSO. WHAT DISTURBS ME IS NOT THAT THERE ARE WEALTHY PEOPLE, OR EVEN THAT I AM NOT ONE OF THEM, BUT THAT OUR LADDER OF UPWARD MOBILITY HAS BEEN GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO CLIMB IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES, AND WE ARE NOW IN THIS SITUATION OF HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. HAVING AN OLIGARCHY IS SHAMEFUL AND SIMPLY “NOT THE AMERICAN WAY,” BUT THERE WOULD BE TANKS IN THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES IF REAL EFFORTS TO STOP THAT ENRICHMENT PROCESS (THE TRICKLE UP THEORY) WERE TO BE PUT IN PLACE. OF COURSE, IF THE LOWER 85% OR SO (THAT FIGURE IS FROM A FORBES ARTICLE I SAW AN HOUR AGO) WERE TO BECOME TRULY RADICALIZED IT COULD OCCUR. ON THE SUBJECT OF OLIGARCHY IN AMERICA, SEE BOTH THE NBC AND THE HUFFINGTON POST STORIES BELOW.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/vast-wealth-held-trump-s-top-aides-documents-show-n741231
Vast Wealth Held By Trump’s Top Aides, Documents Show
by Ali Vitali
Apr 1 2017, 8:16 am ET

Video -- Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner still beneficiaries of holdings possibly worth more than $731M 2:39


There are hundreds of millions of dollars around President Donald Trump in the White House — not his own, but the massive assets and eye-popping income of his top staffers, according to new disclosures released Friday night.

Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner— who both work in the White House — reported hundreds of millions in real estate holdings and investments, the financial filings show.

The 54 pages of Kushner's financial disclosure report show Ivanka maintains a stake in her father's Trump International Hotel down the street from the White House, in addition to other real estate holdings valued in the tens of millions. The couple's assets combined are valued at over $700 million, according to the documents.

Exact figures are not listed, and the disclosure laws only require ranges to be reported, such as a particular asset could be listed as valued at between $1 million and $5 million.

Kushner earned as much as $180 million last year, while his wife's income was listed as much as $10 million. Ivanka's clothing and jewelry company was valued at over $50 million, the filings show, but record her as earning no income from that entity. She stepped down from the fashion company that still bears her name in January, just before her father was inaugurated.

Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, reported receiving at least $5,000 in speaking engagement fees from the Russia-based Volga-Dnepr Airlines, the Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Government Security Solutions, and the Russia-sponsored RT television network. NBC News, citing documents released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, had reported earlier this month that Flynn was paid by those groups. RT, most notably, paid the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief more than $45,000 before commission. Flynn was forced to leave his role in the Trump administration last month after lying about his contacts with Russia.

Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon made over $2 million last year, while the large earnings of former Goldman Sachs chief turned National Economic Council Director, Gary Cohn, stood at at least $40 million in 2016, including dividends, salary, interests, and bonuses.

Fellow Goldman Sachs alum Dina Powell, a deputy national security adviser, also yielded big returns, of over $6 million, while White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's assets and income valued at much as $6 million, a chunk of it in real estate. Deputy NSA KT McFarland and her husband listed double-digit millions in assets and income.

Bannon, well known for his work leading the conservative, far-right news outlet Breitbart, made $191,000 from the media company last year. His largest payout came from Bannon Strategic Advisors, a consulting company valued between $5 and $25 million, which yielded Bannon $493,836 last year, the reports show.

Chief of Staff Reince Priebus made $500,000 in income from the Republican National Committee, which he used to lead as chairman, last year and $750,000 in income from a buyout and income distribution from a law firm that he was a part of, according to the records. Counselor to the president and renown TV surrogate Kellyanne Conway's worth ranged from $11 million to over $40 million.

White House aide Omarosa Manigualt, who starred on NBC's The Apprentice, reported receiving a wedding package from Kleinfeld Bridal that included her wedding dress, a custom veil, and accessories in exchange for an appearance on "Say Yes to the Dress." That package was valued at $25,000. She is also a one-third beneficiary of as much as $5 million from the trust of her deceased fiance, actor Michael Clarke Duncan.

The financial disclosure forms, which are required by law of certain White House aides and list income and assets in broad categories only, come as the White House released the holdings of about 180 administration employees Friday night.

Prior to the release, White House officials told reporters the documents would reveal the "incredible complexity and sophistication" of the assets and financial structures these "incredibly successful individuals" have.

RELATED: Ivanka, Jared are rising powers at the White House

That the Trump administration boasts millionaires among its highest echelons comes as little surprise. In order to assume a senior job in his father-in-law's administration, Kushner himself resigned from 266 entities, a senior administration official said, and documents show he sold 58 businesses or investments deemed as possible conflicts of interest.

But as top advisers and aides to the president bare their finances, Trump's own disclosures remain minimal. Trump has not released his tax returns — breaking with decades of precedent. The president has said he can't make his returns public because he's under audit from the IRS.

When asked Friday about releasing tax returns from 2016 that were not under audit, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer punted, saying returns aren't due to be filed until April 15th. He still balked at the idea that staff disclosures are comparable with the president's highly-sought after tax returns, calling the comparison "apples and oranges."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html
THE BLOG 08/06/2015 05:38 pm ET | Updated Aug 06, 2016
The Transformation of American Democracy to Oligarchy
By Akbar Ganji

The United States has the world’s largest economy, is the most important contributor to scientific advancements, has the most powerful military and some of the best universities in the world, is a democratic state, and accepts more immigrants than any other nation. But, over time the democratic foundations of the United States, equality of the citizens and their human rights, have been eroding. It is impossible to make inequality a pillar of the structure of the state and deepen its roots, and yet to be proud and claim that the citizens have equal voting rights. When all types of inequalities take deep roots and expand, citizens lose their power to influence the political process. Let us take a look at some facts.

Discrimination against the American Dream

In his books, Inequality Examined, Development as Freedom, and The Idea of Justice, Harvard Professor and Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen links equality to the capabilities theory, an idea that was expanded by Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher and Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, in her book, Women and Human Development. According to this theory, certain capabilities, such as having food and drinks, a place to live, health care, education, and job are essential to the definition of human being. The capabilities theory proposes two threshold states for the people. A life below the first threshold is not humane, while a life lived below the second threshold is not a good life.

Tens of millions of people in the United States are living their lives below the first threshold. The economic gap has been widening, denying millions of people a respectable life. Speaking about the widening economic gaps in the United States in July 2013, President Obama pointed out that the American middle class has hardly experienced any significant wage increase over the preceding decade, and that the “American dream” is turning into a myth.

Statistics indicate the huge gap between the average incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans versus the remaining 99 percent: $1,303,198 versus $43,713, a gap of roughly 30 to 1. In 1950 the top 1 percent received only 5 percent of the total incomes produced during the economic expansion. The top 1 percent now receives 95 percent.

In his book, The Price of Inequality, American economist and Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001, demonstrates that, over the past few decades, economic inequality has increased dramatically. He shows that 1 percent of the American people own 25 percent of the total wealth. In interviews with Jon Stewart (here, here, and here), der Spiegel, and Euro News, Stiglitz argued that the only solution to the problem is an economic model similar to that of the Scandinavian countries, and that the “American dream” has become myth. In his article in the New York Times in 2013, Robert Putnam, Professor of public policy at Harvard University also argued that the “American dream” is being destroyed.

Democracy of the Rich

The problem is that the rich have become the most powerful political force in the United States, and the people’s votes and opinion have become ineffective, representing little more than a decoration. Many liberal thinkers believe that money is an enemy of democracy.

Political philosopher John Rawls deeply changed his field through his books, A Theory of Justice, Justice as Fairness, and Political Liberalism. In his book, The Law of People, Rawls stated that a constitutional-based democratic state is a pillar of liberalism, and that (p. 139):

“Public deliberation must be made possible, recognized as a basic feature of democracy, and set free from the curse of money. Otherwise, politics is dominated by corporate and other organized interests who through large contributions to campaigns distort if not preclude public discussion and deliberation.”

To prove his point that “money is an enemy of democracy,” Rawls referred to the article , The Curse of American Politics, by Ronald Dworkin. Rawls offered a masterful critique of the economic gap in the United States, and pointed out that lobbies for American corporations have transformed Congress to a center for buying and selling laws, writing (p. 24):

“An example worth mentioning is Public financing of both elections and forums for public political discussion, without which sensible public politics is unlikely to flourish. When politicians are beholden to their constituents for essential campaign funds, and a very unequal distribution of income and wealth obtains in the background culture, with the great wealth being in the control of corporate economic power, is it any wonder that congressional legislation is, in effect, written by lobbyists, and Congress becomes a bargaining chamber in which laws are bought and sold?"

The inverse relation between the economic power and democracy can also be analyzed from another perspective. In his book, Bowling Alone, Putnam demonstrates that since WWII the widening gap between the rich and the poor has been in parallel with a decreasing rate of participation by the people in the political process. Statistics confirm his claim.

The percentage of people voting in the Congressional elections in the 1990s and the year 2000 was never more than 39 percent. Less than 30 percent of the eligible voters voted in the last Congressional elections, although another study put it at less than 19 percent. The voting rate in the presidential elections is higher, but not too high. It declined from 63.1 percent in 1960 to 51.3 in 2000. Obama’s anti-war coalition of 2008 increased that to only 56.8 percent.

In his 2014 essay, America in Decay, conservative political scientist Francis Fukuyama analyzed that processes that have contributed to the decay of democracy in the United States. In particular, he identified the distribution of power as one of the main contributing factors. Fukuyama wrote that:

“Liberal democracy is almost universally associated with market economies, which tend to produce winners and losers and amplify what James Madison termed the “different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.” This type of economic inequality is not in itself a bad thing, insofar as it stimulates innovation and growth and occurs under conditions of equal access to the economic system. It becomes highly problematic, however, when the economic winners seek to convert their wealth into unequal political influence. They can do so by bribing a legislator or a bureaucrat, that is, on a transactional basis, or, what is more damaging, by changing the institutional rules to favor themselves — for example, by closing off competition in markets they already dominate, tilting the playing field ever more steeply in their favor.”

Fukuyama explains how the lobbyists buy Congressmen to pass legislations that benefit their interests. In his view money enters from the back door and creates supporters [for the lobbyists]. The lobby industry bribes the congressmen and later demands what it wants. He says that:

“Politicians do not typically reward family members with jobs; what they do is engage in bad behavior on behalf of their families, taking money from interest groups and favors from lobbyists in order to make sure that their children are able to attend elite schools and colleges, for example. Reciprocal altruism, meanwhile, is rampant in Washington and is the primary channel through which interest groups have succeeded in corrupting government...Interest groups are able to influence members of Congress legally simply by making donations and waiting for unspecified return favors. And sometimes, the legislator is the one initiating the gift exchange, favoring an interest group in the expectation that he will get some sort of benefit from it after leaving office...Oftentimes, the impact of interest groups and lobbyists is not to stimulate new policies but to make existing legislation much worse than it would otherwise be.”

In 2009, 13500 lobbyists and interest groups spent $5.3 billion to influence Congress, and hurt its credibility. The American people’s trust in Congress has declined from 42 percent in 1973 to just 7 percent in 2014.Fukuyama says that:

“Neither political party has an incentive to cut itself off from access to interest-group money, and the interest groups don’t want a system in which money won’t buy influence.”

If we take a look at the contributions that Israel’s lobby groups have made to election campaigns of Congressmen and Senators, we can understand why Congress often acts for Israel’s, rather than the U.S.’ interests. In his trip to Israel last December, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Congress will follow your lead” regarding the nuclear dispute with Iran. Netanyahu’s competition with the President for getting the votes in Congress to defeat the nuclear agreement with Iran leads to the question: Is this Congress a U.S. Congress or an Israeli one?

Another well-known lobby in the United States is the gun lobby. When 20 school children and seven adults were killed by a gunman in Connecticut, the President tried to limit sales of guns, but failed. He said (here and here) that the National Rifle Association has a tight grip on Congress, and that he did not believe that Congress would do anything to limit gun sales. In 2012 the gun lobby spent nearly $5 million to prevent Congress from limiting sales of guns. The NRA spent $14 million in the 2012 elections to defeat the President. The lobby represents, of course, an industry with an annual income of $6 billion.

Transformation of Democracy to Oligarchy

Former President Jimmy Carter believes that the American democracy has been transformed to an oligarchy. He criticized the Supreme Court’s vote in favor of Citizens United that has allowed unlimited funds to be spent in elections, and said:

“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal moreto [sic] sell.”

In an op-ed in the New York Times Carter wrote that the United States violates at least 10 articles of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is estimated that the 2016 elections will cost close to $10 billion. Aside from the top 1 percent, who in the middle class or among the poor can participate in such an expensive process? This has become a democracy for the rich and dynasties. Consider the candidates. Bill and Hillary Clinton have made $141 million over the past 8 years and have paid $43 million in taxes. Jeb Bush has already received $103 billion for his campaign. The election system has destroyed the playing field for almost every ordinary citizen.

The New York Times estimates that the chances of a child of a state governor becoming a governor is 6000 times better than an ordinary citizen, and that the chances of a child of a U.S. Senator becoming a Senator is 8500 times better than a common citizen.

In his book, Is Democracy Possible, distinguished liberal theorist Ronald Dworkin discusses democracy in the United States, and considers some of the facts mentioned earlier. A Congress that is trusted by only 7 percent of the people is not a parliament of a democratic state. Some may say that the people can vote out those whom they not like. But, the facts are,

One, a large majority of the people does not vote in the Congressional elections.

Two, even if they vote, they must pick either a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, the political structure is such that political power is divided between the two parties forever, and perhaps tens of millions of people have no representative in the political system.

Third, lobbyists and interest groups enjoy considerable influence in such elections.

Fourth, the faith of the people in a Congress that, instead of trying to address their needs and pursuing the true national interests of the United States, serves lobbyists, and interest groups, and the oligarchy, will continue to decline.

So, given the strong evidence, has U.S. democracy not been transformed to an oligarchy?

This article was translated by Ali N. Babaei.

Do you have information you want to share with the Huffington Post? Here’s how.
Akbar Ganji
Dissident Iranian journalist; Intl. Press Association World Press Freedom Hero



http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/michael-flynn-initially-failed-disclose-payments-russia-linked-firms-docs-n741646
Michael Flynn Initially Failed to Disclose Payments From Russia-Linked Firms, Docs Show
by DANIEL ARKIN
APR 1 2017, 10:02 PM ET

Related: Vast Wealth Held By Trump's Top Aides, Documents Show

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn initially failed to tell the government ethics office and the White House about recent speaking fees he received from three Russia-connected firms, a new financial disclosure document shows.

In an initial filing submitted in February, just days before he left the Trump administration, Flynn did not provide an itemized list of the companies that paid him to speak — including RT, the Kremlin-backed television network that U.S. intelligence services have described as a propaganda outlet. But in the amended disclosure, dated Friday, Flynn names RT and at least two other Russia-linked firms as sources of income in a section for nongovernment earnings that exceed $5,000 in a year.

The White House on Friday released both the initial and the amended filing as part of a batch of financial disclosures from key administration staff.

Play Pres. Trump Again Lashes Out at Media Over Russia Investigation as Pressure Intensifies on White House Facebook Twitter Embed
Pres. Trump Again Lashes Out at Media Over Russia Investigation as Pressure Intensifies on White House 2:11

The retired Army lieutenant general was paid by an air freight company associated with the Russia-based Volga-Dnepr Group and a subsidiary of the Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, according to the amended disclosure.

NBC News and other outlets, citing documents released by Democrats on the House Oversight committee, have previously reported that RT paid Flynn more than $45,000, plus perks, to speak at its tenth anniversary gala in December 2015. Flynn was famously seated at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin at that event.

Flynn's attorney, Robert Kelner, told NBC News on Saturday that the first filing submitted to the Government Office of Ethics and the White House, dated Feb. 11, was a draft that would typically be followed by a back-and-forth with federal officials. But that process came to an abrupt end when Flynn, on Feb. 13, lost his job.

Kelner also noted to NBC News that the initial filing included the speaking fees bundled together as income from Leading Authorities LLC, a speakers bureau — rather than a breakdown of specific companies.

The documents released last month by House Democrats include a paycheck from Leading Authorities to Flynn for $33,750, which was his fee for the RT speech after the speakers bureau deducted its 25 percent commission. RT also covered $386 for the cost of visas.

The documents also appear to show that Volga-Dnepr Airlines and Kaspersky Government Security Solutions Inc., each paid Flynn $11,250 after commission.

Play What does Michael Flynn's request for immunity mean for Russian investigation? Facebook Twitter Embed
What does Michael Flynn's request for immunity mean for Russian investigation? 3:38

In a 2016 interview with Yahoo News' correspondent Michael Isikoff, Flynn said he attended the RT gala in order to tell Russia to convince Iran to end what he called involvement in proxy wars in the Middle East. Asked about the speaking fee, Flynn said: "I didn't take any money from Russia, if that's what you're asking me." He said he was paid by his speakers' bureau.

The new financial disclosure also shows Flynn was compensated by political groups, government contractors, technology firms and the FBI, which paid him a $5,000 consultancy fee.

Flynn, who left the Trump administration after misleading the White House about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, made headlines earlier this week after asking congressional investigators for immunity in exchange for cooperating with inquiries into links between Trump's presidential campaign and Moscow.

He was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration from 2012 to 2014, before being pushed out and retiring from the Army with the rank of lieutenant general.



I’M SO GLAD THAT THIS JUDGE IS NOT BUYING TRUMP’S HOOEY. IN CASE YOU ARE WONDERING, THAT TERM IS MORE THAN JUST A SOUTHERNISM. IT MEANS SILLY TALK. I’VE ALSO HEARD, “YOU’RE A BUNCH OF HOOEY.” IT’S DISRESPECTFUL, BUT NOT VULGAR.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-trump-no-protection-campaign-rally-speech-inciting-violence-n741731
Judge to Trump: No Protection for Campaign Rally Speech Inciting Violence
by ASSOCIATED PRESS
APR 2 2017, 10:24 AM ET

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.

Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn't intend for his supporters to use force.

Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out."

Image: Trump speaks at rally in Louisville
Donald Trump speaks at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky on March 1, 2016. Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images, file

Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," the judge wrote. "It was an order, an instruction, a command."

Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Play Judge Approves $25 Million Settlement for Trump University Lawsuit Facebook Twitter Embed
Judge Approves $25 Million Settlement for Trump University Lawsuit 1:35

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit.

Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests. The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.

Related: Lawsuit Filed Against Trump Over Violence at Kentucky Rally

The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.

"While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred," Hale wrote.

Lawyers for Trump and his campaign also argued that they cannot be held liable because they had no duty to the plaintiffs, who assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest at the rally. The judge countered that under the law, every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.

"In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it," the judge ruled, referring the case to a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, to handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.


Verrry Interesting!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/massachusetts-city-council-vote-trump-impeachment-resolution-monday/story?id=46521789&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_headlines_hed
Massachusetts city council to vote on Trump impeachment resolution
By DAVID CAPLAN Apr 2, 2017, 4:32 AM ET

Video – WATCH Government watchdog to review Mar-a-Lago cost and security

A Massachusetts city is joining a handful of other municipalities across the country in calling for an impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump based on alleged conflicts of interest.

During its Monday meeting, Cambridge City Council is slated to vote on a resolution calling for the U.S. House of Representatives to begin such an investigation.

The resolution -- which is largely symbolic -- follows similar calls to action by other city councils, including Richmond, Virginia; Berkeley, California,; and Alameda, California.

But as ABC News previously reported, in a resignation letter dated Jan. 19 -- the day before his inauguration -- Trump wrote, "I, Donald Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold in the entities listed." More than 400 entities were listed in the 19-page document.

Trump's lawyers have also previously said that all potential conflicts of interest have been ironed out.
PHOTO: A copy of the resignation letter dated Jan. 19, 2017 -- the day before the inauguration -- seen by ABC News reads: I, Donald Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold in the entities listed. ABC News
A copy of the resignation letter dated Jan. 19, 2017 -- the day before the inauguration -- seen by ABC News reads: "I, Donald Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold in the entities listed." The resolution is being sponsored by Cambridge vice mayor Marc McGovern, councilor Jan Devereux and councilor Leland Cheung, according to the policy order posted on the city's website.

The resolution states, "That the City Council call upon the United States House of Representatives to support a resolution authorizing and directing the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, including but not limited to the violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution."

It continues, "On January 11, 2017, nine days before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump announced a plan that would, if carried out, remove him from day-to-day operations of his businesses, but not eliminate any of the ongoing flow of emoluments from foreign governments, state governments, or the United States government; and on January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump took the oath of office and became President of the United States."

The resolution further argues, "From the moment he took office, President Trump was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution."

In attempting to justify its claim that Trump violated the aforementioned clauses, the resolution argues, "On January 11, 2017, nine days before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump announced a plan that would, if carried out, remove him from day-to-day operations of his businesses, but not eliminate any of the ongoing flow of emoluments from foreign governments, state governments, or the United States government."

Such alleged violations, argues the resolution, "undermine the integrity of the Presidency, corruptly advance the personal wealth of the President, and violate the public trust."



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/massachusetts-city-council-vote-trump-impeachment-resolution-monday/story?id=46521789
Congress rolls back rules on hunting, broadband privacy
By KEVIN FREKING, ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Apr 2, 2017, 8:08 AM ET

Video -- WATCH House Republicans Effectively Gut Congressional Ethics Watchdog

Hunters could soon target grizzly bears from the air on Alaska's federal lands. Internet providers may get to sell the browsing habits of their customers. States will be able to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Citing states' rights, jobs and the right to bear arms, congressional Republicans are reversing dozens of Obama-era rules affecting the environment, education and the energy sector. The GOP is using a largely unknown but highly effective legislative tool that allows a simple majority in the House and Senate to overturn regulations that often took years to craft.

Indeed, with an overhaul of health insurance going off the rails, Republicans are left pointing to the repeal of various government regulations as their crowning legislative achievement after some 70 days at work. The GOP casts the effort as overturning eight years of excessive government regulation and boosting business.

"These things will help get people back to work, and after years of sluggish growth, give a real boost to our economy," Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said this past week.

The president has signed eight resolutions revoking regulations issued during the final months of Democrat Barack Obama's presidency. Six resolutions have cleared Congress and are awaiting the president's signature. A couple dozen more are on deck, with last Thursday the deadline for filing more.

Trump has signed measures eliminating requirements that mining and oil companies report payments made to foreign governments. The rule was designed to shine a light on how much money foreign governments received for their nation's resources, thus reducing the prospect of corruption.

He also signed another measure reversing an Obama plan to prevent coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams.

"These actions from Congress and the president are giving hope to businesses that they haven't had in a long time," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi scoffed at the notion that Republicans were accomplishing anything with the regulatory repeals "because they do not meet the needs of the American people."

"They are about trickle-down. Their life is about giving more money to the high-end and to corporate interests, maybe it will trickle down, that would be good, but if it doesn't, so be it, that's the free market," Pelosi said.

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the regulatory repeals Congress pushed through will actually damage the economy more than it helps. He said that eliminating the stream protection rule may help coal companies, but it hurts other companies that stand to gain through healthier streams and water supplies.

"If you look across the terrain of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, they are repeals of public measures that help, consumers, workers and the environment in very substantial ways, but are opposed by powerful corporate interests," Weissman said. "The Republicans driving these measures are paying back their corporate benefactors at the expense of the public."

In some cases, the regulatory repeal efforts have had nothing to do with the economy, but addressed hot-button social issues that so often dominate Washington politics.

Republicans blocked a Social Security Administration rule that would have prevented tens of thousands of mentally disabled beneficiaries from being able to purchase a firearm. The rule was targeted specifically at those beneficiaries with mental disorders who have a third party manage their financial benefits, and it was opposed by the NRA and several advocacy groups for the disabled.

The latest repeal effort clearing both chambers required Republicans to bring Vice President Mike Pence to the Capitol so he could cast the tie-breaking vote on the abortion issue. The scrapping of the Health and Human Services rule gave states the go-ahead to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

One of the more closely contested repeals would kill an online privacy regulation. Fifteen Republicans sided with Democrats in opposing the repeal, which Pelosi said would allow internet providers to sell personal information without a user's consent. "You should be very, very scared," she said.

The ability of Congress to void regulations with a simple majority was created in 1996 when Congress passed the Congressional Review Act.

In the 20 years since, Congress was only able to use it once to repeal a regulation. Congress sent five repeal resolutions to Obama, but he vetoed each of them. Trump made clear early on that he would back the efforts of the GOP-led Congress.

"I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most importantly with the American people until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find," Trump said this past week. "We have a lot more coming."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has encouraged the regulatory rollbacks, weighing in with lawmakers on efforts affecting internet providers, federal contractors and energy companies. Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber, acknowledges that it's hard to say how many jobs are created or saved through the repeal of one particular rule, but he says employers of all sizes tell the chamber government regulations are a top concern that makes it harder for them to flourish.

"Any time we can roll back these regulations is another step forward to restoring the economic growth that I think is the top priority of the American people," Bradley said.

————

On Twitter, reach Kevin Freking at https://twitter.com/APkfreking


THERE IS SOME RASH TALK GOING ON AT THE UPPER LEVELS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, SPECIFICALLY BY ASH CARTER WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, WHICH REALLY FRIGHTENS ME. A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE, MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE BELOW AS A REAL POSSIBLE “STRATEGY,” IS CERTAIN TO BE JUST THE FIRST BLOW IN AN ALL OUT WAR. MANY NATIONS HAVE NUKES NOW, SO THEY WILL FIGHT BACK IN KIND. IT IS IMMORAL AND STUPID. (THAT’S JUST MY OPINION, OF COURSE.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ash-carter-us-pre-emptive-strike-north-korea/story?id=46512192&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_headlines_hed
Ash Carter: A US pre-emptive strike on North Korea could lead to “invasion” of South Korea
By JOY LIN
Apr 2, 2017, 12:22 PM ET

Photograph -- North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un waves from a balcony of the Grand People's Study House following a mass parade marking the end of the 7th Workers Party Congress in Kim Il-Sung Square in Pyongyang on May 10, 2016.

Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter says a U.S. preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program could prompt the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to try to invade South Korea.

Carter, who served as defense secretary in the Obama administration, told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on “This Week” Sunday that if the U.S. preemptively strikes North Korea, “It's quite possible that they would as a consequence of that launch … attempt an invasion of South Korea.”

“I'm confident of the outcome of that war, which would be the defeat of North Korea,” Carter said. “But, Martha, I need to caution you, this is a war [with] ... an intensity of violence associated with it that we haven't seen since the last Korean War.”

“Even though the outcome is certain, it is a very destructive war,” the former defense secretary said, noting that the South Korean capital of Seoul, with about 25 million area residents, is on the border between the two countries. “So one needs to proceed very carefully here.”

Carter’s comments come as President Trump is set to meet this week with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Trump administration wants China to get North Korea to end its nuclear program.

But Carter said the Chinese have been “unwilling” to take on that role because, in the short term, they are “fearful of a collapse of North Korea or a war” that would result in a “unified Korea allied with the United States on their border.”

Carter also commented on U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s taking a different, tougher tone toward Russia than President Trump himself.

"In strategic affairs, clarity and consistency are very important,” Carter said. “This is our government and our foreign policy, and we all need to wish it success. But there does need to be clarity and consistency."


THIS STORY BELOW IS ABOUT A TREND THAT IS RAPIDLY DEVELOPING IN WHICH STATES THAT PREVIOUSLY FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST THE ACA’S REQUIREMENT THAT STATES EXTEND MEDICAID TO A LARGER NUMBER OF THE POOR, AS THEY STOP THEIR OBSTRUCTIONIST PRACTICES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE. I CAN'T HELP BELIEVING THAT THEIR NEW CONVERSION TO OBAMACARE'S MEDICAID REQUIREMENT IS SIMPLY GIVING UP ON THE ISSUE. THEY PROBABLY GOT TOO DARN MUCH FLACK FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. WE DO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE WHO JUST CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE ARE NOT TREATED AT ALL OR ARE POORLY TREATED, FOR OFTEN SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY THE HOMELESS. IT IS SHAMEFUL. THAT MEANS THAT WE NEED A ONE PAYER FEDERALLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, SO THAT THERE WILL BE SOME RELIABLE FUNDING FOR MEDICAL CARE REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY. THE SITUATION COMES UP SOMETIMES BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS BILL THE PATIENT ENDLESSLY AND AT OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH RATES, EVEN THOUGH THE PATIENT HAS STATED THAT HE CAN’T PAY, AND THEN TURN HIM OVER TO A COLLECTION AGENCY. WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IS CHARGE HIM AT A LOWER RATE IF HE’S IN THE VERY LOWEST INCOME LEVELS.

THERE WAS A SHOCKING EXAMPLE JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, LUCKILY CAUGHT ON FILM, OF A HOSPITAL -- WHICH I THINK MAY HAVE BEEN A MENTAL HOSPITAL -- BUT THE VIDEO SHOWED THE AMBULANCE TAKING AN OLD WOMAN TO A CITY STREET AND JUST DROPPING HER THERE, STILL IN HER HOSPITAL GOWN. I COULDN’T BELIEVE MY EYES. THE NEWS REPORT STATED THAT SUCH HAPPENINGS ARE NOT AS RARE AS WE MIGHT THINK. THAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE WAYS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE BECOME HOMELESS, IF IT DOES HAPPEN OFTEN. IN THAT CASE HER INSURANCE MAY HAVE RUN OUT. MENTAL HOSPITALS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO HOLD A PATIENT IN THE HOSPITAL, EVEN THOUGH MEDICATION WOULD HAVE STABILIZED HIS CONDITION WITHOUT A LONG HOSPITALIZATION, UNTIL HIS INSURANCE IS EXHAUSTED. THAT, OF COURSE, IS ONLY FOR THEIR OWN ENRICHMENT.

THE TIME MAY BE COMING WHEN A GUARANTEED INCOME MAY BECOME THE PRACTICE HERE. THE FUROR ABOUT THAT WILL BE HEARD ALL OVER THE LAND, I’M SURE, IF IT DOES. I FOR ONE CAN’T WAIT. THE DEPRAVATION IN ALL WAYS, NOT JUST MEDICAL CARE, IS TOO GREAT HERE IN ALL TOO MANY CASES, AND WE SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWING THAT WHEN THE INCOME GAP BETWEEN CLASSES IS SO VERY GREAT.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SUCH LUXURY AS THEY DO IN TIMES LIKE THESE SHOULD DEFINITELY PAY CONSIDERABLY MORE IN TAXES, AND PERHAPS HAVE A SPECIFIC RESTRICTION – A CAP -- ON HOW MUCH IN TOTAL THAT ANY ONE PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO AMASS AND KEEP IN BOTH ASSETS AND INCOME, WITHOUT THE REST GOING TO EITHER THE GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS OR TO GOOD CHARITIES THAT DEMONSTRABLY DO GIVE MOST OF THEIR INTAKE TO THE POOR. SO MANY CHARITIES SPEND A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEIR DONATIONS ARE ON OFFICE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES, HIGH SALARIES, ETC. IT’S HARD TO KNOW WHO TO GIVE MY SMALL DONATIONS TO, BUT I USUALLY INCLUDE NPR RADIO AND SOME TO BERNIE SANDERS, SALVATION ARMY, RED CROSS, ETC. I KNOW THOSE AREN’T SIMPLY SCAMS.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/02/522201586/with-obamacare-here-to-stay-some-states-revive-medicaid-expansion
With Obamacare Here to Stay, Some States Revive Medicaid Expansion
April 2, 20176:52 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Sunday
Alison Kodjak 2016 square

Photograph -- Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback opposes legislative efforts to expand the state's Medicaid program. Orlin Wagner/AP

Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier is a Republican who has been fighting for years to get her colleagues to agree to expand Medicaid.

For years she pushed against what she described as a "Tea Party-ish" Senate and a governor who wouldn't consider the issue. In return for her efforts, she was stripped of her committee assignments and sidelined.

But in last November's election, the makeup of the Kansas legislature moved decidedly to the center. And last week, the state's Senate joined the House in agreeing to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, to about 150,000 more Kansans.

"This has been a long time and a hard road," Bollier said in an interview shortly after the vote.

The vote had reverberations back in Washington, D.C., because it came just days after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives failed in their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. That failure breathed new life into efforts in the states expand Medicaid as the law allows.

In all, 31 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid after the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. The majority acted so that the expansion went into effect in 2014. A handful of states, including Louisiana and Montana, that first rejected the expansion have since embraced it.

But those efforts face the same political and ideological fights that have plagued health care policy in Washington,

You could hear the echoes in Topeka last week.

State Sen. Ty Masterson, a Republican, urged his colleagues to reject expanding Medicaid because it was part of the Affordable Care Act. He likened the federal health law to a broken amusement park ride.

"We're standing at an amusement park ride that's closed. It's broken. And we're saying we want to go ahead and get on the ride," Masterson said. "There is a reason there is nobody in line behind us. Sign's up: 'Out of Order.' I don't want to be first in that line. I want to get out of that line."

But Bollier says the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, and that makes taking federal money to expand health care to the poor, which has overwhelming support in the public, a no-brainer.

"I've never had anything like that in the legislature," she said. "It was just overwhelming support. Not just support; begging, pleading, 'Please, we desperately need this in place.' "

Medical Bills Once Made Him Refinance The Farm. Could It Happen Again?
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Medical Bills Once Made Him Refinance The Farm. Could It Happen Again?

Bollier is a doctor, the daughter of a doctor and a nurse. She says getting health care to the working poor shouldn't be a partisan issue.

"I have yet to meet a patient who comes in and says, 'I'm a Republican,' or 'I'm Democrat, so mete out my care accordingly,' " she said.

The law allows states to offer Medicaid coverage to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $16,400 for a single adult. It also extended eligibility to "able-bodied" adults with no children for the first time.

But Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback didn't see it that way. On Thursday, he vetoed the bill.

"It fails to serve the truly vulnerable before the able-bodied, lacks work requirements to help able-bodied Kansans escape poverty, and burdens the state budget with unrestrainable entitlement costs," he said in a statement. Brownback said he also opposed it because it allowed government money to go the what he called "the abortion industry."

Bollier calls the governor's' arguments "disingenuous."

"He keeps claiming we just can't afford this," she says. "You afford what you choose. Where you place your money is a reflection of your value system."

Now Bollier and other proponents are working furiously to change just two of their colleagues' minds in hopes of overriding that veto — perhaps as soon as Monday.

About 1,200 miles due east from the fight in Topeka is Richmond, Va.

When it comes to Medicaid expansion, the two capital cities are mirror images.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a Democrat pushing his Republican legislature to expand Medicaid.

"I have had more excuses out of our Republican general assembly, none of them correct," McAuliffe tells Shots. "The most recent argument was this was going to be repealed. Well, now it's not. It's not going away."

I'm Pregnant. What Would Happen If I Couldn't Afford Health Care?
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
I'm Pregnant. What Would Happen If I Couldn't Afford Health Care?

McAuliffe says about 400,000 Virginians could be eligible for Medicaid under an expansion. And the Federal government would send $2.4 billion a year to the state to cover the costs.

But the legislature in Richmond isn't buying it.

In a statement, Virginia's Republicans said they're still against the proposal.

"The House Republican majority remains strongly opposed to implementing ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion in Virginia," the statement said. "Virginia can barely afford our current program, much less an expansion. Every dollar spent on Medicaid is one less that can be spent on education, transportation or public safety."

McAuliffe says the barrier is political. Among Virginia Republicans, the specter of U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor unexpectedly losing his primary battle two years ago looms large.

"My legislature is terrified of the Tea Party," McAuliffe says. "That's the only reason they're not voting for it. Because they're afraid they'll get taken out in the primary, plain and simple."

So in Virginia, expanding Medicaid remains a long shot.

Home Health Aides Fear They'll Lose Hard-Won Insurance Coverage
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Home Health Aides Fear They'll Lose Hard-Won Insurance Coverage

But up north, in Augusta, Maine, lawmakers have handed the question to the people after that state's governor vetoed measures passed by the legislature five different times.

Tom Saviello is that state's representative for Franklin County, a poor rural district where many people have no health care coverage.

Expanding Medicaid would make people healthier, bring in federal money and help the local hospital that's struggling to care for all the people who can't pay, he says.

"To me it was a no-brainer, absolutely a no-brainer," says Saviello, a Republican, in an interview.

He sponsored bills to expand Medicaid in the past that were vetoed by Republican Gov. Paul LePage. Then on Election Day, a citizens group collected enough signatures — 67,000 — in a single day to put the question to a referendum. Saviello says he withdrew his latest bill in order to let the public decide.

"Because we have the citizens' petition, we're putting it in the citizens' hands," he says.

Polls show that 60 percent of Mainers want to expand Medicaid, Saviello says.

So come November, he predicts: "It's going to happen. It's coming."

James McLean from member station KCUR in Kansas City, Mo., contributed to this report.



100 GAYS IN CHECHNYA HAVE BEEN ROUNDED UP AND ARRESTED BY THE POLICE, WITH THREE BEING KILLED. AS LONG AS GAY PEOPLE DO NOT MOLEST OR INTIMIDATE STRAIGHTS AND THOSE WHO ARE TOO YOUNG OR INCOMPETENT TO FEND OFF ANY UNWELCOME ADVANCES, I DON’T BELIEVE THE MERE PRESENCE OF GAY PEOPLE IN SOCIETY SHOULD EVER BE GROUNDS FOR ARREST OR ANY OTHER KIND OF DISCRIMINATION. SEXUAL HARASSMENT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED ON THE PART OF ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, OF COURSE. AS FOR THIS COMMENT THAT THERE “ARE NO HOMOSEXUALS” THERE, I’VE HEARD THAT BEFORE. IN SOME CONSERVATIVE ISLAMIC SOCIETIES, HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY CAN CARRY THE DEATH PENALTY. A NEWS REPORT FROM AN ISIS STRONGHOLD SHOWED MEN, PURPORTEDLY GAY, BEING LITERALLY THROWN OFF A ROOFTOP.

THE VARIOUS QUIRKS OF HUMAN NATURE SIMPLY CANNOT BE ELIMINATED. MANY SOCIETIES, INCLUDING OURS, SEEK TO SUPPRESS IT, BUT IT POPS UP AMONG INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE AND DURING ALL TIME PERIODS. IT'S ONE OF A NUMBER OF HUMAN VARIABILITIES. THAT TELLS ME THAT, THOUGH IT IS RELATIVELY UNCOMMON AND TO A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, UNDESIRABLE, IT IS “NORMAL.” AS IN SO MANY OTHER THINGS, “NORMAL” IS A RELATIVE TERM, AND EMERGES AS A MATTER OF DEGREES. I KNOW, “THEM’S FIGHTIN’ WORDS,” BUT SO BE IT. LIFE IS A FIGHT.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-chechnya-police-arrest-100-alleged-gays-killed-46522707?cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_headlines_hed
Report: Chechnya police arrest 100 alleged gays, 3 killed
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MOSCOW — Apr 2, 2017, 7:10 AM ET

A respected Russian newspaper says it has uncovered information that police in the southern Russian republic of Chechnya have rounded up more than 100 men suspected of homosexuality and that at least three have been killed.

The Saturday report in Novaya Gazeta said it had confirmed the information with sources in the Chechen police and government, but gave no details.

The report was denied by Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov's spokesman, who suggested there are no homosexuals in the Muslim-majority region. Ali Karimov said, according to the state news agency RIA Novosti, "it's impossible to persecute those who are not in the republic."

The Kremlin-backed Kadyrov is widely accused of extensive human rights violations. He has brought Islam to the fore of Chechnya's daily life, including opening what is called Europe's biggest mosque.