May 8 and 9, 2017


News and Views


I DID LISTEN TO THIS HEARING AND WAS DISAPPOINTED IN THAT IF THERE WERE ANY BIG NUGGETS OF INFORMATION, I MISSED IT, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF REFUSAL TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED. JAMES CLAPPER DID SAY THAT HE, AT ANY RATE, COULD GIVE MORE INFORMATION IN A CLOSED HEARING, AND SENATOR GRAHAM PROMISED TO SET ONE UP. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. I HOPE YATES IS INCLUDED IN THAT ONE ALSO.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/watch-live-streaming-video-sally-yates-to-testify-in-trump-russia-probe/
PBS NEWS HOUR
SALLY YATES TESTIFIES LIVE

James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, and Sally Yates, who was Deputy Attorney General, will testify to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism, the first such public testimony by former officials from the Democratic administration in one of congressional probes on Russia.

Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to discredit the election and sway the voting toward Republican Trump, who won an upset victory in November.

Moscow has denied any such meddling. Trump also has dismissed the allegations, suggesting instead that Obama might have wiretapped his Trump Tower in New York or that China may have been behind the cyber attacks. No evidence has been found to support either allegation.

The public hearing will be the first featuring testimony by Obama administration officials who have left government. Trump fired Yates from the Department of Justice in January, and Clapper retired on Jan. 20, when Trump was inaugurated.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the subcommittee’s chairman who called the hearing is a Russia hawk and sometime critic of Trump who has been one of the leading Republican voices calling for a thorough investigation of Russia and the election.

Yates is expected to tell the senators that on Jan. 26, when she was acting Attorney General, she had warned White House Counsel Don McGahn that then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had not told the truth about conversations he had with Sergei Kislyak, Moscow’s Ambassador to Washington, about U.S. economic sanctions on Russia.

Flynn resigned after less than a month in office.

The congressional hearings have been shadowed by allegations, mostly from Democrats, that lawmakers are too partisan to investigate effectively.

In the lead-up to Monday’s hearing, Susan Rice, who was Obama’s national security adviser, declined an invitation to testify because it had come only from the Republican Grahamand not Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat.

Her refusal was first reported by CNN.

Rice’s name was linked to the Russia investigation when Trump suggested she might have broken the law by asking intelligence analysts to reveal the name of a Trump associate mentioned in an intelligence report.

She denied doing anything inappropriate, and there is no evidence to substantiate Trump’s allegation.

Trump tweeted on Thursday that it was “Not good!” that Rice had not agreed to testify.

The probe being led by Graham and Whitehouse is one of three main congressional investigations of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election. The FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are conducting separate investigations.

Clapper, Yates and another official who served under Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, had been scheduled to testify to the House of Representatives intelligence committee in March, but that hearing was canceled by the panel’s chairman, Republican Devin Nunes.

Nunes, a Trump ally, has since recused himself from the Russia investigation amid concerns that he was too close to the White House to lead a credible probe.

Yates, Clapper and Brennan are now due to appear at a public hearing of the House committee that has not been scheduled.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by John Walcott and Grant McCool)


WAS OBAMA NOT FORCEFUL ENOUGH IN HIS WARNING ABOUT FLYNN? IT WAS A LITTLE ON THE SUBTLE SIDE, AND UNDERSTATED, BUT NOT “A JEST.” THAT’S WHAT ONE TRUMP OFFICIAL SAID, BUT ANOTHER STATED IT WAS CLEAR ENOUGH. ANYONE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH OBAMA’S WAY OF SPEAKING KNOWS HE’S NO SHOUTER, BUT HE IS RARELY MISUNDERSTOOD IN THIS WAY. THEY JUST PAID NO ATTENTION AND HOPED TO GET AWAY WITH IT BY LYING -- AGAIN. WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-warned-trump-against-hiring-mike-flynn-say-officials-n756316?cid=eml_nbn_20170508
EXCLUSIVE NEWS MAY 8 2017, 11:33 AM ET
Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn, Say Officials
by KRISTEN WELKER, PETER ALEXANDER, DAFNA LINZER and KEN DILANIAN

Former President Obama warned President Donald Trump against hiring Mike Flynn as his national security adviser, three former Obama administration officials tell NBC News.

The warning, which has not been previously reported, came less than 48 hours after the November election when the two sat down for a 90-minute conversation in the Oval Office.

A senior Trump administration official acknowledged Monday that Obama raised the issue of Flynn, saying the former president made clear he was "not a fan of Michael Flynn." Another official said Obama's remark seemed like it was made in jest.

The revelation comes on a day that former acting Attorney General Sally Yates is expected to testify that Flynn misled the White House about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the United States.

Play NBC News Exclusive: NBC News Exclusive: Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Flynn 1:36

According to all three former officials, Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn. The Obama administration fired Flynn in 2014 from his position as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, largely because of mismanagement and temperament issues.

Obama's warning pre-dated the concerns inside the government about Flynn's contacts with the Russian ambassador, one of the officials said. Obama passed along a general caution that he believed Flynn was not suitable for such a high level post, the official added.

Two administration officials said Obama also warned Trump to stay vigilant on North Korea.

Trump named Flynn as his national security adviser. Flynn, who was conducting private conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions, was then fired three weeks into the administration for misleading Vice President Pence about those conversations.

News of the Obama warning came as Trump sought to get ahead of a day of unpleasant disclosures about his former top foreign policy aide, taking to Twitter Monday to cast aspersions on Yates, the 27-year Justice Department prosecutor who warned the White House that then-National Security Adviser Mike Flynn had misled officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Related: White House Denies Claim That Yates' Testimony Was Blocked

"Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel," Trump tweeted, referring to Yates' conversation with White House counsel Donald McGahn.

But Trump has left many other important questions about the Flynn affair unanswered, including: What, if anything, did he know about his national security adviser's conversations with the Russian ambassador?

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel.
10:43 AM - 8 May 2017
5,441 5,441 Retweets 18,735 18,735 likes

Monday afternoon, Yates is scheduled to testify for the first time in public, alongside James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, who pushed Flynn in 2014 from his job as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The two are due to appear before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee at 2:30 p.m.

It was more than a week after Yates raised concerns about Flynn with McGahn that the story leaked to the Washington Post, prompting a series of events that led to Flynn's ouster from his White House job.

In a second tweet Monday morning, Trump noted that "General Flynn was given the highest security clearance by the Obama administration, but the Fake News seldom likes talking about that."

It's true that Flynn got his top level security clearance renewed in January 2016, but what Trump didn't mention is that Flynn should have received a far more thorough vetting in advance of his becoming national security adviser, a job that allows access to the nation's most closely-held secrets. What was the nature of that vetting, and did it raise any flags about Flynn's lobbying work for Turkish interests during the campaign, or his paid appearance on behalf of Russian state media, both now under scrutiny by law enforcement agencies? The White House hasn't said.

Related: President Trump Fires Acting AG Sally Yates

Another big question that has never been answered: Did Flynn coordinate with the president over his repeated contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak? Those contacts raised alarms not only within the Obama administration, but within Trump's own transition team, according to reports Friday confirmed by NBC News. There were concerns that the Trump administration was signaling Russia not to worry about the Obama administration sanctions on Russia over its election interference, which expelled Russian intelligence officers from the U.S. and blocked access to Russian diplomatic compounds here.

Play Sally Yates could shed light on Trump-Russia ties, analyst says 2:13

Flynn was fired as national security adviser, White House officials said, because he told Vice President Pence he didn't discuss those sanctions with Kislyak, despite FBI transcripts showing that he did. That is among the issues Yates raised to McGahn, according to people who have been briefed on the matter.

People familiar with her plans don't expect her to get into much detail about her warnings regarding Flynn, largely because many of the underlying facts involve classified material.

In advance of her testimony, Republicans have been accusing her of acting politically, and noting that she was fired by Trump for refusing to enforce his travel ban. They call her a partisan Democrat.

Related: Former Acting AG Sally Yates to Testify Publicly in House Intel Probe

In response, her defenders point out that she spent much of her 27-year Justice Department career working as a line prosecutor, a non-political job. Though she was appointed to positions in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, she was widely respected on both sides of the aisle. Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson, her home state senator, was among those introducing her at her 2015 confirmation hearing to become deputy attorney general.

She was confirmed, 84-12.

Kristen Welker KRISTEN WELKER TWITTER
Peter Alexander PETER ALEXANDER
DAFNA LINZER EMAIL
Ken Dilanian KEN DILANIAN TWITTEREMAIL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tQVNQB9IEo
DO WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO ON THE CANCELLATION OF YATES TESTIMONY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tQVNQB9IEo



YATES’ WARNING SEEMS TO ME TO BE ESSENTIALLY A FAVOR TO THE TRUMP CAMP. SHE DID NOT GO TO THE WASHINGTON POST, AFTER ALL. CYNICAL AS I AM, IF BELIEVE THAT THE TRUMP FORCES WANTED TO DELAY FIRING FLYNN, IN THE HOPE THAT THE MATTER WOULDN’T COME TO LIGHT PUBLICLY. WHEN IT DID, HOWEVER, HE QUICKLY FIRED FLYNN, TO SAVE HIS OWN NECK.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-skeptical-yates-heads-flynn-cited-partisan-motives-n757056
NEWS MAY 9 2017, 4:57 PM ET
White House Skeptical of Yates’ Heads Up on Flynn, Cited Partisan Motives
by ALI VITALI

The White House defended the 18 day wait time between a "heads up" about former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's liaison with Russia and his firing — calling it "due process" done right — and questioned former acting Attorney General Sally Yates' partisan motives.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer illuminated a skepticism within the administration about Yates' warnings to White House Counsel Don McGahn about Flynn's actions, telling reporters Tuesday it's "important" to note her "rumored" partisan allegiances.

Play -- Fired Acting AG Yates Testifies on Flynn Case 2:45

Spicer referred to Yates — a career Justice Department employee for over 25 years — as "someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda" and alleging that she was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Asked later what was informing that statement, Spicer spoke of "widely rumored" information that Yates would have a role at the Department of Justice if Clinton had won.

"Let's look at, again how this came down," Spicer said Tuesday. "Someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda. Who, a couple days after this first conversation took place, refused to uphold a lawful order of the president — who's not exactly someone that was excited about President Trump taking office or his agenda."

Related: Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn, Say Officials

"You have someone who you have to wonder whether — why they are telling you something," Spicer added later.

But career lawyers who worked with Yates point out to NBC News that she has never had any interest in politics and will not run for office, despite urgings from politicians in her home city of Atlanta, Georgia.

Yates did refuse to enforce the first version of the president's immigration travel ban, and was subsequently fired. However, those events happened days after her initial meeting with McGahn on Jan. 26 and 27.

Image: Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Testifies on Capitol Hill
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testifies about potential Russian interference in the presidential election before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on May 8, 2017 in Washington. Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters

But Spicer argued that her actions vindicated the White House's assumptions — even retroactively.

"We were correct in the assumptions we made at the time," he stated.

Spicer repeatedly insisted that Trump's decision to fire Flynn, motivated by the fact that Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russian diplomats, was the right call on the part of the president. But he also defended the decision to allow Flynn continued access to phone calls with world leaders in his capacity as national security adviser.

Related: White House Denies Claim That Yates' Testimony Was Blocked

Asked if it was the right decision to allow Flynn to sit in on a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Spicer said "at that moment, sure."

During the 18 days that the administration was processing Yates' initial warning that Flynn may have been compromised, the White House also allowed him to brief reporters that the United States was "putting Iran on notice," as well as continue his day to day duties as NSA.

Yates testified to congress on Monday that she told the White House Flynn could be "blackmailed by the Russians."

"We were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what General Flynn had done," she said.

Spicer declined to "nitpick" what the tone of her warning was, saying there's not "100 percent agreement about how she described everything" at the Senate hearing, but as far as the timeline she provided goes "we're fine with it."

ALI VITALI TWITTERFACEBOOKINSTAGRAMEMAIL
CONTRIBUTOR HALLIE JACKSON
TOPICS U.S. NEWS, WHITE HOUSE
FIRST PUBLISHED MAY 9 2017, 4:55 PM ET



WE GOT LUCKY! REMEMBER THREE MILE ISLAND?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emergency-reported-hanford-nuclear-site-washington/
CBS/AP May 9, 2017, 1:42 PM
Tunnel collapse at Hanford Nuclear site, emergency declared

SPOKANE, Wash. -- An emergency was declared Tuesday at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington after a portion of a tunnel that contains rail cars full of nuclear waste collapsed.

The alert was activated shortly before 8:30 a.m. at the Hanford Emergency Operations Center, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

RELATED – FOUR ARTICLES
Nuclear waste clean-up delayed and billions over budget
Hanford nuclear waste: Proposed storage site prompts new criticism
Hanford Nuclear Reservation's leaking tanks latest woe for decades-old site
6 tanks at Hanford nuclear site in Wash. leaking

The accident occurred at a facility known as PUREX, located in the middle of the sprawling Hanford site, which is half the size of Rhode Island. The closed PUREX plant was part of the nation's nuclear weapons production complex.

Authorities say the collapse took place within one of two rail tunnels under the PUREX site, which contain contaminated materials. No radiation has been detected.

Crews discovered the subsidence of soil, which appears to be two to four feet deep, during a routine surveillance of the area, according to the DOE.

No workers were inside the tunnel when it collapsed, but nearby crews were evacuated as a precaution. Other employees were asked to secure ventilation and shelter indoors. The entrance to the site has been restricted.

Play VIDEO -- Wash. nuclear waste site leaking contaminants

According to the DOE, the collapse may have been caused by road crews doing construction above the tunnel location. The level of concern for significant danger at the site has subsided.

Hanford site

The federal government created Hanford at the height of World War II as part of a hush-hush project to build the atomic bomb. The site produced plutonium for the world's first atomic blast and for one of two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. It continued production through the Cold War.

Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup expected to last decades. It contains about 56 million gallons of radioactive waste, most of it in 177 underground tanks.

Hanford, which has more than 9,000 employees, is located near Richland, about 200 miles southeast of Seattle.



WE NEED AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, I THINK, MAKING BASIC QUALITY GUARANTEES ON HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. I’VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT, EITHER. OF COURSE, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT PROGRESSIVES WOULD BE UNABLE TO PUSH THROUGH SUCH A THING. THIS GOP HOUSE PLAN IS TOTALLY INSUFFICIENT, AND THE PREDICTABLE PEOPLE ARE DISADVANTAGED UNDER IT – THE POOR, THE SICK AND THE ELDERLY. WHAT SORT OF DISCUSSION WILL ARISE, I WONDER, AROUND THE IDEA OF RAUL LABRADOR’S STATEMENTS THAT 1) HEALTH CARE IS NOT A GUARANTEED HUMAN RIGHT, AND 2) THAT “NOBODY DIES FROM LACK OF HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/08/raul-labrador/raul-labradors-claim-no-one-dies-lack-health-care-/
"Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care."
— Raul Labrador on Friday, May 5th, 2017 in a town hall event
Raul Labrador's claim that no one dies from lack of health care access: Pants on Fire
By Louis Jacobson on Monday, May 8th, 2017 at 3:39 p.m.

We checked a claim by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, about health insurance and its effect on death rates.

Here's the exchange between an audience member and Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, on health insurance and mortality.

Rep. Raul Labrador responds to questions during a town hall meeting on May 5, 2017, in Lewiston, Idaho. (Kyle Mills/Lewiston Tribune via AP)
What Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told a restive town hall audience in Lewiston, Idaho, was destined to go viral. And it did.

At the May 5, 2017, event, questioners asked the congressman about the Republicans’ vote the previous day on a major health care overhaul that would roll back many aspects of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, including limits on expanding Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

"You are mandating people on Medicaid accept dying," one audience member said.

To which Labrador responded, "No no, you know that line is so indefensible. Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care."

The crowd howled in protest, and the comment drew immediate national attention. Writing in CNN, political commentator Chris Cillizza awarded his "Worst Week in Washington" award to Labrador, saying that the congressman had essentially handed Democrats a video clip that was "a ready-made attack line against every vulnerable House Republican."

Given all the attention to Labrador’s comment, we decided to fact-check it.

It’s not our first time looking at a similar question. Because of varied results from academic papers, we have struggled since 2009 about how to rate claims that a specific number of people die every year because they were uninsured -- a common talking point for Democrats. We found it difficult to pinpoint a specific number.

However, Labrador’s statement put a different twist on the question. Rather than saying that a specific number of people had died due to lack of health insurance, Labrador said that no one had. Could that be right?

Labrador’s explanation

When we contacted Labrador’s office, his staff pointed us to a Facebook post where he explained his remark the following day and accused the media for only focusing on a few seconds of a longer discussion.

"During ten hours of town halls, one of my answers about health care wasn’t very elegant," Labrador wrote. "I was responding to a false notion that the Republican health care plan will cause people to die in the streets, which I completely reject. ... In the five-second clip that the media is focusing on, I was trying to explain that all hospitals are required by law to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay and that the Republican plan does not change that." (Here’s the full exchange as posted by Labrador’s office.)

However, even if you buy the argument that emergency room care would protect the uninsured, that leaves out a whole range of chronic and potentially deadly diseases -- from heart disease to diabetes -- that can be prevented only through long-term access to physicians.

A literature review

We found at least seven academic papers that detected a link between securing health insurance and a decline in mortality. In general, these papers present a stronger consensus that having insurance saves lives.

• In 2002, a panel of more than a dozen medical specialists convened by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 Americans had died in 2000 because they were uninsured. In January 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published a paper that sought to update the IOM study with newer data. Replicating the study’s methodology, Dorn concluded that the figure should be increased to 22,000.

• A 2009 American Journal of Public Health study concluded that a lack of health insurance "is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease."

• Three studies looked at state-level expansions of Medicaid and in each case found "significant" improvements in mortality after such expansions of coverage. These include a 2012 New England Journal of Medicine study of New York, Maine, and Arizona by Harvard researchers, and a 2014 study of Massachusetts by researchers from Harvard and the Urban Institute.

• A 2014 study published by the health policy publication Health Affairs looked at states that, at the time, had declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It estimated that the 25 states studied would have collectively avoided between 7,000 and 17,000 deaths.

• A 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found improved survival rates for young adults with cancer after securing insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

• A 2017 study in the journal Medical Care looked at a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults to be covered under a parent’s policy. The study found a decline in mortality among this population from diseases amenable to preventive treatment. (Mortality from trauma, such as car accidents, saw no decrease, as would be expected.)

Any contrary views?

We found two papers that might conceivably provide support for Labrador’s position. But as we’ll see, even the papers’ authors did not agree with Labrador.

• A paper published in April 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research. In it, Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine, raised questions about the conclusions of the seminal Institute of Medicine study from 2002. Kronick’s study adjusted the data -- as the IOM had not -- for a number of demographic and health factors, including status as a smoker and body mass index, and found that doing so removed the excess number of deaths found in the original study.

• A 2013 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine co-authored by Katherine Baicker of Harvard University compared about 6,000 patients in Oregon who got coverage through a 2008 Medicaid expansion and about 6,000 who didn’t. While the study found improvements in out-of-pocket medical spending and lower rates of depression among those who got coverage, key benchmarks for physical health -- including blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar -- did not improve in such patients.

So we asked both of these papers’ authors whether their papers could be used as justification for what Labrador said.

"Rep. Labrador is misinformed," Kronick said. "Common sense, as well as the accumulated weight of evidence is sufficient to convince any reasonable analyst that lack of health insurance results in excess morbidity (that is, sickness) and mortality."

Baicker, too, said she sees "strong evidence" that Labrador’s statement "is false. I agree that the exact number is up for debate, but the fact that it is more than zero seems clear to me."

Every other health policy analyst who responded to us for this article agreed that Labrador was wrong. Some saw common sense as equally persuasive as the peer-reviewed research.

"I was just at a physicians’ meeting where people described patients they had treated who had died because of a lack of coverage," said Harold Pollack, an urban public health researcher at the University of Chicago. "Everyone who does this for a living has personally experienced it in one way or another."

Our ruling

At the town hall, Labrador said, "Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care."

Extensive research over the previous decade generally points to tangible reductions in mortality after patients obtain health insurance. Two papers found more equivocal results, but we reached authors of both papers, and they agreed that their findings do not support Labrador’s remark. While the exact number of deaths saved by having health insurance is uncertain, the researchers we contacted agreed that the number is higher than zero -- probably quite a bit higher.

We rate his statement Pants on Fire.

Share The Facts
Raul Labrador
U.S. Representative, R-Idaho

"Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care."
a town hall event – Friday, May 5, 2017


ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, THE GOP HOUSE PLAN COULD CHANGE KEY LEGAL DEFINITIONS, AND DANGEROUSLY DAMAGE AMERICANS’ ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. OF COURSE, IF YOU’RE A BILLIONAIRE, WHO CARES, RIGHT?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-is-how-the-american-health-care-act-would-affect-employer-based-insurance/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS May 9, 2017, 6:00 AM
Here is how the House GOP health care bill would affect employer-based insurance

Most of the conversation about the House GOP-passed health care plan concerned those buying insurance in the individual marketplace. But approximately half of all Americans have health insurance provided through their employers, so, how would the American Health Care Act affect their coverage if it were to become law?

The bill as it stands would have the potential to alter insurance coverage in two major areas — by nixing coverage requirements for employees at larger companies, and by — theoretically — making it possible for employees at larger companies to have to pay an unlimited amount for so-called "essential" health care benefits out of pocket.

On the first point, employees would no longer be guaranteed health insurance because their companies would no longer be required to provide it. The ACHA rolls back a key Affordable Care Act provision that required businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to employees working 30 hours or more a week. That was a long-expected provision of any GOP Obamacare repeal. Conservatives hope the rollback of that Obamacare stipulation will fuel growth in companies that were cautious to hire, or cut employee hours, so they wouldn't have to provide costly health care.

But the rollback of that Obamacare provision may not have a widespread effect, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"Most large employers offered insurance before the ACA, and will likely continue to," Levitt said. "It's really more on the margins that the employer mandate had an effect, in some lower-wage industries like retail, and restaurants and agriculture that were least likely to offer insurance."

Play VIDEO -- Idaho lawmaker faces backlash for saying "nobody dies" from lack of health care access

That implication is pretty straightforward.

The slightly-more-complex implication of the House GOP bill on employer-based coverage means employees at large companies could theoretically pay an unlimited amount for health care on an annual or lifetime basis.

Here's how that could happen, according to Levitt and other health care experts.

Under current law, individuals are protected from spending a fortune on health care because their annual and lifetime expenses for so-called "essential" or "standard" benefits — things considered basic, like hospitalization, newborn care and prescription drugs — are capped. On top of that, under Obamacare, large businesses are prohibited from capping how much they will shell out for employees' essential benefit expenses, annually and throughout their lifetimes.

States each have their own definitions of what qualifies as an "essential" benefit. Larger companies up to this point, unlike smaller companies that must stick with their own state's standards for essential care, have been able to use any state's definition of essential benefits, no matter the business' location. Until now, such insurance shopping hasn't mattered much, since states' definitions of essential benefits vary little.

But the AHCA allows states to apply to the federal government for waivers to alter or eliminate entirely their definitions of essential benefits. States must prove to the federal government that such a waiver would reduce average premiums, increase enrollment, stabilize the health insurance coverage market or increase the choice of health plans in the state. Given the Trump administration's inclination to give states' leniency in executing policy, it would probably also be inclined to grant states waivers, said Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution.

"If this became law -- which is obviously a big if -- that's a likely outcome," Fiedler said.

Here's the catch — if even one state successfully eliminates its definitions of essential benefits and declares that no benefits are essential, then any large company could defer to that state's definition and no longer have any cap on what employees pay out-of-pocket for "essential" benefits. This would effectively eliminate their legal requirement to cover unlimited essential benefits. There would simply be no essential benefits to cap.

"If one state waived the essential benefits entirely, then the employer could essentially require patients to pay an unlimited amount under their insurance plan, because no benefits would count as essential benefits anymore," Levitt said.

Senate tackles health care bill next
Play VIDEO
Senate tackles health care bill next

But Jim Capretta, a resident fellow at the free markets-focused American Enterprise Institute, said such a doomsday scenario of the GOP unraveling employer-based health care is unlikely.

"I think the idea that there's going to be this wholesale unwinding in protections in the employer system is very overrated," Capretta said.

Generally, employers want to offer benefits that are "attractive" to employees, Capretta said. Employer-based health care, he said, is driven "more heavily by employers wanting to offer benefits that are attractive to workers" than by government mandate.

It's unclear, however, what will happen to the House GOP bill in the Senate. Senators have indicated they will make significant changes to the bill, if not write their own bill entirely.



IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THERE IS A TOTAL LACK OF NON-REPUBLICANS OF ALL TYPES, AS WELL, WORKING ON A PROPOSED SENATE BILL. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STATING THAT “NO COMMITTEE ON A SERIOUS PUBLIC ISSUE MAY BE MADE UP OF ONLY ONE PARTY, GENDER, ETC.,” WOULD BE A GOOD THING. IT COULD READ SOMETHING LIKE, “NO DECISION-MAKING BODY MAY BE MADE UP OF ONLY ONE PARTY, RACE, GENDER OR ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPING; AND THE REPRESENTATION ON SAID BODY SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL BASED ON THE MAKEUP OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-group-draws-fire-lack-women-working-health-care-n756856
POLITICS MAY 9 2017, 3:54 PM ET
Senate Group Draws Fire for Lack of Women Working on Health Care
by LEIGH ANN CALDWELL

A Senate working group tasked with crafting a version of health care policy that can muster support from at least 50 of the 52 Republican senators has found its mission complicated by who has not been included — women senators.

The Republican conference includes five women, and none were invited to join a core group of 13 senators to take the lead in crafting a health care bill.

Some Republican women have expressed dismay, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She told reporters Tuesday, "I just wanna make sure we have some women on" the senate health care group.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the group is just one of several discussions ongoing and that every Senate Republican will have a say.

"Nobody's being excluded based on gender," McConnell said, pointing to an hour-long lunch of Senate Republicans on Tuesday where health care was the main topic of discussion. "What you should write - we're having a discussion about the real issues. Everybody's at the table. Everybody."

Play McConnell McConnell Asked Why Senate Working Group on Health Care Lacks Women 0:40

But the "working group," McConnell helped to convene consists of a group of 13 members, including himself, met for the second time on Tuesday before the entire Republican conference met for lunch. At this meeting, the members discussed the topic of Medicaid.

After criticism of the group mounted, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia was invited to join Tuesday's meeting to discuss the health insurance program for low-income Americans, an issue that particularly influences her state.

"Those are choices that were made," Capito said about the makeup of the group. "You know, I don't know. As a woman I'm going to be participating very loudly."

"Leaders have the right to choose whomever they wish. It doesn't mean I'm not going to work on health care," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a former insurance commissioner and critic of limiting access to abortion providers and who has also co-authored a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. "I think I can bring some experience to the debate that will be helpful."

Democrats have been quick to point out the lack of women in the group. "I would hope that Senator McConnell would be a little more sensitive to the fact he's picked a dozen men on his side, there are certainly some very competent women he could've chosen," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told MSNBC Tuesday. "Let me start with Susan Collins, who's been working on revising and repairing our health care system for some time now, Lisa Murkowski, who has some very strong feelings as well. I mean there are many people he could've turned to have a more balanced approach to a much more affordable repair of the system."

Play Senate Republicans Hold 'Task Force' Meeting on Health Care Facebook Twitter Embed
Senate Republicans Hold 'Task Force' Meeting on Health Care 2:21

Also missing from the roster are some critical moderate voices. Both Sens. Collins and Murkowski have been skeptical of limiting access to abortion providers.

Related: Democrats Criticize Health Care Working Group For Lack of Diversity

The group does include two notable conservatives — Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah — who have wanted nothing short of a complete repeal of Obamacare. But even conservatives say they are leery of McConnell's move to include them so early in the process to lock in their support.

"We're scared of having our presence be misconstrued as acquiescence," an aide to one conservative senator told NBC News.

For his part, Cruz has already somewhat softened his original position, acknowledging that a complete repeal is untenable.

"The test for success is very simple: will premiums go up or go down," Cruz said. "And we should start where there is common ground, start where we agree and where there are disagreements. We should look at how we come together to come to yes."

The gap in policy differences between Republican senators is large, and diffusing the differences is going to be difficult.

Even on the meeting Tuesday to discuss Medicaid, the members of the working group have large differences of opinion.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a state that expanded Medicaid, is concerned with an abrupt end to the expansion that he says has helped Ohio residents. He floated adding increasing the tax credits for low-income people if the Medicaid expansion is cut.

"I'd like to change the House version of the tax credit by the way and focus it more on people who are close to the poverty line rather than having it at the higher end," Portman told reporters.

On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Sen. Lee wants to end the Medicaid expansion and reduce the number of people receiving it by restricting it to expectant mothers, the disabled and caregivers of young children.

In addition, Lee wants a repeal of all insurance mandates, including essential health benefits and even pre-existing conditions, which is politically explosive. The House bill has been criticized for amendments that would allow people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more.

But Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee, who is on the working group, said that one of his four priorities is to "make sure people with pre-existing conditions have access to health care."

Senators say they are aware of the policy challenges and are cautioning against any legislation being introduced soon.

"We're going to have to satisfy 51 senators. And I can't tell you how long that's going to take. ... We don't have any arbitrary deadline," said Sen. John Cornyn, the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate. "But it's going to take some time to get to that consensus."

Meanwhile, all 48 Democrats, including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, wrote a letter to McConnell asking him not to gut Obamacare and instead work with them to make health care better.

"Democrats stand ready — as we always have — to develop legislation with Republicans that will improve quality, lower costs, and expand coverage for all Americans. But Republicans need to set aside their current partisan efforts and work with us to get this done," the Democrats wrote in the letter.

Vice President Mike Pence attended a Senate luncheon Tuesday to discuss health care, among other issues. Pence could be a critical vote in the Senate — if Republicans lose just two of their members, he would be in a position as president of the Senate to break a tie.

Leigh Ann Caldwell LEIGH ANN CALDWELL TWITTER
CONTRIBUTORS FRANK THORP V and BENJY SARLIN



I AGREE WITH TRUMP ON THIS. THE KURDS ARE EXCELLENT FIGHTERS. THEY DON’T DROP THEIR USA FURNISHED WEAPONS AND RUN, LIKE IRAQI SOLDIERS DID AT LEAST ONCE, AND PROBABLY MORE. TURKEY AND IRAQ DON’T LIKE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO COMPETENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-trump-approves-plan-arm-syrian-kurds-n756886
NEWS MAY 9 2017, 5:12 PM ET
Trump Approves Plan to Arm Syrian Kurds
by COURTNEY KUBE

President Donald Trump has approved a plan to arm the Syrian Kurdish militia — an important U.S. ally in Syria in the fight against ISIS.

The Pentagon said the move is significant because it supports the notion that the Syrian Democratic Force is the fighting force that will eventually go in to Raqqa, a city in Syria's center which has been under ISIS control since 2014. The move also reinforces the idea that the entire Syrian Democratic Force, Syrian Kurds (YPG) and the Syrian Arab Coalition, has the backing of the U.S.

"The (Syrian Democratic Force), partnered with enabling support from U.S. and coalition forces, are the only force on the ground that can successfully seize Raqqa in the near future," chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana White said Tuesday in a statement.

Image: Fighters from the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) stand guard at the site of Turkish airstrikes
Photograph -- Fighters from the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) stand guard at the site of Turkish airstrikes near northeastern Syrian Kurdish town of Derik, known as al-Malikiyah in Arabic, on April 25, 2017. Delil Souleiman / AFP - Getty Images file

Trump and members of his Cabinet spoke about it during a meeting late Monday at the White House with Secretary of Defense James Mattis joining by video teleconference.

The order has been signed and that "allows the process to begin to function," one official told NBC News. Once the order comes to the Pentagon, the U.S. can begin providing the Syrian Kurds with arms and equipment fairly quickly since some equipment is pre-positioned.

Play -- White House Confirms Trump's Sign-Off on Arming Syrian Kurds 0:53

The officials could not say what might flow in first or how it would get there, but among the expected options are:

Breaching equipment — bulldozers, engineering equipment
More effective infantry equipment: rifles, ammunition, armor and communication gear (radios)

The officials said the equipment could be delivered by any number of methods: Ground convoys, C-130s, and air drops are all possible, depending on what the equipment is and the area.

It is unclear whether the U.S. may provide bigger equipment.

The news about the U.S. plan to arm Syrian Kurds comes as the The [sic] Trump administration mulls sending as many as 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a military official told NBC News, and as the White House makes moves it believe will help American forces "start winning" again in the region.

The Turks will be notified about the decision on arming Syrian Kurdish forces soon and the Pentagon expects a strong reaction. In March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson traveled to Turkey to meet with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who sees the YPG as terrorists.

Play -- U.S.-Backed Militias Battle for ISIS Capital 0:39

Erdogan is expected to travel to Washington D.C. to meet with the president next week — their first face-to-face meeting since Trump took office — and one in which divisions over U.S. support of the Syrian Kurdish militia are likely to be a point of contention.

" We are keenly aware of the security concerns of our coalition partner Turkey," White said in a statement on Tuesday. "We want to reassure the people and government of Turkey that the U.S. is committed to preventing additional security risks and protecting our NATO ally."

Last week, the White House said Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed by phone ways to resolve the Syria crisis — a six year old civil war which has left more than 500,000 civilians dead, displaced millions and drawn international outrage. That conversation included a "discussion of safe, or de-escalation, zones to achieve lasting peace for humanitarian and many other reasons."



TWO OF MY FAVORITE DEMOCRAT/PROGRESSIVES – BOTH ARE HONEST MEN.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/jimmy-carter-reveals-he-voted-bernie-sanders-over-hillary-clinton-n756846
POLITICS DEMOCRATS VS. TRUMP MAY 9 2017, 12:25 PM ET
Jimmy Carter Reveals He Voted for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton
by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter revealed Monday night that he backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in last year's Democratic presidential primary.

"Can y'all see why I voted for him?" the 92-year-old Carter said of Sanders, who was seated next to him during a discussion hosted by the Carter Center on Human Rights in Atlanta.

Carter kept his preference quiet during last year's heated race between Clinton and Sanders, but his distaste for Hillary and Bill Clinton is an open secret.

Carter would be Sander's highest-ranking supporter in the Democratic Party. Only one senator backed the Vermont Independent — Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley — along with just a handful of House members and governors.

The Carters and Clintons have long had bad blood, despite their shared experiences as Southern Democrats who spent time in the White House.

In 1992, Carter suggested that Bill Clinton doesn't "tell the truth," and he skipped the 1996 Democratic National Convention. In 2008, Carter endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in what was widely seen as a stinging rebuke.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Carter — a staunch critic of money-in-politics — said he had no doubt that Clinton would win the nomination "because money dominates and she has an inside track to the massive amounts that are going to pour into the Democratic Party."

And during the general election last year, Carter seemed to be holding his nose a bit as he said he supported the "quite unpopular" Clinton. "Everybody knows that I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting Democratic," was his less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic nominee.

At the event with Sanders, Carter said he thought American voters elected Donald Trump because of their "dissatisfaction with the existing system of politics."

"People were willing to just take a chance and abandon democracy and what we knew about its basic principles just to try something new, no matter what it was," said the former president, who has mostly stayed out of domestic politics since leaving the White House after a single term in 1981.

ALEX SEITZ-WALD



https://theintercept.com/2017/05/09/jimmy-carter-and-bernie-sanders-explain-how-inequality-breeds-authoritarianism/
UNOFFICIAL SOURCES
Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders Explain How Inequality Breeds Authoritarianism
Zaid Jilani
May 9 2017, 10:04 a.m

ON MONDAY NIGHT, one day after the far-right Marine Le Pen lost France’s presidential election but garnered a record number of votes for her political party, Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter sat down together to discuss rising authoritarianism across the globe.

The two spoke at the Carter Center, in a discussion that was streamed online.

Asked by the moderator about the rise of authoritarian politics in the United States and elsewhere, both the Vermont senator and former president agreed on a single root cause: political and economic inequality.

“I think the root of it is something that I haven’t heard discussed much,” Carter replied. “I believe the root of the downturn in human rights preceded 2016, it began earlier than that, and I think the reason was disparity in income which has been translated into the average person, you know good, decent, hard-working middle class people feeling that they are getting cheated by the government and by society and they don’t get the same element of health care, they don’t get the same quality education, they don’t get the same political rights.”

“I agree with everything that President Carter said,” Sanders replied.

“Look, here is the situation. You got all over this country tens of millions of people who are extremely angry and they are disappointed. Now we all know as a result of technology workers are producing more today than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Yet despite that you’re seeing people work not 40 hours a week, they’re working 50 or 60 hours a week. Their wages are actually going down!”

Carter and Sanders’s belief that inequality breeds authoritarianism is backed by evidence from France’s recent election.

A post-election examination of France’s presidential contest by the New York Times found that Le Pen’s support “was strongest in areas with high unemployment and low wages.” A regression analysis by The Economist came to similar conclusions.

Sanders and Carter disagreed on little during the night’s discussion, leading the former president to admit who he supported in the Democratic presidential primary.

“Do y’all see why I voted for him?” Carter joked, as the audience laughed.

Top photo: Former President Jimmy Carter, right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders discuss human rights during the Human Rights Defenders Forum at the Carter Center in Atlanta on Monday, May 8, 2017.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:
Zaid Jilani
✉zaid.jilani@theintercept.com
t@ZaidJilani

Zaid Jilani

Zaid Jilani is a journalist who hails from Atlanta, Georgia. He has previously worked as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet.

He graduated from the University of Georgia in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts in international affairs and received his master’s in public administration from Syracuse University in 2014.


ONE STEP FORWARD AND TWO STEPS BACK? SOUNDS LIKE BALLROOM DANCING.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-and-blue-police-black-america-book-by-cbs-news-correspondent-jeff-pegues/
CBS NEWS May 9, 2017, 1:40 PM
"Black and Blue" examines divide between police and black communities

CBS News' Jeff Pegues, who has extensive experience covering police and community relations across the country, is taking an in-depth look at the "divide between the police and black America" in his new book, "Black and Blue."

Photograph -- black-and-blue-jeff-pegues-cover.png

"Part of my reasoning for doing this book is to get to the heart of the issue, expose it and then allow people to discuss it in an open way," Pegues, the network's justice and homeland security correspondent, said Tuesday on "CBS This Morning."

Pegues interviewed police chiefs, activists, and many others on all sides of the complex issue. "The different views of policing — whether you're talking to someone in the black community or police officers in the rank-and-file — it is stark," he said, adding that views of policing in the black community "are certainly shaped by the stops that people on the streets encounter with police."

"For example in Baltimore, it was found that 44 percent of the police stops were made where 11 percent of the population was, and that was primarily the black community," Pegues said. "So there is this emphasis on policing and tough policing in the black community on the part of police departments and that's what we were seeing across the country. And that sort of drives these different viewpoints of policing whether you're talking to someone who is white versus someone who is black."

He also spoke to rank-and-file police officers "who were blunt" about how they felt.

"They talk about feeling overworked, under-appreciated. 'We can't solve your psychosis. We can't raise your kids. We are asked to do too much.' So that is reflected in the book," Pegues said. "But also on the other side you have people in the black community who feel they're being treated like livestock, rounded up, thrown in jail. Or penalized for minor infractions which leads to a cycle, it can lead to a cycle of poverty. There's a real problem here."

While having a black police chief can make a difference, Pegues said that's not the entire story.

"It's really the approach more than the race of the police chief," he said.

Transparency is key, including the use of body cameras for cops.

"That's why you see so many police chiefs across this country moving towards body cameras, because they know transparency is important," Pegues said. "Also cracking down on the bad cops. There are a lot of good cops out there: 99.9 percent of the cops are good. And they don't want the bad cops in the ranks. But they're being painted with this broad brush. So I wanted to dispel that myth, too, in this book and present both sides from good cops, people in the community, both trying to make change."

In addition to transparency, Pegues pointed to officers who are engaging with the community they police, whether they are playing soccer with people in the neighborhood or break-dancing with the kids.

"You can't show up [only] when there's a shooting. Go there before the shooting," he said.




YES, I DID! NO, I DIDN’T! THE ONLY THING LEFT TO DO IS FOR THE SENATE TO REWRITE IT BEFORE PASSING IT (HOPEFULLY KEEPING ALL OF THE IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN.)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-turn-gaslighting-the-health-care-debate?cid=eml_mra_20170508
The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
Republicans turn to ‘gaslighting’ in the health care debate
05/08/17 12:47 PM
By Steve Benen

In recent months, you’ve probably seen references to the politics of “gaslighting” and it’s worth appreciating why. The origin of the word comes from a British play featuring a man, Jack Manningham, pushing his wife, Bella, deeper into madness, deliberately hiding items from their home and making her believe she misplaced them. As the story progresses, she increasingly questions her own mental health as a result of her husband’s duplicitous manipulation.

While executing his schemes, Jack dims the gas light in the house – something Bella notices, but which Jack insists is part of her mental deterioration.

As Lauren Duca explained very well in December, to “gas light” is to “psychologically manipulate a person to the point where they question their own sanity.”

As the health care debate progresses, it’s hard not to notice the Republican gaslighting underway – and the degree to which we’ve been cast in the role of Bella. Take this Slate report, for example.

Slashing $880 billion from Medicaid will help make the program “more responsive” to users, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said. During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, […]

When confronted with the cuts, Price repeatedly refused to admit that the health care bill would cut Medicaid saying the Congressional Budget Office used the Obamacare numbers as a baseline for its analysis. Price insisted, “There are no cuts to the Medicaid program,” adding that resources would be doled out “in a way that allows states greater flexibility.”

This, of course, is completely bonkers. The Republican plan, at least as it existed on Thursday when it narrowly passed the House, cuts Medicaid by $880 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would cause 14 million low-income Americans to lose the coverage they currently enjoy under the Affordable Care Act.

And yet, there was Donald Trump’s HHS secretary, insisting that the bill doesn’t cut Medicaid. On “Meet the Press,” Price arged [sic] to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that under the Republican approach, “absolutely nobody” would lose Medicaid coverage. He added that the Medicaid program will actually have “more resources” to be utilized “for the disabled and the aged.”

Everyone involved in the debate – including, in all likelihood, Price himself – realizes how stark raving mad this is, but GOP officials appear determined to push us to the point at which we question our own sanity.

Alas, it’s not just Price. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) chief spokesperson, AshLee Strong, tried to argue over the weekend that the GOP legislation “was posted online a month ago,” went through four committees, and was scored by the Congressional Budget Office – “twice.”

In reality, the final version of the bill passed by the House was posted online less than one day before the vote, none of the committees held substantive hearings on the proposal, and CBO didn’t score the final bill – because Republicans didn’t want to know about the measure’s cost or impact before the vote.

A day later, Ryan himself insisted his bill included “multiple layers of protections for people with pre-existing conditions” (no such protections exist in reality) and no one would be hurt by the massive Medicaid spending cuts (millions would be hurt from lost coverage).

At the White House on Friday, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Republicans “saw the mistake” Democrats made in 2010 “by trying to force and rush” health care legislation through Congress. This is the sort of lazy lying one does if he or she assumes everyone is dumb: Democrats spent months carefully deliberating before passing the ACA; House Republicans just passed a bill without a CBO score or a substantive hearing.

Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, argued yesterday, “I think everybody will have coverage that is better than what they had under Obamacare,” which, once again, is demonstrably ridiculous.

We’re not just talking about dishonest political figures dissembling during a debate; this is the sort of lying a party embraces when it’s trying to make the public feel like Bella Manningham.

In the story, Jack Manningham was eventually arrested. That’s an unlikely outcome in the health care debate, but here’s hoping folks can take some comfort in the fact that no matter how many falsehoods they hear from GOP officials about their plan, reality has a way of asserting itself.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Health, Health Care Reform, Paul Ryan, Republicans and Tom Price



THIS STORY IS ONE OF THE MOST STARTLING I'VE SEEN ABOUT THE CAMP TRUMP'S WHEELIN’
AND DEALIN’ THAT I’VE READ. SO WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT? I HOPE THE ANSWER ISN’T “NOTHING!”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kushner-family-takes-advantage-white-house-connections-china?cid=eml_mra_20170508
The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner watch as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Donald Trump hold a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., March 17, 2017. JIM BOURG
Kushner family takes advantage of White House connections in China
05/08/17 09:30 AM
By Steve Benen

About a month ago, ahead of Donald Trump’s first meeting with China’s Xi Jinping, the American president put his young son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in charge of White House negotiations with officials in Beijing. It was, by any fair measure, a problematic decision.

Kushner, who has no background in foreign policy, diplomacy, or U.S. relations with China, was woefully unqualified for such responsibilities. Complicating matters, as was widely reported at the time, Kushner’s family was exploring business deals in China, creating possible ethical conflicts the White House should want to avoid.

A month later, this dynamic appears quite a bit worse than anyone realized. The Washington Post reported over the weekend:

The Kushner family came to the United States as refugees, worked hard and made it big – and if you invest in Kushner properties, so can you.

That was the message delivered Saturday by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Kushner Meyer to a ballroom full of wealthy Chinese investors in Beijing.

Over several hours of slide shows and presentations, representatives from the Kushner family business urged Chinese citizens gathered at a Ritz-Carlton hotel to consider investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey luxury apartment complex that would help them secure what’s known as an investor visa.

Controversies surrounding EB-5 visas aren’t exactly new. The program, according to its many critics on both sides of the aisle, effectively sells immigration visas to foreigners willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. development projects. It’s especially popular among wealthy Chinese families.

All of which led to the very interesting presentation from Jared Kushner’s sister, and the ethical questions that come with it.

Donald Trump’s ethical controversies have become so common, they’re almost hard to keep track of, but this adds a new wrinkle. On the one hand, we see the president putting Jared Kushner in a key position of influence related to the White House and Beijing. On the other hand, we see Kushner’s sister in China, seeking investors, and letting locals know that Kushner’s boss is the “key decision maker” on the EB-5 program’s future.

And while Jared Kushner has reportedly stepped back from his family’s business, the New York Times’ report noted that this project was advertised to Chinese investors as the latest offering from the “star Kushner real estate family.”

Richard Painter, the ethics chief in the Bush/Cheney administration, told the Post the Beijing presentation was “incredibly stupid and highly inappropriate,” adding, “They clearly imply that the Kushners are going to make sure you get your visa…. They’re [Chinese applicants] not going to take a chance. Of course they’re going to want to invest.”

Explore:
The MaddowBlog and China


I WILL SAY AGAIN, NO ISSUE OF THIS LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY ONE PARTY, OR ANY OTHER GROUP, ALONE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST A BIPARTISAN EFFORT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF WE HAD CITIZENS’ REVIEW BOARDS CAPABLE OF CALLING THINGS TO A HALT IF PERCEIVED HARMS ARE BEING ENACTED INTO LAW, AND CAPABLE OF CALLING FOR A NEW PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE FORM OF A “VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.” NATIONWIDE TOWN MEETINGS MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY OF HANDLING IT. IT WOULD DO THE SAME THING AS SOME HUGE STREET MARCHES WITHOUT THE DISORDER. I WONDER WHAT MICHAEL MOORE WOULD SAY ABOUT THIS IDEA.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mitch-mcconnell-and-his-12-angry-men-tackle-health-care?cid=eml_mra_20170508
Mitch McConnell and his 12 angry men tackle health care
05/08/17 10:00 AM—UPDATED 05/08/17 01:16 PM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, flanked by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, talks to reporters following a closed-door meeting at the Capitol in Washington, March 15, 2016. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP

On Thursday afternoon, at a White House party celebrating House Republicans passing a far-right health care plan, Donald Trump declared, “We’re going to get this passed through the Senate. I feel so confident.”


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, 5/5/17, 9:51 PM ET
Democrats on offense over unpopular Republican health care bill

Even at the time, that didn’t make any sense. As House members knew in advance, Senate passage of the existing American Health Care Act was unrealistic, and it now appears the House bill, GOP celebrating notwithstanding, is already dead.

Here was Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a critic of the House bill, on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday:
“The House bill is not going to come before us. The Senate is starting from scratch. We’re going to draft our own bill. And I’m convinced that we’re going to take the time to do it right. Speaker Ryan today said that he hoped that the Senate would improve the House bill. I think we will do so and that we will come up with a whole new fresh approach….”

For health-care proponents, this may offer at least some temporary relief. For those concerned that the radical House bill would clear the Senate and be signed by the president, that threat now appears to be effectively off the table. There were reports last week that the upper chamber would ignore the AHCA and write its own legislation, and Collins confirmed that those reports were correct.

This also represents a departure of sorts from the plan that existed as recently as six weeks ago. In late March, when it appeared the House might pass an earlier version of its regressive proposal, GOP leaders intended to bring the bill very quickly to the Senate floor – no hearings, no real scrutiny – where it would die, and Congress could move on to other issues.

Now, however, Republican senators are actually moving forward with plans to try legislating. And while it’s far too early to say what they’ll come up with – or whether the House GOP would support this “fresh” alternative – we do know who’ll be doing the work.

On Friday, we learned of the Senate Republicans’ “working group,” tasked with shaping the chamber’s alternative to the alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Here’s the 13-member list in alphabetical order:

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Robert Portman (R-Ohio)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Remember last week, when Trump celebrated with House Republicans in the Rose Garden, and pretty much everyone there was a white, wealthy, middle-aged white guy, smiling about taking health care benefits away from tens of millions of Americans? This list isn’t much better.

All 13 are men. All 13 are conservative Republicans. Twelve of the 13 represent states that went “red” in 2016. Twelve of the 13 are white. Given the importance of the issue, and the overwhelming number of Americans who may be affected by their proposal, it matters that the Senate GOP didn’t bother to make diversity a priority.

There’s been no explanation as to how these specific senators were chosen, but nearly as interesting as the working group’s members are some of the names of those who were left out. Susan Collins, for example, seems like an obvious choice – her support will be important for any bill – but she wasn’t invited to participate. Neither were other potential critics, such as Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who’s already crafted his own reform bill and who’s a physician by trade, was also excluded.

Regardless, as the Senate prepares to start “from scratch,” we can expect a long, arduous process, guaranteeing that the health care fight will dominate the political discussion for the next several months.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Health, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Mitch McConnell, Republicans and Senate Republicans
Kushner family takes advantage of White...Right-wing pastor welcomed into Donald..


MAY 1 SUMMARY OF THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/avoid-shutdown-congress-ignores-trumps-demands?cid=eml_mra_20170501
To avoid a shutdown, Congress ignores Trump’s demands
05/01/17 12:30 PM—UPDATED 05/01/17 07:25 PM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- The Capitol Building is pictured on Nov. 8, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty

When Congress passed a measure on Friday to prevent a government shutdown, it was a stopgap measure that kept the lights on for a week. Lawmakers were really just buying themselves a little time so they could finish a broader spending package that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.

That deal came together last night, which is good news for those hoping to avoid a shutdown, but bad news for Donald Trump, who made specific requests for this budget agreement, each of which was largely ignored.
“Early on in this debate, Democrats clearly laid out our principles,” [Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer[ said. “At the end of the day, this is an agreement that reflects those principles.”

Democrats stressed that there is no money not only for a border wall, but also none for a deportation force, and they said there would be no cut in funding for so-called sanctuary cities.

Trump presented Congress with a series of rather specific demands: public funding for the president’s border wall, cutting off “sanctuary cities,” scrapping funding for Planned Parenthood (which, full disclosure, my wife works for), reductions for the National Institutes of Health, deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, and no increases in non-defense domestic spending.

From this wish list, what did the White House actually end up with? Nothing. The Washington Post noted, “Democrats are surprised by just how many concessions they extracted in the trillion-dollar deal, considering that Republicans have unified control of government.”

It’s not a total loss for Team Trump. The spending bill includes more Pentagon spending, but less than the administration requested, and a $1.5 billion boost for border security, which is half of what the White House wanted, and none of which will be spent in ways Democrats oppose.

Regardless, given the broader context, this should be seen as the latest Trump loss. We discussed in March that the president had put himself in an awkward position, making budget demands that Congress was likely to ignore, and that’s precisely what happened. Democratic and Republican negotiators worked on an agreement that treated Trump’s wishes as meaningless trivia – which is easy to do with an unpopular president with little political capital, who’s pushing unpopular ideas.

Remember, we’re supposed to believe Trump is a world-class negotiator, who knows how to strike deals that ostensibly work in his favor. And yet, we’re now presented with still more evidence to the contrary.

As for the road ahead, there are two things to watch. The first is this week: Congress will have to pass this bipartisan compromise by Friday, and though the agreement enjoys the grudging support of the GOP leadership, it’ll be interesting to see just how many rank-and-file Republicans balk (and just how much GOP leaders have to rely on Democrats to pass the bill).

The second thing to keep an eye on is the fall: Democrats are pleased with how this process unfolded, but this skirmish was over a spending bill that only covers four months of operations. Republicans are likely to fight far more aggressively in the fall, when Congress takes up spending for the next fiscal year.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Congress, Democrats, Donald Trump, Government Spending and Republicans


SUICIDE BY COP STARTS EARLY NOW

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teen-killed-by-officers-after-pointing-bb-gun-left-suicide-note/
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS/AP May 8, 2017, 3:58 PM
Cops: Teen killed by officers after pointing BB gun left suicide note

Photograph -- A memorial outside Torrey Pines High School in San Diego honors a teen student there killed in a police shooting after app pointing a BB gun at officers in an apparent "suicide-by-cop" KFMB

SAN DIEGO -- A 15-year-old boy who was shot and killed by police after he pointed a BB gun at them in a high school parking lot in the middle of the night had left a suicide note, officials said Monday.

Assistant Police Chief Brian Ahearn told The Associated Press that police found the note on the Torrey Pines High School student after the fatal incident over the weekend.

"We believe that he called the police and pulled the gun on them so that he would be shot," Ahearn said.

Torrey Pines High School community mourns teen shot and killed by SDPD
CBS News 8 - San Diego, CA News Station - KFMB Channel 8

Police say the boy called 911 shortly before 3:30 a.m. Saturday to ask officers to check on the welfare of boy in front of the school.

When two officers arrived, they spotted a youth in the front parking lot. As they got out of their patrol cars, he pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at an officer, police said.

The officers drew their guns and ordered him to drop the weapon. But instead he began to walk toward an officer, ignoring more demands to drop the weapon, police said.

Both officers fired, hitting him several times. They performed first aid and called paramedics. The teen was pronounced dead at a hospital.

The gun was found to be a BB air pistol. Investigators determined the teen made the 911 call himself.

Police didn't release the teen's name because of his age.

The San Diego Union High School District said in a statement that it was sending a crisis-response team to the campus Monday to support students, staff and parents. Counseling was also made available at all schools in the district for anyone wanting to talk about the shooting. Principal Rob Coppo told CBS affiliate KFMB he would also withhold the name the teen along with personal details about him in line with his family's wishes.

"Our family is mourning the loss of a loving and wonderful young man," the victim's mother said in a statement released to KFMB. "We ask that you respect our privacy as we remember him and all he meant to us."

A makeshift memorial of notes and flowers was placed outside the school after the shooting.

"It's impossible to think that someone that young, with their whole life in front of them, would force something like this," a parent told KFMB.

The two officers involved in the shooting have been placed on administrative duty until the investigation wraps up, the station reports.


MODERNIZING CULTURAL TRADITIONS, CHILD MARRIAGE IN USA – SEE MAY 6 POST

CHILD MARRIAGE IN NEPAL – SISYPHUS AND THE ROCK

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nepal-the-lost-girls-cbsn-originals/
By LAUREN MELTZER CBS NEWS May 7, 2017, 8:00 AM
Nepal | The Lost Girls: One woman's battle to end child marriage

NEPAL -- Each year, 15 million girls are married before the age of 18. That's 28 girls every minute, and one girl every two seconds. In Nepal, one in three girls under the age of 18 are married. One in 10 girls under the age of 15 are married.

Why is it so hard to end child marriage?
Play VIDEO
Why is it so hard to end child marriage?

The culture of child marriage is accepted in this country. In some cases it's forced, but in others it's consensual. The act of child marriage, which is punishable by jail time, has been illegal in Nepal since 1963.

CBSN's Reena Ninan traveled to a rural village to witness an illegal wedding firsthand.

"How do you feel?," Ninan asked the young girl. "Do you feel nervous? Do you think you should have waited a little bit longer to get married?"

"Yes," the 17-year-old girl replied.

In 2014, Nepal pledged to end child marriage by 2020. But just two years later, it pushed back its goal to 2030.

Importance of education

According to the U.N., child marriage only perpetuates the cycle of poverty. When parents force their daughters to marry young, they drop out of school, face domestic violence and are more likely to die from pregnancy complications.

Rachana Sunar, 22, lives in a village in Western Nepal. Her mission is to stop the age-old practice of child marriage, which is no easy feat.

In another life, she would have been forced into marriage by now. She'd have a few kids and would be silenced at home. But she begged, pleaded and managed to get a scholarship to study abroad, which in turn changed her fate for the better.

Now, Rachana is going door-to-door to spread her message to prevent child marriage. She's phased by little and willingly resorts to extreme measures like going to the police to report and forcibly stop marriages, sometimes right on the wedding day. To locals, those actions are seen as provocative. Many people believe she should quiet down and lower her profile, including her own mother.

The challenges of changing cultural norms
Play VIDEO
The challenges of changing cultural norms

"She's in the limelight now, but that makes me worry," her mother said. "She has enemies. A lot of the villagers don't like her. I fear that she may be raped, or that someone might knock her off the road."

During Ninan's stay, Rachana stopped a wedding by calling the police. And overnight, her mother's worst fear came true -- an angry mob confronted Rachana at her home. But she didn't let the incident prevent her from losing sight [sic] of her main goal.

"If a girl hears my story, and how I started my journey, at least I'm giving hope to them," she added. "There are some people who don't like the work I am doing. If I die for this reason, I know my sisters will be inspired and they will carry on."

"If I lose hope, if I give up, nobody will dare to take this issue ahead," she continued. "I'm happy to put my life at risk."

Why is child marriage legal in all 50 states?
Play VIDEO
Why is child marriage legal in all 50 states?

Shortly after filming, Rachana stopped another three weddings. Her work has spurred a movement to end child marriage in her home district of Surkhet by 2020, ahead of the government's 2030 target to wipe out the practice nationally.

She recently started an NGO called Sambad, which means "dialogue" in Nepalese, to help boys and girls alike discover their self-worth. She's been fighting to empower the youth to focus on the importance of education. But in this conservative society, change isn't easy. For some, this is the only education they will ever receive. For others, it's the only place they'll ever feel loved.