June 18, 2017


News and Views


POLITICAL BUZZ WORDS ARE FASCINATING. WHEN THE CITIZENS SEE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, THEY CALL IT A SCANDAL OR A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. WHEN POLITICIANS SEE IT, THEY CALL IT A DISTRACTION. ALTERNATIVE FACTS, YA KNOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rubio-on-russia-meddling-if-i-were-president-i-would-welcome-investigation/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS June 18, 2017, 9:37 AM
Rubio on Russia meddling: If I were president I would welcome the investigation

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said Sunday -- amid a flurry of tweets from President Trump denouncing what he calls a "witch hunt" -- that it is in the president's best interest to have a full investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

"My advice to the president is what I communicated publicly. The way I've tried to communicate to everyone on this issue. And that is this. It is in the best interest of the president and the country to have a full investigation," Rubio said in an interview with "Face the Nation."

Transcript: Sen. Marco Rubio on "Face the Nation"

Rubio added, "If I were the president, I would be welcoming this investigation. I would ask that it be thorough and completed expeditiously and be very cooperative with it. That's what ultimately I anticipate they will do."

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,..
6:38 AM - 18 Jun 2017
12,128 12,128 Retweets 52,339 52,339 likes

The Florida Republican's comments come amid Mr. Trump's repeated use of the term "witch hunt." He tweeted early Sunday morning that his agenda continues to do "very well" despite the "distraction."

On Friday, Mr. Trump tweeted, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director! Witch hunt." It appeared to confirm a Washington Post report that Robert Mueller is investigating Mr. Trump for possible obstruction of justice.

While investigations continue, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken steps in sending a message to Russia in response to its efforts to interfere in the U.S. election, by signing a sanctions bill against the Russian government.

Senate passes measure to expand sanctions on Iran and Russia

The Senate overwhelmingly adopted an amendment in a 97-2 vote into the measure that maintains and expands sanctions against the Russian government. It would require a congressional review for any lifting, suspension or termination of U.S. sanctions on Russia, impose mandatory sanctions on entities engage in Russian energy projects and require sanctions to be imposed on people undermining cybersecurity and secondary sanctions on people who contribute to malicious cyber activity. That congressional review is meant to make it far more difficult for the Trump administration to unilaterally lift the Russia sanctions.

"It's important to send that message, that this is -- as I said, that this is not acceptable," said Rubio.

"We can simply not allow foreign governments to be meddling and interfering in our elections that way, but they're going to keep doing it," Rubio said. "They're doing it now. They'll keep doing it in the future."

When asked if the administration appears reluctant to punish the Russians for their efforts, and if the bill comes as a check on the Trump White House, Rubio says it is a check, but not for the reasons people might suspect.

"It has nothing to do with the investigation per se. It's more along the lines of the secretary of state believes that he wants to explore the opportunity to get Russia to be more cooperative on a number of issues," Rubio said

Rubio added, "It's a foreign policy view that they have. And so they think that these sanctions may undermine that effort. And while I respect that point of view and have considered it, ultimately I think it's incredibly important for us to make clear that there are consequences for doing what they did during the 2016 election."

Rubio also noted the importance of Mr. Trump's moves to roll back Obama-era policies that eased restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba.

Trump Cuba policy announcement in Miami

"I think this is an effort to strengthen individual Cubans. Understand what this does. This basically says that American travelers to Cuba, they'll continue to fly on commercial airlines or get there in a cruise. But when they get there, they have to spend their money primarily with individual Cubans who own private businesses," Rubio said.

Rubio added that "American travelers to Cuba will have to spend their money with them instead of the Cuban military. That was the goal of this, is to empower individual Cubans to be economically independent of the Castro military and of the Castro regime."




SEVERAL ARTICLES WERE IN YESTERDAY’S ARTICLES ABOUT THIS STORY. THE SENATE GOP HEALTH CARE BILL IS BEING WRITTEN BY A HANDFUL OF SENATORS WHO ARE NOT ALLOWING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE BILL OUT, NOT ONLY TO THE PUBLIC, BUT TO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS AS WELL. SEVERAL WHO DO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT’S IN IT, INCLUDING SENATOR SANDERS BELOW, SAY IT’S HORRIBLE TO SHAMEFUL, THE WORST IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER IN THE LEGISLATURE. THEY ARE HIDING IT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE SO PEOPLE WON’T GET THEIR DANDER UP ABOUT IT UNTIL THE VERY LAST MOMENT BEFORE DEBATE STARTS, PERHAPS TO DERAIL IT. BUT WE JUST GOTTA REPEAL AND REPLACE THE WORK OF THAT BLACK PRESIDENT, DON’T WE? THIS TOO SHALL PASS.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/guide-understanding-congressional-confusion-health-care-n773516
POLITICS JUN 18 2017, 7:08 AM ET
A Guide: Understanding Congressional Confusion on Health Care
by BENJY SARLIN

WASHINGTON — It's crunch time for health care in the Senate, where GOP leaders could bring up a bill soon that would partially repeal and replace Obamacare. But the process is taking place behind closed doors and it's often hard to keep track of what's going on amid major news developments elsewhere. Here's what you need to know about where things stand, which lawmakers could make or break a deal, and which policies might end up in a final bill.

Remind me what's going on with health care?
The House passed the American Health Care Act in early May in a dramatic and sudden vote after abandoning a similar effort in March. Now it’s in the hands of the Senate, which has been hammering out its own legislation with a small and secretive working group of Republicans. Because they're using a procedure called budget reconciliation, they can pass a bill with a bare majority — meaning they don't need votes from Democrats, none of whom are likely to support their bill. If the Senate passes something, lawmakers will have to find a way to reconcile their differences with the House to get a bill to the president’s desk.

GOPers don't know what's in their own health care bill Play Facebook Twitter Embed
GOPers don't know what's in their own health care bill 2:02
Is the Senate going to pass a health care bill soon?
They sound close. Republican senators say they hope to pass legislation before the July 4 recess, which means a vote could come within the next two weeks. There's no firm deadline, though, and it's quite possible the process drags on longer. There are 52 Republican senators and they can only lose two votes, so getting to 50 won’t be easy, but members sound more optimistic that they can reach a consensus than they did just weeks ago.

So what’s in this bill they’re so close to passing?
Here’s the thing: We have no idea.

Republican leaders have been negotiating the measure in secret, with talks led by a small 13-member working group that’s consulting with the broader GOP caucus, and leaks are few and far between. Even though a bill may be coming to a vote in two weeks or less, there’s no draft floating around to evaluate or even an outline of the legislation's main features for the public to consider. Rank-and-file members say they’ve still only seen a broad menu of policy options in their meetings, rather than a concrete plan with legislative language.

This is a stark departure from the ordinary process, including the one used to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, which is to have relevant committees draft legislation while holding public hearings with key industries, patients who might be affected by a bill, and policy experts who can weigh in on the details. The House took a similarly secretive approach with their own bill, which they voted on within 24 hours of releasing final text and without an assessment of its cost or impact by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even some Republican senators complain that they’ve been kept in the dark — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) jokingly asked NBC News to find him a copy of the bill — and some have said that they’d prefer a more open approach. But so far their grumbling hasn’t translated into action that would force the drafting process into the open.

Are there hints of what's in the bill?
Based on interviews with senators and their public statements, we can get a loose sense of some of the policy debates going on between members, even if we don’t know all the specifics.

It’s likely the broad formula for legislation will be similar to the House bill, which offered less generous subsidies to buy insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs than Obamacare, cut Medicaid significantly and changed its structure, and used the savings to eliminate taxes that primarily affect wealthy Americans and the medical industry. Like the House bill, the Senate plan is expected to eliminate the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy coverage or pay a penalty.

Image: Trumps speaks after the House voted to repeal and replace Obamacare
US President Donald J. Trump, along with GOP lawmakers, speaks after the House voted to repeal and replace Obamacare with a Republican version of the health care law in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on May 4, 2017. The Republican health care bill may never become law; it next goes to the Senate, where lawmakers will rework the bill and send it back to the House. Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill would spend $1.1 trillion less on health care and reduce deficits by $119 billion over a decade. But the effects on the individual insurance market would be dramatic: 23 million fewer people would have insurance in 10 years versus current law, premiums would soar for older and low-income Americans, and many customers would face higher deductibles and out-of-pocket-costs. On the flip side, some younger, healthier and higher-income customers could find less comprehensive insurance at cheaper rates.

Republican senators declared the House bill dead on arrival and it’s likely they produce legislation that’s somewhat less far-reaching in its cuts or spaces them out over more time. President Donald Trump publicly embraced the House bill when it passed, but then called it “mean” in a meeting with GOP senators last week and suggested on Twitter he was open to spending more money on care.

Who’s most likely to vote against a bill?
The toughest moderate votes at the moment appear to be Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who have a wide range of objections to the House bill. Alaska has astronomically high healthcare costs compared to the rest of the country, which makes it a somewhat unique situation. The toughest conservative votes appear to be Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who may be impossible to win over, and Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is taking a more active role in talks.

Various other senators have raised concerns as well and should not be taken for granted as "yes" votes, but they usually sound more amenable to passing a bill in the end. As was the case in the House, don't be surprised if some members make noise about voting "no" at the last minute as a prelude to cutting a deal that addresses one of their complaints.

What are the biggest issues they need to work out?
One visible area of contention between camps is how much to spend on Medicaid. The House bill would end Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid and change its funding formula to cut the program further, eventually reducing overall spending by over $800 billion.

That would blow a hole in state budgets that could force them to raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere, or reduce benefits for common Medicaid beneficiaries like nursing home residents and people with disabilities. On Friday, a bipartisan group of governors, including Republicans John Kasich (OH), Brian Sandoval (NV), and Charlie Baker (MA), wrote a letter warning the House’s cuts were too deep.

Image: Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio,
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, speaks at a GOP Get Out the Vote rally in Independence, Ohio Monday, Sept. 29, 2014. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan) Mark Duncan / AP file

There’s almost no chance the Senate keeps Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. But some more moderate members in expansion states like Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are backing a more gradual drop-off, perhaps as long as seven years. Senators in states that aren’t taking Obamacare’s added Medicaid dollars want a shorter transition, like the House bill’s three years. They also have to decide how fast Medicaid grows in the future. Conservatives like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are looking at changing the formula in a way that could cut spending even more than the House bill, while moderates want it at higher rates.

Then there’s the question of how generous to make tax credits for people buying private insurance on the individual market. Some Republican senators, including Senate Republican Conference chairman Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), say they want to provide more aid to low-income and older customers than the House, but how and by what amount is not clear.

Hayes: GOP hiding bill because 23M could lose coverage Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Hayes: GOP hiding bill because 23M could lose coverage 6:09

Another tense issue is how to handle people with pre-existing conditions. The House bill would let states drop Obamacare’s requirement that insurers charge people the same rates regardless of their health status. It would also empower states to waive Obamacare’s requirements that insurers provide certain “essential health benefits” like hospitalization or maternity care. Conservatives argue these moves help lower premiums, but some members are concerned they’ll leave sick people without needed coverage. The CBO predicted the House bill's changes would cause markets to become unstable for people with pre-existing conditions in states that dropped Obamacare's rules.

Some Senate Republicans, including Collins and Murkowski, say they’re worried about leaving too many people without coverage. One idea that’s in play, championed by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), is to auto-enroll people in a cheap high-deductible plan and give them an option of pulling out. Conservatives are wary of the proposal, however.

Abortion politics could be another sticking point: Murkowski and Collins both oppose a measure in the House bill that would cut off Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. The federal government is already restricted from paying for abortion, but the group receives money for preventive care.

Finally, there’s the question of how to pay for everything. The more generous the bill gets, the more taxes lawmakers need to keep or replace with new ones. The budget reconciliation process they’re using requires them to match the House’s $119 billion in overall savings, making this an especially pressing concern.

How is Obamacare doing in the meantime?

Things are getting rough in some states, but there’s a lot of political argument going on over the cause.

In recent weeks, a number of insurers have announced they’ll pull out of Obamacare exchanges in states like Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa or raised premiums by significant amounts. Some insurance plans have also stepped in to fill gaps, but there’s a real danger that certain regions could have no insurance options at all come 2018.

This is a continuation of a trend last year as well and Republicans have cited it as evidence Obamacare will collapse without a complete overhaul. But Democrats say the real issue is sabotage: Outside private analysts and the Congressional Budget Office observed that the market was stabilizing this year and insurers themselves say a lot of their turbulence stems from threats by Trump and Congress to withhold payments they’re owed for covering low-income customers’ expenses, known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR). The slow and opaque process of passing a health care bill and questions about the White House’s willingness to fully administer Obamacare is also an issue.

A study by consulting firm Oliver Wyman released last week concluded that the overall uncertainty is likely to cause premium increases of 28% to 40% for the 2018 enrollment period. They also surveyed insurers and found that 42% said they planned to withdraw from the individual market if the government refused to make its CSR payments.

Even if Congress decides it can’t pass a full Obamacare replacement, they may have to pass a short-term measure to stabilize the market. But with insurers making decisions about premiums and whether to offer plans, it may already be too late to avoid some pain for customers next year.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-sounds-alarm-on-gop-health-care-bill/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS June 18, 2017, 10:53 AM
Sen. Bernie Sanders sounds alarm on GOP health care bill

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday that as the House GOP-passed health care bill is debated behind closed doors in the Senate, Democrats should do "everything they can" to oppose the legislation in "any way" they can.

"Throwing 23 million people off of health insurance is beyond belief. Now, in the Senate what you have is you have I believe it is 10 Republicans working behind closed doors to address 1/6th of the American economy," Sanders said.

"The average Republican doesn't even know what's in that legislation," he said. "My understanding is that it will be brought forth just immediately before we have to vote on it. This is completely unacceptable."

Transcript: Sen. Bernie Sanders on "Face the Nation"

Sanders called the current bill the "worst piece of legislation" against working class people that he can remember in his political life in the Congress, and that the reason Republicans don't want to bring debate out into the public is because it was a "disastrous bill."

Bernie Sanders discusses Alexandria shooting, Senate health care bill
Play VIDEO
Bernie Sanders discusses Alexandria shooting, Senate health care bill

Meanwhile, Sanders said that while Americans are in a "very contentious and difficult political moment in our country's history," he has "very grave concerns about the Trump agenda."

Sanders told CBS News' John Dickerson that while he feels that the "vast majority of the American people have strong disagreements" with Republicans approach to health care, "you don't have to be violent about it."

"Let's disagree openly and honestly. But violence is not acceptable," he added.

Sanders comments come just days after he decried the actions of gunman James T. Hodgkinson as "despicable." Hodgkinson opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen practicing in Alexandria, Virginia, Wednesday for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity.

Sanders says Alexandria shooter was campaign volunteer

Sanders took to the Senate floor, addressing the fact that Hodgkinson was a former volunteer for Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, saying he was "sickened" by the attack.

Bernie Sanders: Freedom of speech is "what America is about"
Play VIDEO
Bernie Sanders: Freedom of speech is "what America is about"

"Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through non violent action and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values," Sanders said.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, remains in hospital care but has shown signs of improvement over the weekend after suffering a gunshot wound to the hip.

MedStar Washington Hospital Center said Scalise underwent another surgery Saturday to treat the gunshot wound. Doctors said Friday the bullet entered at his hip and traveled across his pelvis, causing severe damage to internal organs. He suffered massive blood loss and was at "imminent risk of death" upon arriving at the hospital Wednesday.

"Freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about. And politically every leader in this country and every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable," said Sanders on Sunday. "And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a fully recovery from the tragedy that took place this week."




WE NEED TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING MORE AND MORE OUT OF TOUCH BY THE DAY. WHAT AND WHEN WILL THE LEGISLATURE STEP IN AND RELIEVE HIM OF DUTY?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-trumps-unpredictability-undermine-his-staff/
By JOHN DICKERSON CBS NEWS June 8, 2017, 11:23 AM
Does Trump's unpredictability undermine his staff?

Photograph -- President Trump announces the Air Traffic Control Initiative during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 5, 2017, in Washington, D.C. GETTY

James Comey's opening statement reads like the test answer you're supposed to give at the end of the Human Resources training video. When your superior makes you uncomfortable should you a) explain your boundaries b) discuss the issue with your direct report c) make contemporaneous notes to lock in your recollection or d) all of the above.

Comey picked D.

The question of whether the president tried to impede the FBI investigation will go many rounds, but the former FBI director's opening statement doesn't just illuminate those issues. It is also a workplace document -- a window into how the president operates. Along with other developments in the Trump administration this week, the Comey testimony offers a striking picture of boss and subordinate relations.

The issues raised are not just of obstruction of justice but obstruction of progress. How can Trump administration officials operate in such an unpredictable environment? The president delights in breaking norms, but he undermines his colleagues who can't predict where he's going. That contributes to an atmosphere of chaos and saps from administrative veterans the greatest skill they bring—the ability to anticipate events that occur along normal patterns.

John Dickerson on what Comey's testimony means for Trump and Congress
Play VIDEO
John Dickerson on what Comey's testimony means for Trump and Congress

Things were so unpredictable in Comey's first meeting with President-elect Trump, the former FBI director immediately took notes in his car after the interaction. The president, by asking for a loyalty pledge and crossing boundaries, so destabilized the relationship between the two men Comey reportedly tried to blend into the White House drapery at one event to avoid an exchange. This had ripple effects. The president also destabilized the bureaucratic system. Comey worried that the pressure from Trump to end the Flynn investigation or remove the "cloud" of the larger investigation would "infect" the investigation if he let others working on the case know about it. You don't need to believe the particulars of each exchange to see that this mode of management was not productive to a larger purpose.

A number of Donald Trump's supporters told me during the campaign they had faith that he would be a good president because he would be helped by the experts around him. But the president's improvisation saps experts of their key skill: pattern recognition. Chess masters don't evaluate all the possible moves. They know how to discard 98 percent of the ones they could make and then focus on the best choice of the remaining lot. That's the way expertise works in other fields too: Wise practitioners recognize familiar patterns and put their creativity, improvisation, and skill toward the marginal cases.

President Trump has this skill in politics and no doubt in business. But the president can't demonstrate pattern recognition across all topics, and can't acquire a lifetime of experience to learn it fast enough for issues he's never encountered. That's why he needs experts to be allowed to apply their similar skills. That's the theory behind his hands-off approach to the military. But where the president does assert himself, he does not simply introduce chaos. He also demands loyalty in response to his unpredictable moves, which asks experts to embrace a move they've already discarded as too improbable to ponder. It's only possible to use pattern recognition if the patterns are not changing after you've made your assessment, or as long as someone doesn't flip the board over and send the pieces rolling under the breakfront.

This week, experts throughout the administration were having their plans scrambled. Department of Justice officials fighting to defend the second Trump order limiting immigration from terrorism-linked countries were undermined by the president's tweeting. "The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.," he wrote. That's his justice department he's talking about there, carrying out his orders. This caused George Conway, the husband of presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway, to plead with the president on Twitter to stop undermining his case.

Over at the Pentagon, officials reasserted support for Qatar after its Arab neighbors cut ties. The U.S. has a base in Qatar. But in a tweet, the president sided with Qatar's opponents, and took credit for the move against the country as fruit of his recent overseas trip. In Politico this week, Susan Glasser detailed how the president surprised his foreign-policy team at a NATO summit during that trip. Though the president's top advisers had told allies he would offer public support for the bedrock Article 5 commitment—an attack on one is an attack on all—at the last minute, Trump decided not to read that line in his speech.

Does Comey's opening statement imply corrupt intent?
Play VIDEO
Does Comey's opening statement imply corrupt intent?

No staffer wants to get too far out on a limb when they're working for an unpredictable arborist.Successful presidents know how to translate their will to their staffers, and successful staffers know how to move without the ball. Aides to presidents of both parties that I've talked to over the years tell a version of the same story. A White House works well when a president's staff can intuit what its president wants and act without needing direct contact. A former senior Obama official spoke approvingly about Ronald Reagan when explaining this phenomenon to me. Reagan's team didn't need to check in with Reagan to know his desires: increase personal freedom, limit the growth of government and fight the communists.

Oliver North went a little too far, of course, but the Trump White House faces the opposite problem. In the Trump White House, when staffers try to anticipate the boss they get undermined by the boss.

When Trump fired James Comey, Vice President Pence offered a dramatic explanation for the decision, suggesting that it was based solely on the recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: "A man of extraordinary independence and integrity and a reputation in both political parties of great character, came to work, sat down, and made the recommendation for the FBI to be able to do its job that it would need new leadership." Then the president explained he had already made the decision and the Russia investigation at least factored in.

Three weeks ago, National-Security Adviser H.R. McMaster issued sweeping statements knocking back reports that the president passed on sensitive information to Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting. The next day, the president offered a different story.

These kinds of moves lead to embarrassing paralysis. No staffer wants to get too far out on a limb when they're working for an unpredictable arborist. For two days in a row this week, White House spokespeople couldn't answer if the president still had faith in his attorney general. Usually a staffer would say, "Of course he does," but that guess can't be made in the Trump administration. Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked if the president had confidence in Comey and said of course he did, but then six days later, Trump fired Comey. Soon enough, the president was describing Comey as a nut who was mentally unstable.

Earlier this week, staffers were criticizing the excessive focus on Trump's tweets only to have the president point to them as vital to his communication. The president surprised his aides by announcing his new choice for FBI director without letting the team know just as he surprised his aides by rushing the announcement of a tax package. Aides can't explain his views on climate change or defend his unverified claims on voter suppression, or what he meant by "add more dollars to healthcare and make it the best anywhere" long after the House negotiations were over.

The culture of undermining sends signals of disrespect. This approach not only saps motivation and undermines teamwork, it also lowers the motivation to work extra hours anticipating what can go wrong. If people feel like the boss doesn't respect them, they don't stretch for the boss.

So far, Trump has picked nominees for only 80 of the 558 important appointments he needs to fill. Only 40 of them have cleared Senate confirmation. He lags far behind his predecessors, according to the Partnership for Public Service. To fill those spots the president doesn't just need warm bodies, he needs the highly talented types that were the implicit promise of electing a novice to the job. I've talked to several who have been approached for short- or long-term duty in the Trump administration. The evidence of the work environment that mounts with each passing day makes them highly wary. There is no human-resources training for how to respond when you work for an unpredictable president. It's perhaps fitting that when you visit the website of the White House Office of Administration it says "Check back soon for more information."

This piece was originally published in The Atlantic.


THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES ARE LINKED BY MY ATTEMPT TO FLESH OUT THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO WHICH, ANNOYINGLY, IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY TEXT. WHEN I LOOK IN THE OTHER NEWS SOURCES THAT I LIKE SUCH AS CBS, THERE IS NO PRINT ARTICLE THAT I COULD FIND THERE, EITHER, WHICH IS NOT ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO THIS ONE, INCLUDING THE CBS FACE THE NATION INTERVIEW. MAYBE THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO BE SUED. THE TERM “CORRUPT INTENT” DID INTEREST ME. WHEN I SEE UNFAMILIAR TERMINOLOGY OF ALMOST ANY KIND I USUALLY GOOGLE IT. THIS ONE WAS ESPECIALLY FRUITFUL. I THINK THIS MAY EXPLAIN WHY SO MUCH WHITE COLLAR CRIME IN AND OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT GOES UNPUNISHED. PROVING INTENT IS NECESSARY, WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb0xrXaA0Yo
Does Comey's opening statement imply corrupt intent?
CBS This Morning
Published on Jun 8, 2017

"Face the Nation" moderator John Dickerson and CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford join "CBS This Morning" to discuss the "dramatic narrative" in James Comey's prepared opening statement and whether the details in that testimony indicate President Trump obstructed justice.


http://blog.volkovlaw.com/2016/03/importance-defining-corrupt-intent-compliance-program/
The Importance of Understanding “Corrupt” Intent
BY MICHAEL VOLKOV · MARCH 20, 2016

All generalizations are false, including this one — Mark Twain

Proving intent is a difficult task. White collar crimes turn on the issue of intent – what was in the offender’s mind. With most things in life, people have mixed motivations. On occasion, however, it is very clear to understand an actor’s intent.

Prosecutors cull through evidence looking for indications, signs of motivation, and ultimately have to prove an actor’s beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal) or by a preponderance of the evidence (civil).

In some areas, prosecutors are able to cite the act itself as evidence of intent. When it comes to the FCPA and showing “corrupt” intent, prosecutors have stated that a “lavish” gift, such as an item over $10,000 in value reflects “corrupt” intent. That is only from a prosecutor’s perspective and that has never been proven in a contested trial. From a common sense standpoint, again the circumstances will always be part of the analysis, and it is likely that such a claim will succeed.

Chief compliance officers have to acknowledge the importance of proving “corrupt” intent. What does it mean? There is plenty of law around the term, particularly in relation to the domestic bribery statute which turns on the term “corruptly.”

When the Justice Department prosecuted Frederic Bourke for violating the FCPA, they secured an important jury instruction, which was upheld on appeal, to define the term “corruptly.” To satisfy its burden of proof against an individual, the FCPA requires the government to prove not only that a person acted corruptly but also “willfully.”

The instruction defined “corruptly” as follows:corrupt2

A person acts “corruptly” if he acts voluntarily and intentionally, with an improper motive of accomplishing either an unlawful result, or a lawful result by some unlawful method or means. The term “corruptly” is intended to connote that the offer, payment, and promise was intended to influence an official to misuse his official position.

A person acts “willfully” if he acts deliberately and with the intent to do something that the law forbids, that is, with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. The person need not be aware of the specific law and rule that his conduct may be violating, but he must act with the intent to do something that the law forbids.

As you can see, the law focuses on the intent to influence a government official to misuse his or her official position, and that the actor did so with a bad purpose – in other words, that the person acted with a bad purpose.

In the end, offenders rarely put down in writing what they intend to do and that they knew it was wrong – there are a few cases, however, where they have done so. Most cases turn on the surrounding circumstances and inferences that can be drawn. That is where the rubber meets the road, and sometimes inferences can be easily reached and sometimes they can be a stretch.

When it comes to the white collar world, many trials have turned on these types of inquiries. Cases that look strong on paper can quickly evaporate into much to do about nothing when the evidence rests on a lack of concrete (documented) proof.

Compliance practitioners have to take this issue and build into their company’s compliance program a requirement to document the actions they take, the reasons for the action, and the good faith believe that what they are doing (or don’t do) complies with the law and the compliance program. It is a fundamental point that is effective insurance against prosecutors and others from claiming that a company or key actor(s) behaved in a manner reflect underlying “corrupt” intent.


WHAT IS THE FCPA? (FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.)

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions, one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials.[1] The act was amended in 1988 and in 1998. As of 2012 there were continued congressional concerns.[2]

Provisions and scope[edit]

The idea of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is to make it illegal for companies and their supervisors to influence foreign officials with any personal payments or rewards.[3][page needed] The FCPA applies to any person who has a certain degree of connection to the United States and engages in foreign corrupt practices. The Act also applies to any act by U.S. businesses, foreign corporations trading securities in the U.S., American nationals, citizens, and residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice whether or not they are physically present in the U.S. This is considered the nationality principle of the act. Any individuals that are involved in those activities may face prison time.[3][page needed] This act was passed to make it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.[4][full citation needed][3] In the case of foreign natural and legal persons, the Act covers their deeds if they are in the U.S. at the time of the corrupt conduct. This is considered the protective principle of the act.[3] Further, the Act governs not only payments to foreign officials, candidates, and parties, but any other recipient if part of the bribe is ultimately attributable to a foreign official, candidate, or party. These payments are not restricted to monetary forms and may include anything of value.[5] This is considered the territoriality principle of the act.[3]
An ongoing debate asks about the law's effects. Scholars have found that the FCPA discourages US firms from investing in foreign markets.[6] Companies engaging in mergers and acquisitions in emerging markets face a uniquely increased level of regulatory and corruption risk.[7]

Issuers[clarification needed] --
Includes any U.S. or foreign corporation that has a class of securities registered, or that is required to file reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

Domestic concerns --
Refers to any individual who is a citizen, national, or resident of the United States and any corporation and other business entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any individual US State, or having its principal place of business in the United States

Any person --
Covers both enterprises and individuals

History[edit]

As a result of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations in the mid-1970s, over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties.[8] The abuses ran the gamut from bribery of high foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government to so-called facilitating payments that were made to ensure that government functionaries discharged certain ministerial or clerical duties.[8] If the official has no choice but to bribe, and bribery is legal in the country, bribing is seen as greasing the wheels. One major example was the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which officials of aerospace company Lockheed paid foreign officials to favor their company's products.[9]:10 Another was the Bananagate scandal in which Chiquita Brands had bribed the President of Honduras to lower taxes.[citation needed] Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.

The Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 19, 1977. It was first amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, where Title V is known as the 'Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amendments of 1988'. It introduced a "knowing" standard in order to find violations of the Act, encompassing "conscious disregard" and "willful blindness." Other amendments were for "bona fide", "reasonable" and lawful gifts under the laws of the foreign country.[10]
The second amendment was the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998 which was designed to implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention—i.e., to include certain foreign persons and extending the scope beyond U.S. borders.

Enforcement[edit]

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice are both responsible for enforcing the FCPA. This is because the FCPA both amends an SEC Act and the criminal code. The SEC enforces the Act for companies it regulates and the Department of Justice enforces the bill regarding all other domestic companies. This split was criticized even before the act was passed.[8]:10–11 In 2010 the SEC created a specialized unit for FCPA enforcement.[11] In 2012, the SEC and the DOJ issued their first joint guide to the FCPA.[12]

In April 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions traveled to an ethics lawyers conference to assure them that he would continue prosecutions under the FCPA, regardless of new SEC Chairman Jay Clayton's expressed skepticism and of President Donald Trump's comments that it is a "horrible law" and "the world is laughing at us".[13][14]

Requirements[edit]

The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. Since the 1998 Amendment of FCPA they also apply to foreign firms and persons who take any act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment while in the U.S. The meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the United Nations are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. A 2014 federal appellate court decision has provided guidance on how the term "foreign official" is defined under FCPA.[15]

Because the Act concerns the intent of the bribery rather than the amount, there is no requirement of materiality. Offering anything of value as a bribe, whether cash or non-cash items, is prohibited.

The FCPA also requires companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to meet its accounting provisions.[16] These accounting provisions operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, and require respective corporations to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. An increasing number of corporations are taking additional steps to protect their reputation and reduce their exposure by employing the services of due diligence companies tasked with vetting third party intermediaries and identifying easily overlooked government officials embedded in otherwise privately held foreign firms. This strategy is one element of an effective FCPA Compliance Program, as it shows a sincere attempt to avoid business situations where high risk (prior history or proximity to unethical behavior) individuals are concerned.[citation needed]

Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform. The exception focuses on the purpose of the payment rather than on its value. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA.[citation needed]



https://www.google.com/search?q=scienter+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US725&oq=scienter+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.29774j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=corrupt+intent+definition

Corrupt intent is the intent to receive a specific benefit in return for the payment[ii]. The existence of a corrupt intent to influence the discharge of official duties is a necessary element of the crime of bribery.


>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienter

Scienter is a legal term that refers to intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. This means that an offending party has knowledge of the "wrongness" of an act or event prior to committing it. For example, if a man sells a car with brakes that do not work to his friend, but the seller does not know about the brake problem, then the seller has no scienter. If he sells the car and knew of the problem before he sold the car, he has scienter. The word has the same root as science, the Latin scienter (knowingly), from scire (to know; to separate one thing from another).

The scienter action (tort law)[edit]

The scienter action is a category within tort law in some common law jurisdictions which deals with the damage done by an animal directly to a human. It had a long history in English law, although it was abolished by the Animals Act 1971. An action in those common law jurisdictions where it has not been extinguished by statute, is in addition to the torts of negligence and nuisance, or more bespoke torts like cattle trespass. Where an animal is known to behave in a certain way, and that is expressed on a person causing injury, an action can be taken in this tort. This tort is not available in New South Wales, The Australian Capital Territory, South Australia or New Zealand. In these jurisdictions the actions involving animals need to be in nuisance or negligence. To be successful the plaintiff needs to take action against the person in control of the animal, and it is strict liability, requiring no more than proof of injury, that the animal had a problematic trait, and the person in control knew about the trait in the animal. Being strict liability, there is no need to argue fault in the form of wilful [sic] intent or negligence on the part of the animal or its controller. The only defence is if it can be proved the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by their actions, or if the plaintiff was the cause of the injury. It is common to distinguish between harmless animals and wild animals. No scienter is needed for wild animals. Animals are classed as wild or harmless on the basis of species or kind, not on the basis of being a tame individual. An elephant is considered wild irrespective of its use. The scienter action is referred to in Rylands v. Fletcher in that one who keeps a wild thing “must keep it at his peril” to make reference to part of Justice Colin Blackburn’s comment.