June 24, 2017


News and Views


I WILL GO AHEAD AND BITE THE BULLET HERE ON THIS SURPRISING, UPSETTING ARTICLE FOR THOSE OF US WHO DO RESPECT AND POSSIBLY EVEN LOVE BERNIE SANDERS FOR HIS ESPOUSAL OF VIEWS WHICH HELP THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, AND YES, FORCE THE OUTRAGEOUSLY WEALTHY TO PAY A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE COST OF LIVING THAN JOHN Q. AMERICAN PAYS IN THE USA. WE’RE IN ANOTHER PERIOD WHEN THE WEALTHY ARE AGAIN SOAKING UP ALL THE NOURISHMENT IN THE POT, AND THE POOR ARE HAVING TO DIP THEIR BREAD IN TO GET A TASTE. IT’S A GREAT COUNTRY, WITH LOTS TO BUY AND DO, BUT THE COST OF THAT IS STAGGERING, AND IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THE WEALTHY NEED DESPERATELY TO PAY A LARGER SHARE THAN THEY NOW DO.

ABOUT THE SANDERS CASE, I WILL START WITH THE FACT THAT BRADY TOENSING WHO FILED THE COMPLAINT WAS THE LOCAL CHAIRMAN OF THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN THERE. OF COURSE, THAT COULD BE A COINCIDENCE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/
By JOHN BAT CBS NEWS June 23, 2017, 5:44 PM
Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation for bank fraud, hire lawyers

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders' top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.

Ms. Sanders' push for the liberal arts college's costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016.

Sanders criticizes inequality, corruption in commencement speech
Play VIDEO
Sanders criticizes inequality, corruption in commencement speech

Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state.

"I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."

"My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.

Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false."

And as for the claim that Ms. Sanders manipulated the loan application, Weaver said, "The loan was approved by the financial board at the college."

Sen. Sanders, formerly mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, regards the claims as a political game levied against him after his run for president in the 2016 primary election, a platform which has transformed the small-state senator into an influential voice in American liberal politics.



“THE SMALL HIPPIE COLLEGE” – NO POLITICAL BIAS THERE

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/bernie-sanders-investigation-is-the-new-lock-her-up/
POLITICS, WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
Bernie Sanders Investigation Is The New ‘Lock Her Up’
The fall of Burlington College has turned into a federal investigation, and could get ugly (whether nonsense or not).
By JOE PATRICE
Jun 23, 2017 at 1:44 PM

Anyone who closely followed the 2016 election heard about Burlington College, the small hippie college that Jane Sanders, wife of the Vermont Senator, ran for several years. Most of the discussion revolved around the asinine claim that she got rich running the school — she earned $150K — or suggesting that running a private school contrasted with Bernie’s call for free state school tuition. But the occasional fringe outlet would suggest that the debt-fueled implosion of Burlington College was somehow criminal and that Bernie may even be implicated.

Bernie has called these charges nonsense, but now the Trump administration appears to be seriously considering installing the Senator’s chief troll as U.S. Attorney in Vermont. Welcome to 2017!

From all appearances, Jane Sanders was not particularly good at running this college. In fairness, it’s not like she took over a thriving school. She came in as a turnaround administrator and failed to turn it around — that’s going to happen from time to time. One can question her plan for reviving the school’s fortunes, which put the school under mounds of debt in hopes of drawing new students and sparking alumni enthusiasm, but it’s not like she was dealt a strong hand.

Jane Sanders made a deal to build a new campus with land that the Roman Catholic Diocese needed to sell for exactly the reasons you suspect. To afford the deal, she had to take out a loan, and that’s where the alleged problems arose. According to Politico’s comprehensive recap of the situation, that’s when attorney and right-wing gadfly Brady Toensing came in. Toensing decided to seek a trove of documents from the Vermont state agency that issued $6.5 million worth of bonds for the purchase and pieced together what he characterizes as a fraud:

For the first fiscal year after the deal was signed, Jane Sanders signed documents that confirmed pledges of $1.2 million. But according to Burlington College financial records obtained by VTDigger, * the college received only $279,000.

No, there’s no “but” there! You can have confirmed, contractual deals for $1.2 million and only actually receive $279,000. Those are two completely different things. One could argue that only actualizing about a quarter of the total committed says something about the trajectory of the college’s finances, but that’s a much more nuanced argument than these two sentences suggest.

A third donor had offered a $1 million bequest, to be paid upon her death. Instead, the college’s loan application counted it in funds to be paid out over the next few years.

Um… welcome to accounting. This account sounds shady, but — without vouching for any specific accounting principles — recognizing revenue in installments even if it’s coming in a lump sum is perfectly acceptable. Again, that’s not saying it was the appropriate way to account for this request, but the way this report reads makes counting funds over time seem like an insane tactic when it’s just not.

Anyway, Toensing decided to elevate this theory to the authorities because this is the new “lock her up”:

Brady Toensing wrapped these figures and facts into the January 2016 letter to the U.S. attorney and the FDIC, requesting an investigation into what he termed “apparent federal bank fraud.” In March 2016, Toensing doubled down in another letter to federal officials. This time, he made an allegation that struck to the core of Bernie Sanders’ clean-government image. “As a result of my [initial] complaint,” Toensing wrote, “I was recently approached and informed that Senator Bernard Sanders’s office improperly pressured People’s United Bank to approve the loan application submitted by the Senator’s wife, Ms. Sanders.”

Right here is where you know this is bulls**t. OK, perhaps I shouldn’t say that. “Without having reviewed the documents myself… right here is where you know this is bulls**t.” This may come as a complete shock, but do you know who doesn’t like losing money? BANKERS. If a bank gets defrauded, you can rely on them to get their pound of flesh. It’s kind of their thing. Which is to say that when a bank is aggrieved, they don’t need a Benghazi conspiracy theorist lawyer to fight their battles for them.

Oh, yeah, Toensing works at his mom’s firm pushing bad Benghazi conspiracy theories. Probably worth mentioning. It might also be worth noting that Toensing was the chair of Trump’s Vermont campaign. Not to discount this blind squirrel from finding a nut, but it puts some context on the “bank fraud that the bank doesn’t seem to see.”

Unfortunately, we’re well aware of the awesome power of the Department of Justice and the mischief that can be kicked up when that power is vested in the wrong people. And there isn’t a U.S. Attorney in Vermont right now:

This week, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, recommended that Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina Nolan become the state’s next U.S. attorney.

Oh, that sounds intriguing. But has Trump moved on that?

Just who could Trump appoint that might fit that bill? Among the names mentioned as a potential nominee: Brady Toensing, the attorney who proved his dedication as Trump’s Vermont campaign chairman.

Are you f**king kidding me?

Jane Sanders Lawyers Up [Politico]

Headshot -- Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.


VTDIGGER* -- WHO ARE THEY? I FOUND ENOUGH TO TRUST THAT THEY ARE A GOOD NEWS SOURCE, FOUNDED BY A WOMAN AND NOW LEAD BY A WOMAN. NO RIGHTWING NUT JOB PAPER WOULD DO THAT. IN ADDITION, I HAVE THE FOLLOWING HONEST, SIMPLE RAVE REVIEW FROM FACEBOOK:

Ann McCausland Greenwood reviewed VTDigger.org — 5 star
December 20, 2016 ·
I love VTDigger. They are honest and they don't discriminate. They stay neutral and don't get into their own personal agendas on here. They allow for free discourse, and that is what I like. Good, clean, non-partisan journalism. Keep up the good work.


BRADY TOENSING AND MORE: TOENSING IS A HIGHLY PARTISAN OBSERVER OF THE SANDERS SITUATION, AND THE SON OF A “PRIMARY RIGHTWING SCANDAL MONGER,” ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND JOE DIGENOVA. DIGENOVA AUTHORS A WEBSITE, ALSO VERY MUCH TO THE RIGHT OF CENTER, HTTPS://GIVEMELIBERTY01.COM/TAG/JOE-DIGENOVA/. IF YOU CAN’T STAND READING IT, JUST MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ARTICLE. MY POINT IN SHOWING YOU THESE THINGS IS TO SHOW THAT TOENSING IS FAR FROM AN OPEN-MINDED OBSERVER OR A CENTRIST, AND WOULD GLADLY SMEAR A GOOD MAN IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE WAR AGAINST PROGRESSIVISM. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT NEITHER OF THE SANDERS ILLEGALLY PULLED ANY STRINGS TO MAKE A FAST BUCK OR COVER UP A CRIME THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY DIDN’T OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE. SHE TRIED TO IMPROVE THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE BURLINGTON COLLEGE AND FAILED TO DO SO. IT’S UNFORTUNATE, BUT NOT A CRIME. NO, I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR A CERTAINTY, BUT “I’LL BET YOU A DOLLAR IT’S TRUE!”

https://thevpo.org/2016/05/27/something-you-should-know-about-that-bernie-allegation/
The Vermont Political Observer.
a.k.a. theVPO: Analysis and observation of Vermont politics from a liberal viewpoint
Something you should know about that Bernie allegation

The Burlington College closure has a chance of causing trouble for the Bernie Sanders campaign, since his wife Jane played a key role in sinking the college under a mountain of debt. There are whispers of a federal probe, and now Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck reports that VTGOP Vice Chair Brady Toensing claims to have “new information” linking Senator Sanders to the case.

“I was recently approached and informed that Senator Bernie Sanders’ office improperly pressured People’s United Bank to approve the loan application,” Toensing said in letters to U.S. Attorney Eric Miller and to Fred Gibson Jr., the acting inspector general of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

There is cause for skepticism aplenty; Toensing is a Republican official, and he refuses to say anything more about his sources or his new information.

But there’s one more thing you should know, and Hallenbeck didn’t catch it.

Toensing’s letters were written on the stationery of DiGenova and Toensing, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm. Toensing is a partner in the firm, which is headed by his mother Victoria Toensing and his stepfather Joseph DiGenova*.

Which is important to know because those two worthies are notorious conservative scandal-mongers. Here’s something I wrote back in 2013, when Brady Toensing offered his legal services to Jerry Dodge in that ill-fated East Montpelier land deal.

…suffice it to say that Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova spent the 1990s as part of the anti-Clinton Republican attack machine, and the 2000s as leading Bush Administration apologists on cable news. Most recently, Ma ‘n Pa have been trying to mountainize the Benghazi molehill on Fox News.

Just bear that in mind when you ponder the significance of Toensing’s pursuit of a Bernie scandal. He hasn’t personally dipped into the pool of conservative sleaze that his senior partners happily cavort in; but the complaint was issued from one of D.C.’s most notorious hives of scum and villainy.

I think there are lots of unanswered questions about Burlington College and Jane O’Meara Sanders’ culpability in its demise. And considering how closely Jane and Bernie collaborate on his presidential campaign, I wouldn’t put it past him to use his influence on her behalf when she was trying to pull off a multi-million-dollar land deal.

Still, presumption of innocence, and generally speaking Bernie doesn’t seem like a guy to take up residence in the ethical gray zone. In any case, just a fair warning that you shouldn’t believe a word that comes out of DiGenova and Toensing unless there is independent evidence.



THE “CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICIALS,” I NOTICE ARE NAMELESS IN THIS STORY. EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CRITICIZES “ANONYMOUS SOURCES” MORE THAN TRUMP DOES, YET HE CITES THEIR STATEMENT AS PROOF FOR HIS CLAIMS OF PERSONAL INNOCENCE. IT IS DEFINITELY A FLAW IN THE REPORTING OF NEWS TO FAIL TO NAME NAMES, BUT IN THIS PERIOD OF CHANGES IN PARTY APPOINTEES (RESULTING IN A STRIKING CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY OR ACTION), I PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT IT MORE THAN I USUALLY DO. I WOULD LIKE FOR CBS TO NAME NAMES IN THIS CASE, RATHER THAN CITING “CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICIALS.”

ALSO, AS FOR TRUMP’S OFT REPEATED PHRASE, “ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION,” THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AT ALL AS “NO EVIDENCE” OF CHANGES IN THE INFORMATION OR OF TAMPERING WITH THE MACHINES; AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE OF FALSE INFORMATION OF MANY TYPES BEING SCATTERED ACROSS THE NEWS SOURCES AND THE GOSSIP CHAINS ON THE INTERNET; WHICH ARE REGULARLY USED BY RUSSIAN SOURCES. IN 2016, IT WAS USED TO DEFEAT HILLARY CLINTON AND, I DO BELIEVE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING DONALD TRUMP. WHEN THE CITIZENS ARE DUPED, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES CAN BE CORRUPTED FURTHER BECAUSE THEY AREN’T AWARE ENOUGH OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. THERE IS ALWAYS SOME GROUP LIKE THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON THE US POLITICAL FRONT TO GROW LIKE KUDZU DOES UP OUR MIGHTY OAK TREES AND OBSCURE THE TRUTH. WE SIMPLY CANNOT ALLOW THAT. THERE IS EVEN A WORD FOR THAT TYPE OF PROPAGANDIZING, CALLED “DISINFORMATION.”

IN WIKIPEDIA, I FOUND THE RECENT NONFICTION BOOK (AND A COMPANION FILM) CALLED “DISINFORMATION: FORMER SPY CHIEF REVEALS SECRET STRATEGIES FOR UNDERMINING FREEDOM, ATTACKING RELIGION, AND PROMOTING TERRORISM.” THAT IS WRITTEN BY A FORMER COMMUNIST MEMBER OF THE ROMANIAN SECRET POLICE, ION MIHAI PACEPA IN TANDEM WITH A COLLEGE LAW PROFESSOR RONALD J. RYCHLAK. THE FILM IS “DISINFORMATION: THE SECRET STRATEGY TO DESTROY THE WEST.” BOTH CAME OUT IN 2013, SO THIS ISN’T 40 YEAR OLD COLD WAR INFORMATION, NOR IS IT “FAKE NEWS.” THE RUSSIAN WORD, BY THE WAY, IS “DEZINFORMATSIYA,” AND WAS COINED BY JOSEPH STALIN, BUT THE TECHNIQUE IS TOO USEFUL IN A WORLD OF LIES SUCH AS OURS NOT TO LIVE ON AND FLOURISH. FOR MORE ABOUT THIS POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN TITANS, AND THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION, GO TO HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/DISINFORMATION_(BOOK).

BUT BACK TO THE CASE IN POINT: NOW, IT MAY BE THAT PUTIN JUST HAPPENS TO HATE HILLARY, BUT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT HE SPECIFICALLY WANTED TRUMP TO BE ELECTED BECAUSE HE HAS BLACKMAIL INFORMATION ON HIM – SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR OR, EQUALLY LIKELY, FINANCIAL MALFEASANCE. ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO SEE TRUMP’S BUSINESS ACUMEN IN ITS’ TRUEST LIGHT, IS TO READ UP ON “TRUMP UNIVERSITY.” THAT WAS, IN SHORT, A SCAM, BUT SO FAR TRUMP HASN’T BEEN ARRESTED FOR IT. HE’S EITHER LUCKIER OR RICHER THAN BERNIE MADOFF, WHO IS NOW IN PRISON IN RALEIGH, NC, SERVING A TERM OF 150 YEARS. I’M SURE HE’LL GET PAROLE AFTER 20 OR SO, THOUGH.

PUTIN, I BELIEVE, WANTED TRUMP TO BE ELECTED SO HE COULD CONTROL HIS ACTIONS INCOGNITO, AS THE US PRESIDENT TAKES HIS ADVICE AND FOLLOWS HIS ORDERS; THUS, GIVING RUSSIA A CONSIDERABLE MEASURE OF CONTROL OVER OUR LAWMAKING, SUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL CONTINUE OBAMA’S PLAN TO PLACE ARMS IN THE BALTIC STATES, OR GIVE THE MARYLAND AND NEW YORK PROPERTIES, SO UNFAIRLY CONFISCATED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, BACK TO PUTIN LIKE A GOOD BOY.

TRUMP RECENTLY CLAIMED THAT OBAMA DID NOTHING TO PUNISH RUSSIA OVER THE ELECTION TAMPERING, BUT THAT’S NOT TRUE. HE CURTAILED THE AMAZINGLY HIGH LEVEL OF PRIVILEGE THAT RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS HAD HERE. NOW, JUST A FEW MONTHS INTO OFFICE, TRUMP HAS ALREADY TRIED TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE PUTIN’S LAND BACK. THE SENATE, INSTEAD, JUST WROTE A BILL TO PROHIBIT SUCH A MOVE ON TRUMP’S PART, AND PASSED IT WITH A 98 TO 2 VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. OF COURSE, IT STILL HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE. (WWW.USATODAY.COM/STORY/NEWS/2017/06/20/SENATE-VOTED-98-2-RUSSIA-SANCTIONS-BILL-BUT-ITS-FUTURE-UNCLEAR/404733001/)

AS FOR EVIDENCE OF RUSSIA’S ELECTION TAMPERING, SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE INFORMATION ON A CASE CAN LIE UNDISCOVERED FOR DAYS, MONTHS, AND YEARS. THAT’S WHAT “COLD CASES” IN POLICE FILES ARE ABOUT. COMPUTER BRAINS ARE VERY, VERY COMPLICATED, AND I AM NOT SURE THAT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE TO DETECT ANY AND ALL CHANGES. AT ANY RATE, JUST LOGICALLY, FAILING TO PROVE THAT THE HACKING DID AFFECT THE 2016 ELECTION IS NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL AS THERE BEING “NO EFFECT,” AS COMFORTING AS THAT PROBABLY IS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS TWEETING PLEASURE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-acknowledges-russian-meddling-in-tweet-criticizing-obama/
By STEFAN BECKET CBS NEWS June 24, 2017, 9:03 AM
Trump acknowledges Russian meddling in tweet criticizing Obama

Photograph -- President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a signing ceremony for the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 in the East Room of the White House June 23, 2017 in Washington, D.C. CHIP SOMODEVILLA / GETTY IMAGES

President Trump appeared to acknowledge Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign while criticizing the Obama administration's response to a Russian interference campaign he has repeatedly denied took place.

In a tweet Friday night, Mr. Trump wrote that President Obama "knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia" and "did nothing about it."

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?
8:43 PM - 23 Jun 2017
24,358 24,358 Retweets 78,700 78,700 likes

The tweet came after Mr. Trump expressed similar criticism of his predecessor in an interview with Fox News.

"I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it," Mr. Trump said in an excerpt of the interview, airing in full on Sunday. "But nobody wants to talk about that."

The comments marked a rare admission by Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly declined to say definitively that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign. Asked on Friday whether Mr. Trump believes the Russians interfered in the election, White House press secretary Sean Spicer referred reporters to a January press conference in which Mr. Trump said "I think it was Russia" when asked about hacking.

Congressional investigators and special counsel Robert Mueller are investigating possible collusion between Russia and Trump campaign officials, inquiries the president has called a "total scam," a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."

Watch full: Donald Trump speaks about Russian hack intel, election
Play VIDEO
Watch full: Donald Trump speaks about Russian hack intel, election

The Washington Post reported in early December that the CIA had concluded that Russia's efforts were intended to boost Mr. Trump.

On Friday, the Post reported the CIA arrived at that conclusion in August 2016 and presented its findings to Mr. Obama and a handful of senior aides. The agency determined Russian President Vladimir Putin had personally directed Russian intelligence to "defeat or at least damage" Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the Post said. However, Mr. Obama was wary of publicly accusing Russia of aiding Mr. Trump, fearing such an accusation would be seen as the White House trying to bolster Clinton's chances.

The Post also revealed new details about the Obama administration's response to the Russian interference campaign prior to the election. Following the CIA's August report, Mr. Obama authorized "planting cyber weapons in Russia's infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow," the Post reported.

Administration officials briefed top members of Congress of both parties about Russia's actions in the weeks leading up to the election. Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, questioned the underlying intelligence and warned against accusing the Russian government of aiding Mr. Trump in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

Top intelligence chiefs released a statement in October 2016 publicly blaming Russia for an array of cyber attacks, including the release of stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee in July. The statement asserted the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that the efforts were "intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," but stopped short of accusing the Russians of trying to help Mr. Trump win the election.

U.S. intelligence agencies release Russia hacking report
Play VIDEO
U.S. intelligence agencies release Russia hacking report

The U.S. did not publicly accuse Russia of trying to aid Mr. Trump until January 2017, when U.S. intelligence agencies released a declassified assessment on the Russian interference campaign.

Before taking office in January, Mr. Trump received a classified briefing on the assessment from then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers. The briefing included classified details of Russian efforts to harm the Clinton campaign and bolster Mr. Trump.

Following that briefing, Mr. Trump said Russia's efforts had "absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election." Current and former officials have repeatedly said the U.S. has no evidence of voting machines being compromised or tallies being altered.



ABOUT THE LATEST REPUBLICAN SKULLDUGGERY, ROBBING THE POOR TO FURTHER ENRICH THE LIVES OF THE 1%

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-does-the-senate-health-care-bill-actually-affect-medicaid/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS June 24, 2017, 2:31 PM
How would the Senate health care bill actually affect Medicaid?

News Video – The Trump Presidency, Health Care Bill Fight
Play VIDEO -- Doctor in rural Tennessee worries about health care bill's effects -- June 23, 2017, 11:22 PM, One in five Tennesseans rely on Medicaid, including half of Tennessee children living in small towns and rural areas. One estimate says 37 more Tennessee hospitals risk major cuts or closure under the Senate health care bill. Mark Strassmann reports.

Democrats and left-leaning think tanks say Senate Republicans' health care bill would be disastrous for individuals and families on Medicaid, the federal program that provides health coverage to low-income Americans.

But White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Friday said President Trump is "committed to making sure that no one who currently is in the Medicaid program is affected in any way, which is reflected in the Senate bill, and he's pleased with that."

So, who is right? How would the Senate bill actually affect Medicaid and those who rely on the program for coverage?

The Senate proposal wouldn't cut Medicaid spending in real dollars -- spending would continue to grow -- but it would slow the rate of spending for the program, phase out extra money the federal government has given to states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and leave states to pick up more of the tab.

Medicaid -- not to be confused with Medicare, the health insurance program for older Americans -- covers roughly 70 million low-income people, pregnant women, disabled people and the elderly. The program is run by the states, which split the costs with the federal government roughly evenly. In 2016, Medicaid spending accounted for $368 billion out of $3.9 trillion in total federal spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Before Obamacare, the program did not cover able-bodied, childless adults. In the more than 30 states that opted to expand Medicaid under the ACA, eligibility for coverage became based solely on income, expanding eligibility to all Americans earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal poverty line for a family of four in 2017 is $24,600, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, meaning families earning up to $33,948 qualify for coverage in the states that expanded Medicaid.

Under Obamacare, the federal government pledged to cover 100 percent of the costs for new enrollees in Medicaid expansion states until 2019, and 90 percent of costs after that.

The Republican bill in the Senate would completely phase out additional federal subsidies for those enrollees by 2024, reverting to the regular, federal-state matching rate applied to the traditional Medicaid population.

But some states expanded Medicaid on the condition that they would rescind coverage for recent enrollees if the federal government decreased funding for the new population. This means that able-bodied, childless adults in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Washington could lose coverage much earlier under the Senate bill.

A reduction in federal funding for newly qualified Medicaid recipients would leave expansion states with a difficult decision: drop new enrollees entirely, or pay a much larger share of the bill for their coverage.

But the Senate bill, like the version of the legislation passed by the House in May, also fundamentally transforms the structure of Medicaid spending going forward. Currently, there is no cap on Medicaid spending -- states are guaranteed at least $1 in federal funding for every $1 they spend, and increases in federal funding are considered mandatory spending, rising automatically.

What's in the new Senate Republicans' health care bill?
Play VIDEO
What's in the new Senate Republicans' health care bill?

The Senate proposal would cap annual increases on per-person Medicaid spending using the consumer price index for health care, or "m-CPI," as a metric until 2025. Then, the annual per-person spending increases would be tied to the general consumer price index ("CPI-U"), which has a lower average rate of increase. The m-CPI is expected to increase about 3.7 percent per year over the next decade, compared to an expected annual increase of 2.4 percent per year for the general inflation rate.

The difference may not seem like much, but the left-of-center Urban Institute estimates the difference between the two CPI rates could mean a $467 billion difference over 10 years.

From a budget perspective, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation say the cap in the Senate bill helps reform one of the federal government's fastest-growing programs.

Instead of the per-person capita, states could also opt to receive Medicaid in block grants, or a set amount of annual spending that would also increase at the CPI-U rate.

States would also be allowed -- not required -- to impose work requirements for Medicaid, although those requirements would not apply to pregnant women, the elderly or the disabled.

The reduced federal funding for the new Medicaid population, and the restructuring of Medicaid funding entirely, will leave states to find a way to foot a larger proportion of the costs, or find ways to decrease coverage for recipients.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, in the long run, the Senate bill would mean even lower federal spending on Medicaid than the bill passed by the House.

Reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates for providers could also limit access to care. Many doctors already refuse to accept new Medicaid patients because the program's reimbursement rates are generally lower than private insurers and Medicare.

In short, Medicaid funding under the Senate bill would still increase, but at a slower rate, and with states carrying a heavier burden. The bill would almost certainly mean reduced or no coverage for able-bodied, childless adults who are new to the program.

The Senate proposal would affect those currently on Medicaid, contradicting what Spicer said, although the full extent of the bill's effects may not be clear for years.