Thursday, March 19, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 19, 2015


OK... some newsbiting...


Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-despite-hillary-clinton-promise-charity-did-not-192353450.html

* THE REUTERS/YAHOO NEWS HEADLINE:

Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family's globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.

At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity's flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.

* REUTERS HAS FOUND NOW... IN 2015...

(*SNORT*)

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment. Former President Bill Clinton, who also signed on to the agreement with the Obama administration, was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman said.

The Reuters inquiries also raised questions about a second assurance Hillary Clinton made to the Obama administration: that the State Department would be able to review any new or increased contributions to CHAI by foreign governments while she served as the nation's top diplomat. The Clintons said the pledge was intended to defuse accusations that foreign governments might use such donations to earn favors.

By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley.

The State Department said it was unable to cite any instances of its officials reviewing or approving new money from any foreign governments.

Daley confirmed that none of the seven government donations had been submitted to the State Department for review.

The White House declined to answer questions about whether the Obama administration was aware of CHAI not disclosing its donors or submitting new donations from foreign governments. White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman noted, however, that the agreement the Clintons entered into "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements."

* YOU FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THIS STUFF IS BEING LEAKED BY OBAMA'S PEOPLE - RIGHT?

March 19, 2015 at 5:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-presses-info-humas-special-govt-status-and-her-emails_892068.html

Senator Chuck Grassley has sent two letters to the State Department to ask about Huma Abedin's "special government status" when she was a government employee - and for information on Abedin's email use while working for the government.

Abedin is a close aide to Hillary Clinton, and worked for the consulting firm Teneo (under a special government employee status) while working for Clinton.

* WHILE BEING PAID BY THE U.S. TAXPAYER...

"I am writing to follow up on inquiries I have been making since June 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013 regarding the State Department’s use of Special Government Employee (SGE) designations, and in particular, what steps the Department took to ensure that Ms. Huma Abedin’s outside employment with a political intelligence and corporate advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department. I thank the Department for its responses to my inquiries made June 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013. However, to date, the Department’s answers have been largely unresponsive," writes Grassley to Secretary of State John Kerry.

By way of example, I have still not received the records relating to communications between the State Department and Ms. Abedin’s other employer, Teneo.

Nor has the Department provided records of communications between the State Department and any clients or entities represented by Teneo. The Department has also failed to provide any email communications between Ms. Abedin and Teneo or Teneo’s clients.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The State Department’s November 14, 2014 response to my inquiries, stated, “Based on an internal review, the Department has never had any contracts with Teneo.” But that is not responsive to my request, and it does not mean that communications between full-time Department employees, or SGEs, and Teneo, or clients of Teneo, do not exist.

A number of conflict of interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company, Teneo, “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs.” Moreover, these concerns are heightened when high level employees, such as Ms. Abedin, may have used non-government email accounts to engage in both government and private business.

Furthermore, Ms. Abedin and other State Department employees appear to have been improperly categorized as SGEs.

The Department’s response dated November 14, 2014 states, “An individual may receive an SGE designation if he or she is joining the Department from the private sector or is coming from another government position.” However, in Ms. Abedin’s case, she neither came from the private sector nor came from another government position. She converted from a full-time employee to become an SGE, with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities. The purpose of the SGE program “…is to help the Government obtain the temporary or intermittent services of persons with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the Government.” Yet, in essence, she kept the same job but instead of working in Washington, D.C. she worked part-time in New York and was subsequently hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative. It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees.

As explained in my letter to Ms. Abedin dated June 13, 2013, the State Department’s current use of the SGE designation blurs the line between public and private sector employees. It is especially troubling when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work. The taxpayer deserves to know why Ms. Abedin was permitted to perform her job in New York when the position had normally been performed in Washington, D.C. and why she was permitted to become an SGE from inside government when normally an SGE would come from outside government. Likewise, the taxpayer has a right to know how many other State Department SGEs were given similarly favorable treatment.

* OH... ONE MORE THING:

According to press reports, Ms. Abedin also had an email account on Secretary Clinton’s private server.

* FOLKS... DEEPER AND DEEPER...

March 19, 2015 at 6:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/ice-167527-criminal-aliens-loose-usa

According to weekly detention and departure reports from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, there were 167,527 non-detained convicted criminal aliens in the United States as of Jan. 26 of this year...

167,527 non-detained, final-order convicted criminals on the loose in the United States...

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) read the statistic aloud Thursday during a hearing examining ICE's priorities and procedures for removing criminal aliens currently living in the United States, explaining, "These are people that are here illegally, get caught, convicted, and you release back out into the public,” adding that some of the crimes committed by those who have been released include homicide, sex crimes, child pornography, drunk driving, robbery and kidnapping.

The federal government announced Wednesday that ICE had released about 30,000 convicted criminal aliens from ICE custody in 2014 alone, according to The Washington Times, which first reported the statistic.

As CNSNews.com reported in February, ICE admitted to releasing 36,007 criminal aliens from the agency’s custody in Fiscal Year 2013, including those convicted of sex crimes, homicide, drunk driving, kidnapping and robbery. Of these, 1,000 went on to commit new crimes ranging from assault with a deadly weapon and lewd acts with a child to aggravated assault, robbery, and hit-and-run.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

During the hearing, ICE Director Sarah Saldana said that ICE releases criminal aliens back into the community based on the agency’s “discretionary control.”

“Madam Director, if you’re a criminal, will you be deported?” Chaffetz asked Saldana.

“Those are the people we’re looking for, yes,” Saldana responded.

“But they’ve been in your detention. They’ve been detained. I mean they were convicted. Were they deported?” Chaffetz pressed.

“They were in the process of being deported,” Saldana claimed. “Everyone in our detention facilities is in the process of being deported, chairman.”

“Well that’s not true. I mean, you regularly release them back out into the public before they get deported, correct?” Chaffetz continued.

Of the roughly 36,000 criminal aliens released by ICE in 2013, about 22,000 were released under ICE’s “discretionary control,” she estimated.

“So you don’t automatically deport them, then?” Chaffetz asked.

“Automatically, sir? No,” Saldana responded, adding that “the law gives us that discretion.”

“And so when we say, if you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported, that’s not necessarily true,” Chaffetz said.

“It is true, sir. It’s in...”

“After they get released back into the public for untold number of times?” Chaffetz asked.

“It does happen. It does happen, yes, and that’s exactly what we’re here to do,” Saldana admitted.

“What does happen? That they get released?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Saldana said, “Even criminals that are released.

“Those people were released under the laws of the United States,” Saldana added, explaining that according to “due process,” it can easily take “months and even years to deport folks.”

* THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. IT'S TOO BAD CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AREN'T EMPOWERED TO FIRE OFFICIALS LIKE SALDANA ON THE SPOT.

March 19, 2015 at 7:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/secret-service-scandal-erased-tapes/

Secret Service Director Joe Clancy told lawmakers in a closed-door meeting that the Secret Service may have erased surveillance video of agents driving a car through an active bomb threat investigation at the White House.

* FOLKS... YOU'RE READING THIS - RIGHT?

* YOU GET THAT THIS IS THE ACTUAL CNN NEWS - NOT A SATIRE... NOT A SNL SKIT... NOT EVEN A NEW HOLLYWOOD THRILLER OR NOVEL - RIGHT?

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz told CNN that on Tuesday, Clancy showed him and other lawmakers two videos, one of which didn't show much of the action.

"We inquired if there were additional tapes and angles and the director informed us that there may not be because it's their policy to erase them 72 hours after they record, which is just unfathomable," Chaffetz said. "I can't think of any good reason to do that."

"This is not your local 7-11. This is the White House," he said.

* AND EVEN AT THE LOCAL 7-11 THE TAPES WOULDN'T BE ERASED AFTER AN "INCIDENT!"

Chaffetz said he was frustrated Clancy didn't know if more tapes existed and wondered how two tapes survived while others might not have.

"I don't know if we're getting the runaround," he said. "It doesn't smell right."

* "RUNAROUND...?!?!" WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE... STUPID? IT SOUNDS LIKE A STRAIGHT UP CONSPIRACY TO ME! (WHAT'S IT SOUND LIKE TO YOU?)

Secret Service spokesman Robert Hoback confirmed the agency maintains video footage at the White House for 72 hours.

* UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES...!!! WHEN NOTHING OF NOTE HAS HAPPENED AND THUS THERE'S SUPPOSEDLY NO REASON NOT TO MAINTAIN THE FOOTAGE! (BUT FRANKLY EVEN THEN THE POLICY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THIS IS THE WHITE HOUSE.)

"In the event of an operational security incident at the White House complex, specific video footage is maintained for investigative and protective intelligence purposes," he said in an email.

* WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE - IS IT NOT? ("YES" FOR THE FORMER... "APPARENTLY NOT" FOR THE LATTER!)

The Utah Republican said his committee will be sending Clancy a letter on Wednesday requesting all the tapes as well as any other physical evidence. The House Oversight Committee is launching its own investigation into accusations that two senior agents drove a car through an active investigation after they had been drinking.

* OBVIOUSLY AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION HAS TO BE ORDERED. LET THE FBI INVESTIGATE THE SECRET SERVICE.

The tapes did not shed any light on whether the agents had been drinking, Chaffetz said. But, he said, there was "no justification" for the agents to be driving that close to an active investigation.

"One tape clearly shows a vehicle within a couple of feet of a potential bomb," he said. "They almost ran over a potential bomb."

Chaffetz said Clancy also informed him that Washington's Metropolitan Police Department took more than an hour to respond.

"I didn't realize that they were the responding agency and how pathetically slow they were. That's just inexcusable," Chaffetz said.

* GEEZUS... THEY'RE ALL FRIGGIN' IDIOTS!

He said he plans to send a letter to MPD Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

"They're going to get a nasty-gram from Congress," he said.

* OK. REMOVE CHAFFETZ FROM ANY POSITION OF AUTHORITY. HE'S OBVIOUSLY BASELINE RETARDED.

On Wednesday, Chaffetz met with the Department of Homeland Security inspector general. Clancy turned the investigation over to the independent investigator after learning of the incident. Chaffetz said the inspector general has allocated significant resources to the probe.

"I hope this is more weeks than months," he said.

* SET A DEADLINE OF APRIL 1.

March 19, 2015 at 7:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

https://cei.org/blog/least-transparent-administration-closes-records-fannie-and-freddie

The administration that swept into office promising to be the “most transparent” in history was just judged by a major news service as "least transparent" of modern presidencies.

An analysis by the Associated Press found that “the Obama administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

The AP adds that the administration “also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law - but only when it was challenged.”

But FOIA requests are just the tip of the iceberg for this administration’s secrecy, much of which has nothing to do with the legitimate exception of national security. In Dodd-Frank, the administration set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council — the constitutionality of both of which are now subject to a lawsuit from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other parties — to be exempt from many open meetings and (especially with FSOC) open records requests.

* GEEZUS...

But probably the most egregious example of this administration’s practicing of secrecy concerns its management of the government-sponsored housing enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

In August 2012, then–Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner issued the “Third Amendment” to the GSE conservatorship. The Third Amendment would require all of the GSEs’ profits to be siphoned off to the U.S. Treasury Department in perpetuity — even after the GSEs paid back what they owed to taxpayers.

This arbitrary action has spawned more than 20 lawsuits from Fannie and Freddie’s private shareholders. The suits charge the administration with everything from violating the Administrative Procedure Act to unconstitutionally taking property without just compensation. The Third Amendment has also raised concerns that the profit sweep is leaving Fannie and Freddie with very little capital reserves, furthering the chance for more taxpayer bailouts should something go awry with the housing market again.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 19, 2015 at 7:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

But the really amazing thing is that we know very little about what prompted Obama and Geithner to pursue this highly controversial policy. The Obama administration has claimed a form of “executive privilege” and sealed documents regarding how the decision was made.

Recently, one of these shareholder lawsuits — Fairholme v. United States — has prompted a judge to compel the administration to produce some of those documents in order to satisfy a discovery request from the mutual fund plaintiff. And a coalition letter, coordinated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and signed by leaders of 17 conservative and free market organizations calls for a key oversight subcommittee to spread a little sunshine by obtaining the documents and making them public.

In the letter sent last fall leaders of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we wrote: "Not only is this Third Amendment an unprecedented power grab that violates shareholder property rights, but the process used by the Treasury Department to develop the Amendment provided neither an opportunity for public comment nor the customary transparency safeguards that permit we the people to hold our government accountable. To this day, the Amendment's provenance remains secret."

CEI has long advocated ending the risk posed by the GSEs to taxpayers and the economy through an ending of the taxpayer guarantee or an orderly liquidation of their assets, with no government-backed entity to replace them. Our new pro-growth congressional agenda “Free to Prosper” puts forth options on the most practical ways to move forward on such a phase-out.

As CEI founder and chairman Fred Smith urged Congress in 2000 — to mostly deaf ears — policy makers should “develop a divestiture or breakup plan for Fannie and Freddie.” And in such a plan, as in traditional bankruptcies, the rights of both taxpayers and private investors should be sacrosanct.

But in order to have real reform, first we need transparency. It’s time for the administration that promised to be the most transparent in history to open the books on its management of the two government-sponsored entities that play such a dominant role in housing and the economy.

March 19, 2015 at 7:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)