Tag Archives: committee

Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For two years, ever since Mitt Romney screwed up his response to the Benghazi attacks in order to score campaign points, Republicans have been on an endless search for a grand conspiracy theory that explains how it all happened. Intelligence was ignored because it would have been inconvenient to the White House to acknowledge it. Hillary Clinton’s State Department bungled the response to the initial protests in Cairo. Both State and CIA bungled the military response to the attacks themselves. Even so, rescue was still possible, but it was derailed by a stand down order—possibly from President Obama himself. The talking points after the attack were deliberately twisted for political reasons. Dissenters who tried to tell us what really happened were harshly punished.

Is any of this true? The House Select Intelligence Committee—controlled by Republicans—has been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail for two years. Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued their findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and nearly absolute. So sweeping that I want to quote directly from the report’s summary, rather than paraphrasing it. Here it is:

The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi….Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support….

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa’ida, participated in the attacks….

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate….There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)….

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice’s public appearances—was flawed….

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

It’s hard to exaggerate just how remarkable this document is. It’s not that the committee found nothing to criticize. They did. The State Department facility in Benghazi had inadequate security. Some of the early intelligence after the attacks was inaccurate. The CIA should have given more weight to eyewitnesses on the ground.

But those are routine after-action critiques, ones that were fully acknowledged by the very first investigations. Beyond that, every single conspiracy theory—without exception—was conclusively debunked. There was no stand down order. The tactical response was both reasonable and effective under the circumstances. The CIA was not shipping arms from Libya to Syria. Both CIA and State received all military support that was available. The talking points after the attack were fashioned by the intelligence community, not the White House. Susan Rice followed these talking points in her Sunday show appearances, and where she was wrong, it was only because the intelligence community had made incorrect assessments. Nobody was punitively reassigned or polygraphed or otherwise intimidated to prevent them from testifying to Congress.

Read that list again. Late on a Friday afternoon, when it would get the least attention, a Republican-led committee finally admitted that every single Benghazi conspiracy theory was false. There are ways that the response to the attacks could have been improved, but that’s it. Nobody at the White House interfered. Nobody lied. Nobody prevented the truth from being told.

It was all just manufactured outrage from the beginning. But now the air is gone. There is no scandal, and there never was.

Read article here:

Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal

Fast-Food Workers Just Took McDonald’s Down a Notch

Mother Jones

On Tuesday evening, the federal government dealt a huge blow to McDonald’s, which has for over a year and a half been the target of worker protests and lawsuits over its low wages and questionable labor practices.

McDonald’s has long maintained that as a parent company, it cannot be held liable for the decisions individual franchises make about pay and working conditions. On Tuesday, the general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that this is nonsense, saying that the $5.6 billion company is indeed responsible for employment practices at its local franchises. That means that the company is no longer shielded from dozes of charges pending at regional NLRB offices around the country alleging illegal employment practices.

“McDonald’s can try to hide behind its franchisees, but today’s determination by the NLRB shows there’s no two ways about it,” Micah Wissinger, an attorney who brought a case on behalf of New York City McDonald’s workers said in a statement Tuesday. “The Golden Arches is an employer, plain and simple.”

The Fast-Food Workers Committee along with the Service Employees International Union has filed numerous complaints against the company with the NLRB since November 2012. Most recently, workers filed seven class action lawsuits against McDonald’s corporate and its franchises in three states alleging wage theft. The NLRB consolidated all these complaints into the case it decided on Tuesday, which focused on whether McDonald’s corporate can be considered as a “joint employer” along with the owner of the franchise.

Since the fall of 2012, fast-food workers at McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC franchises around the country have been striking to demand a $15 minimum wage and the right to form a union without retaliation. The strikes recently went global. Organizers say Tuesday’s ruling will lend workers new momentum in their ongoing battle against the fast-food mega-chain.

View original post here – 

Fast-Food Workers Just Took McDonald’s Down a Notch

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fast-Food Workers Just Took McDonald’s Down a Notch

Democrats Won’t Boycott the Benghazi Committee

Mother Jones

Will Democrats boycott the Benghazi committee? Nope. Yesterday Nancy Pelosi announced the five Democratic members of the committee:

Elijah Cummings of Maryland
Tammy Duckworth of Illinois
Linda Sánchez of California
Adam Schiff of California
Adam Smith of Washington

This ends days of speculation about a possible boycott, and will probably disappoint a lot of people who didn’t want to provide Republicans with a veneer of respectability for their Benghazi witch hunt. But longtime political leaders rarely withdraw from the political process in order to make a point, so this decision isn’t surprising. The fireworks should begin shortly.

View original article – 

Democrats Won’t Boycott the Benghazi Committee

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats Won’t Boycott the Benghazi Committee

12 Things Obama Used To Distract From Benghazi, According to Conservatives

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier this week, former tea party congressman Allen West contributed to the chorus of right-wingers accusing the Obama administration of using wily tricks to distract us from Benghazi. “Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi referred to as a ‘political stunt,'” West wrote in a blog post. “So what better time than right now, to create the straw man of Boko Haram, another distraction for which no real action will take place.”

Cool story.

Here are all the things Obama has used, or deployed, to distract America from his #Benghazi cover-up, according to conservatives:

#BringBackOurGirls
Climate change
Syria
Trayvon Martin
Partisan politics
IRS
Michael Sam
The Navy Yard shooting
The Associated Press spying scandal
Terror threat and embassy closures
Gay rights
Big Bird

Even Big Bird was in on it. Just when you think you know someone

Read more – 

12 Things Obama Used To Distract From Benghazi, According to Conservatives

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 12 Things Obama Used To Distract From Benghazi, According to Conservatives

Republicans Drink Their Own Kool-Aid, End Up Looking Like Idiots

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jonathan Bernstein makes a telling point today about the Fox News bubble that so many Republicans are trapped in. As you may recall, last week House Republicans released a survey suggesting that only 67 percent of Obamacare enrollees had paid their premiums. It was a laughably dumb survey, and it prompted the usual question: stupid or mendacious? Did Republicans really believe this nonsense, or were they just tossing out lies to muddy the waters?

Bernstein says the Republican follow-up to the survey demonstrates that they really believed their own spin:

This could be just a story of ineptitude. The House Energy and Commerce Committee wouldn’t be the first to construct a survey poorly….But yesterday, a House subcommittee invited insurance company executives to testify and, according to the Hill, Republicans on the panel were “visibly exasperated, as insurers failed to confirm certain claims about ObamaCare, such as the committee’s allegation that one-third of federal exchange enrollees have not paid their first premium.”

We don’t have to rely on reporter interpretations (here’s another one). It made no sense to hold the hearing unless Republicans were (foolishly) confident that the testimony would support their talking point, instead of undermining it.

The only plausible explanation is that closed feedback loop. Either members of the committee managed not to be aware of the criticisms of their survey, or they mistakenly wrote off the criticism as partisan backbiting.

Good catch! Obviously Republicans were caught off guard at yesterday’s hearing, and that could only happen if they really and truly believed their own flawed survey. And that, in turn, could only happen if they get pretty much all their information from Fox News and don’t bother with anything else. After all, the flaw in their survey was obvious. You didn’t have to be a brain surgeon to know that it would never stand up to scrutiny.

Welcome to the alternate universe of movement conservatism. Sometimes it bites you in the ass.

More: 

Republicans Drink Their Own Kool-Aid, End Up Looking Like Idiots

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Drink Their Own Kool-Aid, End Up Looking Like Idiots

Should Democrats Boycott the Benghazi Committee?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Nancy Pelosi wants John Boehner’s select committee on Benghazi to have equal representation from Democrats and Republicans:

“If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan,” Pelosi said in a Tuesday morning statement. “The panel should be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as is done on the House Ethics Committee. It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair.”

….House Democrats have not yet committed to appointing members to the committee. Her call for the committee to be evenly split could set the stage for boycotting the panel if Republicans rebuff her suggestion.

Good luck with that. I’d say the appointment of Trey Gowdy—a tea party attack dog with a grand total of 40 months of seniority—to lead the committee is a pretty good indication of just how bipartisan Boehner wants this thing to be. In short, not even the teensiest, tiniest little bit bipartisan. This is going to be a made-for-Fox extravaganza, and that’s that.

So should Democrats just boycott the committee and let Republicans howl into the wilderness all by themselves? That’s a really hard question, isn’t it? My first instinct is to say yes: it’s obvious that Democrats will have no influence on the committee, and attending does little except provide it with a veneer of legitimacy.

On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to cherry-pick witnesses and testimony, and having someone there to cross-examine the Republicans’ pet conspiracy theorists might prevent more than a few bad news cycles. Then again, it might not. It’s not as if the reporters covering this stuff aren’t already well aware of the timelines of what really happened.

Decisions, decisions. I’m not sure that boycotting sets a good precedent, but if ever there was a committee that deserved it, this is the one. In the end, though, I’ll bet Democrats show up. Not only are they afraid of the possible damage from a committee run amok, but they’re probably loath to give up their chance for TV time. Brace yourselves.

View original post here:  

Should Democrats Boycott the Benghazi Committee?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should Democrats Boycott the Benghazi Committee?

This Climate Scientist Just Won Another Victory in Court

Mother Jones

Michael Mann, the perennially embattled climate scientist best known for his “hockey-stick” temperature graph, came out victorious yesterday in a court battle against a Virginia legislator and a conservative think tank that had sought to obtain thousands of Mann’s emails and research documents from his time as a University of Virginia professor.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that unpublished scientific research can be exempted from the state’s Freedom of Information Act requirements, because disclosing such information would cut into the university’s competitive advantage over other universities. As a result, some 12,000 of Mann’s emails and papers won’t be released to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (formerly known as the American Tradition Institute) and Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Prince William), who had requested the documents in 2011.

In a statement on his Facebook page, Mann called the decision “a victory for science, public university faculty, and academic freedom.”

Back in 2012, a lower Virginia court ruled that the documents in question were considered “proprietary,” and thus shielded from FOIA requests. ATI appealed the decision, and the case landed with the state’s Supreme Court last October. The main question was whether research-related documents should get the same kind of protection as trade secrets and other information that could cause financial harm if released. ATI argued that Mann’s emails didn’t merit such protection, while Mann and U-Va. maintained that scientists should be able to hammer out their work behind closed doors before presenting a finished product to the public.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court late last year, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued that in protecting Mann’s research, the lower court had actually set the scope too wide, leaving open the possibility that a university could claim virtually any document to be proprietary. But yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling revised the exemption criteria so that non-research-related documents—things like budgets and communications between administrators—could still be accessed with a FOIA, said Emily Grannis, the Reporters Committee staffer who authored the brief.

Of course, Grannis said, the ruling is only binding in the state of Virginia, but it could serve as a model for how other states set limits for what qualifies as proprietary if similar cases arise elsewhere.

Continue Reading »

Visit site: 

This Climate Scientist Just Won Another Victory in Court

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Climate Scientist Just Won Another Victory in Court

Why Darrell Issa’s New IRS Scandal Accusation Makes No Sense

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s no secret that Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) don’t get along. Last month, Issa cut off Cummings’ microphone at a hearing on the IRS scandal. Their latest spat came last week, when Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Cummings, the senior Democrat on the committee, accusing him of secretly scheming with the IRS to target True the Vote, a conservative organization. But in his argument against Cummings, Issa’s grasping at straws.

The oversight committee has been investigating whether the IRS purposefully targeted conservative nonprofit groups. GOPers have fixated on the investigation, despite the fact that documents have shown the IRS scrutinized progressive groups as well. And last Thursday, House Republicans voted to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify about her role in the IRS matter. One of the groups that Issa is concerned may have been unfairly targeted is True the Vote, an organization whose mission is to root out voter fraud. At least as early as February 2012, the IRS was requesting information from True the Vote about its activities, including any for-profit organizations it was associated with. A few months later, in August, Cummings contacted the IRS to notify the agency that his own staff was planning to investigate the organization. On October 4, 2012, his office sent the first of a series of letters to True the Vote requesting information about its activities. Cummings was concerned that the group was engaging in voter intimidation and partisan activities, such as making a $5,000 donation to the Republican State Leadership Committee. Cummings asked the IRS for “publicly available information” about the group in January 2013.

Issa’s main gripe is that Cummings sent questions to True the Vote that were similar to questions the IRS put to the organization. He says that although Cummings denied that his staff “might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these federal agencies,” his communications indicate otherwise. Issa also claims that Cummings didn’t adequately inform the committee of his interactions with the IRS.

But according to the timeline in Issa’s own letter, Cummings didn’t trigger the IRS investigation into True the Vote. True the Vote was on the agency’s radar screen months before Cummings reached out to the IRS. Additionally, Issa was aware that Cummings was looking into True the Vote. Cummings CCed Issa on the October 2012 letters he sent to the group and posted them on his website. In a scathing reply to Issa last week, Cummings wrote: “According to your logic, simply requesting access to public information is somehow evidence of a nefarious conspiracy.”

It’s certainly not unusual for lawmakers to request publicly available information from government agencies. In fact, Issa sent a sharply worded letter to the IRS in August 2009 requesting documents related to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the now defunct progressive organization. He specifically wanted to ensure that ACORN’s political contributions “satisfy federal and state campaign finance laws” and was concerned the nonprofit was engaging in partisanship. About a month after Issa sent his letter, ACORN employees were caught on tape advising conservative activists who were posing as a prostitute and a pimp on how to evade the IRS. ACORN then lost funding from a number of federal sources. Issa quickly took credit for these developments.

Source article: 

Why Darrell Issa’s New IRS Scandal Accusation Makes No Sense

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Darrell Issa’s New IRS Scandal Accusation Makes No Sense

This Is Bigger News Than Bobby Jindal’s Health Care Plan

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal made another effort to jump back into the upper tier of 2016 Republican presidential wannabes on Wednesday, releasing a 26-page plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with…something else. Jindal’s plan includes things like block grants for Medicaid, an elimination of the employer subsidy for insurance, and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines—basically the same things conservatives have been pushing for years. (Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2015 budget, unveiled one day earlier, also calls for block grants.) As I reported in the most recent issue of Mother Jones, it’s only the most recent in a string of efforts by Jindal to elevate his sagging national profile to its previous heights.

But while he was pushing a hypothetical agenda for his hypothetical presidency, thinks weren’t going so well in Louisiana:

Louisiana’s House Education Committee voted down legislation that sought to scrap the Common Core education standards and replace them with a not-yet-developed set of academic benchmarks and assessments. The committee’s vote was 12-7.

Gov. Bobby Jindal submitted a green card—indicating support—for State Rep. Brett Geymann’s legislation to the House Education Committee, after several weeks of being circumspect about the his views on Common Core. But no one from Jindal’s staff testified on the bill and his spokesmen did not respond to media requests for information about why he backed Geymann’s legislation.

Jindal originally supported the implementation of the Common Core standards, a set of defacto national math and English standards approved by 46 states in 2009. But the standards became a lightning rod for conservative activists, who considered it a government takeover of local schools (or worse). So when the backlash came to Louisiana last year, he changed his tune. Sort of. Jindal argued that Louisiana shouldn’t take orders from Washington, and after a long period of indecision, quietly signaled his support for Geymann’s bill, which would have put the state’s tests on hold and form a 32-person committee for further study. It’s not quite hitting control-z on the entire program, but it would certainly be a step away from the original plan. But that attempt at damage control is dead for now, and so instead of being able to tell voters about how he reined in Common Core, Jindal is stuck with it.

That might not be on the 2016 radar yet, but given how despised the Core is among grassroots voters in Iowa, Florida, and South Carolina, it’s potentially a much bigger deal than a boilerplate white paper.

Link:

This Is Bigger News Than Bobby Jindal’s Health Care Plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is Bigger News Than Bobby Jindal’s Health Care Plan

Why Ben Affleck Is Qualified to Testify Before the Senate on Atrocities in Congo

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday, John Hudson at Foreign Policy reported that actor Ben Affleck is set to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next Wednesday to testify on the mass killings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Affleck’s inclusion among the experts scheduled to testify invited some predictable skepticism and ridicule. In response to the news, Washington Post digital foreign editor Anup Kaphle tweeted, “zzzzzz…” National Review correspondent Jim Geraghty joked, “If a Congressman asks about his qualifications as a Congo expert, Ben Affleck should simply answer, ‘I’m Batman.'”

“People serious about resolving problems—especially problems related to life and death—want to have serious conversations with experts and leaders in the field; not celebrities,” a Republican aide at the House Foreign Affairs Committee told Foreign Policy‘s “The Cable.” (House Republicans reportedly declined to hold a similar, Affleck-inclusive event.)

It’s pretty easy to laugh at the idea of the one-time Gigli and Pearl Harbor star now lecturing senators on atrocities in Central Africa. But the Oscar-winning future Batman knows his stuff. He isn’t some celebrity who just happened to open his mouth about a humanitarian cause (think: Paris Hilton and Rwanda). The acclaimed Argo director has repeatedly traveled to Congo and has even met with warlords accused of atrocities. Here’s his 2008 report from the country for ABC’s Nightline, in which he discusses mass rape, war, and survival:

ABC Entertainment News|ABC Business News

Affleck previously testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the humanitarian crisis in the African nation. That same year, he made the media rounds with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) to discuss renewed violence in Congo. In 2011, he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee. In 2010, Affleck founded the Eastern Congo Initiative, an advocacy and grant-making 501(c)(3) organization. On top of all that, he made this video this month (in which he and Matt Damon humorously trade insults) to help raise money for the Initiative.

So, are there experts who know more about the Democratic Republic of the Congo than Ben Affleck? Of course—and some of them will also testify before the Senate committee next week. But celebrities testifying before Congress, or heading to the Hill to make their case, isn’t exactly new. Harrison Ford has swung by the House and Senate to talk about planes, and Val Kilmer visited Capitol Hill last year to push for the expansion of Americans’ ability to claim religious exemptions to Obamacare’s health insurance mandate.

With Affleck, you get testimony from a famous person who has really done his homework.

Click here to check out our interactive map of celebrity humanitarian efforts in (and the “celebrity recolonization” of) Africa.

Taken from – 

Why Ben Affleck Is Qualified to Testify Before the Senate on Atrocities in Congo

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Ben Affleck Is Qualified to Testify Before the Senate on Atrocities in Congo