Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

$600 Billion, Failing Classrooms

Posted on by

US Spends $600 Billion/Year on Education, But Large Majority of H.S. Seniors Not College-Ready

Hollingsworth/(CNSNews.com) – Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more than $600 billion per year on public education, a large majority of high school seniors are not ready for college-level work in math and reading, according to the latest results of the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card”.

Demonstrating proficiency in a core subject like math or reading is considered proof of being academically prepared for college-level courses.

However, just 25 percent of 12th graders tested “Proficient” or above in math on the 2015 NAEP, down slightly from the 26 percent reported in 2013.

That means that three-quarters of the nation’s soon-to-be-graduating high school seniors are not prepared to succeed in college math courses.

Although more 12th graders (37 percent) tested “Proficient” or above in reading, that figure was also down one percent from the 2013 results.

According to NAEP, nearly two-thirds of high seniors do not have the written language skills they will need in college.

The average score of the 31,900 12th graders who took the 2015 NAEP math test was 152, which was down in all four content areas and one point lower than the average score (153) in 2013, Peggy Carr, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), told reporters during a webinar on Wednesday announcing the latest NAEP results.

Only three percent of those taking the math assessment tested “Advanced.” Another 22 percent tested “Proficient”, with 37 percent of test-takers demonstrating a “Basic” mastery of mathematics.

However, the largest contingent – 38 percent – tested at the lowest “Below Basic” level. “There is a larger proportion of students at the bottom of the distribution” than in 2013, Carr acknowledged.

English Language Learners, who posted a six-point gain, were the only student sub-group to significantly increase their math scores over 2013 levels, she pointed out.

The average score in reading (287) was not significantly different from the average score reported in 2013 (288), Carr said.

Six percent of high school seniors scored in the “Advanced” reading category, with 31 percent testing “Proficient”, and 35 percent scoring in the “Basic” range.

However, 28 percent failed to demonstrate even basic mastery of the written word – three percent more than in 2013.

Carr noted that the 2015 NAEP results remained virtually unchanged for various racial and ethnic sub-groups compared to 2013. In general, white and Hispanic males tended to do better on the math tests, while females overall did better on the reading assessments, she pointed out.

Education experts also noted that average math scores were higher for students who took more challenging pre-calculus and calculus classes, and average reading scores were the highest for students who reported reading more than 20 pages of text a day in school or while doing their homework assignments.

When CNSNews.com asked how the latest reading and math NAEP scores compared to student test scores worldwide, Carr replied that “we will wait to see” when the next international results are released in November and December.

According to the latest available figures from NCES, “the 50 states and D.C. reported $603.7 billion in funding collected for public elementary and secondary education in 2013.”

State and local governments provided 91 percent of all education funding, while the federal government paid the remaining 9 percent.

*****

Don’t go away yet, there is more and it is worse.

Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner: President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.

The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to “unaccompanied children,” more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration’s programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.

The report notes that the president’s budget, facing congressional approval, includes another $2.1 billion for refugees, which can include the illegals from Central America, mostly Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

What’s more, the administration is also spending heavily on a program with the United Nations to help the illegal minors avoid the dangerous trip by declaring them refugees and handing them a plane ticket to the U.S. where, once here, they get special legal status.

The report, titled “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States,” is a deep dive into the administration’s evolving efforts to let hundreds of thousands of mostly 16- and 17-year-old males settle in the country.

It said that most of the undocumented minors do not qualify for refugee status or are even in any danger in their native countries. Instead, they are seeking to unify with their family members, commonly parents in the United States illegally.

The report cited Department of Health and Human Services data showing the trend. “New data,” said CIS, “shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally.”

Go here for charts and full report.

Author Nayla Rush suggested that the administration’s Central American Refugee/Parole Program with the United Nations that declares minors refugees could have the effect of giving legal status to their illegal parents once in the U.S.

“Children will be able to qualify for refugee status and then be flown to the United States. As a reminder, refugees receive automatic legal status and are required to apply for a green card within their first year following arrival. They can apply for citizenship five years from the date of entry.

“Since parents from Central America illegally present in the United States could not benefit from the CAM program and sponsor their children, perhaps the reverse can take place with children admitted under this new version of the refugee program. Children, acquiring legal status followed by naturalization by the time they reach adulthood, could indeed sponsor their parents,” wrote Rush.

 

Shadow Lobbying in DC on Policy, it’s Dark

Posted on by

There is a certain Senator who generated a mission to Make DC Listen, knowing that individual American voices were drowned out by power, money and influence.

Hat tip to the Sunlight Foundation for this summary.

What is shadow lobbying? How influence peddlers shape policy in the dark

Earlier this year, we asked you to help us find out which Democratic superdelegates are also lobbyists. We didn’t want to limit it to just registered lobbyists, because there’s an increasing number of people in Washington who do what most of us would think of as lobbying activity, but avoid registering — known as “shadow lobbyists.” But that left us, and our readers, with some questions: What exactly is a shadow lobbyist? How do they avoid registering? How did we get here?

What is shadow lobbying?

Shadow lobbying refers to someone who performs advocacy to influence public policy, like meeting legislators or their staff, without registering as a lobbyist — and it’s a big problem for anyone who cares about transparency in Washington. (For further reading on this topic, you can’t do better than to read Lee Fang’s 2014 investigation of shadow lobbying at The Nation.)

If you just looked at the number of federal registered lobbyists, you would think lobbying was a dying profession. Since a peak of 14,829 registered lobbyists in 2007, the number has steadily declined; in 2015, it was 11,504. But it’s not that the lobbyists have packed up their offices and left D.C. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the amount of money spent on lobbying has remained near its 2009 peak, even as the number of lobbyists has supposedly decreased: In 2015, $3.21 billion was spent on lobbying, down only slightly from $3.5 billion in 2009. (Some estimate that number, which is based on reported spending on lobbying registrations, is actually up to three times higher; we’ll get to that later.)

Shadow lobbying is also sometimes known as the “Daschle Loophole,” named after Tom Daschle. A former senator from South Dakota, Daschle worked as a “policy adviser” at lobbying shops like Alston and Bird and global firms like DLA Piper after leaving the Senate, but never registered as a lobbyist. As The Huffington Post pointed out, that doesn’t mean his clients didn’t “receive the full benefit of his contacts and expertise, and that those assets can’t be used to influence legislation.” Last month, Daschle unexpectedly registered as a lobbyist; however, there are many who followed his blueprint of behind-the-scenes influence.

After years of lobbying, Daschle finally registers as a lobbyist

The pioneer of shadow influencing has put on paper what many have known for years — that he is, in fact, a lobbyist.

So where did all the lobbyists go?

The simple answer is nowhere. They’re still here — they just stopped registering as lobbyists.

The system of lobbying registration has never been ideal. Lee Fang notes that a General Accounting Office study in 1991 revealed more than 10,000 lobbyists who had failed to register, and of those who did register, “94 percent failed to complete their registration forms as required by law.” The 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), while far from perfect, cleaned up the system and clarified the definition of lobbying. In 2007, following the Jack Abramoff scandal, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA), which extended the “cooling off” period — the period of time after a lawmaker or their top staff leaves Congress during which they are forbidden from lobbying.

As the law stands now, lobbyists are required to register if they spend at least 20 percent of their time lobbying on behalf of a client, or if they make at least two contacts with covered government officials (members of the House or Senate, their staff and select members of executive agencies). Firms are also exempt from registration if their total income from an individual client is less than $3,000 per quarter.

The problem is that this threshold is reasonably easy to get around. I spoke to James Hickey, the president of the Association of Government Relations Professionals (AGRP), formerly the American League of Lobbyists. (That’s right: Even the people who represent lobbyists no longer call themselves lobbyists.1) He believes the 20-percent threshold doesn’t work as a way to measure lobbying activity: “Personally, and it’s not AGRP’s position, it’s mine, I think anybody who lobbies should register” — whether it makes up 20 percent of their time or not.

Hickey said there should be some exceptions — people “that ask their CEO to come in one day of the year for a fly-in to talk to half a dozen members,” for example, shouldn’t register. But “as long as that 20 percent threshold exists,” he said, “there’s no way those who are in charge of enforcement can keep tabs on what are roughly estimated to be 20,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.” (Hickey told me that he registers even though he doesn’t hit the 20 percent threshold because of his position as president of the AGRP.) The Government Affairs Yellow Book, for example, includes information for 23,000 “government affairs professionals” in Washington, more than twice the current number of registered lobbyists.

There’s data to back this up, too. According to a 2012 study by the Center for Responsive Politics:

More than 46 percent of the active 2011 lobbyists who did not report any activity in 2012 are still working for the same employers for whom they lobbied in 2011 — supporting the theory that many previously registered lobbyists are not meeting the technical requirement to report or have altered their activities just enough to escape filing.

American University Professor James Thurber, who’s studied lobbying for more than 30 years and served on the American Bar Association’s Lobbying Task Force when it recommended strengthening lobbying laws, said, “Anyone who is paid to influence public policy, we should know about it” — whether it’s Boeing or the Boy Scouts. Thurber thinks there are around 100,000 people working in lobbying and advocacy in Washington.

Another lobbyist I spoke to, Paul Kanitra, agreed that there are those in D.C. who “take advantage” of the “gray area” created by the lobbying disclosure laws. He runs a firm called LobbyIt that focuses on smaller clients, and its ethos is very different to other lobbying firms. Its website claims, “Large corporations and their high priced representation have a stranglehold on the Capitol,” describing the firm as a “new breed of lobbyists [who] know the United States is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people.” Kanitra argued that the obvious value for a lobbying firm of hiring a former lawmaker is their contacts, saying, “I have to imagine they aren’t sitting the members of Congress down and having them do research and write white papers all day long.”

Why would a lobbyist want to avoid registering?

There are a lot of reasons. It’s certainly possible that lobbyists might not want the public to know that their client is lobbying Congress, or how much they’re spending on it, but that wouldn’t explain the big drop in lobbying registrations after 2007. One big explanation is the passage of HLOGA in 2007, which tightened disclosure and penalties for registered lobbyists, which we wrote about in 2014: “Before these changes in the rules, individuals registered under the LDA just in case. There was no downside. Now, being a registered lobbyist subjects people to additional campaign finance disclosure and gift rules, as well as steep civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. So, political lawyers simply say don’t register.”

Hickey pointed, as many others have, to the Obama administration’s 2009 decision to bar former lobbyists from working on “regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years” in his White House, saying it had a big effect on lobbyists: “If by being registered I preclude myself from that opportunity, then I think I’m going to have to look carefully at exactly my threshold and how much I lobby, and if I can justify the fact that I don’t do 20 percent or more, then I’m going to go ahead and deregister.” Thurber thinks that while the 2009 rule did have a big impact, along with the 2007 law, shadow lobbying has been a problem since “well before” those changes. “Basically, there has been no serious enforcement for decades,” Thurber said. “That did not change with the 2007 reform, except there was a surge in de-registrations after 2007.”

He’s right: There is very little enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Department of Justice has never brought criminal charges against anyone for failing to register as a lobbyist. According to Fang, “The Justice Department has largely pursued cases in which a registered lobbyist has failed to update a quarterly statement or fallen delinquent, and the House clerk or Senate secretary has spotted the error.” (I reached out to the Department of Justice to check if any cases had been filed since Fang’s article; they told me that their “office is unaware of any criminal cases brought under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has not brought a criminal case under the LDA.”). Kanitra pointed out that those who do register actually put themselves more at risk of investigation than those who just circumvent the system entirely, because they’re then open to being penalized for submitting registrations late or putting something incorrect on their registration forms.

Thurber says we could know a lot more about shadow lobbying than we do. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does an audit of lobbying disclosure, examining how well lobbyists comply with the registration compliance — but it only looks at those who are registered. The audit doesn’t scrutinize “people who are actually lobbying but are not registered, which is what’s going on mainly in town.” He says the GAO has that authority “to look at all kinds of advocacy” under the existing law, but doesn’t.

What can be done to shine a light on shadow lobbying?

Some, like Thurber, advocate for expanding the definition of lobbying activity to include marketing, public relations and advertising costs. He believes if you include “all the ads, all the shadow lobbyist activities, all the marketing,” the money spent on lobbying is more like $9 billion. Many lobbying firms also have in-house strategic communications arms, and those sorts of services aren’t cheap — and neither are TV ad campaigns. The Glover Park Group, which received $7 million in lobbying income in 2015, boasts about its content creation services on its website:

GPG’s creative group melds left-brain and right-brain thinking to create campaigns that drive conversation, educate, persuade, sell and move to action.

It’s the story that matters, whether we tell it through a new website or blog, traditional ads, such as TV, radio, newspaper and magazine ads, billboards or bus wraps, or interactive and native ads across the social, mobile web. We use every tool available: photos and videos, infographics and sharegraphics, informational one-pagers and brochures, chart packs, slide decks, reports and white papers, and more.

Whether it’s a 30-second spot on national TV or an interactive digital ad on a news site, our creative output is stronger and more effective because it’s built on the input that only GPG’s combination of research and experience can provide.

But other lobbyists I spoke to disagreed with Thurber’s proposal. Hickey said, “Public relations is really a different discipline. Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they coordinate, but your goal for public relations is really company brand or product brand than it is for influencing legislation.” He argues: “If there’s no reference to that legislation, then it’d be hard for anyone to say that clearly falls in the realm of lobbying.”

Paul Kelly, a registered lobbyist and member of AGRP, concurred, saying these activities are protected by the First Amendment right to petition one’s government and that “policymakers ought to be very careful about treading into those waters to regulate those activities.”

Even Kanitra, who describes himself as an advocate for transparency and open government, sees problems with this idea. “The problem is, to find a definition that can’t be worked around is so incredibly difficult. I’m open to somebody telling me a specific threshold or a specific approach that would work that would actually wind up having an effect on the people who are abusing it now as opposed to the little guys.”

It’s certainly likely that some, maybe many, lobbyists would continue to find ways around any new regulation on registration. A good start would be enforcement of the existing law; until someone is held accountable for breaking the rules and circumventing the system, the laws have no weight. It’s also clear that there’s no shortage of informed ideas about reforms that could make the system work better, from the ABA Task Force recommendations to Thurber’s modest suggestion that congressional offices keep records of everyone who contacts them.

There will always be lobbying in Washington, and that’s not a bad thing. But it doesn’t have to stay in the shadows.

Who is in Line to Bailout Venezuela?

Posted on by


Venezuela Doesn’t Have Enough Money to Pay for Its Money

Bloomberg: Venezuela’s epic shortages are nothing new at this point. No diapers or car parts or aspirin — it’s all been well documented. But now the country is at risk of running out of money itself.

In a tale that highlights the chaos of unbridled inflation, Venezuela is scrambling to print new bills fast enough to keep up with the torrid pace of price increases. Most of the cash, like nearly everything else in the oil-exporting country, is imported. And with hard currency reserves sinking to critically low levels, the central bank is doling out payments so slowly to foreign providers that they are foregoing further business.

Venezuela, in other words, is now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen industry executives, diplomats and former officials as well as internal company and central bank documents. All of the companies declined official comment; the central bank did not respond to numerous requests for interviews and comment.

Thronging Banks

The story began last year when the government of President Nicolas Maduro tried to tamp down a growing currency shortfall. Multi-million-dollar orders were placed with a slew of currency makers ahead of December elections and holidays, when Venezuelans throng banks to cash their bonuses.

At one point, instead of a public bidding process, the central bank called an emergency meeting and asked companies to produce as many bills as possible. The companies complied, only to find payments not fully forthcoming.

Last month, De La Rue, the world’s largest currency maker, sent a letter to the central bank complaining that it was owed $71 million and would inform its shareholders if the money were not forthcoming. The letter was leaked to a Venezuelan news website and confirmed by Bloomberg News.

“It’s an unprecedented case in history that a country with such high inflation cannot get new bills,” said Jose Guerra, an opposition law maker and former director of economic research at the central bank. Late last year, the central bank ordered more than 10 billion bank notes, surpassing the 7.6 billion the U.S. Federal Reserve requested this year for an economy many times the size of Venezuela’s.

Related: Venezuela Orders Five-Day Weekends in Bid to Save Power Grid

World’s Highest Inflation

The currency crisis sheds light on the magnitude of the country’s financial woes and its limited ability to remedy them as oil — the mainstay of its economy — continues to flatline. Venezuela’s inflation, the world’s highest, is expected to rise this year to close to 500 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The first signs of the currency shortage date back to 2014 when the government began increasing shipments of bank notes as wallet-busting wads of cash were already needed for simple transactions. Venezuelans spend hours waiting in line for consumer staples, lining up first at banks and cash machines, often carrying the loot in backpacks and gym bags to pay for dinner out.

Ahead of the 2015 congressional elections, the central bank tapped the U.K.’s De La Rue, France’s Oberthur Fiduciaire and Germany’s Giesecke & Devrient to bring in some 2.6 billion notes, according to bank documents and people familiar with the deals. Before the delivery was completed, the bank approached the companies directly for more.

De La Rue took the lion’s share of the 3-billion-note order and enlisted the Ottawa-based Canadian Bank Note Company to ensure it could meet a tight end-of-year deadline.

Sniper Cover

The cash arrived in dozens of 747 jets and chartered planes. Under cover of security forces and snipers, it was transferred to armored caravans where it was spirited to the central bank in dead of night.

While the cash was still arriving — at times, multiple planeloads a day — authorities set their sights on the year ahead. In late 2015, the central bank more than tripled its original order, offering tenders for some 10.2 billion bank notes, according to industry sources.

But currency companies were worried. According to company documents, De La Rue began experiencing delays in payment as early as June. Similarly, the bank was slow to pay Giesecke & Devrient and Oberthur Fiduciaire. So when the tender was offered, the government only received about 3.3 billion in bids, bank documents show.

“Initially, your eyes grow as big as dish plates,” said one person familiar with matter. “An order big enough to fill your factory for a year, but do you want to completely expose yourself to a country as risky as Venezuela?”

Further complicating matters is the sheer amount of bills needed for basic transactions. Venezuela’s largest bill, the 100-bolivar note, today barely pays for a loose cigarette at a street kiosk.

Related: Venezuela acquired 1,800 Russian antiaircraft missiles in ’09

Uncharted Territory

As early as 2013, the central bank commissioned studies for 200 and 500 bolivar notes, former monetary officials say. Despite repeated assurances, no new denominations have been ordered, pushing Venezuela into uncharted territory by its refusal to produce larger bills while not fully paying providers.

Companies are backing away. With its traditional partners now unenthusiastic about taking on new business, the central bank is in negotiations with others, including Russia’s Goznack, and has a contract with Boston-based Crane Currency, according to documents and industry sources.

Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, who has studied hyperinflation for decades, says that to maintain faith in the currency when prices spiral, governments often add zeros to bank notes rather than flood the market.

“It’s a very bad sign to see people running around with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a hot dog,” he said. “Even the cash economy starts breaking down.”

*****  Iran missile base in Venezuela, BusinessInsider

In part from Forbes: In Venezuela, Maduro´s government (based on the legacy of the late Hugo Chávez), has continued the policies of the previous administration by strengthening ties with Russia, China, and Iran, in opposition to US influence. An example of this has been Venezuela´s growing oil exports to the Asian giant, going from 50,000 barrels per day in 2006 to roughly 600,000 barrels per day sent to China in 2014. These growing exports have been part of a wider strategy aimed at reducing dependency on exports to the United States, as well as being used to back loans provided by China that now exceed $56 billion. China has also expanded its investments in Venezuela by acquiring and developing a plethora of companies, along with the signing of large military contracts to provide Venezuelan armed forces with aircraft, radars, armored vehicles, and helicopters.

 

China´s influence has also extended to more moderate governments in the region as in the cases of Ecuador and Argentina. In the case of the latter, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner´s administration signed a treaty that included the establishing of a “space exploration site” in the Argentine Patagonia with very few public details on the purpose and functioning of these installations, which will be under complete control of Chinese government. Many security experts agree on the fact that not only is the agreement absolutely opaque on the intention of the site, but also that the presence of dual-purpose technologies allow the station to operate as an intelligence gathering platform. Argentina has also become a recipient of Chinese loans, and an important provider of commodities.

Returning to the Panama Summit, it becomes clear it has been successful for Obama´s foreign policy intentions because it achieved not only the “must-have” picture with Castro and the joint press conference, but also because it unveiled a new beginning in US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Also because at this juncture of the process it managed to avoid confrontation with Venezuela´s Maduro, just as his Bolivarian government begins to lose regional support. More from Forbes.

Clintons Paying Legal Fees for email Server Agent

Posted on by

 

In 2014, the Hillary server domain registration was changed to Perfect Privacy, a proxy company that allows domain users to shield their identities. It’s a common practice among domain owners who don’t want their personal information listed on a public database.

Per Gawker: A source says at least two top Clinton aides used her private email accounts to conduct government business, putting their official communications outside the control of federal record-keeping regulations.

The source named Philippe Reines and Abedin as the employees who used Clinton’s private email addresses in the course of their agency duties.

Reines served as deputy assistant secretary of state, and Abedin as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. They are two of Clinton’s most loyal confidantes in and out of the State Department, Gawker reported. More here.

Related: Lawyers for Hillary’s team

Report: Clintons Are Paying Legal Bills For Aide Who Registered Private Email Address

DailyCaller: The Clintons have paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to cover the legal bills for a Bill Clinton aide who sits at the center of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

That’s according to Washington Times opinion editor Monica Crowley who reports in a new column that a knowledgeable source tells her that the Clintons are covering legal expenses for Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president.

Such an arrangement would raise questions over whether the Clintons are paying Cooper’s bills in order to ensure that they have some oversight of his interactions with federal investigators. It would also raise questions about whether the Clintons are paying other aides’ legal costs.

Cooper registered clintonemail.com in his own name on Jan. 13, 2009. That email domain is the same one Hillary Clinton exclusively used to send work-related emails as secretary of state. Emails sent on that account were stored on a server that the Clintons kept at their personal residence in New York.

According to Crowley, Cooper’s role in helping set up Clinton’s mysterious email arrangement has put him in the FBI’s cross hairs. She reports:

A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations.

One wonders what, if anything, Mr. Cooper is telling the FBI —and whether the whole sordid Clinton house of cards will be left standing.

The FBI seized Clinton’s server last year after it was determined that some of her emails contained classified information. And now, investigators are reportedly poised to interview aides who have knowledge about the system.

And according to a Fox News report from earlier this year, the FBI’s investigation has expanded to a public corruption probe which centers on the intersection of the Clinton Foundation and State Department.

Cooper could also be embroiled in that aspect of the investigation, according to Crowley, who also works as a Fox News analyst.

The little-known Cooper has worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with close ties to the Clintons. Along with Doug Band — Bill Clinton’s former “body man,” a former counselor to the Clinton Foundation, and a co-founder of Teneo — Cooper kept in contact with Clinton’s State Department aides, emails from Clinton’s account show. One of those aides is Huma Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while also working for Teneo.

The overlap has raised questions over whether the Clinton Foundation and Teneo were using access to the State Department to help raise money and attract clients.

The possibility that the Clintons are paying legal bills for aides embroiled in the FBI investigation has already been broached by Congress.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley has asked lawyers for the Clintons and Abedin — as well as for former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Philippe Reines, and Jake Sullivan — if they have entered any “joint defense agreements.”

The Iowa Republican has asserted that such arrangements could pose conflicts of interest because they would help ensure that the Clinton insiders refrained from providing evidence that could be detrimental to the Clintons.

The lawyers have refused to say if those arrangements have been made.

Grassley has also asked whether the Clintons are covering legal costs for Bryan Pagliano, the former information technology specialist who set up and managed Clinton’s private email server. But Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall of the Clinton-connected law firm Akin Gump, has also refused to say if such an arrangement is in place. Pagliano has since entered an immunity deal with the FBI in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation.

Some evidence has emerged suggesting that the Clintons are paying legal bills for those embroiled in the email fiasco.

In October it was reported that the Denver-based IT company that handled Clinton’s server after she left the State Department had submitted an invoice to Clinton seeking payment for legal and public relations expenses.

The company, Platte River Networks, had control of Clinton’s server when it was turned over to the FBI. It billed Clinton’s accountant, Marcum LLP., nearly $50,000 for legal and PR expenses.

The Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to The Daily Caller’s requests for comment.

 

 

 

Congress to Bailout Puerto Rico

Posted on by

Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth and is a U.S. territory. With a population of 3.5 million people the country is deeply in debt. Congress has been in discussions for months to draft a resolution as it has a debt payment due May 1 of $422 million. Worse, there is a debt payment due July 1 of $2 billion. The island Constitution requires the payments to be made over those bills for infrastructure including drinking water, police, and other public services. The bondholders have a have control of the credit unions where normal citizens have a major risk of losing their wealth.

Related: Washington Debate on Puerto Rico Bailout

If Congress Is to Rescue Puerto Rico, Key Conservative Has These Conditions

DailySignal: As the House struggles to find consensus on a plan to rescue Puerto Rico from its debt crisis, an influential conservative lawmaker today laid out his expectations for what legislation should look like.

Rep. Raúl Labrador, who is Puerto Rican, has been quiet about the plan being crafted by the Natural Resources Committee since he is a member of the panel and a direct participant in the negotiations.

But Labrador broke his silence before Capitol Hill reporters at the monthly Conversations with Conservatives event, declaring that any solution to Puerto Rico’s fiscal problems “cannot affect our states.”

“To me it’s pretty simple: Whatever we do on Puerto Rico cannot affect our states and cannot affect the way we are going to respond to any fiscal crisis in the future for any of the states,” said Labrador, R-Idaho, a founding member of a group of conservatives called the House Freedom Caucus

Before he can endorse the bill, Labrador said, he wants assurances that it treats different classes of creditors fairly and doesn’t open the door for Congress to give authority to struggling states to restructure their debts.

Earlier this month, the Natural Resources Committee released a draft bill that would create an outside fiscal oversight board to manage a process by which Puerto Rico could restructure its $72 billion debt load

The committee is revising the bill due to opposition from Republicans, the Treasury Department, and Democrats, and the legislation is not expected to be ready before May 1, when a $422 million debt payment by Puerto Rico is due. House leaders hope to act before a $2 billion payment comes due July 1.

Some holders of general obligation bonds whose debt payments are guaranteed by the Puerto Rican constitution have said they want to be exempted from the restructuring process facilitated by the proposed seven-member board.

Labrador said he doesn’t believe it’s “right” for those bondholders to get that exemption, but he also thinks pensioners should not be given higher priority than bondholders.

The Treasury Department, at one point, was planning to put pension payments to retired public employees in Puerto Rico ahead of payments to bondholders, according to The New York Times. Labrador said he wants the committee’s bill to include language ensuring that “pensions are not getting any priority over the secure debt

“I have spent a lot of time talking to a bit more objective bond companies that don’t have debt in Puerto Rico, and that’s their main concern,” Labrador said, adding that their “main concern” was that when Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013, it gave priority to pensions. He added:

That was an anomaly, so the bond market was not affected in any way. If we do that with Puerto Rico [give pensioners priority], what’s going to happen in the bond market is they will see a pattern and when they see that pattern, they are going to be concerned the same thing is going to happen in Illinois, the same thing is going to happen in California. And when they see that, all of a sudden the bond markets are going to react and that is going to affect every one of our states’ bonds. And it will affect the interest we pay on our bonds.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has promised to act on a solution for Puerto Rico and its 3.5 million American citizens, with the hope he would be supported by a majority of Republicans.

Labrador’s endorsement would go a long way to ensuring that, considering his sway in the Freedom Caucus.

The Idaho Republican said he can get there, and that “conservatives can support a bill that gives debt restructuring to Puerto Rico,” but only under certain conditions:

The fight I am having right now with the people who drafted this bill is that they want language to be loose enough that can get votes from the Democrats. Well, guess what, if the language is loose enough, then you are going to be able to get around the language. So what we have to do is be explicit in deciding what this oversight board should be doing and what the parameters are for judging the debt in Puerto Rico. Unless we do that, I think we are doing a disservice to the people in the United States.

A major question is whether the writers of the bill can satisfy enough conservatives without scaring away too many Democrats.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the Freedom Caucus chairman, told reporters today that it shouldn’t matter which party carries the legislation to passage, as long as lawmakers work together to solve a problem.

“We should do the right thing,” said Jordan, R-Ohio. “Whether that means you will have Democrats who vote for it, I don’t know. I think if you do the right thing, then people will vote for it. So that’s what should drive this—that you are doing the right thing.”