Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Death Benefits Still Not Paid for Benghazi

Posted on by

Family of American Killed in Benghazi Awaits Promised Funds

NYT > WASHINGTON — Family members of Glen Doherty, a C.I.A. contractor and a former Navy SEAL who was among four Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, said they felt a sense of closure when they were told last December that the agency had finally agreed to pay Mr. Doherty’s death benefits.

“It was such a great Christmas gift that all this hard work and time and energy that we put in was finally done,” said Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty’s sister, of the family’s effort in fighting for the funds. “We felt like it was honoring his name and his legacy.”

But a year later, the Doherty family has yet to see any federal money. Bureaucratic delays continue, even as the C.I.A. and Congress are now in agreement that paying the death benefit is the right thing to do.

The family’s fight has been overshadowed by the politics and recriminations surrounding the House Select Committee on Benghazi, whose Republican members have sharply criticized Hillary Clinton for what they say was her failure as secretary of state to secure the diplomatic compound in which Mr. Doherty and the other Americans died.

Mr. Doherty’s family members say he did not realize that the life insurance package he was legally required to buy from a private provider as a C.I.A. contractor would not pay death benefits — beyond funeral costs — if the deceased had no spouse or offspring. Mr. Doherty was single and did not have any children.

“An injustice has been done in his name,” Mrs. Quigley said in a recent telephone interview. “Seventeen years, he devoted his life to protecting this country.”

In response to the Doherty family’s efforts, the C.I.A. has proposed changing one of its administrative policies to allow it to pay up to $400,000 in death benefits to Mr. Doherty’s family and to families of terrorist attack victims in similar situations. The change would be retroactive to April 18, 1983, when suicide bombers killed dozens of people at the American Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

The proposed policy, which is modeled after one adopted by the State Department for the 2014 fiscal year, would use C.I.A. funds rather than insurance money to pay the families, providing a stopgap for those otherwise unable to collect benefits.

After months of debating the particulars of the proposal, four congressional committees responsible for approving it have done so, but the House defense appropriations subcommittee has told the C.I.A. it must find money for the death benefits in a different part of its budget than the agency initially proposed. The committees are now awaiting the C.I.A.’s response, which they must all approve.

“We are involved in a little game of Ping-Pong here,” said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has pushed for the rule change on Capitol Hill. “And I feel like we’re getting close, but I don’t want to take an eye off the ball.”

Mr. Lynch said that the rule change would most likely affect several dozen families. The C.I.A. declined to comment.

Mr. Lynch, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight national security subcommittee, introduced legislation in January to go further than the internal C.I.A. change and update what he and others called an outmoded law. His measure would amend the 1941 Defense Base Act, which requires overseas contractors — including those working for the C.I.A. — to carry disability and life insurance. But it allows death benefits only to surviving spouses or children.

Despite gaining the support of Senators John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans, the legislation has found little traction on Capitol Hill, which Mr. Lynch said in an interview might be because of its relatively narrow focus.

Jerry Komisar, the president of the C.I.A. Officers Memorial Foundation, which offers financial support to the families of officers killed in the line of duty, said that the death benefit of up to $400,000, while modest, would provide a much-needed lift to families.

“The demands on C.I.A. officers to serve on some of these hazardous assignments is going up,” said Mr. Komisar, a former member of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service. “The more we do to help incentivize them the better.”

Over the past three years, Mrs. Quigley, 42, said she has made dozens of phone calls and news media appearances, as well as trips from her home in Boston to lobby lawmakers in Washington. She has also met with members of the Benghazi committee, who she said pledged support. (Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee, said its chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, has worked behind the scenes to help the family.)

My family have been trying to persuade me to look at a lawyer specialising in wrongful deaths and survival actions. But at times I just found it too much, particularly as there are so many law firms out there. I realise now that I probably shouldn’t have been so worried about getting the right lawyer involved, as it is so easy to do. A lot of law firms simply ask something like can you contact our wrongful death lawyers and you’ll hopefully get your lawsuit sorted. At one point, the family had been considering bringing a $1 million wrongful death suit against the C.I.A. and the State Department. But it decided not to press the suit after the C.I.A. agreed to the policy change. The family settled a separate suit against Rutherfoord, the insurance firm that sold Mr. Doherty his policy.

Mr. Doherty, who was 42 when he died, had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and had been hired by the C.I.A. to help with security and surveillance in Libya. According to Mrs. Quigley, her brother had designated a friend, Sean Lake, as the executor of his estate and did not know he would be unable to collect and distribute insurance benefits to the family as they had planned.

“The basic impetus of this is that this young man, a former Navy SEAL, agreed to serve us in a very meaningful way, in several very dangerous theaters,” said Mr. Lynch, who does not represent the family’s home district, but became involved in its efforts early on.

Under Obama, Inspector Generals are Stonewalled

Posted on by

Congress holds hearing for testimony from Inspector Generals. In early 2015, 46 IGs signed their name to a letter expressing concerns that agency officials systematically compromise IG independence by denying them full access.

In 2014:

AmericanThinker: AT News Director Ed Lasky has chronicled the shameful problems with Obama administration inspector generals for years, including the political pressures put on IG’s in almost every department of the administration.

A perfect illustration of this is former DHS IG Charles Edwards, who deliberately slowed investigations into wrongdoing at DHS, including the shredding of dozens of emails – an act that might send him to jail for obstruction of justice.

 

IGs: At Least 20 Investigations Slowed or Closed Due To Obama Admin

FreeBeacon: Numerous inspectors general say that at least 20 investigations have been slowed or closed due to government watchdogs not having access to needed documents or records under the Obama administration.

Dozens of interviews of people with firsthand knowledge of the years-long problem spoke of the tensions between the watchdogs and the administration.

The New York Times reports:

The Drug Enforcement Administration balked at turning over emails from senior officials tied to the raids, according to the department’s inspector general. It took nearly a year of wrangling before the D.E.A. was willing to turn over all its records in a case that the inspector general said raised “serious questions” about agents’ use of deadly force.

The continuing Honduran inquiry is one of at least 20 investigations across the government that have been slowed, stymied or sometimes closed because of a long-simmering dispute between the Obama administration and its own watchdogs over the shrinking access of inspectors general to confidential records, according to records and interviews.

The impasse has hampered investigations into an array of programs and abuse reports — from allegations of sexual assaults in the Peace Corps to the FBI’s terrorism powers, officials said. And it has threatened to roll back more than three decades of policy giving the watchdogs unfettered access to “all records” in their investigations.

“The bottom line is that we’re no longer independent,” Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, said in an interview.

The restrictions reflect a broader effort by the Obama administration to prevent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information — at the expense, some watchdogs insist, of government oversight.

In recent years, inspector generals have increasingly said the Obama administration is making it more difficult to acquire information as 47 of the 73 government IGs sent a letter to Obama last year for stonewalling their investigations.

The press additionally has chastised the Obama administration for lack of access to records as well. In March 2015, the Obama administration set a record for withholding government information despite promising to lead the most transparent administration in history.

Rahm Takes Family to Cuba for Vacation, Huh?

Posted on by

Emanuel Snaps at Politico Reporter for Revealing His Plans to Vacation in Cuba

In part WSJ: Should he call it a vacation? Lawyers said it was ok, so long as Mr. Emanuel and his family fall under one of the 12 categories.

“There are people who go on an archaeological dig on vacation, or harvest wine or go take classes,” said Augosto Maxwell, head of the Cuba practice at Miami-based law firm Akerman. “I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all to call it a vacation.”

A likely way for the Emanuels to travel to Cuba would be through a people-to-people exchange. They could travel with a group, or a travel company could arrange a private schedule for their family with activities that would fall under the “people-to-people” category.

People who travel to Cuba under the people-to-people category currently can’t go on their own and must go on organized trips with full schedules that usually include meetings, lectures, visits to small businesses, community projects, etc.

Before the regulations were loosened, Beyonce and Jay-Z took a much criticized trip to the island, but ultimately the Treasury Department determined their travel was legal as it was organized by a nonprofit with a license to organize “people-to-people” trips. Since the policy shift, organizations no longer need special licenses to organize such trips.

Other celebrities who have traveled to Cuba since the loosening of rules include Rihanna, Usher, Mick Jagger, Katy Perry, Paris Hilton and Naomi Campbell. The island has also received visits this year from three cabinet secretaries, three governors and scores of lawmakers. President Barack Obama hopes to travel to Cuba before leaving office.

Cuba needs cows and sugar, perhaps that is why Rahm Emanuel is really going there to represent some crony business opportunities. The black market thrives in Cuba, so  Rahm should be quite familiar with that.

Meanwhile, we have normalized relations with Cuba, well kinda sorta. So who is part of that team to continue nurturing the relationship?

A lingering chapter of the Cold War closed in December 2014, when the United States announced it would re-establish full relations with Cuba. Leading the reconciliation were two White House aides, Ben Rhodes and Ricardo Zuniga, who spearheaded more than 70 hours of secret talks with Havana on previously intractable issues such as prisoner swaps and easing economic sanctions.

In 2015, the State Department’s Roberta Jacobson and the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s Josefina Vidal seized the diplomacy baton, meeting to hash out the détente’s nuts and bolts. They sometimes clashed (on both countries’ harboring of fugitives, for instance) and faced complex politics (for example, Fidel Castro’s public call for the relinquishing of U.S. control of Guantánamo Bay, which the United States isn’t prepared to accept). Yet they still laid the groundwork for a new era of cooperation: In July, the United States and Cuba reopened their respective embassies in Havana and Washington for the first time in a half-century.

 

Hidden Inside the Highway Bill

Posted on by

8 tidbits from the highway bill

By Jamie Dupree

As Congressional negotiators unveiled a more than 1300 hundred page highway construction bill on Tuesday, a quick peek inside the plan showed that it contains provisions that are about much more than just building new roads and bridges across the United States.

For those who want to look at the entire bill, you can read the measure here.

If you read on, here are eight items from the finalized highway bill that caught my eye:

1. Renewal of the Export-Import Bank – More conservative Republicans had tried to get rid of this government agency, but there were simply too many supporters in both parties in the House and Senate, as a provision to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank was included in this bill.

2. Amtrak must cut out its food losses – After Congressional hearings and internal reports that detailed how Amtrak loses millions each year, this bill forces Amtrak to make major changes, and end those financial losses on food and beverage sales within five years. One report found that a $9 cheeseburger sold on board a train really cost Amtrak $16 – as taxpayers picked up the extra cost.

3. Sec. 1409 Milk Products – Here is your research assignment: find out why this language is being added to Section 127 (a) of Title 23, United States Code – “(13) Milk Products – A vehicle carrying fluid milk products shall be considered a load that cannot be easily dismantled or divided.”

4. Motorcyclist Advisory Council – If you ride a motorcycle, you might be able to join a motorcyclist advisory council that would be created by this bill. It would seek input from motorcycle riders on the design of barriers, roads, and the “architecture and implementation of intelligent transportation system technologies.’

5. Higher fines for automakers – The highway bill has a provision that allows the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to levy fines of up to $105 million on automakers that withhold information on automobile safety defects. The current limit on fines is $35 million.

6. Positive Train Control – The highway bill authorizes $199 million in grants to help pay for “positive train control” – a computerized technological effort that would help prevent train crashes and accidents, by automatically bringing a train to a stop. Supporters argue that same system could have prevented a recent crash outside of Philadelphia, where an Amtrak passenger train jumped the tracks, killing eight people and injuring over 200 others.

7a. Studies and more studies – Congress loves to order the executive branch to study things. And this bill is no different, as it requires a half dozen studies – they include, a study on the performance of bridges, a study on locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings, and one on the national roadside survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers.

7b. Reports and more reports – Congress loves to order the Executive Branch to file reports on all sorts of subjects, and this highway bill is no different. I found at least a dozen new reports – everything from a report on refunds to registered vendors of kerosene used in noncommercial aviation to a report on vertical track deflection to a report on the design and implementation of wireless roadside inspection systems.

Recreational boating – The highway bill also includes language on recreational boating, which would include up to $1.5 million for “a survey of levels of recreational boating participation and related matters in the United States.”

Hillary and the Russian Uranium Scandal

Posted on by

Don’t you wonder why Debbie Wasserman Schultz has not challenged Hillary on this? Exactly what do those Hillary supporters know and ignore?

Judicial Watch Sues Treasury for Records on Hillary Clinton-Russian Uranium Scandal

Update: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) responded today that it allegedly had no records.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking communications between the U.S. Department of the Treasury and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:15-cv-01776)).

The goal of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit is to gain access to documents involving a uranium deal approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton that is tied to major Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra and Russian-state issues.

The lawsuit was filed after the Treasury Department ignored a FOIA request sent on May 29, 2015.  Judicial Watch’s request seeks emails between key Treasury agencies and Hillary Clinton non-governmental email accounts:

  • All records of email communications between the Office of Foreign Assets Control and any “clintonemail.com” address, including but not limited to [email protected] and [email protected];
  • All records of email communications between the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. and any “clintonemail.com” address, including but not limited to [email protected] and [email protected]; and
  • All records of email communications between the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury and any “clintonemail.com” address, including but not limited to [email protected] and [email protected].

Judicial Watch is investigating a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One.  The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days.  Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Peter Scheweizer’s book Clinton Cash first raised questions about the Uranium One deal, which benefited many donors to the Clinton Foundation, including Giustra, who, among other dealings, helped set up a Clinton Foundation entity in Canada that had the effect of hiding donations from foreign governments and others from public disclosure, despite promises of disclosure by Hillary Clinton and the Foundation.

As the New York Times reported on April 23, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the deal approved by Mrs. Clinton and CFIUS:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The documents from Treasury should shed light on the apparent conflict of interest between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the expedited approval process.  Under United States law, uranium is considered a strategic asset; therefore, any such deal must be approved by a committee of U.S. government officials. The CFIUS board, which is tasked with reviewing all foreign acquisitions of American national security assets, consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury. In 2010, Jose W. Fernandez represented the State Department on the CFIUS board, and the documents sought by Judicial Watch lawsuit should clarify whether Clinton failed to disclose to Fernandez that several executives at Uranium One made millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately before and after CFIUS reviewed and approved the ARMZ-Uranium One deal.

Separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflicts-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.  Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.  The August 13, 2014, investigative report that first disclosed the Clinton financial dealings, “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions,” is available here.

The approval of this deal made millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., and made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers.

“Hillary Clinton’s cash and secrecy on this Russian uranium deal looks corrupt and criminal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now that his Treasury Department violated FOIA to cover up yet another Clinton scandal, there is no daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this scandal that placed our nation’s security at risk.”