Tag: dianne feinstein
Barrett Won’t Say Whether Medicare Is Constitutional

Barrett Won’t Say Whether Medicare Is Constitutional

On the third day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Senate confirmation hearing, ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) asked her some hard questions regarding protections for senior citizens — for which Barrett had no real answer.

"Do you agree with originalists who say that the Medicare program is unconstitutional?" Feinstein asked the Supreme Court nominee.

"Well, let's see," Barrett said, pondering a moment. "So I think I can't answer that question in the abstract."

During the course of proceedings, Feinstein also questioned Barrett about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which was signed into law in 1967 and prohibits employment discrimination against people 40 years of age and older.

"What do you understand to be the purpose of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?" asked Feinstein.

Barrett responded with a reference to Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., a case that came before her on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which centered on a 58-year-old plaintiff who sued for being overlooked for a job in favor of a less-experienced 29-year-old applicant.

"In Kleber v. CareFusion, I joined a majority," Barrett answered. "... and the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees, and the statute said employees, and so an applicant isn't an employee, so the majority said that the statute by its terms didn't cover the conduct."

In that case, Barrett joined her peers on the court in ruling against the plaintiff, finding that the age discrimination act does not protect applicants, only employees.

If confirmed, Barrett's long-standing opposition to the Affordable Care Act could jeopardize the health of seniors if she votes to overturn it in California v. Texas, which will come before the court just after Election Day.

The high court's decision on whether to strike down the entirety of the ACA will have a far-reaching effect on seniors who rely on its protections.

And it's not hard to read the handwriting on the wall. In 2012, Barrett signed a public statement alongside other leaders referring to Obamacare's contraception coverage as an "assault on religious liberty."

Five years later, she roundly critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he used unconstitutional loopholes in order to preserve Obamacare.

Seniors would be disproportionally affected if the health care law is struck down.

Sixty million Americans depend on Medicare, the federal program for Americans over 65 and those with disabilities. If Obamacare is repealed, Medicare beneficiaries will likely see a marked increase in the cost of prescription drugs and preventive care, as well as their health insurance premiums.

A vote against Obamacare would also get rid of a 0.9 percent payroll tax increase for the wealthy, which means Medicare funding for vulnerable groups like seniors and the disabled would be lower than ever.

Senior Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation Tricia Neuman said a repeal would be "very disruptive" for seniors and would touch "virtually every part of Medicare."

Moreover, Obama's health care law reformed nursing homes across the nation and improved oversight and protections for residents. It's clear that nursing homes facing an influx of coronavirus during a global pandemic would suffer irreparable harm — such as limited options for long-term care, lessened protections for residents, and decreased quality of care.

Anne Montgomery, a policy adviser to the Senate Special Committee on Aging who helped write Obamacare's nursing home provisions, said if it were repealed it would send to seniors "a very unhelpful message" that "nursing-home transparency, accountability and improvement" are "not so important."

Barrett's positions endangering seniors are par for the GOP course: Donald Trump came under well-deserved fire Tuesday night when he shared a meme scorning Joe Biden and depicting him as elderly and disabled.

And Trump trails Biden among senior voters — which is why he's desperately currying favor with them by launching a last-minute multimillion-dollar ad campaign.

But nominating a Supreme Court Justice who's an existential threat to American seniors isn't going to help his cause.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

WATCH: Barrett Deflects Questions On Roe, Despite Publicly Urging Its Reversal

WATCH: Barrett Deflects Questions On Roe, Despite Publicly Urging Its Reversal

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is refusing to say if she thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

During a back-and-forth question and answer session during her Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearing Tuesday morning, Coney Barrett made clear she would not give Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein an answer.

The Democratic Senator from California asked Coney Barrett at least three times, but she refused to answer, leaving Feinstein to reply, "it's distressing not to get a straight answer."

Feinstein continued, asking, "Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?"

"Senator I completely understand why you are asking the question," Coney Barrett replied. "But again, I can't pre commit or say yes I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not, I don't have any agenda, I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey, I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come."

Feinstein moved forward.

"I don't know if you'll answer this one either. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court?"

That's when Coney Barrett appeared to hint that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, saying the "contours" of the case "could come up again.""I think my answer is the same, because, you know, that's a case that's litigated, it could, you know its contours could come up again in fact do come up, you know, they came up last term before the court."

Feinstein concluded, "Well, that makes it difficult for me. And I think for other women also on this committee."

Right wing extremists have been trying to strip women of their constitutional right to abortion for decades.

Mother Jones D.C. bureau chief and MSNBC analyst David Corn responded, saying Coney Barrett "signed at least two ads decrying Roe and calling for overturning it so abortion could be criminalized. That sounds like an agenda."

Roe v. Wade is the landmark Supreme Court ruling that found a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. It has been the law of the land since 1973.

Watch:

Caught Dumping Stocks, Sen. Burr Requests Ethics Investigation

Caught Dumping Stocks, Sen. Burr Requests Ethics Investigation

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica.

Sen. Richard Burr, the powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, requested a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his stock trading, a day after ProPublica and the Center for Responsive Politics reported that he had dumped significant amounts of shares before the market crash triggered by the coronavirus outbreak.

Burr unloaded between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions, a significant portion of his total stock holdings. The sales came soon after he offered public assurances that the government was ready to battle the coronavirus.

On Twitter Friday morning, Burr defended the sell-off. “I relied solely on public news reports to guide my decision regarding the sale of stocks on February 13,” he said. “Specifically, I closely followed CNBC’s daily health and science reporting out of its Asia bureaus at the time.” He asked for the ethics committee to “open a complete review of the matter with full transparency.”

The ethics committee can recommend disciplinary action against lawmakers and refer potentially criminal violations to law enforcement. But it has been criticized for being too lax. It is illegal for members of Congress to trade shares on non-public information they gather in the course of their work. But cases are rare because proving that a politician relied on such non-public information is difficult.

As the head of the intelligence committee, Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security. His committee was receiving daily coronavirus briefings around this time, according to a Reuters story.

A week after Burr’s sales, the stock market began a sharp decline and has lost about 30% since.

After the story published, Burr faced a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle. Former Obama administration officials along with prominent Trump allies blasted Burr’s stock sales. Calls for his resignation came from both ends of the political spectrum, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Thom Tillis, North Carolina’s junior senator, said on Friday that a review by the ethics committee was warranted. “Given the circumstances, Senator Burr owes North Carolinians an explanation,” Tillis, a Republican, wrote.

Throughout the day Thursday, news outlets reported instances of other lawmakers who also sold off stock before the market tanked.

The Daily Beast reported that Kelly Loeffler, a Georgia Republican who took office this year, sold off stocks jointly owned with her husband worth between $1.2 million and $3.1 million in the weeks after senators received a private briefing on the coronavirus from the Trump administration. Loeffler’s husband is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. In response, Loeffler posted on Twitter early on Friday morning that “this is a ridiculous and baseless attack. I do not make investment decisions for my portfolio. Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband’s knowledge or involvement.”

Other senators who sold off stocks this year include Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee. Reports with the Senate show that Inhofe sold shares worth between $380,000 and $830,000 both before and after the briefing, which Inhofe did not attend. “I do not have any involvement in my investment decisions,” Inhofe posted on Twitter on Friday. “In December 2018, shortly after becoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I instructed my financial advisor to move me out of all stocks and into mutual funds to avoid any appearance of controversy.”

Reports of sales by other senators surfaced as well. But those sales were less anomalous or noteworthy. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, reported selling shares in a private firm he ran, Pacur LLC, worth between $5 million and $25 million. That transaction took place on March 2. The deal had apparently been in the works for some time and had been announced on Feb. 11.

In another case generating headlines, filings also show large sales reported by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who serves on the Intelligence Committee alongside Burr. But they only involved one stock. Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, sold off shares in Allogene Therapeutics Inc. worth between $1.5 million and $6 million on Jan. 31 and Feb. 18. Blum is a frequent stock trader, according to Feinstein’s financial disclosures, and appears to have taken a loss on at least a portion of the shares he sold.

Asked about senators making stock trades at a press conference Friday, President Trump said “I’m not aware of it, I saw some names.”

He added, “I find them to all be very honorable people, that’s all I know and they said they did nothing wrong.” The only senator he addressed by name was Dianne Feinstein, and complained that reporters at the press conference were not noting her stock trades.

By the standards of the Senate, Burr is not particularly wealthy: Roll Call estimated his net worth at $1.7 million in 2018, indicating that the February sales significantly shaped his financial fortunes and spared him from some of the pain that many Americans are now facing.

He was one of the authors of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which shapes the nation’s response to public health threats like the coronavirus. Burr’s office did not respond to requests for comment about what sort of briefing materials, if any, on the coronavirus threat Burr may have seen as chair of the intelligence committee before his selling spree.

According to NPR, Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more gloomy preview of the economic impact of the coronavirus than what he had told the public, saying it might close schools and impede business travel. In response, Burr said the NPR report was misleading.

Burr’s public comments had been considerably more positive. In a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator, he assured the public that “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.” He wrote, “No matter the outbreak or threat, Congress and the federal government have been vigilant in identifying gaps in its readiness efforts and improving its response capabilities.”

Members of Congress are required by law to disclose their securities transactions.

Burr was one of just three senators who in 2012 opposed the bill that explicitly barred lawmakers and their staff from using nonpublic information for trades and required regular disclosure of those trades. In opposing the bill, Burr argued at the time that insider trading laws already applied to members of Congress. President Barack Obama signed the bill, known as the STOCK Act, that year.

Stock transactions of lawmakers are reported in ranges. Burr’s Feb. 13 selling spree was his largest stock selling day of at least the past 14 months, according to a ProPublica review of Senate records. Unlike his typical disclosure reports, which are a mix of sales and purchases, all of the transactions were sales.

His biggest sales included companies that are among the most vulnerable to an economic slowdown. He dumped up to $150,000 worth of shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, a chain based in the United States that has lost two-thirds of its value. And he sold up to $100,000 of shares of Extended Stay America, an economy hospitality chain. Shares of that company are now worth less than half of what they did at the time Burr sold.

The assets come from accounts that are held by Burr, belong to his spouse or are jointly held.

IMAGE: Senator Richard Burr (R-NC).

Barr: Trump Instructing White House Counsel To Lie Is ‘Not A Crime’

Barr: Trump Instructing White House Counsel To Lie Is ‘Not A Crime’

Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Attorney General William Barr claimed on Wednesday morning that Trump instructing his top White House lawyer to lie “is not a crime.”

After Barr gave a long answer defending Trump, Feinstein asked a simple follow-up question about the time Trump demanded Don McGahn, who was then the White House counsel, to lie about Trump’s request that McGahn get rid of Mueller.

“You still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself — ” Feinstein started to say before Barr interrupted her.

“Well, that’s not a crime,” Barr said.

“So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?” a stunned Feinstein asked after a brief pause.

Barr stumbled through a response, pretending there was a distinction between Trump telling McGahn that Mueller “has to go” and Trump literally telling McGahn to fire Mueller using specific language to do so.

According to the Mueller report, McGahn says that in June 2017, Trump called him twice and told him that “Mueller has to go.” The White House counsel refused to fire Mueller, and then threatened to resign because Trump asked him to do “crazy shit.”

Trump later tried to get McGahn to lie about the interaction.

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates described Trump’s interaction with McGahn as one of the strongest cases of obstruction of justice in the entire Mueller report.

“I’ve personally prosecuted obstruction cases on far, far less evidence than” what is in the Mueller report, Yates said on Sunday. “And yes, I believe that if he were not the president of the United States, he would likely be indicted on obstruction.”

But Barr is so desperate to cover up for Trump’s misdeeds that he’s willing to argue that if a president tries to fire the special counsel investigating him, and then asks a top government lawyer to lie about it, that somehow doesn’t count as obstructing justice.

Published with permission of The American Independent.