Mediaboss Marketing

Last month, the nonpartisan Department of Justice inspector general released the findings of his investigation into the Drug Enforcement Administrations regulation of the ever-growing opioid crisis from 2010 to 2017.

The inspector general reported that the DEAs Office of Diversion Control exacerbated the opioid crisis by failing many of its most basic functions to create and enforce regulations to protect the public interest against the diversion and misuse of prescription opioid pain killers.

The Controlled Substances Act vests nearly all federal power to regulate opioids in the U.S. Department of Justice, under which the Office of Diversion Control is responsible for setting annual production and manufacturing quotas. It issues licenses (called registrations) for manufacturers, distributors, prescribers, and pharmacists, and it has the power and responsibility to deny applications or revoke registrations that are not in the public interest."

During the 2018 election cycle, Democrats railed against everyone in the supply chain, except the people vested with national authority to make the changes needed. And since the release of the inspector generals report, their silence is deafening. The regulation of prescription opioids during the eight years under President Obama is the elephant in the room that the mainstream media and lawmakers are talking over, under, and around. But the inspector general has laid it all out for us to see and use as a roadmap back to safe and sane regulation of much-needed pain-relief medicine and a reduction in overdose deaths and addiction.

The inspector general revealed that from 2003 through 2013, the DEAs Office of Diversion Control approved increasing the aggregate production quota for opioids by more than 400%. The Office of Diversion Control also increased active registrants to 1.6 million from 2005 to 2015, an increase of 45%. Meanwhile, from 2013 to 2017, opioid deaths rose by 71% all while the DEA kept increasing the allowable flow of the drug in the marketplace.

The inspector general reported that the Office of Diversion Control did not conduct background checks or otherwise check-out applicants properly. In essence, the Office of Diversion Control was rubber-stamping registrations to produce, deliver, prescribe, and sell opioids without performing even simple background checks or going beyond applicants' affirmations, via checkbox, that they lacked criminal records.

Registrants are required to submit suspicious orders to the Office of Diversion Control; the purpose of those reports is to identify rogue doctors and pharmacies that may be overprescribing opioids. The reports are supposed to be housed in the Suspicious Order Reporting System, which was not even created until 2008. Unfortunately, that system was unable to properly detect drug diversion because most of the reports were sent to DEA field offices and never uploaded to the database. This is how, of the 1,400 manufacturers and distributors required to submit suspicious order reports, the DEA database only included reports from the eight manufacturers and distributors that had agreements to send the reports to DEA headquarters. Amazingly, when the inspector general asked for the reports that had not been uploaded, the field offices were unable to locate them.

So although several drug distributors ended up footing a $260 million bill for the economic burden that two Ohio counties suffered from the opioid crisis, the actions and inactions of the last administration are what really put the opioid crisis into overdrive.

The real power of a congressional investigation and hearings is to make real policy changes that can make life better for everyday Americans. This is one such opportunity. Congress owes it to its constituents to immediately begin an investigation into how the previous administrations Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration utterly failed to take even the most basic steps to stop the opioid crisis in its tracks.

Ian Prior iis former principal deputy director of public affairs at the Department of Justice.

See original here:
The Obama administration's overlooked failure on opioids - Washington Examiner

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., ripped Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during the Democratic debate in Atlanta, tearing into the Hawaii congresswoman for her comments on Democratsand accusing her of bashing President Barack Obama on Fox News.

The attack came after Gabbard said the Democratic Party "is not the party that is of, by and for the people." In response, Harris accused Gabbard of being harsh toward Democrats while cozying up to President Donald Trump and his former chief strategist Steve Bannon.

"I think that its unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States who during the Obama administration spent four years, full time, on Fox News criticizing President Obama," Harris said.

We decided to dig into the archives and examine Gabbards record as a guest on Fox News, a network considered friendly to Trump and his Republican allies.

Saying Gabbard was on Fox "full time" seems like an exaggeration, but Gabbard did make frequent appearances on the network during Obamas second term. And she often bashed the former presidents foreign policy in the process.

As for Harris, she appeared just once on "Hannity" in 2009 to talk about health care while she was San Franciscos district attorney, we found.

A frequent Fox News guest

Gabbards arrival in Congress overlapped with the start of Obamas second term. From 2013 to 2017, she became a regular guest on Fox News. Its important to note that Gabbard was appearing as a sitting member of Congress, not as a pundit

Searching the Nexis database, we counted more than 20 appearances Gabbard made on Fox News while Obama was in office. That does not include times when she was mentioned on Fox News or featured in video clips the networks hosts played on air.

She was interviewed by a number of current and former Fox News hosts, from anchor Greta Van Susteren to talk show host Tucker Carlson.

Gabbard criticized Obamas foreign policy

Gabbards anti-war foreign policy views have long put her at odds with members of both parties who believe the United States should have an active hand in resolving international issues.

As she campaigns for the White House, Gabbard has promised to fight for peace and stay out of what she calls "regime-change wars" overseas.

RELATED STORY: Why Tulsi Gabbard calls the war in Syria a regime change war

Not surprisingly, her early appearances on Fox News were often critical of the Obama administrations actions to combat terrorism and manage other issues in the Middle East.

In a September 2013 interview with Van Susteren, Gabbard said she was against military strikes as Obama was weighing whether to authorize them against the Syrian government.

In June 2014 and August 2014 interviews on the same show, she shared concerns about Obamas decisions to send military advisers to Iraq and target the Islamic State with airstrikes.

Gabbard ramped up her appearances in 2015, going on Fox News several times to blast Obama over his refusal to refer to the Islamic States beliefs and terrorism as "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam."

"Unless you clearly identify your enemy, then you cannot come up with a very effective strategy to defeat that enemy," she told host Neil Cavuto on Jan. 21, 2015.

"This is not just about words. It's not about semantics," she told Van Susteren days later. "It's really about having a real, true understanding of who our enemy is and how important that is."

She later criticized the administrations strategy to defeat ISIS, telling Van Susteren that "the White House needs to change its policy" and give more support to U.S. allies in the Middle East.

And she repeatedly appeared on Fox News to argue that the United States should not work to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, at one point warning that removing Assad would leave Syria as a repeat of "the failed Libyan state" she said Obamas foreign policy helped produce.

Gabbard touched on other topics in foreign policy, as well. She weighed in on Israel and the then-ongoing negotiations with Iran over the countrys efforts to build nuclear weapons, which she said should result in a deal that allowed Iranian sites to be inspected without warning.

She also stepped outside of the foreign policy arena, at one point condemning the Democratic National Committee for allegedly disinviting her from a primary debate in October 2015, while she was the committees vice chair, andoffering the then-candidates debate advice.

But even then, her advice to candidates sounded like a swipe against Obama when she said they should answer questions on Syria by speaking out against Turkeys "targeting" of the United States Kurdish allies in the region.

"The fact that the administration has stood silently by and allowed this to happen, including NATO, I think it's important for those candidates on the stage tonight to address this situation and to address how they will approach this and taking action," she said.

Gabbard has returned to Fox News more than a few times this go-around, joining Carlson and fellow talk show host Sean Hannityto discuss her foreign policy views, the criteria for qualifying for this years Democratic debates and former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons suggestion that Gabbard is a "Russian asset."

Read the original here:
Tulsi Gabbard's Fox News presence in the Obama years - PolitiFact

President Trump suggested that Barack Obama knew of the allegedly illegal conduct committed in order to obtain a warrant to spy on onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

A former low-level attorney with the FBI is being accused of altering a document that led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court granting permission to spy on Page. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz uncovered the document during his investigation into alleged FISA abuse and passed along the information to U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is pursuing a criminal investigation into the origin of the Russia investigation.

Trump was asked about the attorney who's under investigation during a Friday morning interview on Fox & Friends. He suggested Durham's report will be "historic," leading anchor Steve Doocy to ask if he believes "it could actually go up into the West Wing of the Obama administration?"

"What youre dealing at the highest levels of government," Trump answered. "They were spying on my campaign. This is my opinion. I said it a long time ago. Remember when I put out a tweet? And I talked about the wiretapping, in quotes, meaning modern-day version whatever wiretapping may be. And all hell broke loose."

The president then added, "I think, personally, it went all the way."

"For [John] Brennan, and for [James] Clapper, and for all of these losers that you had over there, I think it is impossible for them to be doing things, and lets see what it all says," he went on. "But its impossible Susan Rice, the person that worked at the United Nations, who went after FISA reports and went after reports like she ate them for lunch. Look at the previous administration; they went after like a few. She was getting them at levels nobody even imagined before. It had nothing to do with her. No, I think this goes to the highest level. I hate to say it. I think its a disgrace."

The change the lawyer who forged the document made was substantive enough to change its meaning. That individual was interviewed by Horowitz. No charges appear to have been filed in court at this time.

The rest is here:
Trump believes Obama knew of forged document related to Carter Page surveillance - Washington Examiner

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump toldFox & Friendsthat spygate the Obama administration's surveillance on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election based on the false pretense of Trump being in league with Russia will be "perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country." He said Attorney General Bill Barr's investigation of FISA abuses and U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal investigation will prove "historic," and he predicted that the investigations will implicate former President Barack Obama himself.

"Now, what youre going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country, political scandal," Trump said. "You have a FISA report coming out which the word is, its historic, that is what the word is. Thats what I hear. And if its historic, you will see something. And then perhaps even more importantly you have Durham coming out shortly thereafter. He is the U.S. Attorney and he is already announced its criminal."

"You know, a lot of people say deep state. I dont like to use the word deep state. I just say theyre really bad and sick people," the president added.

Peter Doocy noted that Trump had previously suggested"that this might go much higher than the Department of Justice or the FBI during the Obama Administration." He asked the president if spygate "could actually go up into the West Wing of the Obama administration."

Trump said it traces back to "the highest levels of government. They were spying on my campaign. That is my opinion."

"How high did it go, Mr. President? How high did it go?" Doocy pressed.

"I think personally, I think it goes all the way," Trump responded.

"I hate to say it. I think its a disgrace. They thought I was going to win and they said, 'How can we stop him?' They wrote up the phony, fake dossier, the disgusting fake dossier, and they tried to have it put out prior to the election just to show you how incompetent they were," he said. "They spent millions and millions of dollars, Hillary Clinton paid for it, and the Democrats."

Trump went on to suggest that Ukraine has a Democratic National Committee server that CrowdStrike refused to hand over to the FBI, but he did not name a source for that disputed information. Many have denounced as a conspiracy theory the president's claim that the server is in Ukraine. Whatever the merits of his claim, the Barr and Durham investigations indeed seem likely to be historic.

During the interview, the president also hit on the texts between former FBI staffers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

"I can only say that we have a lot of information that a lot of bad things happened. And when you look at Strzok and Page with the insurance policy where, you know, the two lovers, the two great lovers from the FBI, where he is saying, 'Oh, she is going to win 100 million to nothing, but just in case she loses we have an insurance policy,'" Trump said. "That means, you know, were going to take him down, well take down the president. You wouldnt even believe this is possible. But the insurance policy, that was a very big find."

As Andrew McCarthy explains in his bookBall of Collusion, it was patently absurd to think Trump was in league with Russia during the 2016 election, because the only evidence showed a meeting between Carter Page a very marginal Trump figure and a very marginal Russian figure. Yet the Obama administration launched a counter-intelligence investigation without notifying Trump or alerting him to the danger of Russian efforts in his campaign.

Furthermore, Obama rightly insisted that Russia could not undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election right up until the point when Trump won. Before that, Obama thought Clinton was going to win, and he didn't want to undermine her legitimacy. There is good reason to suggest spygate traces all the way to the top.

Follow Tyler O'Neil, the author of this article, on Twitter at@Tyler2ONeil.

Follow this link:
Trump Says 'Historic' Spygate Investigation Will Implicate Obama - PJ Media

Talk about what steps you'll take beyond this initial phone banking to address these voters, and how else you're fighting this purge?

So voter purges, when they happen, the most important part of the process is ensuring that the people who are likely to be purged know what's coming and know what their rights are. We have been combing through the list since it was released a few weeks ago...verifying names, doing our initial vet of who should have been purged and who should not. There were [some] people whose names were [put] on the list improperly because they've recently voted.

And so what we will be doing is an initial texting and phone banking and that's what's happening on Thursday. That's a massive event where we're taking advantage of the attention that's being paid in the state and the capacity to reach people because they are going to be more alert to this. We're working with other organizations, we're working with the state party and we're working with anyone who has an interest in this across the aisle because voter purges are not [partisan] in Georgia you don't register by party and so we don't know who's being purged. But our mission is to make certain that no one is taken off of the rolls improperly.

On their own I think almost every one of the top-tier candidates has made a statement about voter suppression. [But] we have not heard enough of it on the national stage, and that's why I've been trying to bring the debate to Georgia, and more importantly making certain that this is a [national] conversation. It's hard to come to Georgia and not have a conversation about voter suppression.

I hope to hear, one, an acknowledgment from the moderators that this is a national scourge and deserves the same degree of attention as any other topic. Because all of the progress we speak of as Democrats rests on the ability of voters to be heard and to participate in our process. You cannot have an effective health care system or laws that move our health care system forward, you cannot pass laws to address climate change if we do not have the right to vote. So I want the moderators, because they control the tenor of the debate, to put that forward. And then I want thoughtful answers from those men and women standing on stage. Because because it's how they've gotten their jobs if they've been elected to office. And it's how they will get this job.

Absolutely. I am a Democrat and I would be honored to help the Democratic ticket win and to serve.

No, no, there has not been a single campaign that's reached out about that conversation because it is premature. I do my best to be honest and forthright and to not be disingenuous. And so I'm certainly not going to coyly deny my interest when the question is put to me again and again by reporters and by folks at events. But the sincere desire I have is to serve our country. [And] serving as second to the president of the United States is a very effective way to continue to push forward the expansion of voting rights and the inclusion of our communities writ large and our democracy.

We have 50 primaries and caucuses for a reason. South Carolina is in the spotlight early because it is the state that has the largest population of African American voters. But there is no community that is monolithic, including the black community. The larger question for every candidate is what will they do to make certain that they are speaking to voters in every single state, including Georgia. We may not be a Super Tuesday state, but we're the very next week and we have the youngest population of a battleground state and we have the heaviest African American population.

It's hard to miss it if you turn on television. But the larger ethos is not a conversation of what this means for 2020, it's a conversation of what does this mean for our country and our values. And when it comes up it is usually in the context of worry about the erosion of our values, beginning in the White House.

It is of a piece. But it is not the singular topic that anyone is going to focus on because these are communities that have deep issues. Georgia is one of 14 States that's refusing to expand Medicaid. We are one of the states being hit hardest by the tariffs. Those are immediate issues that families are facing.

Three things: One, this is a moment in time and we have not yet had our first contest and there's a reason that it's a 50-state contest that will stretch until June. No. 2, the distance between the fourth- and 10th-place candidate is not that large. So there's always time for those metrics to shift. Three, I am excited because ... the diversity of this field has forced a complexity of conversation that we have not previously seen. The fact that there are candidates who have to talk about issues they may have thought about but have never had to publicly grapple with that means something. And whether or not that diversity is reflected in the eventual nominee, the diversity of the field has changed the conversation, and I think for the better.

The very vibrant conversations about criminal justice reform, about black economic equity, about immigration as more than just the question of border security, but a question of how do we address the kind of nation we want to be, issues of women's bodily autonomy and how women economics are missing in some of our national conversation. Across race and gender we have seen, and identity writ large, we have seen a deeper understanding of what communities need. You were with me this morning when we had a conversation about the intersectionality of race and physical ability as a point of entry for access to the right vote or is a barrier. We don't have those conversations as often and I know a handful of candidates have already put out plans to talk about how they will continue to work with the disability community to lift up their voices and their needs.

My focus is on getting through the order we have now and making sure we get all the candidates back to Georgia.

We haven't spoken about that direct topic recently, but she and I have had robust conversations over the last year-and-a-half as we've gotten to know each other, and I look forward to hearing what she says.

As someone who serves in a leadership role who was responsible for gathering votes from within my own party and then crossing the aisle to get additional votes, what I know is that change is complex and people are interested in revolutionary change, but they are often reticent about how close that change comes to their lives. And I think that's what the president was speaking to, that we have to not only think about the goal, but think about the process. And sometimes in our politics we are so focused on the goal, we forget that we've got to bring the people along with us for the process to work.

And my take away, not only from the president's comments but my experience, is that often those changes and that revolution requires compromise and engagement and that it's not real if people aren't with you.

What I'm saying is...we should have bold, ambitious goals, but we also have to have patience with the process. And sometimes the conversation about the goals [ignores] the complexity of the process.

See the original post here:
Stacey Abrams talks voter suppression, the 2020 Democratic field and Obama - POLITICO