Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Attorney General Jeff Sessionsinstructed federal prosecutors this week to take the most aggressive approach possible against federal criminal defendants. The policy change will result in lengthier prison sentences for drug offenders and likely reverse a recent drop in the federal prison population.

In a memo dated May 10, Sessions wrote federal prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense, calling that a core principle of the Justice Departments charging and sentencing policy.

The new policy replaces the approach of the Justice Department during the Obama administration under former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. They gave federal prosecutors more leeway to decide when it was appropriate to charge crimes that trigger mandatory minimums, which automatically result in set prison terms.

Mike Blake / Reuters

This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency, Sessions wrote in the new memo. This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.

Sessions memorandum nixesHolders 2010 memo, which encouraged federal prosecutors to make decisions on charging, plea agreements and sentencing recommendations. These were based on the merits of each case, taking into account an individualized assessment of the defendants conduct and criminal history and the circumstances relating to the commission of the offense (including the impact of the crime on victims), the needs of the communities we serve, and federal resources and priorities.

Now, under Sessions, if prosecutors want to divert from the new policy and not pursue the most serious charge available, they must get specific approval from the U.S. Attorney or an Assistant Attorney General. Holders policy only required charging decisions to be reviewed by a supervisory attorney.

DOJ

DOJ

Sessions memo also rescinds an Aug. 12, 2013, memofrom Holder which instructed federal prosecutors to ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers. If the defendant met certain criteria if their conduct didnt involve violence, if they werent a leader, if they didnt have significant ties to gangs or drug trafficking organizations, and if they didnt have a significant criminal history Holder instructed them not to charge the quantities that would trigger mandatory minimum sentences.

That was part of a Smart on Crime initiative Holder launched toward the end of his time as attorney general. Holder, a former judge in D.C., told HuffPost in 2014 that he didnt think extremely long sentences would necessarily induce cooperation so much as the certainly of punishment.

Ive been a prosecutor since 1976, I understand the notion of starting at the bottom and working your way up, and I would never put in place a system that would undercut that fundamental part of our law enforcement system, Holder said at the time. And yet I think we can be smarter. We dont have to put people in jail for 10 and 15 years. You could have sentences that are substantially shorter that will, necessarily, continue to induce the kind of cooperation that we need.

By the end of former President Barack Obamas term, he became the first commander in chief since Jimmy Carter to leave office with a lower federal prison population than when he arrived.

Additionally, Sessions new policy gets rid of limitations Holder placed on the use of sentencing enhancements, which allow prosecutors to seek harsher sentences in certain cases based on prior convictions. Sessions said federal prosecutors must disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences. Holders policy only said they should seek those sentencing enhancements in more serious cases that met certain criteria.

While many conservatives backed changes to federal drug sentencing policy, Sessions largely did not when he served in the Senate. Sessions came up as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s, amid a crack epidemic as the federal government took a tough approach to the war on drugs. Largely as a result of drug policies, the federal prison populationexplodedfrom 24,640 inmates in 1980 to 219,298 by 2013.

Sessions said in 2015 that he believed eliminating or reducing mandatory minimums reduces the ability of law officers to negotiate and protect the public.

Original post:
Jeff Sessions Rolls Back Obama-Era Drug Sentencing Reforms - HuffPost

President Obama took heat from friend and foe alike by signing on for a pair of speeches at $400,000 apiece, but a mystery fee for a climate change address in Milan this week could leave those deals in the dust.

Neither Team Obama norSeeds & Chips, the organization hosting the May 8-11 Italian summit, will say how much Obama is getting paid. That prompted wild speculation from one publication, which did a back-of-the-napkin estimation that put Obama's payment at a potential $3.2 million.

While that number appears to have been the total cost for all 3,500 tickets to the event on how food innovation can save humanity from climate change,which went for 850 euros, or $925, a piece, it still leaves open the question of how much Obama got.

The Express replaced its previous piece withan updated storythat made no mention of any speaking fee, and representatives for the former president did not return Fox News request for comment. Michela Gelati -- a spokesperson for Seeds & Chips, -- told Fox News that they did not have the information.

The secrecy surrounding the ex-president's potential payday comes after he raised eyebrows by striking two lucrative deals that seemed to contradict his image as a champion of the 99 percent.Fox Business Network broke a storyin late April about the $400,000 hell pull in this upcoming September for a talk on health care at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald, a big Wall Street firm.

With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008 Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history -- and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR, Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Obama, told Fox News.

He added that the former president will continue to give the occasional speech, but he will devote much of his time to writing his book and focusing his post-presidency work on training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America.

Less than a week after news broke about his planned speech at the Cantor Fitzgerald conference,The New York Post reportedthat Obama was paid another $400,000 for his appearance at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel in New York City, where he was interviewed by historian Doris Kearns Goodwinfor more than 90 minutes in front of the cable networks advertisers.

United States former President Barack Obama talks during the "Seeds&Chips - Global Food Innovation" summit, in Milan, Tuesday, May 9, 2017. Obama is in Milan to deliver a keynote speech on food security and the environment, two issues that he has long worked on. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)

While Obamas speaking fees may be nothing new for a former president, he also has come under scrutiny for allegedly using his tax-exempt Obama Foundation as a money generator.

Obama's foundation is in place to raise money for his presidential library, but critics warn that the operation is starting to look like the controversial Clinton Foundation, which took in tens of millions of dollars and sparked "pay-to-play" accusations. In an apparent effort to avoid such comparisons, Obama said in January that he would not accept contributions from for-profit entities, federal lobbyists or foreign nationals or agentswhile in office.

Despite the criticism, it is not uncommon for former presidents to get big bucks to give speeches once they leave the Oval Office.

Harry Truman wouldnt give speeches for money and called the practice exploitive, but that did not stop Gerald Ford, who was the first president known to take advantage of the speaking circuit after leaving office. Ford earned as much as $40,000 per speech after leaving office in 1977 or more than $165,000 in 2017 if inflation is taken into account.

Bill Clinton, who normally charges between $250,000 and $500,000 per engagement, was paid a whopping $750,000 to give a talk in Hong Kong in 2011, while his successor, George W. Bush, has reportedly made somewhere between $20 million and $35 million in speaking fees since he left office in 2009. Shortly after leaving office in 1989, Ronald Reagan was paid around $2 million to go on a speaking tour of Japan.

Visit link:
Obama's mystery fee for Italy speech renews debate over lucrative lecturing by ex-presidents - Fox News

Republicans efforts to rescind a myriad of Obama-era rules ended with 14 regulations eliminated from the books but one late failure.

Since Republicans took the reins of government in Washington this year, they useda once-obscure law to rollback regulations issued by the Obama administration. They voted to overturn rules ranging from one that limited the ability of the mentally ill to buy firearms to another forcing oil companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments.

The law, the Congressional Review Act, had been used successfully only once before.

Getting this done hasnt always been easy, and weve met a lot of obstruction along the way, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on theSenate floor Thursday. And while we cant simply turn back time or completely erase the negative impact that Obama regulations have had already, the CRA has allowed us to stop a number of them in their tracks.

Facing a Thursday deadline to use the procedure, the effort ended on a sour note for industry. Republicans came up one vote short in the Senate Wednesday to roll back a regulation forcing oil and gas companies to curb methane leaks.

About 35 congressional review act resolutions were introduced this year, but most failed to win the a vote in one or the other chamber. However, lawmakers exceeded analysts expectations of how many CRA votes could take place, and many of the regulations Congress didnt vote on may be repealed by the Trump administration in the end. Thats just a lengthier process and open to legal challenge.

In their short time in charge, Republicans have put the health and well-being of everyday Americans in jeopardy by opening the door for wealthy oil, gas, and coal donors to pollute our air and water, Representative Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said in a statement. He labeled it the obscure and ham-handed CRA process.

The review act,which sets expedited congressional procedures to review a regulation including, requires agencies to submit major rules to Congress, and then gives lawmakers up to 60 congressional working days to vote overturn them. The act doesnt require a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin in the Senate during that 60-day period. A reset period at the beginning of a new presidency lets lawmakers torpedo the previous presidents most recent rules. The reset period expires Thursday.

Until Trump was elected, the Congressional Review Act had only been used successfully once before. In 2001 Congress voted to overturn a Labor Department ergonomics rule issued by the Clinton administration. President Barack Obama vetoed the CRA measures that passed the Republican-led Congress during his tenure.

But Trump and Republicans in Congress united in their criticisms of Obamas health, safety and environmental rules, and seized on the CRA as the surest route to repeal them.

Other major regulations rescinded this year include one that required federal contractors to disclose labor law and employment violations when bidding on a new or renewed contract. The rule was opposed by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Professional Services Council, which has representatives of companies such as Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC on its board of directors.

The CRA was also successfully used to rescind a federal rule forcing Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and other overseas oil producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. The rollback was seen as a victory for U.S. oil majors that spent years trying to de-fang the Securities and Exchange Commission effort, a part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation. Oil lobbyists argued it gives global rivals a competitive edge.

But others failed to get a vote, amid competing priorities and some controversy. Others not acted upon include a measure backed by Republican Ted Cruz that would roll back Energy Department rules used to set energy efficiency standards for compressors and one to block Treasury Department rules to close tax-inversion loopholes. The methane rule that failed Wednesday was estimated to cost oil drillers hundreds of millions of dollars a year to comply, but environmental groups argue it mandated common-sense procedures to cut venting and flaring of the greenhouse gas.

Read More: GOP Girds for Race to Repeal Obamas Final Rules Before Deadline

"From their perspective it was incredibly successful,"said Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum, a Washington research group that favors smaller government. But "these had targeted impacts to a few industries."

According to the group, the 14 CRAs are projected to save save $3.7 billion in total regulatory costs and eliminate 4.2 million hours of paperwork.

Its time for this sad chapter to end," said Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate for the watch-dog group Public Citizen. "The CRA gave Congress and President Trump a shortcut to attack and kill common-sense regulations at corporate special interests behest.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Still, regulatory roll backs continue, as Trump is already moving to act without Congress. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a delay for safety regulations put in place after a deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas. There was a proposal in Congress to cancel that rule but it never received a vote. Trump ordered all of the governments departments to consider what rules can be axed, and set a mandate that two rules must be scrapped for each one new one issued.

The failure on the final rule-- on regulations governing methane emissions -- was a surprise defeat for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after Arizona Senator John McCain broke with most Republicans and voted no. The vote failed 49-51 on Wednesday.

Within hours, the Interior Department announced it was consideringreworking or rescinding the methane rule on its own. Those changes will take time -- and will face inevitable challenges in court -- but the net effect could be the same.

Interior is quite likely to significantly change it, albeit through a rulemaking process that will take time,James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, said in an email. The current rule lives for another day, but its future is not bright.

(Updates with comment from Grijalva in seventh paragraph. A previous version of this story gave an incorrect name for the Professional Services Council.)

Here is the original post:
Republican Window to Roll Back Obama's Rules Closes at 14-1 - Bloomberg

There is apparently one piece of former first lady Michelle Obamas legacy that President Trump cannot roll back: the food industrys sweeping embrace of healthier, more nutritious products.

On Thursday, more than a dozen food companies, including candy maker Mars and convenience chain Cumberland Farms, announced new initiatives with Partnership for a Healthier America, a foundation that Obama chairs and helped found.

The initiatives will bring smaller candy bars to checkout aisles and more water to gas stations, among other things. They will also provide a rare bright spot to public health advocates at a time that has seen President Trumps administration freeze other key parts of the former first ladys healthy-eating legacy.

In the past two weeks alone, the Trump administration has stalled nutrition standards for school lunches and delayed rules that require restaurants to label menu calories.

But it seems Trump cannot roll back the former first ladys continued influence with private companies.

Washington is Washington, but progress will continue, said Larry Soler, the chief executive of PHA. Were proving the private sector can play as big a role as policy change.

[A healthful legacy: Michelle Obama looks to the future of Lets Move]

For companies, there are financial and political motivations for making these sorts of changes: Consumers are agitating for healthier foods, and in smaller portions, and voluntary industry-led initiatives can stave off regulation.

For public health advocates, the partnerships have the potential to get healthier foods in the marketplace.

Among the largest of the new initiatives is a partnership with PepsiCo, which will allow PHA to audit the companys 10-year reduction of added sugar, saturated fat and sodium in its food and beverage portfolios. Pepsi has indicated it will make the changes, which will apply to two-thirds of its beverage and three-quarters of its food portfolio, by investing in healthier product lines.

The candy makers Mars, Nestle, Ferrara, Lindt & Sprungli and Ferrero Rocher have promised PHA they will cut portion sizes of half their products to 200 calories or less by 2022, and label at least 90 percent with front-of-pack nutrition information.

The five companies make some of Americas most popular candies, including makers of candies including Snickers, M & Ms, Starburst, Butterfingers and Russell Stovers chocolates. About 30 percent of their packaged products are 200 calories or less now.

Separately, the countrys largest convenience chain, Cumberland Farms, has committed to stocking more fresh produce in its 600 locations, and in pricing them competitively against less-healthy options.

And Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks that feed 46 million people, has promised to redesign its distribution system to get member food banks to stock more fruits and vegetables.

In most cases, these partnerships are binding: PHA requires that its partners sign legal contracts to that effect. In exchange for making, and keeping, these public health commitments, the foundation provides companies publicity, networking and technical assistance. An independent third-party auditor monitors compliance, and PHA can sue partners who violate the terms of their agreement.

I love what Partnership for a Healthier America is doing its not just window-dressing, said Nancy Roman, chief executive of D.C.s Capital Area Food Bank, which is also announcing a PHA commitment. You make a contract, they come measure your progress. They keep your feet to the fire on this.

In the seven years since PHA launched, the foundation has partnered with the likes of Walmart, Dannon and Del Monte to cut calories, sugar and sodium from the U.S. food supply. In 2014, it reported, with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that 16 of the countrys largest food companies had already axed 6.4 trillion calories from their product lines.

PHA has also overseen marketing campaigns for water and fresh produce, which appear in grocery stores, gas stations and media outlets around the country.

Weve seen tremendous conversation and cultural shift, said Deborah Eschmeyer, the former executive director of Lets Move!, evaluating the legacy of the campaign earlier this year. This is a new wave for the private sector.

This arrangement has not always been popular: PHA was criticized for partnering with Walmart in 2011, and some liberals have faulted the former first lady for lending her imprimatur to junk-food brands, or for letting corporations water down her public-health message. Even some of Mrs. Obamas allies have said PHAs partnerships run counter to her nutrition agenda, given that many food companies lobby against nutrition regulationseven as they embrace voluntary initiatives.

That is the case this year, as well: The National Association of Convenience Stores signed a PHA commitment, promising to push its member stores to stock healthier snacks and bottled water only weeks after itled an effort to delay menu-labelling requirements that the first lady had also advocated for.

Still, at a time when much of the last administrations nutrition policies seem destined for a rollback, some advocates see reason for optimismin the new partnerships. Earlier this month, the Trump administration froze regulations, championed by the former first lady, that would further reduce the sodium and increase the whole grains served in school meals.

The administration has also delayed rules requiring restaurants, grocery stores and other establishments to put calories counts on their menus, and has signaled an interest in pushing back the rollout of new and more transparent nutrition labels.

On top of that, the Omnibus bill passed by the House last week forbids government agencies from working with industry on any sort of voluntary sodium requirements, or from issuing any guidelines on food marketing to children. The first lady has praised initiatives to limit the sorts of foods that get advertised to kids, and cheered federal efforts to get junk-food ads out of schools.

Absent those sorts of regulations, Obamas supporters are pinning their hopes for nutritional change on private companies.

They have to respond to the marketplace no matter what goes on in Washington, said Marion Nestle, a prominent food activist and professor at New York University who has long applauded the former first ladys efforts. Thats why so many food companies are promising the nosno trans fats, sugars, artificial additives, pesticides, and for food animals, even no antibiotics and hormones. As long as the public demands healthier and more sustainably raised food, the food industry will have to respond.

Candy makers have come to that conclusion, said John Downs, the chief executive of the National Confectioners Association. That industry faces consumer anxiety about sugar, as well as the threat of the new nutrition labels. Some companies, seeking to face those challenges head on, have begun repackaging their products in smaller portion sizes and searching for sugar substitutes.

But thefive-year partnership signed with PHA on Thursday was the most significant industry move to date, Downs said. The five companies commitment will require significant changes, in some cases, to packaging, recipes, manufacturing facilities and marketing materials.

Its a big commitment, and a big shift, Downs said. But, he added, obviously theres an important and ongoing conversation around sugar in the U.S., and around the world and our industry has been discussing how we can be a productive part of that conversation.

Elsewhere in the food industry, manufacturers have changed recipes to reduce salt and sugar, according to a recent report by the Consumer Goods Forum. And major food brands, from McDonalds to Coca-Cola, have launched or acquired new and purportedly healthier products to rehab their junk-food image.

Still, a product like Suja cold-pressed juice represents a tiny fraction of Cokes portfolio. And if the industry is going to make a measurable impact on public health, Nestle said, it still has to cut back on its offerings of highly processed products.

Obama, for her part, has signaled shell be there for the ride: In a letter to PHA supporters last spring, the former first lady said she planned to continue working on obesity issues long after her husband left office.

The former first lady will address the PHA Summit in D.C. on Friday with former White House chef Sam Kass.

More from Wonkblog:

Trump official freezes Michelle Obama's plan to fight childhood obesity

Industry is counting on Trump to back off rules that tell you what's in your food

Trump doesn't threaten only President Obama's legacy. He could ruin Michelle Obama's, too.

Continued here:
The one piece of Michelle Obama's legacy that President Trump can't wreck - Washington Post

New York Times

Obama Speaks in Milan, With Food as Text and Politics as Subtext New York Times ROME Barack Obama took his first step back onto the world stage on Tuesday, shedding his tie to give wide-ranging, if studiously nonpartisan, remarks during a food and technology conference in Milan. First in a keynote address, during which he often ... Obama's Contradictory Climate TalkNational Review Barack Obama Shares His Lessons Learned on Leadership and PowerFortune Former President Obama Says He's 'Captive to Selfies' Since Leaving OfficeNBCNews.com TIME -The Hill (blog) all 210 news articles »

Continued here:
Obama Speaks in Milan, With Food as Text and Politics as Subtext - New York Times