Mediaboss Marketing

Over the weekend, Darrell Issa did something that no other Republican congressman has done.

Sitting for an interview with HBOs Bill Maher, the longtime Vista Republican said he believed that a prosecutor needed to investigate Russias involvement in the U.S. election and that Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, who was involved in President Trumps campaign, should not be that prosecutor.

You cannot have somebody a friend of mine, Jeff Sessions who was on the campaign and who is an appointee, Issa said. Youre going to need to use the special prosecutors statute and office.

He backed that up Monday with a statement calling for a fully independent review of Russian attempts to interfere in the election, saying there is too much speculation and assumption.

An investigation is not the same as an assertion of specific wrongdoing, its following the facts where they lead so that American people can know what may or may not have taken place, Issa said.

It makes him one of the most prominent Republicans in the country to call for an independent investigation into what Russia was trying to do during the election and who knew about it, but the only one to call for a special prosecutor to do it. He added to his statement on Monday in an interview with CBS News, emphasizingthat no person is currently under suspicion, which is what would usually prompt calls for a special prosecutor.

Issas positionstill puts himat odds with Republican leaders in the House, Senate and White House, who have said there is no need for an investigation beyond the reviews currently taking place in the House and Senate and have not supported the idea of a special prosecutor.

There are a few reasons hes taking a stand now.

Issa finds himself in a classic electoral problem:The long-serving Republican congressman faced his toughest reelection fight in years in 2016, beating back a challenge by Democrat Doug Applegate by fewer than 2,000 votes. The tight margin, and the fact that the district went narrowly for Clinton, seems to have shaken Issa.

Issa is also known for his aggressive investigationsinto President Obama and agency officials as chair of the House Oversight Committee, and could truly be trying to be consistent under a Republican president.

Issa took his oversight role very seriously and very aggressively during the Obama years. Its reasonable that hed adhere to the same approach with a new president, said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor at USC.

Issas district stretches from La Jolla to Dana Point and has ticked slowly left in recent years. Voters there narrowly picked Democrat Hillary Clinton over Trump with 50.5% of the vote.

His is one of seven California Republican districts Democrats have said they planto target. Applegate has already announced plans to challenge Issa again in 2018, painting a target on the congressmans back.

While Issas special prosecutor statement was the most dramatic, its not the only change hes made since the election. Hes also shown a softer, more centrist side. On Saturday, he urged his fellowRepublicans at Californias GOP conventionto do a better job listening to all Americans, even those who didnt vote for them.

Earlier in the week, when many Republican members were avoiding the swarms of anti-Trump protesters outside their offices, Issa joined protesters and supportersdemonstrating outside his office,answeringquestions on issues such as the future of the Affordable Care Actand listening to concerns for an hour and a half.

Hes smart enough to understand that he will benefit in his district by establishing some daylight between himself and the Trump administration, Schnur said.

sarah.wire@latimes.com

Follow@sarahdwire on Twitter

Excerpt from:
Why Rep. Darrell Issa is breaking with his fellow Republicans on the Russian hacking probe - Chicago Tribune

Feb. 27, 2017, 4:50 p.m.

SenatePresidentPro Tem Kevin de Lenon Monday pledged a nonpartisan review intoactions taken last week byDemocratic leaders to removeSen. Janet Nguyen from the housefloor , saying he was troubled and unsettled by the tense events that unfolded.

"Members, last Thursday was not one of the finest moments of the Senate," he said. "As the leader of this body, I take full responsibility for what transpired and in making sure that it never happens again."

Republican lawmakers commended the statement. But they blastedwhat they described as the majority party's infringement of free speech. They demandeda formalapology for Nguyenandcalledfor the resignation of DeLen's chief of staff, who they said made inappropriate comments about the incident to the media.

Nguyen (R-Garden Grove), a Vietnamese refugee,on Thursday was escorted from the Senate floor by sergeants-at-armsafter shetriedto offer what she said was a different historical perspectiveon the lateTom Hayden and his opposition to the Vietnam War.

Reading a letter toSecretaryof theSenate Daniel Alvarez, Sen. Jean Fuller(R-Bakersfield), leader of the Senate Republican Caucus, called for a complete and transparent investigation.

Fuller saidNguyenspoke from the heart when she said Hayden's being honoredtriggered outrage among the constituents in her district's Vietnamese community, where memories of the war were still raw.

"Brutality of the Vietnamese Communist party continues to haunt the collective memory of the Vietnamese American community," Fuller said. The letter was submitted to the Senate journal through a unanimous vote.

Before the start of session, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle shook hands withNguyenas she entered the chamberfor her first time back since her ouster last week. Some Republican lawmakers embraced her and whispered words of approval and encouragement.

"Thursday's events were shocking and distressing," she later said. "But what happened today on the floor reaffirmed my faith in America's deep belief in the democratic process."

Here is the original post:
Republican lawmakers blast removal of state senator from the floor, call for full investigation - Los Angeles Times

A call by a leading Republican lawmaker for a special counsel to investigate possible Russian interference in 2016 elections highlights the growing pressure facing lawmakers on the issue as they return this week from a recess.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), an early supporter of President Donald Trumps whose district narrowly voted for Hillary Clinton last year, said over the weekend that the Justice Department should consider appointing a special counsel to probe any links between the Kremlin and Trump associates.

A new WSJ/NBC News poll released Friday shows a growing concern among Americans, and core-Trump supporters, over President Donald Trump's connections with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo: Press Pool/Kremlin

I would expect that the attorney general will find a career U.S. attorney, appoint him or her to head that up, and to do that job in an independent way, Issa told reporters on Saturday. That is historically the right way to deal with something like this.

Issas position, which he also aired Friday in an appearance on HBO, was a notable crack in Republican ranks. GOP leaders have said for months that the Senate Intelligence Committee and its House counterpart are equipped to probe allegations of Russian tampering, brushing aside calls for an independent commission, a select congressional committee or a special counsel.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

Also popular on WSJ.com:

How Nasty Gal went from an $85 million company to bankruptcy.

Donald Trump to skip White House Correspondents Association dinner.

See original here:
Leading Republican calls for special counsel for Trump-Russia probe - MarketWatch

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) reads from a list of states with increasing health insurance premiums during his weekly news conference in the Capitol Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 12, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Photo By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

WASHINGTON A formal draft of the House Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act leaked out on Friday.

The final version is likely to be different how much different, its hard to say. The draft obtained by Politico is dated two weeks ago, and rumors have been swirling here that Republicans received an unfavorable analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeepers on the cost and coverage implications of legislation.

But this is nonetheless an important milestone real legislative text, prepared with an eye toward the complex parliamentary procedures needed to pass ACA repeal with only Republican votes, and presumably with the endorsement of House leadership.

Much attention will be paid to the proposed tax credits offered for people to buy health insurance and the changes to the tax treatment of employer-based insurance. Here are five provisions with big implications for health and medicine. It would dramatically overhaul Medicaid.

The bill would phase out by 2020 the Medicaid expansion that has covered millions of people under Obamacare. Instead, states would begin to receive a set dollar amount for each person covered by the program with variations based on health status; more money would be allocated for the disabled a change from the open-ended entitlement the program is now.

READ NEXT: A boy who cant speak is on Medicaid. What happens to him if he is cut out?

These proposals, long a goal of the GOP, have spurred a number of concerns. People with complex medical needs worry that, if spending is capped and states have more flexibility to decide what to cover, they could be at risk. There appear to be very few exclusions from the spending caps some have theorized that if the plan exempted certain services from the caps, that could help mitigate the risks for high-cost patients.

The changes could also make it more difficult for the program to afford new breakthrough treatments, a challenge that the current iteration of Medicaid has already faced with the expensive hepatitis C drugs.

It would repeal Obamacares requirements for what health insurance must cover.

The legislation would repeal the ACAs essential health benefits requirements, which mandated that health plans cover 10 categories of health care services. It would instead leave decisions about what coverage to require to the states, starting in 2020.

Among the services that the law required plans to cover were mental health and substance abuse treatment. In the midst of the opioid crisis, recovery advocates in Washington had been hoping to save that provision. It appears that that decision would now be in state officials hands, and the fear is plans might look to limit that coverage because people with addiction issues are expensive to treat and therefore cover.

READ NEXT: Medicaid could struggle to cover breakthrough treatments through GOPs plan

It would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

The bill would repeal this funding stream, intended to support various prevention and public health activities, in 2019. Congress initially provided $15 billion over the funds first 10 years, and it was eventually suppose to increase to $2 billion per year in perpetuity.

The fund has been at perennial risk since its passage in 2010, pilfered at times for other programs, but it nonetheless remains an important source of public health funding. It has become an essential part of the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions budget accounting for 12 percent of the agencys funding by some estimates and there would be no obvious replacement for those dollars without further congressional action.

It would repeal the tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The drug industry has not agitated to have its manufacturer tax repealed, in the same way that the medical device and health insurance industries have. But the Republican bill would nonetheless nix the tax starting in 2017. The industry still had $4 billion to left to pay in 2017, $4.1 billion in 2018, and $2.8 billion per year after that.

The taxes on medical devices, health insurance plans, and even tanning beds would also be repealed. Those revenue streams help to cover the cost of the ACA. Republicans are instead proposing changing the tax treatment of employer-based health insurance, which is currently not taxed, to pay for their plan. It is an idea popular with economists, but politically perilous. Major employer groups are already aligning against it.

It loosens restrictions on health plans ability to charge older people more.

One thing the bill doesnt do is repeal the ACA provision that prohibits health plans from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. That may be because it would be hard to justify under the procedural rules that Republicans need to use to pass the bill plus that policy is among the laws most popular elements and even President Trump has said it should be maintained.

But another key insurance reform meant to protect sicker people takes a hit: The GOP bill would allow insurers to charge older people five times more than younger people; the ACA had limited the difference to three times as much. The powerful AARP is already mobilizing against such a change, long expected to be part of the plan.

The bill appears to try to mitigate that change by basing its tax credits for purchasing insurance on age: Older people would receive a bigger tax credit.

Is that sufficient to keep people covered, as Trump and other Republicans have pledged to do? Thats one of the questions that the scorekeepers at the CBO will be expected to answer.

This article is reproduced with permission from STAT. It was first published on Feb. 24, 2017. Find the original story here.

Read this article:
Five takeaways from the leaked Republican bill to repeal Obamacare - PBS NewsHour

Advertisement

I think we need to pay attention to what Steve Bannon means by deconstructing the government (Bannon: Trump administration is in unending battle for deconstruction of the administrative state, Nation, Feb. 24). Conservative Republicans have always pushed for less government, but always in a framework that respects the priority of the actual words of the Constitution. Deconstruction in literature and philosophy asserts that a piece of writing does not have just one meaning and that the actual meaning depends on the reader. Bannon wants to be the person who interprets that meaning. He wants to be the reader. This flies in the face of the usual Republican philosophy of strict constructionism and leads to a situation where anything can be legal as long as the current administration interprets it that way. It means the end of a nation of laws, not men.

Jack Finn

Framingham

Continued here:
What kind of Republican is Steve Bannon, anyway? - The Boston Globe