NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Sen Harry Reid D NV Majority Leader. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen Harry Reid D NV Majority Leader. Show all posts

04 November 2016

A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump 31OKT16

Image result for trump russia meme
HELLO, FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY? I KNOW YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, BUT YOUARE AN AMERICAN FIRST, AREN'T YOU? JUST who commands the loyalty of the drumpf/trump-pence campaign? There have been rumors about drumpf/trump involvement with distributing e mails hacked from the +Democratic National Committee  , the +Clinton Foundation and the Clinton campaign. (THE real problem with these leaked e mails is the source can not be verified because, unlike the wikileaks releases by Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, the source of these wikileaks remains anonymous and so the integrity of the e mails can not be verified.) Documents turned over to the fbi, document fbi director james comey is aware of, raise serious questions about drumpf's/trump's relationship with vladmir putin and the criminal oligarchy ruling Russia. Top aids and associates have also been implicated in possibly criminal financial involvement with Russian oligarchs, Ukrainian rebel leadership and the brutal dictatorships on various former soviet republics know as the "Stans". There is real reason for concerning with the recruitment of donald drumpf by the Russian government. He is a greedy, self-serving narcissistic person, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he could be bought by a foreign government (consider his attempt to buy his way into the economy of communist Cuba, violating the U.S. embargo). If donald drumpf/trump knowingly violates U.S. law for his own financial gain, if it is possible for a foreign government to blackmail him, how can he be trusted to be President of The United States? This from +Mother Jones .....

A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump

OCT. 31, 2016 7:52 PM

On Friday, FBI Director James Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton's handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."

Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him "garbage.") On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.
In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."
This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.
"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, "I have nothing to do with Russia."
The FBI is certainly investigating the hacks attributed to Russia that have hit American political targets, including the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. But there have been few public signs of whether that probe extends to examining possible contacts between the Russian government and Trump. (In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, "We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation." In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, "The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.")
According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. In August, Democratic members of the House committee on oversight wrote Comey to ask the FBI to investigate "whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests may have contributed to these [cyber] attacks in order to interfere with the US. presidential election." In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrats on, respectively, the Senate and House intelligence committees, issued a joint statement accusing Russia of underhanded meddling: "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election." The Obama White House has declared Russia the culprit in the hacking capers, expressed outrage, and promised a "proportional" response.
There's no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy's memos. But a Russian intelligence attempt to co-opt or cultivate a presidential candidate would mark an even more serious operation than the hacking.
In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook.

RELATED


13 November 2014

CONGRATULATIONS SEN ELIZABETH WARREN ON YOUR NEW SENATE LEADERSHIP APPOINTMENT!!! & Elizabeth Warren Gets Senate Democratic Leadership Spot 13NOV14


Congratulations Elizabeth Warren on your new leadership appointment! We look forward to continuing our strong partnership with you!
SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN D MA, Bold Progressive and champion for the American people, has been appointed to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee by Sen Harry Reid D NV to guide the party on progressive policies that the electorate, even in the 2014 mid term elections in red and blue states, support. I love this quote in +The Huffington Post article "Somebody asked me on the way in here, 'Elizabeth Warren's going to be part of your leadership. What do you expect her to do?' I expect her to be Elizabeth Warren," Reid told reporters during a press conference introducing his new team." From the Bold Progressives of the PCCC / Progressive Change Campaign Committee and +Huffington Post Politics .....

BREAKING NEWS: Warren now in Senate Leadership

BREAKING: Warren in Senate Leadership!!!
Huffington Post reports:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday ... Warren's role, which is a new position created specifically for her, will be in crafting the party's messaging and policy.
This is a good reminder that when we invest early in progressive leaders, it's not just about winning elections in the short term -- it's about building power over time.
As Elizabeth Warren advocates for big ideas like reforming Wall Street, making college affordable, and expanding Social Security benefits, her voice will now be even louder -- because she'll be at the Democratic leadership table.
Click here to sign a congratulations card to Elizabeth Warren (and add a personal note), which we will deliver to her.
PCCC members led the "Draft Elizabeth Warren for Senate" campaign. We were her #1 grassroots supporter in 2012, and partnered with Warren on big legislative pushes in 2013 and 2014.
With this news, that partnership grows stronger -- and all of our work together has more impact.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green, PCCC co-founders.

Want to support our work? Ed Schultz called us "The top progressive group in the country"! And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 here.

Elizabeth Warren Gets Senate Democratic Leadership Spot

Posted: Updated:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined the Democratic leadership Thursday. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday, giving the prominent progressive senator a key role in shaping the party's policy priorities.
Warren's new role, which was created specifically for her, will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions and priorities. She will also serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions, according to a source familiar with the role.
A source close to Warren told The Huffington Post that the senator was interested in the position because she wanted to have a seat at the table in the leadership meetings in order to influence the agenda.
Sources told HuffPost that Warren had the strong support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who wanted her as part of his team. Warren's presence in the weekly leadership meetings and her role helping to shape the caucus' policies are significant achievements for progressives.
"Somebody asked me on the way in here, 'Elizabeth Warren's going to be part of your leadership. What do you expect her to do?' I expect her to be Elizabeth Warren," Reid told reporters during a press conference introducing his new team.
Reid's support for Warren also underscores his desire to push progressive policies in the next Congress, a priority his office has confirmed.
"If the ballot measure results are any indication, actual progressive policies remain popular with voters in red and blue states. I believe you’ll see a Senate Democratic caucus fight on behalf of those policies and provide the votes if and when Republicans are ready to act," Faiz Shakir, a senior adviser to Reid, told HuffPost earlier this month.
Speaking to reporters after the leadership elections, Warren sounded familiar themes when detailing what her policy priorities would be.
"Wall Street … is doing very well, CEOs are bringing in millions more and families all across the country are struggling," she said. "We have to make this government work for the American people. And that's what I will fight for."
The Warren announcement took many senators by surprise, with some saying that the leadership simply informed them of the change with little debate.
"It's a fait accompli," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), adding that there wasn't much discussion about what exactly Warren would be doing.
Throughout Senate history, individual members have often steered away from leadership positions, worried that the horse-trading and consensus-gathering that leadership involves would neuter their power. But the Senate has been evolving in recent years into a much more leadership-driven institution, in which individual senators and even chairmen have less power than they once did compared to caucus leadership. Today, decisions that would have been made in side negotiations, in committee or on the floor are instead made by leadership.
It's those meetings that Warren will now be a part of. At the same time, she will diminish her ability to maintain that inside position if she criticizes the party from the outside. That dilemma, however, has been with her every step of her career, as she has moved closer to the center of power.
"I really rather doubt, knowing Elizabeth Warren as I have over the last couple of years, that she's going to give up her progressive views and her strong commitment to consumers, even if she is part of the leadership," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday. "I can't imagine that happening."
Erica Sagrans, campaign manager of Ready for Warren -- the campaign to convince Warren to run for president -- welcomed the senator's new role.
"Warren's new role shows how much of a leading voice she's become," said Sagrans. "It's a great opportunity to put her vision for working families front and center in Washington."
Jennifer Bendery, Michael McAuliff and Sabrina Siddiqui contributed reporting.



07 March 2014

DAILY KOS SUGGESTED READING / VIEWING

Harry Reid to Politico: 'Get a brain, OK?' 6MAR14

MORE and more my respect grows for Majority Leader Sen Harry Reid D NV. Check this out....
Joan McCarter

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gestures as he addresses reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, June 11, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
This might be the most refreshing interview Politico has ever conducted with a politician. Politico's Manu Raju and Burgess Everett sat down with Harry Reid, but don't take his admonition seriously, judging by the results in this story.
Republicans think Harry Reid is running the Senate like a dictator: His no-compromise style is almost like Vladimir Putin’s, and his inflammatory rhetoric is reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy era. But Reid doesn’t seem to care.
"Get a brain, OK?" the Senate majority leader snapped at a reporter, when asked why he doesn't permit far more votes on GOP amendments. "You're a smart guy."
In an interview this week in his Senate office, a feisty Reid pushed back aggressively against Republican complaints over his leadership, pinning the blame entirely on the GOP for the gridlock and polarization that define the historically unproductive 113th Congress.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.
That's a simple place to start: all those GOP amendments that are little more than poison pills. For example, Republicans have offered up Obamacare repeal amendments to nearly every bill that that the Senate has considered this session. They've offered up amendments about every cooked-up "scandal," from the IRS targeting the tea party to "Obamaphones."
The unapologetic majority leader offered no regrets for his jaw-dropping rhetoric on the Senate floor where he’s repeatedly lambasted his political enemies and incited GOP charges of McCarthyism for calling the billionaire Koch brothers “un-American.”
Jaw-dropping rhetoric? Like this? "'It's reprehensible the way the United States Senate operates today,' said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), before comparing Reid to Putin." No, that's just mild Republican complaint. One of eight Republicans given the opportunity to complain about Reid in the article. (One Democrat besides Reid was included, Joe Manchin (D-WV).) But this might be the worst Politico has to offer:
In Reid's mind, it's Republicans who have shifted and tossed out their moderate wing, particularly during the Obama era. He says the likes of Karl Rove and McConnell made it their top priority to make Obama a one-term president to "make him look bad" by denying him legislative achievements. GOP senators, he said, tie up Senate votes by making far-fetched demands that are not policed by Republican leaders, such as Louisiana Sen. David Vitter’s demand for votes to slash Capitol Hill health care subsidies, leading to the obstruction of even the most routine business.
In Reid's mind? He's just imagining the tea party took over? He just imagined it when Mitch McConnell said his top priority was denying President Obama a second term? (Which Politico reported on, btw.) He's just imagined all those bullshit amendments, every cloture vote required on every nominee—even those that end up garnering 100 affirmative votes? He's imagined the most filibusters ever forced? Politico reporters obviously don't spend enough time with C-SPAN2. The last thing Reid should be apologetic for is speaking the truth about Republican obstruction. And he really doesn't need to apologize for telling Politico reporters to get a brain.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:11 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/06/1282599/-Harry-Reid-to-Politico-Get-a-brain-OK?detail=email 

28 February 2014

Did we just prevent a war with Iran? 28FEB14

I hope and pray we did prevent a war with Iran. Check out this latest victory of the people over the warmongers of the gop and the US military-industrial complex. 

For the last four days, Senate Republicans have been holding up every bill in Congress, trying to force a vote on an Iran sanctions bill that experts believe would put us on a path to war.
Hawkish foreign policy bills often pass unanimously. But this time, it's not going to work. And the reason why is a fantastic story.
We've just released a new episode of "The Good Fight" that tells the whole tale—about a grassroots uprising, led by an unlikely crew of outsiders and MoveOn members like you and me who turned the tide.
If you don't like needless war, if you want to know the real story behind the headlines, if believe in giving diplomacy a chance to succeed, then you should check out this podcast.
President Obama is in the middle of high-wire negotiations to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons—and to take war off the table. But those negotiations were nearly torpedoed by the Iran sanctions bill that popped up just before Christmas and instantly racked up dozens of Senate co-sponsors. The last time a bill like this came to a vote, it passed 99 to 0.
What happened next surprised everybody.
Or at least, almost everybody. If you were one of the MoveOn members who called your senators during the last month or two, maybe it didn't surprise you. And our guests weren't totally surprised, either—because they were at the heart of the lightning grassroots campaign to stop the bill and save the negotiations. They'd learned their lessons from the Iraq war. And they were laser-focused on preventing the next one.
The guests you'll meet on this episode are a fascinating bunch. A young Iranian woman who moved here from Australia to organize for peace—and started a MoveOn petition that drew 150,000 signatures. The leaders of the pro-peace, pro-Israel group J Street. And Ilya Sheyman, who got his start in activism by opposing the Iraq invasion while he was in high school—and now serves in MoveOn.org's national leadership. But this isn't just their story: it's a story about all of us.
Remember the time before the Iraq war began? Millions of us marched in the streets—but we were ignored. So we decided to build something unignorable. We've built a progressive movement that has changed American politics, helped elect a president... and can now move the country away from military action, before it happens. Politics is rife with frustrations and disappointments and defeats—but there's something extraordinary here. Something to be proud of. Something we've all helped create.
I'm grateful for the chance to share one of these movement victory stories. Listen in here.
Thanks for all you do.
–Ben
 

27 February 2014

Harry Reid slams Koch brothers & VIDEO Harry Reid doubles down on Koch criticism 26FEB14

THE koch brothers are evil. They are greedy and they are liars and they are behind the massive propaganda campaign attacking Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. The don't give a damn about the common American, their goal is amass as much money and power as they can for their own benefit because they feel they are entitled to it. At least Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV isn't afraid of them, and isn't afraid to challenge their lies in public. Check out the documentary on david and charles koch, The Koch Brothers: Exposed, and search for more post on the koch brothers on this blog. From Daily Kos.....
Joan McCarter
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media after a caucus meeting with Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill in Washington August 1, 2011.
Harry Reid isn't going to turn the Senate over to the Koch brothers without a fight.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused the billionaire Koch brothers of having “no conscience” and spreading lies about Obamacare through political ads. Americans for Prosperity, a group backed by Charles and David Koch, is spending millions attacking vulnerable Democrats for their Obamacare support using “horror stories” that are untrue, Reid said on Wednesday.
“The Koch brothers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling Americans that Obamacare is bad for them. It’s easy to do if you have no conscience and are willing to lie like they are, through the ads they’re promoting. But the Kochs should stick to what they know: The oil business … where they’ve made their multi-billions of dollars,” Reid said.
The Koch brothers' response? Of course Charles and David Koch aren't personally responsible for the ads the astroturf organizations they wholly fund run, and also too, Harry Reid is a bad person. Misdirection alert! “It is disgraceful that Senator Reid and his fellow Democrats are attacking a cancer victim as part of their campaign against Charles Koch and David Koch,” says Koch spokesman. Since the Kochs don't actually want to answer to the fact that they're lying in their ads, they play the cancer victim card. A cancer victim who, by the way, would lose all the protections she just received from the Affordable Care Act if the Koch brothers get their way. Reid can take heart in the fact, however, that the Koch's have a lack of sense to go with their lack of conscience. With AFP, they spent $122 million in 2012 to get the law repealed. The $27 million spent as of February 4 in this cycle is just spending good money after bad. Their crusade for repeal is an increasingly losing cause.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos. 

Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:54 PM PST

Harry Reid doubles down on Koch criticism

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a few things to say about the Koch brothers and the false campaign ads they're running around the country in Senate races. After some more thought, Reid decided he had a lot more to say:
"What is going on with these two brothers who made billions of dollars last year in an attempt to buy our democracy is does honest, deceptive, false and unfair. Just because you have huge amounts of money you should not be able to run these false, misleading ads by the hundreds of millions of dollars. They hide behind all kinds of entities," Reid said. "It's not just their front organization, Americans For Prosperity. But they give money to all kinds of organizations, lots of money. You see, when you make billions of dollars a year you can be as immoral and dishonest as your money will allow you to be. It's too bad that they're trying to buy America and it's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers, who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."
Democrats are recognizing a salient fact: people don't like the idea that a couple of billionaire brothers think they can buy a government. So they're specifically running against that big money and the Koch brothers. They're responding to the ads the Kochs are running in Michigan by pointing out that they are trying to buy a Senate seat. Which is exactly what they're trying to do.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:54 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/26/1280611/-Harry-Reid-slams-Koch-brothers?detail=email 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/26/1280668/-Harry-Reid-doubles-down-on-Koch-nbsp-criticism?detail=email 

 

06 February 2014

VIDEO Watch Elizabeth Warren Slam the GOP for Blocking Unemployment Benefits 4FEB14

SEN Elizabeth Warren D MA continues to champion the American people in the US Senate, much to the consternation of the Obama administration and third way democrats. Here she slams the gop / tea-bagger obstructionist for blocking an extension of emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. She condemns them for insisting any extension be paid for by funding cuts of other programs while they push for an extension of tax cuts and subsidies for the rich (tax extenders) for corporate America without requiring offsetting cuts to other corporate welfare programs. From Mother Jones.....
| Tue Feb. 4, 2014 8:52 AM GMT
On Monday evening, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) denounced GOP lawmakers for blocking an extension of federal unemployment insurance, which expired at the end of last year, and called on Congress to act immediately on behalf of the roughly 1.6 million Americans who depend on the benefits.
"Unemployment insurance is a critical lifeline for people who are trying their hardest and need a little help—a recognition that Wall Street and Washington caused the financial crisis, but Main Street is still paying the price," Warren said in a speech on the Senate floor.
She added that it's hypocritical for Republicans to push for an extension of a package of mostly corporate tax breaks called "tax extenders" without offsetting the cost, but are demanding that aid for the unemployed be paid for. "Republicans line up to protect billions in tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations with armies of lobbyists," the senator said, "but they can’t find a way to help struggling families trying get back on their feet."
Each year since the onset of the recession in 2008, Congress has re-authorized federal emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, which kick in after state unemployment benefits run out—usually after 26 weeks. The number of extra weeks of federal unemployment insurance has varied over the years, but last stood at 47 weeks.
The long-term unemployment rate—the percentage of those without a job for 27 weeks or longer—remains at record high levels, but Republicans in the House and Senate don't want to extend federal unemployment benefits unless they are offset by savings elsewhere. A Senate plan to renew the benefits failed a couple of weeks ago, because Republicans said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn't allow them to amend the legislation to their liking. The upper chamber is now working on a new proposal that would pay for the $6-billion extension by temporarily increasing taxes on employers. But even if the Senate passes the measure, it is unclear whether House speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will bring the bill up for a vote, according to Democratic House aides.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/02/video-elizabeth-warren-slams-gop-blocking-unemployment-benefits 

23 January 2014

Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill & Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill & Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.” & Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam 22,16&17JAN14

I e mailed my senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, telling them to oppose S 1881, to give diplomacy a chance to work. I haven't received an answer from Warner (just request for donations to his campaign) but was very happy with Sen Kaine's as he is not a supporter of increasing sanctions on Iran until all diplomatic options are exhausted.
More sanctions on Iran could lead us into another war. The vast majority of the cosponsors of S 1881, especially the democrats, have not served in the US Military, yet they are all to willing to push the war option regarding Iran. Constituents can find out if their senator is a cosponsor of the bill and if they served in the military at http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/sen-tim-kaine-d-va-supports-diplomacy.html and e mail them their thoughts on both.
American and Iranian politicians need to listen to the vast majority of their people. We expect them to give peace a chance. Below are a series of articles from Daily Kos and the Washington Post on S 1881, the threat it poses to peace in the Persian Gulf, the opposition to S 1881 by Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, Sen Patty Murry D WA, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV, Sen Dick Durbin D IL as well as Sec of State Kerry and Pres Obama. And there is an excellent report on Sen Diane Feinstein's (D CA) opposition to S 1881 and the way she publicly slapped down Israeli PM bibi netanyahu and aipac, the pro-Isreal lobby in the U.S., telling them it is not Israel's place to tell America when and where we will go to war! WELL SAID SEN FEINSTEIN!

Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST

Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill

Elizabeth Warren – an unyielding progressive on economic issues – does not often make headlines in the foreign policy department. However, today she made waves by coming out strongly against the Iran sanctions bill which threatens to derail President Obama's diplomatic progress.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”
Warren broke her silence today along with Senator Patty Murray, who as part of the Senate Democratic leadership proved that a definite rift within the Democratic Party on the sanctions bill exists – a rift which may prevent the bill coming up for a vote. Though as Greg Sargent writes, there is still the possibility of such a vote with 58 senators having come out in favor, and many Democrats still silent on their position.
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
                                                                --§--
What Do You Buy For the Children
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.


Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST.

Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271714/-Elizabeth-Warren-Goes-All-Foreign-Policy-on-Iran-Sanctions-Bill? 

Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill

 By Greg Sargent

Patty Murray (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Patty Murray (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Add two more prominent Senators to the list of lawmakers who oppose a vote on an Iran sanctions bill right now: Patty Murray and Elizabeth Warren.
Murray’s opposition — which she declared in a letter to constituents that was sent my way by a source — is significant, because she is a member of the Senate Dem leadership, which is now clearly split on how to proceed. While Chuck Schumer favors the Iran sanctions bill, Murray, Harry Reid and (reportedly) Dick Durbin now oppose it. This could make it less likely that it ever gets a vote.
From Murray’s letter:
Please know that I share your concerns about the Iranian government’s nuclear program. Like you, I am troubled by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and their desire to enrich nuclear materials above levels required for energy production. That is why I was pleased to see Iran take measurable steps toward addressing the international community’s concerns by signing the Joint Plan of Action last fall…While I still remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, I believe this agreement could be an important step in our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to this complicated issue.
I believe the Administration should be given time to negotiate a strong verifiable comprehensive agreement. However, if Iran does not agree to a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable, or if Iran does not abide by the terms of the interim agreement, I will work with my colleagues to swiftly enact sanctions in order to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.
This hits some of the key points: The mere possibility of a long term deal is worth trying for, and sanctions can always be imposed later if the talks go awry.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is circulating a letter to constituents out there that also opposes a vote. Asked about the letter, Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose emails me:
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”
Warren’s pull with the Democratic base, of course, is largely rooted in her emphasis on economic issues, but there has been some chatter in liberal circles inquiring about her stance on Iran. Since a mobilized left is important in preventing a vote that could derail diplomacy, her opposition can only help.
The method by which both Senators declared their positions — letters to constituents, in response to questions perhaps stoked by pressure from outside groups — says something about the caution Dems are demonstrating when it comes to the domestic politics of engagement with Iran. Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.
Meanwhile, announcements like the one earlier this month indicating that the deal with Iran is moving forward make a vote still less likely. With Murray now opposed, that means virtually the whole Dem leadership is a No. On the other hand, those who adamantly want a vote — insisting it would only help the White House and make success more likely, despite what the White House itself wants – will be looking for any hook they can find to reactivate pressure.
And it’s worth stressing that if this ever did come to a vote, it’s quite possible that many of the Dems still remaining silent could still vote Yes. Those Democrats would be putting themselves in a ridiculous, untenable position if they did that, but since many appear convinced that the alternative is politically worse, it remains a very real possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/22/another-blow-to-the-iran-sanctions-bill/?wp_login_redirect=0

Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.”

I have been heartened by the recent pushback against the AIPAC scheme to destroy negotiations with Iran, i.e., the current sanctions bill, and to turn the war power of the United States Constitution effectively over to Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu.
President Obama's spokeperson recently laid it on the line by saying that if members of Congress want a war, they should say so:
According to National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan, “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.” The White House said the bill “would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations.”
New Sanctions on Iran Could Torpedo Negotiations Senator Feinstein followed this up by openly rejected the attempt to turn the war power of the US Constitution over to Israel's current prime minister:
Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee, called the sanctions bill "a march towards war" on Tuesday in a floor speech that was remarkable in detail and force. “I deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,” Feinstein said, after thoroughly rebutting many of the claims about the interim deal put forth by the bill’s supporters. “The United States, not Iran, then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place.” snip
Dianne Feinstein addressed this point more directly than perhaps any other politician so far. “While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war,” she said. “By stating that the US should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.”
The Nation: Push for New Sanctions on Iran Stalls Amid Growing Resistance Through the toughness of the President and the patriotism of a few, including Senator Feinstein, who often is much more hawkish, I think we have averted the attempt to bring this nation to war by the current Israeli government and its lobbyists in the United States.
10 committee chairs in the senate oppose this bill and it looks as if Reid is not going to bring it to a vote.
Such a bill never should have been this close to passing.  Our Congress has a big problem.  Nonetheless, people like Senator Feinstein, who I believe is a strong supporter of Israel, stood up against this.  On foreign policy and civil liberties, we often disagree.  But she has my thanks for helping to avert war and allow negotiations to proceed.  Senator Reid, President Obama and Secretary Kerry also deserve much credit.

Originally posted to TomP on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:22 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East and California politics. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/16/1270111/-Sen-Feinstein-We-cannot-let-Israel-determine-when-and-where-the-US-goes-to-war 


Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST

Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam

Uranium-concentrating centrifuges at Natanz, Iran.
Uranium-concentrating centrifuges at Natanz, Iran.
A week ago, it appeared that a bill to tighten the screws on Iran over its nuclear program was headed for certain success in the Senate. Initiated by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, S. 1881—the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act—would not only have imposed new economic sanctions, it would also have committed the United States to use military force in support of Israel if that nation attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran retaliated. By last Wednesday, Menendez had 58 co-sponsors, including 15 Democrats. Talk centered on whether an additional eight could be gathered to make the bill veto-proof.
But as Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow blog notes today, there's been a turnaround:
Just [in] the last few days, however, the odds of such a bill even reaching the president’s desk have dropped unexpectedly. The Hill, for example, reported yesterday that House Republicans “are moving away from a proposal to adopt new Iran sanctions.” House Democrats who were otherwise sympathetic to the idea became “irked” by GOP political tactics “and the idea appears to have been at least temporarily shelved.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate, the effort to get 67 co-sponsors on board has stalled, with no new names being added since last week. And while U.S. support for new sanctions has fallen off, at least for the moment, the European Union will begin relaxing some of its sanctions next week if inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is complying with the restrictions agreed to by negotiators in Geneva in November. Good news all around.
The switch in the United States can be chalked up in part to White House pressure, the 10 Senate committee chairpersons who wrote a letter opposing more sanctions and surprises like hawk Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) saying new sanctions would "blow up" the negotiations for a long-term international agreement with Iran limiting its nuclear program. The other source of opposition, Benen says a Senate staffer told him, is that "public pressure has also increased, with more voters contacting the Hill with phone calls and emails, voicing opposition to the bill."
Please join us in keeping up that public pressure by opposing the Menendez sanctions bill.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East, More and Better Democracies, and Daily Kos. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/17/1270433/-Congressional-move-to-add-more-sanctions-on-Iran-has-run-out-of-steam