With the White House already reeling over the Solyndra collapse, a new scandal may have erupted today that could make the disappearance of $535 million in taxpayer funds look like a paperwork glitch. Eli Lake starts off his new gig at The Daily Beast with a huge bombshell -- an accusation made to members of Congress from a four-star Air Force general that claimed the White House pressured him to change his testimony to boost a big donor to the Democratic Party:
The four-star Air Force general who oversees U.S. Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.
The episode--confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee--is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.
Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone. Gen. Shelton was originally scheduled to testify Aug. 3 to a House committee that the project would interfere with the military's sensitive Global Positioning Satellite capabilities, which control automated driving directions and missile targeting, among other things.
According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton's prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company. And the White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon's position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, the officials said.
As Eli explains, it's not unusual to distribute prepared Congressional testimony in draft form to other related agencies before giving the testimony. The review gives everyone a chance to make sure that the facts are correct and the testimony is as accurate as possible. But sending Shelton's testimony to LightSquared would raise big red flags on its own -- let alone the accusation that the White House attempted to dictate Shelton's testimony to benefit LightSquared and their big donor.
Rep. Mike Turner told Eli that this was definitely an attempt to influence Shelton, bias his testimony, and essentially mislead Congress. And that has a watchdog organization drawing parallels between Shelton's accusation and the Solyndra collapse:
Melanie Sloan, who runs the nonpartisan ethics groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the emerging allegations about possible White House involvement in LightSquared's matter seemed to mirror earlier allegations in the Solyndra case.
"With this new set of facts, it starts to sound like a pattern of the White House improperly pressuring people at agencies involving decisions that affect companies tied to donors and fundraisers," Sloan said. "It's always a problem when the White House is pressuring anyone's testimony. I don't care if you are a four-star [general] or a GS-15 [career employee], you should be giving your true opinion and not an opinion the White House is seeking for political expediency."
Quite frankly, this would be a lot more blatant and much more troubling. If the White House has been leaning on the military to mislead Congress in order to benefit Democratic donors, that indicates a whole new level of corruption, one that could seriously damage the non-partisan nature of civilian control of the military. If Shelton sticks to this accusation, then Congress needs to hold immediate hearings into who exactly pressured Shelton -- and from whom that person took his or her orders. Wow.... if true, isn't this a impeachable offense? How much more of this blatant shoveling of money and influence into dhimocratic coffers and allies will the public take before demanding this fool steps down?
#5
...until the One's numbers hit 30 on the way down closely followed by anyone with a 'D' behind their name and office. Then like the Trunks during the Nixon fall, they'll start to line up to protect their own posteriors. Probably too late though by then.
#6
Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.
If I am not mistaken General, I believe incidents of this nature fall into the "Waste Fraud and Abuse" category. Did you file such a report at the time of the alleged incident? Did you report it to the Chairman? Make an MFR, any fucking thing? If not, why not? "Pressed" were you? Alright, I think I understand.
#8
I believe incidents of this nature fall into the "Waste Fraud and Abuse" category
Not really, since that covers acquisition or (mis)use of funds, equipment, etc. However, it should have been reported immediately as a security violation. Apparently things are done differently in U.S. Space Command and the Beltway military.
#9
That or the General who is a 4 star, meaning he is a competent political animal was doing battlespace preparation: let the White House illegally pressure him, and then drop the bombshell in a top secret committee meeting without showing his hand before. Any written report could have been 'misfiled' at the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, and the General reassigned or retired. This way, he drops a nuke on Zero and his cronies in sworn testimony before the House, and inoculates himself against any political repercussions by said White House.
...One thing the Europeans should realize is that, unlike the politically correct West, China is nearly impervious to the invocation of victim status and practically indifferent to the whole panoply of quasi-religious causes that are held so sacred in Europe. Talking about "justice", "global warming", "humanitarianism" and "economic rights" cuts no mustard over there. It's cash and carry. As is, where is. Or else it is, "do I know you?"
It will be somewhat entertaining to watch Brussels put on the customary show; dispatch their legions of special rapporteurs, ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary, who will gyrate, grovel and simultaneously unctuously demand things with an old-world hauteur, only to discover it doesn't work with representatives of an even older world. It's sad in a way and not a little pathetic.
#1
One of the big delusions the Europeans have isn't that the Chinese _will_ help, it's that they _can_ help. They've been paying for all of their recent expansion of capability by inflating their currency, but in the long term they've been putting forth the idea that they can put all the manufacturers in the US and Europe out of business, but that the US and Europe will still be able to afford their stuff afterwards.
Most of the political prognosticators are focusing on whether Obama can be re-elected if the unemployment rate is still near 9 percent by election day next year, but most of the fancy quantitative political science models suggest that this is the wrong variable (or perhaps the dependent variable if you are into multiple regressions). Most of the models find that the most important economic factor is income growth. If incomes are falling, or growing very slowly, incumbents or the incumbent party usually loses. I'll put in my caveat here that I'm a skeptic of these kind of quantitative political science models on several grounds, not least of which is that the sample size of presidential elections is just too small to call these model results definitive or statistically robust. But Democrats pointing to Reagan's landslide re-election in 1984 amidst still high unemployment (still over 7.5 percent on election day) miss that personal income had been growing very fast for more than a year before the election in 1984.
Caveats noted, this morning's Wall Street Journal brings multiple doses of horrible news for Obama and the Democrats on this front. The lead story is that household income has fallen to 1996 levels when adjusted for inflation. Some of the internal details of the story are even more worrisome: "Earnings of the typical man who works full-time year round fell, and are lower--adjusted for inflation--than in 1978." So what does Obama want to do? Raise taxes of course.
Meanwhile, Republican Bob Turner won the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in the heavily Democratic district in New York City--the first time a Republican has won that seat in a century. Yet the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, gamely tried to shrug it off saying, "It's a very difficult district for Democrats." (Cue Kevin Bacon in Animal House here; "All is well!") Anger at Obama's anti-Israel policy is clearly a factor at work in this district, but keep in mind that one factor in Ronald Reagan's 1980 landslide was anger among Jewish voters about Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel policy. Reagan got something like 35 percent of the Jewish vote that year--more than twice what Republicans usually get. It was a factor in Reagan winning New York.
But wait, the hits keep coming! The Journal front page also updates a story I've been following for a while out of California. Seems the Democratic Party's state treasurer has embezzled more than $1 million in campaign funds from candidate treasuries--perhaps several million. She's been doing it for years, apparently, and party leaders simply ignored red flags and $190,000 in fines for reporting errors from the state agency that oversees campaign spending accounts. I can imagine the treasurer's courtroom defense now: I was only doing privately what my party's office holders do to the public on a daily basis--redistributing wealth.
And to top it all off, Al Gore's "24 Hours of Reality" climate change telethon begins tonight. I'm sure the White House is thrilled to have Gore back up in everyone's face. Must-flee TV. The election is still a long... long way away. But, the current trend lines are not good for Obumble. May they continue to stay that way.
Darth, WADR, publicly wishing for general hardship to win an election is bullshit! It's remiscent of the Dems admitting that bad news from Iraq translated to bad news for Bush. Besides that, the Looney Left's favorite conspiracy theory now is that the Pubs are intentionally tanking the economy to win 2012. Please, don't feed them.
I'm not sayin I'm just sayin...
#2
You got it wrong, DG. I am not wishing for general hardship. Obama's approval and other trend lines are going down. I just want them to stay that way, not have the economy or the US prestige be flushed away any more than it already has.
I would be thrilled if things started improving, but with Obumble and his ego, it just ain't gonna happen. I enjoy every time the fool opens his mouth and removes more doubt of his ability to lead from the public.
As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up, President Obama's campaign team has set up a new Web site, AttackWatch.com, to challenge negative statements about the president made by Republican presidential candidates and conservatives.
Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird told ABC News that the site's goal is to offer "resources to fight back" against attacks. Mostly, that means fact checking statements from the likes of GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and conservative commentator Glenn Beck and offering evidence to the contrary. The site is designed in bold red and black colors, and uses statements like "support the truth" and "fight the smears."
The response to the site has been less than stellar.
On Twitter, where the Web site has an account to help Obama supporters submit evidence of "attacks" on the president using the hashtag #attackwatch, iowhawk has been blowing him up
nearly every tweet about the site -- mostly from conservatives -- has ridiculed it. go to the link and watch the video
Accusations that a campaign treasurer, Kinde Durkee, stole more than $1 million from Democratic candidates across California have jolted the party on the eve of the 2012 campaign season.
Ms. Durkee was a trusted political operative within the Democratic Party in California, with roots in campaigns stretching back decades. She got her start in campaign finance in the 1970s on the George McGovern campaign, as a protégé of veteran campaign treasurer Jules Glazer. Ms. Durkee built up her client base through word of mouth.
Her offices in Burbank, Calif., were nondescript. During campaigns, visitors saw staffers processing donation checks on tables. Several of Ms. Durkee's family members worked at her firm, according to firm records and court testimony.
Wylie Aitken, a prominent trial lawyer and major Democratic donor in Orange County, said Ms. Durkee had been recommended to him as "probably the premier person to look after you so you didn't break campaign rules."
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
09/15/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Stealing from crooks is not actually stealing, it it?
[Daily Nation (Kenya)] US President Barack B.O. Obama signalled yesterday he would pay for his $447 billion jobs plan by raising taxes on the rich and energy corporations and lining up a new showdown with Republicans, amid a Congressional poll in New York.
Remember, this is the new plan, not to be confused with the old plan...
The president, seeking to reset his under-pressure presidency and slice away at 9.1 per cent unemployment, sent the bill to politicians and warned Republicans not to slow it down with "political games" at a time of great national urgency.
But Mr Obama, by deciding to finance the bill by ending tax breaks for oil and gas firms and individuals earning over $200,000, set up a new row with Republican politicians -- who have already rejected such methods in the past.
The president, who has promised to fight for the bill in every corner of the country, gathered firefighters and teachers who he said would be helped by the bill on Monday in the White House Rose Garden.
"This is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. This is a bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis," Mr Obama said.
"This is a bill that Congress needs to pass. No games. No politics. No delays."
The White House later unveiled Mr Obama's plans for paying for the legislation in a way that will not run up the already bloated deficit.
Meanwhile, ...back at the hoedown, Bob finally got to dance with Sally... voters go to the polls today in a special US congressional election for a heavily Democratic area of New York City where Republicans are hoping to score an upset and send a message to the White House.
The Ninth Congressional district in Queens and Brooklyn opened up in June when popular Democratic incumbent Anthony Weiner resigned over revelations that he was sending X-rated photos of himself to women he met online.
As if the clean-cut, married congressman's sex scandal was not embarrassing enough, Mr Obama's party now risks the humiliation of losing a seat in a district where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3:1.
"Certainly the attitude and approval rating of the president is having a lot to do with this electorate and the election outcome tomorrow. I'm hopeful we win it," Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on Monday.
The latest numbers from Public Policy Polling show Republican businessman Bob Turner leading veteran Democratic state and city politician David Weprin by 47 to 41 per cent.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
.... he would pay for his $447 billion jobs plan by raising taxes on the rich and energy corporations
I see he's been watching the market. I wonder if the poor bugger even realizes businesses don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to consumers? The man is a marooon!
#7
Something which has bugged me from the get-go...why is it that a single person is good to go at <$200k, but a couple must be <$250k...shouldn't that be <$400k visually, maybe about <$350k or whatever the crazy scale says depending upon dependants? I mean at a glance it appears to be punishing couples.
Its a bit worse than that. Unless the government pays a business to hire an employee no amount of tax credits will offset the fact that the new employee will cost money. That money must be made up with the increased productivity of the new employee(s). A business which does not have this in their COGS is likely not doing it right, and increases the chances of over/undercharging.
But to continue that thought, year goes by and credits. What next year, any credits there? What about obamacare, are the companies on the hook for the new employees cobra-style, what responsibilities for firing these new employees if business does not pick up?
#12
Instead of 'taxing' how about a tax holiday to that amount, leaving the money in the hands of the 'taxpayers' to decide how they'd stimulate the economy? Then again there's little room for graft or corruption in that concept.
President Obama repeatedly asked members of Congress to pass the American Jobs Act last week. But when no Democrat filed Obamas bill after he presented it to Congress, a conservative congressman swiped the name for his own legislation.
The American Jobs Act introduced in the House of Representatives looks quite different from the version President Obama outlined in his speech to Congress. Instead of hiking taxes on working Americans to pay for another stimulus, Rep. Louie Gohmerts (R-TX) legislation offers a tax cut.
UPDATE: Gohmerts bill now has a number. Its HR 2911.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
With the White House already reeling over the Solyndra collapse, a new scandal may have erupted today that could make the disappearance of $535 million in taxpayer funds look like a paperwork glitch. Eli Lake starts off his new gig at The Daily Beast with a huge bombshell -- an accusation made to members of Congress from a four-star Air Force general that claimed the White House pressured him to change his testimony to boost a big donor to the Democratic Party:
...One thing the Europeans should realize is that, unlike the politically correct West, China is nearly impervious to the invocation of victim status and practically indifferent to the whole panoply of quasi-religious causes that are held so sacred in Europe. Talking about "justice", "global warming", "humanitarianism" and "economic rights" cuts no mustard over there. It's cash and carry. As is, where is. Or else it is, "do I know you?"
Most of the political prognosticators are focusing on whether Obama can be re-elected if the unemployment rate is still near 9 percent by election day next year, but most of the fancy quantitative political science models suggest that this is the wrong variable (or perhaps the dependent variable if you are into multiple regressions). Most of the models find that the most important economic factor is income growth. If incomes are falling, or growing very slowly, incumbents or the incumbent party usually loses. I'll put in my caveat here that I'm a skeptic of these kind of quantitative political science models on several grounds, not least of which is that the sample size of presidential elections is just too small to call these model results definitive or statistically robust. But Democrats pointing to Reagan's landslide re-election in 1984 amidst still high unemployment (still over 7.5 percent on election day) miss that personal income had been growing very fast for more than a year before the election in 1984.
US President 
