The Trump administration wants to force hospitals to disclose to patients how much they charge for all supplies, tests and procedures.

A new proposal released Monday aims to make it easier for patients to shop around for the best price by forcing hospitals to disclose what are often secret rates negotiated with insurance companies. 

Under the policy, hospitals would be required to post online all charges for all items and services provided by the hospital beginning Jan. 1, 2020. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposal would impact more than 6,000 hospitals across the country that accept Medicare. Comments on the proposal are due Sept. 27. 

Hospitals that fail to disclose that information could be fined, but the fines would be limited to only $300 a day. 

Click Here: Arsenal FC Jerseys

Hospitals are already required to publicly post their list prices for services, but in a call with reporters, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma said the proposal would expand that requirement to include gross charges before discounts as well as the insurer-specific negotiated charges for all items and services. 

The charges would be linked to the name of the insurance company and the insurance plan, Verma said.

The proposed rule implements an executive order signed by President TrumpDonald John TrumpSharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color Trump signs 9/11 compensation fund bill alongside first responders Trump continues assault on Fed: It ‘has made all of the wrong moves’ MORE earlier this year and is a key piece of the administration’s plan to force more price transparency from health providers and drug companies. 

If patients know the costs of health care services upfront, the White House argues, it could help prevent surprise medical bills, which are increasingly becoming a source of anxiety for Americans.

The administration is relying on consumer-friendly issues to position the president as a populist champion of transparency and reduced medical bills ahead of the 2020 election.

“This proposal is now the most significant step any President has ever taken to deliver transparency and put patients in control of their care,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement. 

“All Americans have the right to know the price of their healthcare up front,” Verma said in a statement. “This rule will finally expose hospital pricing practices, let hospitals compete on price and is a first step toward ending surprise billing practices.”

The administration is also proposing to make public payer-specific negotiated charges for a limited set of 300 “shoppable” services that patients can schedule with a hospital in advance, such as an MRI, lab test or a hip replacement. 

“When [patients] start to see the amount of variation in prices, that will encourage more shopping of services,” Verma said. 

Different hospitals charge widely different amounts for the same services in part because of contracted discounts with insurers. Similar to prescription drugs, the patients who are usually subject to the full list price are the ones without insurance or who have high-deductible health plans.

The changes are likely to face significant pushback from the hospital and insurance industries, which started fighting the administration in June when Trump first signed the executive order on price transparency. 

“Multiple experts … agree that disclosing privately negotiated rates will make it harder to bargain for lower rates, creating a floor – not a ceiling – for the prices that hospitals would be willing to accept. Publicly disclosing competitively negotiated, proprietary rates will push prices and premiums higher —not lower— for consumers, patients, and taxpayers,” Matt Eyles, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement Monday. 

The country’s largest hospital group, the American Hospital Association (AHA), also slammed the proposal.

“While we support transparency, today’s proposal misses the mark, exceeds the Administration’s legal authority and should be abandoned,” AHA President and CEO Tom Pollack said in a statement, noting the plan could “seriously limit the choices available to patients” and “fuel anticompetitive behavior among commercial health insurers.”

Verma told reporters the administration is not afraid of the onslaught of negative press from insurers and providers, although previous controversial transparency proposals on prescription drugs have been pulled in the face of intensive industry pressure.

Rep. John RatcliffeJohn Lee RatcliffeThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump, Sharpton feud over Baltimore attacks The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s new target: Elijah Cummings Juan Williams: Trump, his allies and the betrayal of America MORE (R-Texas) has over the past two years grown from a relatively unknown lawmaker to a prominent member among House Republicans, in large part because of his role in investigating GOP allegations of wrongdoing by the Justice Department and FBI during the 2016 election.

Now, the Republican congressman and former U.S. attorney is the president’s pick to replace Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s new target: Elijah Cummings Juan Williams: Trump, his allies and the betrayal of America READ: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats’s resignation letter MORE at the helm of the intelligence community.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ratcliffe, 53, may face an uphill confirmation battle to become the head of the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). He is a new member of the House Intelligence Committee and has limited national security experience, which will be a point of criticism at least among Senate Democrats.

Trump’s decision to tap Ratcliffe for the role also represents a growing effort by the president to fill his cabinet with his political allies. That could prove a hurdle for the GOP lawmaker as he seeks to convince senators that he will provide an unvarnished, unbiased account of the nation’s intelligence and speak truth to power when necessary.

Ratcliffe has made multiple appearances on Fox News, where he has cast doubt on the credibility of the origins of the Russia investigation and trumpeted conservative allegations FBI agents were biased in their decision to open a probe into the Trump campaign’s ties to Moscow.

On Sunday, Ratcliffe alleged that there were “crimes committed” during the Obama administration.

While Republicans argue they’re trying to hold government officials accountable, Democrats and some former intelligence members say their efforts are meant to undermine the intelligence community and special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE’s now-shuttered Russia investigation.

Ratcliffe’s allies are offering a steadfast defense of his character and abilities after his nomination announcement Sunday was met with criticism.

“You’re welcome to disagree with him on policy, but you cannot be around him without being struck by his fairness and his humility and his willingness to hear you out,” said former Rep. Trey GowdyHarold (Trey) Watson GowdyCummings announces expansion of Oversight panel’s White House personal email probe, citing stonewalling Pelosi says it’s up to GOP to address sexual assault allegation against Trump Our sad reality: Donald Trump is no Eisenhower MORE (R-S.C.), the former Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who retired last year.

“He wound up becoming my best friend in the House after I did everything to keep him from getting to the House. Most people don’t do that,” Gowdy added, noting that he had endorsed Ratcliffe’s opponent, longtime incumbent Rep. Ralph HallRalph Moody HallRising star Ratcliffe faces battle to become Trump’s intel chief Former Texas GOP Rep. Ralph Hall dead at 95 GOP fights off primary challengers in deep-red Texas MORE (R-Texas), when he first made a run for Congress in 2014. Ratcliffe ended up defeating Hall in a runoff.

Gowdy, who was among Ratcliffe’s closest friends in the House, also played a role in raising Ratcliffe’s name to the president, stating in an interview with The Hill that he first requested a meeting with Trump to propose Ratcliffe as a possible candidate for attorney general.

But as prolonged government shutdown and other matters popped up, the meeting Gowdy requested with Trump was ultimately pushed back until after the president had already announced William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrFormer public defender: DOJ plan to resume federal executions a ‘recipe for problems’ The death penalty is racially biased, fiscally irresponsible and very inaccurate Trump starts another day with Cummings attack: ’25 years of all talk, no action!’ MORE as his pick to lead the Justice Department. Still, Gowdy praised Ratcliffe during a golf outing with the president after his Barr appointment, to which Trump indicated he would keep the Texas Republican in mind for other similar positions.

Still, Ratcliffe currently appears to be somewhat of an unknown quantity among GOP members in the upper chamber, unlike Coats, a former senator from Indiana. A number of GOP senators – including Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s new target: Elijah Cummings Juan Williams: Trump, his allies and the betrayal of America Largest Senate GOP group to run first ads for 2020 MORE (R-Ky.) – released statements praising Coats and lamenting his departure without mentioning Ratcliffe’s nomination.

When asked about Ratcliffe on Monday, Intelligence Committee member Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsOvernight Health Care: Oversight chair plans to call drug executives to testify on costs | Biden airs anti-‘Medicare for All’ video | House panel claims Juul deliberately targeted kids Collins says she hasn’t decided on 2020 run, criticizes ‘dark money groups’ Progressive media group launches ‘Get Mitch or Die Trying’ campaign to flip Senate MORE (R-Maine) said she didn’t know Ratcliffe “at all” and that she has “special interest” in the position because it was established under a 2004 law she co-wrote.

“I feel very strongly about this position and the importance of having someone with the integrity and skill and ability to bring all of the members of the intelligence together,” Collins said.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneHouse passes anti-robocall bill GOP leaders struggle to contain conservative anger over budget deal Grassley gambles on drug price bill despite GOP doubts MORE (R-S.D.) said he would wait until Ratcliffe’s confirmation process to make a judgment, but noted Ratcliffe has “really good credentials,” having handled sensitive cases as a U.S. attorney.

Thune also predicted that his ability to push back against the president would come up at his confirmation hearing.

“We need that in that position and I’m sure that will be one of the areas of questions that he’ll get,” Thune said.

Ratcliffe has earned praise from Trump confidantes, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamThis week: Senate races to wrap up work before recess Trump allies spike ball after Supreme Court decision on border wall McConnell under fire for burying election bills in ‘legislative graveyard’ MORE (R-S.C.), who tweeted that Ratcliffe “will be a worthy successor and has my full support,” and Sen. John CornynJohn CornynThe Hill’s Campaign Report: 2020 Democrats step up attacks ahead of Detroit debate More than 1,400 Jewish clergy call on Trump, Congress to allow asylum-seekers into US Senate panel advances bipartisan bill to lower drug prices amid GOP blowback MORE (R), a fellow Texan.

Ratcliffe is aligned closely with Trump in his criticisms of the Russia investigation — in contrast with Coats, whose public pronouncements on Russian interference, Iran and other issues have put him at odds with Trump at various points in the administration.

Coats has been widely praised for telling “truth to power.”

Trump is said to have soured on Coats months ago, opening up a flood of rumors about potential replacements, including Ratcliffe, who catapulted himself further into the spotlight last week with his aggressive questioning of former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Ratcliffe launched into a blistering attack on Mueller’s report during the special counsel’s testimony on Capitol Hill, suggesting Mueller violated Justice Department rules by explicitly declining to exonerate Trump of allegations of obstruction of justice.

“It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone,” Ratcliffe said, raising his voice. “Everyone is entitled to it — even sitting presidents.”

The multiple headlines also led some to claim Ratcliffe was auditioning for the job. Gowdy, however, says he would have pursued that line of questioning regardless.

Ratcliffe, who has been in Congress under five years, sits on the House Judiciary, Homeland Security and Intelligence Committees, and is a former federal terrorism prosecutor, which his proponents argue qualifies him for the national security role.

But beyond his time in Congress, Ratcliffe has virtually no official intelligence or foreign policy experience — a rarity for intelligence nominees. Coats, however, similarly moved to the ODNI role with limited official intelligence experience.

Critics are wary of his statements criticizing the FBI and have questioned his qualifications. Some worry that Ratcliffe is too political and wouldn’t maintain the independence from Trump that Coats did.

“I think [Coats] has done a good of a job as anyone could have done in preserving the integrity and function of the intelligence community across the board,” Steve Cash, an ex-CIA officer and former chief counsel to Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinDemocrats urge Graham to back down from rules change threat Senate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns Overnight Energy: Warren edges past Sanders in poll of climate-focused voters | Carbon tax shows new signs of life | Greens fuming at Trump plans for development at Bears Ears monument MORE (D-Calif.), told The Hill, calling Ratcliffe the “polar opposite.”

“He is neither a professional nor has he exhibited any evidence that he understands or even cares about the proper function of the intelligence community in protecting America,” Cash said.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color McConnell under fire for burying election bills in ‘legislative graveyard’ Washington Post columnist accuses McConnell of doing ‘Putin’s bidding’ MORE (D-N.Y.) alleged that Ratcliffe was only offered the role “because he exhibited blind loyalty to President TrumpDonald John TrumpSharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color Trump signs 9/11 compensation fund bill alongside first responders Trump continues assault on Fed: It ‘has made all of the wrong moves’ MORE with his demagogic questioning of” Mueller.

Ratcliffe’s supporters, however dispute claims he would unquestionably serve the president, pointing to various times in Ratcliffe showed an independent streak and bucked both his base and his party.

“[The] first vote he cast in Congress was one of independence from what his base wanted him to do. He voted for BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerThis little engine delivers results for DC children Boehner won’t say whether he’d back Biden over Trump The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump seizes House impeachment vote to rally GOP MORE. And I bet you that was the least popular vote he cast his first term in Congress, and it was the first vote he cast,” Gowdy said, referring to a GOP vote to give former House Speaker John BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerThis little engine delivers results for DC children Boehner won’t say whether he’d back Biden over Trump The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump seizes House impeachment vote to rally GOP MORE (R-Ohio) another two-year term in 2014.

Ratcliffe is more likely than not to be confirmed barring major controversy, given the Republican majority in the Senate. Coats similarly moved to the ODNI role with limited official intelligence experience.

But that doesn’t mean it won’t be a bruising battle for Ratcliffe, who is sure to face scrutiny of his past comments during his confirmation hearing.

Coats, who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and as U.S. ambassador to Germany, was approved easily in a 85-12 vote in March 2017. Other Trump nominees for national security posts, like CIA Director Gina HaspelGina Cheri HaspelThe peculiar priorities of Adam Schiff A brief timeline of Trump’s clashes with intelligence director Dan Coats Trump approved Iranian strike before pulling back: report MORE, have proven more controversial but were confirmed narrowly in the end.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrHillicon Valley: Senate Intel releases election security report | GOP blocks votes on election security bills | Gabbard sues Google over alleged censorship | Barr meets state AGs on tech antitrust concerns Senate Intel finds ‘extensive’ Russian election interference going back to 2014 McConnell says he has no plans to watch Mueller testimony MORE (R-N.C.) did not offer an explicit endorsement of Ratcliffe in a statement Tuesday, but said he called to “congratulate” the Texas Republican on Sunday and pledged to “swiftly” act on the nomination once it’s official.

While his support in the Senate has yet to fully become clear, Ratcliffe is widely liked by Republicans in the House, where he formed various powerful friendships with a variety of members from the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus group to more moderate Republicans, and party leaders.

GOP members consider Ratcliffe their star questioner, so much so that the Texas lawmaker jumped past more senior members on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees to press Mueller last Wednesday, following the two committees’ Republican ranking members.

He also has formed various ties with Democrats in the House, particularly with his focus on cyber, including election security matters. He has co-sponsored multiple cyber-focused bills with Democrats like Reps. Jim LangevinJames (Jim) R. LangevinOvernight Defense: Trump says he doesn’t need exit strategy with Iran | McConnell open to vote on Iran war authorization | Senate panel advances bill to restrict emergency arms sales House passes bill to establish DHS cyber ‘first responder’ teams Hillicon Valley: Assange hit with 17 more charges | Facebook removes record 2.2B fake profiles | Senate passes anti-robocall bill | Senators offer bill to help companies remove Huawei equipment MORE (R.I.), Jim HimesJames (Jim) Andres HimesDemocrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Live coverage: Mueller testifies before Congress The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump creates new firestorm with ‘go back’ remarks MORE (Conn.), and Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaDemocrats see window closing for impeachment The Hill’s Morning Report — Mueller testimony gives Trump a boost as Dems ponder next steps On The Money: House to vote on budget deal Thursday | US, China resuming trade talks next week | Mnuchin backs DOJ tech antitrust probe MORE (D-Calif.).

Jordain Carney contributed.

Click Here: watford football shirts

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenBooker qualifies for fall Democratic debates Harris’s health plan would keep private insurance Most oppose cash reparations for slavery: poll MORE (D-Mass.) on Monday released a plan to use trade policy as a tool to create stronger safeguards for labor, the environment and regions of the country harmed by globalization.

Warren’s plan would overhaul the process by which the U.S. proposes, writes, finalizes and enforces trade deals while imposing strict standards for any nation seeking or currently in a free trade deal with the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a Medium post outlining the extensive trade proposal, Warren said her approach to trade is centered on using the United States’ immense leverage to protect domestic industries and workers.

Warren argued U.S trade policy has ceded too much power to international corporations, squandering the country’s ability to defend its manufacturers, farmers and laborers. 

“As President, I won’t hand America’s leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes,” Warren wrote. “We will engage in international trade — but on our terms and only when it benefits American families.”

Warren’s plan is among the most comprehensive proposals to replace President TrumpDonald John TrumpSharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color Trump signs 9/11 compensation fund bill alongside first responders Trump continues assault on Fed: It ‘has made all of the wrong moves’ MORE’s tariff-based trade policy with a holistic protectionist agenda. 

Trump has imposed more than $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, foreign steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines since taking office in 2017. The president has used import taxes as leverage in trade talks and inducement for companies to produce goods in the U.S., but manufacturing job gains and activity have faded throughout the year.

U.S. farmers and ranchers have also lost billions of dollars in foreign sales due to retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural goods.

Warren acknowledged that while tariffs “are an important tool, they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly lacks.”

Warren said she instead would pursue deals and renegotiate current agreement to “force other countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement.”

To do so, Warren would expand the ability of Congress and noncorporate advocates to see and shape trade deals as their being negotiated, not after they have been submitted to lawmakers for approval

Warren proposed staffing trade advisory panels with a majority of representatives from labor and environmental and consumer advocacy groups. She also called for special advisory panels for consumers, rural areas and each region of the country, “so that critical voices are at the table during negotiations.”

Under Warren’s plan, trade negotiators would be required to submit drafts of pending agreements to Congress and submit them for public comment through the same process used by federal regulators to propose and finalize rules.  

Warren’s plan also raises the bar for entry into a trade deal with the U.S. and seizes more power for the federal government to enforce agreements. 

Warren proposed a list of nine standards required of any country seeking a U.S. trade deal including several international tax, climate and human rights treaties. She noted that the U.S. “shamefully” does not comply with some of these standards, but would do so under her presidency.

Click Here: watford football shirts

The plan also excludes any nation on the Treasury Department’s currency manipulation monitoring list from a potential U.S. trade deal. As of May, that list includes China, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

Nations in trade deals with the U.S. would also be required to support subsidies for green energy, follow U.S. food inspection standards, pay a fee on goods produced using “carbon-intensive” processes and agree to stricter anti-trust standards.

Welcome to Monday’s Overnight Health Care. 

The “Medicare for All” debate is heating up just in time for the next Democratic debate, Medicaid work requirements got struck down (again), and the Trump administration is requiring more health care price transparency.

We’ll start with the Medicare for All fight…

 

Harris stirs criticism with new health plan

Looks like there could be some sparks over health care at the debates on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisFormer public defender: DOJ plan to resume federal executions a ‘recipe for problems’ New York governor signs bill decriminalizing marijuana use 2020 Democrats renew calls for gun reform after Gilroy shooting MORE (D-Calif.), a 2020 contender, released her health care plan on Monday and immediately took flak from the right and the left, including her primary rivals, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie Sanders2020 Democrats renew calls for gun reform after Gilroy shooting Inslee proposes opening environmental justice office Trump says Sanders should be labeled a racist for remarks on Baltimore MORE (I-Vt.) and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe Biden2020 Democrats renew calls for gun reform after Gilroy shooting Booker qualifies for fall Democratic debates On the debate stage, let it rip, Joe MORE. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Harris’s plan seeks to find a path between the total elimination of private insurance under the Sanders version of Medicare for All, and Biden’s public option plan, which would strengthen the Affordable Care Act and keep employer-sponsored insurance in place. 

 

What her plan does:

• Transitions to Medicare for All over 10 years (slower than Sanders’s four years)
• Keeps a role for private insurers to administer tightly regulated plans similar to the current Medicare Advantage program. 
• Includes a promise not to raise taxes on those making under $100,000 per year. 

Harris has gone back and forth on whether she would eliminate private insurance. Her plan today shows what should be her final answer. 

Read more about her plan here

 

Biden’s response:

“This new, have-it-every-which-way approach pushes the extremely challenging implementation of the Medicare for All part of this plan ten years into the future, meaning it would not occur on the watch of even a two-term administration,” Biden spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. 

Bedingfield also hit Harris for her “refusal to be straight with the American middle class, who would have a large tax increase forced on them with this plan.”

Read more on Biden’s attack here

 

Sanders response: “Call it anything you want, but you can’t call this plan Medicare for All. Folding to the interests of the health insurance industry is both bad policy and bad politics,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement.

The Sanders campaign’s biggest knock against Harris is that her plan still has a role — albeit very limited — for private insurance. But Harris’ supporters say her plan is essentially an expansion of the current Medicare Advantage program, which relies on private companies to administer Medicare programs that provide more services than a traditional, government-run Medicare program. 

Read more on the Sanders criticism here

Click Here: watford football shirts

 

The takeaway: These plans are all moving toward more government-run health insurance and expanding coverage to more people, a far cry from Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But it’s the differences between the Democratic plans that will be at the center of the primary debate. 

 

Federal judge strikes New Hampshire’s Medicaid work requirements

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. This is now the third state that has had Medicaid work requirements get struck down. 

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, struck down New Hampshire’s work requirements less than a week after hearing oral arguments.

Boasberg is the same judge who has twice rejected the administration’s approval of similar requirements in Kentucky, and also blocked Arkansas from implementing its Medicaid work requirements. 

“In short, we have all seen this movie before,” Boasberg wrote in his opinion.

Just as in Kentucky and Arkansas, Boasberg ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to take into account how many people subject to the work requirements would lose Medicaid coverage.

Read more here.

 

Trump administration wants to force hospitals to disclose secret negotiated prices

The Trump administration wants to force hospitals to disclose to patients how much they charge for all supplies, tests, and procedures.

A new proposal released Monday aims to make it easier for patients to shop around for the best price by forcing hospitals to disclose what are often secret rates negotiated with insurance companies. 

Under the policy, hospitals would be required to post online all charges for all items and services provided by the hospital beginning Jan. 1, 2020. 

What’s new: Hospitals are already required to publicly post their list prices for services, but in a call with reporters, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma said the proposal would expand that requirement to include gross charges before discounts as well as the insurer-specific negotiated charges for all items and services. The charges would be linked to the name of the insurance company and the insurance plan, Verma said.

Political optics: While some health experts question the effectiveness of mandatory disclosures, it’s hard to argue with transparency. The proposed rule implements an executive order signed by President TrumpDonald John TrumpSharpton: Trump has ‘particular venom’ for blacks, people of color Trump signs 9/11 compensation fund bill alongside first responders Trump continues assault on Fed: It ‘has made all of the wrong moves’ MORE earlier this year and is a key piece of the administration’s plan to force more price transparency from health providers and drug companies. 

The administration is relying on consumer-friendly issues to position the president as a populist champion of transparency and reduced medical bills ahead of the 2020 election, instead of the president who tried to destroy ObamaCare, threatening the health insurance of 20 million people. 

Read more on the plan here

 

What we’re reading

How a Medicare buy-in or public option could threaten ObamaCare (The New York Times)

Why aren’t voters more willing to abandon a health system that’s failing? (Vox.com)  

Assailing high drug prices, Bernie Sanders heads to Canada for affordable insulin (The New York Times) 

 

State by state 

‘Short-sighted’ decisions in Minnesota’s Medicaid program are harming patients, doctor charges (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

Medicaid expansion is at the heart of the budget fight. Here’s what it means for North Carolina. (Asheville Citizen-Times)  

Philadelphia family hit with $2,500 surprise bill for dental anesthesia (Philadelphia Inquirer) 

 

From The Hill’s opinion page:

Why an ‘America First’ approach won’t work in Ebola pandemic

Immigrant women aren’t getting access to health care due to fears

Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyThis week: Senate races to wrap up work before recess Romney to vote against budget deal: Agreement ‘perpetuates fiscal recklessness’ Hillicon Valley: FTC fines Facebook B in privacy settlement | Critics pan settlement as weak | Facebook also faces FTC antitrust probe | Senate panel advances ‘deepfakes’ legislation | House passes anti-robocall bill MORE (R-Mo.), a freshman who has emerged as a top Republican critic of major technology companies in Congress, on Tuesday will introduce a bill banning social media companies from building “addictive” features into their products.

Hawley’s Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act would make it illegal for social media platforms to hook users by offering them more content than they requested in order to get them to continue on their respective platforms.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill takes aim at practices specifically employed by the country’s top social networking sites – YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat.

For example, it would ban YouTube’s “autoplay” feature, which loads up new videos for users automatically; Facebook and Twitter’s “infinite scroll,” which allows users to continue scrolling through their homepages without limit; and Snapchat’s “streaks,” which reward users for continuing to send photos to their friends.

It would also require the companies to build “user-friendly” interfaces, with features allowing users to limit the amount of time they spend on the platform and offering reminders how much time they’ve spent perusing the site.

“Big tech has embraced a business model of addiction,” Hawley said in a statement. “Too much of the ‘innovation’ in this space is designed not to create better products, but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away.”

Hawley’s legislation would empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys to take action against companies that did not remove “addictive” features within a few months. 

It would also allow the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to jointly write new rules aimed at getting ahead of new “deceptive” tactics, anticipating that there will be new innovations in technology that the bill doesn’t cover.

The addictive features targeted by Hawley’s legislation can be considered as a form of “dark patterns,” or design features that nudge users into certain behavior without their explicit knowledge.

Sens. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerThe Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s new target: Elijah Cummings Trump taps Texas Rep. Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coats as top intelligence official Sunday shows – Democrats attack, Trump allies defend tweets hitting Cummings MORE (D-Va.) and Deb FischerDebra (Deb) Strobel FischerOvernight Defense: Esper sworn in as Pentagon chief | Confirmed in 90-8 vote | Takes helm as Trump juggles foreign policy challenges | Senators meet with woman accusing defense nominee of sexual assault Lobbying World On The Money: Labor secretary under fire over Epstein plea deal | Trump defends Acosta as Dems call for ouster | Biden releases tax returns showing steep rise in income | Tech giants to testify at House antitrust hearing MORE (R-Neb.) in April introduced legislation prohibiting the largest online platforms – like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – from using dark patterns by giving the FTC more jurisdiction over the issue. 

Hawley has introduced an expansive array of tech-related bills during this Congress, addressing issues from children’s online privacy to video game design. While the bulk of this legislation has not seen significant movement beyond gathering a few bipartisan co-sponsors, Hawley has attracted an army of aggressive critics ranging from Silicon Valley trade groups to free market conservatives in Washington.

Hawley in a May op-ed even suggested that Americans may be better off without social media entirely. 

“This is a digital drug,” he wrote. “And the addiction is the point.”

The Missouri Republican caused his biggest splash earlier this year when he introduced a bill that would make alterations tech’s legal shield, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Hawley’s Section 230 bill, responding to accusations from conservatives that Big Tech is biased against right-wing perspectives, would require the FTC to audit the country’s largest tech companies to ensure they are not censoring political perspectives.

Hawley’s latest social media legislation does not yet have any co-sponsors.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

A group of Senate Democrats on Friday introduced legislation aimed at educating the public on how to identify misinformation on social media platforms and to limit the impact of foreign influence campaigns during elections.

The Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act would create a grant program at the Department of Education to assist states in developing media literacy programs and fund existing initiatives in this area across grades K-12.

ADVERTISEMENT

The grant funds would also be available for the development of media literacy education guidelines, and for hiring teachers with a background in media literacy or training educators on this issue.

Click Here: Toronto Fc Away Jersey 2019

Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharNerves on display as Democrats face do-or-die moment in Detroit McConnell under fire for burying election bills in ‘legislative graveyard’ Young Turks founder: Sanders, Warren ‘should not spend one second attacking each other’ MORE‘s (D-Minn.) office, in introducing the legislation, cited the findings of former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE from his 22-month investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections.

Mueller’s report noted that between 2013 and 2018 the Internet Research Agency, a Russian “troll farm,” created accounts on social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter and posted content that reached about 126 million Americans.

The legislation is also sponsored by Democratic Sens. Tina SmithTina Flint SmithSenate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns Durbin says he has second thoughts about asking for Franken’s resignation Clean water or mining pollution for the nation’s favorite wilderness? MORE (Minn.), Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetYoung Turks founder: Sanders, Warren ‘should not spend one second attacking each other’ Senate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns Poll: Most Americans oppose reparations MORE (Colo.), Gary PetersGary Charles PetersSenate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns More than 1,400 Jewish clergy call on Trump, Congress to allow asylum-seekers into US Military starts task force after spreading toxic “forever chemicals” MORE (Mich.), Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinDemocrats urge Graham to back down from rules change threat Senate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns Overnight Energy: Warren edges past Sanders in poll of climate-focused voters | Carbon tax shows new signs of life | Greens fuming at Trump plans for development at Bears Ears monument MORE (Calif.) and Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell BrownSenate Democrats introduce bill to combat foreign influence campaigns House passes bill requiring CBP to enact safety, hygiene standards Budowsky: Two big ideas for 2020 Democrats MORE (Ohio).

“Adversaries are targeting our democracy with sophisticated information campaigns designed to divide Americans and undermine our political system,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “One of the best ways we can fight back is to give people the tools they need to identify these disinformation campaigns and that begins with educating students. Effective media literacy education teaches students to access, analyze, and evaluate information.” 

According to Klobuchar’s office, the bill is endorsed by groups including Media Literacy Now, the University of Rhode Island Media Education Lab and the National Association for Media Literacy.

Klobuchar has been among the more active Senate Democrats in pushing for the passage of election security legislation, sponsoring multiple bipartisan bills on the topic during both this Congress and the last. 

Klobuchar, who is running for president, has also been public with her intention to prioritize election security if elected, writing in a Medium post in June that one action she would take in her first 100 days would be to “prioritize cybersecurity and protect our elections and other American infrastructure from cyber attack.”

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up for our newsletter with this LINK.

Welcome! Follow the cyber team, Olivia Beavers (@olivia_beavers) and Maggie Miller (@magmill95), and the tech team, Harper Neidig (@hneidig) and Emily Birnbaum (@birnbaum_e).

 

T-MOBILE, SPRINT GET DOJ GREEN LIGHT: The Department of Justice on Friday announced it has approved the $26 billion T-Mobile–Sprint merger, paving the way towards a deal that will combine two of the country’s largest mobile carriers into one company with more than 80 million U.S. customers.

The department’s approval means both federal agencies overseeing the merger have given it their blessing, though a legal challenge by state attorneys general could still block the deal from going through.

The DOJ’s plan requires T-Mobile and Sprint to hand over assets including wireless spectrum and subscribers to Dish, a satellite television company that has been tapped to create a mobile network to compete with the merged company.

The DOJ came to the agreement with the state attorneys general for Nebraska, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota, none of which are involved in the separate lawsuit from the states to block the merger.

During a press conference announcing the deal, DOJ antitrust chief Makan Delrahim argued the remedies will help set up Dish as a strong competitor, calling it a potentially “disruptive force.”

“In our view and in our judgements, this remedy package is actually better than the status quo because consumers will benefit, the economy will benefit and frankly we’ll probably have more competition than we have today,” he said.

Under the deal with DOJ, T-Mobile and Sprint are required to divest Sprint’s prepaid businesses including Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile and Sprint prepaid, to Dish. It would also be allowed to use T-Mobile’s network during a seven-year transition period “while Dish builds out its own 5G network,” according to DOJ.

Read more here.

 

 

PRIVACY GROUPS WANT REVIEW OF FACEBOOK SETTLEMENT: A privacy group is asking a federal judge to carefully review the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) $5 billion privacy settlement with Facebook and to hear from public interest organizations before approving the agreement.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a motion to intervene with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, arguing that it has legal grounds to brief the court because it helped drive the FTC to take action against Facebook through a series of complaints against the company.

“If the proposed settlement is adopted, EPIC’s prior complaints at the FTC will be dismissed,” the group said in its filing. “Thus, EPIC has a clear interest in the outcome of this case.”

The settlement has been roundly criticized by privacy advocates and Facebook’s growing chorus of critics on Capitol Hill since it was announced on Wednesday.

In addition to the $5 billion fine, the deal requires Facebook to submit to increased monitoring and to install a committee within its board of directors to review the social network’s privacy practices.

But critics say that the agreement falls short because it doesn’t hold executives like CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergLatest assessment faulted Facebook for failing to protect user privacy Hillicon Valley: DOJ approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Trump targets Google, Apple | Privacy groups seek to intervene in Facebook settlement | Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push Privacy group asks judge to hear from critics before approving B Facebook settlement MORE accountable for Facebook’s behavior and it does nothing to actually restrict Facebook’s ability to abuse user privacy.

“The proposed Consent Decree does not adequately address the consumer privacy complaints raised against Facebook by the FTC, numerous consumer privacy groups like EPIC, and individuals,” EPIC’s court filing reads. “EPIC’s arguments will assist the Court in reviewing the proposed Consent Decree and achieving a just and equitable adjudication in this case.”

Read more here.

 

TRUMP TARGETS…

 

…GOOGLE: President TrumpDonald John TrumpIlhan Omar defends Cummings after Trump attacks: He ‘wants to distract with his racism’ Donald Trump: ‘The Great Divider’ De Blasio: Democratic debates should address ‘why did we lose and what do we do differently’ MORE on Friday suggested his administration would investigate Google’s work in China for potential national security issues just days after his top Treasury official said the government had looked into the company and found no cause for such concerns.

“There may or may not be National Security concerns with regard to Google and their relationship with China,” Trump tweeted Friday morning. “If there is a problem, we will find out about it. I sincerely hope there is not!!!”

The message appeared to contradict what Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinHillicon Valley: DOJ approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Trump targets Google, Apple | Privacy groups seek to intervene in Facebook settlement | Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push Trump hints at investigating Google’s China work over ‘national security concerns’ Trump says Apple won’t be exempt from tariffs for products made in China MORE told CNBC on Wednesday when he said that Google had allayed their concerns, saying that their work in China was “minimal.”

“The president and I did diligence on this issue and we’re not aware of any areas where Google working with the Chinese government in a way that in any way raises concerns,” Mnuchin said.

Read more here.

 

… AND APPLE: President Trump on Friday rejected Apple’s request to exempt parts of its new Mac Pro from import tariffs after the company said it is planning to move some production to China.

“Apple will not be given Tariff waivers, or relief, for Mac Pro parts that are made in China,” Trump tweeted. “Make them in the USA, no Tariffs!”

Apple shares dipped immediately after Trump’s tweet.

In filings made public this week, Apple asked the U.S. trade representative’s office to exclude components of Apple’s new Mac Pro from the list of products that could be hit by tariffs of 25 percent amid Trump’s ongoing trade war with Beijing.

The Mac Pro has been manufactured in the U.S. for the past several years, but Apple last month moved production of the devices to China.

Read more here.

 

…AND FRANCE: President Trump vowed Friday to take “substantial reciprocal action” against France after President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronHillicon Valley: DOJ approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Trump targets Google, Apple | Privacy groups seek to intervene in Facebook settlement | Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push On The Money: US growth slows to 2.1 percent | Trump vows response to French tech tax | Trump won’t give Apple tariff waivers | House panel releases documents on Nixon tax return request to bolster case against Trump Trump vows ‘substantial reciprocal action’ against France over tax targeting tech giants MORE signed into law a tax targeting technology giants like Amazon and Google.

“France just put a digital tax on our great American technology companies,” Trump tweeted. “If anybody taxes them, it should be their home Country, the USA. We will announce a substantial reciprocal action on Macron’s foolishness shortly. I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine!”

Macron this week signed the digital services tax, which imposes a 3 percent tax on the annual revenues of technology companies that make at least 750 million euros annually and provide services to users in the country.

The tax would affect several companies, including U.S.-based tech giants like Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon.

“The United States is extremely disappointed by France’s decision to adopt a digital services tax at the expense of U.S. companies and workers,” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in a statement.

Read more here.

Click Here: Toronto Fc Away Jersey 2019

 

LOUISIANA SCHOOLS HIT BY CYBERATTACKS: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) declared a state-wide emergency this week following cyberattacks on several school districts.

The declaration comes after three local school districts were hit by what local media have described as ransomware attacks, where hackers take over and encrypt vital cyber systems and demand a ransom to release the data.

The state-wide emergency declaration allows for state resources and cyber assistance to be given to these school districts from the Louisiana National Guard, the Louisiana State Police and the Office of Technology Services.

According to the governor’s office, the state is also cooperating with the FBI, state agencies and higher education partners.

The school systems in Sabine, Morehouse and Ouachita parishes in northern Louisiana were all hit by malware attacks this week, with the governor’s office in contact with other school districts in the state to assess how far the malware has spread.

Read more here.

 

GOP SPLIT OVER JEDI CONTRACT: Republican lawmakers this week issued dueling letters over the Department of Defense’s (DOD) $10 billion “war cloud” contract, with one group calling for the deal to be delayed amid concerns that it favors Amazon above other companies, while others insisted the cloud-computing contract should be wrapped up by this summer.

In a letter obtained by The Hill, a dozen GOP lawmakers urged President Trump to delay the war cloud contract over long-standing allegations that the contract is biased toward Amazon.

In a separate letter on Thursday obtained by The Hill, two members of the House Armed Services Committee — Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Rep. Paul CookPaul Joseph CookHillicon Valley: DOJ approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Trump targets Google, Apple | Privacy groups seek to intervene in Facebook settlement | Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push Republican lawmakers issue dueling letters over Pentagon ‘war cloud’ contract Native American groups press Congress to rescind Wounded Knee medals MORE (R-Calif.) — argued the contract should be awarded as soon as possible for national security purposes.

“This contract has already been delayed a year for investigations and court filings,” Banks and Cook wrote. “Further delays make DOD fall behind and DOD needs this technology now. The cloud makes the military a more lethal, agile and innovative force.”

The letters, both addressed to Trump, are the latest attempts by lawmakers to weigh in on how the contract — also known as JEDI — was constructed and how it will be doled out.

Nearly all of the lawmakers involved in the discussions have received thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Amazon and Microsoft, the two top contenders for the JEDI contract. And some have received contributions from Oracle, a smaller competitor that has launched an aggressive campaign to open up the cloud-computing deal to other companies.

Read more here.

 

 

MUELLER BOOSTS DEMS’ PUSH FOR ELECTION SECURITY: Democrats calling for action on election security legislation got a boost from Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE this week after the former special counsel issued a dire warning to lawmakers about Russia’s intentions for 2020.

Mueller emphasized during Wednesday’s hearings that in addition to interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the Kremlin is laying the groundwork “as we sit here” for a repeat performance next year.

Interference in the last presidential election did not consist of a “single attempt,” but instead entailed a large social media disinformation campaign and hacking operations, the former FBI director said.

“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”

Mueller’s 448-page report, released in April, detailed how Russian actors hacked into the Democratic National Committee, engineered a social media disinformation campaign that favored President Trump and conducted “computer intrusion operations” against those working on former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonDonald Trump: ‘The Great Divider’ The mysterious Mister Mifsud and why no one wants to discuss him Hillicon Valley: DOJ approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Trump targets Google, Apple | Privacy groups seek to intervene in Facebook settlement | Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push MORE‘s Democratic presidential campaign.

Those findings were bolstered Thursday when the Senate Intelligence Committee released the first volume of its lengthy investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The panel found that “the Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level.”

Read more here.

 

WANNA CELEBRATE: A British cybersecurity expert who helped stop the spread of the international WannaCry virus was sentenced Friday to time served by a U.S. district judge stemming from charges that he wrote other malware several years prior. 

According to the Associated Press, Marcus Hutchins was also sentenced to a year of supervised release by U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller, a Reagan appointee. Hutchins pleaded guilty earlier this year to developing and conspiring to distribute a type of malware called Kronos between 2012 and 2015.

While Hutchins was sentenced to time served, he could have faced up to ten years in prison and $500,000 in fines. He served a few days in jail after being arrested in 2017 but was then freed on bail on the condition that he remain in the U.S. while his case was pending. 

Hutchins was arrested in connection to the malware charges months after he found what experts term as the “kill switch” for a debilitating international virus known as WannaCry. This was a ransomware virus that targeted computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, and locked them down pending payments in the form of bitcoin. 

According to the AP, in sentencing Hutchins on Friday, Stadtmueller said the WannaCry virus Hutchins helped stop was more damaging than the original malware he wrote. 

Read more here.

 

EDUCATION ON MISINFORMATION: A group of Senate Democrats on Friday introduced legislation aimed at educating the public on how to identify misinformation on social media platforms and to limit the impact of foreign influence campaigns during elections.

The Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act would create a grant program at the Department of Education to assist states in developing media literacy programs and fund existing initiatives in this area across grades K-12.

The grant funds would also be available for the development of media literacy education guidelines, and for hiring teachers with a background in media literacy or training educators on this issue.

Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharNerves on display as Democrats face do-or-die moment in Detroit McConnell under fire for burying election bills in ‘legislative graveyard’ Young Turks founder: Sanders, Warren ‘should not spend one second attacking each other’ MORE‘s (D-Minn.) office, in introducing the legislation, cited the findings of former special counsel Robert Mueller from his 22-month investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections.

Read more here. 

  

AN OP-ED TO CHEW ON: NASA’s forgotten plan to land people on Mars in the 1980s.

 

A LIGHTER CLICK: A sight for sore eyes.

 

NOTABLE LINKS FROM AROUND THE WEB: 

Apple contractors ‘regularly hear confidential details’ on Siri recordings. (The Guardian)

The T-Mobile-Sprint merger could mean the end of the physical SIM card. (The Verge)

Huge LinkedIn loophole puts user security at risk. (Mashable) 

House Democrats are moving forward with lawsuits and subpoenas following former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE’s testimony, even as their caucus remains divided over impeaching President TrumpDonald John TrumpIlhan Omar defends Cummings after Trump attacks: He ‘wants to distract with his racism’ Donald Trump: ‘The Great Divider’ De Blasio: Democratic debates should address ‘why did we lose and what do we do differently’ MORE.

Click Here: watford fc shirt

Across various committees, Democrats are seeking to obtain witness testimony and documents shedding light on the president’s conduct, personal finances and his administration.

While Mueller’s testimony offered nothing new for Democrats to sink their teeth into, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerWith Robert Mueller behind them, Democrats need to focus on 2020 Nadler: Resolution condemning Trump’s Cummings tweets ‘wouldn’t be a bad idea’ Nadler: Mueller testimony ‘broke the lie’ on collusion and obstruction MORE (D-N.Y.) described it as an “inflection point” on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

He announced his panel would file an application in court to secure the grand jury material underlying Mueller’s investigation, and that it is doing so to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Trump.

While Nadler has made similar comments in the past about the fact that his panel is considering the issue of impeachment, it was his most definitive declaration yet of the possibility.

With more Democrats over the past few days supporting an impeachment inquiry, the caucus is split nearly 50-50 on the issue.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiWith Robert Mueller behind them, Democrats need to focus on 2020 Michelle Obama shares tribute to Baltimore step team after Trump calls city’s district ‘disgusting’ Trump doubles down on attacks against Cummings and Baltimore district MORE (D-Calif.) remains opposed to launching an impeachment inquiry, however, and other Democrats have suggested the caucus faces a narrowing timeline for making such a decision. Pelosi worries the impeachment drive could hurt centrist Democrats in next year’s election, after they helped create the Democratic majority in the House.

“The decision [on impeachment] will be made in a timely fashion,” Pelosi said Friday during her weekly press conference, stating that it will be decided when Democrats “have the best, strongest possible case.”

Nadler has faced pressure from his panel’s members to move forcefully against the White House, which has sought to shut off documents and witnesses from the committee. Going after the grand jury material is a new aggressive step on his part.

Grand jury material is generally subject to federal secrecy rules in the absence of a court order.

ADVERTISEMENT

In some past instances, judges have ruled in favor of releasing grand jury material to Congress, but some legal experts argue the committee’s case would be stronger if they launched formal impeachment proceedings rather than just saying that impeachment may be on the horizon.

Judiciary counsels, however, insisted they had a strong case when speaking to reporters Friday.

They pointed to past episodes in which Congress has secured grand jury material without a formal House vote on impeachment proceedings. 

Democrats on a host of other committees are also moving forward with investigations and lawsuits.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month seeking Trump’s federal tax returns, for example.

The House Intelligence Committee is seeking records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of a sprawling investigation into Trump’s finances and foreign business dealings. That lawsuit also involves the House Financial Services Committee.

House Intelligence Committee aides said following Mueller’s testimony that they intend to press forward on those threads, arguing that Mueller’s answers demonstrated that the special counsel’s investigation was limited in scope. 

Attorneys for Democrats and the president will face off in a federal appeals court in New York at the end of August over the subpoenas.

“We have a lot of work to do, because it’s incumbent upon our committee to bring to light whether any foreign policy decisions are being motivated by compromise or personal interest as opposed to the national interest,” said one Intelligence Committee aide. 

A D.C. appeals court also heard arguments earlier this month over a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee to Trump’s accounting firm Mazars and have signaled that they won’t rule until the end of August, or later.

The slow nature of court proceedings may put a damper on House investigations, forcing lawmakers to wait months before they can get their hands on key documents and blunting momentum in the probes. 

Democrats have also faced growing criticisms from Republicans that they’re ignoring other legislative and oversight issues in favor of their investigations. 

Nadler has forecast plans to go to court early next week to enforce a subpoena for documents and testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn, who was summoned to testify more than two months ago, but he was blocked from doing so by Trump.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig said that while Mueller didn’t reveal much new information during his testimony, the special counsel’s report serves as a foundation for what Democrats can do moving forward.

“The findings that Robert Mueller made in his testimony establish a reasonable basis to believe the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. And so we need to carry forward,” he said.

Honig observed that McGahn’s testimony could be “more compelling” than Mueller’s, and that the panel might also be strengthened in that case if it opens a formal impeachment inquiry. 

“I think having some sort of formality behind an impeachment inquiry will help their case there,” Honig said.

The Judiciary Committee also authorized Nadler to issue a bevy of subpoenas for current and former Trump administration officials and others earlier this month, and Nadler signaled Friday he may issue them in due time. 

“Our work will continue into the August recess, and we will use those subpoenas if we must,” Nadler said.

The fight over President TrumpDonald John TrumpIlhan Omar defends Cummings after Trump attacks: He ‘wants to distract with his racism’ Donald Trump: ‘The Great Divider’ De Blasio: Democratic debates should address ‘why did we lose and what do we do differently’ MORE’s tax returns has moved to the courts.

In recent weeks, the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee has filed a lawsuit in an effort to obtain Trump’s federal tax returns, and Trump has filed a lawsuit to prevent the committee from getting his New York state tax returns.

The court cases are sure to be closely watched. Democrats view obtaining Trump’s tax returns as a key oversight priority. Trump is the first president in decades who refused to voluntarily release any of his tax returns, and he is determined to keep them private.

Here’s what you need to know about the lawsuits concerning Trump’s tax returns.

 

What are the two different lawsuits?

Two separate cases were filed in federal court in D.C. this month.

In the first lawsuit, filed at the beginning of the month, the Ways and Means Committee is suing the Treasury Department, the IRS and the agencies’ leaders. The committee is asking the court to order the agencies to provide the committee with six years of Trump’s personal and business federal tax returns.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard NealRichard Edmund NealOn The Money: US growth slows to 2.1 percent | Trump vows response to French tech tax | Trump won’t give Apple tariff waivers | House panel releases documents on Nixon tax return request to bolster case against Trump House panel releases documents of presidential tax return request before Trump On The Money: House passes sweeping budget, debt limit deal | Dem court filing defends powers to get Trump’s NY tax returns | Debt collectors to pay M to settle consumer bureau charges MORE (D-Mass.) requested Trump’s tax returns in April under a provision in the federal tax code that says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairs of Congress’s tax committees. Neal has said that his committee wants the returns because it is conducting oversight and considering legislative proposals about how the IRS enforces tax laws against a president.

But Treasury and the IRS rejected those requests and subsequent subpoenas Neal issued, saying that Neal’s request lacks a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

Both Democrats and the Trump administration expected the dispute to end up in court. Democrats in their lawsuit are asking the court to require the administration to comply with the tax code provision and their subpoenas.

The second lawsuit, filed this week by Trump in his personal capacity, centers on a New York state law enacted earlier this month that allows Congress’s tax committees to request public officials’ state tax returns from the commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance. Neal has not yet made a decision about whether he will request Trump’s state tax returns under the law.

Trump is suing the Ways and Means Committee, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), and New York Department of Taxation and Finance Commissioner Michael Schmidt. Trump’s personal lawyers are arguing that the committee lacks a legitimate legislative purpose for using the New York law and that the law violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

What’s the latest in the lawsuit over Trump’s NY returns?

Most of the recent court developments in the tax return fight relate to the lawsuit over the New York law.

Trump on Wednesday filed an emergency application, asking a judge to enjoin Neal from requesting his New York tax returns until the president has an opportunity to be heard in court. The Ways and Means Committee is objecting to the motion, arguing that courts lack jurisdiction to bar it from utilizing the New York law.

Trump also argued that the two tax return lawsuits are related and should be heard by the same judge, while the New York officials who are defendants in his lawsuit disagreed.

At a hearing on Thursday, Judge Trevor McFadden, who is assigned to the lawsuit over the request for Trump’s federal returns, ruled that he should not also be assigned to the lawsuit over the New York law. He did not issue a ruling on Trump’s emergency motion.

The new judge assigned to the case has scheduled a hearing on Trump’s emergency motion for Monday afternoon. 

In the lawsuit over the request for Trump’s federal tax returns, the next big step is for the administration to respond to the Ways and Means Committee’s complaint. 

Trump and several of his business entities have been added to the case as intervenor-defendants, meaning they will also have the opportunity to be heard in the case. McFadden said in an order that before Trump and his businesses file any motions, they have to discuss with the administration whether they can file briefs in a consolidated manner.

 

Who are the judges in the cases?

McFadden, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge who is handling the lawsuit over Trump’s federal tax returns, is a Trump appointee who had been randomly assigned to the case shortly after it was filed.

McFadden started as a D.C. district judge in October 2017. Earlier this year, McFadden ruled that the House didn’t have standing to sue to temporarily bar Trump from using military funds for a border wall. That ruling has caught the attention of legal experts following the lawsuit over Trump’s federal tax returns since they think it is likely that the Trump administration will argue the House lacks standing to sue in that case as well. 

But experts also note that McFadden’s ruling in the border wall case pointed out that there are differences between the House’s standing to sue to get information for an investigation and whether the House has standing to sue over its appropriations power.

After McFadden ruled that he should not be handling both of the tax return lawsuits, the lawsuit over the New York tax return law on Friday was randomly assigned to Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who was just confirmed by the Senate in May.

Nichols most recently was a partner at the law firm WilmerHale. He previously served as a top lawyer in former President George W. Bush’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasLiberal, conservative Supreme Court justices unite in praising Stevens Overnight Health Care — Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — Harris walks back support for eliminating private insurance | Missouri abortion clinic to remain open through August | Georgia sued over ‘heartbeat’ abortion law Supreme Court rejects bid to restore Alabama abortion law MORE. While at the DOJ, he was the lead counsel in defending former White House counsel Harriet Miers in a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee trying to enforce a subpoena.

 

What are House Democrats doing to bolster their case?

House Democrats on Thursday released documents related to Congress’s scrutiny of former President Nixon’s tax returns in an effort to show that their request for Trump’s tax returns isn’t unique.

The documents the Ways and Means Committee released show that the Joint Committee on Taxation in the 1970s had made a request to the IRS for Nixon’s tax returns while he was president and received them from the agency on the same day that the request was made. The documents also show that the Joint Committee on Taxation had requested and received tax returns from years that predate the tax returns Nixon publicly released and that predate his presidency.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that Democrats’ request for Trump’s returns is unprecedented. But Democrats argue that the newly released documents demonstrate that is not the case.

Republicans are countering that the Nixon and Trump tax return requests are different because Nixon had asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to examine his tax returns. Trump, however, doesn’t want Congress to see his tax filings.

The Nixon-era documents were released after the Ways and Means Committee first examined a portion of them behind closed doors and then voted to send them to the House. If the panel ever obtains Trump’s tax returns, it would undertake a similar process to review them and vote to make parts or all of them public.

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world

North Korea may have produced 12 nuclear weapons since the first summit between President TrumpDonald John TrumpIlhan Omar defends Cummings after Trump attacks: He ‘wants to distract with his racism’ Donald Trump: ‘The Great Divider’ De Blasio: Democratic debates should address ‘why did we lose and what do we do differently’ MORE and North Korean leader Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnNorth Korea may have produced 12 nuclear weapons since first Trump-Kim summit: report Trump says he’s not concerned about North Korean missile tests N. Korea: Missile test a warning to South Korea ‘warmongers’ MORE in Singapore last year, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing analysts from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Combined, North Korea could have between 20 and 60 nuclear bombs, the newspaper also reported, citing estimates from security analysts.

However, the DIA denied having “issued any estimates” about nuclear weapons to the Journal.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Journal also reported that activity at the country’s weapons facilities suggest that North Korea has continued to make fissile material and intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

Jenny Town of the Stimson Center, a security think tank, and Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies told the Journal that shipping containers, trucks and crowds moving materials at the facilities could indicate the production of such weapons. 

The report comes after North Korea launched two short-range projectiles early Thursday morning local time, according to media reports.

Trump has previously expressed confidence that North Korea will not conduct “testing of rockets and nuclear” weapons.  

“One of the things, importantly, that Chairman Kim promised me last night is, regardless, he’s not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear,” Trump said in February after a second summit with Kim in Vietnam. “Not going to do testing. So I trust him, and I take him at his word. I hope that’s true.”

The president also tweeted in May that he has “confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me.”

On Friday, Trump said he’s not concerned by North Korea’s latest missile test, and repeatedly downplayed the projectiles as “short-range” while touting his relationship with the North Korean leader.

— Updated at 6:15 p.m.

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world