Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, March 10, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 882)

wall street stock markets

Barclays trading desk on Wall Street. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Securities and Exchange Commission is gearing up to launch a crackdown on insider trading, but some experts say they are redefining what constitutes the illegal act. The aggressive SEC expansion centers on the concept of “political intelligence,” or the use of non-public information from a government source to drive trade decisions in the markets.

The Marwood Group, a political research firm founded by Ted Kennedy Jr., the son of the late Massachusetts’ senator Ted Kennedy, received notification from the SEC stating that the agency intends to recommend to the full commission that the firm be charged with civil insider trading violations. The SEC charges surround a research report that allegedly divulged “material, non-public information” that was alleged to have been obtained from government sources about a drug company, according to the notification.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White clearly wants to expand insider trading laws to include both non-public information involving companies and non-public information from government sources that have potential to influence market prices.

Marwood has vehemently denied the allegations, but it is no secret that the Kennedy family has a long history to alleged uses of “political intelligence” to even up their odds in various markets.

However, if the full commission votes to bring formal charges against the firm, then not only could it bring an end to era and a family’s legacy, but it would be the first known case where regulators deem so-called political intelligence, or the use of non-public information from a government source, tantamount to illegal insider information.

However, some experts worry that Wall Street traders will worry greatly about how actions in the federal government can move markets. Until now, typical insider trading cases involve non-public information from a publicly-held company, and the charges against The Marwood Group would most certainly open up a new era of regulatory oversight, crushing those who make a living off of the political intelligence market. Wall Street hedge funds and traders have a great need to know — at least, to some extent — the political stability of an industry, sector or company in order to make informed investment decisions with their clients’ money.

“This make no sense,” says Michael McKeon, a spokesman for Marwood Group told FOX Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino. “We are very surprised if you look at the facts, there is no tipper, no materiality and clearly no financial benefit for anyone.”

The question the full committee at the SEC will have to decide is whether officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services offered individuals at Marwood inside information regarding a prostate cancer drug developed by the company Dendreon. CMS decides where, when and how much in all annual government spending on healthcare. If, for instance, CMS cut or increased funding, then it would either positively or negatively affect the company’s share price.

Here’s the backstory from Gasparino:

In  June 2010, CMS decided to scale back on the coverage it would allot to the Dendreon drug called Provenge, but shares of the company began to tank in the weeks before the official ruling was made, during a time of debate inside the agency about funding levels.

CMS officials walk a fine line between secrecy and providing information about agency actions to the public. Various CMS materials contain telephone numbers of agency officials to discuss actions, and political intelligence firms like Marwood often develop contacts at the agency.

Marwood concedes that it has had contact with an agency analyst about the matter, and the analyst said the reduction in funding “is being looked at” a year before the official announcement in June 2010. Just after the agency’s official announcement, Marwood released a research report to 4,000 clients detailing its conversations about the drug with the CMS analyst, and what it says was additional public information it collected.

Marwood officials tell FOX Business that SEC enforcement officials have told the firm that such a conversation is tantamount to an illegal inside tip from the CMS analyst to Marwood. The SEC, Marwood officials say, contends that that the CMS analyst had a “duty” to keep such information confidential, and that Marwood knew such duty existed. In addition, the CMS analyst and the Marwood executive directly involved in the matter had a long-time friendship. Thus in passing the information, the CMS analyst received a “benefit” from the Marwood executive.

However, it really isn’t at all that simple. Insider trading laws are a loosely connected string of court decisions that reflect even more loosely connected, scant pieces of legislation. For years, both state and federal legislatures have had little incentive to take up such a debate, and it is another question altogether whether the SEC even has the power — or, whether they should even have the power — to expand the definition of insider trading so dramatically.

A spokesman for CMS had no immediate comment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is gearing

repeal obamacare protests

A record high number of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare straight out, not fix it. Photo: AP)

Though Democrats argue returning to the status quo is unacceptable, an all-time high number of registered voters say they want to repeal ObamaCare, not tweak or fix it. A new FOX Poll found that 58 percent of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare outright, while just 38 percent say the law should stay.

The new Fox Poll comes just one day after ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who was caught on video bragging that Democrats used a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the bill, was grilled by members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Americans say by a 49 – 43 percent margin that Gruber’s comments prove the Obama administration intentionally lied to get the law passed, including a significant 26 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents and 72 percent of Republicans.

Few American voters feel their family is better off under ObamaCare, and a record number would repeal the law if they could.

In addition, if comments by one of the health care law’s authors about lying to “stupid” Americans are true, over half of voters think President Obama or other administration officials are responsible for that deception.

Under tough questioning by North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry, Gruber admitted that kicking working Americans off of their health insurance plans “was part of the calculation” when designing ObamaCare.

“I concluded there would be churn in the market the entire time,” Gruber said. “We did model that some individuals would lose their existing plans and move to new forms of coverage… I don’t know the national estimate for how many people lost health insurance, so I don’t know how it compares to what I projected.”

Gruber further admitted that this was no secret during policy discussions at the White House.

“I was present for discussion of those numbers and interpretation of what they meant in terms of how the law would affect individuals,” Gruber said

The poll found a plurality of Americans think President Obama (37 percent) or members of his administration (16 percent) are responsible for perpetuating the lie, while 32 percent blame Congress.

The bottom line, however, is that most Americans simply don’t believe the law will improve healthcare, positively impact their family, or worse, have been negatively impacted by the law already.

While just 14 percent say their family is better off under the president’s signature law, twice as many people — 28 percent — say their family is worse off. Much of these results can be explained based on partisanship and ideology, as 47 percent of Republicans say their family is worse off juxtaposed to only 9 percent of Democrats who say the same. Further, 62 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party movement say their family is worse off under ObamaCare.

However, insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as ObamaCare, just took effect on January 1, 2014. According to a PPD study, roughly 145 million Americans were previously covered under plans that do not meet the Essential Health Benefit Standards mandated by the law, but thanks to Obama’s unilateral and repeated delaying of the politically painful parts of the law, only a small number of Americans have learned the hard way, thus far. When these Americans are affected, they will feel the increased cost burden, likely resulting in even more negative perceptions.

A recent study conducted by healthcare analysts at Morgan Stanley found health insurance premiums increased at the highest rate ever measured by the firm. The survey of 148 brokers concluded health insurance premiums increase under ObamaCare because of ObamaCare, blatantly stating “increases are largely due to changes under the ACA.” On average, premiums have increased nationwide anywhere from 4 – 12 percent depending on counting methods, but deductibles have skyrocketed to over 300 percent across the nation, on average.

House Republicans in November filed the long-expected ObamaCare lawsuit against the Obama administration over unilaterally delaying aspects to the bill with liberal law Professor Jonathan Turley as lead counsel. But, as important as some Republicans may feel that legal challenge may be, it is almost certainly not the most pressing legal challenge in the works.

A powerful U.S. appeals court invalidated ObamaCare subsidies for health insurance obtained through the federally-run HealthCare.gov on July 22. The ruling was a major blow to the president’s signature health care law, and all but ensured the constitutionality of the law would once again be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On November 7, the highest court in the land decided they would hear the case, which many predict will be a far more challenging case for the government than the individual mandate proved to be.

Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, who was previously caught double counting dental plans and engaging in various dubious counting methods aimed to inflate the success of the program, refused to disclose whether the administration is telling consumers that the federal subsidies may not remain available, leaving unknowing Americans with a hefty cost increase they hadn’t anticipated.

Because the administration allegedly broke the law, which specifically prohibits subsidies on the federal exchange, many who purchased plans on the federal exchange will be in for a rude awakening if the Supreme Court upholds a lower court’s decision. Mr. Gruber, once again, was caught on tape admitting the law specifically prohibits such subsidies, yet changed his mind when the administration took it upon themselves to offer them out in an effort to entrench the law further.

Meanwhile, speaking at the National Press Club regarding their 2014 midterm defeat, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) admitted Democrats should never have passed ObamaCare. He said Democrats did not have a mandate to pass the deeply unpopular law and made a mistake when they put the economy on the back-burner to ram it through.

“Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them,” Schumer said. “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform.”

Americans agree.

Now, just 38 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing handling health care, which is only two points above the record low 36 percent approval measurement in the FOX Poll last November. But by a 60 – 37 percent margin, voters say they “wish he [Obama] would have spent more time on the economy during his first years in office instead of reforming healthcare.”

In fact, the economy remains the top priority earning 38 percent, with handling ISIS at 21 percent. Health care, still, hovers around its historical third place mark at 12 percent, but immigration at 10 percent and race relations at 9 percent are close behind.

According to the PPD average of ObamaCare approval polls, the law remains deeply unpopular with just 38.5 percent of Americans supporting, while 55 percent opposing the law.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Though Democrats argue returning to the status

obama_immigration_nashville

President Barack Obama answers questions during a town hall on immigration at Casa Azafran community center in Nashville, Tennessee. December 9, 2014. (Photo: WH/Pete Souza)

President Obama in Nashville spoke his recent executive order on immigration, but Wednesday 7 more states joined the lawsuit against the unilateral order, bring the total number to 24. The president’s message attempted to convince the audience, who were mostly composed of activists, that undocumented workers are no different from most Americans.

But now half of the country is united against the order that would grant roughly 5 million illegals legal status, a development that comes just a week after the Republican-controlled House voted to strip the order.

“More than 20 states have joined our challenge against the president’s unilateral executive action to bypass Congress and rewrite immigration laws,” said the man who is leading the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General and Gov.-elect Greg Abbott. “The president’s proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States.”

The states now suing Obama over his unilateral amnesty order now includes Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Despite the president’s message, clearly many Americans believe the U.S. Constitution is too important to compromise. Yet, the president made his case in Tennessee Tuesday.

“They are us,” Obama said. “They work as teachers in our schools, doctors in our hospitals, police officers in our neighborhoods. They start small businesses at a faster rate than many native-born Americans. They create jobs making this city more prosperous, and a more innovative place.

Unfortunately, data from the president’s own administration doesn’t back up that assessment. In 2011, which is the latest data available, the Social Security Administration found that — out of the alleged 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. at the time — just 3 million had ever paid anything into federal taxes.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen Monday was assigned to hear the legal challenge. Judge Hanen, who was appointed to the bench in 2002 by President Bush, said the Obama administration was involved in the “criminal conspiracy” involving defendant Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez, a mother who paid $6,000 to smuggle her child from El Salvador to Virginia.

Under Obama’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security actually notified the mother after Border Patrol agents caught her daughter at the border and arranged for the child to be delivered to her at taxpayer expense, “thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy.”

“[DHS] did not arrest her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings against her,” Judge Haden wrote. “This DHS policy is a dangerous course of action.”

Judge Hanen wrote:

This is the fourth case with the same factual situation this court has had in as many weeks. … The DHS is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws. More troubling, the DHS is encouraging parents to jeopardize the safety of their children. … Those who hear that they should not fear prosecution or deportation will not hesitate, and obviously have not hesitated, to act likewise.

“If they persist in this policy, more children are going to be harmed, and DHS will be partly responsible because it encourages this kind of Russian roulette,” Haden wrote, noting that that the number of unaccompanied alien children rose 81 percent under Obama’s tenure.

As President Obama spoke on his executive

cia-hq-langley

CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia. Pentagon and intelligence officials confirmed early Monday they believe that releasing the Senate report on alleged use of torture by the CIA will spark violence home and abroad. (Photo: AP)

The GOP minority released a rebuttal report refuting the claims made in the Democrats’ majority report, which criticized the CIA enhanced interrogation program as ineffective and misleading. A Democrat-led Senate panel headed up by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Tuesday released the CIA report on enhanced interrogation despite dire warnings from lawmakers and intel officials. These warnings, which were even echoed by some within the Obama administration, contended the findings would “endanger the lives of Americans” all over the world.

“We have no doubt the CIA’s detention program saved lives and played a vital role in weakening Al Qaeda while the Program was in operation,” said the report written by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).; Richard Burr (R-NC); James Risch (R-ID); Dan Coats (R-IN); Marco Rubio (R-FL); and Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Sen. Burr is set to take Feinstein’s place as the committee chair when the new Republican majority is sworn in January.

“When asked about the value of detainee information and whether he missed the intelligence from it, one senior CIA operator [redacted] told members: ‘I miss it every day.’ We understand why,” the senators wrote.

The report disputed the majority study’s argument that the interrogation techniques were not effective when used on Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaydah.

CIA officials have been pushing back hard on the claims made in the report, including that the interrogation didn’t produce intelligence and that the CIA lied to the Bush administration regarding the tactics. Tuesday, Jose Rodriguez, the ex-CIA chief in charge of the enhanced interrogation program, reacted to the release of the CIA interrogation report. Rodriguez said Senate Democrats released a bogus partisan report aimed to throw the CIA “under the bus” in order to cover for themselves.

Former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland and Stephen R. Kappes, penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal claiming, in fact, the program did work and provided plenty detailed accounts of actionable intelligence gathering to prove it.

“Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report,” the three former CIA heads wrote. “Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.”

A group of former CIA officials launched a website called CIASavedLives.com in response to the committee’s majority report, defending the agency’s

The GOP minority released a rebuttal CIA

Dec. 09, 2014 – 8:03 – Jose Rodriguez, the ex-CIA chief in charge of the enhanced interrogation program, reacted to the release of the CIA interrogation report. Rodriguez said Senate Democrats released a bogus partisan report aimed to throw the CIA under the bus in order to cover for themselves.

A Democrat-led Senate panel headed up by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Tuesday released the CIA report on enhanced interrogation despite dire warnings from lawmakers and intel officials. These warnings, which were even echoed by some within the Obama administration, contended the findings would “endanger the lives of Americans” all over the world.

CIA officials have been pushing back hard on the claims made in the report, including that the interrogation didn’t produce intelligence and that the CIA lied to the Bush administration regarding the tactics.

Former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland and Stephen R. Kappes, penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal claiming, in fact, the program did work and provided plenty detailed accounts of actionable intelligence gathering to prove it.

Jose Rodriguez, the ex-CIA chief in charge

jonathan_gruber_marilyn_tavenner_house_hearing_obamacare

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economics professor Jonathan Gruber are sworn in before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during a hearing about the Affordable Care Act Tuesday. Gruber, who was a consultant paid by the authors of the Affordable Care Act and the Massachusetts universal health care program, called voters stupid and said that ObamaCare would not have passed if lawmakers had really known what was inside the legislation during an academic conference earlier this year.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

If ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber felt slighted by President Obama, who previously threw him under the bus when he called him “some adviser who never worked on our staff,” he sure got him back during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Tuesday.

Under tough questioning by North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry, Gruber admitted that kicking working Americans off of their health insurance plans “was part of the calculation” when designing ObamaCare.

“I concluded there would be churn in the market the entire time,” Gruber said. “We did model that some individuals would lose their existing plans and move to new forms of coverage… I don’t know the national estimate for how many people lost health insurance, so I don’t know how it compares to what I projected.”

Gruber, the MIT economist who made headlines after being caught on video bragging that Democrats used a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the bill, went on to confirm that he told the White House that people would lose their plans.

“I was present for discussion of those numbers and interpretation of what they meant in terms of how the law would affect individuals,” Gruber said.

The questioning from McHenry was meant to highlight the fact over 200,000 people have lost their plans in North Carolina, and to discuss the law’s negative impact on increasing premiums and deductibles for the majority of Americans.

“The Affordable Care Act does not solve the problem of cost control,” Gruber flatly responded.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who repeatedly hammered Gruber over the total amount of money received from taxpayers, including for federal and state reforms, also railed against Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner. The agency head, who is responsible for publishing ObamaCare enrollment numbers, was previously caught double counting dental plans and engaging in various dubious numbers counting tactics aimed to inflate the success of the program.

When asked by Rep. Jordan, Tavenner couldn’t provide an accurate total number even now.

“You don’t have those numbers, that’s okay,” Rep. Jordan said to Tavenner. “Even if you did we might not believe it based upon past experiences.”

Tavenner also refused to disclose whether the administration is telling consumers that the federal subsidies may not remain, leaving Americans with a hefty cost they haven’t anticipated paying. Because the administration allegedly broke the law, which specifically prohibits subsidies on the federal exchange, many who purchased plans on the federal exchange will be in for a rude awakening if the Supreme Court upholds a lower court’s decision.

A powerful U.S. appeals court invalidated ObamaCare subsidies for health insurance obtained through the federally-run HealthCare.gov on July 22. The ruling was a major blow to the president’s signature health care law, and all but ensured the constitutionality of the law would once again be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On November 7, the highest court in the land decided they would hear the case, which many predict will be a far more challenging case for the government than the individual mandate proved to be.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the outgoing chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also came down on Tavenner, accusing her of allegedly inflating enrollment numbers and “cooking the books.”

Meanwhile, Gruber never truly offered a substantive apology, but rather repeatedly apologized for making comments in an effort to make himself look smarter than he truly is on the subject of politics.

“I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” Gruber said. “I knew better. I know better. I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry.”

As if talking to a child who didn’t fully appreciate the significance of his actions, Gruber took instruction from Chairman Issa on the issue Americans truly expected him to apologize for.

“You made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the American people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading [of] the public about the true impact and nature of ObamaCare.”

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md), the ranking top Democrat on the committee, only criticized Gruber for giving opponents of the law a “PR gift.”

“You wrapped it up with a bow,” Cummings said, but stressed Gruber’s outrageous insult “has nothing to do with the substance of this issue.”

Under tough questioning by Rep. Patrick McHenry

millennial_voters

Millennial voters were key to President Obama’s two successful elections, as well as the greater Democratic coalition.

President Obama’s job approval rating among white millennial voters — aged 18- to 29-year-olds — cratered throughout the year 2014 and is now just 34 percent. That’s only three points higher than among whites aged 30 and older, according to a new survey by Gallup, and comes shortly after another recently released survey found Obama’s job approval rating among white non-college graduates fell to 27 percent in 2014, a whole 14 points less than his approval among white college graduates.

While the two recent Gallup surveys undoubtedly present a challenge for the president and his party moving forward, for some, the narrative that held Republicans had a millennial voter problem wasn’t ever that simple.

“When pundits and pollsters compare Republicans’ vote share among young voters from the 1990s to now, they are making an inaccurate comparison,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard D. Baris. “In fact, with the exception of 2008 — or, to a lesser extent 2012 — Republicans have remained very competitive among young whites. It was the increase in minority voters among the entire 18-24 year-old bloc that caused them to lean more Democratic.”

Still, the results are significant, because this is the narrowest approval gap between a bloc that was previously a strong base of support for Democrats and Obama — white millennial voters — and a bloc that has become the most reliably Republican-voting group — older white Americans.

In 2009 and 2010, the president’s approval rating was 9 and 10 percentage points higher, respectively. Further, approval among younger whites matched his overall national rating in his first two years in office, while now it is a whole 8 points below the national average.

“These data underscore the gradual erosion of the disproportionately strong support Obama received from young white voters as he took office in 2009 and ran for re-election in 2012,” said Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport.

Newport echoed Baris’ assessment of the overall political leanings of millennial voters.

“Obama continues to enjoy higher approval ratings among all 18- to 29-year-olds — regardless of race or ethnicity — than he does among the general population, but this is largely attributable to younger age groups in the U.S. being disproportionately composed of nonwhites,” Newport added. “In other words, a big part of the age gap in Obama’s approval ratings today is attributable not so much to differences in approval within racial or ethnic groups, but to the fact that the white population in the U.S. skews older, while the nonwhite population skews younger.”

Democrats have severely damaged much of their standing among white voters since Obama took office in 2009, in general. Despite the overwhelming attention given to the proportionate growth of minorities in the American electorate, both Baris and Newport say it is often overstated. While it is an inevitable fact minorities will play an important, vital role in future elections, mocking Republicans for being the party of white people might not be the wisest move on behalf of Democrats.

“Republican domination among white voters is getting to prevalent, that any gains among minority voters as a result of outreach — even moderate gains — will potentially have devastating electoral consequences on the Democratic Party,” Baris said. “They [Republicans] don’t need to win the black vote, for instance, they only need to win 11 or 13 percent. And considering the inroads they made among black and Hispanic voters in 2014, it would appear they know that.”

As Gallup tracking demonstrates, the transition from Democrat-leaning to Republican-domination among white voters is a complex results of rational policy preferences. In the Democratic effort to expand their appeal to minorities and others who feel disenfranchised, which naturally came at the price of an ever-expanding federal government, they ostracized the vast majority of the white voting population.

“Given its sheer size, the working-class white population in the U.S. is of keen importance to politicians and strategists on both sides of the aisle, and many discussions and strategy sessions have focused on the complex set of attitudes and life positions which, as evidenced by these data, have pushed this group further from the Democratic president over the past six years,” Newport concluded.

“Discussions have also focused on the value of a populist approach to appeal to these voters’ economic situations, and the impact of the cultural positions taken by a Democratic party that has as one of its core segments a coalition of minority race and ethnic group members, along with liberals and a smaller segment of highly educated whites.”

President Obama's job approval rating among white

feinstein_cia

CIA seal, left, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), right.

A Democrat-led Senate panel headed up by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) released the CIA report on enhanced interrogation Tuesday despite dire warnings from lawmakers and intel officials. These warnings, which were even echoed by some within the Obama administration, contended the findings would “endanger the lives of Americans” all over the world.

The report from the Senate intelligence committee, which is a roughly 500-page report summarizing a still-classified 6,000 page study, claimed the interrogation techniques used were “brutal and far worse” than the CIA represented to lawmakers, as well gave “inaccurate” information to the Bush White House. It further claimed the tactics were not even effective and called CIA management of the program “deeply flawed,” though agency officials have not only defended the program, but gave it credit for tracking down Usama bin Laden and many other Islamic terrorists.

Feinstein ordered the release of the report and alleged on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the CIA techniques in some cases were, in fact, “torture.”

“History will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again’,” she said on the floor. “There may never be the right time to release this report, but this report is too important to shelve indefinitely.”

Feinstein said previously that she wanted to get out the report before the Republicans took control of the upper chamber at the beginning of next year, regardless of the consequences. Unsurprisingly, President Obama, who also called the tactics “torture” before the facts of the case were even investigated, supported the decision to release the report.

U.S. Marines stationed at U.S. diplomatic facilities and military bases are on “high alert” in case the report sparks backlash abroad. “There are some indications,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Monday, “that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world.” He added that “the administration has taken the prudent steps to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe.”

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jim Risch (R-ID) called the move a “partisan effort” by Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was not “serious or constructive” and “could endanger the lives of Americans overseas.”

The top Republicans on the intelligence committee, slammed the release in a joint statement on Tuesday.

“As we have both stated before, we are opposed to this study and believe it will present serious consequences for U.S. national security,” soon-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said jointly. “Regardless of what one’s opinions may be on these issues, the study by Senate Democrats is an ideologically motivated and distorted recounting of historical events. The fact that the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation program developed significant intelligence that helped us identify and capture important al-Qa’ida terrorists, disrupt their ongoing plotting, and take down Usama Bin Ladin is incontrovertible. Claims included in this report that assert the contrary are simply wrong.”

The report represents the largest public accounting by Congress — or, rather from congressional Democrats — of the CIA’s alleged use of torture on suspected al-Qa’ida detainees held in secret facilities in Europe and Asia in the years following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Obama said the Senate report documents a “troubling program” and pledged to make sure “we never resort to those methods again.”

“We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals. That is why I have consistently supported the declassification of today’s report,” he said in a statement. “No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.”

The CIA, in a statement responding to the report, acknowledged the agency made “mistakes” with its detention and interrogation program. However, as officials have previously told PPD off the record, they dispute claims that the interrogation tactics were not effective.

“Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom [enhanced interrogation techniques] were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives,” the agency said in a statement. it also disputed that the agency intentionally misled lawmakers, the White House and other officials on the program.

Fox News also reported that CIA officials tell them “the interrogation program produced valuable and actionable intelligence,” specifically the identification of the courier who led to bin Laden and his compound in Pakistan.

And they aren’t afraid to offer details.

CIA officials say the courier’s name was first revealed by Amar al-Baluchi during the use of enhanced interrogation tactics, however, they say he was not waterboarded. Fox News further reported that officials say that when detainee Hasan Gul was subjected to the enhanced interrogation program he provided specific information about the courier, as well. They say he did so only after initially giving “confusing signals” about the courier.

Yet another former CIA operative told Fox News that the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was broken by the tactics. Only then did he give the agency more than 2,000 intelligence reports. Former CIA officers who worked in the enhanced interrogation program said they believe the Democrat-led Senate report simply aims to minimize the fact that gained intelligence led to bin Laden’s courier.

Aside from criticizing the Senate investigation for not even talking to agents involved with the program, they also called into question the narrative that lawmakers didn’t know what was going on. In fact, officials say the CIA was “actively encouraged” by members of Congress from both parties “to do whatever it takes” to prevent another Sept. 11, 2001. Similarly, a former officer told Fox News that congressional leadership “was briefed more than three dozen times before the program was shuttered.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), who is the prospective new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration for trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

“It’s dumbfounding they can call and ask for it to be delayed and then say they want it out. You can’t have it both ways,” Burr said of State Department Secretary John Kerry urging Feinstein to delay the report’s release.

A Democrat-led Senate panel headed up by

fed_police_state

Police officers in partial riot gear stand in protection of businesses during protests over the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson.

Americans overwhelmingly say that their local police are their protectors and give a high favorability rating in appreciation of the job they do on a daily basis. Most also believe deaths that involve policemen are usually the fault of the suspect, not the cop.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 67 percent of American adults rate the performance of the police in their region or community as “good” or “excellent,” while just 9 percent say they are doing a “poor” job.

The survey of 1,000 American adults that was conducted on December 4-5, 2014 and had a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence, also mirrored a conclusion found by Gallup.

A recent survey by Gallup found that region — and surprisingly, to a lesser extent race — has an enormous impact on the respondent’s answer. For instance, Gallup found that blacks living in urban areas are significantly less likely than blacks in non-urban areas to say they are confident in the police.

On average, 57 percent of Americans have said they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police, which places the police at the top of the confidence in major U.S. institutions list. This includes confidence ratings of 61 percent among whites, 57 percent among Hispanics, and 34 percent among blacks. However, while 26 percent of blacks living in inner-cities have confidence in the police, nearly 40 percent say the same in rural America. Unfortunately, one in three blacks nationwide live in these highly urban, extremely dangerous urban counties.

Unlike the Rasmussen survey, however, which asked specifically about performance standards, the confidence measurement in Gallup’s poll also includes various other responses. For example, it may be that the respondents believe the police need to increase their presence in dangerous inner-city neighborhoods, not just decrease the presence because of some injustice.

When Gallup poses questions regarding injustices, the trend line is disturbing. What is disturbing is that the statistics do not seem to back up the increased outrage over policing, which suggests the grievance industry is responsible for a large part of the sentiment. Those who organized the anti-police protests in Ferguson and nationwide have used the mantra that black men are under assault in America, are valued less than white lives, and tweet out #BlackLivesMatter to incite anger and garner support.

It appears to be working, for example.

Younger black males are more likely than older black men or black women to report having been treated unfairly by police within the past 30 days, which is the highest level of perceived unfair treatment among young black men out of five situations measured. Yet, according to the Department of Justice, over the past 50 years the rate of black Americans killed by police has actually dropped by a whopping 70 percent, despite their disproportionate responsibility for violent crime.

In 2013, blacks comprised 13 percent of the population and committed 5,375 murders in America, while whites comprised 63 percent of the population and committed 4,396. Still, out of the more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S., just 123 were shot dead by police, compared to nearly triple that number for whites.

Meanwhile, there are about 670,000 law enforcement officers currently serving in America, yet according to the FBI, nearly 50,000 police officers were assaulted in 2013. Further, 76 cops died on the job.

So, despite policing of black communities and crime improving significantly, young black males seem to feel they have a harder time than men who remember Jim Crowe. That doesn’t make sense unless we factor in Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, to a lesser extend, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama.

Holder recent announced the Justice Department will implement new rules that expand current bans on profiling by federal law enforcement, but Americans are less convinced of the need for him to do so. Racial profiling, according to another survey, is used less and needed less as a police tool.

Rasmussen Reports found that 35 percent of American adults believe factors such as race, ethnicity and overall appearance should be used by police officers to determine whom they should randomly search. However, 46 percent disagree with this type of profiling and 19 percent are undecided.

Despite all of this improvement in society, Americans still believe race relations have worsened under President Obama’s six-year tenure, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest failures of his presidency.

The survey of 1,000 American adults that was conducted on December 4-5, 2014, had margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Americans overwhelmingly say that their local police

small-business-lending

Small business owners at the Small Business Administration conference discussing increased lending. (Photo: Reuters)

Small-business owners are slightly more optimistic in the month of November, according to a new report from the National Federation of Independent Business released Tuesday. The gain, which moved up last month above its long-run average, is reflective of the optimism related to the coming change in Congressional leadership.

The National Federation of Independent Business’s small-business optimism index jumped by a large 2.0 points to 98.1 in November, which puts the index just slightly above its average of 98.0 from 1974 to 2014.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expected the index to rise to 96.5 in November from 96.1 in October.

“Expectations for business conditions six months out rose a huge 16 percentage points while expectations for real sales volumes rose 5 percentage points,” Bill Dunkelberg, the NFIB’s Chief Economist said in a statement.

Still, the NFIB sought downplay the large increase of its own index by citing two subindexes as impacting the increase and fundamental economic strength still lacking.

“Unfortunately, the Index did not sprint past the average which is typical of a strong recovery before settling back down,” Dunkelberg added. “Instead it’s been a slow slog just to reach this point. It’s a little early to declare a breakout. This performance will have to be consolidated by several more positive readings before owners are confident to hire more employees and expand their business. But it’s a good sign that comes at a good time for small business.”

The increase above the average took the Index to its highest level since February 2007, while the average of the Index from 1974Q4 to 2014 to the present is 98 and includes all the Great Recession readings. The subindex, which includes real sales expectations, jumped 5 percentage points to 14 percent last month, as the subindex covering business conditions expectations increased by a whopping 16 points to 13 percent.

These subindexes cover what small business owners think will happen in the future and the NFIB said the gains are “likely not a response to ‘Black Friday’ or ‘Small Business Saturday’ results” but rather “a response to the November election results.” Republicans won enough seats to expand their majority in the House and retake a 54-seat majority in the Senate next year, the latest being the defeat of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

small-business-most-important-problems

Small business owners report taxes and various government regulations as the number one problem facing their plans for economic growth. (Source: NFIB)

Still, as PPD recently reported, the U.S. economy is still fundamentally weak, despite the increased job creation. The NFIB report concludes the same and adds to that basic interpretation, as owners report taxes as the “single most important small business problem” in November, followed by “government regulations and red tape.”

“Third quarter real GDP growth was revised up to 3.9 percent making the 6 months in the middle of 2014 one of the best growth periods in decades. However, this didn’t do much for small business job creation in the U.S.,” Dunkelberg said. “One reason is that a lot of this growth has been driven by inventory building, unusual defense outlays and exports, selling around the world, an activity that doesn’t involve many small businesses.”

Dunkelberg also noted that economists’ expectations for growth in the fourth quarter “are not as rosy, reverting to the high 2 percent pace.” This is particularly concerning considering the underlaying data in the report.

“What didn’t improve were the four ‘hard’ index components: job creation plans, plans for capital outlays, job openings and inventory investment plans,” the report said.

A one-step forward and two-steps back theme is reoccurring in the NFIB report. According to the survey results, the job creation subindex barely moved up 1 percentage point to 11 percent in November, but the capital-spending plans subindex dropped 1 point to 25 percent. The subindex covering jobs that are difficult to fill held steady at 24 percent, and the inventory subindex dropped 1 point to 2 percent.

Hiring over the past three months was slightly positive. The seasonally adjusted average increase in workers per firm was 0.05 workers a firm, up from 0 in October. According to the NFIB, 12 percent of firms reported increasing employment an average of 3.6 workers, but 10 percent reported reducing their workforce by an average of 3.3 workers, resulting in a canceling out affect.

Of those who reported a need to find qualified workers, 85 percent said they were seeing few or no applicants who were qualified for the open positions.

Another trend that is working against small businesses, said the NFIB, was the lack pf pricing power. Seasonally adjusted, a net 4 percent of owners have raised selling prices recently, half the percentage saying they raised prices in October.

Similarly, the Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index rose to 58 this month, the highest recorded since the recession in 2008, according to Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport.

Watch Full Video Below:

With a Republican takeover of Congress imminent

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial