Category Archives: US Politics

Hillary and Snowden Broke Same Laws

Hillary and Snowden Broke Same Laws

by 

Hillary Clinton Benghazi attack

When it comes to classified information, some leaks are more equal than others. If you are a whistleblower like Edward Snowden, who tells the press about illegal, immoral or embarrassing government actions, you will face jail time. But it’s often another story for US government officials leaking information for their own political benefit.

Two stories this week perfectly illustrate this hypocrisy and how, despite their unprecedented crackdown on sources and whistleblowers, the Obama administration – like every administration before it – loves to use leaks, if and when it suits them.

Consider a government leak that ran in the New York Times on Monday. The article was about 300 of Hillary Clinton’s now notorious State Department emails, which had been hidden away on her private server for years and were turned over to Congress as part of the never-ending Benghazi investigation.

“Four senior government officials” described the content of her emails to New York Times journalists in minute detail “on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information”.

Surely the Obama administration will promptly root out and prosecute those leakers, right? After all, the emails haven’t gone through a security review and the chances of them discussing classified information are extremely high. (Even if they don’t, the Espionage Act doesn’t require the information to be classified anyways, only that information leaked be “related to national defense”.) But those emails supposedly clear Clinton of any wrongdoing in the Benghazi affair, which likely makes the leak in the administration’s interest.

But that disclosure was nothing compared to what appeared in the Wall Street Journal a day later, in the wake of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s underhanded attempts to derail a nuclear deal with Iran. The Journal reported on Tuesday that not only did Israel spy on Americans negotiating with Iran, but they gave that information to Republicans in Congress, in an attempt to scuttle the deal.

How does the US know this? Well, according to the Journal and its government sources, the US itself intercepted communications between Israeli officials that discussed information that could have only come from the US-Iran talks. The disclosure of this fact sounds exactly like the vaunted “sources and methods” – i.e. how the US conducts surveillance and gets intelligence – that the government continually claims is the most sensitive information they have.

It’s why they claim Edward Snowden belongs in jail for decades. So while it’s apparently unacceptable to leak details about surveillance that affects ordinary citizens’ privacy, its OK for officials to do so for their own political benefit – and no one raises an eyebrow.

We can be quite certain that no one will be prosecuted for the leaks given that they benefitted the administration’s powerful former Secretary of State, and bolsters its position in its public dust-up with Israel.

When it comes to leaks, the powerful play by different rules than everyone else – despite the fact that they’ve violated the same law they’ve accused so many other leakers of breaking. That’s why David Petraeus was given a sweetheart plea deal with no jail time after leaking highly classified information to his biographer and lover. (He’s apparently already back advising the White House, despite leaking and then lying to the FBI about the identities of countless covert officers).

It’s also the same reason why investigations into a leak suspected to have involved General Cartwright, once known as “Obama’s favorite general”, have stalled. As the Washington Post reported: the defense “might try to put the White House’s relationship with reporters and the use of authorized leaks on display, creating a potentially embarrassing distraction for the administration”.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling faces sentencing next month after being found guilty of leaking information to New York Times reporter James Risen. Sterling’s problem is that he leaked information showing a spectacular and embarrassing failure on the CIA’s part – which did not help a powerful politician score points. He is also not a general.

As a result, he faces decades in jail.

Government No. 1 problem in the country, Americans say

Government No. 1 problem in the country, Americans say

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times

Steve Cohen TN Representative Tennessee Congress

Government has been named the most important problem facing the country for four straight months and has widened its lead over the second-ranking issue of the economy compared to last month, a Gallup poll said.

Eighteen percent of Americans named dissatisfaction with government the most important problem facing the country, followed by the economy at 11 percent and jobs at 10 percent.

In February, government was still tops at 17 percent, but was followed closely by the economy at 16 percent, then healthcare at 10 percent.

Health care was tied for fourth with immigration/illegal aliens at 7 percent in the latest survey.

“While dissatisfaction with government is by no means a new issue to the American people, it has not in recent months been as clearly the leading problem as it is now, given that fewer Americans mention the economy,”  Gallup’s Justin McCarthy wrote.

The results are based on a poll of 1,025 adults conducted March 5-8. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Hillary Clinton could face criminal charges

Hillary Clinton could face criminal charges

By Jesse Byrnes

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Sunday suggested that Hillary Clinton could face criminal charges if she knowingly withholds emails from congressional investigators.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Issa noted that “voluntary cooperation does not guarantee that it’s a crime not to deliver all” requested emails.

“A subpoena, which Trey Gowdy issued, is so that in fact it will be a crime if she knowingly withholds documents pursuant to subpoena,” Issa said.

The former House Oversight Committee chairman issued three subpoenas related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks, he said, acknowledging the House Select Committee on Benghazi last week subpoenaed all of Clinton’s emails during her tenure as secretary of State.

Clinton last week called on the State Department to release the 55,000 pages of her emails that she self-selected and turned over. State has turned over about 900 pages to the committee.

Issa argued that Clinton “wasn’t forthcoming two and a half years ago.”

“She, in fact, hid the very existence of this until she was caught,” Issa said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Benghazi committee, pushed back on CNN.

“They issued a subpoena for records we already have,” Schiff said. “We’ve read them. There’s nothing in them.”

“What is the law at the time? The law at the time was that she could use her personal email as long as she preserved it,” Schiff said, arguing “she clearly did preserve her emails.”

“In my view, this was not provided in response to the The New York Times article or anything else. This was provided last year when a request went out to the state department and all former secretaries,” Schiff said.

“She followed the law in place at the time, and I think that’s, I think, the relevant point.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Destroys Iran and Obama with One Speech

Israel’s Prime Minister Destroys Iran and Obama with One Speech

Israel Benjamin netanyahu Prime Minister

Americans and the world just got a lesson in chutzpah. That’s the Jewish word for balls, bravado, courage, audacity, cajones. No one else in the world could have pulled off what Bibi just did. Talk about a masterful speech.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu walked into a joint session of the U.S. Congress like he owned it. Like he was the president of the United States. He received 29 standing ovations. He then held court for almost an hour like he was the most powerful man in the world. Like he held the key to saving the world. And just maybe…he does.

Bibi walked onto the biggest stage in America and embarrassed President Barack Obama. He schooled him. He took him to the woodshed. And here’s the masterful part – he killed him with kindness! Bibi pulled off a speech ripping America’s president to shreds, in front of the political leadership of America…in front of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi…in front of the American people…and he did it like only a master of communication, chutzpah and salesmanship could – by first praising him. By thanking Obama. By showering him with compliments.

Then he proceeded to strip him naked and pummel him into submission.

You can’t make deals with tyrants, terrorists, thieves and murderers whose word cannot be trusted.

When it was over, I guarantee you that a majority of the American people…at least a majority who watched the speech…would rather have Bibi as president than Obama. Certainly a majority would sleep sounder at night, would feel safer about the future of their children with Bibi as president than Obama.

What was the main takeaway of the speech?

That you can’t reward bad behavior. That you must punish bad behavior. That you can’t agree to deals with tyrants, terrorists, liars, thieves and murderers whose word cannot be trusted. That no deal is in fact better than a bad deal.

That the only deal worth doing punishes Iran and takes away their nuclear capabilities until they change their behavior…until they stop supporting and funding terrorism…until they stop vowing to annihilate their neighbor Israel and kill all the Jewish people…until they check their aggressive support of militant, radical Islam all over the world. That to allow any nuclear capability for a militant Muslim nation is suicide for the entire world.

Bibi understands three things Obama clearly doesn’t (or does, and doesn’t care because he’s a Muslim sympathizer):

The art of negotiating. Bibi compared negotiating with Iran to negotiating at a Persian bazaar. Hilarious, and so true.

“If they threaten to walk away, let them.” Bibi said. “Because they’ll be back.”

It takes an Israeli to understand the human nature of Persians. That threat of walking away is just part of a negotiation. Bibi understands that. I understand that. Can Obama be that stupid? Bibi sure made him seem that stupid.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens as President Barack Obama speaks during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens as President Barack Obama speaks during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

But I know Bibi knows what I know. He just can’t say it in public. Obama is not stupid. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s not on Israel’s side. So Bibi had to play a masterful game of chess with Obama. So he painted him as naïve and stupid. He embarrassed him in front of the world. He made it clear the deal Obama has negotiated is Neville Chamberlain all over again. It’s a repeat of the worst deal ever agreed to – Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler.

Secondly, Bibi made it clear that Iran is not a normal country. It shouldn’t be treated like a normal country. It is a militant Islamic country. It is a rogue terrorist state no different than Islamic State. Iran is the enemy of Islamic State, so Bibi had to make a very interesting point.

Iran and Islamic State are the same people. They want the same thing. They say it. They tweet it. Iran wrote it in their constitution. They are dedicated to killing, conquering, converting and enslavng the entire region, then the world. Iran is only fighting Islamic State to determine who gets to do it in the name of Allah.

Bibi then drove the nail home, “the enemy of your enemy…is your enemy.” Masterful.

Thirdly, Bibi made a simple clear point that the American people can understand. Forget intellectual arguments. Forget the fancy words of lawyers and Ivy Leaguers like Obama, meant to obscure, confuse, distract and deceive the people.

Bibi spoke from the heart. Bibi painted a picture of militant radical Muslims like Islamic State and how they act – they commit atrocities…they cut off heads…they torture…they throw gays off buildings…they parade prisoners in cages…they set people on fire…they rape and kill women and children…even babies are cut in half and mutilated at the hands of militant radical Muslims.

And Obama wants to allow them to possess NUCLEAR WEAPONS? And he thinks that’s okay? He thinks they’ll change? He thinks they’ll stop being angry and aggressive with a nuclear weapon now in their hands? That image ends the debate.

Bibi’s point was clear, somber and frightening: No militant Islamic state can ever be allowed to possess nuclear weapons…or they will certainly use them. No one in the world will be ever sleep soundly again. No one’s children will ever be safe again. People that cut off heads…stone woman for having sex…throw acid in a little girl’s face for wanting to go to school…set fire to a prisoner in a cage…people like that will use a nuclear weapon.

Bibi made it clear Obama’s deal with Iran allows them to possess nuclear weapons. It’s only a matter of when. That cannot be allowed to pass.

I think I heard Obama and Valerie Jarrett screaming at the TV in the White House.

Bibi embarrassed them. Thrashed them. Emasculated them. The emperor has no clothes. By the way, not only is it clear Obama does not like Israel…that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer…that Obama is trying to weaken Israel and put her people in danger…but the ruler of Obama’s White House is Valerie Jarrett. Where was Valerie born? Iran.

Obama’s actions and negotiations are no mistake…fluke…coincidence…not done out of naivete. Bibi knows that as well as I do. So he had to deconstruct Obama and his Iranian-born svengali in a nice way…in front of the Congress…in Obama’s own house.

Bibi had to kill Obama with kindness. He could not win over the American people by ripping our president in our own home court. So he never once named Obama as the bad guy. He never once blamed Obama for a bad deal, or bad negotiations. He never said out loud “your president is trying to hurt Israel.”

But he didn’t have to. We all know.

Bravo Bibi. You just showed us all what a real leader looks like – someone who stands up to evil, instead of negotiating and compromising in the face of another Hitler. Bibi made his point subtly…as subtly as a jackhammer and blowtorch. Best of all, it was a two-for-one sale: Bibi destroyed both Iran and Obama with one masterful speech.

Obama: ‘Consequences’ for ICE Officials Who Don’t Follow Executive Amnesty

Obama: ‘Consequences’ for ICE Officials Who Don’t Follow Executive Amnesty

BY DANIEL HALPER

CBP Checkpoint
CBP Checkpoint

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn’t be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.

“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”

“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”

UPDATE: Here are the remarks, via a transcript provided by the White House:

DIAZ-BALART:  But what are the consequences?  Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this?  I mean, what are the consequences

THE PRESIDENT:  José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it.  So I can’t speak to a specific problem.  What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.

In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it.  It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem.  And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.

The Worst of Jen Psaki

The Worst of Jen Psaki

Jen Psaki State Department Spokesperson

BY:

Jen Psaki is leaving after two years as State Department spokesperson to become White House communications director, leaving a rich Foggy Bottom tenure in her wake.

Her time as John Kerry’s top PR flack included countless moments of sputtering to explain the Obama administration’s foreign policy missteps, a moment of hashtag diplomacy unparalleled in its cringe factor, and daily verbal floggings by dogged Associated Press reporter Matt Lee.

Let’s look back on the good times.

Obama says world should address ‘grievances’ that terrorists exploit, give in to their demands

Obama says world should address ‘grievances’ that terrorists exploit, give in to their demands

FoxNews.com

Islam Dominate World White House Muslim sign terrorist

President Obama defended his administration’s approach to the terror threat at a White House summit Wednesday, standing by claims that groups like the Islamic State do not represent Islam — as well as assertions that job creation could help combat extremism.

Obama, addressing the Washington audience on the second day of the summit, said the international community needs to address “grievances” that terrorists exploit, including economic and political issues.

He stressed that poverty alone doesn’t cause terrorism, but “resentments fester” and extremism grows when millions of people are impoverished.

“We do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit including economic grievances,” he said.

He also said no single religion was responsible for violence and terrorism, adding he wants to lift up the voice of tolerance in the United States and beyond.

Obama’s address came as Republican lawmakers and others criticized the administration for declining to describe the threat as Islamic terrorism.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf has also come under fire for suggesting several times this past week that more jobs could help address the terrorism crisis.

On Tuesday, Rob O’Neill, former Navy SEAL Team 6 member who claims to have fired the shot that killed Usama bin Laden, told Fox News: “They get paid to cut off heads — to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads and I don’t think that a change in career path is what’s going to stop them.”

Obama also called on Muslim leaders to “do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there is an inherent clash in civilizations.”

Obama acknowledged that some Muslim-Americans have concerns about working with the government, particularly law enforcement, and that their reluctance “is rooted in the objection to certain practices where Muslim-Americans feel they’ve been unfairly targeted.”

He said it was important it make sure that abuses stop and are not repeated and that “we do not stigmatize entire communities.” He also said it was vital that “no one is profiled or put under a cloud of suspicion simply because of their faith.”

Although Obama called for a renewed focus on preventing terrorists from recruiting and inspiring others, some thought his message seemed to miss the mark.

“He was meandering, unfocused and weak,” said Richard Grenell, former U.S. spokesman at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor. “He was talking about isolating terrorists. He doesn’t understand the threat that we face… People are being burned in cages and he’s talking about more investments?”

Leaders from 60 different countries traveled to Washington for the summit.

Community leaders from Boston, Minneapolis and Los Angeles were also in attendance and discussed how their cities could help empower communities to protect themselves against extremist ideologies.

Legal Group, Judicial Watch, Obtains ‘Smoking Gun’ Benghazi Documents

Legal Group, Judicial Watch, Obtains ‘Smoking Gun’ Benghazi Documents

State Dept., Clinton involved in massive cover-up

Hillary Clinton Benghazi attack

NEW YORK – Documents obtained Monday through a federal court order show State Department officials disseminated the false story that the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed a U.S. ambassador was nothing more than the violent escalation of a demonstration by Muslims against an insulting video, even though they knew it was a coordinated military-style assault.

Among the documents obtained by the Washington-based government watchdog Judicial Watch was a memo sent the day after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack to the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, by the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center titled “Emergency Message to U.S. Citizens: Demonstrations.”

The Diplomatic Security Command Center, or DSCC, was well aware that the attack was carried out by highly organized and armed Islamic militia, because the DSCC was the unit that monitored the attack in real time via video transmissions from a drone.

The message is identical to the emergency message issued by the U.S. Embassy in Tunis and archived on the embassy’s website.

The emergency message reads in the first paragraph: “On September 11, 2012, violent demonstrations took place at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt and at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in damage in both locations and casualties in Benghazi. Media reports indicate that demonstrations may take place at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.”

‘They knew’

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the DSCC “clearly knew in real time that a full-fledged terrorist attack was taking place on September 11 at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, and the American people deserve to be told the truth.”

“We are now into the fourth year of a massive Obama administration cover-up,” Fitton said.

He said the DSCC communiqués “may further help unravel the Obama administration’s growing web of deceit.”

“I’ve always believed that the Benghazi cover-up was about two presidential campaigns – the Obama re-election effort and Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign. I have little doubt that the State Department is protecting Hillary Clinton with this latest cover-up,” he asserted.

Even after the Benghazi attack, the Obama re-election campaign maintained its narrative that al-Qaida was on the run. The boast would have been impossible to sustain had the State Department told the truth about the terrorist attack in documents such as the emergency warning for U.S. citizens.

Judicial Watch insists the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb under oath to the House Oversight Committee on Oct. 10, 2012, proves the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center knew the Benghazi compound was under hostile fire from the moment the attack began.

“That brings me to the events of September 11 itself,” Lamb testified. “The account I am about to present is based on first-hand reports from several security personnel present that night. Additionally, I was in our Diplomatic Security Command Center monitoring multiple open lines with our agents for much of the attack.”

“The attack began at approximately 9:40 pm local time,” Lamb continued. “Diplomatic Security agents inside the compound heard loud voices outside the walls, followed by gunfire and an explosion. Dozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity. They forced their way through the pedestrian gate, and used diesel fuel to set fire to the Libyan 17th February Brigade members’ barracks, and then proceeded toward the main building.”

A Judicial Watch statement claimed Lamb’s testimony was in direct conflict with initial false claims by the Obama administration that the attack arose from a spontaneous demonstration in response to an Internet video.

“False information and the lies put out by this office, the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center, that knew even as the Benghazi attack was going on that it was a terrorist attack, recklessly endangered U.S. lives by drafting for the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia claims the Benghazi attack involved only a protest demonstration over a movie,” Fitton said.

“When the State Department only warned U.S. citizens in Tunisia about demonstrations, the U. S. government was lying to them,” he maintained.

“You are making people think they only needed to worry about demonstrations, when the truth was Americans in North Africa needed to know the night before Benghazi was hit by an intense terrorist attack, that came on violently, with heavily armed al-Qaida-backed militia carrying AK-47s and RPGs. ‘Be Warned’ should have been the message, ‘There was a terrorist attack, and you should be very careful right now.”

Fitton stressed that by not telling Americans in Tunisia the truth, the State Department was engaging in “reckless disregard” of their safety.

“To the extent this information was withheld from personnel in the State Department, in Tunisia or elsewhere in the area where U.S. State Department personnel were deployed, these lies placed these people in jeopardy,” Fitton said. “U.S. citizens in Tunisia should have been told honestly to be worried about and to watch out for terrorists, not demonstrators.”

“The State Department Diplomatic Security Command Center knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack that ended up killing the ambassador, and it was unconscionable for the Obama State Department to lie in the ‘Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens’ we now know the DSCC drafted for the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia to publish.”

Fitton explained why he considered the statement to be a breach of trust between the State Department and State Department personnel deployed internationally, which compounded the offense.

“It’s no wonder the morale of State Department officials overseas was decimated after Benghazi,” he said. “Not only did the State Department and the Obama administration leave Ambassador Stevens and the other brave Americans who died without timely rescue and defense, the State Department with Benghazi tore up that implicit compact that certainly soldiers in the U.S. military have, not only that they won’t be left behind, but also that they won’t be lied to about the dangers they are facing.”

LA Gov Jindal: I Won’t ‘TipToe Around The Truth’ On Racial Islam

LA Gov Jindal: I Won’t ‘TipToe Around The Truth’ On Racial Islam

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) said that he won’t “tiptoe around the truth” on radical Islam on Wednesday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

Jindal reacted to comments made by a guest on MSNBC that he was “trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin.” Jindal said that it was “foolish” for MSNBC to give anyone who would make those comments a platform, but that he knew people on the left would “go crazy” when he “called out radical Islamic terrorism” and called for assimilation, and defended that there were “no-go zones” where police are less likely to go into, where women feel uncomfortable and where there are attempts to impose Sharia Law.

He then declared “I think it’s embarrassing the president, somehow, for some reason, doesn’t want to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe these individuals, doesn’t want to use the words ‘radical Islam.’… I think it’s time for the leaders to denounce the individuals, not just the acts of violence. I know the left wants us to tiptoe around the truth, I’m not going to do it. Part of the president’s job as the leader of our country, the leader of the free world, is to state clearly and honestly to us what are the challenges we face.”

“We’re at war with radical Islam whether he wants to call it that or not, that is exactly the conflict we face, I know the left’s not going to like it,” he continued. “But, Neil I’m also ready for us to stop calling ourselves hyphenated-Americans. Part of this assimilation…we need to stop calling ourselves African-Americans, Indian-Americans. My parents came over here 40 years ago, they wanted their kids to be Americans, they love India, they love our heritage, if they wanted us to be Indians, they would have stayed in India.

We also need to be teaching our kids in civics, in our schools about American Exceptionalism. We need to insist on English as our language in this country. I have nothing against anybody who wants to come here to be an American, but if people don’t want to come here to integrate and assimilate, what they’re really trying to do is set up their own culture, their communities, what they’re really trying to do is overturn our culture.

We need to recognize that threat, what that threat is to us. if we don’t, we’re going to see a replica of what’s happened in Europe in America. We’re going to see our own no-go zones, if we’re not serious about insisting on assimilation and integration.”

Regarding tax policy, he stated “this president wants to be all about redistribution. I think, in America, we look at federal taxes, we look at federal policies to promote opportunity and growth not redistribution like they do in Europe.”  He added that he supported across-the-board tax cuts because “I think rates need to be lower,” although he did not say what he would ultimately lower them to.

Jindal also said “we need a Constitutional amendment saying the federal government shouldn’t grow faster than our economy, than our private sector economy so they don’t keep spending more while our paychecks aren’t growing.”

He additionally defended his refusal to adopt Medicaid expansion in Louisiana, arguing “the reality is if we had done Medicaid expansion, we would have kicked over 200,000 people out of private insurance, more people would have been moved out of private insurance into Medicaid than uninsured would have been moved into Medicaid. That makes no sense to me…It would have cost our taxpayers over a billion dollars over ten years.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett