Guilt By Insinuation

Cummings Says Congress Has Confidential Dirt on Trump and That’s Why Dems Boycotted Inaug.

 Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, when defending the more than 50 Democrat lawmakers who vowed to boycott President Donald Trump’s inauguration, implied that if the general public had access to the information Congress did, they would have boycotted the inauguration as well.

Of course, these congressmen and congresswomen haven’t seen fit to share that information with the American people — just to boycott the inauguration.

Because … politics?

“You’ve got to understand that members of Congress have a lot of information that the public does not have,” Cummings said in a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo. “And I can tell you over the last week or two, the classified briefings that I have been to, and if the public knew what members of Congress know …”

Seriously, is he a child?

Cuomo asked the obvious question: “Why don’t they? If it’s that important that it’s going to make people not go to the inauguration … shouldn’t people know?”

His response? Ignore the question and instead bring up the hacking allegations and FBI director James Comey “and what he did.”

“It seems as if the Republicans are sort of letting President-elect Trump sort of just move forward with regard to the conflict of interest issues, then this whole hacking issue. And I’m really concerned that we as Democrats have to push harder on Republicans to do something so that our standards are met and that he gets rid of these conflicts and that he also deals with the hacking,” he said later on in the interview.

The inauguration was likely more enjoyable without the boycotters anyway.

H/T Independent Journal Review

This is ridiculous. Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know your thoughts about what Cummings said.

What was this guy thinking?

Lindsey Graham Is A Loose Cannon

Lindsay Graham says he’ll make Putin “pay a price” for election interference

Brandon Morse December 7, 2016 9:27 pm

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) speaks with reporters in the Senate Press Gallery on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

160Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

Democrats have been accusing Russia of helping along President-elect Trump’s campaign, but according to CNN, one particular Republican is also positive that Russia had a hand in making sure Clinton was kept out of office.

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has stated that Russia “did interfere with our elections,” and has decided to take up his own investigation into the Wikileaks hacking. What’s more, Graham is none too pleased about Trump’s soft stance on the Russians, and has said he plans to make Putin “pay a price.”

The South Carolina Republican told CNN that he thinks “Trump should take a real tough tone with Russia, I think they’re one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage.”

“It’s pretty clear to me that Wikileaks was designed to hurt (Democratic presidential nominee Hillary) Clinton and it could be us tomorrow,” Graham said, referring to published emails stolen from her campaign chairman and posted on the site.

“I’m going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia,” Graham said. Referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he added, “I want Putin personally to pay a price.”

Graham is of the same mind as Democrats such as Maryland Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, and California Rep. Eric Swalwell. The two are currently planning a commission to look into the legitimacy of the hacking threat.

Trump’s refusal to accept the unanimous assessment of all 17 US federal intelligence agencies, “people who are sworn to protect us and to provide the very best information” to the President “is troubling,” Cummings said.

The “Protecting Our Democracy Act” that Swalwell and Cummings introduced Wednesday calls for the creation of a 12-member, bipartisan, 18-month investigation into Russian hacking. It would operate with an initial budget of $3 million, have members from both parties and chambers of Congress, and issue a report at its conclusion recommending future security protections.

Trump has stated that these investigations are “politically motivated,” and believes that Russia did not at all interfere in the elections.

Where Is Freedom Of Speech, Thought, Association Going? Gone If Dems Win

Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.

A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.

The drafting committee, led by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, has decided to back ongoing investigations by mostly Democratic state attorneys general into ExxonMobil’s stance on global warming.“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent,” according to the Democratic National Convention’s website.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-party-platform-calls-for-prosecuting-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz4CtDBVn5h

Turing Drug Company Raises Prices Excessively--Sickening Greed

Pharma Bro Emails Reveal Just How Greedy Drug Companies Can Be

Never mind what happens to the patients.

 02/02/2016 06:24 pm ET

• Jeffrey YoungHealth Care Reporter, The Huffington Post
 
• Shane FerroBusiness Reporter, The Huffington Post

RICHARD DREW/AP PHOTO

Would you buy a life-saving medicine from a man like Martin Shkreli? You might not have a choice.

"$1bn here we come."

That was the triumphant message sent by then-Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli, the infamous "Pharma Bro" who jacked up the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 percent last year, when it became clear his firm could acquire the rights to the medicine. The email went to Turing's presumably pleased board of directors last May.

To anyone who's followed this story since The New York Times shined a spotlight on Turing and intensified the national debate about prescription drug pricing last fall, the Shkreli email and other documents made public by the Democrats on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Tuesday do little more than confirm the basic facts. Turing raised the price of Daraprim, which treats a deadly parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis that afflicts HIV/AIDS patients, because it could. The company reaped a windfall, followed by a massive backlash that forced out Shkreli without providing any relief to patients.

But this kind of drug pricing strategy isn't limited to one rogue executive or company. Though rarely quite so blatant, it's woven throughout the pharmaceutical industry.

Other documents released Tuesday reveal similar moves by Valeant Pharmaceuticals. The Valeant documents show that it purchased two heart medications, Isuprel and Nitropress, in early 2015 and subsequently hiked the prices by 525 percent and 212 percent, respectively. In just one year, the company racked up $351 million in profits from those two drugs alone.  

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, made public excerpts from some 250,000 pages of documents that Turing and Valeant had provided to the panel.

5,000 paying bottles at the new price is $375,000,000 -- almost all of it is profit.Martin Shkreli, then CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals

"I think it will be huge. We raised the price from $1,700 per bottle to $75,000. ... So 5,000 paying bottles at the new price is $375,000,000 -- almost all of it is profit and I think we will get 3 years of that or more. Should be a very handsome investment for all of us. Let's all cross our fingers that the estimates are accurate," Shkreli wrote in one email.

Shkreli, current Turing executives and the head of Valeant are scheduled to testifybefore the House committee Thursday as part of Congress' investigation into drug pricing. But the panel likely won't get much satisfaction from the former CEO, who appears under subpoena. Shkreli plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. That's not stopping him, however, from mouthing off to reporters and on Twitter, or from attempting to pick a fight with a prominent hip-hop artist.

Shkreli also faces criminal charges stemming from alleged securities fraud. The Huffington Post asked Shkreli's defense attorney, Benjamin Brafman of Brafman & Associates in New York, to comment on the House Democrats' report.

Braff replied by email only to confirm that he represented Shkreli and to say this about the criminal case (emphasis his): "THE CHARGES ARE VERY DEFENSIBLE, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT HE WILL BE FULLY EXONERATED. IT IS CLEAR THAT MR. SHKRELI NEVER INTENDED TO VIOLATE THE LAW, NOR DID HE EVER INTEND TO DEFRAUD ANYONE."

Turing trades in medicines for uncommon illnesses. Valeant is similarly focused on "orphan drugs," which have a very small user base and are generally treatments for rare diseases and disorders, the House Democrats' report notes.

The documents suggest that Valeant's primary concern in raising prices was not the effect on patients' health, but the possibility of negative publicity. "Valeant's upcoming price increase on three drugs … has the potential to insert Valeant into the ongoing dialogue about orphan drugs, and therefore needs to be managed carefully," one document reads.

X

Divorced from Shkreli's notably outlandish and provocative behavior, these and other comments from Turing and Valeant executives might simply sound like businesses evaluating a market and setting a profit-maximizing price. But they underscore how the market for medicines works differently from many other parts of the economy.

Like Valeant's orphan drugs, Daraprim had no direct competitor when Turing acquired it. Because so few patients need the drug, there was little incentive for anyone else to make it, although another company has since entered the market. Because toxoplasmosis is so dangerous to HIV/AIDs patients, they and their health insurance providers couldn't simply say no when the price skyrocketed.

Shkreli and Turing knew this, of course. "Drugs are typically non-discretionary and consumers are relatively price-insensitive. ... Typically there's an inverse correlation between prevalence of a disease and the annual cost of treatment. ... Exclusivity (closed distribution) creates a barrier and pricing power," reads one slide from a Turing presentation.

While the Daraprim profiteering is egregious, pharmaceutical companies large and small have been increasing prices for all manner of medicines in recent years, including for the generic drugs that are supposed to be the cheapest, as a Bloomberg News report illustrates. Shkreli even pointed to other companies' behavior as a justification for Turing's actions last year.

Turing continues to maintain that its motive in raising Daraprim's price was to produce additional income to advance the science of toxoplasmosis treatment. "The revenues generated from the price increase fund both research and development and patient access programs," it wrote in a lengthy statement to HuffPost.

There is little evidence in the documents released by House Democrats, however, that company executives were concerned with anything other than boosting profits and quelling the public outrage that followed.

Shkreli reneged on a public vow to reduce the price last year. Turing's internal strategy emphasized hiding the cost from patients and avoiding fights with HIV/AIDs advocates and customers like hospitals, the new documents show.

Moreover, pharmaceutical companies often deflect concerns about high costs by touting their patient access (or assistance) programs, which provide free or low-cost medicines to uninsured people or cover the co-payments for those with insurance.

Valeant employed this strategy when patients complained about prices, giving the neediest customers drugs at a very low cost. "Kind of hard to paint us as greedy if we have removed financial barriers for patients," one marketing executive wrote.

X

Trying to silence critics by lowering prices for some desperate people avoids the real debate about high pharmaceutical costs, which are paid by insurers and government programs even when drug makers subsidize certain patients. Americans in particular get hit hard by drug companies' profit-driven behavior. 

The structure of the global pharmaceutical market is not balanced, according to Mahmud Hassan, director of Rutgers Business School's pharmaceutical management program. The U.S. is the world's only major market, he said, where pharmaceutical prices are unregulated. As a result, U.S. patients, health insurers and the government typically pay more for prescription medicines than their counterparts in countries with national health programs.

There is a tradeoff: The high prices paid by Americans help fund pharmaceutical companies' development of new drugs -- which they then sell around the world.

"The U.S. is subsidizing the entire world for those expensive drugs," said Hassan.

Also on HuffPost:

Medical Contraptions Of The Past

MORE:

 Health Care, Prescription Drugs, Martin Shkreli, Turing Pharmaceuticals, Valeant Pharmaceuticals,Martin Shkreli Emails, Big Pharma, Drug Prices, Orphan Drugs

Democrats Take Money From Blood Sucking Pharm Exec

Pharma Bad Boy Martin Shkreli Is a Big Democrat Donor

 

BY DEBRA HEINE FEBRUARY 5, 2016

CHAT 37 COMMENTS

Pharmaceutical chief Martin Shkreli smiles on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2016, during the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on his former company's decision to raise the price of a lifesaving medicine. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Martin Shkreli, the disgraced pharmaceutical executive who pleaded the Fifth and then smirked and fidgeted his way through a congressional hearing yesterday, is a big Democrat donor.

Democrats have castigated Shkreli for hiking the price of a potentially lifesaving drug by more than 5,000 percent. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, berated Shkreli during the hearing: "I call this money blood money ... coming out of the pockets of hardworking Americans," he said indignantly.

Cummings might be interested to know that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign in July 2015 took $33,400 of Shkreli's "blood money." The Progressive Midwesterner noticed this back in September:

When I was looking on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website about political donations that Martin Shkreli made, I managed to find one political donation that I am 100% certain is of Turing Pharmaceuticals’s Martin Shkreli, and that is a $33,400 donation that Shkreli made to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) on July 18th of this year.

While politicians on both sides of the aisle have harshly criticized Shkreli, including Democrat presidential contenders Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, the so-called "Pharma Bro" has endorsed Sanders. But Sanders at least had the decency last October to reject Shkreli's $2,700 donation, saying he would give a donation of the same amount to a health clinic. Shkreli subsequently tweeted:

The DSCC should follow Bernie's example and return Shkreli's "blood money."

Don't Tangle With Trey Gowdy, It Will Be Brutal!

Democrat Lawmaker Thinks He Can Take On Trey Gowdy… Learns The Hard Way It Was A HUGE Mistake

Rep. Elijah Cummins learned the hard way that it’s not a good idea to mess with Rep. Trey Gowdy — especially when it comes to getting to the bottom of the Benghazi terror attack that left four Americans dead in 2012.

Cummins, a Maryland representative and the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi that Gowdy chairs, has accused Gowdy in the past of badgering Clinton for political reasons — but Gowdy is actually just doing the job he was appointed to.

Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, has recently claimed that Clinton should have known that some of the information she received from her confidant Sidney Blumenthal was classified — and should have treated it accordingly.

According to BizPac Review, Cummins issued a response to that claim, saying Gowdy failed to check his facts regarding that assertion — suggesting that no classified material was emailed because the CIA had not asked that it be redacted from public disclosure. He then told Gowdy he owed Clinton an “immediate apology.”

Gowdy wasted no time setting the record straight. He fired back with a statement pointing out that the CIA “… did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated … ‘[was] wrong.’”

He then asked Cummins to “completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts.”

“Whether Secretary Clinton received protected information from Sidney Blumenthal or simply recklessly wrong information from Sidney Blumenthal is relevant at some level,” Gowdy said.

“What is most important is to protect information that can endanger others… So, our position is consistent. Sources and methods of intelligence are among the most closely guarded information our government has,” he said.

“We will continue to redact that information and treat it with the highest level of confidentiality and sensitivity, and we would advise you to do the same,” he added.

Gowdy saved the best for last in a postscript in the letter: “My understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted,” he wrote.

“I am envious of your staff’s ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend.  This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays.  Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now,” he concluded.

And that’s why you don’t want to pick a fight with Gowdy — if you don’t have all your facts in order, he will rip you to shreds.