Search This Blog

Thursday, December 5, 2024

Dems pressed Capitol Police to show favoritism to officer who killed J6 protestor

 House Democrats pressured U.S. Capitol Police to provide special financial assistance and even a promotion to the officer who fatally shot unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer and charitable assistance not provided to other officers, according to internal emails reviewed by Just the News.

"He is very upset about how he is being treated. He wants us to figure this out and now," a top congressional aide to then-House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, wrote to Capitol Police in November 2021 pressing for more assistance to Lt. Michael Byrd after he killed Babbitt.

The records show that pressure also came from then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's staff and from then-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, causing Capitol Police to find any solution they could to make Byrd and Democrats happy. Despite the extraordinary assistance, Byrd expressed dissatisfaction and continued to insist he deserved more, to the chagrin of Capitol Police officials, according to records assembled by Congress. 

"We play the game as you request and then once we’re in compliance You guys change the rules on us,” Byrd wrote to U.S. Capitol Police General Counsel Thomas DiBiase in November 2021 after being informed he wouldn't be able to immediately access charitable funds from a memorial fund for fallen or wounded officers.

The department's chief later told Byrd he would not be offered any further assistance from the memorial fund, but Capitol Police instead helped set up a GoFundMe that landed Byrd more than $160,000 in extra funds. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D- Calif., was one of the many progressives who donated to and promoted the fundraising.

The revelations were uncovered during probe by Chairman Barry Loudermilk’s House Administration Oversight Subcommittee into the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) and follow findings that Byrd has a significant disciplinary record that resulted in six referrals to the USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility. 

At least one of these incidents resulted in a referral to a prosecutor and others ended with temporary suspensions, Just the News reported earlier this month.  

"In addition to USCP’s decision to promote Byrd despite his disciplinary history, I also have concerns about the decisions USCP made with respect to Byrd after January 6, 2021,” Loudermilk wrote in a letter to current USCP Chief Thomas Manger, previously published by Just the News

Loudermilk told the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show that it is understandable that House Democratic leadership would want to ensure that Byrd was well taken care of considering he did end up unfortunately taking a life, but that their calls for assistance for the then-lieutenant went above and beyond other officers. 

“[They] went to extremes, to where they gave bonuses to officers who are on the front line of the battle, that was a few thousand dollars—Byrd gets one of $37,000 okay, it's not equally played,” Loudermilk said. 

“I think people should really be considering the earlier question, which is whether he should have been on the force,” the chairman said referring to the now-captain’s lengthy disciplinary record.

You can read Loudermilk's letter below: 

The committee’s investigation uncovered evidence that the USCP went to extraordinary lengths to promote Byrd and provide him financial support dwarfing that received by other officers on duty on Jan. 6, including attempts to use a memorial fund for wounded officers to compensate him. 

Internal USCP emails obtained by Loudermilk’s subcommittee and reviewed by Just the News show the police department worked to provide significant benefits to Byrd after the shooting, including housing, security protection due to threats to his life, and went to great lengths to promote then-Lieutenant Byrd to captain. 

At the same time, the emails suggest House Democratic leadership, including the office of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Rep. Tim Ryan worked closely with the Capitol Police to secure benefits for Byrd, who at the time was refusing to return to work and seeking payments to keep his family afloat. 

Neither the U.S. Capitol Police nor a lawyer for Byrd responded to multiple requests for comment from Just the News.

USCP worked with House Democratic Leadership to compensate Byrd

In July 2021, just about six months after Jan. 6, email records show the USCP General Counsel Thomas DiBiase met with Speaker Pelosi’s Director of House Operations Jamie Fleet to discuss possible options for assisting Byrd. 

“The COP, General Walker and I met with Jamie Fleet this morning to discuss the possible options for Lt. Byrd. We proposed the following and now have the following ‘To Dos’,” DiBiase wrote to several senior USCP officials including Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman. 

According to the email, the USCP discussed providing several financial benefits to Byrd including compensating him from a memorial fund dedicated to officers wounded in the line of duty, finding a way to promote him to captain, and providing options to help him move to a new home. 

Later that same day, DiBiase informed Byrd’s lawyer in a July 2021 email that the USCP has been “discussing Mike’s situation with the Speaker’s staff” and that they would like to discuss the options that came up. 

After meeting with leadership, the USCP got to work on the “To Do” list. 

For example, the USCP helped to provide significant financial benefits for Byrd that included a high retention bonus and help with private fundraising, beyond any efforts by the department to help other officers on duty that day, according to the memos.

After January 6, Byrd was offered a $37,000 retention bonus by the department which dwarfed a $3,000 bonus offered to all officers in the wake of the riot. According to the emails, this was the “maximum” they could do under Capitol Police policy. 

Despite this, the emails show that Byrd was apparently “disappointed” with the financial support and repeatedly failed to sign the retention agreement that warranted the payments. 

The records show USCP also explored providing additional compensation from a memorial fund set aside for officers injured or killed in the line of duty. In an email, DiBiase compared Byrd situation to two officers injured during the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who were paid out $52,000 and $63,000, respectively, from the fund. 

But, Byrd was upset that the financial assistance was not coming quick enough and expressed his frustration in an email to DiBiase in November 2021. 

“We’re working on an announcement for the entire department as to how folks injured on 1/6 can apply to the [Memorial Fund] and we will consider all the claims at that point,” DiBiase wrote to Byrd. 

“I don’t think that’s fair to me or my wife you know our situation and what we’ve been dealing with,” Byrd replied. 

“What you proposed could take months,” he added. “Our expectation was that this would be done soon. Now you’re telling me we got to wait for the rest of the department to even file claims, get evaluated and go through the process we have endured for months.” 

“That is blatantly wrong to treat us like this. This was never proposed to us in this manner. Now we’re being grouped in with everyone else. Wow!” Byrd wrote.  

DiBiase appeared startled by Byrd’s dissatisfaction with the USCP’s support. 

“Mike, I’m sorry you are disappointed. I find that surprising since we have already provided you $36,000 in unrestricted retention funds,” DiBiase replied. “You know what the rest of the department is receiving? $3,000 each.” 

He added: “Yes, you are being lumped in with the other 91 officers who suffered injuries that day. The Memorial Fund is for the entire Department, not one officer.” 

This answer appeared not to satisfy Byrd. “We play the game as you request and then once we’re in compliance You guys change the rules on us,” he wrote back. 

To help remedy the situation, the USCP helped Byrd establish a public GoFundMe page to alleviate his financial concerns. The page raised over $164,000 in charitable contributions and was boosted online by Rep. Eric Swalwell. D- Calif., and former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a GOP member on the Jan. 6 Select Committee.

After Byrd received these donations from the public, USCP Chief Thomas Manger ultimately declined to further compensate Byrd using the Memorial Fund, according to the records. 

Byrd was not happy with this decision. "Ok, thank you, MOC [Members of Congress] have said differently. I will address on my own," he wrote in one reply to Manger. "USCP will not look good as a result." 

Given security detail, housing, home upgrades

The email records show Byrd also received significant assistance in the form of housing and security upgrades for his Maryland home paid for by the department. 

After Byrd's name began to circulate in the media following January 6, the USCP worked to shield the officer from any potential threats by giving him a protective detail at key points and paying for both a hotel and quarters at a military base for the lieutenant, the department told House Democratic leadership. Before Byrd was moved to a location away from his home in Maryland, USCP provided a full-time protection detail.

While he was housed at the military base, Byrd was provided a security detail from the Diplomatic Protection Division of USCP available to him any time that he left the base. 

Despite the apparent threats to him after January 6, Byrd agreed to the NBC News interview in August 2021 against the advice of USCP. During his appearance, Byrd did not disguise his identity, which required USCP to "run a 24-7 DPD detail for a week," further adding to his security costs. 

When he finally returned to his own home in January 2022, USCP reimbursed him for thousands of dollars in security upgrades, including creating two "safe rooms" in the home and purchased cameras with high-quality wifi connection. Additionally, the USCP worked with his Homeowners Association in an attempt to extend fencing around his property, according to one report submitted to Democratic leadership. 

Loudermilk's committee estimated that these security upgrades alone cost the USCP $21,899. It is not known how much in total the extensive security detail and housing cost the department while Byrd was away from his home.

Promotion to captain despite disciplinary record

The USCP also promised Democratic leadership that it would try to give Byrd a promotion to captain, even though he did not make the cutoff for the list for the one open captain slot. Byrd has a long history of disciplinary action preceding J6 involving several gun incidents, Just the News reported in late November.

To do so, records show, the department assembled a proposal to the Capitol Police Board to add an additional captain's position so that Byrd could receive the promotion in 2021, though Congress found this proposal was never submitted. 

Though USCP efforts to promote Byrd in 2021 did not come to fruition, the USCP promoted Byrd to captain two years later.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/hldofficer-who-shot-j6-protestor-shown-favoritism-capitol-police-under-political

How to judge federal nominees: Bears, sex scandals, conflict of Interest, and their *actual views*?

 by Vinay Prasad

It is predictable that every new presidential term is followed by an analysis of the nominees to federal office. Once, Tom Daschle’s hopes were dashed as HHS secretary because he failed to properly report taxes— and, if I remember correctly, it was about paying a nanny in cash— something that is basically ubiquitous in America. But because he paid a nanny in cash, he couldn’t be HHS secretary… wait, what?

As the years pass, the things we learn about politicians and their close ones become more sordid. Doug Emhoff is accused of slapping a woman so hard she spun. Al Franken got cancelled based on an old photo and assorted stories from his comedian days. This year, I can’t keep track of all the salacious stories in the press, including an email from a mother to son.

How should we think about these things? Does the media report these stories so that we actually get better public servants or is it just for the clicks?

Here is my 7 point, non-partisan framework to consider these things

  1. First, a reminder. One side lost and one side won. Any analysis of a candidate can’t be: (Insert Name) has these downsides, so the runner up, Jesus Christ, should get the nomination. This isn’t the current person vs. your platonic ideal. It is the current person vs. the most likely next nominee based on who won. So if you dash RFK Jr, you will get…. probably someone who is in the mold of Alex Azar or Scott Gottlieb, a corporatist. Please remember this when you think about nominees. It is this person vs. the Likely next in line, not versus Jesus. Also there is the phenomenon of scarecrow. You won’t be able to oppose the next candidate because they put up the scarecrow and you spilt political capital to knock them down.

  2. Is there a crime involved? If the accusation is something that should be handled by the courts or a criminal investigation, then that is probably best. Courts are imperfect of course, but trial by press is worse.

  3. Is there hypocrisy (regarding core duties of the job) involved? The reason I found the Jay Varma sex party story so disqualifying, and even published a peer-reviewed article including it, is because

it was such naked hypocrisy. He set public health rules that he didn’t follow, which implies of course, he thought the rules were bullshit, which they were. For this reason, I think I and many others find hypocrisy— when it relates to the core tasks of the job itself— to be disqualifying. It would be like Fauci saying proudly masks work, or it was a wet market leak, but privately believing the opposite or expressing caution. Whoops! I find hypocrisy less interesting if it is confined to someone’s personal life, for instance, knowing RFK Jr thinks Mcdonald’s is trash, but then he eats it once in a photo. Or if someone is a Christian but did things in their personal life that is out of line with Christian values. I find this less relevant because it is not related to the job, and also ubiquitous in the world.

  1. Is everyone being investigated equally? Subject to equal disclosure? One thing no one discusses is: is everyone being looked at the same? Some people have facts about their personal life made public because of a rancorous divorce with public court proceedings, and others’ don’t. Some have “friends” who blab to the press, others have real friends. Some have personal diaries made available because their spouse repeatedly threatened to kill themselves, and then asked a friend to release those diaries if they did, and then they did kill themself, and others don’t. The stories that make the news are only the tip of the iceberg of stories out there. And these have always been these types of scandals. Sex, affairs, abortions, drugs, partying, confrontation, fighting, bad tempers, etc etc. These have always existed in human societies. In the days of JFK, it wasn’t discussed by the media. In the modern world it is selectively discussed. If instead, everyone’s dirty laundry was visible, I suspect, most people would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it. Only the most egregious violations (and believe me there are those!) would be called out, but there would be a lot more shrugging. To me: an email from a mother to son (which is leaked probably bc she cc’d the ex-wife, who sent it to a friend who dislikes Republicans, who leaked it to the Times), seems imbalanced. If you had the audiotape of every fight between mother and son, when the latter is getting divorced, and listened to them all, then it is fair, but if not, it seems a breach of privacy, and honestly I am not sure how it has anything to do with how many F-16s to build, and DEI in the military. Of course, not everyone kept diaries and had those leaked after the suicide of a former spouse. This is a level of gossip, I find tawdry.

  2. What about: How did they do their job? I read recently that one nominee would come to work and staff would think he was drinking. Ok, but this guy isn’t a surgeon, he is a TV host. Are there clips where he acts drunk on TV? Lots of TV hosts/ musicians/ actors do drugs before and after their show. Some take Klonipin (and it prescribed) others take a shot. — is that much different? My take is: judge people by their work product, when that is available. A drunk surgeon might have screwed up in ways hard to tell— so that is bad imo. A drunk TV host has a video of the performance, which can be replayed— can you detect a bad performance? Could it actual make him better on TV?

  3. What about: What are their views? And *big note of caution* What about people with no track record of views? In my opinion, the people in politics with a range of views— some correct, others incorrect— are acceptable, but the worst ones are those with no track record of views, or those who only stuck to the script. Ashish Jha and Scott Gottliebs and Robert Califfs and a million others I can’t name b/c I forget them— these are the people who are the problem. They just push the status quo, maybe the occasional groupthink error, but have no guiding philosophy and are riddled with contradictions and have no principles— except kiss up to one party. They are just gears in the machine. They might be fine if people vote for status-quo, but they never do. My whole life politicians promise hope, change, reform, doing better. In spaces like health care, that means shaking things up— big changes. Some will be correct, and others incorrect, but people would rather have this than no substantive changes, or just drifting further into corporate capture— which is what the last 4 FDA commissioners have done.

  4. What checks and balances exist? This is something that no one discusses, but it far more dangerous when power rests with people on the same team as the media. The unethical COVID vaccine mandates sailed by without opposition because it was proposed by team Biden and the media is team Biden. The lab leak hypothesis was opposed by Fauci (to avoid his own culpability) and that ban was enforced by Facebook because they are both on team Dems. (At least were) RFK Jr’s Pronouncements will be opposed at every turn because he is Team Trump and universities and the media are Team Newsom. I am less worried about wrong views held in positions of antagonism— a principle the founders of this country understood well— because of checks and balances.

This is my first pass articulating these principles, and I probably will reword or rethink them a little bit, but I think that is general my guiding spirit. The future will probably be worse. We will have audiotapes and videos and surveillance cameras from people’s personal lives, and to me, those will not be equally documented for all people, creating a huge random punishment filter. I don’t look forward to it. All of this leads to my final point.

  1. The more you make public scrutiny for these jobs so shameless and tawdry, the only people who pursue them are not those without scandals, but those who don’t care, and also good people fearful of imagined scandal. It is not good for picking the top talent.

54 Democratic Lawmakers Urge Biden To Distribute Climate Funds Before He Leaves Office

 by Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

Fifty-four Democratic members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking President Joe Biden to lock in future climate change initiatives by disbursing the promised funds before he leaves office.

The letter urges the move to “avoid future politicization or manipulation of climate programs,” before President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-led Congress take over in 2025.

The president can do this “by working over the next few weeks to obligate funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” the lawmakers said.

“Obligating” the funds would make it more difficult to redirect the money, likely requiring an act of Congress to do so.

The lawmakers seek funding for programs across a broad range of governmental agencies, including the departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Postal Service.

Even if Biden declines to take this step, dismantling the Inflation Reduction Act might prove tricky. The GOP will have a very slim majority next year, and this past August, a group of 18 House Republicans asked Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to leave some aspects of the program in place, as some of the tax credits were beneficial to their constituents.

The request comes the same day the Biden administration announced it had “supported more than 23,000 climate-focused conservation contracts” through funding from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Another $19.5 billion will be granted over the coming years for “climate-smart agriculture and forestry mitigation activities,” the statement said.

John Podesta, senior adviser for international climate policy, told Reuters on Dec. 3 that the Biden administration had crossed the threshold of $100 billion in grants through this legislation.

Signatories of the letter included Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sponsors of the 2019 Green New Deal resolution, which called on the federal government to take a broader role in tackling climate change.

That resolution was brought to the Senate floor by then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but failed. All Republicans, joined by four Democrats, voted no. The other Democrats voted “present.”

Similar resolutions have been tried since, without success. Ocasio-Cortez earlier this year announced a rebranding of the program as the Green New Deal for Public Housing.

Co-sponsored by another signer, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), that program seeks to secure $162 billion to $234 billion to renovate public housing units, making them more energy efficient and generating “green” jobs in the process.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/54-democratic-lawmakers-urge-biden-distribute-climate-funds-he-leaves-office

Health insurer reverses course on anesthesia policy after receiving backlash

 Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield backtracked on imposing a policy change that would have revised its billing standards for anesthesia treatment and not pay for those services after a set time limit for a given operation.

Anthem's New York division said this week in an administrative note to health care providers that starting on Feb. 1, the insurer will pay only up to the amount established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for anesthesia services that exceed the set time limit. The policy has exemptions for patients under the age of 22 and maternity care, while providers will have a process to dispute claims if they disagree with the reimbursement, Anthem said.

ASA said in a post last month that Anthem's plans in Connecticut, New York and Missouri would be affected by the change.

On Thursday, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield said it would no longer move forward with the change.

TickerSecurityLastChangeChange %
ELVELEVANCE HEALTH INC.406.96+4.21+1.05%

"There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy," the company said in a statement. "As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change. To be clear, it never was and never will be the policy of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield to not pay for medically necessary anesthesia services. The proposed update to the policy was only designed to clarify the appropriateness of anesthesia consistent with well-established clinical guidelines."

The proposed policy change came amid heightened scrutiny of health insurers and has drawn criticism from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), which called on Anthem – a subsidiary of Elevance Health – to reverse its decision.

Connecticut State Comptroller Sean Scanlon said Thursday in a post on X that, "After hearing from people across the state about this concerning policy, my office reached out to Anthem, and I'm pleased to share this policy will no longer be going into effect here in Connecticut.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/health-insurer-reverses-course-anesthesia-policy-after-receiving-backlash