Category Archives: Congress

Joe Biden tells 13-year-old girl he’s ‘horny’?

A video has surfaced on YouTube — a snippet from C-SPAN footage of the ceremonial swearing-in of Senator Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) in January 2015, wherein Coons and his family had their picture taken with VP Joe Biden, who was 72 years old at the time.

Coons is the half-bald guy standing next to Biden and Mrs. Coons, the pretty blonde woman wearing a gold necklace.

UPDATE (Sept. 17, 2016): As you can see, incredibly, the video above is already removed by YouTube although I had viewed and uploaded it to this post yesterday evening, mere hours ago. Fortunately, what was in the removed video — of Biden’s interactions with Senator Coons’ 13-year-old daughter — is included in the longer video below, beginning at the 3:33 mark.

Senator Coon’s 13-year-old daughter, Maggie, initially stood third from the left, but her mother beckons her to move to the center.

As the girl walks to the center, Biden reaches out with his left hand, grabs the girl’s arm, pulls her to him, and quickly “cops a feel” by putting his hand on her torso.

Here’s a screenshot I took at the 0:10 mark of the (now deleted) video. I painted a yellow circle around Biden’s hand.
joe-biden-cops-a-feel-of-13-y-o-girl

Biden then moves his hand away from the girl, but right before he drops his hand to his side, he quickly touches either the girl or himself (0:12 mark).

Here’s the screenshot I took at the 0:12 mark:
joe-biden-cops-a-feel-of-13-y-o-girl2

After posing for the photographers, at the 0:33 mark, Biden again grabs hold of the girl’s upper left arm, bends down and whispers in her ear. I can’t make out what he said, but according to the (now removed) video and commentators on its YouTube site who magnified the sound on their computers, Biden said:

“By the way, do you wanna know how horny I am to have a 13-year-old girl standing right next to me?”

At that point, the mother quickly turns her face to the side, away from the camera, while the girl has a shocked look on her face. In an article for the Daily Mail on Jan. 12, 2015, reporters Simon Tomlinson and Ashley Collman observed that the girl “did not seem enthused by what he [Biden] had to say.”

Still whispering to the girl, Biden says:

“Talk to my daughter, Ashley, about the film.”

Biden then forces a kiss on the girl, but she recoils from him. He laughs, “He, he, he,” straightens himself up while still holding the girl’s arm, and says:

“You’re a good looking girl!”

Asked about Biden trying to kiss his daughter, Sen. Coons defended Biden. He told Fox News Sunday that his daughter “doesn’t think the vice president is creepy,” and that Biden was simply leaning forward to offer her support. Coons said: “I could hear him. He was whispering some encouragement to her about how when he was sworn in and his own daughter Ashley was 13 and she felt awkward and uncomfortable and he was encouraging her about how to get through a day with lots of cameras and lots of folks watching. He was being Joe. He’s known my kids their whole lives. He was being thoughtful and he was being sweet.”

According to a timeline by the Associated Press, Biden was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 and sworn in on Jan. 5, 1973, 8 years before Ashley was born.

Ashley is Biden’s daughter by his second wife Jill. She was born on June 8, 1981, which means Ashley was 13 years old in 1994. Biden won successive reelection to the U.S. Senate in November of 1990, 1996, and 2002, which means he was sworn-in in January of 1991, 1997, and 2003, when Ashley was 9, 15, and 20 years old, respectively. There was no swearing-in in 1994 when Ashley was 13 years old.

All of which means either Biden or Sen. Coons lied about Biden whispering encouragement to Maggie Coons because Ashley Biden was also 13 and felt awkward and uncomfortable when Biden was sworn in.

A longer video (below) shows Biden’s interactions with Maggie Coons which were in the video that I posted above and which YouTube deleted. That segment begins at around the 3:33 mark. The longer video below also shows Biden touching, hugging, and groping other girls at the swearing-in ceremonies of senators, including:

  • Running his hands down a young girl’s long brown hair at the 0:42 mark, putting his hands on her shoulders, then kissing her.
  • Putting his hand on the waist of a girl in red (6:59 mark). He kept his hand on her waist even after the photos had been taken.
  • Putting his hand around an 18-year-old blonde girl’s waist (9:52 mark).
  • Putting his hand on the side of a teenage girl’s breast, not her waist (15:05 mark). Biden kept his hand there while he swears in the girl’s mother, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

There is also photographic evidence of Biden engaged in inappropriate touchy-feely behaviors, including having a biker chick sit on his lap, and placing his hand on the thigh of a trooper:

Bidenbikerbiden-hand-on-cops-leg

In today’s age of pedophiles on the prowl and sexual harassment lawsuits, it is astonishing to say the least that Joe Biden, an adult male in his 70s, feels free to behave the way he does — touching, groping and kissing young girls who are strangers. And he does it brazenly, in front of cameras and the girls’ parents.

But not a thing is done about it because he is “Uncle Joe,” the Vice President of the dysfunctional U.S.A.

If it were anyone else, Joe Biden would be designated a dirty old man, and arrested.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s bongiornoc

~Eowyn

Massive Obamacare fraud: Fictitious enrollees all got $60K government subsidies

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted an “undercover enrollment testing” of Obamacare, aka the (Un)Affordable Care Act, by submitting applications for fictitious, i.e., fake people.

The GAO discovered that EVERY ONE of its fictitious enrollees not only was accepted to Obamacare but received government, i.e., taxpayer, subsidies totaling $60,000 a year.

The reason is because, as shown by the GAO’s undercover test of the Obamacare system, anyone can sign up for Obamacare — and have it paid for by taxpayers — without having to prove their identity or citizenship or demonstrate that they qualify for government subsidies based on income.

VoodooCare

From the GAO’s September 2016 report to Congress, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Results of Undercover Enrollment Testing for the Federal Marketplace and a Selected State Market for the 2016 Coverage Year:

Our undercover testing for the 2016 coverage year found that the eligibility determination and enrollment processes of the federal and state marketplaces we reviewed remain vulnerable to fraud, as we previously reported for the 2014 and 2015 coverage years. For each of our 15 fictitious applications, the marketplaces approved coverage, including for 6 fictitious applicants who had previously obtained subsidized coverage but did not file the required federal income-tax returns. Although IRS provides information to marketplaces on whether health-care applicants have filed required returns, the federal Marketplace and our selected state marketplace allowed applicants to instead attest that they had filed returns, saying the IRS information was not sufficiently current. The marketplaces we reviewed also relaxed documentation standards or extended deadlines for filing required documentation. After initial approval, all but one of our fictitious enrollees maintained subsidized coverage, even though we sent fictitious documents, or no documents, to resolve application inconsistencies.

For each of our 15 fictitious applications, the federal or state-based marketplaces approved coverage at time of application—specifically, 14 applications for qualified health plans, and 1 application for Medicaid. Each of the 14 applications for qualified health plans was also approved for APTC subsidies. These subsidies totaled about $5,000 on a monthly basis, or about $60,000 annually. These 14 qualified-health-plan applications also each obtained CSR [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies, putting the applicants in a position to further benefit if they used medical services.

In the case of 8 of the fictitious applicants, the GAO submitted fake citizenship and/or social security documentation, but every one of these applications was also approved and received subsidies.

According to the GAO, in 2015, about 1.4 million people received $4 billion in Obamacare subsidies even though they had failed to submit required tax information. 

ZeroHedge reports that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded to the GAO’s report, insisting they have a “robust verification process” aimed at “protecting taxpayer dollars”:

“The [Obamacare] marketplace takes seriously the responsibility to protect taxpayer funds, while making coverage available to eligible people. We have a robust verification process to make sure people get benefits they are eligible for while protecting taxpayer dollars.

Within HealthCare.gov we have multiple checks to verify that applicants provide correct eligibility information on their applications, and GAO deliberately circumvented those checks by giving false information, which is against the law for actual applicants.

We appreciate the work the GAO and HHS Office of Inspector General to improve marketplace operations and take action when provided with recommendations or other information. That’s why we have repeatedly requested, and remain disappointed, that we still have not received specific details or recommendations from the GAO relating to their fraudulent applications. Specific and actionable information will enable us to analyze and understand what occurred and whether we can make improvements to our processes or procedures. […] We are also working closely with issuers through the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership to identify trends, schemes and specific bad actors.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .

So my question to the useless GOP who are a majority in both houses of Congress is:

Why haven’t you still not repealed Obamacare? What more evidence do you need that it’s not working and an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars? What are you waiting for?

See also:

~Eowyn

If Hillary Clinton dies or is incapacitated, Nov. 8 election may be delayed or scrapped

It’s not paranoia if it’s true.

We already know Hillary Clinton is ethics and morality challenged. In fact, were it not for the equally corrupt FBI, this woman should have been arrested, tried, and serving time in prison for violating U.S. laws in having an unsecured — and illegal — private email server as Secretary of State.

The fact the the Democrats could overlook her legal and moral failings to select her as their presidential candidate is not surprising, which is in itself a testimony to the corruption of Democrats and their party. (See “After Hillary’s Benghazi hearing, 100K new donors flood campaign with money”)

Moral considerations aside, there is the matter of Hillary’s health. Why would  the Democrats select as their presidential candidate a woman who is clearly very ill, who —

Hillary being helped up stairs 2016

Some of us in the Alternative Media even speculated if this is Obama’s way to stay in power beyond the constitutionally-prescribed two consecutive presidential terms of office — that he might just suspend the November 8 election if and when Hillary is incapacitated.

Our worst fears turn out to be real.

Steven Nelson reports for U.S. News and World Report, August 30, 2016:

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.”

Nelson writes that while the possible last-minute replacement of a candidate attracts some cyclical coverage, “this year the scenario would play out after consistent conjecture about the health of” Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 this October, and — referring to “apparently unfounded speculation he will drop out” — the “hidden agenda of” Donald Trump who, at age 70, would be the oldest person elected president.

Prominent law professors have pondered what might happen if a presidential candidate dies or drops out before the election:

  • University of Notre Dame law professor John Nagle says “There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College“, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting. “It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors. It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”
  • In a 1994 article in the Arkansas Law ReviewYale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar considers what he calls the “far-fetched” possibility of a special presidential election being pushed to after Jan. 20, with the speaker of the House serving as acting president until an election could pick “a real president for the remainder of the term.” Amar recommends an up to four-week postponement of Election Day if a candidate dies just before voting, or even if there’s a major terrorist attack.

The Role of Congress

Congress does have the power to change the election date under Article II of the Constitution, which allows federal lawmakers to set dates for the selection of presidential electors and when those electors will vote. But Congress would be up against a de facto December deadline, as the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires that congressional terms expire Jan. 3 and presidential terms on Jan. 20. Though it’s conceivable to split legislative and presidential elections, they generally happen at the same time. And if the entire general election were to be moved after Jan. 3, Congress effectively would have voted themselves out of office.

John Fortier, director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, says he’s not certain that Congress would reach consensus on moving an election date if a candidate died, meaning parties would need to formally – or informally – decide on a replacement. If the election date was moved by Congress, ongoing absentee or early voting would make for a mess.

The Role of the Parties

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have rules and guidelines for presidential ticket replacements:

  • If Hillary were to fall off the ticket, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members would gather to vote on a replacement. DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach says there currently are 445 committee members – a number that changes over time and is guided by the group’s bylaws, which give membership to specific officeholders and party leaders and hold 200 spots for selection by states, along with an optional 75 slots DNC members can choose to fill. But the party rules for replacing a presidential nominee merely specify that a majority of members must be present at a special meeting called by the committee chairman. The meeting would follow procedures set by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and proxy voting would not be allowed. But DNC member Connie Johnson, a former Oklahoma state senator who supported Bernie Sanders, says it would be most appropriate for the DNC to give the nomination to the runner-up if Clinton were to die or drop out before the election. Johnson writes in an email: “I believe that’s why Sen. Sanders stayed in the contest. As to whether the party would adopt what would appear to be a common sense solution in the event of [Clinton] no longer being able to serve – that would remain to be seen. There was so much vitriol aimed at Sen. Sanders and his supporters by [Clinton supporters] that they would likely want ‘anybody but Bernie’ in order to save face and maintain control.”
  • In the case of the Republican party, Republican National Committee (RNC) rules potentially allow for greater democratic input, but don’t require it. If a vacancy emerges on the ticket, the 168-member RNC would decide whether to select a replacement on its own or “reconvene the national convention,” which featured 2,472 voting delegates, that met over the summer. If RNC members make the choice themselves, the three members representing each state, territory and the nation’s capital – a committeeman, committeewoman and the local party chairman – would jointly have “the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.” RNC rules allow for state delegations to split their vote and for members to vote by proxy.

According to John Fortier, though not legally required, parties may decide on an easy fix and encourage electors to support their existing vice presidential nominee. A party legally could pick someone else, but a desire for legitimacy in the eyes of the public may force its hand.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and an expert on presidential election history, says state election officials likely would be compelled to accept a major party’s request to swap candidates, citing precedent set in 1972 when states allowed Democrats to replace vice presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton, who was revealed to be a shock therapy patient, with Sargent Shriver. In 1972, every state but South Dakota also allowed the prominent 1980 independent candidate John Anderson to swap his vice presidential candidate Milton Eisenhower for former Wisconsin Gov. Patrick Lucey.

The Role of the Electoral College

In the end, whatever the decision made by the DNC or the RNC, it is up to the Electoral College. 

If the DNC or the RNC were to select an unpalatable pick, it’s possible many of the Electoral College could bolt. Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley explains that “the Supreme Court has never ruled that electors can be forced to obey their pledge” to vote for a particular presidential candidate, leaving open the door for mass defections or, in the event of a post-election candidate death, an en masse vote flip.

With more than two centuries of history, the U.S. does have some examples of candidate deaths, though none with a catastrophic impact:

  • In 1872, presidential candidate Horace Greeley died about 3 weeks after winning about 44% of the popular vote as a Liberal Republican supported by Democrats against incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant. Presidential electors chose between various alternatives, but because Greeley had lost, his death did not sway the election’s outcome.

H/t FOTM‘s Bongiornoc

~Eowyn

‘Fiscal crisis’ warning as deficits rise, debt set to hit $20T next year

Anyone with a functioning brain can see this coming.

Amerika in 2016

From Fox News: While the staggering national debt has virtually disappeared as a 2016 campaign issue amid White House assurances the problem has faded, D.C.’s budget scorekeepers have issued a stark warning that the red ink is growing once again – increasing the likelihood of a full-blown “fiscal crisis.”

A fresh estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects this year’s deficit – the annual budget shortfall – will spike to $590 billion. That’s higher than a previous estimate, and up 35 percent over last year.

Further, the CBO’s numbers show the total national debt hitting $20 trillion next year.

The debt would then soar over the next decade and beyond, leading to “serious negative consequences,” the report warns, including ever-higher interest payments that would crowd out other areas of the budget.

“The likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase,” the CBO report, issued last week, said. “There would be a greater risk that investors would become unwilling to finance the government’s borrowing needs unless they were compensated with very high interest rates.”

In the near-term, the report said the 2016 shortfall grew because of lower-than-expected revenue and some early payments that will have to be made this year.

CBO’s latest report sees a slight improvement in the deficit picture over the longer term, mostly because the government is expected to pay lower interest rates on its mounting debt.

But the report is significant in that it shows the pendulum swinging – after years of falling deficits touted by President Obama, the CBO sees deficits generally rising from 2016 on. The report projected the return of trillion-dollar deficits in eight years.

The trendlines are changing as the debt and deficit appear to fade as campaign issues or a major point of contention on Capitol Hill.

Neither presidential candidate has focused much on the deficit so far in the campaign. GOP nominee Donald Trump has called for large tax cuts but hasn’t offered much in the way of cutting spending. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wants further tax increases on the wealthy but calls for spending the money on agenda items like infrastructure.

Note: Hillary Clinton’s $1 trillion tax hikes will hit the middle class and every single American.

Obama presided over a record deficit of $1.4 trillion in his first year in office as the economy reeled and the government pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into rescuing large financial institutions. Wall Street has paid the money back, and deficits have fallen in recent years.

But Obama has devoted little effort to further tackling the deficit after a 2011 budget and debt deal with Republicans and his success in early 2013 in raising taxes on upper-income earners.

He told ABC News in 2013 that they “don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” claiming the country would be on a “sustainable” path for another decade.

The White House touted deficit reduction in its latest budget proposal earlier this year, claiming the proposal “keeps deficits below three percent of GDP while stabilizing debt and putting it on a declining path for most of the next decade.”

Yet the new CBO projection puts the deficit above that 3 percent mark already.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Feds Must Respond to Lawsuit Claiming IRS “Peeping Toms” Raided Health Records

I must admit I haven’t heard about this lawsuit. I’d have done more homework on this article and lawsuit yet I’m working this weekend. Just thought I’d put this out 1) because it’s interesting as to what Obama’s IRS stooges have been accused of doing, and 2) to see if others might know more about this case.

irs

From Hollywood Reporter: More than three years ago, a mysterious company filed a mysterious lawsuit against “John Does 1-15” with a pretty outrageous claim. The lawsuit alleged that the IRS raided the company on March 11, 2011, and that agents in the course of an investigation of a former employee stole more than 60 million medical records of more than 10 million Americans. 

“After being put on notice of the illicit seizure, the IRS agents refused to return the records, continued to keep the records for the prying eyes of IRS peeping toms, and keep the records to this very day,” stated a complaint that was originally filed in San Diego Superior Court before being removed to federal court. “The records may concern the intimate medical records of every state judge in California, every state court employee in California, leading and politically controversial members of the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild, and prominent citizens in the world of entertainment, business and government, from all walks of life.”

It was also alleged that IRS agents searched “intimate parts” after seizing records.

The raided company at the heart of the lawsuit was later revealed to be Three Rivers Provider Network in Chula Vista, Calif., a national health network, and the lawsuit caught the attention of Congressional Republicans. But the case was paused because the Justice Department told the court it was tied to the criminal prosecution of Blaine Pollock, who founded the company and was charged with false statements on an individual tax return and aiding and assisting false statements on a corporate tax return. 

According to a review of his case, Pollock took a plea and was given a judgment of time served and a fine of $350,000.

But now that the criminal case is over, the federal judge overseeing the civil one lifted the stay on Thursday and ordered the defendants — in particular, a special agent named Gabriel Kornacki — to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within the next 30 days.

As a result, a lawsuit from that “John Doe Company,” which is attempting to represent “10 million citizens across the country, including many of the Judges of the Superior Court of California, their family, their clerks, their court employees, the members of the Screen Actors Guild, the members of the Directors Guild of America, and the players for Major League Baseball,” is live.

The plaintiff, represented by attorney Robert Barnes, is asserting a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically an unlawful search, seizure and invasion of privacy. The relief sought is an injunction on sharing of records, a return of records and compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 per violation per individual.

This lawsuit may go nowhere, but the government’s response will be provided once it comes. 

DCG

Nancy Pelosi had to change phone number after receiving scores of obscene and sick calls

Last Friday night, the Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 posted an excel spreadsheet on his blog – obtained from hacking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – which includes the personal cell phone number, physical and email address, as well as full personal information of some 200 congressional Democrats.

Muslim kisses pig

Muslim kisses pig

The next day, Saturday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she had to change her cell phone number after receiving “scores of mostly obscene and sick calls, voicemails and text messages.” Pelosi added that she was on a flight from Florida to California when the information was released, and received the unwanted messages upon landing.

I really shouldn’t laugh, but I just can’t help it.

Pelosi said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has hired a cybersecurity technology firm to investigate the breach, which she termed “an electronic Watergate break-in” and that the Capitol Police were looking at any threats posed by the release.

Meanwhile, just 24 hours after Guccifer 2.0 posted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spreadsheet on Guccifer 2.0’s WordPress account, the Democrats are bracing for even more hacked documents being released. Another site, DCLeaks.com, released internal records from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

U.S. officials insist the Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks hacks, as well as the hacked DNC and Hillary emails posted by WikiLeaks, are the work of Russian intelligence services, although the Obama administration has yet to show any evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Sunday: “I certainly believe that this is a coordinated Russian effort against the U.S. political process. It’s an act of hostility by a foreign power.”

U.S. officials are now debating whether to publicly accuse Putin’s government of the hacks, which could escalate a potential case of cyberwar between the U.S. and Moscow.

Source: ZeroHedge

~Eowyn

Running as terror expert, Loretta Sanchez misses many anti-terror panel meetings

She’s a demorat in California, that’s all the qualifications she needs to be elected in that state.

Loretta Sanchez

Loretta Sanchez

From Sacramento Bee: California U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who points to expertise in homeland security issues as a reason for Californians to elect her to the U.S. Senate this fall, has missed more than half the hearings of the House Committee on Homeland Security since she first joined the influential panel 13 years ago.

She’s far from the only one. It’s not uncommon for members of Congress, who may have conflicting meetings or other responsibilities, to miss committee meetings, and there are many with worse records than Sanchez.

But Sanchez has ranked particularly low in attendance in recent years: Last year, she ranked 28th out of 30 committee members after missing seven of the nine full committee hearings for which the Government Publishing Office has transcripts.

She also missed nearly all 2015 meetings of the Subcommittees on Border and Maritime Security and on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies, according to the available official transcripts.

Sanchez announced in May of last year that she is running for the Senate to replace the retiring Barbara Boxer – so, not surprisingly, Sanchez spent time in California working on her campaign effort.

But she also missed the bulk of the meetings in 2013 and 2014, including most held by the subcommittees on border security and Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Sanchez attended nine of the 22 full committee hearings those years, placing her near the bottom in attendance. Among the hearings she missed were “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” and “The Rising Terrorist Threat and the Unfulfilled 9/11 Recommendations.”

Sanchez joined the Homeland Security Committee in 2003 and has attended 44 percent of the hearings since then, according to a McClatchy analysis of the full-committee hearings for which there are official transcripts released by the Government Publishing Office.

Her attendance record is far from the worst – Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, for example, didn’t show up for a single hearing during his two years on the committee – but it’s below the 55 percent average for members of the committee dating in 2003.

Sanchez has campaigned on her position as the most senior female member of the Homeland Security Committee, saying she “has emerged as an expert on intelligence and counterterrorism issues.”

Sanchez is also a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, where she is on a pair of subcommittees and is particularly known for her work combating military sexual assault and expanding women’s combat roles. The Armed Services Committee transcripts don’t indicate how many of the meetings Sanchez and other members attended.

Sanchez spokesman Luis Vizcaino said attending hearings was one aspect of her role on both committees, along with subcommittee work, briefings and congressional trips to volatile regions of the globe. “She is known and respected in Congress and the Pentagon for her expertise on military readiness and counterterrorism,” Vizcaino said in a statement.

“Her work ethic, commitment to her committee role and 20 years of experience on national security issues has provided her with a strong foundation of in-depth knowledge and expertise. Rep. Sanchez is always speaking with leaders and experts to get the information and intelligence needed to make the best decision for the security of this nation,” Vizcaino said.

Read the whole story here.

DCG