'A stunning result:' Investigative reporting led drug czar nominee to withdraw

[songfourone 10]

 

Rep. Tom Marino was President Trump's pick to be drug czar. His decision to withdraw from consideration on Tuesday is a direct result of a groundbreaking investigation by The Washington Post and CBS' "60 Minutes."

"It's a stunning result," Jeff Leen, the Post's editor in charge of investigations, told CNN Tuesday morning. "We put the facts out there and we let other people take care of the results."

 

The Post's story -- titled "The Drug Industry's Triumph Over The DEA" -- came out Sunday morning. The two-part "60 Minutes" segment aired Sunday night. Trump was questioned about it on Monday afternoon. And Trump announced Marino's withdrawal on Tuesday morning.

Fellow journalists cheered for the Post and "60" on Tuesday morning -- for showcasing the power of journalism at a time when the president frequently derides the profession.

Trump said in a Q&A with reporters on Monday that he "did see the report" on "60 Minutes" about Marino.

 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/media/washington-post-60-minutes-tom-marino/index.html

[songfourone 10]

 

 

Trump is a moron, don't take it from me, take it from his Secretary of State.

 

 

[hst2 180,271]

55 minutes ago, songfourone said:

 

Rep. Tom Marino was President Trump's pick to be drug czar. His decision to withdraw from consideration on Tuesday is a direct result of a groundbreaking investigation by The Washington Post and CBS' "60 Minutes."

"It's a stunning result," Jeff Leen, the Post's editor in charge of investigations, told CNN Tuesday morning. "We put the facts out there and we let other people take care of the results."

 

The Post's story -- titled "The Drug Industry's Triumph Over The DEA" -- came out Sunday morning. The two-part "60 Minutes" segment aired Sunday night. Trump was questioned about it on Monday afternoon. And Trump announced Marino's withdrawal on Tuesday morning.

Fellow journalists cheered for the Post and "60" on Tuesday morning -- for showcasing the power of journalism at a time when the president frequently derides the profession.

Trump said in a Q&A with reporters on Monday that he "did see the report" on "60 Minutes" about Marino.

 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/media/washington-post-60-minutes-tom-marino/index.html

 

Back to Congress for Marino, where he can continue his good work!

Edited October 17, 2017 by hst2

[Evil Yoda 2,806,885]

You know, if the Trump presidency causes journalists to remember who they're supposed to be, that will help us. We will see how eager they are to investigate the next Democrat's nominees before we will know if they are truly even handed. I don't believe all journalists play for team liberal, but many of them do have a bias.

[Norman 20,881,637]

That damn fake news strikes again.  

[ms maggie 10]

51 minutes ago, Norman said:

That damn fake news strikes again.  

Quite ironic, isn't it?

[MiddleOfTheRoad 580,715]

3 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

You know, if the Trump presidency causes journalists to remember who they're supposed to be, that will help us. We will see how eager they are to investigate the next Democrat's nominees before we will know if they are truly even handed. I don't believe all journalists play for team liberal, but many of them do have a bias.

Spot on, EY.

[ms maggie 10]

3 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

You know, if the Trump presidency causes journalists to remember who they're supposed to be, that will help us. We will see how eager they are to investigate the next Democrat's nominees before we will know if they are truly even handed. I don't believe all journalists play for team liberal, but many of them do have a bias.

Don't seem to recall journalists having a problem with Clinton and Monica? And who broke the Hillary email server story? Pretty sure the NYT.

[Papi 10]

The legislation that he supported was passed by an overwhelming vote in congress and was signed into law by President Obama. Now that action (which would at the time have been regarded as an uncommon example of bipartisanship by a Republican) was used to paint him in a negative light. Hypocrisy anyone?  SMH

[Calamari 161,675]

3 hours ago, ms maggie said:

Don't seem to recall journalists having a problem with Clinton and Monica? And who broke the Hillary email server story? Pretty sure the NYT.

How soon both-siders forget. 

[Evil Yoda 2,806,885]

15 hours ago, Calamari said:

How soon both-siders forget. 

Take off the blue-tinted glasses once in awhile. Greed is ubiquitous. Almost certainly a great deal of money changed hands, and changes hands regularly, in matters such as this. And they are all, all 535 of them, in on it. Believing otherwise is naive.

[Calamari 161,675]

3 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Take off the blue-tinted glasses once in awhile. Greed is ubiquitous. Almost certainly a great deal of money changed hands, and changes hands regularly, in matters such as this. And they are all, all 535 of them, in on it. Believing otherwise is naive.

What an odd non-sequitur. Does it have anything at all to do with something in the post I quoted, or are you evading?

Edited October 18, 2017 by Calamari

[workerbee 837,455]

On 10/17/2017 at 1:41 PM, Norman said:

That damn fake news strikes again.  

Even a blind squirrel...

[hst2 180,271]

21 hours ago, Papi said:

The legislation that he supported was passed by an overwhelming vote in congress and was signed into law by President Obama. Now that action (which would at the time have been regarded as an uncommon example of bipartisanship by a Republican) was used to paint him in a negative light. Hypocrisy anyone?  SMH

I'm not sure many people were aware this was in the bill. For Marino's part:

Quote

1. Marino wrote the pro-drug industry law that ultimately passed. He spent years pushing versions of it through Congress. He argued that it cracks down on an overly aggressive DEA and protects drug companies from any unfair or misguided use of federal power. His critics, which included prominent DEA officials, said it would gut their ability to stop potentially dangerous opioid shipments from reaching the streets.
2. Marino has clear ties to the drug industry. He received nearly $100,000 in campaign contributions from political action committees supporting the industry. And an email from a Justice Department official says that the Marino bill was written by a former top DEA lawyer. (The revolving door is busy between government regulators and the drug industry.) That former DEA lawyer testified in Congress in favor of the legislation that officials believe he wrote.
3. Marino asked for (and got) an investigation of a DEA investigator standing in his way. In 2014, Marino staff members met with DEA investigator Joseph T. Rannazzisi to understand why he was so adamantly opposed to their bill. In that meeting, they say Rannazzisi accused them of “trying to support criminals.” A month later, Marino and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked a government watchdog to investigate Rannazzisi's rhetoric about them, accusing him in turn of trying to “intimidate” Congress. Rannazzisi denies their accusations and says the investigation is why he retired after 30 years in drug enforcement. “It destroyed me,” the told The Post.

Link

It is fascinating how much conservatives want those with ties to industry in government positions that regulate them. 

We see this sort of thing all the time with Trump. I'm a little surprised that he folded on this one. Senator Manchin of West Virginia said Marino would become drug czar "over my dead body." That might have had in impact.

[Evil Yoda 2,806,885]

21 hours ago, Calamari said:

What an odd non-sequitur. Does it have anything at all to do with something in the post I quoted, or are you evading?

It has only to do with your apparent belief that all things Democratic are Good, and all things Republican are Evil. You don't understand, apparently, that they are all Evil. None of them deserves your support, really.

[Calamari 161,675]

Wow, so that's a no then.

Straw man arguments must be fun!

[bmorepunk 185,050]

On 10/17/2017 at 6:36 PM, Papi said:

The legislation that he supported was passed by an overwhelming vote in congress and was signed into law by President Obama. Now that action (which would at the time have been regarded as an uncommon example of bipartisanship by a Republican) was used to paint him in a negative light. Hypocrisy anyone?  SMH

I'll have to go back and look at it to verify my understanding, but it seems he was championing this legislation for years. This was his baby. Other Congresspeople passed it because they were convinced that it was a pretty minor thing and a good idea. I don't think this is a good example of "hypocrisy" since it was his pet project and he was the nominee for the job. If another person who voted for it were nominated for the job, then maybe; but there's still a pretty large difference between voting for something and it being the big thing you're trying to get done.

[Evil Yoda 2,806,885]

2 hours ago, Calamari said:

Wow, so that's a no then.

Straw man arguments must be fun!

Blinders are even more fun! But you'd know that first hand.