Good morning everyone! Happy Wednesday and happy Earth Day to you!

Joining the panel on Morning Joe for today's show are Phil Mattingly, Harold Ford Jr., Al Hunt, Julie Pace, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Chris Matthews, Sen. Pat Toomey, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Tom Colicchio, Rep. Paul Ryan, Sara Eisen, Jon Meacham, Chuck Todd, Jen Psaki, Tim McGraw and more...
Actor Ben Affleck poses backstage with the Hollywood film award, which he accepted on behalf of the creators, for ''Gone Girl'' during the Hollywood Film Awards in Hollywood, California November 14, 2014.  REUTERS/Danny Moloshok
Ben Affleck says he regrets asking PBS to edit out slave-owning ancestorActor Ben Affleck said Tuesday he regretted asking a PBS documentary show profiling his ancestors to not include a relative who was an owner of slaves, saying he was embarrassed by the revelation. Affleck's ancestry was traced by Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr, known as Skip, for an episode in the second season of his Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) series "Finding Your Roots," in which well-known personalities can discover more about their family history. "I didn't want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves. I was embarrassed. The very thought left a bad taste in my mouth," Affleck said in a statement on his Facebook page.
"I regret my initial thoughts that the issue of slavery not be included in the story," he added. Representatives for PBS and Gates did not respond to requests for comment. The issue came to light after anti-secrecy website Wikileaks released a searchable database of more than 30,000 documents that were stolen by hacker from Sony Corp's Sony Pictures Entertainment in a massive cyber attack last year. Affleck said in his statement that Gates had final say in what was included in the episode, which aired last October, and he had "lobbied" Gates on what elements of his family history to use in the show. The Oscar-winning actor-director added that he assumed the show "will respect your willingness to participate and not look to include things you think would embarrass your family." "While I don't like that the guy is an ancestor, I am happy that aspect of our country's history is being talked about," he said. Reporting that is by Piya Sinha-Roy with Editing by Lisa Shumaker.
Let's get to some real news today because a person that is against regulating drug laws to be easier on people, should not be heading a department or orgaization that throws sex parties with a ton of dugs at them. Therfore, The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's chief will step down within weeks, the Obama administration said on Tuesday, as a congressional panel planned to examine whether DEA agents divulged secrets at sex parties that Colombian drug lords may have staged. Michele Leonhart will leave as DEA administrator in mid-May, said a statement from the Justice Department, which contains the DEA and other major law enforcement agencies. "I want to express my appreciation to Michele, not only for her leadership of the DEA since 2007, but also for her 35 years of extraordinary service to the DEA," Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.
Leonhart was grilled in a congressional hearing last week about the parties attended by prostitutes, which took place in Colombia between 2001 and 2005. U.S. officials said the DEA did not investigate the parties until years later. The Justice Department statement did not give a reason for Leonhart's decision to retire. A DEA spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for the Republican majority of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said the panel's leaks inquiry would also examine the culture and leadership of the DEA and other investigative agencies. Leonhart's testimony at the hearing, supplemented by two U.S. government reports, raised concern among lawmakers that agents might have leaked secrets about their investigations that found their way to Colombian drug lords. "It is incredibly concerning that, according to the DEA itself, there is a clear possibility that information was compromised as a result of these sex parties," Representative Elijah Cummings, the committee's top Democrat, told Reuters.
Leonhart told the panel there was "no evidence" that sensitive information had been leaked but also acknowledged it was "absolutely" possible that information had been compromised. After the Justice Department announced her departure, Cummings and Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz called Leonhart's retirement appropriate in light of "the testimony we heard before our committee" and an earlier report from the Justice Department's inspector general. The inspector general's office could not immediately be reached for comment. Oversight Committee officials disclosed to Reuters excerpts from a once-confidential internal DEA report which quoted an agency informant alleging that U.S. agents who took part in the parties had compromised sensitive information. One informant, identified by the committee as "Cooperator 2," was quoted in an excerpt from the DEA report alleging that he believed a second informant ("Cooperator 1") had "gained information from the U.S. agents by 'getting their guard down' through the use of prostitutes and paying for parties."
The report says Cooperator 1 "bragged about the parties with prostitutes and how he 'sold' the relationship/closeness with the agents" to Cooperator 2. According to the report, Cooperator 1 also "stated he could easily get the agents to talk." Allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct at the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were also examined in a March report by the Justice Department's inspector general.
In a case study, the inspector general said DEA's internal affairs office in 2009 and 2010 received allegations from "former host-country police officers" that several DEA agents, including senior supervisors, had "solicited prostitutes and engaged in other serious misconduct" while stationed in the unnamed country. U.S. officials said the country was Colombia. The report said that "sex parties" financed by "local drug cartels" took place over "several years" inside offices leased by the DEA. A DEA supervisor told the inspector general's office that it was "common for prostitutes to be present at business meetings involving cartel members and foreign officers."
The inspector general's report said "prostitutes in the agents' quarters could easily have had access to sensitive DEA equipment and information." It did not explicitly allege that such materials had been compromised. The House Judiciary Committee said it too will continue investigating alleged misconduct at the DEA. Additional reporting by Julia Edwards and Lindsay Dunsmuir; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Howard Goller and Jonathan Oatis.
Next, Chanting "No justice! No peace!" protesters rallied in Baltimore late Tuesday, the same day police released the names of the officers involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray.
Gray died of a spinal injury Sunday, exactly one week after he was taken into custody. Demonstrators marched to a local police station that was protected by barricades. One man was arrested after crossing that barricade, but the protest was peaceful. Among the crowd were members of Gray's family, including his mother. She held her head and cried. Many of the protesters clasped hands, and raised them in a show of support. "Make some noise for Freddie Gray," one man shouted into a megaphone. "We won't stop," said another. "We have the power and, of course, today shows we have the numbers."
Speaking to CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said she understands where the protesters are coming from. She understands their frustration. "Mr. Gray's family deserves justice, and our community deserves an opportunity to heal, to get better, and to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again," she said. 
Officers involved
Earlier in the day, the Baltimore Police Department released the names of six police officers suspended with pay.
They are: Lt. Brian Rice, 41, who joined the department in 1997; Officer Caesar Goodson, 45, who joined in 1999; Sgt. Alicia White, 30, who joined in 2010; Officer William Porter, 25, who joined in 2012; Officer Garrett Miller, 26, who joined in 2012; and Officer Edward Nero, 29, who joined in 2012.
After an "in-custody death," it is standard procedure to release the names of officers involved, said Baltimore Police Department spokesman Capt. Eric Kowalczyk. It doesn't mean the officers did anything wrong, nor does it mean that these were the only officers involved, he said. Of the six officers, three were on bikes and initially approached Gray, another made eye contact with Gray, another officer joined in the arrest after it was initiated and one drove the police van, Kowalczyk said.
Mayor's pledge
The autopsy hasn't yielded many answers in Gray's death -- in fact, it's prompted more questions -- but Baltimore's mayor pledged Tuesday to find out how the 25-year-old died after being arrested a week prior. "I'm going to make sure that as we get information that we can confirm, we're going to put that information out in the public," Mayor Rawlings-Blake said. "I want people to understand that I have no interest in hiding information, holding back information."
She's angry, she said, and among the questions she wants answered are: Why did police stop Gray in the first place? And why did arresting officers make what she called the mistake of not immediately requesting medical attention when Gray asked for it? "He was dragged a bit, but then you see him using his legs to get into the van, so he was able-bodied when he was in the van, and we know that when he was finally taken out of the van, he was unresponsive," she said. Challenged on the "able-bodied" remark -- video shows Gray's legs hanging listlessly as officers carry him by his shoulders -- Rawlings-Blake said the medical examiner would make the final determination, but "we know he was fine getting into the van." "We will get to the bottom of it, and we will go where the facts lead us," she said. "We will hold people accountable if we find there was wrongdoing."
She further said she "absolutely believes we need to have an outside investigation," especially when Baltimore's dark history of police misconduct is considered. Police plan to conclude their investigation by Friday, May 1. From there, the case will go to the state's attorney's office, which will decide whether to file charges.
Feds watching
The Justice Department has been watching developments in the Gray case and is officially looking into whether a prosecutable civil rights violation occurred, a spokesperson said Tuesday. In October, the Justice Department announced a collaborative reform initiative with the Baltimore Police Department to "include an assessment of policies, training and operations as they relate to use of force and interactions with citizens."
Police brutality not on rise; coverage is. "When law enforcement misconduct is uncovered, the U.S. Department of Justice has a variety of tools available to respond. Responses to misconduct in law enforcement organizations fall along a continuum of intervention, with the specific response calibrated to address the particular circumstances of any given situation," Ronald Davis, director of the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, said in a statement at the time. The Justice Department began the data-gathering stage of the lengthy process in January and held its first public town hall last week at Coppin State University. It was attended by hundreds of residents, many of whom sounded off about their experiences with Baltimore police.
"Right now, we are past the stage of implementing policies and procedures. This is a state of emergency right now," Tawanda Jones told Justice Department officials, according to CNN affiliate WBAL. Jones' brother, Tyrone West, died in police custody in 2013. The mayor issued a statement ahead of the town hall, saying that 230 officers accused of misconduct between January 2012 and February 2015 had accepted punishment outright, while another 61 officers were found guilty through trial board hearings. BPD is the nation's eighth-largest police force with almost 4,000 civilian and sworn personnel.
"I am determined to not allow a small handful of bad actors tarnish the reputation of the overwhelming majority of police officers putting their lives in danger to make Baltimore a safer city," Rawlings-Blake said in the statement. The mayor had asked the Justice Department to take a look at the police department, The Baltimore Sun reported, saying that her request came on the heels of the newspaper's report that the city had paid almost $6 million in judgments and settlements in 102 police misconduct civil suits since 2011. Overwhelmingly, The Sun reported, the people involved in the incidents that sparked the lawsuits were cleared of criminal charges. Under Rawlings-Blake's watch, she said, the city has seen a decline in lawsuits, as well as reports of excessive force and discourtesy. "I went to Annapolis for tougher laws to hold cops accountable. I'm fighting to bring back the trust between the police and the community," she said.
What we know
According to documents obtained Monday, the April 12 incident began when Gray ran from police. While the court documents allege that one of the arresting officers, Garrett Miller, took Gray into custody after finding a switchblade in his pocket, the Gray family attorney called the allegation a "sideshow." Gray was carrying a "pocket knife of legal size," attorney William Murphy said. Police never saw the knife and chased Gray only after he took off running, the attorney said. Court documents said Gray "fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence." "The officer noticed a knife clipped to the inside of (Gray's) front right pants pocket. The defendant was arrested without force or incident," the documents say. "The knife was recovered by this officer and found to be a spring assisted, one-hand-operated knife."
The mayor has questioned whether police should have pursued Gray in the first place. "It is not necessarily probable cause to chase someone. So, we still have questions," Rawlings-Blake said. Gray was in perfect health until police chased and tackled him, Murphy said. Less than an hour later, he was on his way to a trauma clinic with a spinal injury, where he fell into a coma.
The family has not seen the autopsy report yet, Murphy said, and relatives are still waiting to take possession of Gray's body. The family intends to have a second, private autopsy conducted once Baltimore police turn over the body, the attorney said. Police, according to their own timeline, spotted Gray, gave chase, caught him, cuffed him and requested a paddy wagon in fewer than four minutes. The transport van left with Gray about 11 minutes after that, police said, and another 30 minutes passed before "units request paramedics to the Western District to transport the suspect to an area hospital." When cell phones began recording, Gray was already on the ground with three officers kneeling over him. He let out long screams..
Officers had encountered him a minute earlier in an area where drug deals and crime are common, Deputy Police Commissioner Rodriguez said. Gray has an extensive criminal history, which appears to be mostly drug-related. The officers called for a prisoner transport van. Cell phone video taken from two positions showed officers lifting Gray, whose hands were cuffed, by his shoulders and dragging him to the back of the van. Officers put more restraints on Gray inside the van, police said, while surveillance video recorded him conscious and talking. That was at 8:54 a.m. At 9:24 a.m., police called an ambulance to pick Gray up. Murphy and angry residents of Baltimore want to know what happened in those 30 minutes in between.
Police said Gray requested medical attention, including an inhaler, and an ambulance later took him to the University of Maryland Medical Center's Shock Trauma Center. "He lapsed into a coma, died, was resuscitated, stayed in a coma and on Monday underwent extensive surgery at Shock Trauma to save his life," Murphy said. "He clung to life for seven days." What we know and don't know about Gray's death CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Shawn Nottingham, AnneClaire Stapleton, Julian Cummings, Chris Cuomo, Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford contributed to this report.
Politically, John McCain mocks Ted Cruz claim on guns. Running for president in New Hampshire over the weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz told a group of gun owners he’s “pressing” Sen. John McCain to convene hearings on whether soldiers should be allowed to carry concealed guns on military bases. McCain (R-Ariz.) says the request is news to him. “I was fascinated to hear that because I haven’t heard a thing about it from him. Nor has my staff heard from his staff,” McCain said of Cruz (R-Texas). “It came as a complete surprise to me that he had been pressing me. Maybe it was some medium that I’m not familiar with.”
Cruz told a crowd of gun owners in Litchfield, New Hampshire, that he was leaning on McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, to have “a public discussion about why we’re denying our soldiers the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.” Asked about the status of those hearings, McCain went to great lengths to ridicule Cruz for suggesting the two had discussed the issue. He joked that perhaps Cruz was bouncing messages off the “ozone layer.” U.S. Senator candidate Ted Cruz, left, and his general consultant Jason Johnson look at early returns in his war room at the JW Marriott in the Galleria during his runoff election against rival Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison Tuesday, July 31, 2012, in Houston. “Maybe it was through, you know, hand telegraph. Maybe sign language,” McCain said. “Ask him how he communicated with me because I’d be very interested. Because who knows what I’m missing.”
Cruz’s office said that the Texas senator had raised the issue in hearings last year and sent a letter to former Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) requesting the committee hear from Defense Department and outside experts on the subject of allowing armed soldiers on military bases. Cruz is now working on a similar letter to McCain, who became chairman at the start of the year. “Senator Cruz has been discussing this issue for a long time and he looks forward to continuing to raise it in the Senate Armed Services Committee where he serves with Chairman McCain,” a spokeswoman said.
There’s little love lost between the two, given that McCain has denounced Cruz as one of the Senate’s “wacko birds” and Cruz has suggested that McCain lost the presidential race in 2008 because he wasn’t conservative enough. While Cruz pursues the Republican nomination along with Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, McCain is encouraging his friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to run for the White House.
The two disagree on guns as well. While Cruz led the charge to defeat a background-checks bill in 2013, McCain voted for that bipartisan proposal that failed by a 54-46 vote. In New Hampshire, Cruz said he was eager to discuss the possibility of allowing soldiers to arm themselves on military installations to better protect themselves, something top military brass advise against. On Monday, McCain didn’t rule out such hearings — he just seemed surprised that Cruz had gone public with a conversation that McCain says never happened. “I’ll be glad to discuss the issue and see if we need hearings,” McCain said.
Also, call it the anti-Rand primary. There are at least three Republicans who seem likely to run for president in part so they can attack Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s libertarian-leaning foreign policy stances on the campaign trail. These anti-Rand candidates — South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton and New York Rep. Peter King — are ramping up their criticism especially now that Paul has officially entered the race for the White House. All three are the longest of long shots when it comes to actually winning their party’s nomination. But each of them — national security hawks who dismissively label Paul an “isolationist” — could cause issues for the senator by attacking his more restrained foreign policy views during nationally televised debates.
Asked about these attacks, one Paul adviser said in an email: “These politicians do a disservice to the American people when they mischaracterize Sen. Paul’s foreign policy views. Unsurprisingly, facts are not the strong suit of politicians to whom war is the only answer for every challenge.” “These are the same politicians who claimed before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks,” the Paul aide added. “Despite a worsening insurgency, these are the politicians who proclaimed in 2005 that in Iraq ‘things are changing for the better.’”
In recent weeks, the Graham-Bolton-King trio has pummeled Paul. “The Lindsey Graham view of foreign policy is going to beat Rand Paul’s libertarian view of foreign policy,” the South Carolina senator told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend, also saying there’s a “91 percent” chance he will challenge Paul in the GOP primary. Appearing on Morning Joe on Monday, Graham continued going after Paul’s views on foreign policy: “Generally speaking, he’s been more wrong than right. He has a isolationist view of the world that I don’t share.” Bolton, who served at the United Nations under George W. Bush and has traveled to events in Iowa and New Hampshire, recently suggested he doesn’t trust Paul when he takes more hawkish positions as of late, like when he recently said he supported an increase of military spending.
“On any given day, it’s hard to know where he will be,” Bolton told the Associated Press earlier this month of Paul. “I believe in redemption, and I hope he comes all the way over. But I just don’t know what’s at work in his mind.” Speaking to The Daily Caller after November’s midterms, Bolton acknowledged he was thinking of running for president partly out of a concern about Paul’s influence in the party. “I do think the threat of isolationism is still there in the party,” Bolton said. “And I think that’s something that is of very much concern to me.” King, a New York Republican who serves on the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees, rails against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as much as he criticizes Paul. (He recently told Wolf Blitzer on CNN he would jump off a bridge if Cruz would become the Republican nominee for president). “His views would basically remove the U.S. from having a real role to play in the world, and his mindset — when you look at things he’s said over the years, in effect blaming the United States for problems around the world, somehow that it’s our fault,” King said of Paul on CNN recently. “To me that’s a bad mindset for the commander-in-chief of the United States to be going into office with.”
Paul, for his part, is portraying these critics as warmongers. “Unlike these politicians,” the Paul aide said, “Sen. Paul believes that a strong national defense doesn’t rush to send our men and women in uniform to war. He believes that America shouldn’t fight wars that aren’t authorized by Congress, and that there must be a clear objective for any intervention.” Added the aide: “Sen. Paul’s principles have resonated with voters who believe in a thoughtful foreign policy, and Americans can see through the hypocrisy of Washington elites who rely on the military-industrial complex to fill their campaign, think tank, and PAC coffers.” 
Koch Brothers Reveal List of 5 Potential GOP Candidates to Support. On Monday, The New York Times reports that — and, in turn, Mediaite — reported that billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch had settled on Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) as their preferred Republican candidate to back in the 2016 presidential election. “We will support whoever the candidate is,” David Koch reportedly said at a fundraising event. “But it should be Scott Walker.”
Now, however, in an interview with USA Today, Charles Koch has said that their field of potential endorsees is larger than just one. He confirmed that they are actually looking at five candidates who they believe have “a good chance of getting elected: Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. “Those are the ones we have talked to the most and who seem to be the possible leaders,” Koch said. “What we’ve told them all is that right now, we’re not supporting anyone. We’re telling them that if they want our support, one way to get it is articulating a good message to help Americans get a better understanding and a better appreciation of how certain policies … will benefit them and will benefit all America.”
Koch also confirmed that his organization plans to spend up to $300 million on political campaigns in 2016. During the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee raised and spent $400 million. If the Kochs do decide to back a Republican candidate during the primary, it would be the first time the did so in a presidential election. “Only if somebody really stands out from the standpoint of their message and what they would actually do to benefit America and has a chance a decent chance of being elected, only then would we select one over the others,” he said, adding, “We may give several of them some money to get this positive message out.”
Weather seems to be OK although Bill Karins just mentioned there being rain from DC to NY. You would never know that now but I guess we are getting more rain today. 
BTW, Senate, Clearing Hurdle, Sets a Thursday Vote on Loretta Lynch. The New York Times also reported overnight that After weeks of difficult negotiations, the Senate on Tuesday reached an agreement to clear the way for a long-delayed confirmation vote on Loretta E. Lynch to replace Eric H. Holder Jr. as the attorney general. The vote was scheduled for Thursday morning after senators announced a compromise on the main debate in legislation to help victims of sex trafficking, an unrelated bill that entangled Ms. Lynch’s nomination after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said he would not schedule a confirmation vote until the Senate passed it. Ms. Lynch has been waiting more than five months for the Senate to vote.
“I’m thrilled we were finally able to come together to break the impasse over this vital legislation,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, the main sponsor of the bill. “I look forward to swift passage in the Senate so we can ensure victims of human trafficking receive the resources they need to restore their lives.” Clashes Intensified Over Stalled Nomination of Loretta Lynch but as Tuesday wore on without further action on the bill, it became clear that the deal had not ensured smooth passage on the floor. Discussions continued behind the scenes on amendments to the trafficking legislation, including on some more controversial, unrelated measures, congressional aides said. Votes on the amendments were scheduled for Wednesday. President Obama criticized the Senate’s delay in approving the appointment of Loretta E. Lynch as attorney general on Friday, saying there was no reason for it besides ‘political gamesmanship.’ By AP on Publish Date April 17, 2015. Photo by Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. With the trafficking bill apparently on track, calls for a vote on Ms. Lynch’s nomination intensified. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee — which approved her nomination in February — said Republicans should avoid further delays.
“No attorney general nominee has ever been filibustered,” Mr. Leahy said on Twitter. “Republicans should not make history by blocking this historic nominee.” Ms. Lynch, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, has waited longer than any other cabinet secretary nominee in the past three administrations. With the stated support of at least five Republicans, she is expected to be confirmed. In the trafficking bill, many of the measures aim to bolster protections for victims, including one by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, that would require treating minors as victims rather than as prostitutes. But another amendment, introduced by Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, would have tied the trafficking bill to immigration, limiting citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment to those whose parents are already citizens or legal residents. It was not ultimately scheduled for a vote Wednesday.
Mr. McConnell said Tuesday that as soon as the trafficking measure was completed, “we’ll move to the president’s nominee for attorney general.” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned Republicans not to mire the bill in unrelated fights. “Be very careful that you don’t destroy this human trafficking legislation that is so important,” he said, adding, “My senators are not going to sit back like shrinking violets and let this stuff go forward without responding in a fashion that will also cause difficult votes for my Republican colleagues.” Delaying the vote on the human trafficking bill has pushed other pressing matters, including one to give Congress a voice in the nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran, into the background.
The agreement on the trafficking bill ends a protracted debate on a once-bipartisan effort to fight trafficking by increasing penalties for perpetrators and support for victims. The bill hit a snag last month when Democrats said they had become aware of an anti-abortion provision, blocking the legislation from moving forward as they demanded that Republicans remove language barring victims from using criminal fines in a victims’ fund to pay for abortions. Some comments here suggest that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as Attorney General because the Office of the U.S. Attorney (EDNY). History will note that the USA decline was hastened by a dysfunctional government that cared more for 18th century rujles and precedent. There is one thing you can count on with the Republicans on Capitol Hill.
As a compromise, the fund will now essentially be split in two. One pool of money, collected from criminal offenders, will be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury and used for non-health care services, which will not be subject to abortion restrictions. Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions. Many victims would be able to obtain abortions under the laws’ exception in cases of rape.
The deal seemed to evolve from a number of proposals. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, introduced legislation as a starting point before the recent, two-week recess that would draw money for the victims’ fund from federal appropriations. Last week, Mr. Cornyn proposed replacing the anti-abortion measure with similar language from the bipartisan Medicare bill, with the victims’ fund directly fed by federal money as the criminal fines offset that money.
It was Mr. Cornyn and Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who led the negotiations that finally broke the logjam, communicating during the recess and through last weekend, an aide to Ms. Murray said. Those talks led to the plan that senators said could raise up to $30 million for victims. Some attributed the breakthrough to pressure over Ms. Lynch’s delayed confirmation vote.
“It’s ridiculous that some politicians are so fixated on a narrow political agenda that they’d go so far as to block a highly qualified nominee for attorney general and deny care to survivors of human trafficking,” Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement. While Democrats had resisted anything that seemed to be an expansion of abortion provisions, they lost some leverage after voting for a bill to address the Medicare payment system that also included longstanding abortion federal provisions.
The New York Times also reports that the Deal on Trade Pact Gives Obama Authority but Builds In a Delay. Republican lawmakers and the White House have agreed to subject any trade deal negotiated by President Obama to a monthslong review by Congress and the public, a concession aimed at winning the support of Democrats who view trade agreements as a threat to American workers.
That provision, expected to be formally approved Wednesday by the Senate Finance Committee, would give Mr. Obama the “fast-track” authority he has been seeking to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a dozen Pacific Rim nations, potentially expanding markets for American companies. But the compromise will almost certainly push a major trade accord with Asia into the presidential election season, a politically charged prospect that trade supporters had hoped to avoid.
Before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the trade pact Thursday: Senator Robert Menendez, seated at table, and standing from left, Senators Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon; Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew; and Michael Froman, the United States trade representative.Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord. Ashton Carter, defense secretary, said the pact was as important “as another aircraft carrier.”U.S. Defense Secretary Supports Trade Deal With Asia. As a result of the delays built into the legislation, final consideration of the trade pact could fall to the next president, just as the North American Free Trade Agreement, completed by President George H. W. Bush, was passed under his successor, Bill Clinton.
“What I hope it will do is have people say, ‘They’re changing the playbook on trade,’ ” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, who demanded the open comment period after facing intense pressure from liberal and labor groups. “I’m very much aware there isn’t going to be any kumbaya moment here. I’m probably more aware of that than practically anybody in the United States at this point.”
Mr. Obama made an energetic case for free trade in an interview broadcast Tuesday night and predicted that Congress would soon give him the fast-track authority to complete the Asia-Pacific trade deal, the largest trade accord since Nafta went into effect in 1994. “I would not be doing this trade deal if I did not think it was good for the middle class,” Mr. Obama said in the interview. “And when you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts they are wrong.” Mr. Obama made his comments, meant to counter lawmakers in his own party who oppose the deal, on Tuesday during the taping of a panel discussion on free trade hosted by Chris Matthews, the host of the MSNBC program “Hardball.”
But in agreeing to the terms of the legislation granting him trade promotion authority, Mr. Obama has probably made the job of actually approving such a trade accord far more difficult. Trade promotion authority gives Congress the right to accept or reject a trade deal but not amend or filibuster it. But the new bill before both the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees this week lays out new requirements for openness and review. The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that.
That extra time means that Congress probably will not consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership until at least October, the thick of the presidential primary debate season and just as White House hopefuls are preparing for the first primary voting. “It’s like 180 days that the T.P.P. has to lay out there,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican. Mr. Wyden defended the addition of the waiting period and said it was a reason that Congress should act quickly to approve the legislation. “In the vicinity of four months, the American people will be able to sit at a town hall meeting and read what’s in T.P.P. and ask questions about it,” he said. “That’s one of the reasons to move now.” Supporters remained sanguine ahead of the Finance Committee’s formal drafting of the trade promotion bill.
“Most people, if they look at it, think it’s pretty darned important,” Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and the committee’s chairman, said of the Pacific accord. “Sooner or later we’re going to have to look at it.” Mr. Obama did his best to brush back opposition in his party from the liberal wing now associated with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts. “I love Elizabeth,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Matthews during the interview. “We’re allies on a whole host of issues. But she’s wrong on this.” But the measure remains a political hot potato. Hillary Rodham Clinton, campaigning in New Hampshire, dodged a direct question of whether she supported giving Mr. Obama trade promotion authority. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security,” she said. “We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive.” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, declared “not only no but hell no” to trade promotion authority.
If anything, the demands placed on the administration’s negotiators by the legislation are likely to become more onerous. Senators Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, and Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, are expected to introduce an amendment in the Finance Committee on Wednesday requiring the Pacific deal to include enforceable language to ensure that foreign competitors do not manipulate currency exchange rates to keep their exports cheap and American exports more expensive. That measure has the strong support of the automotive industry, as well as key senators like Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.
President Barack Obama took on Elizabeth Warren and the far-left wing of the Democratic Party Tuesday night in an effort to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership forward. In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Obama fired back at Warren, who has been leading the charge against the TPP, saying she’s “wrong” on the issue at hand. Obama told Matthews that everything he does is “focused” on getting the middle class a fair deal, adding that this deal is indeed good for the middle class. “I love Elizabeth. We’re allies on a whole host of issues. But she’s wrong on this,” Obama told the MSNBC host. “When you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts, they are wrong,”
“If we want to compete and create jobs here in the United States we’ve got to be there, and the fastest growing, most populace region in the world is in the Asia-Pacific region,” Obama added. “So, we’ve pulled together 11 countries to come up with a high standard, an enforceable trade provision that has unprecedented labor standards, unprecedented environmental standards, fixes a lot of the problems that you had in things like NAFTA and, ultimately, I would not be putting this forward if I was not absolutely certain that this was going to be good for American workers.”
“Now, understandably, folks in labor and some progressives are suspicious generally because of the experiences they saw in the past,” Obama conceded. “But my point is don’t fight the last war. Wait and see what we actually have in this deal before you make those judgements because what I know is if we are going to succeed as an economy, where already about 11 million of the high paying jobs in the United States are directly related to exports overseas. And it’s not just big business. It’s small businesses like are represented around this table, then we’ve got to be able to craft the kinds of trade deals I’m talking about.”
Alex Seitz-Wald and Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC report that Hillary Clinton woos Democrats on climate change, campaign finance.Hillary Clinton thrilled Democratic lawmakers in this key presidential state Tuesday afternoon with a strong progressive message on climate change and campaign finance reform. The comments, delivered in a closed-door meeting with local officials, are likely to please national liberals wary of her second presidential campaign. However, the former secretary of state declined to say much about a massive trade deal they hope she will oppose.
While Clinton has struck a populist note on economic inequality in the video declaring her presidential run and in public events since, the closed-door meeting Tuesday saw some of her strongest rhetoric yet on two other issues important to the party’s base. In the meeting with about 40 to 50 state legislators, held at the offices of the state Democratic Party in a residential area near the capital here, Clinton said the country must government must do “whatever it takes” to convince Americans climate change is real. 
Clinton reiterated her support for President Obama’s executive actions on carbon emissions, and suggested she might be open to more. “I give Obama and the EPA enormous credit for going as far as he can go as a president using executive and regulatory action,” she said, according to pool reporter Annie Karni of Politico. “We have to actually convince more Americans that this is in their interest. You know, whatever it takes. I happen to think it’s a real threat. I think the science is pretty clear. The deniers, Lord knows, some day people are going to read about them and wonder, who were these people? And how did they say this?”
On campaign finance, Clinton said even total disclosure of campaign money is “not enough” on its own. “What good does it do to disclose if somebody’s about to spend $100 million to promote their own interest and to defeat candidates who would stand up against them? What good does that do?” Clinton said. If elected president, Clinton said she would try to re-make the Supreme Court so it would overturn the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs and other outside groups to pour money into politics. “If I can get enough appointments as president, to put different people on the court, maybe that would work,” she said. But she added that retired justice John Paul Stevens told her the only way he thought real reform could happen would be through a constitutional amendment.
Clinton has made getting “unaccountable money” out of the political system part of one of the “four big fights” of her presidential campaign. Clinton held a similar meeting with lawmakers in Iowa last week, but reporters were not allowed inside. Democrats exiting the discussion with Clinton on Tuesday were uniformly positive on the meeting, and said her remarks on campaign finance got the biggest applause. They added that they appreciated her warm words for President Obama, on whose legacy she said she would run. “She would be an outstanding president,” said state Rep. Janet Wall, who praised Clinton’s intelligence and depth of knowledge. 
Still, many declined to endorse Clinton this early in the still nascent campaign, guarding their endorsement power in the key presidential nominating state. Earlier in the day, Clinton held a roundtable discussion with students, professors and others at the New Hampshire Technical Institute, a community college that trains students in engineering and other technical disciplines. As she toured the facility, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News asked Clinton about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the massive trade deal Congress is currently considering. “Any trade deal has to create jobs and raise wages. It has to be a partnership between our business our government and our work force,” Clinton said. 
It was Clinton’s first public comments on the issue since announcing her presidential run 10 days ago, though she did not tip her hand on how she would ultimately come down on the issue. Clinton took plenty of notes on a yellow legal pad as she heard from participants, including the owner of a local factory who told Clinton he had trouble finding skilled workers despite the dearth of jobs in the area.
State Rep. Dave Luneau, an Independent who sits on the community college’s advisory board, said he found Clinton’s “candor” and attentiveness impressive. “She genuinely cared and was interested,” he said. Clinton on Tuesday also visited the home of Mary Louise Hancock, a retired state senator who, at age 92, is known as the “grande dame of New Hampshire politics.” The former secretary of state planned to travel to Washington, D.C. – on a commercial flight – for two events Wednesday, a campaign official told msnbc. She will present awards at a program of Georgetown University run by a close friend, Melanne Verveer. And later, she will present an award for the Sasha Bruce House, a local charity that works with homeless youth. Both events have highly limited press access. Clinton will likely visit South Carolina and Nevada, the remaining two states of the four early primary set. The campaign currently has no events planned for Friday.
Adam Kinzinger is on Morning Joe to discuss the new stand off we have with Iran. Convoy of Iranian Ships Parked in Arabian Sea, U.S. Officials Say.
The convoy of Iranian ships suspected of carrying weapons destined for rebels in Yemen is parked in the north Arabian Sea, U.S. officials said Tuesday. The aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt and a guided missile cruiser, the Normandy, are safely to the northeast, the officials said. The Theodore Roosevelt and seven other American ships arrived in the Arabian Sea on Monday, and U.S. officials said that they could intercept the convoy. Iran backs the rebels, known as the Houthis, who have seized the Yemeni capital of Sanaa and other parts of the country. The United States has supported a Saudi-led campaign of airstrikes on rebel targets. The Iranian convey is parked south-southeast of the Yemeni border with Oman, the U.S. officials said. Saudi and Egyptian warships are positioned to the southwest of the convoy, forming a blockade of the Gulf of Aden and the port city of Aden. It was not clear Tuesday whether there had been any bridge-to-bridge contact between the Iranian convoy and the U.S. or coalition warships. The Obama administration said Tuesday that the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier near Yemen is intended to ensure freedom of navigation and commerce in the area. White House spokesman Josh Earnest cited energy — among other important commodities — as key shipments near the coast of Yemen that need to be safeguarded.
Chris Mathews is back on morning Joe today to discuss his interview with the POTUS that aired last night and that we already spoke about in part because of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnertnership) deal.
Pres. Obama: Elizabeth Warren 'wrong' about TPP deal
Would TPP help those hit hardest by trade?
Obama on Iran, Yemen and mixed signals
They are also discussing the Hilary tour and how 'stiff' she seems while being on the rad doing these interviews and photo-op's. Al Hunt is also on the show and he think Hilary should distinguish herself differently from the other candidates with regard to the stance she would take on the TPP. The thing is that her hubby did NAFTA and this is indeed NAFTA but 'on steroids'. BTW, I really like Al Hunt a lot. I do NOT know his history outside of seeing him while he is on the show (Morning Joe) but he seems very real about things. Plus, he makes amazing points all of the time and maybe even every time he is on that show.
They also talk about the back n forth between Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham Sen. Rand Paul has never been one to mince words, and his run for the presidency is no different. On Tuesday, the Kentucky Republican lashed out at two of his fellow Republican U.S. senators, calling Lindsey Graham and John McCain “lapdogs” for the Obama administration’s foreign policy. “They supported Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya,” Paul said in an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer. “They supported President Obama’s bombing of Assad. They also support President Obama’s foreign aid to countries that hate us.”
Paul’s blistering comments came a day after both Graham and McCain, who are also well-known for not pulling punches, criticized Paul’s grasp of foreign policy. “He just doesn’t understand,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends” Monday. “He has displayed this kind of naiveté since he came to the Senate.” “[Paul] said that we shouldn’t have any troops in Iraq,” Graham said on “Morning Joe” on Monday. “He agreed with Obama. That was a disaster. When there was a chance to do something constructive about Syria with a no-fly zone, he said we don’t need one. Generally speaking, he’s been more wrong than right.”
“People who call loudest to criticize me are great proponents of President Obama’s foreign policy — they just want to do it 10 times over,” Paul countered Tuesday. “I’m the only one actually standing up and saying the war in Libya was a mistake, the bombing of Assad would make ISIS stronger, the arms to the Islamic rebels would make ISIS stronger.” Paul continued: “These people are essentially the lapdogs for President Obama, and I think they’re sensitive about that.” Rand Paul calls Lindsey Graham and John McCain 'lapdogs for President Obama' 
Rand Paul calls Lindsey Graham and John McCain 'lapdogs for President Obama'
Sen. Rand Paul at a New Hampshire diner last weekend. (Photo: Charles Krupa/AP)
McCain and Graham have often been critics of the president from the right and have urged him to take more aggressive action in the Middle East. Should they decide to become fierce ongoing critics of Paul, they could become a highly visible source of doubts about his candidacy in a GOP primary where the electorate — and donors — are often more hawkish than Paul is.
“I’m a Reagan Republican,” Paul said. “I believe in strong national defense. I believe in peace through strength. I think that intervention is not always the answer, and that some interventions lead to unintended consequences. “… Their foreign policy is so disjointed, confusing, and chaotic that really people need to re-examine those who want to be involved in every war,” he added. “I say we get involved when there’s an American interest. I think we do have to militarily stop ISIS. But I am sad that ISIS got a lot of the weapons from interventionists in my party and the president who gave them weapons indirectly.”
Saudi Arabia resumes airstrikes in Yemen.

CNN just reported now that Saudi Arabia resumed airstrikes in Yemen on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after announcing the end of its "Operation Decisive Storm," a nearly month-long campaign against Houthi positions. The strikes returned after rebel forces launched an attack on a government military brigade not under Houthi control, security sources in Taiz said. The brigade quickly fell to the rebels, they said. It was unclear if the fighting represented a resumption of the operation or was a short-term resumption of hostilities.

When the Saudi-led coalition announced the end of the operation it said a new initiative was underway. Operation Renewal of Hope will focus on the political process, it said.

Saudis claim victory

Saudi Arabia had launched airstrikes on Houthi positions across Yemen, hoping to wipe out the Iranian-allied rebel group that has overthrown the government and seized power. 

The Saudis say they want to restore the Yemeni government, a key U.S. ally in the fight against al Qaeda, which was kicked out of the capital by the rebels earlier this year. This month, Saudi officials said airstrikes have degraded Houthi-controlled military infrastructure, including key buildings in the capital Sanaa. The campaign achieved its objectives "by a very good planning, very precise execution, by the courage of our pilots, our sailors, our soldiers," said Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri, a Saudi military spokesman.


A senior Saudi official told CNN that the Houthis agreed to "nearly all demands" of the U.N. Security Council. Former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his family will leave Yemen and never return for a position in politics, the source said. A statement from the Saudi Embassy in Washington outlined objectives of the next phase of operations, including protecting civilians, enhancing humanitarian and medical assistance, confronting terrorism and creating an international coalition to provide maritime security.


Ground troops will continue to protect the border and confront any attempts to destabilize the situation, Asiri said. Military action will be taken if needed.


Political solution sought

But beyond the military campaign, the Saudis and their allies have said they want to find a political solution for the violence-plagued nation.

The aim is to bring back Yemen's "security and stability through establishing a political process," said a statement from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait. Ousted Yemeni President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi thanked the Saudi-led coalition. Hadi claims he's Yemen's legitimate leader and is working with the Saudis and other allies to return to his country. "We promise to restructure the Yemen military to ensure that it serves the people of Yemen," Hadi said, calling on the Houthis to withdraw, and saying that he would return to Yemen at "the right time" to rebuild the country. "You will witness many changes in the days to come in our mission to build an institutional government and military, far from rebel militancy," said Hadi. Also Tuesday, a U.S. military official told CNN that the United States is conducting "manned reconnaissance" off Yemen. The official stressed that the repositioning of U.S. ships over the last few days was not done to interdict Iranian ships, but to ensure freedom of navigation and maritime security.


Drone strikes continue

In the country's south, security officials on Wednesday reported two U.S. drone strikes against al Qaeda militants in Mukalla. Six suspected militants died in the attack. This is the second drone strike in three days. On Monday, six militants were killed when drone strikes targeted two vehicles in Shabwah, west of Mukalla. Why is Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen? CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq, Ed Payne, Salim Essaid, Jethro Mullen, Tim Lister, Anas Hamdan, Jamie Crawford and journalist Hakim Almasmari contributed to this report.
Pat Toomey is on the show (Morning Joe) and just said that (Philadelphia) Phillies season could be a it rocky. It honestly seems that so far, there are pro's and con's that i agree with on both ends as far as whether this TPP deal would be beneficial for us. I assume that in States and for a some organizations and companies, it will be positive for them if it went through. And, then conversely, there is an argument that companies, people and organizations would NOT benefit from it. I am probably more against it than i am for it but then again, it really does not come into play in my life. I do care though for some reason, that people have jobs. I wonder how this would gain jobs in say Pennsylvania. 
On MSNBC tonight airs a film that Tom Colicchio is pushing and I have seen the ads a lot lately for it. The film is entitled 'Just Eat It: A Food Waste Story'. Americans toss out the equivalent of $165 billion in food annually. Curbing waste would save valuable resources and could help feed millions who struggle with hunger. Don’t miss the US television premiere of the eye-opening, fun film, Just Eat It: A Food Waste Story April 22, 10 p.m. ET on msnbc. Filmmakers and food lovers Jen and Grant dive into the issue of waste from farm, through retail, all the way to the back of their own fridge. After catching a glimpse of the billions of dollars of good food that is tossed each year in North America, they pledge to quit grocery shopping cold turkey and survive only on foods that would otherwise be thrown away. Here is the link to the web site (http://www.msnbc.com/just-eat-it). 
Paul Ryan is on the show too. I assumed that anything with regard to the TPP would be for what the GOP wants out of it. The last thing he would care about is the Unions or those jobs lost but he does make a decent point ion that we merely want a fair chance to get at goods in each of the countries and societies. He wants a level playing field where we get the same rules both ways and I guess I agree with that one too. He is NOT however, getting into the Politics in America and he (Paul Ryan) seems very uncomfortable being asked about Hilary (Clinton) and Rand (Paul). He literally just asked Joe Scarbourough to change the subject back to talking about world trade and the TPP. John Meacham went there asking him (Paul Ryan) about the relationships between that GOP and the POTUS. He basically answers saying that there would never be dysfunction per se, if whomever and everyone would just agree with what they wanted platform wise. Because that GOP are a bunch of babies that cry when they do NOT get their ways. They are like Bam Bam from The Flinstones.
As I said the other day, Tim McGraw is on the show (Morning Joe) today. He is evidently one of Time Magazine's most influential people. This is good man. he is lucky man and a talented one (Great Voc) that has the ability to be lead by his heart. Support him because like Joe says about him and Sandy Hook, Tim was there helping out even there and even though he is a Nashville guy. Here is his causes page because I missed the URL gave to the show panelists: http://timmcgraw.com/news-press/causes/
Regardless of it all, please stay in touch!