Boulder DA Stan Garnett resigning to take ‘crazy to pass up’ job at old law firm

District Attorney Stan Garnett is resigning two years into his third and final term as Boulder County’s top prosecutor to take a senior partner position at a private law firm in Denver.

Garnett, 61, on Thursday announced he will leave the office at the end of February to join the litigation department at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, the firm that employed him before he was elected district attorney in 2009.

“After talking about what they had in mind I decided it was an opportunity I would be crazy to pass up,” Garnett said. “I’m now in my 10th year (as district attorney). I feel like I’ve given a lot to the community in public service.”

Garnett sent a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper on Thursday informing the governor of his decision; Hickenlooper now will select a replacement DA.

“We are delighted to welcome Stan back to the firm,” said Adam Agron, Brownstein’s managing partner, in a statement. “Our firm was built on a commitment to public service and we have no doubt that our clients and colleagues will benefit from Stan’s experience and exceptional record leading Boulder’s district attorney’s office.”

Garnett said law firms began approaching him soon after the November 2016 election, when voters defeated a measure that would have given him the ability to seek a fourth term.


Advertisement


“My third term will be up when I’m 64,” he said. “I love being a lawyer and I anticipate working into my 70s, so I’ve been looking at different options.”

The job at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck is not one that can wait, so Garnett said he can’t finish out his term, which would have run through the end of 2020. But with more than nine years under his belt, Garnett already is the second-longest tenured Boulder County district attorney since statehood.

“The timing is a little earlier than I would have liked, because I really enjoyed being district attorney,” he said. “On the other hand, when you look at the history of district attorneys since term limits, it’s reasonable timing.”

For now, Garnett will turn his attention to helping Hickenlooper’s office select a replacement, who will finish out the rest of Garnett’s term. He’s hoping a successor will be named before the end of the month so he will have some time to work side-by-side with the new DA and ease the transition.

Garnett could not say who might be in line for the top prosecutor’s slot, other than, “There are a number of people who very much would like this job.”

Whoever takes his place will have a busy year ahead, with five homicide trials currently scheduled to take place in 2018 and another homicide case making its way through the system.

But Garnett, who is not the trial lawyer on any of those cases, said he thinks the office will be fine, even with the busy schedule.

“We’ve been able to build a terrific team of excellent trial lawyers from top to bottom, led right now by (assistant district attorneys) Ken Kupfner and Katharina Booth,” he said. “I’m confident we have the excellent staff we need to handle all of those cases.”

‘He will truly be missed’

Upon taking office in 2009, and succeeding Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy, Garnett said he saw two areas that needed improvement.

“When I took over the office, I felt the office wasn’t in touch enough with the community and we weren’t going to trial enough,” he said.

To remedy that, Garnett sought to make Boulder County a place that both attracted experienced trial attorneys and also trained new ones.

“Boulder is not a high crime jurisdiction, though we have plenty of crime,” he said. “But we do have a fair number of what I call marquee cases. Cases that are covered closely by the Denver press, and sometimes by national press, that are complicated and difficult cases. I always wanted to make sure we had the kind of lawyers in my office who could handle those cases.”

Boulder police Chief Greg Testa said that willingness to prosecute cases endeared him to law enforcement.

“I have appreciated Stan very much and the work he has done to build trust and a solid working relationship between the DA’s office and law enforcement in the county,” Testa said. “His office was not afraid to take cases to trial and he made good sound decisions in applying the law.”

One of the lawyers Garnett brought in was Ryan Brackley, who was a homicide prosecutor in New York who became Garnett’s Assistant District Attorney and was a lead prosecutor on many of the district’s big cases before leaving for the Denver DA’s office last year.

“When Stan contacted me in the summer of 2008 I was intrigued by the opportunity to go to the Boulder DA’s Office with him and help to transform that office into what would be one of the great DA’s offices in Colorado,” Brackley said, adding that Garnett had a unique set of skills as a result of being at a private firm and being elected to a school board in addition to his work as a prosecutor.

“He drew from his diverse experience,” Brackley said. “He brought a new and unique vision to how a public law office should run.”

Garnett said he has always tried to encourage residents to voice any concerns to his office, and be a visible presence in the community at speaking events.

“My view is that, as an elected official, I should talk to anybody who wants to talk to me,” he said. “I will miss the debate, and I will miss engaging those people.”

Garnett did admit, though, that he would not miss being a publicly elected official at all hours of the day.

“Boulder is a community with a lot of people who have opinions about everything, and some of them have a lot of time on their hands,” he said. “I do sometimes get a little tired of walking through Whole Foods on a Sunday afternoon and somebody taking me aside and wanting to talk about something. That’s fine as an elected official. But I won’t miss that.”

Garnett also said he is proud of the work his office has done in community protection, sexual-assault and cold-case prosecution.

“Stan Garnett has raised the bar in Boulder County when it comes to the quality of prosecutions, hiring and promoting great staff, public transparency, and the relationship the DA’s office has with law enforcement,” Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said in a statement. “Under Stan’s leadership, the DA’s office focused intently on protecting the rights of the disenfranchised and vulnerable populations in our communities. He will truly be missed.

“However, I understand the need look out for himself and his family in the future, and this sounds like a wonderful opportunity.”

One thing Garnett said he wishes he had been able to do in his time in office was make more progress on the physical remodeling of the Boulder County Justice Center.

“The office is very inadequate for a modern law office, and I’ve been working with the county to get that remodeled since I became the DA,” Garnett said. “It’s been a long, slow process.”

‘There is an energy to the pursuit of justice’

Garnett has at times flirted with the idea of leaving the Boulder DA’s Office during his term, though most of his possible destinations in the past had been other elected or appointed positions.

He made a run for attorney general in 2010, and mulled running again in 2018 but ultimately decided against it. He also decided not to run for Jared Polis’ Congressional seat but did not rule out a run for Congress in 2020.

While he is leaving public office for now, Garnett said he would not rule out returning at some point.

“I’m going to enjoy this for a few more years, but if my health holds up, I enjoy being involved in public debate,” he said.

Brackley said he was surprised to hear that Garnett went back to private practice.

“At the same time, Stan and I always told our staff to look for bigger and better things and embrace the opportunity to grow,” Brackley said. “I’m glad Stan was willing to follow his own advice and follow his heart.”

Garnett said the new job will allow him to possibly help the firm expand into Mexico and Latin America. He also said he is looking forward to being able to handle cases in different jurisdictions.

“I’ll miss working in Boulder, but occasionally Boulder becomes a little insular,” Garnett said. “It sort of forgets that there is a rest of the world out there. That’s one of the things that struck me the minute I became DA: these folks need to get out more, there are other counties, other judicial districts, other states where we can learn from what they do.

“I enjoy handling cases in other jurisdictions where nobody knows who you are.”

But Garnett said his staff in Boulder is what he will miss the most when he leaves.

“I’m going to miss the people, the people in my office who work very hard in not-always-easy conditions to do the right thing in court,” he said. “They are wonderful people, and there is an energy to the pursuit of justice in a DA’s office that is a wonderful thing to be around.”

As for advice for the person who takes Garnett’s place?

“I’m a strong believer that he American justice system is excellent,” Garnett said. “If a district has excellent lawyers on both sides of the podium and strong judges, justice will be done in almost every case. I hope the office will continue the tradition of professionalism and excellence I think we’ve established.”

Mitchell Byars: 303-473-1329, byarsm@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/mitchellbyars

Go to Source

Sebi curb: Price Waterhouse set to lose 75 listed firms to rivals



PW was the statutory auditor for 85 listed firms in 2016-17, and these firms spent Rs 1 billion on audit expenses during the year


Krishna Kant  | 
Mumbai 




Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund

The hit on Price Waterhouse (PW) has opened up new business opportunities worth over Rs 1 billion for other auditing firms in the country. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) had on Wednesday banned PW from auditing listed companies for two years. PW was the statutory auditor for 85 listed companies in 2016-17, and these companies spent Rs 1 billion on audit expenses during the year.

This financial year, PW has around 75 listed firms on its roster.

Experts say auditing assignments with large companies also open opportunities for big accounting firms in the areas of tax advisory, management and business consultancy services, which can generate much higher revenue than the audit business. The analysis is based on the audited expenses of all listed companies, and includes the PW network of accounting firms Price Waterhouse, Lovelock & Lewes, and Dalal & Shah. ALSO READ: Sebi order against Price Waterhouse has audit profession in a tizzy Once the ban period is over, many of these firms may go back to PW, as the law requires listed companies to rotate their auditors every 10 years. “But some may decide not to go back to PW for the reputational risk that the name now carries with auditors. Loss of auditing clients may also impact PW’s supplementary businesses in India,” said a senior corporate executive on condition of anonymity. PW added marquee clients such as Tata Steel, Hindalco, and Ashok Leyland this financial year. Last year, it audited the accounts of leading listed firms such as IndusInd Bank, Bajaj group firms such as Bajaj Auto and Bajaj Finance, Glaxo, Motherson Sumi, and Marico. ALSO READ: Price Waterhouse clients to work on looking for alternative after Sebi ban After the Sebi order, these companies will have to look out for new auditors. Experts, however, say they should wait for the outcome of likely appeals by PW against the Sebi order at the Securities Appellate Tribunal. In all, PW clients during FY17 accounted for nearly 8 per cent of the combined market capitalisation of all listed companies and 6 per cent and 4.5 per cent of the universe combined net profits and net sales in FY17. Auditors are also a worried lot as they would have to increase the scrutiny on accounts, leading to an increase in their efforts. graph graph

First Published: Fri, January 12 2018. 02:38 IST


‘;
if(neverShowNotificaitonCookie == ” || neverShowNotificaitonCookie == ‘undefined’ || neverShowNotificaitonCookie == null){
var lastReminderCookie = getCookie(‘_ler’+loginParamObj.uId);//last expiry reminder
if( (lastReminderCookie == “”) || (lastReminderCookie == “undefined”) || (lastReminderCookie == null) ){
$(‘body’).prepend(notificationBox);
}else{
if(lastReminderCookie ‘);
$(“#loading_invoice”).show();
var _id = this.id;

$.ajax({
“type”: “POST”,
“url”: “http://api.business-standard.com/user/process-api/generate-user-invoice”,
“data” : {
“request_id” : loginParamObj.uId
},
“success”: function(data){
$(“#generate_invoice”).text(‘click here’);
resopnseObject = JSON.parse(data);

if(resopnseObject.status == ‘success’){
if(resopnseObject.tinyUrl != “” || resopnseObject.tinyUrl != null){
$(“#notification_message”).html(‘Your invoice has been sucessfully generated.
Please click here to pay ‘);
window.open(resopnseObject.tinyUrl,”_blank”);

if($(“#generate_invoice_manage”).length > 0){
location.reload();
}
generateInvoice2 = function(){};
}else{
alert(“Your invoice has been successfully generated. Please check your mail.”);
generateInvoice2 = function(){alert(“Your invoice has been successfully generated. Please check your mail.”);};
}

}else{
alert(“Your request has been registered by us. We will contact you soon”);
generateInvoice2 = function(){alert(“Your request has been registered by us. We will contact you soon”);};
remindNotificationLater(loginParamObj.uId);
}
$(“#loading_invoice”).hide();
}
});
return false;

}

}
}
}
}
});

function remindNotificationLater(userId){
var currentTimestamp = Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000);
var tempTime = new Date(currentTimestamp*1000);
var lastExpNotification = Math.floor(tempTime.setMinutes(tempTime.getMinutes() + 60) / 1000);//+60 mins
//Set Cookie
var d = new Date();
d.setTime(d.getTime() + (60*60*1000));//60 min
var expires = “expires=”+d.toUTCString();
document.cookie = “_ler”+userId+”=” + lastExpNotification + “; ” + expires + “; path=/”;
$(‘#endSubscriptionNotification’).remove();
}

function closeNotificationForever(userId){
var neverShowNotificaitonCookie = getCookie(‘_nsn’);
neverShowNotificaitonCookie += “,”+userId;
//Set Cookie
var d = new Date();
d.setTime(d.getTime() + (30*24*60*60*1000));//30 days
var expires = “expires=”+d.toUTCString();
document.cookie = “_nsn=” + neverShowNotificaitonCookie + “; ” + expires + “; path=/”;

$(‘#endSubscriptionNotification’).remove();
}

Go to Source

New Tax Law Could Give Cooperatives Advantage Over Private Grain Companies

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (DTN) — The law of unintended consequences has followed close on the heels of the new tax law, and it is coming down on private grain companies.

Language added to the tax law in December to help boost farmer cooperatives could end up causing famers to deliver their grain and other commodities largely to cooperatives, at the expense of private grain companies, in order to get a larger deduction on their income.

Staff at Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation said they have been getting flooded with emails over the past week about the treatment and effects of qualified cooperative dividends. In a column, Kristine Tidgren, assistant director of the center, said the new provision will affect farmers who market commodities through cooperatives in which they are a member versus selling commodities to non-cooperatives.

The provision in the law allows farmers to take advantage of the new 20% deduction on all qualified business income, like every other smaller business. But on top of that, farmers can deduct, “up to the amount of their taxable income (not including capital gain income) an amount equal to 20% of their ‘qualified cooperative dividends.’”

In another note, the way the language is written in the law, this extra tax deduction only applies to agricultural cooperatives.

The deduction for qualified cooperative dividends allows a taxpayer to deduct the lesser of “20% of the aggregate amount of the qualified cooperative dividends of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or, taxable income minus net capital gain.”

In drawing a comparison about the differences between having the cooperative deduction and not having the cooperative deduction, Iowa State compared scenarios of a farmer who had $300,000 in grain sales and $180,000 in expenses, leading to net Schedule F income of $120,000. With the regular Section 199A deduction, the farmer’s taxable income for the year is $86,400. Applying the cooperative benefit, taxable income drops to $48,000.

“A plain reading of the text of the new law would suggest that it potentially provides a significantly larger Section 199A deduction to some member farmers marketing their products through a cooperative than to farmers selling to a non-cooperative. But it is too early to tell if this interpretation will be implemented,” Tidgren wrote.

As Paul Neiffer, a principal at CliftonLarsonAllen explained, to receive the qualified cooperative dividend deduction, a farmer must be a patron of the cooperative and sell his or her grain there.

As Neiffer explains, a simple way to look at it is for a farmer to take their tax bracket and multiply it by 0.20. If a farmer is in the 35% tax bracket, that comes to 7% savings.

“It is a clear potential advantage,” Neiffer said. “I always want to highlight the word ‘potential’ because the key is they have got to have taxable income. If they don’t have taxable income, this deduction is worth absolutely nothing.”

Another question, Neiffer and Tidgren pointed out, is some of the benefits could change depending on how the IRS offers guidance or a rule on how taxpayers should treat the provision.

Another accountant who spoke to DTN on background said the provision could cause private grain companies to create separate cooperatives for grain delivery. Ethanol plants could also end up getting grain from cooperatives rather than buying more direct from farmers. It was suggested cooperatives could end up building more storage to hold more grain. However, the benefits of this tax provision right now are scheduled to sunset in 2025. “Who wants to make a major investment in infrastructure for a temporary tax benefit?” the accountant said.

If a farmer is not a cooperative patron and selling to the cooperative, he or she will still likely qualify for the regular Section 199A deduction of 20% of net farm income.

The scenarios being run on these tax savings come without any IRS rules. Once those are written, proposed and finalized, the situation and overall benefit could change.

The qualified cooperative dividend was added late to the tax bill by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who were trying to stave off a large tax increase for farmers who had relied on the prior Section 199 Domestic Production Activities Deduction. The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives had pushed for a change, arguing farmers who sell to cooperatives risked a $2 billion annual tax break if it went away and was not replaced with similar language. Chuck Conner, president and CEO of National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, warned against making changes to the new tax break that could end up raising taxes on farmers.

“Section 199A was included in the tax reform package because Congress realized that eliminating the Domestic Production Activities Deduction, also known as DPAD, without these provisions would have resulted in a tax increase on farmers across the country,” Conner said. “NCFC and our members supported retaining DPAD, with its track record of promoting growth in rural America, for agriculture; policy makers ultimately decided that they preferred to replace it with a deduction that fit under the new structures they created in the tax bill. It should also be noted that Section 199A sunsets in 2025 while other provisions for non-cooperative business, such as a 40% cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, are permanent.

“Looking forward, we believe that Congress should avoid any action that would raise taxes on farmers, especially at a time of continued low commodity prices,” Conner said.

The National Grain and Feed Association, which represents both private grain companies and cooperative firms in Washington, declined a request to comment on the tax provision.

Leaders from the American Farm Bureau Federation told DTN this week they had just learned about the implications of the tax change and would review the issue more when leadership returns to Washington from the group’s annual meeting in Nashville.

Kami Capener, a spokeswoman for Sen. Hoeven, told DTN that the goal was to prevent cooperatives from being “unfairly treated” by the loss of the domestic-production deduction. “We are continuing to work with Sen. Thune and stakeholders to address any unintended impacts,” she said.

The problem with making a technical correction to the tax law is it now would require 60 votes in the Senate to make a change in the law. Much like Republicans refused to help Democrats make changes to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats may be unwilling to help Republicans make similar changes in the new tax law.

More details on the Section 199A changes can be found at: http://bit.ly/…and at http://bit.ly/…

Go to Source

IRS paid $20 million to private firms that collected $6.7 million in tax debts

When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was asked at his confirmation hearing what he thought about using private companies to collect money owed to the government, he replied that it “seems like a very obvious thing to do.”

It may have been obvious, but it certainly was not economical.

Private debt collectors cost the IRS $20 million in the past fiscal year but brought in only $6.7 million in back taxes, the agency’s taxpayer advocate reported this past week. That was less than 1 percent of the amount assigned for collection.

What’s more, private contractors in some cases were paid 25 percent commissions on collections that the IRS made without their help, according to the annual report by Nina Olson, who heads the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent office within the IRS.

Most Read Stories

In addition, Olson reiterated previously expressed worries that the expedited process of approving organizations’ tax-exempt status was resulting in rubber-stamp approvals of groups that had not established their qualifications. She cited an error rate of 46 percent in a sampling last year.

The streamlined process, for charities with assets under $250,000, was partly a response to a furor over the agency’s intensive scrutiny of certain political groups, including some associated with the tea-party movement. Flaws in the new process, the report said, can undermine public trust in the charitable sector.

Sarah Allen, an IRS spokeswoman, said the agency’s leaders would review the taxpayer advocate’s proposals.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who helped organize the tax-revision efforts, has said he plans to focus on reforming the IRS this year. Olson’s office issued a new publication that includes its top 50 legislative recommendations.

Go to Source

Mistry’s counsel failed to prove violation of law: Tata Sons to NCLT

Tata Sons told the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT’s) Mumbai bench on Thursday that the counsel representing the Mistry family’s investment firms had failed to prove any of their pleas violated the law. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Tata Sons, was responding to the allegations of oppression and mismanagement submitted by Mistry’s counsel. The two sides have been locked in a bitter legal dispute since December 2016, following the removal of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons. The only exception he added was Article 75, which pertained to compulsory transfer of shares owned by the Mistry family.

Singhvi said none of the other articles cited by the counsel of the petitioners was unique or unheard of. Furthermore, all the shareholders agreed on the above articles over 51 years ago, he said.

Go to Source

Betting law not sufficient mechanism to address gambling craze in Kenya

The going into effect of the law that taxes betting revenues at the rate of 35 per cent is a commendable step towards reining in the betting companies, but it does not address the mechanisms through which the populace is becoming ensnared to become gamblers.

These mechanisms revolve around the marketing and promotion of betting as a productive enterprise. We are daily inundated with advertisements on our TVs that promise us millions. We are seduced to sign up with one betting house or other as a sure bet to the rich kingdom. Our TVs and radios have glamourised gambling.

ALSO READ:

Class four pupil hangs himself over Sh100 bet

The advertisements employ a number of strategies, ranging from the clownish, to the serene, many visual and audio, some merely audio. All in all, the gambling adverts appeal to our sense of desire to make a lot of money and promise that this is attainable instantly.

Examples of those who have made winnings are provided to drive the point home that we too can join the elite club of millionaires. The advertisements appeal to a wide audience by showing ordinary people – for example folk selling sugarcane – exuberant after winning bets.

Through this device, betting companies seek to ensnare as many people as possible to become gamblers by showing that ordinary people are winning.

These strategies were for many years employed by tobacco companies which lured us with promises of a high class life with beautiful women and top of the range cars.

The ruses

Advertisers do not use the above techniques innocently: they know they will ensnare their victims. French philosopher Michel Foucalt warns us that power is most potent when it is internalised.

We have now internalised the notion that we can make millions instantly with little effort and are acting on this belief.

What they do not tell us is that once snared, we stay snared. Put simply, gambling is addictive.

ALSO READ:

Clubs should attract more sponsors

Many will abandon what they see as the hard slog towards wealth creation for the quicker and easier one of placing a bet with a few shillings via Mpesa and boom! The millions arrive in the account.

Gambling has been made easy with the arrival of internet platforms and internet connectivity and especially smartphones. Throw in the hourly blasts on our TVs, then we can understand why Kenya is ranked third to Nigeria and South Africa in terms of gambling market size.

The advertisements do not tell us how many people betted and never won anything. They do not tell us the number of people who have lost all their life savings while seeking these quick millions.

Further, they do not tell us how many people have abandoned their honest pursuits in search of easy riches, and ended up worse for it. A common adage in gambling is that the house always wins.

This fact is never captured in the advertisements. I know of a case where a guy lost Sh90,000, being the entire family savings, on a bet. The wife did not know till much later.

Rein in practice

There has come time to control the naked ensnaring of Kenyans into gambling. In doing so, we can draw lessons from mechanisms to control tobacco companies’ glamourizing of smoking.

ALSO READ:

Gor Mahia pleads with SportPesa to continue sponsoring club

Spurred by concerns about the addictive nature of tobacco and its health effects, the Kenyan Government passed the Tobacco Control Act 2007.

This Act prohibits most forms of advertising and promotion of tobacco products. Formerly glitzy packaging of tobacco packages has been mostly replaced by health warnings in English and Kiswahili of the effects of tobacco.

Beyond the controls on promotion of tobacco promotion, the Act requires the State to educate the public on the “the health consequences, addictive nature and mortal threat posed by tobacco consumption…”

So just like what happened regarding tobacco, it is time promotion of gambling was severally curtailed and betting companies required to provide a caveat to their advertisements, namely, that gambling is addictive; and that you could lose your shirt while gambling.

Further, the State should put in place mechanisms, including changes to the curriculum, to comprehensively educate the public about the dangers posed by gambling and the virtues of disciplined work.

Gambling companies can choose to act voluntarily. But they can also be forced by legislation. Just like in the case of tobacco, these companies will fight back.

They will for example blackmail the public by withholding sponsorships of sports events. But the public good must prevail.

Government attempts to regulate this industry through high taxation are commendable, but these can only go so far. It is time to extend these efforts to regulating the kind of mechanisms through which we become ensnared to become gamblers.

Dr Nyamori is Associate Professor of Accounting, Abu Dhabi [email protected]

ALSO READ:

Betting firms stay put: Lotto and Betika yet to make decision on next course of action

Go to Source

House renews surveillance law after Trump posts differing tweets

Jan. 11 (UPI) — The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation reauthorizing a surveillance act after President Donald Trump first criticized the bill, and then backed it.

The House approved the legislation 256-164 with support from Democrats and Republican leadership to extend the program for six years. It now goes to the Senate.

Two postings Thursday on Twitter by Trump came before the House was scheduled to vote later in the day on making changes to reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

American firms, including Google and AT&T, are now required to turn over information to authorities without a warrant turn over private emails and other messages of Americans linked to foreigners’ communications in counterterror and espionage cases. A proposed amendment to Section 702 to require authorities to obtain court warrants failed 233-183 with support from libertarians and privacy advocates.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Wednesday night issued a statement asking lawmakers to vote against the legislation with the changes.

But in his first tweet Thursday, Trump wrote: “House votes on controversial FISA ACT today. This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?”

The dossier examines ties between Russia and Trump and his aides.

The tweet was posted shortly after Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said, “Mr. President, this is not the way to go. Spying is valid to find the foreign agents among us. But it’s got to be based on suspicion and not an area code.” He said Trump’s “woes” began with surveillance.

Hours later, the president appeared to back off supporting the limits by writing: “With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Trump spoke by phone between the president’s two tweets, a senior Republican congressional aide told The New York Times.

“I think [House Republicans] just needed more clarification. Was there support? What was the concern? What were his issues?” said House Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker of North Carolina told Politico. “For members who were somewhat undecided or lean-no or lean-yes, if the president comes in and weighs in on something, I think that is impactful. And that’s why they wanted to make sure that at the end of the day, or at the end of this conversation, that he is supportive overall of this bill.”

Trump’s original tweet enraged Democrats who have been working with moderate Republicans to reauthorize the legislation.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate’s intelligence committee, criticized the president.

“This is irresponsible, untrue, and frankly it endangers our national security,” Warner tweeted. “FISA is something the President should have known about long before he turned on Fox this morning.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called on Ryan to pull the bill from the floor after Trump’s first tweet, an aide told The Hill and The New York Times.

Go to Source

Agriculture Firms Say New U.S. Tax Law Gives Significant Advantage to Cooperatives

The new U.S. tax law has placed Rick Tronson, a North Dakota grain-company operator, in a precarious position by unexpectedly bestowing big benefits on his main competitors.

A provision inserted into the tax code during Senate and House negotiations in December gave farmers more lucrative deductions when they sell agricultural products directly to the farm cooperatives he competes against rather than to businesses like his own.

Mr….

Go to Source