The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234
Collapse Ad Expand Ad
My Discount Health
My Discount Health
Advertisement
My Discount Health Advertisement
My Discount Health Advertisement

Rep. Jeb Hensarling Hints At More Subpoenas And Hearings To Come For Secretary Clinton On Uranium One Deal.

Thursday, April 30, 2015  |  posted by Duane Patterson

Jeb Hensarling is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, succeeding Hugh’s guest host today, John Campbell. Part of the oversight of this committee includes CFIUS review – the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Here is that that interview, and why Hillary Clinton may have to spend a little more time on the Hill under oath than previously thought.

The Audio:

04-30hhs-hensarling

The Transcript:

JC: This is former Congressman John Campbell who did escape the swamp, but still in that swamp is my guest this segment, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the Financial Services Committee from the Lone Star State. Welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show, Jeb Hensarling.

JH: John, thanks for having me, but you were far too happy when you used the word former in front of Congressman.

JC: (laughing) Well, there is a little bit of joy there for me now. But I knew when I left that I was leaving things in capable hands, which include yours. So what I wanted to ask you about today was there’s more information just came out today about the Clinton foundation and another $55 million dollars of unreported gifts. This is not according to the right wing conspiracy. This is according to the Boston Globe and the New York Times. But some of this came out last week was about a Russian acquisition of U.S. uranium interests which has to go through a process called CFIUS, which stands for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. And it went through that process, that particular approval of Russians buying uranium in the United States back when Barney Frank had the gavel that you now hold as chairman of the Financial Services Committee. And the whole thing has a lot of clouds over it and doesn’t look very good. So Jeb Hensarling, what, you, the CFIUS process comes under the jurisdiction of your committee. What have you looked into this thing? What have you found out? What are you going to do, if anything, about it?

JH: Well, you yourself, John, know more about this than most others since it was within your subcommittee jurisdiction. But there is this agency that has to essentially approve the acquisition by foreign entities of U.S. strategic interest that could have national security concerns. And it just so happens again that the Department of State is a key member of this group called CFIUS, the Committee of Foreign Investment in the U.S. As you know, we’re famous for acronyms in the Capitol. At the time, as you well put it, Barney Frank, a Democrat, was chairman of the committee. But the House Republicans protested at the time. We urged CFIUS not to approve the transaction that has led to Russia to control the lion’s share of uranium product, and as you well know, to control a fifth of the United States, our own American uranium production. So we protested at the time. Now all of a sudden, we have this information from the New York Times. We have this information from the Boston Globe, as you well put it, not exactly part of the vast right wing conspiracy that the Clintons like to complain about. So on the surface, it does not pass the smell test. And so CFIUS comes within the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee. Just today, in fact, an hour ago, we have sent to CFIUS a letter demanding a relevant documents as part of an official discovery process. Continue Reading

AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

When Justice And Law Part Company

Thursday, April 30, 2015  |  posted by John Schroeder

Hillary cited all sorts of stats about incarceration rates in her speech yesterday.  I could write paragraphs about her misuse of the statistics to make a point rather than build understanding.  But at bottom of all the statistics she cited is one simple question, “In each instance that is a part of the stats was the defendant guilty?”  If so then regardless of the statistics, the law was followed and presumably justice was done.  To contend differently is to contend that somehow the law and justice parted company.

Justice is measured in the facts of each individual case.  It is not measured in what people think happened and it is not measured in trends.  Trends, impressions and perceptions are the stuff of politics, but they are not the stuff of justice.  The last few days have seen a lot of talk of justice, most of it politics in disguise.  Many have pointed out during these few days the lack of trust between a populace and the organs of justice in the government.  There has been lots of discussion of “the roots” of that distrust.  But I have not heard anyone say that at least some of those “roots” lie in our penchant for confusing law and justice.

Ultimately, of course, “the justice system” is political.  It is designed to enforce and execute law, and the law is established by legislators and they are by definition political animals.  Justice is often cited as a reason for some law, but it does not guarantee that the law is just.  It is quite possible for the law and justice to part company.  What do we do when that happens? Continue Reading

Ambassador John Bolton On The Looming Naval Confrontation With Iran, And Re-Authorizing The Export-Impact Bank

Wednesday, April 29, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton joined me on today’s program to discuss the looming confrontation with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz and the debate over the reauthorization of the Export Import Bank, which is very much one tool in America’s tool box of international influence.

Audio:

04-28hhs-bolton

Transcript:

HH: I’m pleased to welcome back now former Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Mr. Ambassador, always a pleasure, thank you for joining me tonight.

JB: No, thanks for having me, glad to do it.

HH: Two big issues, and I’ll come to the one about our looming confrontation with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, but I’ve been talking yesterday and today about the reauthorization and reform of the Export-Import Bank. And I was reading up on the Chinese Export-Import Bank, and their China Development Bank, which together made loans of $110 billion dollars over the last, in ’09 and ’10, and who knows how much in the last few years. Are we crazy to be disarming in soft power areas like the Export-Import Bank by letting it die, Mr. Ambassador?

JB: Well, I wouldn’t do it unilaterally, and I’d have to say my experience with export credits like this, which is what the guarantees and loans and so on amount to goes back to my days in the Reagan administration at the Agency for International Development, where the policy of the Reagan administration was that we’d be prepared to eliminate all these export credits if everybody else did, too. In other words, that everybody would give up this, basically this subsidy for their domestic industries. And I still think that’s the right thing to do. A subsidy for exports is kind of the reverse of a tariff. And the way you eliminate tariffs, not because it’s the most sensible economic thing to do, but because politically, internationally, it’s the only way to get it done, is if everybody lays down their weapons at the same time, their economic weapons. And we’ve got a mechanism to do that. That’s what I would do. But I would not eliminate the Export-Import Bank until everybody, the Europeans is where we were concerned back then. But now the Chinese, same thing, and I’d go a step further. I think it’s time to privatize the multilateral development banks – the World Bank, the Asia Development Bank and so on, with the possible exception of the African Development Bank, where I think it may still serve a useful function. But I’d eliminate, I wouldn’t eliminate them, I’d privatize all the regional development banks and the World Bank, too. Continue Reading

Rep. Stephen Fincher On Reforming And Reauthorizing Export-Import Bank

Wednesday, April 29, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Tennessee Representative Stephen Fincher joined me to lay out the conservative case for re-authorizing the Export-Import Bank.  At a time of incredible national security challenges it is simply nuts to unilaterally disarm in an area of intense interest to the People’s Republic of China, and hurting thousands of small American businesses in the course of doing so and endangering more than 150,000 American manufacturing jobs:

Audio:

04-28hhs-fincher

Transcript:

HH: I am pleased to welcome now to the Hugh Hewitt Show Representative Stephen Fincher from Tennessee. Representative Fincher, welcome, it’s great to have you on.

SF: Thank you, Hugh, appreciate you taking time for us.

HH: Now I understand you are from one of the more unusually named cities in Tennessee. What is the name of that city?

SF: I am, Hugh. I am from a little place in the western part of the state called Frog Jump.

HH: I just love that. So I am always going to have you on as the Congressman from Frog Jump. But I actually wanted to have you on because you’re also the Congressman who’s trying to bring some sanity to this debate over the Export-Import Bank by reforming and reauthorizing as opposed to killing it. Can you explain to us what you’re doing?

SF: Absolutely, Hugh. You know, the answer to our problems, I think one key answer to our problems in this country is connected to jobs, jobs, jobs. If we’re going to be able to succeed as a country and get out of the hole that we’re in, it’s all about people working and job creation. The Export-Import Bank is a great investment that provides jobs for thousands of people all over our districts. It makes us very competitive globally by allowing people from all over the world to buy U.S. products. It is an investment that returns money to the Treasury every year, Hugh, $674 million dollars last year, over $5 billion dollars in the last 20 years. And so what we’re doing is we said what do our folks at home, the people that elect us, want us to do in Washington? They want us to make the government smaller, more accountable, more transparent. But Hugh, they don’t send us up here to shut the world down. They send us up here to make it work for them. And this is an investment out of all of the things that people find wrong with Washington in government, this is one that with reforms actually helps folks all over this country. And what we’re doing is we have 31 common sense reforms. We allow the bank to, you know, earnings retention is part of this, audits, gap accounting, we’re strengthening the charter, making statutory changes. So we just think this is common sense. But we must have reforms, and I think we’re probably doing more in the way of reforms, Hugh, than has been done since President Reagan did many, many years ago. Continue Reading

Page 1 of 33501 2 3 4 3,350
Advertisement
Invite Hugh to Speak
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top
Nepal Earthquake: Every $1 saves a life