<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5af07bf719ee8627008b49b3-2400/ap17311390462896.jpg" border="0" alt="Satya Nadella" data-mce-source="AP" /></div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/microsoft">Microsoft</a> changed its terms of use for its <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/linkedin">LinkedIn</a> Learning career training courses for library patrons. </li><li>LinkedIn Learning was formerly the Lynda.com training site, which offers thousands of courses on personal development, career skills and tech skills.</li><li>For many years it has allowed libraries to let patrons access its catalog with a library card and a pin number.</li><li>But Microsoft now owns Lynda.com and says users must register for a LinkedIn profile, with name and email, and use that to log in, allowing Microsoft to gather data on them.</li><li>Libraries spoke out that the new rules violate their patrons' privacy and may even violate some state laws. Library computers are most used by those below the poverty line, a study from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation once found.</li><li>Microsoft, citing safety concerns, responded to the criticism by telling libraries they can either abide by its new rules or stop offering its career training courses to their patrons.</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/prime">Click here for more BI Prime stories</a>.</li></ul>All summer long, some of the nation's premier librarians have<a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/library-privacy/"> publicly clashed with Microsoft</a>. The dispute involves Microsoft's move to change the rules for using a career development and training website it owns - a change the that the libraries say violates people's privacy.The website, previously known as Lynda.com, offers thousands of online classes on topics like personal branding, marketing, software development and Web development. It's been available to library patrons for 20 years. Today Lynda.com is know as LinkedIn Learning.That's because in 2015, Lynda.com was acquired by LinkedIn. And a year later, in 2016, Microsoft acquired LinkedIn. For three years after Microsoft owned the training site, it allowed library patrons to access the Lynda/LinkedIn learning catalog of online classes the way they always have, with just their library card a pin. But in June, Microsoft changed course and announced that all library users would have to sign up for a LinkedIn account and hand over at least their name and email, if not a fully filled out profile, in order to use the Lynda training materials. Read: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fear-detection-age-ranges-added-facial-recognition-rekognition-tech-2019-8">Amazon adds fear detection and age ranges to its facial-recognition tech as the Border Patrol looks to award a $950 million contract</a>The libraries were not pleased. They pointed out that requiring library users to register and identify themselves to Microsoft violates not only the librarians sacred principals of privacy - that your library usage patterns are private - but in some cases the law. California has a state law that says in part: "All patron use records of any library ... shall remain confidential," Greg Lucas, State Librarian of California, pointed out in his <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/library-privacy/">editorial about this change.</a>Librarians argued that by registering on LinkedIn, library patrons will be making themselves publicly searchable, by default, on the internet. Microsoft replied that LinkedIn users are free to find and apply LinkedIn's privacy settings, including the one that keeps a LinkedIn profile from being found by search engines Bing and Google.Such privacy settings, however, do not keep a person's information given to LinkedIn from being seen and used by LinkedIn itself, and by association by Microsoft. In fact, LinkedIn's <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement">terms of service</a> makes it clear that sharing data with the company gives the company the right to use it for things like serving ads. Microsoft uses free accounts to try and upsell people to paid accounts. <h2>Take it or leave</h2>In July, both <a href="http://www.ala.org/news/member-news/2019/07/ala-urges-linkedin-learning-reconsider-changes-terms-service-impair-library">the American Library Association</a> and the California State Library recommended that libraries stop offering Lynda to their patrons.A library activism site called Every Library followed the developments. It <a href="https://action.everylibrary.org/linkedin">reported that</a>, "Erin Berman, Chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee's Privacy Subcommittee visited the LinkedIn headquarters in San Francisco and met with their product team. She exchanged abundant emails with their staff, trying to find a workable solution that met the ethical requirements of libraries."Even so, <a href="https://learning.linkedin.com/blog/whats-new/update--linkedin-learning-and-libraries">in early August,</a> Microsoft doubled down and told the libraries that it wasn't going to modify its rules.Read: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/teacher-of-year-teaches-bill-gates-to-cook-a-chicken-2019-8">Bill Gates just learned how to cook a chicken thanks to Washington's Teacher of the Year</a>It posted a second message in which it explained, "We've listened to feedback from the library community and want to provide some additional background on why we are making these changes. ... Profiles help us ensure we give our members a safe, trusted environment where they can interact with real people."If libraries didn't like this new term, it added, they were free to find a catalog of training courses elsewhere. "We deeply respect their position and understand if they choose to not use LinkedIn Learning," that blog post said.A Microsoft spokesperson also <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-moving-lynda-com-users-to-linkedin-learning-and-not-everyones-happy-about-it/">told ZDNet's Mary Joe Foley</a> that the company wasn't insisting that all users of LinkedIn Learnings create LinkedIn accounts. Those corporate and higher education customers, aka companies that paid premium subscription prices, weren't being held to the same new requirement.This is because it trusted those customers' own technology to determine who the users were. "Corporate and higher education customers as they offer authentication solutions that are very difficult to compromise," the spokesperson said.To reiterate: Microsoft was forbidding libraries to allow access to training videos with a library card and pin, because it didn't know who the users were. It didn't think it was "safe" to allow these users to continue to access these services, even though it had been providing access to these resources for decades.Microsoft never really explained what the safety implications were.Microsoft didn't acknowledge that a LinkedIn account isn't a foolproof method of identifying people. Microsoft has admitted that LinkedIn had a pretty big fake user profile problem, though it is cracking down on that. It said that between January and June it removed 21.6 million fake accounts and prevented another 19.5 million fake accounts.<h2>The impact is on the poorest people</h2>But there's something even more sad and baffling about this situation. Think about the socio-economic status of the people who rely on library computers. Particularly if they are coming to the library to take a career development course. A 2010 study <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36027525/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/third-americans-use-library-computers/#.XWQQGZNKi3U">paid for by the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation</a> found that people living below the federal poverty line had the highest use of library computers. This is the third time this summer that Microsoft has been called out by trying to increase its monetization on populations that it has traditionally offered bargains to. This includes <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-cern-is-yanking-out-microsoft-2019-6">ratcheting up fees on CERN</a>, the scientific research organization that found the 'God Particle' and where the Web was invented. Those fees were so high CERN has vowed to ditch all its Microsoft tech and teach others how to do so as well.It also changed a term that would force its reseller business partners to start paying high prices for Microsoft software. A backlash on that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-backtracks-on-its-policy-to-charge-resellers-for-software-2019-7">caused Microsoft to change its mind</a> and rescind the new fee structure.And now it is telling libraries that it won't let patrons continue to use its LinkedIn training materials, like they have for 20 years, unless patrons sign up for a LinkedIn account and allows Microsoft to gather data on them, even if such tracking may violate some state laws.All of this comes via the backdrop of a change of heart from the Business Roundtable, one of the most powerful pro-corporate lobbying organizations. Earlier this month the group changed the definition of the purpose of a corporation. No longer is its primary purpose to return maximum profit to its shareholders, they said. A corporation's current purpose is to "benefit of all stakeholders - customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders."Some 181 CEOs of the nation's largest companies signed that definition including the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, BlackRock, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, and Walmart.Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella previously <a href="https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/1164897578980429825">told Business Insider,</a> "I think it is important for companies like ours to have a set a principals that governs some of the most important things like privacy, security or immigration and take a stand."But guess who isn't a member of the Business Roundtable and didn't sign the recent statement? Satya Nadella.Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Get the latest Microsoft stock price<a href="http://markets.businessinsider.com/stock/MSFT-Quote"> here.</a>

Microsoft's long fight with public libraries looks even worse in the new era of socially conscious businesses

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5ad0d7b8146e711f008b4826-2000/gettyimages-945356948.jpg" border="0" alt="Donald Trump" data-mce-source="Chris Kleponis - Pool/Getty Images" data-mce-caption="Donald Trump." />Chris Kleponis - Pool/Getty ImagesDonald Trump.</div></div></div><ul><li>Developments in multiple cases involving President Donald Trump and his associates prove the legal system is working.</li><li>Trump is in a great deal of trouble.</li><li>That's because the machinery of justice is operating as it should, even when Trump tries to intervene.</li></ul><hr /> A lot of people are depressed, but I find the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-fbi-raids-trump-lawyer-office-stormy-daniels-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal events</a> of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-justice-department-raid-on-trump-lawyer-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">last week or so</a> very hopeful.Recent events demonstrate, despite the fact that our <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="politics">politics</keyword> currently <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-avenatti-bio-lawyer-representing-stormy-daniels-2018-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">center on a hush payment to a porn star</a> and the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/james-comey-trump-pee-tape-real-book-interview-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">question of whether there is a "pee tape,"</a> that we are not a banana republic.We are a nation of laws, where the porn star and the president and his associates all get their days in court.We are a nation where the Justice Department can and does obtain a search warrant for the premises of the president's own personal lawyer - as long as the Justice Department goes though an appropriate legal process, and even when its doing so is sure to make the president very, very angry at the people he hired to run the Justice Department.These recent developments have proceeded in a manner that undermines both pro-Trump and anti-Trump narratives around our legal system.President Donald Trump is in a great deal of trouble - not mainly because of who is in charge of the Justice Department, but because the machinery of justice as a whole appears to operating as it is supposed to, even when specific controls on that machinery are controlled by Trump's own appointees.<h2>The system is bureaucratic, and it is working</h2>Consider the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-fbi-raids-trump-lawyer-office-stormy-daniels-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raid on the hotel room and offices of Trump's personal lawyer</a>, Michael Cohen. These raids arose out of a referral from the office of the special counsel (that is, Robert Mueller) but were:<ul><li>Sought by the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York;</li><li>Approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein;</li><li>And authorized by a magistrate judge.</li></ul>Rosenstein is Trump's nominee, thought you might forget that given the president's <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/rod-rosenstein-fired-prepared-trump-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">near-constant raging against him</a>. The interim US Attorney for the SDNY, Geoffrey Berman, is also a Trump appointee, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-michael-cohen-geoffrey-berman-recused-himself-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">though he is recused from this case</a> - again, an example of the bureaucracy behaving as it is supposed to.This isn't a case of Mueller behaving like <a href="http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Inspector_Javert" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Inspector Javert</a> and looking through anybody's files he wants. It's a case of him setting off an arms-length process which led to a diverse group of officials deciding the correct course of action was a highly unusual raid not just on any lawyer, but the president's lawyer.Criminal defense attorney Ken White <a href="https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/09/the-search-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-office-what-we-can-infer-immediately/">has a useful post</a> laying out how high the hurdles must have been to get such raids approved, and why the president should be very concerned that they were met.The distributed nature of this system creates a problem for Trump. He is not up against a conspiracy of a few political enemies, whom he can fire and replace with loyalists who will dispose of investigations that are inconvenient to him. He is up against a vast bureaucracy with a commitment to the rule of law, which has so far proved fairly resilient against his attempts to interfere.People worry a lot about the decay of legal institutions in the US. But if we had really become a banana republic, it would have been impossible for these raids to happen.<h2>Because the system works, Trump can't save himself through firings</h2>Based on the news reports this week, the Cohen raids have Trump ranting and raving about whom he might fire.But last time he went that route, with James Comey, it backfired, because the resilient bureaucracy responded as it was supposed to - including through the appointment of the special counsel now bedeviling the president.Paul Rosenzweig, a former Bush administration official now with the right-of-center R Street Institute think tank, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/firing-rosenstein/557891/">lays out some reasons in The Atlantic</a> why firing either Mueller or Rosenstein would similarly fail to advance the president's interests:<ul><li>Firing the special counsel doesn't end the investigation. When Richard Nixon got his own special prosecutor fired, he was just replaced with another one. Even if there were no new special counsel, you could expect investigations to continue through other arms of the DOJ - in fact, that's already happening, with the Cohen matter being handled by the office of the US Attorney for the SDNY.</li><li>Firing Rosenstein doesn't improve Trump's ability to interfere in the investigation, because Rosenstein's important powers with regard to the investigation are not in his capacity as deputy attorney general, but in his capacity as acting attorney general for matters from which Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself. Per Rosenzweig, if Trump fired Rosenstein and named an acting deputy to replace him, those specific powers would pass not to the new, acting DAG but to the next-highest-ranking, Senate-confirmed official in the Department of Justice: that is, Solicitor General Noel Francisco. And there's no particular reason to assume Francisco would be more helpful to Trump than Rosenstein has been.</li></ul>Of course, the president might do it anyway. The president is not always a rational actor in his own best interests.But if I were to bet, I would bet on Rosenstein and Mueller keeping their jobs.<h2>Trump's strategy shows he has resigned himself to being investigated - and that should worry his associates</h2>Since the president set off a firestorm by firing Comey, he has mostly shifted to a public-relations strategy of trying to discredit the findings of any investigators, rather than actually stopping them from working.As a sitting president, Trump is highly unlikely to be indicted, whatever the special counsel finds. It will be up to Congress to act in response to Mueller's findings, or not. And so the president's fate is a political question, and he has set about ensuring his base deems any claims from Mueller to be the result of a "witch hunt."For example, on Wednesday, Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984231791103012864">urged Americans through Twitter</a> to tune into "Hannity." Why? Well it turned out Joseph DiGenova, a lawyer, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-digenova-trump-fox-news-sessions-should-fire-rosenstein-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was going on the show to say</a> Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a responsibility to fire Rosenstein.Not Trump. Sessions.Of course, Sessions isn't going to do that. (If anybody is going to fire Rosenstein, it's Trump.) But Trump wants the public-relations message out there: Rosenstein is illegitimate, he should go, and wouldn't it be nice if someone would fire him.It's telling that Trump wants people to watch DiGenova on television, but that he considered hiring DiGenova as his own attorney and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/us/politics/trump-digenova-toensing.html">decided against it</a>. What it tells us is Trump sees DiGenova's rantings as a public-relations message, not a legal strategy.The tough fact for Cohen is that protection against indictment does not extend to the friends and associates and personal lawyers of a sitting president. Cohen, whom the US Attorney's office <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-criminal-investigation-trump-mueller-probe-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says is under criminal investigation</a>, may be tried in a court of law, so he can't rely on a strategy that's aimed at the court of public <keyword id="6356002" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="opinion">opinion</keyword>.And while Trump may have pardoned Scooter Libby <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-pardons-scooter-libby-message-to-mueller-allies-2018-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in an effort to send a message</a> to Cohen that a pardon awaits him, too, Cohen has done enough business with Trump over the years that a hint at a promise from him is not necessarily worth much.He should be scared, because the system works, and he might eventually need that pardon. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/earth-north-south-poles-flip-magnetic-field-2018-4">What will happen when Earth's north and south poles flip</a></h3> <div> <iframe class="bijwplayerclass" data-player="jwplayer" src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/LydlJqph-CEZHWCBG.html" width="100%" height="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" style="margin:0px;" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><script>function receiveMessage(event){ console.log(event.data.fullscreen); Android.fullscreen(event.data.fullscreen); }window.addEventListener("message", receiveMessage, false);</script> </div> </div>

What should scare Trump most isn't the Deep State - it's the Regular State

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/55ca59e12acae719008bf505-4021-3016/ap_724471433232.jpg" alt="Rick Perry" data-mce-source="AP" data-mce-caption="Rick Perry">APRick Perry</img></div></div></div>Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's (R) campaign is in <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-perry-stops-paying-south-carolina-2016-campaign-staff-2015-8">deep financial trouble</a>.A week after Perry failed to qualify for the first prime-time Republican presidential debate,&#xa0;news broke that the former governor could <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ex-texas-governor-perry-cant-pay-presidential-campaign-staff-reports-2015-8">no longer afford to pay campaign staff</a>&#xa0;and would be asking his staffers to stay on as volunteers.Once a considered a serious presidential contender, Perry's inability to break through a crowded 2016 field has surprised political observers.He hasn't been able to regain the brief surge of national popularity he experienced after announcing his 2012 presidential bid, which flamed out on the heels of a monumentally <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk" target="_blank">bad&#xa0;debate</a> performance.&#xa0;"No one should underestimate the depth of the hole he wound up in during the 2012 race and how far he still has to go to climb out," prominent Republican strategist Liz Mair told Business Insider.But if there's an upside to&#xa0;not being able to pay staff and the accompanying complications, it's this: Perry may have bottomed out.He looks set to embrace the&#xa0;age-old role of the underdog, a difficult campaign strategy&#xa0;that&#xa0;has nonetheless helped lower-tier candidates launch themselves&#xa0;to the front of the pack in recent elections.&#xa0;Republican strategists&#xa0;say that&#xa0;Perry is better positioned than some of his Republican rivals to perform well in Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus next February."Perry needs to basically move to Iowa," said Matt Mackowiak, the president&#xa0;of the Potomac Strategy Group who is based part time in Austin, Texas. He advised&#xa0;Perry to&#xa0;"stay in volunteers' homes, let volunteers drive [you]&#xa0;around.""For someone who has been the governor of Texas&#xa0;for 14 years, who has become accustomed to living with comforts, it is not a comfortable way to campaign," Mackowiak told Business Insider.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/559d5b3769beddd727eccdd9-1280-784/ap_587337201262.jpg" alt="Rick Perry" data-mce-source="Cheryl Senter/AP" data-link="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/GOP-2016-Perry/acc96c67ecca422bbafd4214b13085cc/6/0"><a href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/GOP-2016-Perry/acc96c67ecca422bbafd4214b13085cc/6/0">Cheryl Senter/AP</a></img></div></div></div>Winning Iowa has long been one of the key ways that low-tier candidates can break out and build lasting momentum. For example, during the 2012 campaign,&#xa0;former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) campaigned relentlessly in Iowa, visiting&#xa0;all 99 counties and attending small events that allowed him to connect individually with voters.Republican strategists say that this type of path is now the only viable one for Perry, who is far more skilled at small-town retail <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword> than national debates."The good news for Perry is that he's very good at retail politics because he actually likes people and talking to them and is an extremely warm, caring and forthright guy, unlike some candidates for higher office," Mair said.The most significant challenge that Perry's cash shortage&#xa0;presents in the short-term may&#xa0;be psychological. Voters - and donors - tend to favor candidates who they know can win, and Perry's poor fundraising performance is making his campaign appear weak."It&#xa0;looks like he's a candidate headed in the wrong direction. There&#xa0;are enough candidates headed in the right direction that donors might be hesitant," Mackowiak&#xa0;said.But&#xa0;the changed landscape following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision has allowed candidates to theoretically stay in the race much longer, through the unlimited contributions that large donors can make to the so-called super PACs supporting individual candidates.Perry's super PACs - which are&#xa0;in much better financial shape than his actual campaign - are&#xa0;poised to&#xa0;pick up some of the slack that official&#xa0;campaigns traditionally shouldered, including outreach and mailing to voters. Those groups amassed nearly $17 million in the first quarter of fundraising. But federal law bars any of the groups from coordinating directly with the Perry campaign.Nevertheless, Austin Barbour, a senior adviser to all three organizations, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/perry-super-pac-head-weve-been-planning-pay-freeze-weeks-n407881" target="_blank">told NBC</a>&#xa0;that he has been anticipating the pay freeze for "weeks" and that the groups are prepared to take over some of the normal campaign operations.Though Perry's campaign manager <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/10/rick-perry-stops-paying-his-south-carolina-staff-as-fundraising-dries-up/">said he understood if staffers decided to seek other jobs</a>, the governor's&#xa0;team has remained publicly defiant.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">Team Perry Crew isn't going anywhere. All 400 of us.- Emily R. Berman (@EmilyRBerman1) <a href="https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/631123453932756992">August 11, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>And the Texas governor&#xa0;is far from the only candidate with financial problems.Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is also <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/as-jindal-and-huckabee-struggle-with-fundraising-super-pacs-bolster-tallies/">struggling to raise cash,</a>&#xa0;and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) is in <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-fundraising-debate-woes-rick-santorums-presidential-bid/">even worse shape than Perry.</a>"Perry is the first candidate that is in this situation, but he's certainly not going to be the last," Mackowiak&#xa0;said.&#xa0;&#xa0; <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-personal-side-nicole-miller-2015-8">Fashion designer Nicole Miller reveals what Donald Trump is really like</a></h3> <div> <div> <script src="http://player.ooyala.com/v3/6e12e8b3387a44daacfb73afba25a76e"></script> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="dpMnJydjrXsq2Usk15Mr8HWRc0x5MQTA" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> <script> if (typeof RunFunctions === 'undefined') { var RunFunctions = []; } RunFunctions.push(function() { var ooyalapopvideo = OO.Player.create('ooyalaplayer_popvideo', 'dpMnJydjrXsq2Usk15Mr8HWRc0x5MQTA',{ autoplay: 'false' }); }); </script> <noscript><div>Please enable Javascript to watch this video</div></noscript></div> </div> <script>(function() { function createPlayer() { OO.ready(function() { RunFunctions.forEach(function(ooyalaFunction) { ooyalaFunction(); }); RunFunctions = [];}); } createPlayer(); }()); </script> </div>

Rick Perry needs to go all-in on one key state to get out of his deep, deep trouble

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5a8b2a17d0307282048b4696-1305/gettyimages-917434382.jpg" alt="Donald Trump" data-mce-source="Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images" data-mce-caption="Donald Trump.">Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesDonald Trump.</img></div></div></div><ul><li>President Donald Trump had one of his most rambunctious weekends in months.</li><li>He went on a huge Russia tweetstorm. </li><li>He was in Florida on the heels of the Parkland school shooting. </li><li>Trump visited victims and first responders to the violent attack, and his response to the shooting earned criticism.</li></ul><hr> President Donald Trump had one of his most rambunctious weekends in months over the Presidents Day holiday, ranting at length about everything from the Russia investigations to Oprah Winfrey.In three days, Trump:<ul><li><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fbi-florida-school-shooting-russia-investigation-collusion-far-right-twitter-theory-2018-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alleged that the FBI was unable to follow up</a> on the suspected Florida high school shooter because the organization was too busy investigating his campaign for possible ties to Russia;</li><li>Blasted "Liddle" Adam Schiff, the 'leakin' monster" and ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee;</li><li>Said Moscow was "laughing their asses off" at the discord Russian electoral interference helped sow in the US;</li><li>And went after a "very insecure" Oprah Winfrey, the mogul who has been rumored to be considering a 2020 presidential bid.</li></ul>Trump also raised eyebrows during his visits with victims and first responders of the Florida shooting, and he took aim at former President Barack Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton related to the Russia investigation.The weekend was a far cry <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-change-in-demeanor-2018-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">from his start to the year,</a>&#xa0;when Trump stayed conspicuously quiet on Twitter while staying on message during a series of high-profile speeches and events.<h2>'I would have said without me, they never would have found him'</h2>Trump began his weekend trip to Florida by stopping by the nearby Broward County community torn by the nation's latest deadly mass shooting. 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz is suspected of fatally shooting 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-speech-florida-school-shooting-majory-stoneman-douglas-2018-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In an address</a> to the nation on Thursday, Trump sought to speak directly to "America's children" and said "it is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference."So he headed south to Parkland, Florida, Friday to meet with victims and first responders, whom he effusively praised."Incredible job, and everybody is talking about it," Trump said of the response as he was surrounded by dozens of officers at the Broward County Sheriff's Office.He called the officers' response time an "incredible thing" and suggested that the law enforcement agents who responded to the shooting deserve a raise. In another exchange, Michael Leonard, the officer who located Cruz and handcuffed him, spent roughly 15 seconds explaining how he and his team apprehended the shooter.Trump joked that, if he caught the shooter, he would have taken much more credit."That was so modest. I would have told it much differently," Trump said. "I would have said without me, they never would have found him."Trump posted photos on his Instagram account from his visit to the hospital, where he met with shooting victims, their families, and medical staff.Some thought the light-hearted mood was inappropriate for a presidential follow-up on one of the deadliest school shootings in US history.Others, including some Trump supporters, took issue with criticism, pointing to family members who smiled in one photo.<h2>'They are laughing their asses off in Moscow'</h2>In a press conference announcing the special counsel Robert Mueller's indictments against 13 Russian individuals, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said there was "no allegation in the indictment" that an American knowingly participated in the alleged crimes.That sentence led Trump to claim vindication in the whole affair. The indictments, however, did not touch on the election-related hacking, such as when the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta had their emails stolen and leaked through channels like WikiLeaks.On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, Trump dug in on the Russia news - offering up one of his lengthiest tweetstorms in months.The president suggested Saturday that the indictments proved he or his campaign couldn't have been involved in a Russian effort to meddle in an election because the effort began in 2014, which was at least six months before he would announce his bid for the presidency in June 2015."Funny how the Fake News Media doesn't want to say that the Russian group was formed in 2014, long before my run for President," <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964949269374529538" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he wrote</a>. "Maybe they knew I was going to run even though I didn't know!"This line of defense was questioned by some who noted that Trump had been considering his bid for the presidency long before that June 2015 announcement.Trump fired off another 10 tweets on the subject through the end of the holiday weekend."I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said 'it may be Russia, or China or another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer,'" Trump tweeted early Sunday morning. "The Russian 'hoax' was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia - it never did!"<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5a8b8aecd030721c008b464e-701/trump-on-twitter-feb-19---presidents-day-russian-meddling.jpg" alt="U.S. President Donald Trump walks to Marine One departing for travel to Florida from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis" data-mce-source="Thomson Reuters" data-mce-caption="U.S. President Donald Trump walks to Marine One departing for travel to Florida from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington">Thomson ReutersTrump.</img></div></div></div>Trump insisted that the Russians "succeeded beyond their wildest dreams" in creating discord in the US."They are laughing their asses off in Moscow," he continued. "Get smart America!"The indictments described the internet tactics of several Russian-based operatives who sought to interfere in the 2016 presidential election through various social media operations that encouraged voters to support Trump, independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.In response, Trump's national security adviser H.R. McMaster <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/17/586803847/mcmaster-says-evidence-of-russia-meddling-incontrovertible" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> evidence Russia interfered in the election was "incontrovertible."That led Trump to scold his top adviser. McMaster, he said, "forgot to say" the electoral results "were not impacted or changed by the Russians."Then he took aim at the FBI, echoing&#xa0;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt-fbi-look-into-nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-2018-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one of the most prominent conspiracies</a> swirling on some parts of the right wing. He claimed the FBI "missed" the Florida school shooter because it was investigating his campaign for ties to Russia."Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter," he wrote Saturday just before midnight. "This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!"Not only does the FBI have more than 35,000 employees and run hundreds of investigations simultaneously, but the special counsel's investigation is being run outside of the main Justice Department. Promoting the theory runs in line with Trump's repeated allegation that leaders within the DOJ and FBI hold anti-Trump biases.Continuing the tweetstorm Sunday morning, Trump responded to an interview from Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff said the Obama administration should have acted more forcefully in responding to alleged Russian election interference when first made aware of the intelligence community's assessment prior to the November 2016 vote."Finally, Liddle' Adam B. Schiff, the leakin' monster of no control, is now blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted early Sunday morning. "He is finally right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"<div> <iframe src="//instagram.com/p/BfSO1z6gpaB/embed/" width="658" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"> </iframe></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">The president's new Twitter banner is a photo of him smiling and giving a thumbs up while meeting tonight with police officers who responded to the massacre of 17 people, most of them students, at a high school in Parkland <a href="https://t.co/3NoH95CqKQ">pic.twitter.com/3NoH95CqKQ</a>- Mark Berman (@markberman) <a href="https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/964737911710199808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2018</a></blockquote><script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">Trump's meeting with the first responders was a somber occasion to reflect on a national tragedy. It is now his twitter handle photo, in which he's smiling with his thumbs up.- Sam Stein (@samstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/964874997578850314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2018</a></blockquote><script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">So if Trump is terrible for smiling in the hospital, are you also going to level the same charge against this victim and her entire family? <a href="https://t.co/GYymaKkEoc">pic.twitter.com/GYymaKkEoc</a>- Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) <a href="https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/964907875599552513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2018</a></blockquote><script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">On January 21, 2014, Trump made his first waters-testing visit to New Hampshire. I was there <a href="https://t.co/SKAknWdAzV">https://t.co/SKAknWdAzV</a> <a href="https://t.co/MuORdzqphh">https://t.co/MuORdzqphh</a>- Mike Memoli (@mikememoli) <a href="https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/964949777749303297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2018</a></blockquote><script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-cofounder-on-how-to-really-make-america-great-patrisse-cullors-trayvon-martin-2018-2">How to make America great - according to one of the three cofounders of Black Lives Matter</a></h3> <div> <iframe class="bijwplayerclass" data-player="jwplayer" src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/w8oWzdDA-CEZHWCBG.html" width="100%" height="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" style="margin:0px;" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><script>function receiveMessage(event){ console.log(event.data.fullscreen); Android.fullscreen(event.data.fullscreen); }window.addEventListener("message", receiveMessage, false);</script> </div> </div></hr>

Trump just had his wildest weekend in months

<img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/58866821ee14b63e338b7cb6-2003/undefined" alt="Bill Cassidy" />Paul Morigi/Getty ImagesSen. Bill Cassidy.Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana has been around healthcare for a long time, but he hadn't made it to a late-night show to talk about it until now.Cassidy's suggestion that any new GOP healthcare bill pass the "Jimmy Kimmel test" - named after the late-night host, who gave an <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jimmy-kimmel-son-video-obamacare-repeal-2017-5">impassioned speech</a> about his newborn son's open-heart surgery and US healthcare policy - led to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jimmy-kimmel-test-gop-healthcare-bill-ahca-2017-5">an appearance on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"</a> on May 8.While Cassidy is not a member of the Senate working committee devising a new healthcare bill, the appearance on Kimmel's show has helped shine a light on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/cassidy-collins-obamacare-replacement-bill-2017-1">a proposal</a> from Cassidy and Sen. Susan Collins.Cassidy is a medical doctor specializing in treating liver diseases, and he has helped to open a free clinic for the working poor in Louisiana.Cassidy spoke with Business Insider about the appearance, healthcare policy, and President Donald Trump's recent firing of FBI Director James Comey.This interview has been edited for length and clarity.Bob Bryan: You've been involved in healthcare reform for a long time, but you've never been on a late-night show for it. I was wondering how it came to be that you went from proposing the "Jimmy Kimmel test" to being on air with Jimmy?Bill Cassidy: I think it started on a Sunday morning show when I was asked by [CNN's] John Berman - I think it was a Sunday morning show, or maybe Saturday, I forgot which - but asked, "How would you know the adequacy of coverage?" which is clearly one of Trump's contract points with the American voter, that he wanted to lower premiums.You can lower premiums in a variety of ways, but one way to lower premiums is to just give people lousy coverage. So the thought occurred to me in that moment, just kind of spontaneously, "Well, there's Jimmy Kimmel - his son had all the coverage he needed."Now, in that circumstance, perhaps anybody's son would, because there is Children's Hospital Los Angeles nearby. But we know there are other conditions where that's not the case. So the question in the Jimmy Kimmel test - the coverage does not have to have bells and whistles - but does the coverage cover a tragedy that could occur in someone's health or to a loved one? So I coined the Jimmy Kimmel test. For whatever reason, it went viral, and that led to a conversation with the "Jimmy Kimmel" show folks.Bryan: The Jimmy Kimmel test in part focuses on preexisting conditions, and right now House Republicans that passed the American Health Care Act have talked about "layers of protection" for those people. They say <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-healthcare-bill-changes-house-vote-2017-5">the MacArthur Amendment</a> says no one can be denied. They say there are layers of coverage. Do you believe there are enough protections for preexisting conditions in the AHCA? And if there are gaps in those layers, how would you fill those in?Cassidy: Ultimately, to address the issue of preexisting conditions and conditions that suddenly occur - for example, you develop a preexisting condition when something terrible happens, imagine you get hepatitis, your liver fails, and you get a liver transplant. You went from being healthy to having a liver transplant to now having a preexisting condition.The way to most effectively do that, the only way you can control expense, is to have a larger risk pool, that person who is sick is in the midst of a lot of other people that tend to be healthy.Now within that group, you can do reinsurance of some sort that would mitigate the cost of an individual patient. But ultimately, you need a big risk pool.I use the example of ExxonMobil. They have 50,000 employees, give or take, and if one person gets sick - say, the liver transplant I just mentioned - it hardly affects premiums at all, if at all, because you're spreading that expense over so many people. Spreading over so many people is the way insurance always works.Now you can have a different layer here or a different layer there, but ultimately, if you don't have a big enough risk pool, it is going to be very expensive care highly concentrated among those that are really expensive, and that's not the way to go.<img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/58f8bd110ba0b896008b4b3b-1844/undefined" alt="Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube ABC final" />YouTube/ABCCassidy came up with the "Jimmy Kimmel test" for healthcare reform.Bryan: You talk about widening the risk pool. How would you open up the risk pool? One way the Affordable Care Act tried to do it was to use the individual mandate to penalize people. You are not a supporter of the individual mandate, so how would you incentivize people to come into that risk pool?Cassidy: One thing I've talked about, and it's in the Cassidy-Collins plan ... we suggest using what we use in Medicare. When I turn 55, I'm going to be on Medicare. I can call up and tell them I don't want to be on Medicare, but otherwise, I'll be on Medicare. So they use this kind of automatic enrollment. We give states the option of automatically enrolling those who are eligible.We do it for other things like 401(k)s. Research shows that if a business automatically enrolls somebody with an opt out, they get 95% enrollment. If it's an opt in, they start out with 54% enrollment. And this is when a business is doing a match. So we just think that sort of opt-out provision from the business community works well.Bryan: More conservative voices have criticized auto-enrollment because auto-enrollment is forcing people onto insurance and government shouldn't force people to have something they don't want. What would your response be to that?Cassidy: They must not have heard me say that you can call up if you don't want to be. How is it forcing if all I have to do is call up and say I don't want to be? How is it forcing if all I have to do is make a phone call and tell them to take me off? I think it'd be incredibly stupid on something that is most obviously not an issue.Bryan: Another concern with the AHCA, especially the MacArthur Amendment, was the possible repeal of essential health benefits. Some advocates for it say plans with lower actuarial values will bring down costs. What are your thoughts about removing some of those essential health benefits?Cassidy: I think the better alternative is what we do in the Cassidy-Collins plan, in which those who are eligible for a credit would get a credit sufficient for an annual premium. They would get a pre-funded health savings account, so money would be deposited into the HSA and they would get a high-deductible health plan on top of it.Now, if you look at current law, current law says a high-deductible health plan has to cover significant benefits, which is taken to mean, for example, hospitalization.One thing that has not been established is whether HSAs or high-deductible health plans are to cover mental illness and addiction, so that was the only essential health benefits that we included. But aside from that, we think you could end up with the same sort of coverage.I will point out that once you pre-fund health savings accounts, someone can pay for their colonoscopy, or for their Pap smear, or for their cholesterol check with the HSA. That's what it's there for. So we think we cover that, but we do it in a cost-effective way.<img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5913203473f2f32d028b518b-2400/gettyimages-491536654.jpg" alt="bill cassidy" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSen. Bill CassidyBryan: In terms of costs-sharing-reduction payments - something that the insurers have said they need to see going forward to offer plans in 2018 - are you in favor of the Trump administration continuing to offer these CSR payments? In addition, would you be in favor of a congressional appropriation to remove the uncertainty surrounding the lawsuit regarding those payments?Cassidy: Legally, I agree with the lawsuit, so I think whatever the president does he should do with Congress to make sure it passes constitutional law, that it passes constitutional muster.No. 2, remember President Trump's contract with voters, the four points he said over and over: He said we're going to care for those with preexisting conditions, we're going to eliminate mandates, and we're going to lower costs. Which I think most voters took to mean we're going to lower premiums, not a better Congressional Budget Office score.At least in the interim, Obamacare is such a mess - the only way you're going to keep premiums from totally exploding next year is to continue the CSR payments. If we decide we don't care about premiums next year because we can blame it on Obamacare, that's fine, but we're going to recognize that premiums are going to increase by 40% or more.So maybe that's what it takes to get Democrats to the table. This process has become much more difficult because they don't seem to care about people paying $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 in premiums. As a negotiating ploy, I can't say anything about it.Legally speaking, we've got to work to get a replacement, and that's what we have to keep families from being damaged.Bryan: In terms of those two elements, though, President Trump has said the most easy political path is to let Obamacare collapse, but then you also talk about his contract with the American voter. Does using skyrocketing premiums by removing CSR payments as a negotiating tactic jibe with President Trump's contract with the voters to lower their costs?Cassidy: At some point, you've got to react to the circumstances you're in. I think the president is not the czar. The Constitution says certain things, and frankly, I think constitutionally, Congress has to appropriate. So far, Democrats have not done anything to help on this issue, so if they refuse to help, then the president has to deal with a very difficult process in the House. So there is a political reality. So I cut the president slack in that regard.Bryan: The Senate is working on its own version of a healthcare bill. Is there a sense of a deadline that the Senate wants to meet? Especially considering insurers are facing deadlines to submit their plans for 2018.Cassidy: All due haste, we want to not live forever on this issue, but we want to fully consider it. I know that's not a definite, like saying by September 8, for example. But with all due haste - I mean, how long does it take to understand this issue and make a decision going forward and then have it scored by the CBO and passed? That's obviously going to take some time, but I can't tell you how long.<img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/591491e21442933b048b4581-2400/gettyimages-678692336.jpg" alt="trump mark meadows paul ryan" />Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesTrump with Paul Ryan and Mark Meadows, the head of the House Freedom Caucus.Bryan: You mentioned the CBO. The House moved toward with the AHCA despite not having a CBO score for the Upton and MacArthur amendments. Do you feel that every step of the process in the Senate needs a CBO score, or do you feel there are times you could go without it?Cassidy: By law, I'm told we have to have a CBO score before we vote.Bryan: Looking at the process in the Senate right now, there is the working group of 13 Republican senators. There has been some criticism of the group. Yourself and Senator Collins, who produced your own bill, were not in that working group. Do you feel like the working group as it is constructed now is a fair way to go about the process? Is it an open enough process?Cassidy: I think anytime you bypass regular order in the Senate, the committees of jurisdiction, it's a little bit problematic. On the other hand, I say that if we're going to fulfill President Trump's contract with the American voter, those four points I listed earlier, then the only way you're going to get there is something like the Cassidy-Collins plan. Now, if you decide you're not going to fulfill those and you're not going to fulfill that contract, you could get something far different.And then the caveat on the lowering premium aspect is what I said as, well, the Jimmy Kimmel test: If we take the primary goal to lower premiums, is the coverage adequate if something terrible happens to someone's loved one? There's only one way to get there, to fulfill his goals and pass the Jimmy Kimmel test, and that's going to look like the Cassidy-Collins plan. That is if we're serious about that goal.Bryan: If the Senate working group comes out with a bill that fails to live up to that goal or the Jimmy Kimmel test, or does not provide enough protections for people with preexisting conditions, would you vote against it? Even if there's pressure from leadership?Cassidy: If you don't mind, I'll avoid answering hypotheticals. Not to dodge your question, but I've learned in life it's best not to do so.Bryan: You know, I had to ask the question.Cassidy: Oh, I know, but I'm a physician, and my training for however many decades has been patients would ask me questions that were almost existential, then I would have to say, "Why don't we wait and see what happens?"<img src="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/58866864ee14b6b2008b9602-2243/undefined" alt="bill cassidy" />Paul Morigi/Getty ImagesBryan: You've talked about working with Democrats. Is there serious consideration about bringing Democrats into the process? Are you currently having discussions with Democrats in the Senate about a bipartisan solution?Cassidy: Yes, I'm serious. Yes, I've spoken to Democrats. So far, there has been no one seriously interested. They're under incredible political pressure not to cooperate, but some of the parts of Cassidy-Collins require 60 votes [to avoid a filibuster]. For example, allowing price transparency so that someone would know the price of a blood test before they get it as opposed to getting a bill for $200 six months later - we need Democrats to pass because of the 60-vote threshold on such a bill.As long as they decide to be passive, stay on the sidelines, there's nothing that can be done. I'm just amazed. You become a senator not by being passive, but by being active, and all of a sudden, we've got a whole group just deciding to sit on their palms.Bryan: You talk about political pressure - is there any sense from Democrats that there are concessions that would bring them on to actually support the bill?Cassidy: I don't know. If you look at the Cassidy-Collins bill, we return power to the states. We give power to a blue state to do a blue thing. Then we give power to a red state to do a red thing. It's federalism, a conservative principle I grant, but a conservative principle that totally works to the advantage of a blue state and, oh, by the way, to a red state that happens to be represented by a Democratic senator.So I think it's frustrating because not only do I think it's a good thing for our country and our people, but in the interest of politics. That's my take on it. I think we should put patients before party.Bryan: You're in favor of protections for preexisting conditions, the elimination of caps on lifetime limits - these were all things that were part of the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, there are issues with the ACA, but overall, do you think the ACA represented a step in the right direction for the US healthcare system? Obviously, you are not a fan, but were there any positives in that bill?Cassidy: You could've accomplished the positive things in the Affordable Care Act for a fraction of the cost, in terms of tax dollars, and in terms of disruption of institutions, and in terms of economic growth. There are businesses after businesses and municipalities after municipalities that have taken full-time workers and made them part-time workers to avoid paying mandatory benefits or penalties. There's been, by some estimates, 1% per year loss to our GDP growth.The opportunity cost of Washington, DC, taking all the power from patients and states and bringing it to Washington, DC, far outweighs the benefit. You could've have done it for far less with far less disruption. So sure, you throw 3,000 pages against the wall, some of it is good. But that said, there is a tremendous cost for our economy and out people.Bryan: What are your thoughts on the firing of FBI Director James Comey by President Trump?Cassidy: Obviously, the timing looks bad, but I'm not sure there ever is good timing. Mr. Comey had become an issue, criticized both from the right and the left. At some point when you're director - I think he's a great American, by the way, who cares deeply about our country, who's passionate about our country, who tried to do a good job in an exceptionally tough situation - but when the director himself becomes the issue, that is probably a distraction from the mission of the institution.Bryan: A number of your colleagues on either side of the aisle have said that an outside investigator should take over the FBI's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. What are your thoughts on that?Cassidy: That's absurd. One, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee is doing a great job - no one has criticized the work they've done.Secondly, Comey had just testified saying there had been no evidence of everything that people are alleging.Thirdly, the idea that Comey goes away and, if there is an investigation, the investigation goes away? Comey's first meeting of the day is about his budget. The second meeting is with his HR department. The third meeting is, you know, fill in the blank. Then he's got a chief lieutenant who's doing everything, who is the point. And then on Friday afternoon, that's when Comey gets his briefing from that chief lieutenant. That chief lieutenant is still there. That chief lieutenant will still be driving that investigation. <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/video-shows-us-presidents-height-order-obama-trump-lincoln-bush-2017-4">This video shows all of the US presidents in order of height</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

'There's only one way to get there': A top GOP senator opens up on his 'Jimmy Kimmel test' for healthcare reform

Inside the rise, fall, rebound, and spectacular flameout of Anthony Scaramucci

Steel magnate Andrew Carnegie once said that he who dies leaving behind many millions will "pass away unwept, unhonored and unsung." That philosophy took root in much of the last century, with major philanthropists giving vast fortunes in their later years to libraries, museums, hospitals and other institutions devoted to the public good.
But donors today aren't taking any chances. They are flexing philanthropic muscle at a younger age than their predecessors. At many top business schools, students are integrating the practice of <keyword id="6495681" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Philanthropy">philanthropy</keyword> into education early on, and donors are often beginning to share substantial wealth long before accumulating the full measure of it.
Of the five biggest philanthropic gestures of 2012, three came from couples under the age of 40, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. A party in New York earlier this month celebrated philanthropic heroes Trump and Clinton -- Eric Trump (third child of Donald and Ivana Trump) and Chelsea Clinton (daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton) -- who were among the 20 donors under 40 honored at the New York Observer's First Annual Young Philanthropy Event.
Are business and philanthropy joining forces earlier than before because technology is trumpeting socially conscious causes into people's consciousness at a younger age? Or have the sins of Wall Street in recent years forced business to take on a more altruistic hue in order to prove to customers -- and other stakeholders -- that business can be beneficent as well as profitable?
"Business is almost trying to rebrand itself," says Wharton marketing professor <a href="https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/204/">Americus Reed</a>. "I am seeing, institutionally and in terms of overall values individually with the students, that the whole Wall Street crisis caused business schools to reevaluate their own priorities and tell a different story. It's okay to make money -- but also, give back. You don't go to Wharton, get a job on Wall Street, then go to work at a hedge fund and retire at 40. That whole M.O. (modus operandi) is out the window."
Melissa Berman, president and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, says that in the work they do, "we see that donors are not waiting to get to retirement age to start thinking about philanthropy, but are making it a much more meaningful part of their lives earlier than previous generations." For younger donors, it's not only about giving money. "I think there is a growing sense that the solutions to social problems are going to come from active engagement with nonprofits -- from contributing expertise, knowledge and networking. The question is, what else you can do besides write a check or write a check that clears after you're dead?"
Wharton management professor <a href="https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1366/">Michael Useem</a> sees many factors behind the trend toward giving back, including the example set by the enormous transfer of wealth -- tens of billions of dollars -- by investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder <keyword id="45830" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Bill-Gates">Bill Gates</keyword> to their foundations. "Their two acts have really been like thunder claps out there in terms of shaking up a world that would not normally have thought about giving away money at that level," he says. "The size of those two gifts and the impact has been just huge. And so the question is, how can you do something that might be, for you, equally consequential?"
Berman sees broader societal changes giving philanthropy a larger presence in business school. "I think that the last financial crisis as well as the Occupy Wall Street movement and Occupy around the world raised the issue of income inequality. Many people, including [those] who are not progressive at all, began to think about what that means to free enterprise."
Whatever the driver, some say the concept of giving has become core to identity. Notes Reed: "Students are saying, 'I want to be a captain of industry, but I don't want to be out there just chasing materialistic objects. I need something deeper. I need self actualization in addition to the usual metrics of success in business.'"
Philanthropy Goes to School
Many institutions these days are exposing students to social impact and philanthropy. If learning by doing teaches best, a group of students in a University of Pennsylvania urban studies class dabbled at a decidedly professional level in 2010 when they were entrusted with $100,000 -- in real money -- to give away. The funds came from the Ft. Worth, Tex.-based Once Upon A Time Foundation, which made similar grants to 12 other colleges. It allowed the class to undertake the same due diligence required of foundation and corporate-giving officers, and have real-life debates over issues like accountability and mission.
In 2011, Doris Buffett, older sister of Warren, created the Learning by Giving Foundation, which offers $10,000 grants to undergraduate courses across the U.S. to re-gift. The program perpetuates two classes of beneficiaries -- the students, who are inculcated in philanthropy by going through the process, and the end-use charities.
Dozens of MBA and undergraduate business programs now offer philanthropy studies, either as part of course work or in distinct degree programs. Thirty-five courses involving philanthropy are offered in the U.S., according to the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education. These include "Strategic Philanthropy" at Stanford, "Philanthropic Foundations" at Yale and a host of courses on marketing, ethics and organizational dynamics that integrate philanthropy into a multidisciplinary approach with public policy or other departments.
The education sector has just gotten its first freestanding school of philanthropy. Indiana University is now offering a bachelor's, master's and PhD in philanthropic studies, with the first diplomas to be handed out next month. This school -- which was started in 2012, but built on a program that began developing in 1987 -- has been renamed the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, in recognition of the pharmaceutical family's long patronage of philanthropic studies.
"If the attitude stayed, 'We're all about making money,' then business schools would be ignoring the other part of what their students are going to be out doing when they are finished with school," says Eileen R. Heisman, president and CEO of the National Philanthropic Trust, a suburban Philadelphia <keyword id="6351" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="charity">charity</keyword> and donor-advised fund with $1.7 billion under management. Graduates may land in the corporate-giving department of a bank, for instance, and need to understand the evolution that has taken place in those offices in the past decade from simply making grants to the local orchestra or museum to aligning giving with corporate goals -- a bank supporting programs of business literacy, for instance.
"Corporate giving has become more of a strategic function, which means it is to be directed by the company's interests and not by the personal preferences of top management," says Useem. "In that sense, corporate giving has become a more disciplined function. It's probably a good idea to have some course work that prepares students for that."
Some in-school strategies have attracted attention for their creativity. Wharton management professor <a href="https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1323/">Adam Grant</a> took a page from Donald Trump's TV show "The Apprentice," leading a series of philanthropy charettes for MBA, undergraduate and law students and challenging them to raise money for the Make-A-Wish Foundation through raffles, auctions of signed items from athletes, donations from restaurants and the like. The immersion experiences have spread to other colleges, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Grant -- author of a new book titled, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Give-Take-Revolutionary-Approach-Success/dp/0670026557/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1366749632&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=give+and+take">Give and Take: A Revolutionary approach to Success</a> -- has said these moments are among the most gratifying of his professional life.
"From the perspective of positive organizational scholarship, experiential activities like the Make-A-Wish challenge may enable students to develop, express, and sustain prosocial identities as giving, caring, helpful, or compassionate individuals," he wrote in a paper reflecting on the program. "The activities open up pathways for connecting with potential beneficiaries in need, mobilizing collective efforts to help these beneficiaries, and embedding these efforts in a visible, domain-specific role that translates the abstract notions of caring and compassion into more vivid, tangible behavioral acts."
"I think it was pretty powerful," says Guy Viner, 21, a Wharton junior whose team raised $12,000 last spring to send a 17-year-old Hodgkin's Lymphoma patient to the Summer Olympics in London. "It brings it down to a practical level. We tried to tell [the patient's] story to as many people as we could. He liked eating Butterfingers, so we sold Butterfingers outside of [local restaurant] Smokey Joe's."
Heisman, who is also a lecturer in Wharton's Graduate Leadership Program, says students are skilled at bringing entrepreneurial ideas to philanthropy. But even those well prepared in class can be surprised by the conditions on the ground. "They are sometimes shocked, because they are not used to seeing organizations without resources at their fingertips," she says. "In B2B and B2C, you can borrow money; the flow of money is familiar to them. In nonprofits, you don't produce a widget; you offer a social good, and the people who need it don't have the money to buy it. Social capital is so different from private capital. It's really startling to them."
But not all philanthropic ventures are traditional nonprofit charities. Katherina M. Rosqueta, founding executive director of Penn's Center for High Impact Philanthropy, points to the promise of hybrid models -- such as for-profit companies with a social purpose -- that offer "the best of what the financial capital markets can bring, and move beyond grants to create social change."
Others concur. One of the things schools could be doing a better job of is clearly communicating to students the full range of philanthropic routes -- "to say to them, 'A lot of you want purpose and to make a contribution with your work. Here are some role models,'" says management professor <a href="https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1333/">Katherine Klein</a>, vice-dean of Wharton's Social Impact Initiative. "Maybe you have a traditional career and serve on nonprofit boards, or a non-traditional career in special enterprise, or, maybe you go into impact investing, or maybe you are an innovator within a large, established company that doesn't have a social mission. There are many ways to do this."
"I think it's about philanthropy in the broadest sense," says <a href="https://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1141/">Diana C. Robertson</a>, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. "It's giving back, it's being a good citizen, understanding what your reputation is within a community, your school, your workplace, your neighborhood. Our students are really interested in this."
Is Philanthropy Increasing?
The fact that philanthropy is diversifying into these hybrid models might make its full impact harder to measure. The numbers show that philanthropy has hovered between about 1.8% and 2.3% of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service and other sources. That would mean the enormous gifts made by Gates and Buffett have not released a torrent of largess that has changed the scale and impact of philanthropy.
"Middle-income people give a huge amount of money, and I don't know that it really speaks to them," says Heisman. "It's like a movie star who has five houses and a castle in France. It doesn't mean anything to me."
It's not surprising that philanthropy has not gone up as a percentage of GDP, says Kim Meredith, executive director of the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, since most giving -- 71% -- comes from individuals. "I think you see these levels of consistency, and that is because for Middle America and lower-income America, their income has not gone up, and they are the people giving the gifts," she says.
Moreover, adds the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors' Berman, "if you think about the amount of wealth lost in the last economic downturn [along] with persistently high unemployment, the fact that giving has not plummeted is just remarkable."
On the other hand, in the few short years since Buffett and Gates made their "Giving Pledge" public in 2010, 105 billionaires have signed on. Bloomberg LP founder Michael R. Bloomberg, Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison, Huntsman Corp. founder Jon Huntsman and wife Karen, film entrepreneur George Lucas, investor Ronald O. Perelman, Facebook chairman Mark Zuckerberg and others have now committed to giving away the majority of their fortunes before or at their deaths, so the full force of the effort has yet to be felt. 
Some of these billionaires are choosing to channel their gifts though their own foundations or community foundations, which means that true impact waits until distributions find their way to causes. Andrew Carnegie might approve. The scale of this transfer of wealth dwarfs his generosity. At his death in 1919, he had given away about $350 million -- $4.7 billion, adjusted for inflation. Gates and Buffett together have given 10 times that amount, or just over $45 billion.
New Generation Wants Proof
What is keeping philanthropy from budging beyond 2.5% of GDP? It's not decreased awareness. Social media makes it easier than ever to learn about disaster and famine -- or endowment and building campaigns at one's alma mater. Fidelity launched a widget this month that allows clients to initiate grants from donor advised funds directly to the Red Cross, Boston Symphony Orchestra and other recipients without having to leave that charity's website. More information than ever is accessible about best practices in philanthropy and a potential recipient's worthiness.
Even so, more research is needed. What individual and institutional donors "care about that is still missing from the market is information around effectiveness, because nobody wants to waste their money," says Rosqueta. "You want to feel confident that your money is going to make a difference. That is exactly the problem our center was established to address. Until people have confidence that their money is having an impact, you're not going to see the increase in philanthropy that people would hope for."
The next generation will likely bring its zeal for metrics to giving. Measuring impact is more important to donors between the ages of 21 and 40 than it was to previous generations, according to a 2013 survey by <a href="http://www.gvsu.edu/jcp/frey-foundation-chair-for-family-foundations-and-philanthropy-119.htm">the Frey Chair for Family Philanthropy program at the Johnson Center for Philanthropy</a> in Grand Rapids, and consulting firm <a href="http://2164.net/">21/64</a>. The stakes are huge: The study notes that an estimated $41 trillion in bequests will be transferred into the hands of post-Baby Boom generations in the first half of the 21st century.
It's no wonder then that the increased discussion of philanthropy in business schools is bubbling up from the students. "You meet with them, and they have all kinds of ideas about things they would like to do and they would like the school to do," says Robertson. "I'd like to think our students are becoming more aware of the world and are resolved to making it a better place."
"I think we're in incredibly good hands," suggests Heisman. "I don't have one worry going forward. Young people are smart, they're engaged and they are passionate. I think they need to be employed and get experience putting their ideas to use."
Says Klein: "It has struck me that when I was growing up, we didn't have very many business leaders as heroes -- there wasn't a Gates or a Jobs people knew about. When I was in my 20s, those who wanted a professional degree and wanted to change the world and weren't sure how that would happen went to law school. Today, if you want to change the world but aren't sure how, you're more likely to consider business school."

You Searched For "berman law group" and got 7 results

Microsoft's long fight with public libraries looks even worse in the new era of socially conscious businesses

Julie Bort

What should scare Trump most isn't the Deep State - it's the Regular State

Josh Barro

Rick Perry needs to go all-in on one key state to get out of his deep, deep trouble

Maxwell Tani

Trump just had his wildest weekend in months

Allan Smith

'There's only one way to get there': A top GOP senator opens up on his 'Jimmy Kimmel test' for healthcare reform

Bob Bryan

Inside the rise, fall, rebound, and spectacular flameout of Anthony Scaramucci

Linette Lopez

A New Generation Of Philanthropists Is Changing Everything

Knowledge@Wharton