Tag Archives: State Department

national news, political news

Come clean, Mme. Secretary

Hillary Rodham Clinton can put the email controversy to bed today. It might be finished. Then again, her foes well might decide to keep the flames going.

The former secretary of state will conduct a press conference in New York. She’ll take questions about the email tempest — the one involving her use of a private account while she ran the State Department.

I refuse to call this a “scandal” because it doesn’t rise that level. It is a problem, though, for the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-address-email-controversy-115903.html?hp=t1_r

Congressional investigators are trying to link some missing emails to the Benghazi matter involving the deaths of four Americans in September 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Libya. That’s the politics of it: Republicans keep smelling blood and keep looking to inflict a mortal wound to Clinton’s budding presidential candidacy.

In a strange way, I see this controversy developing the way the Barack Obama “birther” controversy was kept alive before withering away.

Those on the far right kept insisting that Obama wasn’t constitutionally qualified to serve as president because, they said, he was born in Africa. He wasn’t. The president said he was born in Hawaii. The controversy persisted until the night of Obama’s re-election in November 2012.

I have a strong suspicion that the email matter will keep boiling throughout this year and most of next — until when or if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States.

Still, it’s good that she’ll seek to quiet the storm today.

We’re all ears, Mme. Secretary.

 

national news, political news

Sen. Graham: No emails from me

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is appealing to the technologically challenged.

The South Carolina Republican says he’s never sent an email and prefers to talk face to face with his South Carolina constituents. Well, good for him.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235040-graham-president-must-be-good-with-people-not-just-technology

Graham said on “Meet the Press” that the next president of the United States — which might be him, although that seems to be among the longest of long shots — should be good with people, not technology.

That’s quaint talk, senator. It’s also meaningless.

The subject came up in a discussion of the email flap that keeps hounding Hillary Rodham Clinton and her use of a private email account while she served as secretary of state. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California, suggest Clinton might face “criminal charges.” Oh, brother.

Graham said Sunday: “The way I communicate is that I talk to people face to face, I’ll pick up the phone. I think the best thing is … to go to the Mideast, not email about the Mideast, not be told about the Mideast, but get on the ground.”

Maybe it’s just me, but my strong hunch is that in the remote chance Graham gets elected president next year that he’ll have plenty of staff sitting around waiting to communicate via email with a pertinent foreign leader. Were he climb aboard Air Force One just to talk to someone, say, in the Middle East, well … that could get a little expensive.

And haven’t Republicans been casting stones at the current president, Barack Obama, and his family over their alleged overuse of that big jumbo jet?

 

national news, political news

Nothing is secret, Mme. Secretary

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a public figure for more than three decades, going back to when she was first lady of Arkansas.

She ought to know a fundamental truth about public notoriety: Almost nothing is secret.

Hillary’s penchant for secrecy rattles Dems

But as The Hill notes in the attached report, Clinton has a penchant for secrecy that is driving her supporters to the point of insanity.

The recent email flap is a case in point.

She used her private email account to conduct affairs of the State Department, which she led during the first term of the Obama administration. She likely didn’t break the law. Previous secretaries of state have done the same thing. So have governors, senators, county commissioners — you name it — of both major parties.

The rules have changed since Clinton left the State Department.

Still, Clinton and her team seem to have mishandled the uproar over the revelation about the use of the private account. It’s causing grief among those who want her to run for president in 2016. An announcement is expected within the next month or so.

I happen to dislike the idea of public officials using personal email or other personal media accounts to do public business. Politicians of all stripes talk about the need for “transparency.” Only the most sensitive national security matters should be kept from public view.

Clinton now has asked the State Department to release her emails to an inquiring public, which by the way includes members of the House Select Benghazi Committee that no doubt is looking for that “smoking gun” to shoot holes in her probable presidential campaign.

Whatever. The former secretary/U.S. senator/U.S. first lady knows better than most the price people for seeking to serve the public.

As the cliché reminds us: No good deed goes unpunished.

 

legal news, political news, State news

Oops, Perry has own email trail

Doggone it anyhow, former Gov. Rick Perry.

Why did you have to be so quick on the trigger in criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton over this brewing email controversy, in which it is alleged that Clinton used a private email account to conduct federal government business.

It turns out the former Texas governor has done the same thing while working for our state.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/04/perry-faces-transparency-questions-after-clinton-r/

Perry piled on Clinton quickly, accusing her of lacking “transparency” in the way she conducted the public’s business while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Now, though, two legislators — both Democrats — say they believe Perry is just as non-transparent as Secretary Clinton. The questions come from state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio and former state Rep. Naomi Gonzalez of El Paso.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Martinez Fischer and Gonzalez both sat on the House Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations as it looked into turmoil on the University of Texas System Board of Regents. At a meeting of the panel in 2013, Martinez Fischer brought up the emails in question, some of which were then obtained by The Texas Tribune. The emails, in which Perry is identified as only “RP,” show him corresponding with a number of UT regents as well as Jeff Sandefer, a prominent Republican donor and informal adviser to Perry.”

The Tribune also reported that Perry’s office has responded to the allegations: “’The Governor’s Office complied with state law regarding email correspondence,’ Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said. ‘While serving as governor of Texas, Gov. Perry’s emails were requested and released through public information requests.'”

Isn’t that what Clinton’s team has said, that she complied with the “spirit and letter” of federal law?

Is this yet another hurdle the ex-Republican governor will have to clear — along with that felony indictment alleging abuse of power — if he intends to seek the presidency once more?

 

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi returns to center stage

I got a bit ahead of myself with an earlier blog post about Hillary Clinton’s email tempest.

The supposition was that she was in trouble again, but the difficulty didn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.

Wrong!

The House Benghazi Committee — that’s what I’ll call it — is going to subpoena the former secretary of state’s email messages to determine what she said at the time of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-committee-to-subpoena-clinton-s-emails-192823541.html

This ties into the email problem because Clinton used her personal email account to communicate official State Department business. The Benghazi panel, which already has traipsed all over the issue of the consulate fire fight and what the State Department knew about it, wants to see the emails to determine, I suppose, if there’s any “smoking gun” with which to blast away at the presumed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

I am concerned about the use of a private email account to conduct public business. The Benghazi matter? Not so much. Yes, the deaths of those people were tragic beyond measure. But I do not believe Secretary Clinton purposely misled Americans about the attack, nor do I believe there’s been an orchestrated cover-up by the State Department or the White House.

However, by golly, we’re going to revisit the Benghazi attack once again because of questions about whether Secretary Clinton hid pertinent information — whatever it might have been — from the public she was serving.

national news, political news

HRC looking suddenly vulnerable

What’s the opposite of “invincible”?

Is it, say, “vincible”?

Suddenly and with little warning, the chatterers of Washington and in some key political hot spots are starting to wonder aloud whether the once seemingly invincible Hillary Rodham Clinton might actually not run for president of the United States next year.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-115715.html?ml=po#.VPcJFFJ0yt8

I believe a Clinton pullout from the White House contest remains the longest of long shots. She’s invested a lot of her time, money, effort and political capital in getting support on board to bail now.

But oh, man, there’s trouble out there. It has nothing to do, really, with Benghazi.

It has to do with her use of email technology and whether she might have kept the public’s business hidden from public view.

Politico is reporting that Democratic strategists aren’t yet considering the idea of Clinton dropping out of the race: “What if The Unthinkable did happen and she actually dropped out? What would be the Democrats’ response? ‘Panic,’ says Democratic consultant Chris Lapetina.”

Some questions have emerged of late about whether the then-secretary of state broke federal rules by communicating exclusively with her private email account. The way I see the trouble is that using private channels leaves open the possibility that she conducted non-classified public business in private. More murkiness has emerged as well, with some Clinton supporters suggesting that the rules weren’t put in place until after she left the State Department.

Clinton’s advisers have said she broke no laws and followed the “spirit and letter” of the rules governing such communication.

Suddenly, though, the smooth sailing Clinton has enjoyed so far has given way to some choppy waters. Have the waves built enough to capsize the Good Ship Hillary? Not yet, but factions on the Democratic Party’s left and most certainly those on the right and far right aren’t about to throw her many life lines.

Democratic Party “panic” needs to give way to some planning in the event that The Unthinkable actually occurs.

 

Uncategorized

Doing public business in private? A serious no-no

The presumed frontrunner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination next year now finds herself having to answer a serious question about ethical conduct.

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton break government rules when she used her private email account to conduct affairs of the state?

She’s not the first public official to do something such as this. But her exclusive use of her private email account makes this matter unusual and worth scrutiny.

As the New York Times has reported: “Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.”

Further, the Times reported: “‘It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,’ said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.”

I do not recall a “nuclear winter” occurring, which makes this situation quite disturbing.

How much information that should have been available for public inspection was kept in the dark?

Let’s hear it, Mme. Secretary.

 

International news

Rift in U.S. foreign policy team?

John Kerry says Benjamin Netanyahu is “welcome to speak” in the United States.

Susan Rice calls an upcoming speech by Netanyahu “destructive.”

Who is correct, the secretary of state or the Obama administration’s national security adviser?

I’ll put my money on Secretary Kerry.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/234242-kerry-netanyahu-is-welcome-to-speak

Netanyahu is going to speak Tuesday to a joint congressional session about Iran. President Obama wishes he wouldn’t make the speech; Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu while the Israeli prime minister is in this country — at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner.

Bibi’s talk will center on Iran’s desire to develop a nuclear program, which critics say — correctly, in my view — is a precursor to the Islamic Republic seeking a nuclear weapon. Israel doesn’t want the Iranians to have a nuke. Neither does the United States.

However, let’s stipulate something. The United States prides itself on freedom of expression. It extends that freedom to friendly foreign dignitaries. Set aside reports of serious tension between Netanyahu and Obama over this upcoming speech and consider that the two nations remain ironclad allies.

Kerry said the relationship, “in terms of security,” has never been stronger.

Let’s hear what the prime minister has to say.

environmental news, International news, national news

Keystone veto will stick, for now

President Obama has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, his reason seems a bit nit-picky.

The White House said Obama doesn’t necessarily oppose the pipeline, but he opposes the process that delivered the bill to his desk.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/obama-vetoes-republican-attempt-to-force-keystone-approval/ar-BBhVCrd

The pipeline is supposed to ship oil produced from Canadian tar sands through the middle of the United States, ending up in ports along the Texas Gulf Coast. It then will be shipped overseas. Proponents of the bill say it will create jobs and will help ensure that the world’s supply of oil remains high, thus helping ensue cheaper prices for the oil around the world.

Although I do support the pipeline, the president’s veto makes a modicum of sense.

He thinks an environmental study process should have been allowed to run its course. Congress short-circuited that process — which includes a complete review by the State Department.

“Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest,” the veto message said.

As Bloomberg News reported: “White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama’s rejection was strictly about the legislation and not the project. It’s ‘certainly possible’ that Obama would eventually approve the pipeline once a State Department review is completed, he said, without giving a timetable.

“’The president will keep an open mind,’ Earnest said, repeating past administration language.”

The White House said the review is part of an intricate longstanding process that’s been honored over many years. Congress’s decision to fast-track the pipeline didn’t allow a thorough review of the total impact of the project.

Perhaps the State Department can complete its review in relatively short order, deliver its findings to Capitol Hill and the White House — and then we can go through this legislative process all over again.

Let’s do it the right way.