| March 5, 2015 | |
 |  |
|
|
|
|
About 48 hours after it first began, Hillary Clinton last night personally tried to contain the firestorm over her use of personal emails while serving as secretary of state." I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible," she tweeted. The State Department then followed up, saying it's reviewing her emails for public release. "We will undertake this review as quickly as possible; given the sheer volume of the document set, this review will take some time to complete." Although last night's statements don't end the controversy (that won't happen until we finally see the emails), here's what we've learned from this episode so far: The Clintons and their supporters haven't changed their ways. In fact, they've played into every negative stereotype:
- They will follow the letter of the law but not always its spirit: How do they explain that Clinton was a member of a presidential cabinet where almost everyone else was using government emails to conduct official business?
- They will drag their heels when it comes to transparency: We never would have learned of Clinton's use of personal emails if not for the Benghazi committee.
- When it doubt, Clinton allies go on the attack: When this email controversy first surfaced, Clinton defenders' first instinct was to go on the attack -- against the personal emails that Scott Walker and Rick Perry have used, or the private email server that Jeb Bush had. But remember this: Jeb has at least RELEASED his emails, while Clinton hadn't released ANY of hers.
- Clinton's close aides aren't doing her any favors: The emails that one of Clinton's closest aides sent to reporters during this story wasn't helpful at all. One of the reasons why the Clintons don't get the benefit of the doubt from reporters is because it takes yelling and screaming to get anything.
Does this encourage Clinton to start her campaign sooner rather than later? Or it is more reason to delay?
What we don't know is whether these things change when Clinton's campaign -- with its infusion of Obama World -- begins to take shape. And this raises the question: Should Clinton start her campaign sooner rather than later to better combat these kinds of stories? Or does it continue to delay -- knowing that a delay keeps her from having to answer reporter questions at every campaign stop or event? Remember the benefits to delaying: You freeze the rest of the Democrats who might be thinking about a run, and you still aren't treated like a 100% candidate.
This is only going to empower congressional Republicans
Another consequence of this story is that it's only going to empower congressional Republicans investigating Clinton over Benghazi. Yes, there's the GOP danger of overreaching here -- especially since Benghazi has become so politically charged -- but they've given themselves some new legitimacy to dig into Clinton's activities as secretary of state.
The Clintons have escaped from MUCH bigger stories
While some in the press wonder if this story is hurting Hillary's presidential chances or encouraging Democrats to think of a Plan B for 2016, keep this in mind: The Clintons have escaped from MUCH bigger stories than this. Yes, it looks like the Clintons haven't changed their ways. But maybe one of the reasons why they haven't is that they know they USUALLY win -- with 2008 being a BIG exception, of course.
Both Roberts and Kennedy are in play for the Obama administration in King vs. Burwell
As for yesterday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court over the federal health-care law, here is the take from NBC's Pete Williams: "After hearing arguments for about 90 minutes, the U.S. Supreme Court gave little indication Wednesday about how it plans to rule in the latest challenge to Obamacare. Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the crucial vote in 2012 to save the health care reform law, didn't pepper government lawyers with questions this time. A possible swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, appeared to find constitutional problems with the case against Obamacare, but didn't fully tip his hand one way or the other." Yet here is where the Obama administration stands compared with three years ago: BOTH Roberts and Kennedy are in play for them, which wasn't the case after the oral arguments in the 2012 constitutional challenge over the law.
.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
OBAMA AGENDA: Justices split in health-care challenge
Here's Pete Williams' take on Wednesday's King v Burwell oral arguments:
The U.S. fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is increasingly reliant on Iranian fighters just as the administration is coming under pressure to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, writes the New York Times.
How did the Netanyahu speech play at home? The Washington Post: "According to polls carried out by Israeli TV news channels Wednesday, the day after his high-stakes speech to Congress, Netanyahu's address had only a modest influence on the Israeli electorate."
In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. "Once we reach that understanding, once this hysteria is out, once this fear mongering is out, then we can have a deal, and a deal that is not going to hurt anybody," he said.
CONGRESS: "They can never take ... OUR FREEDOM"
The Washington Post looks at the House Freedom Caucus, the group of conservatives causing headaches for John Boehner. But leader Rep. Jim Jordan says there's no effort underway to oust the Speaker.
Roll Call: "For Hoyer and McCarthy, the Floor Dance is Getting Tense"
The president's war authorization bill is in big trouble on Capitol Hill, reports POLITICO.
OFF TO THE RACES: Q-poll: Walker and Bush leading the GOP pack
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Scott Walker narrowly leading Jeb Bush in a nationwide poll of GOP voters, 18 percent to 16 percent. Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee are next, at eight percent each.
CHRISTIE: "For more than a decade, the New Jersey attorney general's office conducted a hard-fought legal battle to hold Exxon Mobil Corporation responsible for decades of environmental contamination in northern New Jersey. But when the news came that the state had reached a deal to settle its $8.9 billion claim for about $250 million, the driving force behind the settlement was not the attorney general's office - it was Gov. Chris Christie's chief counsel, Christopher S. Porrino, two people familiar with the negotiations said," according to the New York Times.
CLINTON: She tweeted last night that she's asked the State Department to release her emails.
From the New York Times: "An aide who had been with the Clintons since the 1990s, Justin Cooper, registered the domain name, clintonemail.com, which had a server linked to the Clintons' home address in Chappaqua, N.Y. Obtaining an account from that domain became a symbol of status within the family's inner circle, conferring prestige and closeness to the secretary."
And the House Committee on Benghazi says it has issued subpoenas for Clinton's emails related to the attacks.
The Associated Press: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email address and private computer server for official State Department business heightened security risks to her communications, such as the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information and the danger from hackers, several information security experts said." Also, the White House counsel was reportedly not aware of her email habits.
The Washington Post ed board: "Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust."
Former Vilsack adviser Matt Paul will manage her Iowa campaign.
CRUZ: His book will be published on June 30, the AP reports.
RUBIO: He unveiled his new tax code overhaul effort yesterday.
WALKER: NARAL Pro-Choice America is taking on Scott Walker's record on abortion with a full-page ad in the Des Moines Register.
And around the country...
IOWA: A 2016 number to remember: About 39,000 Iowans would be affected by a Supreme Court decision gutting subsidies.
MARYLAND: Rep. Chris Van Hollen says he's running for Senate.
UTAH: Mitt Romney wants a presidential primary in Utah, not a caucus, reports the Salt Lake Tribune.
PROGRAMMING NOTES.
*** Thursday's "News Nation with Tamron Hall" line-up: Tamron Hall speaks with NBC's Rehema Ellis and Defense attorney Jon Sheldon about The Boston Bomber trial, Civil rights attorney John Burris to discuss the report by the Department of Justice concerning police tactics in Ferguson MO., Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York Linda Sarsour about two new Muslim holidays added to the Public School calendar, and MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald about the latest on the controversy surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of her private email account while in office.
*** Thursday's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" line-up: NBC's Andrea Mitchell interviews Senator John McCain, Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Bloomberg's Jeanne Cummings
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen says he will run for the Maryland Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski.
Van Hollen is a leading House Democrat who had been long-discussed as a possible successor to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But in a letter to supporters that was posted on Facebook Wednesday, he announced that he'll instead be jumping into what will likely be a very competitive primary in the heavily Democratic state.
"I am very much looking forward to the upcoming campaign and a healthy exchange of ideas. In my very first election for Congress I believed that people were tired of politics as usual, and I ran a campaign based on key issues and ideas that matter to our future. The same is true today," he wrote.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is weighing a 2016 presidential bid, has announced that he will not seek the post. But other possible candidates include Rep. Donna Edwards, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, among others.
- Carrie Dann
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a busy week so far in American politics -- the Netanyahu speech, the end to the DHS fight, the latest in the 2016 race, and even David Petraeus' guilty plea. But the biggest and most significant political story of the week is playing out today at the Supreme Court, which at 10am ET hears oral arguments in a case to decide whether Americans who live in the 30-plus states that didn't set up their own health marketplaces should be allowed to receive subsidies under the health care law. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court ultimately invalidates these subsidies, more than 9 million Americans would lose nearly $30 billion in tax credits and cost-sharing reductions by 2016, according to the Urban Institute; the uninsured ranks would increase by 8.2 million Americans; and the average Obamacare premium will increase by more than 200% (!!!). And if that happens, it's going to produce a mad political scramble (in Washington and state capitals) to pick up the pieces for Americans who will paying higher health care costs due to the court's ruling. But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government -- that yes, the law was always intended to award subsidies to all Americans, no matter where they live -- it could bring an end to the great Obamacare War. If this doesn't take down the law, after all, it's hard to see what else will. That's why the stakes are so high here - and why both sides have been working the refs (ie the justices) so aggressively.
Why Republicans could be playing defense if the court strikes down the subsidies
If the court strikes down the subsidies, Republicans could find themselves playing defense. According to an NBC/WSJ poll released last night, 54% of Americans say that if the court guts the Obamacare subsidies, Congress should pass a law helping lower- and middle-income Americans in ALL states to regain their financial assistance. By contrast, 35% say that Congress shouldn't pass a law here. Of course, this largely cuts across partisan lines, with 81% of Democrats but just 26% of Republicans wanting Congress to help those on the federal marketplace. But here is where the politics are tricky for Republicans: 60% of women, 52% of independents, and even 50% of whites say Congress should pass a law helping Americans regain their financial assistance. Those are significantly stronger poll numbers than what you usually see when it comes to Obamacare. And it's clear that some Republicans are nervous about this case. We've seen GOP leaders-- whether it's Orrin Hatch in the Senate or Paul Ryan in House -- propose to help if the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies. Here's the rub, however: They don't contain specific details or legislative language.
Considering the long-term impact of a Supreme Court nix of subsidies
One last point on the Supreme Court's arguments today: It's worth asking what kind of precedent the court would be setting if it rules that the law doesn't actually allow the federal subsidies. The health care law's backers insist that the legislation always intended for the federal government to provide the aid if states didn't set up health care exchanges, and they insist that the plaintiffs are trying to exploit what amounts to a typo in the law. In a future world where, let's say, a GOP president and Congress pass a tax or entitlement reform bill, would Democrats feel then empowered to challenge some piece of the law based on a similar argument and try to push the Supreme Court to invalidate the legislation entirely?
DHS fight began with a bang, and it ended with a whimper
After last week's eleventh-hour showdown and an embarrassing failed vote for House leaders, the furious fight over the Department of Homeland Security came to a relatively quiet end Tuesday, with a vote on the "clean" year-long funding bill carried mostly by Democrats. One reason for the very muted reaction: GOP leaders managed to execute what we call a Friday Night News Dump - on a Tuesday. The timing of the vote - coming on the same day as a highly-anticipated speech from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the day before this super-high-stakes Supreme Court argument - meant that there was simply little left of the news hole for conservative complaints about Boehner's "cave" on the immigration fight. By the way, last week's meltdown underscores that, even if Republicans are talking about an Obamacare fix, does anyone really think that a GOP House could pass *anything* having to do with health care without Democratic help?
Netanyahu: How will it play in Israel?
The first, second and third audiences for Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday might have been voters in his own country. The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg makes this observation: Netanyahu "will be returned to power on March 17 if he can convince a large enough number of Likud-oriented voters to stick with his party ... Right-wing voters in Israel aren't upset by Netanyahu's thumb-in-the-eye approach to President Obama. Many of them actually like it, and they will like to see that Netanyahu is more-or-less correct when he argues that Congress has Israel's back." There's certainly the suggestion in some Israeli media that Netanyahu was much more interested in his domestic political concerns than in his diplomatic goals. How is it going to play at home for him?
Email problems create a big distraction for Hillary Clinton...
Team Clinton appears set to be turning on the lights of a formal campaign in a matter of weeks, and they're already in the position of playing major defense when it comes to this email story. The latest development: The AP reports that Clinton ran her own computer system for her emails. It's a big distraction that threatens to stick around for a long time if Clinton doesn't address this fast. Republican members of Congress are sure to push for hearings, subpoenas - any way to keep forcing this controversy back into the headlines again and again. The question is: What can the Clinton team do to get ahead of it? Are they designing a web site right now that's all about disclosing the emails? What's the next step?
"Words do hurt."
In the wake of the suicide of Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth - not only perhaps the most respected Missouri politician but one of the most venerated former U.S. senators -- didn't hold back in linking the death to bullying and the worst impulses in politics in Missouri, and perhaps, by extension, in our country as a whole. "The death of Tom Schweich is the natural consequence of what politics has become," Danforth said while delivering Schweich's eulogy. "I believe deep in my heart that it's now our duty, yours and mine, to turn politics into something much better than its now so miserable state." Decrying what he called an anti-Semitic whisper campaign against Schweich, he said politicians should disown the idea of "winning at any cost." "Words do hurt. Words can kill," he added. We're just starting what's going to be a messy, hotly contested and no-doubt-nasty-at-times presidential election. Some messiness is all part of the process, of course, but Danforth's warnings about the ugliest tactics in politics are worth keeping in mind for all of us. Perhaps before you write that next nasty tweet, that next attack email, or that new oppo research hit, re-read Danforth's eulogy.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Senate has failed to override the president's veto of a bill approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
As expected, proponents of the project were not able to reach the veto-override threshold of 67 votes on Wednesday. Sixty-two senators supported the measure, including all Republicans and eight Democrats. Thirty-seven Democrats opposed it.
President Barack Obama vetoed the legislation on February 24, marking his third use of the veto pen during his tenure.
The White House says that it is waiting on a final review from the State Department about whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
Backers of the project say that it would create jobs and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil; opponents say it could cause major environmental damage.
The vote was originally scheduled for Thursday, but it was moved to Wednesday as yet more wintry weather threatened the East Coast.
- Frank Thorp V and Carrie Dann
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| More from First Read: | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기