Steve Flowers: Seniority vs. Senility
Our senior senator, Richard Shelby, will be remembered as Alabama’s most prominent senator when he retires next December. Folks, that’s saying a lot because we have had a host of prominent men serve Alabama in the United States Senate, such as giants like Lister Hill, John Sparkman, and John Bankhead. However, history will record that none of these above senators brought the federal dollars back home to Alabama that Shelby has procured. Seniority is omnipotent in Washington. It is everything, and Senator Shelby has it. He is in his 35th year in the U.S. Senate. He has already broken Senator Sparkman’s 32-year record of longevity in Alabama history and at the end of his term next year he will have served a record 36 years in the Senate. In addition, Shelby was the U.S. Congressman for the old 7th Congressional district for eight years. Shelby has not only been the most prolific funneler of federal dollars to Alabama in our state’s history but he could also be considered one of the most profound movers and shakers of federal funds to their state in American history. His only rival was the late Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Senator Byrd, who was in his ninth term as a senator when he died at 92, funneled an estimated $10 billion to his constituents during his 51 years in the Senate. The obvious question asked by observers of Washington politics is, “Are some of our most powerful senators too old to function cognitively?” I can attest to you that I know Senator Richard Shelby personally and he is the most cognitively alert and healthy 87-year-old man I have ever seen. He works out daily and has the memory of an elephant. In fact, his mental and cognitive abilities are similar to someone 30 years his junior. He very well could run and serve another 6-year term. However, he will be 88 at the end of his term. Shelby is one of five octogenarians serving in the Senate. California’s Dianne Feinstein is the oldest sitting senator at 88. She is followed by Iowa’s Charles “Chuck” Grassley who turns 88 next month. Shelby is the third at 87. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont are 81. By the way, Grassley and Leahy are Shelby’s closest allies in the Senate. The question becomes, “How old is too old to be a U.S. senator?” According to the Congressional Research Service, the average age of senators at the beginning of this year is 64-years. At some point voters have to weigh, “Is my senator too old to perform the duties of the office or does the weight and power of their seniority and the benefit of their influence to the state outweigh their energy and cognizance?” Voters tend to go with experience and seniority over youth. Senator Feinstein has been the most widely discussed current senator for a decline in health. Liberals believe she was too conciliatory during Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing. There is a pervasive whispering campaign about Feinstein’s alleged cognitive decline and the Democratic senior leadership has indeed quietly removed her as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was common knowledge and apparent that Senator Shelby’s predecessor as Chairman of Appropriations, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, was not very cognitive in his last years in the Senate although he was younger, chronically. The most notable example of possibly staying too long is probably the story of legendary Senator Strom Thurman of South Carolina. In 2003 Strom Thurman retired at the age of 100 after 48 years in the Senate. It was no secret that his staff did everything for him during his last six-year term. Our founding fathers created a minimum age for serving in the U.S. House or Senate but did not address a maximum. The owner of Grub’s Pharmacy used by many on Capitol Hill in Washington raised eyebrows in 2017 when he revealed he routinely sent Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill. There are continuing attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of Congressmen and Senators. Republicans run on the issue of term limits. It was part of their contract with America Agenda in 1994. Alabamians need to consider being for term limits in 2022 because it comes down to the old adage of whose ox is being gourd. We in Alabama are going to be up the proverbial creek without a paddle after Shelby. He is our power in Washington. We need to all jump on the term limit bandwagon beginning next year. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at: www.steveflowers.us.
A divided Senate answers Orlando with gridlock on gun curbs
A divided Senate blocked rival election-year plans to curb guns on Monday, eight days after the horror of Orlando’s mass shooting intensified pressure on lawmakers to act but knotted them in gridlock anyway — even over restricting firearms for terrorists. In largely party-line votes, rejected were one proposal from each side to keep extremists from acquiring guns and another shoring up the government’s existing system of required background checks for many firearms purchases. With the chamber’s visitors’ galleries unusually crowded for a Monday evening — including people wearing orange T-shirts saying #ENOUGH gun violence — each measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to progress. Democrats called the GOP proposals unacceptably weak while Republicans said the Democratic plans were overly restrictive. The stalemate underscored the pressure on each party to give little ground on the emotional gun issue going into November’s presidential and congressional elections. It also highlighted the potency of the National Rifle Association, which urged its huge and fiercely loyal membership to lobby senators to oppose the Democratic bills. “Republicans say, ‘Hey look, we tried,’” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada. “And all the time, their cheerleaders, the bosses at the NRA, are cheering them.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando shootings — in which the FBI says the American-born gunman swore allegiance to a leader of the Islamic State group — show the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas. “Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives,” McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day’s votes “as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad,” while Republicans wanted “real solutions.” That Monday’s four roll-call votes occurred at all was testament to the political currents buffeting lawmakers after gunman Omar Mateen‘s June 12 attack on a gay nightclub. The 49 victims who died made it the largest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, topping the string of such incidents that have punctuated recent years. The FBI said Mateen — a focus of two terror investigations that were dropped — described himself as an Islamic soldier in a 911 call during the shootings. That let gun control advocates add national security and the specter of terrorism to their arguments for firearms curbs, while relatives of victims of past mass shootings and others visiting lawmakers and watching the debate from the visitors’ galleries. GOP senators facing re-election this fall from swing states were under extraordinary pressure. One, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, voted Monday for the Democratic measure to block gun sales to terrorists, a switch from when she joined most Republicans in killing a similar plan last December. She said that vote — plus her support for a rival GOP measure — would help move lawmakers toward approving a narrower bipartisan plan, like one being crafted by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Monday’s votes came after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., led a near 15-hour filibuster last week demanding a Senate response to the Orlando killings. Murphy entered the Senate shortly after the December 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, but that slaughter and others have failed to spur Congress to tighten gun curbs. The last were enacted in 2007, when the background check system was strengthened after that year’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech. With Mateen’s self-professed loyalty to extremist groups and his 10-month inclusion on a federal terrorism watch list, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed letting the government block many gun sales to known or suspected terrorists. People buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers can currently be denied for several reasons, chiefly for serious crimes or mental problems, but there is no specific prohibition for those on the terrorist watch list. That list currently contains around 1 million people — including fewer than 5,000 Americans or legal permanent residents, according to the latest government figures. No background checks are required for anyone buying guns privately online or at gun shows. The GOP response to Feinstein was an NRA-backed plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. It would let the government deny a sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism. The Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would require notification of law enforcement officials if people, like Mateen, who’d been under a terrorism investigation within the past five years were seeking to buy firearms. Republicans said Feinstein’s proposal gave the government too much unfettered power to deny people’s constitutional right to own a gun. They also noted that the terrorist watch list has historically mistakenly included people. Democrats said the three-day window that Cornyn’s measure gave prosecutors to prove their case made his plan ineffective. The Senate rejected similar plans Feinstein and Cornyn proposed last December, a day after an attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people. Murphy’s rejected proposal would widely expand the requirement for background checks, even to many private gun transactions, leaving few loopholes. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa, defeated plan increased money for the background check system. Like Murphy’s measure, it prodded states to send more records to the FBI, which operates the background check system, of felons and others barred from buying guns. Grassley’s proposal also revamped language prohibiting some people with mental health issues from buying a gun. Democrats claimed that language would roll back current protections. Monday’s votes were 53-47 for Grassley’s plan, 44-56 for Murphy’s, 53-47 for Cornyn’s and 47-53 for Feinstein’s — all short of the 60 needed. Separately, Collins was laboring to fashion a bipartisan bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — with just 81,000 names— from getting guns. There were no signs Monday that it was getting wide support or would receive a vote. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Hillary Clinton lawyer says her email server was wiped clean
Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s personal lawyer has told a Senate committee that emails and all other data stored on her computer server were erased before the device was turned over to federal authorities. In a letter sent last week to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, attorney David Kendall said the server was transferred to the FBI on Aug. 12 by Platte River Networks, a Denver firm hired by Clinton to oversee the device. The Senate committee made Kendall’s letter public on Wednesday. In exchanges with reporters earlier this week, Clinton said she was not aware if the data on her server was erased. Confirmation that the server was wiped clean came amid mounting confusion over how sensitive some of the Clinton emails were and how much of their contents should have been released. Clinton aides said at least two emails that might have triggered the federal inquiry were not marked secret at the time. But a Republican senator said Wednesday that U.S. inspector generals for the State Department and the intelligence community were told by some of the agency’s freedom of information specialists that department lawyers released some Clinton materials to the public over their objections. Federal investigators, prompted by a request from the inspector general for the State Department, requested custody of the server to learn whether the data stored on it was secure. NBC News has reported that an FBI team is now examining the server. Forensics experts told The Associated Press this week that some emails and other data may still be extracted from servers even after they are supposedly expunged. Separately, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, told reporters Wednesday in Columbia, South Carolina, that, to his knowledge, no other copy had been made of the server’s contents other than those her lawyers turned over to the FBI. As campaign officials answered questions, one of Clinton’s rivals said the email issue has become a distraction for the Democratic Party. “I think that it’s a huge distraction from what we should be talking about as a party,” former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley told reporters in Nevada. Instead, he said more debates should be held among the candidates to address raising the minimum wage, repairing the country’s infrastructure and other issues. “Until we do, our party’s label is going to be the latest news du jour about emails and email servers and what Secretary Clinton knew and when she knew it.” O’Malley said some people in the Democratic National Committee are “circling the wagons.” Kendall, Clinton’s long-time personal lawyer, said in his letter to the committee that both he and another lawyer at his firm were given security clearances by the State Department to handle a thumb drive that contained about 3,000 emails later turned over to the agency. Kendall said the thumb drive was stored in a safe provided in July by the State Department. Kendall did not say when he was given his clearance from State. The GOP-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee has asked Kendall if he had any access to Clinton’s emails before he was given his security clearance. Republican senators on both committees are pressing to see whether any emails sent or received by Clinton on the private server while she was secretary of state contained any secret information that should have been only exchanged on secured, encrypted government communications portals. An inspector general for the State Department said recently that several emails sent to Clinton did include such classified material – signaling that the transmission of those emails may have risked violating government guidelines for the handling of classified material. Clinton campaign officials on Wednesday sought to show that the information contained in the emails that she received did not risk spillage of classified data at the time they were sent to her. During a conference call, campaign aides pointed to a Fox News report that at least two of the emails that prompted the inspector general’s referral may have contained sensitive information but were not marked “classified” at the time they were sent to Clinton by aides. Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon noted that the two emails were sent to Clinton from career diplomats, not political appointees, and that they “did not have information marked `classified’ or any classified documents attached to them.” Information in one of the documents, a 2012 email to Clinton about arrests in Libya, was later classified as secret by the FBI, but then released with redactions this year by the State Department, highlighting a dispute between the two agencies over whether the material should have been made public. A second email from 2011 was also released in full but reportedly contained classified military information. “All this goes to show that when it comes to classified information, not all standards are black and white,” Fallon said. There are disputes even within the State Department, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. In a letter sent Wednesday to Secretary of State John Kerry, Grassley said several State FOIA examiners told inspectors general that several lawyers from the State Department Office of the Legal Advisor fully cleared some Clinton emails for public release despite recommendations that several passages needed to be censored for national security reasons. “This dispute may have already contributed to at least one classified email being inappropriately released to the public,” Grassley said. He also questioned whether some State Department lawyers may have had potential conflicts of interest. State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach said: “The law is what governs redactions and upgrades. We are making appropriate redactions – following the standards laid out under FOIA for redactions as well as the rules governing classification as defined” by presidential orders. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
