Officials: More work emails from Hillary Clinton’s private account
The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government. The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military’s U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account. Republicans have raised questions about thousands of emails that she has deleted on grounds that they were private in nature, as well as other messages that have surfaced independently of Clinton and the State Department. Speaking of her emails on CBS’ “Face the Nation” this week, Clinton said: “We provided all of them.” But the FBI and several congressional committees are investigating. The State Department’s record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office. Before then, Clinton has said she used an old AT&T Blackberry email account, the contents of which she no longer can access. The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department’s inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1. The officials weren’t authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity. But State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed that the agency received the emails in the “last several days” and that they “were not previously in the possession of the department.” Kirby said they would be subject to a Freedom of Information Act review like the rest of Clinton’s emails. She gave the department some 30,000 emails last year that she sent or received while in office, and officials plan to finish releasing all of them by the end of January, after sensitive or classified information is censored. A quarter has been made public so far. Additionally, Kirby said the agency will incorporate the newly discovered emails into a review of record retention practices that Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, initiated in March. “We have also informed Congress of this matter,” he added. These steps are unlikely to satisfy Clinton’s Republican critics. The House Benghazi Committee plans to hold a public hearing with Clinton next month to hear specifically about what the emails might say about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Senate Judiciary Committee’s GOP chairman said he wants the Justice Department to tell him if a criminal investigation is underway into Clinton’s use of private email amid reports this week that the FBI recovered deleted emails from her server. The Senate Homeland Security Committee also is looking into the matter. Clinton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. “When I did it, it was allowed, it was above board. And now I’m being as transparent as possible, more than anybody else ever has been,” she said earlier this week. In August, Clinton submitted a sworn statement to a U.S. District Court saying she had directed all her work emails to be provided to the State Department. “On information and belief, this has been done,” she said in a declaration submitted as part of a lawsuit with Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group. The Clinton campaign didn’t respond immediately to a request from The Associated Press for comment, but on Twitter, Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign’s press secretary, wrote Friday: “We always said the emails given to State dated back only to March 09. That was when she started using https://clintonemail.com .” Clinton has been dogged for months by questions about her email practices. She initially described her choice as a matter of convenience, but later took responsibility for making a wrong decision. Separately Friday, State Department officials said they were providing the Benghazi-focused probe more email exchanges from senior officials pertaining to Libya. The committee broadened its scope after examining tens of thousands of documents more specifically focused on the Benghazi attack. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
For GOP candidates, better to be with pope than against him
To some Republican presidential candidates, it’s better to be with the popular pope than against him. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have deep policy differences with Pope Francis, but the senators will break off campaign travel to attend his address to Congress later this month, a centerpiece of his eagerly anticipated visit to the United States. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a devout Catholic, will attend Mass with Francis in Washington. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Catholic candidate, plans to attend one of the pope’s East Coast events. “Regardless of what the pope says or emphasizes, the simple fact of being associated with his visit is still significant for a candidate,” said David Campbell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who studies religion and politics. “The images are very powerful.” Francis has become one of the world’s most popular figures since his 2013 election to the papacy, drawing praise for his humility and efforts to refocus the church on the poor and needy. He also has become involved in numerous hot-button political issues, often staking out positions that put him at odds with Republicans. The pope supports the Iran nuclear deal, which many GOP candidates pledge to tear up if they are elected president. As Republicans debate the place of immigrants in the U.S., the pope has urged countries to welcome those seeking refuge and has decried the “inhuman” conditions facing people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Francis was also instrumental in secret talks to restore diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, a rapprochement the GOP views as a premature reward for the island’s repressive government. In a heated primary where any break from party orthodoxy is a political risk, Republican candidates have stepped gingerly around their differences with Francis. When Francis issued an encyclical this year calling for aggressive international action to combat climate change, most Republicans made clear they had no problem with pope taking a position on the matter. But they suggested his stance would have little influence on their own views. “He is a moral authority and as a moral authority is reminding us of our obligation to be good caretakers of the planet,” Rubio, a practicing Catholic, said at the time. “I’m a political leader and my job as a policymaker is to act in the common good.” Bush, who was raised Episcopalian and converted to Catholicism as an adult, said it was best to leave climate change in the realm of politics, not religion. During a campaign stop Thursday in New Hampshire, Bush called the pope an “amazing man” and welcomed his emphasis on mercy and compassion. “I think he’s going to lift people’s spirits up,” Bush said about the pope’s visit to the U.S. “We’re in a time where there’s a lot of vulgarity and a lot of insults and a lot of just coarseness in our discourse. I’m not talking about politics, either. I’m talking about everyday life. “And here’s a man who comes with a gentle soul and I think it might be really healthy for our country to hear someone speak the way he does.” Not all GOP candidates plan to attend events with the pope. Among them are Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whose spokeswoman said he didn’t expect to be in Washington during Francis’ visit, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator and devout Catholic, who was scheduled to be on a campaign trip to Iowa. American politicians have long struggled with how to balance their policy positions with the views of the Vatican. For Democrats, the focus has often been on the gulf between the party’s support for abortion rights and the church’s stern and contrary view. After John Kerry, a Catholic who backs abortion rights, captured the Democratic nomination in 2004, a top Vatican official issued a statement saying priests must deny Communion to politicians who hold that position. Francis has taken a more conciliatory tone on abortion, as well as homosexuality, but hasn’t changed church doctrine. President George W. Bush found himself at odds with the Vatican over the Iraq war. Both Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI vehemently opposed the war, yet each met Bush during their tenure. Charles Camosy, a theology professor at Fordham University, said that in interactions between politicians and popes, “politics is put aside and there’s respect shown.” Still, the timing of the pope’s visit — in the heart of fall primary campaigning — and his own schedule will make politics difficult to avoid. Francis will hold an Oval Office meeting Sept. 23 with President Barack Obama, who has highlighted areas where his agenda overlaps with the pope’s priorities, including income inequality. The pope will speak the following day on Capitol Hill, where at least some of the focus will be on the reaction to his remarks from the presidential candidates sitting in the audience. The pope’s message in Washington is expected to touch on some of the issues that are sources of disagreement with Republicans, though it’s unlikely he will insert himself directly into presidential politics. Still, as Campbell, the Notre Dame professor, noted, “One thing we’ve learned about Pope Francis is that he’s very unpredictable.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Martha Roby: Iran deal is flawed, weak
Among the most pressing issues facing Congress as we reconvene is a resolution to reject President Obama’s proposed agreement over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. I’ve discussed my thoughts about the deal as I’ve travelled throughout Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District the last few weeks and I’ve listened to the concerns expressed by those I represent. Many remain puzzled as to why are we negotiating in the first place with a regime that has a stated intent to destroy the United States and Israel. Remember that just days after this deal was reached, Iran’s Supreme Leader applauded and encouraged a large crowd gathered in Tehran as it chanted “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Also puzzling is, even if we are going to negotiate, why be so unwilling to walk away when our stated objectives fall one after the other? I share my constituents’ frustration at a flawed, weak deal that seems to serve Iran’s interests at the expense of our own. How is that? First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime” like negotiators originally said would be a deal-breaking must. In fact, at certain sites the Iranians could have up to 24 days’ notice before inspectors are allowed in. That’s a joke. And, even then, Americans are prohibited from making unilateral inspections. Second, the “snap back” provisions the Administration points to as accountability mechanisms are weak by their own admission. Secretary Kerry and President Obama have repeatedly said that our unilateral economic sanctions don’t work and put the United States at a disadvantage. Yet, the threat of those very sanctions “snapping back” into place is supposed to be the way we make sure Iran lives up to the agreement. They can’t have it both ways. If our sanctions aren’t strong enough on their own now, why would we rely on them as a way to hold Iran accountable in the future? Third, under this deal, at least $50 billion would flow into Iran’s coffers. Let’s not kid ourselves to think that the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism won’t turn around and fund those who want to harm Americans and our allies. So, not only will we have paved the way for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and potentially initiated a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, but we will have strengthened the hand of this adversarial state while weakening our own. Reports say President Obama now has the votes in the Senate to sustain a veto of our resolution rejecting the deal. That won’t stop me from working with my colleagues to point out these weaknesses and make those Senators defending this deal explain why to their constituents. One silver lining is, because this is an executive agreement and not a treaty, it is subject for review in the next administration. Let’s pray our next president doesn’t adhere to a foreign policy doctrine of “leading from behind.” Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She is currently serving her third term.
Martha Roby: Time to walk away?
With all that’s been going on lately, attention has turned from what I believe to be one of the most important issues facing our country right now: the Iran nuclear talks. This past week, the Obama Administration quietly announced yet another deadline extension to the multilateral negotiations over Iran’s nuclear capability. Of course, the goal for the United States and our allies is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, recent reports out of Switzerland have raised concerns that our negotiators have already conceded too much on major points such as uranium enrichment, economic sanctions relief and inspection access. The very fact that we keep extending the deadline tells you all you need to know about the priorities at play for the Administration. It seems that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are so concerned with settling on a deal, any deal, that they are not willing to walk away from a bad one as deadlines keep passing. We have had extension after extension and concession after concession – to the point that I’m not sure a good deal is even possible. As you know, a few months ago I traveled to the Middle East and visited the countries that would be directly dealing with a nuclear Iran: Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. These are our allies and they are rightly concerned that what is being brokered isn’t good at all. We cannot forget how high the stakes are here. If a bad deal is ratified, we aren’t just talking about a nuclear-armed Iran; we are talking about setting in motion a chain of events that could lead to multiple countries in this very volatile region wanting to become nuclear as well. And, after seeing the international community reward Iran’s hostility and obstinance with a nuclear deal, who would blame them? Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennesee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been outspoken in his concerns and recently wrote a letter to President Barack Obama saying in part, “Walking away from a bad deal at this point would take courage, but it would be the best thing for the United States, the region and the world.” I agree with Senator Corker that walking away from a bad deal would be the better option. No matter the outcome, I’m glad that Congress will have the final say over whether or not to lift sanctions on Iran. We cannot allow President Obama and Secretary Kerry to put their desire for a “legacy” achievement above the best interests of our nation and our allies. Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She is in her third term.
Jeff Sessions continues to press conservative agenda on immigration
In a letter taking to task Obama administration officials over the release from state custody of more than 100 deportable immigrants who later went on to commit violent crimes, U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions continued to work with Republican allies to advance a conservative immigration policy in the Senate. Sessions and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley — chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where Session has taken an active role lately — sent a letter addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Their letter railed against poor execution of deportation protocols by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formally requesting detailed answers to a list of more than 25 specific inquiries about why 121 suspected killers were allowed to pass through the federal immigration enforcement system and remain in the country. According to information provided by ICE, up to 121 homicides in the U.S. could have been avoided between Fiscal Year 2010 and 2014 had the aliens with criminal convictions been deported instead of released, Grassley and Sessions wrote. “This disturbing fact follows ICE’s admission that, of the 36,007 criminal aliens it released from ICE custody in FY 2013, 1,000 have been re-convicted of additional crimes in the short time since their release.” The senators pointedly asked the Cabinet members, appointed by President Barack Obama, whether their agencies are “fully leveraging existing tools and resources to prevent these dangerous outcomes.” “In the ongoing talks between the U.S. and Cuba, does the administration plan to make repatriation of all of those 30,000+ Cuban nationals, and not just some subset of that group, a condition precedent of granting diplomatic recognition to Cuba?” reads one question. “If not, why not?” The letter is in keeping with a long-term push on immigration on the part of Alabama’s junior senator. Last week, Sessions was vindicated in the conservative press after U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan expressed skepticism about Sessions’ claims that the Trans Pacific Partnership contains loopholes that could lead to a “flood” of new immigration. Ryan had called the language within the proposed TPP that would relax restrictions on the “Movement of Persons,” including professionals operating independently, an “urban legend.” Recent revelations about the trade deal, however, indicate that provisions to forbid mandatory interviews and economic means testing for visa-seekers are indeed part of the proposal, something that Sessions — dubbed by POLITICO as “the Senate’s anti-immigration warrior” — had spoken against. Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas called Sessions “perhaps the most vocal member of our conference” on immigration after he led the charge in confronting his own caucus in opposition of new H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers, saying it negatively affects domestic job-seekers. “We’ve got to ask — which hasn’t been asked — what does all this do to the ability of a college graduate who’s living at home with his parents because he can’t find a job?” said Sessions, chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration & the National Interest. That’s a familiar note in his protectionist quest against labor pool distortions because of foreign labor. His approach to the issue evidently has struck a chord in his home state: Sessions was the only incumbent senator who ran unopposed in both primary and general elections in 2014. Sessions and Grassley gave the administration officials addressed in their inquiry a July 6 deadline to respond.
