Subject: ​Correct The Record Wednesday January 28, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:03:13 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday January 28, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*MSNBC: “Republicans on Benghazi committee: Hillary who?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-benghazi-committee-hillary-who>*

“Republican members steered clear of Clinton Tuesday, uttering her name
only once, in passing, two hours into the hearing. Gowdy clearly had no
interest in discussing Clinton, referring only to ‘seventh floor
principals’ when discussing top officials in the State Department and even
driving the discussion away from Clinton at one point.”

*The Hill: “Clinton willing to testify before Benghazi panel, Democrat
says”
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/230924-clinton-willing-to-testify-before-benghazi-panel-democrat-says>*

“‘She said ... I’ll do it, period,’ Cummings said after the committee's
third hearing.”

*Politico: “Democrats: Hillary Clinton willing to testify before Benghazi
panel”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/democrats-hillary-clinton-benghazi-panel-114664.html>*

“A spokeswoman for Gowdy said he was ‘not aware of any formal notice that
she would [testify], just … Cummings’ statement at the press stakeout after
the hearing.’”

*ABC News: “Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton ‘Needs to
Be Talked To’”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-benghazi-committee-hear-hillary-clinton/story?id=28526747>*

“If he didn’t call Clinton before the committee, Gowdy said, it would be
‘an incomplete investigation.’”

*Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “Democratic Party is suddenly a
fount of ideas”
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-democrats-ideas-20150128-column.html>*

“You probably haven't seen much about, much less read, his report; It's 160
pages long and stuffed with serious economic analysis of why most
Americans' incomes haven't grown much in real terms since — ouch — 1973.
But its prescriptions are serious, and they are probably close to what
Hillary Rodham Clinton's economic platform will be, when we get to see it.”

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Hillary’s Iran problem”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/230951-dick-morris-hillarys-iran-problem>*

“The high-profile battle over congressional efforts to extend and
strengthen sanctions against Iran if it fails to dismantle its nuclear
weapons program has ominous implications for Hillary Clinton’s likely
candidacy for the White House.”

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “Republicans on Benghazi committee: Hillary who?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-benghazi-committee-hillary-who>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

January 27, 2015, 5:15 p.m. EST

It started off so well.

The cautious optimism for bipartisanship that surrounded the launch of a
House Select Committee on Benghazi came crashing down to earth Tuesday as
the panel divided into predictable camps along party lines. And the rift
came before the panel even got to Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of
state and likely future presidential candidate.

When it launched in May, both sides said they believed it could be a fresh
start on the polarizing investigation into the 2012 terror attack on a
diplomatic compound in Libya. Democrats praised Chairman Trey Gowdy, a
former prosecutor, who chose a Democratic member’s idea for the panel’s
first public hearing in September.

But relations broke down head of the third hearing Tuesday, and tensions
flared during the meeting. Democrats had long harbored suspicions that the
panel was biding its time before launching an attack what they believe is
the GOP’s true target – Clinton – but the committee never even made it that
far.

Republican members steered clear of Clinton Tuesday, uttering her name only
once, in passing, two hours into the hearing. Gowdy clearly had no interest
in discussing Clinton, referring only to “seventh floor principals” when
discussing top officials in the State Department and even driving the
discussion away from Clinton at one point.

When the committee’s witness, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Legislative Affairs Joel Rubin, said the panel had requested Clinton’s
emails, Gowdy corrected him. “You and your colleagues prioritized former
Secretary Clinton’s e-mails and that is our priority,” Rubin said.

“Well, I would say multiple emails. If there are multiple accounts, we want
all of the e-mails,” Gowdy replied.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio made the GOP side’s only reference to Clinton,
criticizing an independent review board because Clinton appointed most of
its members.

But it turned out that presidential politics were not needed to politicize
the panel.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland accused
Republicans of withholding key information from Democrats and operating
under a different set of rules. “I am saddened to report today that there
are major, major problems with this committee and its work,” Cummings said
in his opening statement.

Cummings and Gowdy exchanged strongly worded letters before the hearing,
with both sides accusing the other of politicizing the investigation and
operating in bad faith. Gowdy, meanwhile, accused the Obama administration
of being too slow to release documents, while Cummings accused Gowdy of
being too slow to steer the committee forward and toward its eventual
completion.

Before the hearing, California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said in a
statement that his deep “skepticism” about the committee “may have been all
too justified.” Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, meanwhile, had
threatened to walk off the panel.

During the hearing, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Democrat of California, mocked
the Republican-driven inquiry as a “quest to catch this mythical unicorn.”
Citing eight previous investigations into the attacks, she said, “None have
found this nefarious conspiracy.”

Gowdy and Republicans had been hoping to preserve and grow the credibility
of their inquiry, which is part of the reason for their assiduous avoidance
of taking pots shots at Clinton Tuesday. But Democrats are seeking to
undermine the credibility of the panel, in the hopes that it will be viewed
as a partisan witch hunt if it ever demands testimony from Clinton.

*The Hill: “Clinton willing to testify before Benghazi panel, Democrat
says”
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/230924-clinton-willing-to-testify-before-benghazi-panel-democrat-says>*

By Martin Matishak

January 27, 2015, 5:19 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is willing to testify before the House Select Committee
that is investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya,
according to the panel’s top Democrat.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Tuesday said he has spoken to Clinton about
the possibility of testifying at the request of Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), the
panel’s Republican chairman, and she “did not hesitate for one second.”

“She said ... I’ll do it, period,” Cummings said after the committee's
third hearing.

Cummings said Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time of the
Benghazi attacks, indicated to him last year that she “wanted to come in
December” to testify but could also come in January.

“The fact is that she was very clear,” Cummings said.

The possibility of an appearance from Clinton, the front-runner for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 if she makes a bid, has loomed
as the biggest question for the Benghazi panel since its formation last
summer.

Gowdy first floated the possibility of Clinton testifying late last year,
creating the potential for a dramatic confrontation with the former
secretary of State over a security failure that some Republicans argue
should disqualify her from the presidency.

Clinton is “a witness that we would like to talk to. I cannot tell you
when,” Gowdy said in December.

With the race for the White House set to erupt soon, Democrats could be
maneuvering to accelerate the work of the Benghazi panel so that it is not
investigating Clinton while she is running for the presidency.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, on Tuesday said he and Cummings had initially
agreed last year that Clinton should be brought before the panel.

But after that discussion, Gowdy said, Cummings had an unexpected change of
heart.

“The deal I had with Mr. Cummings is we will bring her before the committee
within 30 days of receiving all the [State Department] documents responsive
to our request,” Gowdy said.

He said the State Department must hand over the information the panel is
seeking, including potentially some of Clinton’s emails, before Clinton
testifies.

“If I were to conclude this investigation having not talked to the
secretary of State at the time it would be an incomplete investigation,”
Gowdy said. “But I can’t talk to her until I have the documents that would
make that conversation productive. I’m not interested in having a
conversation where old allegations are repeated or a shouting match.”

“I want to ask specific questions rooted in documents,” he added.

Gowdy said he would be “happy to take her in January, February, March,
whenever” but that it was up to the panel’s Democrats on “how quickly” they
get to her testimony.

“I’m willing to work with them on the timing. I’m willing to do it sooner
rather than later,” Gowdy said. “What I’m not willing to do is do it in a
vacuum where I don’t have access to the documents.”

Cummings disputed that he changed his mind about having Clinton appear.

“That’s not true. I don’t know how he could say that because we’ve never
been against it. He asked me to check with her. I did that she said she was
willing to come so it was a non-issue,” Cummings said.

“If the committee wants her to come, she’s willing to come,” the Democrat
added.

The spat over Clinton’s testimony comes at time of rising partisan tensions
on the select committee, with members clashing over how the panel is
conducting its investigation.

On the eve of an open hearing Tuesday, Cummings released letters in which
he accused Republicans of conducting witness interviews in secret and
withholding information from the Democratic members of the panel.

"I am saddened to report today that there are major, major problems with
this committee and its work," Cummings said in his opening statement,
adding that its work is moving at a “glacial pace.”

Gowdy fired back that the criticism was “interesting” coming from
Democrats, given that they fought the creation of the panel and have
repeatedly threatened to boycott its work.

But Gowdy saved most of his ire for the State Department, taking it to task
for failing to comply with requests for witness testimony and documents.

"This is not a political exercise for us," Gowdy said. "We're going to
ratchet it up because I need access to the documents and the witnesses and
we need to be able to conclude our work."

The House created the select committee last May to investigate the 2012
Benghazi attacks. Republicans argue a new probe was needed to explore
unanswered questions about the administration’s response to a terrorist
assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher
Stevens.

Democrats have accused the GOP of launching a “witch hunt” against Clinton,
and on Tuesday portrayed the panel as a partisan exercise.

"Now, more than ever, I'm convinced that my colleagues are in search of a
mythical creature — a unicorn, that is, a made-up conspiracy that does not
exist," said Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.).

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said the Republican majority on the committee
made no document requests between May and December, adding that Gowdy’s
comments about wrapping up their work “boggles the mind.”

Republicans dismissed the complaints as “ridiculous” and said the five
Democrats’ on the panel were hypocrites because they have not suggested any
witnesses or requested any documents for the probe.

“The happiness of the Democrats was never my objective in the first place,"
Gowdy said after the hearing.

“They’re looking for a reason to leave.”

*Politico: “Democrats: Hillary Clinton willing to testify before Benghazi
panel”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/democrats-hillary-clinton-benghazi-panel-114664.html>*

By Lauren French

January 27, 2015, 7:21 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] But Chairman Trey Gowdy says the committee first needs
additional documents from the State Department.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has agreed to testify before the
House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi —
setting up what could be an explosive hearing for the likely 2016
presidential candidate.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the panel, told reporters Tuesday
that Clinton had informed him she was willing to testify as early as
December 2014 before the panel. Cummings said he reached out to Clinton
during the early days of the panel’s investigation in September at the
request for committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

“She immediately said she would do that and she wanted to come in December
and then she said, ‘Well, if you can’t have me in December I’ll come in
January.’ She said … ‘I’ll do it, period,’” Cummings said.

A spokeswoman for Gowdy said he was “not aware of any formal notice that
she would [testify], just … Cummings’ statement at the press stakeout after
the hearing.”

Gowdy has long expressed an interest in hearing from Clinton, who ran the
State Department when the 2012 attacks at the Benghazi compound occurred.

The Democratic aide said Clinton “agreed to testify as early as this past
December” but has not been officially called to testify.

Any appearance from Clinton is sure to set off controversy. Conservatives
have long pointed to the Benghazi attacks to argue that Clinton is not up
to the job as commander-in-chief, and any remarks she made during the
hearing would be sure to be used against her during a presidential run.
Democrats have dismissed the Republican interest in Clinton as partisan
politics meant to distract their party’s likely 2016 nominee.

Gowdy reiterated on Tuesday that he would like to hear from Clinton but
said the panel needed additional documents from the State Department before
he would ask her to appear. The State Department has sent the Benghazi
panel more than 40,000 documents — including 15,000 never previously sent
to Congress — but Gowdy and House Republicans have dozens of standing
requests.

Clinton has previously testified before House and Senate panels
investigating the Benghazi attacks, including a memorable exchange with
Sen. Ron Johnson in 2013 over the White House’s response to the siege in
the days after Sept. 11, 2012.

“With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it
because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide
to kill some Americans — what difference at this point does it make?”
Clinton said. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything
we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

*ABC News: “Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton ‘Needs to
Be Talked To’”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-benghazi-committee-hear-hillary-clinton/story?id=28526747>*

By Jeff Zeleny

January 27, 2015, 5:21 p.m. EST

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said
Tuesday he still intended to summon former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to testify as part of the investigation into the 2012 attack on the
U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed four Americans.

“Every witness who has relevant information needs to be talked to,” Gowdy
told reporters after a committee meeting Tuesday.

If he didn’t call Clinton before the committee, Gowdy said, it would be “an
incomplete investigation.”

The House Select Committee on Benghazi is charged with delivering the final
word on the attack, which has been the subject of an intense political
battle.

Several previous Congressional investigations into the attack have found no
wrongdoing by U.S. officials, but that has done little to cool the partisan
acrimony surrounding the incident on whether the State Department under
Clinton’s direction did enough to prevent the attack.

Clinton, who is believed to be moving closer to announcing her bid for the
2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has said she would testify. But
Democrats believe she should have been already been called and worry that a
delay could interfere with her presidential campaign.

Her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013
has become a soundtrack for Republican opposition to her candidacy. Her
supporters fear another round of testimony would only inflame the partisan
debate over the Benghazi attack.

Gowdy told reporters Tuesday that he has been unable to get documents from
the State Department pertaining to the attack, which has delayed his call
for Clinton to testify. He said the government has been dragging its feet
in release emails and other documents.

“I am willing to do it sooner rather than later,” said Gowdy, a South
Carolina Republican. “What I am not willing to do is do it in a vacuum
where I don’t have access to the documents.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, downplayed the
criticism over the release of documents. He said Clinton has been willing
to testify.

“If the committee wants her to come she is willing to come,” Cummings,
D-Md., told reporters. “So if the excuse is that the State Department
documents haven’t gotten there, it makes no sense.”

*Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “Democratic Party is suddenly a
fount of ideas”
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-democrats-ideas-20150128-column.html>*

By Doyle McManus

January 27, 2015, 5:50 p.m. EST

Only a few months ago, it looked as if Republicans had recaptured their old
claim to be the party of ideas, especially on the economic issue that has
seized the attention of most Americans: the stagnation of middle-class
incomes.

The GOP's former vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.),
unveiled proposals to help the struggling middle class. Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.), another conservative hero, inveighed against income inequality.
Even Mitt Romney, the once and perhaps future presidential candidate, has
started saying it is time to get serious about poverty.

Meanwhile, Democrats seemed like an extinct volcano. Many of them
campaigned for November's midterm election without any clear economic
message at all. It didn't turn out well.

In politics, nothing concentrates the mind like electoral defeat — unless
it's the low roar of an oncoming presidential campaign.

And so, in the last few weeks, the Democratic volcano has erupted with
ideas. President Obama listed dozens in his State of the Union speech,
beginning with a tax increase on the top 1% to pay for child-care and
education benefits for the middle class. House Democrats went further,
proposing a tax on financial transactions that would allow for broader tax
cuts for workers. And a think-tank task force co-chaired by former Treasury
Secretary Lawrence H. Summers proposed tax breaks for middle-income folks
as well as tax incentives to push companies toward sharing profits with
their workers.

“Stagnation in wages and income is a choice, not a necessity,” Summers
said. “A different choice is possible.”

You probably haven't seen much about, much less read, his report; It's 160
pages long and stuffed with serious economic analysis of why most
Americans' incomes haven't grown much in real terms since — ouch — 1973.

But its prescriptions are serious, and they are probably close to what
Hillary Rodham Clinton's economic platform will be, when we get to see it.
The report was sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress, whose
founder, John Podesta, is expected to become chairman of Clinton's
presidential campaign. The think tank's president, Neera Tanden, was
Clinton's chief policy advisor in 2008.

And the report isn't coy about its political purpose; it sets out to update
the centrist Democratic policies Bill Clinton ran on in the 1990s. “The
world has changed,” Summers said.

The core argument is that economic growth alone isn't enough to ensure
sustained prosperity any more. Unless profits are broadly shared, the
argument goes, the economy won't generate enough domestic spending to keep
growth going — or alleviate the widening gap between rich and poor.

Most of the solutions would be on almost any Democrat's wish list: more
spending on education and training, more spending on roads and bridges and
airports, paid parental leave for both fathers and mothers, and paid sick
and vacation days for all.

And there's that corporate reform: legislation to push employers to share
more of their growing profits with their employees, and to shift financial
incentives for executives from short-term stock price increases to
long-term growth.

The report calls for strengthening the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation
law, including tougher punishment for financial crimes beginning with
mandatory “clawbacks” of bonuses paid to executives who are found
responsible for malfeasance.

That sounds like a bow to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others on the
Democratic left who have long complained that Wall Street got away with too
much in the Great Recession. But the Summers report doesn't call for
breaking up or shrinking big banks, as Warren has proposed, so it's
unlikely to satisfy every progressive.

It won't make every centrist Democrat happy, either. The Progressive Policy
Institute, a think tank spawned by Bill Clinton's New Democrat movement,
began work this week on a list of policies focused on promoting private
sector growth. “We need to expand our growth agenda to attract voters who
may not agree with us,” the group's president, Will Marshall, told me.

And what does Hillary think? She's not saying. As the prohibitive
front-runner in a race she hasn't formally joined, she can let the
arguments percolate.

She's given clues, of course — but in all directions. She said she loved
“watching Elizabeth [Warren] give it to those who deserve to get it.” In
Canada last week, she struck a less populist note, saying the pressing
problem is “small- and medium-sized business formation.”

And she has offered terse tidbits of policy via Twitter, warning Congress
that “attacking financial reform is risky and wrong” and praising Obama's
State of the Union address — but adding: “Now we need to step up & deliver
for the middle class.”

But for Democrats who worried that their party's idea shortage might be
chronic and disabling, the eruption of economic prescriptions must come as
a relief. There's a debate underway, and the front-runner even has a draft
platform in hand. The Democrats won't have to wage another campaign without
an economic message after all.

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Hillary’s Iran problem”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/230951-dick-morris-hillarys-iran-problem>*

By Dick Morris

January 27, 2015, 7:49 p.m. EST

The high-profile battle over congressional efforts to extend and strengthen
sanctions against Iran if it fails to dismantle its nuclear weapons program
has ominous implications for Hillary Clinton’s likely candidacy for the
White House.

President Obama’s in-your-face veto threat, delivered in his State of the
Union speech last week, has elevated this issue to the point where it has
become the most important early battle between him and the new Republican
Congress. Even if Democrats in the Senate cave and try to delay a sanctions
vote, the stark contrast between the GOP and the president has made Iran
sanctions a key national issue that is likely to have a life of its own as
we move into 2016.

This polarization has made it increasingly impossible for Clinton to fudge
her position on sanctions, as she has been doing for years. Recognizing
this fact, right after Obama spoke, the former secretary of State backed
him up, calling further congressional action on sanctions a “serious
strategic error,” warning that it would “guarantee diplomacy fails” and
that it might be the “catalyst for the collapse of negotiations.”

In the past, Clinton has publicly proclaimed her backing for tough
sanctions and even taken credit for their effectiveness. But all the while
she has been privately sending her lobbyists up to Capitol Hill to battle
against them. In fact, when Congress was considering the most effective of
the sanctions imposed on Iran, legislation that targeted the country’s
Central Bank and made it more difficult for Tehran to sell its oil, Clinton
sent her people up to Capitol Hill to testify against the proposals.

They argued that making it more difficult for Iran to sell oil might drive
up its prices and unintentionally give Iran a windfall profit. Wendy
Sherman, Clinton’s undersecretary, explained this convoluted logic, saying
“there is absolutely a risk that in fact the price of oil would go up,
which would mean that Iran would, in fact, have more money to fuel its
nuclear ambitions, not less.”

We all know how that worked out.

But while Clinton’s people pushed Congress to go slow on sanctions, she
took credit for their effectiveness in her book Hard Choices. Until now,
she has been able to have it both ways: seeming to back sanctions while
really opposing them.

But with the high-profile confrontation looming between Congress and Obama
over sanctions, her deft dance can no longer be sustained. If Congress
passes sanctions and Obama, with Clinton’s approbation, vetoes the
legislation (and it is not overridden), she will have made herself
responsible for the outcome of the process. If Iran does go nuclear or
refuses to dismantle any of its centrifuges, she’ll have to defend the
Ayatollah’s actions from the campaign trail, a hazardous undertaking for a
candidate for president.

Democrats had hoped that the first big confrontation between the newly
elected Republican Congress and the president would come over a government
shutdown where the administration could portray its opponents as being in
the grip of the Tea Party. For their part, Republicans sought to avoid the
shutdown trap and were looking toward the Keystone oil pipeline as the
leading issue.

But now Iran sanctions have come to the fore and loom large on center stage.

Hillary Clinton is tied to President Obama on the issue. Where he goes, she
will follow. The careful distancing of herself from the failures in
administration foreign policy is no longer an option for Clinton. Appeasing
Iran is her plan now.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)