In the interest of clarity, the Wall Street Journal has taken the liberty of taking “the latest news in the Hillary email escapade, and distill it into its basic pieces.” WSJ,
Nothing Mrs. Clinton has said so far on the subject is correct. The Democratic presidential aspirant on March 10 held a press conference pitched as her first and last word on the revelation that she’d used a private email server while secretary of state. She told reporters that she’d turned over to the State Department “all my emails that could possibly be work-related.” And she insisted that she “did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
Not true and not true. The State Department has now admitted that it is aware of at least 15 work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton fully or partially withheld. We know this only because congressional Republicans, as part of their Benghazi probe, required longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal to turn over his correspondence with her. It revealed work-related emails that had not been disclosed…
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that challenges the way public-sector unions finance their operations. A ruling against unions would deal a large blow to organized labor. The New York Times,
“The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, was brought by California teachers who said being compelled to pay union fees to subsidize activities they disagree with violates their First Amendment rights.
“Limiting the power of public unions has been a long sought goal of conservative groups, and they welcomed Tuesday’s development.
“‘The question of whether teachers and other government employees can be required to subsidize the speech of a union they do not support as a condition of working for their own government is now squarely before the court,’ Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in a statement.
“The challengers say that some collective bargaining with a government employer amounts to lobbying and that forcing them to pay for those activities violates their First Amendment rights.”
President Barack Obama was blocked on Monday from regulating emissions through an environmental initiative by the checks and balances of our government when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to block limits on emissions. The New York Times,
SCOTUS blocked one of “Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives… meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants…
The Clean Air Act required the regulations to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.
The agency responded that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate.. [later adding] that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs.
[In clashing justifications]… Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.
“For E.P.A. to focus its ‘appropriate and necessary’ determination on factors relating to public health hazards, and not industry’s objections that emission controls are costly, properly puts the horse before the cart,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote for the majority.
In dissent, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that, in context, the statute required attention to costs “as a matter of common sense, common parlance and common practice.”
Republicans and Democrats are “fighting over which side is truly a friend of openness in the latest House GOP-led probe of the 2012 attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.” National Journal,
In the latest move, Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are seeking to boost political pressure on Republicans to release Sidney Blumenthal’s recent closed-door deposition before the panel…
Democrats are objecting to Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy’s recent release of Blumenthal’s emails without the deposition transcript, arguing that the transcript would provide needed background and context. Their new letter says they have a right to “insist” on a vote…
And Gowdy, for his part, has repeatedly in recent days said that it’s the State Department and Democrats that are lacking in the transparency department…
Gowdy wants to know whether State had them but did not produce them in response to earlier document requests or whether they weren’t provided by Clinton when she turned over emails from her private server to State late last year.