tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News March 14, 2015 11:00am-11:31am PDT
to the mama and babies. they're resting comfortably in a foster home. if you haven't already heard and especially if you're not a math whiz, happy pi day. that's right. 3-14-15 is pi die. >> eat banana cream pie. this week on "the journal editorial report," hillary clinton breaks her silence on the e-mail controversy, but will it reassure anxious supporters or coax another democrat into the presidential race? plus as the u.s. leads from behind in iraq, iran is filling the power vacuum. what it means for the fight against isis and american interests in the middle east. and just in time for 2016, the justice department announces a crackdown on coordination between candidates and the outside groups that support them. should conservatives expect the same treatment they got from the irs?
welcome to "the journal editorial report," i'm paul gigot. hillary clinton broke her silence this week on the scandal surrounding her use of a private e-mail address while serving as secretary of state. calling it a matter of convenience and claiming she complied with all state department rules. take a look at some of the highlights from her tuesday press conference. >> when i got to work as secretary of state i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account which was allowed by the state department because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private personal e-mails, e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. i did not e-mail any classified
materials to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. >> here with reaction, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor, dan henninger. bret stephens and washington columnist kim strassel. so kim, some of the pundits down there in washington, your environment that you kind of work in, say that this press conference put the issue behind secretary clinton. do you agree with that? >> they wish. this raised ten times more questions than we had even before. i mean, did she turn over all of those documents? who in fact ran that process for her? how do we know there was no classified information, what in fact was the security arrangement of this? and as this story has grown, we have found out there's a document that all state department employees are
supposed to sign as they leave a testing that they have turned over all work product and material. did she sign that? and if she did, what does that mean? so, no, a flurry of questions, still. and i don't know when or if she intends to ever answer them. >> well, i think she doesn't intend to answer them. i suspect this is all we're going to get from her, unless there's some new revelation. a simple question about the authority and fact. did she have the authority under the law to be able to make the decision by herself to -- which e-mails to turn over and which to keep? >> that question is central. she's making the argument, well everybody gets to make this choice. >> right. it's all matter how high or how high up the ladder. >> this is classic clinton, paul. the records law is very clear about what you should do. and she crafted a system that was entirely outside the realm of anything that had ever happened before.
and she's now having to revert to having to make legalistic arguments about whether she followed the law. >> okay she said she was e-mailing bill all the time. you know, her husband. then turns out bill -- bill as the wall street reported doesn't do e-mail. sent out two in his life and not to his wife. so i mean, what do you make -- how far is this going to go? >> i think this is a typical clinton behavior. this is known as stonewalling. like it's the clinton family sport, rather than give a full explanation of anything, you stone wall. >> you put out the story, that's it, i'm sticking to it. >> yeah. >> one big difference here though. during the clinton presidency, bill clinton deployed all the resources of the federal legal apparatus to defend himself. it was like a phalanx around the white house. she's a private citizen. she does not have those resources and, you know, the members of congress trey gowdy,
the prosecutor looking into benghazi jason chaff fits are making requests. i can see perhaps a subpoena then perhaps the issue of being held in contempt of congress. not that they'd be able to othat, but that means the issue will be kept alive. >> i suspect that strategy will help mrs. clinton because she will paint herself probably with some success as the victim of a congressional witch-hunt. >> oh, so you're saying republicans should drop it? >> well, i think they should be careful politically about how they go about doing this. i think quite frankly what this scandal reminds democrats a column by the late bill safire that mrs. clinton in his words is a congenital liar. and i think that this is being felt very powerfully not simply
among republicans who have always felt this or conservatives who suspected this, but among the democrats in 2008 who decided they desperately needed a different alternative, from the clinton narrative of lie stone wall deceive obstruct. >> how will you get to the bottom of it if the republicans don't use the subpoena power to try -- hold on. because the press corps can ask questions, but if she doesn't have a press conference they isn't a question and she's not making herself available. >> but legally this is difficult for them to subpoena the actual server she was -- it's private property. >> so drop the whole thing and let the press corps go at it or let it simmer and democrats figure, okay, hmm maybe we should have somebody run against her. but they have already concluded there's nobody out there to do it. >> i'm not sure that's true. they have concluded there's no one not to run because she seemed unstoppable. this is the first shoe of many shoes to drop and this is a candidate who has as many shoes as imelda marcos did in the scandal department.
this is going to whet the appetites of some people who had taken themselves out of the race prematurely. >> kim any -- any democrats i mean, who's going to run against her and who is serious and would have enough a chance to beat her? joe biden doesn't seem like he'd have a following, and the only one that comes to my mind is elizabeth warren. >> as long as this hillary clinton scandal broke and it followed on the clinton foundation revelation as well a lot of progressives don't like her and elizabeth warren is her horse. they have jumped all over this. they have been as critical if not more critical of hillary clinton over these escapades than even those on the right. they are using it to try to leverage elizabeth warren into the race. they would like to see her damaged in this because they hope it will make that opening. >> but there's nobody else out there to do it. except for warren. if she doesn't run, she's got the nomination all but locked
up i think. okay. when we come back with all eyes on washington on the nuclear negotiations with iran, the islamic republic is making advances in iraq. what it means for the fight against isis, and american interests in the middle east. no super-slow-motion footage of trucks splashing through the mud. no cowboy hats, horses, or hay bales.
we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angiealist.com. no more calling around. no more hassles. and you don't even have to be a member to start shopping today! angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today.
well with all eyes on washington on the obama administration's nuclear talks with iran, the islamic republic is making major but little noticed gains in iraq with tehran playing a dominant role in the military offensive to take back territory from isis. so dan, what do you make of this extended -- how widespread is it and what does it mean? >> well, it's very widespread and it's been going on for some
time. the head of the special forces in iran, the qods force -- >> most powerful man in iran and iraq. >> after the islamic state emerged the iranians went in there quickly. they started to -- and in iraq, political officials were going to tehran to discuss whether they could help them fight islamic states since it looked like the united states was not going to. and so, you had fatwas delivered by religious leaders in baghdad. the shiite militias have reformed and those militias are under the control of the iranians and they're now fighting in tikrit. so you're looking at the possibility of them extending themselves across iraq and into syria. and you know they have supported the forces in yemen, over the president of yemen there. if you have them extending their
control from yemen in the south, below saudi arabia, iraq to the north of saudi arabia, you've got the iranians more or less surrounding the saudis with a shiite crescent which would -- the saudis will not accept that. >> just to give you a sense of the magnitude brett, the reports are there are 20 to 25,000 shiite militia groups which are advancing on tikrit. >> about 3,000 iraqi soldersiersoldiers. >> so it's really a shiite force. >> you have to look back ten years ago, one of the principal criticisms is we handed the iraq over to iranians -- >> by removing saddam. >> by removing saddam we would increase iranian influence. that's not true. there are many reasons why iraqis including the sheiites don't want to be dominated by
iran. but when we withdrew completely and when they discovered it was either iranian help or increasing inroads from isis they turned to the iranians in a big way. so it's our withdrawal from iraq that has in fact handed over so much of iraq. >> but the president said, president obama said we'll put together a coalition and that coalition of neighboring states and that would have been in particular a coalition of ground forces from sunni neighboring states, like the gulf states, turkey in particular which has a very potent military. and egypt and jordan. we haven't seen anything like that coming to. why not? >> well, nothing at all. >> why not? >> well, i mean, look, there is a nominal coalition that serves the sort of -- theed aer have toirl purposes and those are welcome and important and right
now, the principal military partner of the united states in the fight against islamic state is iran. we are providing not directly, but indirectly we are providing an air force for these shiite -- iranian backed shiite militias. >> what does that mean in terms of the stability of the region? this is happening at the same time you have the nuclear talks. and if you let an iran get on the cusp of the nuclear weapon as i think this deal will end up if it is struck and you have the advances militarily on the ground, you're talking about iran emerging as the dominant force in the region. or is that taking things too far? >> i don't think so. i mean, if you get a situation of the sort that bret described that the united states is essentially pulled back from the situation, the saudi, the turks have to decide where do their interests lie and that's in obtaining the same nuclear capabilities that the iranians have. >> the saudis an allies have
concluded that the united states is not a good ally, so they will have to get them on their own. so a nuclear deal with iran which is intended to defuse a nuclear escalation is actually leading to a nuclear escalation. >> all right. kim, let me take a different subject briefly and that's a letter from tom cotton, the senator from arkansas. 47 republicans said to the government of iran, saying, look, president obama may sign this nuclear deal but that doesn't mean the senate will vote for it. the white house said that was almost traitorous, so what's the fallout from that going forward? >> i mean, traitorous is taking it a bit far. i mean, what it was though, paul, it was a political distraction. what republicans need to be doing right now is building on this bipartisan coalition that does exist in the senate. that is pushing back very hard against president obama's authority to do this deal and not get congressional sign-off. you have legislation moving
forward that bob corker and robert menendez have done. they are very close at the moment to getting a veto proof override -- i mean a veto override if the president were to veto this bill. what this letter did was it made some democrats a little bit nervous. you see corker and menendez working very hard to remedy that and they seem to be working some progress again. >> all right. kim thanks. when we come back just in time for 2016 the justice department says it's cracking down on coordination between candidates and the outside groups that support them. so should conservatives expect the irs treatment from the doj?
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ great rates for great rides. geico motorcycle see how much you could save. you're here to buy a car. what would help is simply being able to recognize a fair price. that's never really been possible. but along comes a radically new way to buy a car called truecar. now it is. truecar has pricing data on every make and model so all you have to do is search for the car you want there it is. now you're an expert in less than a minute. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.
announced that it is gearing up to prosecute coordination between candidates and outside groups, a move that senior editorial page writer collin levy says should worry republicans in particular and the super pac that support them. so collin, why is this important, this announcement and why did they do it now? >> well i think you hit it right on the head, they did it now because the election is heating up. look, paul, this is scary because illegal coordination happens when a campaign is directly organizing its message with an outside group. which is then effectively spending money on the campaign's behalf. >> that's illegal. >> yes, that's illegal. but what's scary here is all the justice department really needs is the allegation that that is happening and then they can go on a fishing expedition, subpoenaing documents, bank records, all sorts of things. immense numbers of records from campaigns in an effort to find the needle in the hay stack. >> well definition of
coordination is pretty slippery. i mean it's not -- i mean, so people may know each other in the outside group and know somebody on the campaign. they may have worked for them previously. what is illegal is calmling them up on the phone and say, we want you to run a $5 million buy to influence this race. but if it's in the ether, we understand there's no active coordination it's not illegal, but this can become a fishing expedition that can dig into everything inside a campaign and create havoc. with the mere accusation, is that fair? >> yeah, that's certainly fair. we saw that happen in wisconsin. with the allies of scott walker who all of a sudden had prosecutors literally subpoenaing thousands of pages of documents. the same thing could happen with the justice department. the fact that they used the words that they were going to aggressively pursue possible coordination offenses here i think with us meant as a scare tactic too. it was meant to put these campaigns on alert.
hey, you know, we're watching you. >> and there's a link here is there not, this is really interesting between the justice department figure who's announced this, richard pilger, who runs the campaign crime section, and the irs. the irs figure lois lerner who ran the tax exempt section that had harassed conservative groups. put that together for us. >> yeah, that's right. back in 2010 mr. pilger was e-mailing with lois lerner saying, hey, maybe we should lock look at the possibility of prosecuting these groups for any false statements they make on their application here. so you know, you get the real sense that he's a true believer and i think that's something we should be very wary of. >> so kim, how should republican campaigns respond to this? >> well, look, you have to step back and put this in context. the irs and the justice department. this is all part and parcel,
more broadly too. look at the disclosure laws that the obama administration has wanted to impose on corporations. this is not necessarily about keeping campaign finance law in good order. this is about shutting people up. it's about making them not talk, so republicans, that's going to be the threat to them. and they're going to have to i think continue operating as they normally do. if the justice department comes sniffing make an issue about this. most of the groups by the way, too, they have teams of incredibly experienced lawyers who know all the rules. >> right. >> you know, are keeping them in check. they have to be doubly careful about this too. >> lawyer up. >> exactly. this is the democratic obsession citizens united. the supreme court case that allowed the republicans to compete on the basis of money with the democrats. the democrats are going to take the republicans down because of citizens united. this is the method they'll use. >> this could pop up at any time during the election campaign.
(woman) the constipation and belly pain feel like a knot. how can i ease this pain? (man) when i can't go, it's like bricks piling up. i wish i could find some relief. (announcer) ask your doctor about linzess-- a once-daily capsule for adults with ibs with constipation or chronic idiopathic constipation. linzess is thought to help calm pain-sensing nerves and accelerate bowel movements. it helps you proactively manage your symptoms. do not give linzess to children under 6, and it should not be given to children 6 to 17. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain especially with bloody or black stools the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas stomach-area pain and swelling.
collin, start us off? >> a hit to wisconsin becoming a right to work state. governor walker signed the bill and what was remarkable to me how little fuss and drama there was to this compared to the union reforms. wisconsin is now the third state in the midwest to take this on in recent years. now they can compete with indiana and michigan. good for them. >> right to work means if you don't want to join a union and pay dues you don't have to. kim? >> speaking of politics like hillary clinton who never go away, this is a miss to the news
that charlie crist may be running for office again. for those who don't know charlie crist, he was a former governor of florida up to 2010. he's made an art form of doing anything to try to get back into office again. he's run for the senate again. run for the governorship, run as an independent and republican. if he does run, just spare a little feeling for the voters of florida. >> all right. dan? >> well, paul, last week, this was a miss to the secret service. last week according to "the washington post," two secret service agents who are on the president's detail were driving back from a work party at a bar at night to the white house where they ran through a criminal investigation surrounded by police tape slammed into a barricade. then a secret service supervisor refused to let the d.c. police give them a sobriety test. you know this was one of the most respected agencies in the
government, paul, and one hopes that eventually it will be able to restore themselves to that. >> let's hope so. thanks, dan. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. hope to see you right here next week. a new round of negotiations with iran set to begin tomorrow in pursuit of the deal over that country's nuclear program. secretary of state john kerry says what's just not sure if an agreement is close or even possible. he's -- he says the goal isn't any deal, but the right deal. hello, everyone. welcome to america's news headquarters, i'm kelly wright. >> i'm julie banderas. it's a critical moment to put limits on the nuclear energy capacity and prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. the deadline is the end of the month, but with extended -- was extended twice.