In contrasting reports released Monday and Tuesday by House Democrats and Republicans, respectively, the harrowing events at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 have been poked and prodded, with the two sides reaching opposite conclusions.

“None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines,” the Republicans, headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), concluded in its 800-page report. “Nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began.” The report is the result a two year, $7 million investigation into the deaths of four Americans–including U.S. Ambassador to Libya  Christopher Stevens–in Benghazi. 

The Democratic minority faction of the House Select Committee on Benghazi concluded in its report, which was led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and released on Monday in an effort to pre-empt the Republican findings, that the Department of Defense “could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi.”

They added that while the security at the compound–which was the site of two separate terrorist bombings a mile away from each other, and hours apart–was “woefully inadequate,” “Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.”

Hillary Clinton has been a political flashpoint over the nearly four years since the attacks and throughout the seven total investigations into the events of September 11, 2012. She was secretary of state at the time of the attacks, and her name has been wielded by Republicans as a key implicit character in its confusing aftermath.

She testified before the committee last October. Immediately following the tragic episode, the State Department portrayed the attacks as a response to an anti-Muslim video. In the subsequent months, the attack was found to have been premeditated by Islamic militants, unrelated to any such video.

And while Republicans have at least partially blamed Clinton in previous investigations–one of which led to a separate FBI investigation into her use of a private email server, an issue that is still present as she campaigns to be the next president–into the attacks, the latest report does not focus on her, but on the miscommunication and failings of the Department’s larger security apparatus. The Democrats called the Republican report “a conspiracy theory on steroids” and said it was the “opposite” of bipartisan.

For their part, the Republican side dismissed the Democrats’ report as being full of  “rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” alluding to Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

In their statement responding to the Democrats’ 339-page report, the Republicans highlighted a few key terms and the frequency with which they appeared in the Democrats’ “so-called ‘report'”: “Clinton” appears 334 times, and “Stevens,” the surname of the U.S. ambassador killed during the attack, appeared 85 times. This, according to the Republicans, reinforces the Democrats’ fixation on Clinton in regards to Benghazi.

Regardless of the political theatre and partisan ammunition the Benghazi attacks have provided, the one agreed upon point from both sides–the lax security at the diplomatic compound–has resulted in some good news. “We have made great progress towards making our posts safer since 2012,” the State Department said in a statement Monday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dueling Benghazi Reports Released by House Democrats and Republicans appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

A little while back, fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek wrote an excellent, handy-dandy guide entitled “How to Sue Your President: Obama Edition.” The inspiration for the guide was born out of the claim from Speaker of the House John Boehner that he was going to sue President Obama. The suit was intended to address what Speaker Boehner and House Republicans saw as failures to legally implement parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Boehner announced his plan in a letter to members of the House of Representatives that also read:

On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

The guide that Marisa wrote was incredibly helpful. Speaker Boehner really should have checked it out, because as it turns out, the lawsuit hasn’t really gone anywhere. In fact, it’s been dropped twice by law firms who were working on the case for House Republicans. Interestingly enough, the House Republicans are blaming the fact that no one seems to be able to stay on their case on Democrats. A spokesperson for Speaker Boeher, Kevin Smith, stated:

The litigation remains on track, but we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House, rather than through law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients.

The idea of the House Republicans moving the suit in the actual House could be a smart one, given that currently, taxpayer money would be going to fund the payment of outside counsel. That being said, it doesn’t really look like there’s much action being taken.

In Marisa’s original “how to” piece she posed the question of whether or not this was a legitimate attempt by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans to bring a suit against the President, or whether it was all just a publicity stunt.

Right now, if the lawsuit can’t get off the ground, it seems like the latter may end up being true.

In the meantime, Speaker Boehner, and pretty much everyone else should check out “How to Sue Your President.” With the way that Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit is going, it couldn’t possibly hurt to get some guidance.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Not to Sue the President: No Progress for Speaker Boehner appeared first on Law Street.