A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails appeared first on Law Street.

To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

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 Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

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 Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

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 The Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently approved even harsher vetting processes for people applying for a visa to travel to the United States. The U.S. currently has one of the most complicated visa processes in the world, and many groups believe that even stricter rules will put off foreign students, scientists, and others from coming here.

The new rules would allow officials to question applicants about their social media accounts, email addresses, and phone numbers from the past five years. Applicants would also have to divulge their home addresses, employment, and travel history from the past 15 years, as well as all previous passport numbers. So people would need to keep all the passports they have owned throughout their lives to apply for a visa to America.

All visa applicants wouldn’t face these new questions. It would be up to each consular official to determine whether additional questions are needed to “conduct more rigorous national security vetting,” according to a State Department official. They would also be voluntary, as the questionnaire states, but not answering them could result in the visa being delayed or denied.

Trump admin’s ridiculous new visa rules will hurt the economy. Total contribution of tourism in 2016: 8.1% of GDP https://t.co/jJQkgt5m5r

— Rachel Glickhouse (@Riogringa) June 2, 2017

The Office of Management and Budget approved the new questions last week. More than 50 academic groups representing college admission counselors and advisers criticized the new rules in a letter to the State Department. They wrote that the new rules could act as a deterrent for foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. and might also lead to confusion, uncertainty, and long delays in processing times.

It is also very ill-defined and vague in regard to who is affected by the new rules. One estimation said that the questions would apply to about 65,000 visa applicants every year. Earlier, the State Department said the new questionnaire would affect those “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.”

But it’s likely that not everyone will remember every single place they traveled to in the past 15 years, or even every social media handle they are signed up for. Immigration advocates have said such detailed questions are likely to stop travelers who make honest mistakes from being granted visas. And since the questions are voluntary, and not answering could–or could not–mean that your visa is denied, it makes it an arbitrary process.

For now, the questionnaire has been emergency approved to be used for six months–the usual time for this type of vetting is three years. Considering the majority of the 200 comments submitted when the new rules were open for public comments were negative, this is likely to create more frustration and protests in the near future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Tightens Vetting Process for Visa Applicants appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Accusations of State Violence

“Instances of police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption” are cited as the most significant examples of human rights violations in India. While an investigation by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed examples of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings throughout the country, the State Department report said, data from the Institute for Conflict Management suggests a concentration of killings in northern states, particularly along the Indian-Pakistani border.

While state violence is identified as a primary concern, injustices are believed to extend to almost every aspect of India’s criminal justice system. Here are some examples:

• According to the report, police and government officials have consistently denied claims of hundreds of unresolved disappearances, and have supposedly demanded bribes from people hoping to learn whether or not their family members are currently detained.
• According to the National Law University in Delhi, 216 of the 270 death row inmates they interviewed had been tortured.
• Investigations by NHRC revealed numerous cases in which police officers raped detainees and NGOs argued the government agency underestimated the figures.
• Research indicates that activists and “economically vulnerable” people are at a much greater risk of being arbitrarily detained and subjected to cruelty. Torture is often used to force false confessions.
• Judicial corruption is believe to be widespread and, according to the Supreme Court, 43 percent of the country’s high court positions are vacant.

The report suggests India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a major contributing factor to state violence and arbitrary detention. Though there are multiple iterations, the act grants security forces special powers in areas the government has determined to be “disturbed.” These “special powers” include, but are not limited to, the right to use deadly force against anyone who is in violation of the law, and to arrest anyone “who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence” without a warrant.

Security forces also have the right to enter and search property without a warrant. While there are numerous Islamic and Maoist insurgent groups operating in the “disturbed areas,” critics argue the decades-long enforcement of AFSPA has only escalated violence carried out by the government with impunity.

A White House Response?

In a press briefing on Friday about the upcoming visits of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, a senior White House official said that human rights were “first and foremost in our discussions [with foreign leaders],” but that the Trump Administration plans on approaching “these types of sensitive issues in a private, more discreet way.” This approach however, makes it difficult for the public to know whether matters of human rights are discussed with foreign leaders at all. If existing information is anything to go by, trade, not human rights, will be the topic of choice during Modi’s visit.

By all accounts, President Donald Trump and Modi enjoy a warm relationship. Five days after his inauguration, Trump called the prime minister, expressed his support for Modi’s economic reforms, and invited Modi to the White House. Trump called Modi again last Tuesday to congratulate him on his party’s victories in state-level elections. After the call, the White House confirmed Modi would be visiting Washington sometime this year. No date has been set.

When Trump called Modi in January, “the two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defense,” according to the White House. While campaigning, Trump expressed support for Modi’s plan for economic growth. In an interview with The Times of India, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns suggested that a bilateral investment treaty would likely be a priority for both countries when Modi visits. It is safe to assume that the topic of trade will take precedence in any upcoming discussions between the U.S. and India.

Trump is unlikely to address the matter of human rights, even “in a private, more discreet” setting. After the two leaders spoke in January, a Trump spokesperson noted that they had agreed to “stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism.” India has long used terrorism as the justification for AFSPA and state violence at large. In spite of the fact that the State Department identified state violence as one of the most flagrant examples of human rights violations in India, the “law and order president” is unlikely to condemn the hardline policies believed to be motivating the violence.

While the scathing human rights report carries Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s signature, the endorsement is only a formality. Trade will likely be at the forefront during Modi’s visit and any future discussions between the two countries.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi? appeared first on Law Street.

In what might be the largest assault on the funding of government agencies in decades, President Donald Trump released a preliminary budget proposal on Thursday. The budget, a $1.1 trillion affair, would mostly benefit the Defense Department, while considerably reducing funds for the EPA, the State Department, and a whole host of other federal agencies. The budget is called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.”

About three-quarters of the federal budget is mandatory spending, or spending that is largely locked in and cannot be shifted. Mandatory spending is generally comprised of entitlement spending and interest payments on the national debt. The remaining quarter of the budget is discretionary spending, or spending that the presiding administration and Congress can alter. This is the chunk of the budget–in which funding to federal agencies falls–that would be affected by Trump’s proposals.

Here is a guide to help you navigate Trump’s first budget proposal as president, and what might happen next.

Focus on National Security

For the federal government’s budget for the 2018 fiscal year, Trump has one clear area in mind that could use an infusion of cash: national security. Under Trump’s proposed budget, $54 billion would be added to defense spending, a ten percent increase. The funds would, in part, according to Trump’s budget, help to increase the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps and build-up the military’s ship and plane fleets.

“The core of my first budget blueprint is the rebuilding of our nation’s military without adding to our federal deficit,” Trump said in a letter that accompanied the proposed budget. Some Republicans worry that the increase in military spending does not go far enough. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said “the administration’s budget request is not enough to repair” the damage done by the military spending cuts in recent years.  

Another costly security-related project that the budget proposal covers: Trump’s long-touted wall on the Mexican border. The price tag for that endeavor, which the proposed budget allocates funds for, would be roughly $2.5 billion.

Severe Cuts to Non-Defense Agencies

How would the increases to defense spending be paid for? After all, when Trump pledged to drain the swamp, he never said money trees would sprout in its place. Ten federal agencies would face cuts of over ten percent of their current budget. The EPA, led by Scott Pruitt, a fervent critic of the agency, would see a 31 percent decrease in spending–a cut of about $2.5 billion. Programs to protect wildlife and the environment would be scaled back; 3,200 employees would lose their jobs.

The State Department, the government’s diplomatic arm of international engagement, would also face a stiff budget cut: nearly $11 billion would be shaved off the agency’s funding, a 29 percent drop. Contributions to the UN–for peacekeeping missions and efforts to combat climate change–would be drastically reduced, as would contributions to the World Bank.

Some observers believe that reduced spending to the State Department could, ironically, compromise national security. “We learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan that our military needs an effective civilian partner if victories on the battlefields are going to be converted into a sustainable peace,” said Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. In addition to the cuts to the EPA and State, funding to 19 agencies would be eliminated entirely, from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

Next Up: Congress

It is highly unlikely that the 2018 fiscal year budget will resemble what Trump proposed on Thursday. For one, the Obama Administration capped military spending in 2013, caps which could not be undone without 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats would likely all oppose such an attempt. In addition to Democratic opposition, many Republicans see Trump’s cuts as being too severe, if not illogical and unnecessary.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the proposed State Department cuts render the budget proposal “dead on arrival.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the cuts to foreign aid, which makes up a fraction of the budget but has a substantial impact, go too far. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a connoisseur of conservative budget planning, supported Trump’s first draft. “We are determined to work with the administration to shrink the size of government, grow our economy, secure our borders, and ensure our troops have the tools necessary to complete their missions,” he stated. But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), seemingly the face of congressional GOP opposition to Trump, gives the budget outline a slim chance of passing the Senate. “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate,” he said in a statement.

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 What You Need to Know About Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s decree on Friday, barring refugees and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries from entering the U.S., ignited protests across the country on Saturday and Sunday. Now, members of the State Department are joining the dissent: over 100 officials have signed a memorandum that warns that the executive order could in fact deepen the terrorist threat that Trump is seeking to contain.

A draft of the State Department memo said the order runs the risk of increasing “anti-American sentiment” and implies “that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unacceptable security risk.” The executive order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days; Syrian refugees and immigrants are blocked indefinitely. Visitors and immigrants from the other six countries–Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan–cannot come to the U.S. for 90 days.

This was hardly the first time the State Department has utilized its “dissent channel,” which was created after the Vietnam War, but this number of signatories is unprecedented. In June 2016, 51 State Department officials signed a dissent memo that criticized President Barack Obama’s policy in Syria. The number of signatories to that memo was considered unusual at the time. The latest memo has attracted nearly double the number of dissenting officials.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said the department’s “dissent channel” is an “important process.” He added: “It allows State employees to express divergent policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.” Traditionally, dissent memos are given to the secretary of state, who has the power to act on the memo. Trump’s choice, Rex Tillerson, is not expected to be confirmed until Wednesday.

The White House, which has vehemently defended its actions after a torrent of criticism from religious leaders, Democrats, private citizens, business leaders, and many Republican congressmen, did not seem to react well to the dissent memo. In a press conference on Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said if somebody “has a problem” with Trump’s agenda, then that can “call into question whether or not they should continue in that post or not.” Spicer added: “They should get with the program or they should go.”

Trump’s divisive order led to protests across the country, as people rushed to show support for the Muslim community and for refugees around the globe who will be denied entry into the U.S. for at least four months. In his first statement since leaving office, Obama expressed support for the protests, and criticized his successor’s order.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” the statement from Obama’s office said, adding that the former president “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

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 Over 100 State Department Officials Sign Memo Condemning Trump’s Refugee Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Events in Yemen over the past week have drawn America deeper into the country’s two-year conflict than it has ever been in the past. And now, in an attempt to lessen the potential for greater involvement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will work to negotiate a 72-hour ceasefire between the warring parties, in order to “create some kind of climate where a political dialogue or a dialogue can begin again,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said on Friday.

“We need to de-escalate obviously given the events of the past week and that is where the priority is right now,” Toner said.

Since last Saturday, the conflict has been a ping-pong match of missile strikes and diplomatic posturing. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia, the foremost backer of the Yemen government, bombed a funeral service, killing over 140 people. The U.S., which supports the Saudis in the conflict, responded by announcing a review in its commitment to Saudi Arabia’s goals regarding Yemen. Then, Houthi rebels, one of the main groups opposing the Yemen government, fired missiles at U.S. ships, failing to hit any targets. In retaliation, the U.S. launched strikes toward Houthi-held territory in the western tip of the country, destroying three radar installations that helped the rebels coordinate strikes of their own. 

Yemen, like the reality in nearby Syria, is a tangled web of alliances, proxy fighting forces, and lone wolf jihadist groups, all threatening to tear the Gulf nation apart. Two years ago, groups loyal to a former president backed the Houthi tribe and sacked the capital city of Saana, forcing the government to flee. Iran, a sworn enemy to Saudi Arabia, backs those groups, while Saudi Arabia, bolstered by the U.S., backs the exiled government forces. Amid these actors are Islamic State cells and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Kerry has spoken with a host of Saudi, Emirate, and other Gulf nations’ diplomats and top government officials to coordinate and discuss a possible cessation of hostilities. He also spoke with Boris Johnson, the U.K. Foreign Minister. Kerry is no stranger to ceasefires. He helped broker one with Russia over Syria a few weeks ago, which barely lasted a week before the country devolved into some of the worst violence in its nearly six-year civil war. We’ll have to see if any progress can be made in Yemen.

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 With Yemen Hurtling Toward Chaos, John Kerry Seeks Ceasefire appeared first on Law Street.

A hostage exchange with Iran in January depended on a U.S. payment of $400 million, State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday. While “we don’t pay ransom,” Kirby said, the U.S. sought “maximum leverage” because “Iran has not proved completely trustworthy in the past.” He added: “There were opportunities we took advantage of, and as a result we got American citizens back home.”

When the cash element of the exchange was reported a few weeks ago, President Obama and the State Department denied any link between securing the hostages–a Washington Post reporter, a marine, and a pastor–and the payment. Thursday represents the first time the administration addressed the hostages’ return as being contingent on the $400 million. But while Republicans in Congress who oppose the softened stance the U.S. has taken with Iran viewed Kirby’s admission as proof the payment was a ransom, Kirby stopped short of labeling it as such, referring to it only as “leverage.”

Reporter to John Kirby: “It seems like such a ridiculous explanation it shocks me that you’re actually providing it”https://t.co/typHndIq1Q

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 18, 2016

“If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it’s a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation,” said Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Thursday.

Kirby maintains the cash payment–which was part of a $1.3 billion sum the U.S. owed Iran from a botched arms deal in the 1970s–was negotiated separately from the hostage negotiations. The day the exchange took place at an airport in Tehran, January 17, was also the same day the Iran nuclear deal was officially implemented. All three negotiations–the $400 million, the nuclear deal, the prisoner return–were separate, according to Kirby, but it was convenient to carry them all out on the same day.

Obama and the State Department issued statements after the Wall Street Journal first reported the cash element in early August that seem to contradict what Kirby said on Thursday. “This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” Obama said on August 4, the day after the report came to light. “We do not pay ransom for hostages,” he added. And Kirby sent out a tweet the same day that said: “Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false.”

But the way things shook out that day in January, there seemed to be a link between the hostages being released and the payment being made, a point Kirby made on Thursday. The $400 million–denominated in foreign bills like Swiss Francs and Euros–sat on a plane in Geneva as the American hostages boarded a plane in Tehran. State Department officials did not green light the plane with the cash to takeoff for Tehran until the prisoners were confirmed to have departed. Kirby, in front of a group of prodding, aghast reporters, refused to label the transaction as a ransom while admitting the payment was “contingent” upon the prisoner release.

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 $400 Million Payment to Iran Connected to Hostage Release, State Dept. Says appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that frustrated the U.S. and has some questioning its adherence to international law, Russia began using a base in Iran to launch airstrikes against targets in Syria on Tuesday. Russia confirmed Wednesday that it launched additional strikes from Iran’s Shahid Nojeh Air Base in Hamedan Province for the second straight day. The U.S. State Department condemned Russia’s actions as “unfortunate, but not surprising,” and added it could be violating a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution by utilizing an Iranian air base.

For roughly the past year, Russia has been supporting the Syrian government with airstrikes against the Islamic State, which continues to maintain a presence in the heavily fractured country. Critics say Russia is bolstering Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, in his quest to exterminate any rebel groups who oppose his rule by deliberately destroying hospitals in rebel-held regions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Syria’s five-year civil war, and millions more have fled the country, seeking asylum in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia said it’s using Iran’s air base strictly to refuel its jets. “In the case we’re discussing there has been no supply, sale or transfer of warplanes to Iran,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister. Lavrov was responding to Mark Toner, the State Department spokesman who insinuated that Russia is breaching UNSC Resolution 2231, which prohibits the supply, sale, or transfer of combat aircraft to Iran without Security Council approval. “The Russian Air Force uses these warplanes with Iran’s approval in order to take part in the counter-terrorism operation,” Lavrov added.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said that Russia did alert U.S. forces of the move to launch jets from Iran, but that didn’t stop the U.S. from questioning the Kremlin’s use of an Iranian airbase as unlawful. On Wednesday, a spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, expressed Russia’s exasperation at suggestions that it’s breaching international law. “It’s hard to resist a recommendation for some State Department representatives to check their logic and knowledge of fundamental documents of international law,” he said, referencing Resolution 2231.

The clash underscores the knotted nature of alliances and adversaries that is crippling any semblance of peace in Syria. Russia is providing military support to the Syrian government, which is also backed by Iran. Those three nations, as well as the U.S. and its primary allies, have a common enemy: ISIS. Assad, the Syrian strongman who has exterminated large swaths of his citizenry, is also pitted against a collection of rebel groups who threaten his hold on power.

Emblematic of the violence that is tearing apart the country at the moment, Aleppo, one of Syria’s largest cities, saw seven civilians killed by rebel-launched airstrikes on Wednesday, according to Syria’s state-run news agency. Nine more were injured. Aleppo is split between the rebel-held east and the government-held west. It’s hospitals are being targeted by the Assad regime. Civilians are effectively trapped. On Wednesday, the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Aleppo should conditions remain the same or worsen.

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 Russia Launches Airstrikes from Iran for Second Straight Day appeared first on Law Street.

After two years of civil war, the world’s newest country, South Sudan, finally achieved a semblance of stability with the formation of a unity government in April. But last week, over a blood-soaked five-day stretch, its capital city erupted in violence and lawlessness. On Wednesday morning, the U.S. military in Africa announced the deployment of 40 additional troops to its capital, Juba, to bolster security and assist American nationals seeking to leave for safer pastures. Additionally, the U.S. Embassy in Juba is organizing flights for non-essential personnel to flee the city. Germany and Italy have begun similar initiatives.

In recent months, South Sudan has been relatively stable. Two warring factions–one loyal to the president, the other to the dissenting vice president–signed a peace agreement last August. The Transitional Government of National Unity formed this past April. But last week, the streets of South Sudan’s capital turned bloody. The U.N. reports that 36,000 civilians have fled their homes. Hundreds have died. The fighting was ignited by forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those loyal to Vice President Riek Machar–the same warring sides that ignited the civil war in 2013. The violence is a stark pivot for a country that was seemingly on the path to unity.

A sliver of good news arrived on Wednesday, with Reuters reporting that the vice president, whose forces were ousted by those loyal to the president, fled from Juba. He said he does not intend to reignite the war. South Sudan’s civil war has roots in its independence from Sudan in 2011. A government was cobbled together, with the president a member of the Dinka ethnic group and the vice president a member of the Nuer. So what began as political dissent evolved into a full-throated conflict between warring ethnic groups. An encouraging step toward peace came in April when a unity government formed. But the recent clashes have left the country’s future in doubt.

On July 10, the U.S. State Department issued a travel warning for U.S. citizens traveling to South Sudan. “This instability is exacerbated by intertribal and intercommunal violence, cattle raiding, economic uncertainty, and an increase in violent crime,” the warning read. “Aid workers have been the targets of shootings, ambushes, assaults, harassment and robberies, some resulting in death.” Human rights groups are calling on all sides to allow safe passage for its aid workers, who are reportedly being blocked by government forces from reaching areas that need assistance.

Read more about South Sudan and its struggle for stability

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 U.S. Troops Sent to South Sudan to Aid Fleeing Americans appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s emails, clap your hands.

James Comey is right there with you. The FBI Director said Tuesday that the bureau is recommending to the Department of Justice that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server during her term as secretary of state.

Some people are pretty mad.

Declining to prosecute Sec. Clinton for recklessly transmitting national security info will set a terrible precedent https://t.co/URtm1pFIIB

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 5, 2016

The Background

In 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, prompting a long string of investigations and questions about officials’ actions at the time–officials including a key player, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Part of the investigation was a look into Clinton’s email, which revealed that she had been using a personal server during her time heading up the State Department, which got more than a few people feeling uneasy. As secretary of state, she had access to a lot of classified information, which wasn’t supposed to be mixed in with her personal notes or hair appointment confirmations. This scandal has followed Clinton all throughout her campaign.

What’s Next?

 Comey said that the FBI didn’t find enough evidence to show that she intentionally mishandled the classified information, but did slide a little commentary in about how she was “extremely careless” with it. The Bureau is technically passing the case over to the Department of Justice to make a prosecutorial decision, but its recommendation essentially means there will be no prosecution.

While Hillary supporters are rejoicing, this recommendation is fuel for certain other candidates who don’t play nice with the Clintons and use “Crooked Hillary” in a good portion of their tweets.

FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

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.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: both issues have lingered in the media and on the minds of voters for the duration of this presidential campaign. These two controversial topics intersected recently, when the State Department announced that Clinton’s TPP related emails will not be ready for public release until late November, well after votes are in and a new president is elected.

TPP is a 12-nation trade deal involving partners from the Americas and Asia–Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia along with America and seven others–that is currently stalled in Congress, with friction coming from both sides of the aisle. The Obama Administration has been pushing hard for the deal. It’s also proved a contentious issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–two men who often decry trade deals’ impact on the middle class American worker–have paraded the TPP as detrimental to those who have been hurt in the past by trade. Clinton’s history with TPP is a roller-coaster ride of support and opposition.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton voiced support for the controversial trade bill on 45 separate occasions, at one point in 2012 saying: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”  But Clinton reversed course in October 2015, saying in an interview with PBS that she “did not work on TPP” and that she was “not in favor of what [she had] learned about it.” Analysts and opponents saw this as a forced move to the left in reaction to the rejection of the TPP by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the support that their positions drew from progressives.

At an event at The Brookings Institution–a think tank in Washington D.C.–last week, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and a Senior Brookings Fellow Robert Kagan discussed the tenets of the plan, its strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy, and how it has been used as a policy point by candidates.

“It’s unfortunate that in this campaign Clinton has had to come out against TPP because presumably she’s going to have to reverse herself on that and explain why,” Kagan said in front of a room of foreign business leaders.

Pritzker reiterated the trade deal’s strategic importance regarding American influence on the world economic stage. “It’s about whose going to set the rules of the road for trade in the 21^st century,” she said. “That means setting labor standards, setting environmental standards, ensuring access for e-commerce. It means protecting IP and trade secrets, or strengthening national security.”

Initially, the State Department said Clinton’s TPP related emails were going to be released–per a FOIA request from the International Business Times–in the spring. And although some of the emails have been released,  they do not provide a comprehensive picture regarding Clinton’s role in shaping the agreement, which is what IBT was originally after. Simple State Department requests require an average of 111 days to process. If completed by the last day of November, as the State Department claims, the duration of this request would span 489 days.

“In my opinion it is more incompetence than maliciousness, but either way, it is a gross error by FOIA processors to not get these documents out before the election,” said Nate Jones of the National Security Archive, a group that assists journalists in filing FOIA requests.

And on Monday, after news of the delay broke, the Donald Trump campaign predictably weighed in: “Hillary is 100 percent controlled by corporate interests, including foreign corporate interests, and it is essential these emails see the light of day.”

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 State Department to Withhold Some Clinton Emails Until After Election appeared first on Law Street.

An independent audit into the private email account of Hillary Clinton–used during her tenure as Secretary of State–found her as acting irresponsibly in regards to repeated warnings from the State Department. The audit–78 pages in total–said Clinton ignored directives from the State Department in regards to private email as concerns about the legality of passing classified government documents through a private account were brushed aside. It also acknowledged that her private home server might have been breached by hackers, a point Clinton’s aides deny.

Other notable takeaways from the audit:

• Though she was briefed about cybersecurity risks in a memo in 2011, Clinton’s account did not meet minimum security guidelines as outlined by the State Department and as required under the Federal Records Act.
• Before her duties as Secretary of State ended in 2013, Clinton should have turned over all emails to the department. She released only half of those emails, and only after her use of a private server was revealed by media reports in 2015.
• Although Clinton and her aides have agreed to cooperate in an ongoing FBI investigation into the affair, none would comply with the independent audit. But on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this month: “I’ve made it clear that I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I’ve encouraged all of (my staff) to be very forthcoming,” Clinton said.

As expected, Clinton’s aides rushed to her defense and Republican critics seized the audit as proof she is unsuitable to be president.

“The inspector general documents just show how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email,” said Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign spokesman, in regards to the audit’s findings that previous secretaries–including Colin Powell–have used similarly private servers in the past. But according to the report, Clinton’s methods were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated” than past secretaries.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, saw the findings as more than a mere slip-up: “The stakes are too high in this election to entrust the White House to someone with as much poor judgment and reckless disregard for the law as Hillary Clinton,” he said.

What Wednesday’s report means for the ongoing FBI investigation into the matter is unclear, but as the November election inches closer into view, it’s an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months.

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 Independent Audit: Clinton At Fault For Private Email Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

While this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of legal obligation of involvement when the word “genocide” is used, it makes a more compelling argument for the U.S. to take stronger action against ISIS. And even though the international law can be very ambiguous, Secretary Kerry said in today’s statement that “we must hold the perpetrators accountable. And we must find the resources to help those harmed by these atrocities be able to survive on their ancestral land.” To add to that even further, it’s also pretty rare for the U.S. to make such a declaration: the last time the U.S. officially declared genocide was over a decade ago, in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used it to refer to the atrocities in Darfur.

So while it’s still not completely clear to what extent this affects our current foreign policy toward ISIS, it could mean a significant international effort to take action against the group, and shows that we definitely aren’t walking away from this conflict any time soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kerry Says ISIS “Responsible for Genocide”: What Does That Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Checking the male or female box on a piece of paper is privilege many of us go our entire lives taking for granted. But for Dana Zzyym those two boxes act as a constant reminder that gender neutrality is not a socially recognized option in the United States. Now Zzyym hopes to raise awareness and compel change by suing the U.S. government for denying people the right to select “X” as an option on U.S. passports.

‘We exist’: Navy veteran Dana Zzyym sues State Department for denying ‘intersex’… https://t.co/nS2ZYCmsKi #UniteBlue pic.twitter.com/oQ7rF7eu4a

— The Progressive Mind (@Libertea2012) October 27, 2015

Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights group, filed the lawsuit Monday on behalf of Zzyym, stating that the U.S. State Department and Colorado Passport Agency denied Zzyym fundamental rights “including the freedom of travel” by not recognizing gender identity beyond male and female.

Zzyym, 57, was born with ambiguous genitalia, and therefore has chosen neither to identify as female or male, but as intersex. So for purposes of this article I will use the gender-neutral pronouns “they,” “their,” and “them” when referring to Zzyym.

It took Zzyym over four decades to understand that the conflicting feelings they had experienced relating to gender dated back to birth, and that their parents had tried to hide their non-binary biology with painful irreversible surgeries to make them pass as male. After exploring both genders and even having female genital surgery,  the Navy veteran chose to change their name from Brian Orin Whitney to Dana Alix Zzyym, and went on to became an outspoken activist for the intersex community.

According to BuzzFeed, in September 2014 Zzyym went to their local Denver, Colorado passport agency to apply for a passport in order to travel to Mexico City to attend the International Intersex Forum they’d been asked to speak at. Zzyym arrived with all the necessary documents, including a letter explaining that they were intersex, and requested to use “x” as a marker for gender. But a couple weeks later they received a letter from the State Department saying it was unable to fulfill their request, and that in order to move forward it needed to either “(a) relieve a passport listing Dana as female, (b) receive a passport listing Dana as male, or (c) withdraw Dana’s application.”

The request came as a blow for Zzyym, especially when countries like Australia, India, Malta, Nepal, Germany, and New Zealand all issue passports with alternative gender markers to the standard “M” or”F.” Lambda Legal staff attorney Paul Castillo told BuzzFeed News,

Foreign nationals who have the X marker on their passports are permitted to enter U.S. and yet we’re denying the same rights to own citizens. When you are allowing foreign nationals more rights than you do your own citizens with respect to the same document, there has to be something wrong.

Instead of seeking any monetary compensation, Zzyym is asking simply for a policy change that would allow them to exit the country with a gender label of their choosing. But if we use the nation’s responses to other LGBTQI issues as predictor of the outcome, we can expect a long time before Zzyym and other intersex citizens are rewarded with equal rights.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Intersex Activist Sues Government After Being Denied Passport appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.