| People in Hillary Clinton's world have been quietly saying this since the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, if not earlier: Donald Trump was way more careless with classified information than she ever was. The Post's Aaron Blake has a comparison of the FBI's two investigations that suggests in some respects, they're right. On others, it's too soon to tell. First, a review of what Clinton did: As secretary of state, she used a private email account for her work, even though government officials are supposed to preserve their communications on government email. Then the FBI found she was "extremely careless" with classified information. The investigation unfolded weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Trump made hay of it, and Trump won.  Hillary Clinton in July 2016. (Andrew Harnik/AP) | How the two cases might be similar: Was there a "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of documents," a crucial measure of prosecution as defined by the FBI? That was hard to pin down in the Clinton case, as Aaron explains. With Trump, the evidence is building that he ignored his own lawyers' warnings and took the documents with him rather than hand them over to the National Archives. How the Trump case might be different: First, there's the volume of documents. The FBI found Clinton shared 113 emails marked classified, including eight email chains marked top secret, Aaron reminds us. The FBI is still searching through documents Trump took, but we know at least 184 documents were marked classified, including 25 marked top secret — and the government feared nuclear secrets were at Mar-a-Lago, The Post reported. The total could be as many as 300 documents. The second point relates to any intent to obstruct officials. Clinton deleted thousands of emails, but the FBI was firm there wasn't an intent to obstruct their investigation, Aaron writes. Trump, by contrast, refused government pleas for a year to hand back the documents. Eventually the FBI got a search warrant, alleging there was probable cause to believe they would find evidence of obstruction. Could Senate Democrats get rid of the filibuster? Next year, Republicans could gain control of Congress and stop President Biden's legislative agenda in its tracks. But there's actually a scenario in which the opposite happens and Democrats suddenly have the votes to pass more gun restrictions, try to expand voting rights in red states and maybe even codify Roe v. Wade. We're talking about Democrats having enough votes to eliminate the filibuster. The Post's Paul Kane smartly notes that because of struggling Republican candidates, Senate Democrats could win races in November in as many as six states. It's a tall order, but it's doable, and winning all six would mean they would add to their current majority — holding up to 52 seats instead of the 50 they have now. And that would mean they wouldn't need Sens. Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema for everything they want to do that doesn't have some Republican support. They could even blow up the filibuster so that it takes just a majority of senators to pass legislation. One hang-up: If the House falls into Republican hands, which still seems the likeliest option at this point, there's nothing Democrats can do to get bills to Biden's desk. Your questions about politics: What does control of the House mean? How is it different from control of the Senate?  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with the gavel. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) | Ask me your politics questions anytime. Today, a simple one: What does it mean to be in the majority of each chamber of Congress? After all, that is what's at stake in November's midterm elections. Let's take the chambers one by one. The House: This is a majority-rule chamber, which means if your party controls a majority of seats — and you have enough support within your party — you can get pretty much anything passed. There are 435 House members, so the magic number to controlling a majority in the House is to win 218 seats. Right now, Democrats have 220 and Republicans have 211. Republicans need to pick up a total of just five seats to win the majority. Out of 435 seats, that's very doable for them, even with their current struggles on abortion. The Senate: This is a chamber designed for bipartisanship. There are only 100 seats, so 50 plus the vice president casting a tiebreaking vote is a bare majority, which is what Democrats have now. But any senator can stop any legislation by threatening to filibuster it, and that takes 60 out of 100 votes to break. Rarely is there that kind of compromise. In November, Republicans need to add just one seat to take the majority. (They'd have 51 to Democrats' 49.) But they've elected some controversial candidates in their primaries and could have problems doing that. | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment