Latest news with #KatherineClark
The Hill
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-N.J.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small break-out time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent-enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Radcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). 'I think their key facilities have been disabled and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.'
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Why AOC is wrong for calling Trump's strikes unconstitutional
Even as a tenuous cease-fire between Iran and Israel appears to hold, Democrats in the US Congress are falling over themselves to condemn President Donald Trump for the strikes that made this chance at peace possible. Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark. The framers of the Constitution understood the difference between Congress officially declaring war, on the one hand, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces taking military action in defense of our nation, in the other hand. The original draft of Article 1 allocated to Congress the power to 'make war.' But James Madison, the father of our Constitution, demanded that it be amended so that the president would have broader authority to take actions in defense of our country. During the subsequent two and a quarter centuries, various presidents and members of Congress have interpreted this division of authority differently, and many presidents have taken military action without declarations of war or even congressional authorization. In recent years, Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama authorized significant military actions without any complaints by Democratic members of Congress, including several who have now whined about Trump having acted unconstitutionally. This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies. What President Trump did is not different in kind or degree from what previous presidents – both Democrats and Republicans – have done without congressional authorization. The last time Congress declared war was shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. There were no declarations of war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada or Panama. In fact, it is unlikely we will ever again see another declaration of war. Perhaps Congress will now do what it has done since the end of World War II: pass resolutions authorizing limited military action by the president. Though, these hybrid resolutions are not authorized by the Constitution either and it is unlikely that they carry any legal weight. So, by all means, let's continue to debate the wisdom of Trump's decision as a matter of policy, but let's not improperly weaponize a constitutional provision that was never intended to prevent presidents from taking actions deemed necessary to defend our nation, such as the surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. As a matter of policy, a president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind. The consequences, both short and long term, of President Trump's bold decision remain to be seen, but he surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country. Congress can now hold hearings, both open and closed, to assess the president's actions, but only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not. Pictured: Attorney Alan Dershowitz.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What hypocritical AOC is shamelessly ignoring when she calls Trump's Iran strikes 'unconstitutional'
Even as a tenuous cease-fire between Iran and Israel appears to hold, Democrats in the US Congress are falling over themselves to condemn President Donald Trump for the strikes that made this chance at peace possible. Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark. 'Donald Trump's decision to launch direct military action against Iran without congressional approval is a clear violation of the Constitution,' added Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, claiming Trump's action 'is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' That's absurd. The framers of the Constitution understood the difference between Congress officially declaring war, on the one hand, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces taking military action in defense of our nation, in the other hand. The original draft of Article 1 allocated to Congress the power to 'make war.' But James Madison, the father of our Constitution, demanded that it be amended so that the president would have broader authority to take actions in defense of our country. During the subsequent two and a quarter centuries, various presidents and members of Congress have interpreted this division of authority differently, and many presidents have taken military action without declarations of war or even congressional authorization. In recent years, Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama authorized significant military actions without any complaints by Democratic members of Congress, including several who have now whined about Trump having acted unconstitutionally. This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies. What President Trump did is not different in kind or degree from what previous presidents – both Democrats and Republicans – have done without congressional authorization. The last time Congress declared war was shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. There were no declarations of war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada or Panama. In fact, it is unlikely we will ever again see another declaration of war. Perhaps Congress will now do what it has done since the end of World War II: pass resolutions authorizing limited military action by the president. Though, these hybrid resolutions are not authorized by the Constitution either and it is unlikely that they carry any legal weight. Indeed, all this handwringing on the left will come to nothing. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, are reluctant to interfere with executive decisions involving military actions, even those that involve boots on the ground for considerable periods of time. So, by all means, let's continue to debate the wisdom of Trump's decision as a matter of policy, but let's not improperly weaponize a constitutional provision that was never intended to prevent presidents from taking actions deemed necessary to defend our nation, such as the surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. As a matter of policy, a president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind. The consequences, both short and long term, of President Trump's bold decision remain to be seen, but he surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country. Congress can now hold hearings, both open and closed, to assess the president's actions, but only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not.
CBS News
6 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Keller: Rep. Katherine Clark shares her thoughts on Trump's "big beautiful bill"
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. Voters don't always expect their political leaders to act benignly. They are often called on to "fight" for various things, "get tough" on crime or other issues, and so on. But you rarely hear folks clamoring for cruelty from their elected officials. Yet that's exactly what House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Fifth District) said her Republican counterparts are up to with their so-called "big beautiful bill" cutting taxes and budgets. In an interview with WBZ-TV, Clark said "it was very obvious from early on in the President's term that this was the play, huge cuts, historic cuts to health care, especially the Medicaid program. And then they were going to go after food programs, school lunches, Meals on Wheels, Women and Infants food programs, all to pay for tax breaks for the 900 billionaires in this country. And then on top of it, what we've seen is they also are adding almost $3 trillion to our deficit." The bill drew fire from some House GOP members before passing with near-unanimous partisan support and being shipped to the Senate, where a similar process is now underway. But Clark said she finds criticisms from Republican representatives and senators hollow. "We have different members of the House Republican Party saying, 'I can't go along with how big these Medicaid cuts are,' right? Then they vote for it. We have different members who say the cuts aren't large enough, I can't expand the deficit like this, but they fall in line. And this is an established pattern that is so harmful to the American people." Clark said she believes many of her Republican colleagues believe they are vulnerable to political backlash. "I think they are ducking for cover in a lot of these situations. I think the object here is to not focus on the cruelty and not level with the American people. We've seen members of the House write letters to the speaker saying, 'I could never support these cuts to Medicaid,' and now what we're seeing is that's expanded. They're cutting Medicare by half a trillion dollars, Medicaid by $800 billion. That's 16 million people when you add up the cuts to Medicaid, the ACA program, the children's insurance program, 16 million Americans they are kicking off of health care and for what? Not for some common good. But when people are telling us that they're not making it, 60% of American households are struggling to meet the basic needs for their family, how do we create jobs by taking away health care and taking away food programs?" And the second-ranking House Democrat said she believes the Republicans will pay a political price after promising during the campaign to focus on improving the economic status of voters. "They have gone a 180, the exact opposite," said Clark. "They have betrayed their own voters. They said cost of living is what we're going to address on day one. And between this horrendous bill and what we're seeing with tariffs, we are going to see a marked increase in cost of living for the American people. I don't know what their political view of this is, but it is an incredibly cruel bill, and it's saying to the American people that the Republican Party doesn't value them and is not going to work for them." Clark also discussed the state of play on issues of housing and child care, and the ability of her office to engage with the executive branch in the interview. Keller @ Large Part 2: Keller at Large airs every Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on WBZ-TV.
CBS News
16-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
After Minnesota shootings, Mass. lawmaker says threats are "part of the fabric of our jobs"
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman, a Harvard Kennedy School alumna, was remembered by faculty this weekend following her tragic death. Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed early Saturday morning at their home. Minnesota State Rep. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were also shot and are recovering. After a 36-hour manhunt, authorities captured Vance Boelter, who they believe is responsible for the attack. Boelter was found in the woods near his home in Green Isle, Minnesota. Harvard Kennedy School professor Richard Parker remembered Hortman as a kind and bright student. "She had a disarming charm," Parker said. "I could only describe it as just a Midwestern decency, if that registers." Parker is still grappling with her loss days after the attack. "The idea that one of my students would be assassinated is beyond, I can't tell you," he said. "I'm still emotional about it now." Threats of violence Lawmakers told WBZ that threats of violence have increasingly become a part of their professional reality. "It has become part of the fabric of our jobs, which is a very dangerous and sad commentary on political life in this country," said House Minority Whip Rep. Katherine Clark. "You should be able to have a delivery come to your door that is a mistake and not have it set this dread that this could be someone at your door trying to harm your family." At a community event in Lynn, Massachusetts, Rep. Seth Moulton expressed concern about the growing political divide. "There is a connection here between the rise in political violence and the start of this big trend in 2016," Rep. Moulton said. "But we need to keep setting the example of how we can bring people together and not further divide this country." Rep. Moulton added that the threats lawmakers face creates a daily fear for him and his family.
