From Mark Leibovich’s article in the New York Times Magazine: 

The draft nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was announced today after many missed deadlines.

While Hillary Clinton has endorsed today’s deal, her official comments on the nascent deal lacked substance. However, in previous statements Clinton offered more explicit expectations for any deal with Iran.

Under today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for 15 years. Clinton, however, called for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.” Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab stateshave already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Another area of contention for Clinton is Iran’s breakout time. Clinton has called for a breakout time of over a year, but the “limits imposed by today’s agreement impose abreakout time of only one year.”

Evoking bipartisan concern in the United States is the ”contentious” arms embargo. According to The New York Times, restrictions on missiles would end in eight years and a “similar ban on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons would be removed in five years,” but, especially concerning, is that both could be lifted earlier. Democrats are said to be “worrying” over the arms embargo, and several in the Senate indicated they could withhold their support of a deal that lifted the embargo. Clinton has so far been silent on how the US should approach the arms embargo in the nuclear agreement.

Finally, Clinton called for a deal that “imposes an intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits.” Although Clintonclaimed that today’s deal included “the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary,” The Wall Street Journal reports it is “unlikely” that the IAEA will “have access anytime and anywhere to Iran’s nuclear sites.” In addition, a New York Times
report notes it is also “unclear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers” who were key to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ “effort … to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.”

But unfortunately for Clinton, despite whatever rhetoric she ultimately comes up with to justify her support for the agreement, her previous qualifications for an agreement with Iran were not fully met with today’s deal. Indeed, Clinton will “own the agreement” that is being frowned upon by many in her own party, as Clinton is said to have “worked in harmony” on Iran with Obama during her tenure as Secretary of State.

In case you missed it, Elizabeth Warren is profiled on the cover of this week’s Time Magazine, and the lengthy story illuminates a number of the deficiencies of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, especially with her Democratic base. Most notably, Warren says it’s “too early to say” whether she will join surging Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as a surrogate on the campaign trail, and goes on to praise him for “talking about the issues people want to hear about”. 

The story goes on to describe how Sanders has picked up Warren’s mantle of populism and “volunteered to take it to the presidential stage,” which stands in stark contrast to Clinton, “whose family finances and political fortunes have long been entangled with the biggest Wall Street firms.”

It also recounts a memorable incident from Warren’s 2014 book where she describes her ultimately losing efforts in 2005 to convince then-New York Senator Clinton to take her side on a bankruptcy bill pending before Congress. Ultimately, Clinton took the opposite position of Warren.

Two of the nation’s top Democrats, President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, are calling each other liars in the press over granting the president fast-track authority for trade deals.

Warren said the trade negotiations “could undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.” Obama shot back that Warren is “absolutely wrong.”

Read more at America Rising.

The New York Post reports that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation has spent a pretty penny on travel, including at least $1 million in 2011 on Bill Clinton’s travel alone:

Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal. …

According to previously undisclosed data provided by the Clinton Foundation, presidential trips accounted for 13 percent of the 2010 travel budget and 10 percent of the 2011 travel budget.

That puts Bill Clinton’s single-year travel tab for 2011 at more than $1 million.

According to The New York Times, the Clintons regularly fly on a $6,000 per hour private plane service:

Mr. Catsimatidis said he regularly donated time on his plane, which can command around $6,000 an hour, to Mr. Clinton’s foundation. A longtime campaign contributor, he joined the illustrious, and later infamous, list of donors who spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration.

Check out the digs from the company website.