“Currently, a small, non-diverse group of citizens (the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire) have a disproportionate impact on the nomination of presidential candidates.”

Via: J. Scott Applewhite, File / AP

Florida Senator Marco Rubio won a political victory this year by persuading Florida's state legislature to move back to the presidential primary. The move will restore Florida's delegate count, and its presidential clout, which were cut by the Republican National Committee after the state moved up its primary to become more prominent in the nomination process in 2008.

But in Rubio's 2006 book 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future, screenshots of which were provided to BuzzFeed by the Democratic SuperPAC American Bridge, Rubio wrote spent an entire chapter making the case for moving up Florida's primary.

Currently, a small, non-diverse group of citizens (the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire) have a disproportionate impact on the nomination of presidential candidates. While these states provide the benefit of beginning the presidential election in small communities that can be easily traversed and thoroughly campaign, a larger and diverse state should follow them. Without such a bellwether state on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire, many groups of Americans will be denied a voice in selecting the most qualified candidate. The only way to change the status quo is to force candidates to be tested by more diverse populations and to address a wider range of issues. Holding Florida's primary early would apply that force.

In another section, Rubio argued that moving up Florida's primary would ensure the state's issue are covered on a national level.

Moving Florida's presidential primary to a time that would highlight Florida's concerns and issues would ensure our national influence in choosing a presidential candidate. Florida's population and the issues Floridians face closely mirror those of America. Consequently, an ability to appeal to Florida is an ability to appeal to America at large. Candidates would be required to become familiar with the challenges Floridians face, address issues we believe are important, and inform Floridians about their views on those issues. When those candidates are subsequently nominated, there is a greater chance they will be able to address the issues facing Florida, and therefore, America.

Rubio also mentioned the potential economic benefits of an early primary.

"Holding Florida's primaries earlier in the year is accompanied by a host of economic benefits. The media, candidates, and special interest groups will spend millions of dollars for political advertising and spending for food, lodging and transportation. The economic benefits to New Hampshire alone are estimated at over $100 million dollars. Florida is six times larger than New Hampshire."

This year's primary move will most likely restore Florida's prominence in the presidential primary in 2016. Florida originally made the move to increase the states clout in the nomination process, only to have state penalized delegates for the action.

A spokesman for Rubio didn't return a request for comment but Rubio's state director told The Miami Herald the move wasn't motivated by the Senator's future in a possible presidential election, noting Democrats support the idea as well.

"We would go from being the third-largest delegation to being the smallest," Todd Reid, Rubio's state director said, referring to how the state would get only 12 delegates instead of 99 if the state's primary date remained in place.

View Entire List ›

The Vermont senator's addition of a second amendment relating to recognition of state-sanctioned marriages is “nothing short of a strategic master stroke,” one advocate says.

Via: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has submitted two amendments to the "Gang of Eight" senators' immigration bill that would extend to same-sex couples to similar immigration rights as opposite-sex married couples.

"For immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, it must include protections for all families," Leahy said in a statement. "We must end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration law."

Amendments on the bill were due to be submitted by 5 p.m. Tuesday. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin considering the bill and amendments on Thursday morning.

Leahy's moves Tuesday included an unexpected amendment that would provide recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married for immigrations purposes — an effort praised as "brilliant" by the Human Rights Campaign.

Because the Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages, binational gay and lesbian couples — those where one partner is not a U.S. citizen — have been denied the ability to seek a green card that straight couples have been eligible to obtain for their spouse in a similar situation.

Among Leahy's amendments is one that would include the Uniting American Families Act — a bill that would create a new category of "permanent partners" to enable a U.S. citizen in a same-sex couple to sponsor a foreign partner — in the larger immigration reform legislation. This amendment had been discussed and was expected to be filed.

A second amendment, according to a news release from Leahy's office, "provides equal protection to lawfully married bi-national same sex couples that other spouses receive under existing immigration law." The provision asserts that a person would be considered a married spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act if the marriage "is valid in the state in which the marriage was entered into" or, if "entered into outside of any state," was valid where entered into and would be valid in a state.

Lavi Soloway, an immigration rights lawyer who represents same-sex couples and co-founded The DOMA Project, told BuzzFeed the second amendment was "nothing short of a strategic master stroke."

Explaining, he said, "It would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that all marriages of gay and lesbian binational couples would be recognized for immigration purposes only, thus creating the first ever 'carve out' or exception to DOMA under federal law."

Soloway added that UAFA "would become immediately inoperative if the second amendment was passed into law." This is so "because the key component of UAFA is the creation of the 'permanent partner' category, which only exists as long as same-sex marriages are not recognized under the Immigration and Nationality Act." Under the second amendment — or if DOMA's federal definition of marriage is struck down as unconstitutional — same-sex couples' marriages would be recognized under the act.

Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the Gang of Eight, reiterated earlier Tuesday his statement that inclusion of same-sex couples in the bill "will ensure that it fails."

It was not immediately clear if Rubio would have the same position regarding the second amendment, as he also said Tuesday, "I understand this is an issue that's moving across the country and different states are dealing with it differently. I understand all that, I do."

The language in the second amendment also could be seen as more palatable by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is on the Judiciary Committee and has expressed concern about the language in UAFA.

Although not on the Judiciary Committee or in the Gang of Eight, the language in the second provision also would appear to meet the standards enunciated Monday night by Sen. Rob Portman at BuzzFeed Brews.

Human Rights Campaign vice president Fred Sainz echoed Soloway, telling BuzzFeed Tuesday evening, "I think it's brilliant."

Explaining, he continued, "This is basically meant to ferret out the Republicans. If you believe in a federalism concept, then I love this because it really narrows, and makes more circumspect, the objections. It's hard to object to marriage, if they're already married. If you're not creating a whole other category of 'permanent partners,' then the objection, on their part, is much more difficult. I think it's a game-changer."

Leahy's UAFA Amendment:

View Entire List ›

Obama says he's “absolutely convinced” comprehensive reform will pass this year. Senior administration officials are optimistic too, but they note there's still a House GOP.

Via: Dario Lopez-Mills / AP

WASHINGTON — All in all, the Obama administration feels pretty good about immigration reform. But the president may be more optimistic than his team.

Senior administration officials told reporters Tuesday that the opposition to comprehensive reform so far — embodied this week by a Heritage study that's drawn critics on both sides of the aisle — has failed to make proponents of reform nervous. Tuesday's briefing was conditioned on reporters agreeing not to name the participants or quote anyone directly.

An official said President Obama is in constant contact with the bipartisan group pushing reform in Congress and said all signs are currently pointing toward comprehensive reform reaching the president's desk after three decades of attempts. But the official hastened to add that all the current reform momentum could stop suddenly in the Republican-controlled House.

That's not especially surprising analysis, but it does break a bit with Obama's own supreme optimism on immigration reform in public lately. At a speech in Mexico City last week, Obama abandoned the cautious wording of his prepared remarks on immigration and expressed a conviction that immigration reform will happen by the end of the year.

"And I'm optimistic that—after years of trying, we are going to get it done this year," Obama said in the delivered version of the speech. "I'm absolutely convinced of it."

The vote was 12-9. UPDATE: Gov. Jack Markell signed the bill — which takes effect July 1 — into law, making Delaware the 11th state, plus DC, to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Via: @EQDE

The Delaware Senate passed a marriage equality bill Tuesday on a 12-9 vote, following the House's passage of the bill in late April.

Speaking in favor of the bill before the vote, Sen. Bryan Townsend said, "I hope we begin to treat as equals all those who wish to announce their love and commitment to the world."

Gov. Jack Markell will sign the bill into law Tuesday, making Delaware the 11th state to recognize same-sex couples' marriage rights. The bill will go into effect on July 1, and all civil unions not converted to marriages or dissolved by July 1, 2014, will be automatically converted into marriages.

During the course of the afternoon, Sen. Karen Peterson came out publicly to her colleagues as a lesbian, discussing what the bill would do for her and her longtime partner.

Senator David P. Sokola, the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate, led debate for the supporters, including calling on Equality Delaware's leader, Mark Purpura. Purpura went through the bill, section by section, to explain its purposes.

The bill reverses Delaware's 1996 law banning same-sex couples from marrying. It also provides that same-sex couples' recognized relationships from jurisdictions other than Delaware will be treated as a marriage for purposes of Delaware law. Finally, it specifies that no religious individual will be forced to solemnize any same-sex couple's wedding.

Delaware passed civil unions in 2011, but Markell has been saying since last summer that he expected Delaware to move on granting gay and lesbian couples full marriage rights in 2013.

Sen. Robert Venables, one of the key opponents of the bill, said, "Things have moved a lot faster than anyone expected. I'm having problems with my own self. So far, I've not evolved. I wonder what's wrong with me."

Explaining "how far these people will go in their pursuit of being normal," Venables discussed a book he said was called the "Queen James Bible," which he said had the purpose of removing homophobia from the Bible.

"I don't wish anyone ill will," Venables said, "[but] I think this goes too far, to say a man marries a man and a woman marries a woman."

Gov. Markell, about to sign the bill, Tuesday evening:

Via: @EQDE

View Entire List ›

“Whatever it is didn't even rise to 'give a damn' levels,” federal official says.

Via: Bogdan Cristel / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In the end, OpUSA's bark was worse than its bite. Or maybe it didn't even bite at all.

Federal agencies were warned earlier this month to prepare for a full-scale cyberattack named OpUSA expected to be launched Middle East and North Africa-based hackers Tuesday. But by the end of the Washington business day, a senior federal official told BuzzFeed OpUSA had not appeared on the federal radar.

"There has been no noise on this. Nothing," the official said, referring to the internal government chatter that would arise if a cyberattack was underway. "So whatever it is didn't even rise to 'give a damn' levels."

OpUSA was also aimed at major US banks. There was no word late Tuesday on whether those attacks had materialized.

It was all quiet on the federal front, however.

Earlier in the day, an official at Department of Homeland Security — one of the organizations that issued the original warning about OpUSA — said the department's cybersecurity agencies were "closely following the situation" but provided no details on whether an attack had happened in the first place.

Rosie Gray contributed reporting.

The activist recalls a conversation on the controversial pipeline project. “He grabbed my Sierra Club hat on my head and said, 'Yes, I do — I share your views.”

Elaine Cooper, a member of the Sierra Club's South Carolina chapter, poses with Vice President Joe Biden at a fish fry hosted by Rep. Clyburn.

Vice President Joe Biden told a South Carolina environmental activist Friday that he opposes a controversial oil pipeline from Canada, but said he is "in the minority" inside the Obama administration, according to the activist's account of the conversation.

Biden made the remark at Rep. Jim Clyburn's annual "World Famous Fish Fry" Friday evening, where he met Elaine Cooper, a Columbia resident and group chair of the South Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club, while working the ropeline amongst hundreds of supporters in attendance. An email obtained by BuzzFeed from the organization's national program assistant, Jessica Eckdish, provides Cooper's record of the encounter, in which she "was able to ask Vice President Biden if he supporting [sic] rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Eckdish writes.

The email continues: "Here's his response from Elaine: He grabbed my Sierra Club hat on my head and said, 'yes, I do — I share your views — but I am in the minority' and smiled."

Cooper told BuzzFeed Tuesday afternoon that she was too busy to comment further on her conversation with the vice president. (When reached by phone, she was volunteering for Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, the Democratic candidate in that day's South Carolina special congressional election.) Eckdish did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The TransCanada Keystone project, a proposed $7 billion pipeline that would transport crude oil from Alberta's tar sands to refineries in the United States, has become the rallying point for climate change activists — from groups like the Sierra Club in particular — who bitterly oppose the pipeline and hope that President Obama reject the project over potential environmental impacts.

Although Organizing for Action, the independent group backing Obama's policy initiatives, announced last month that their first major focus would be a multi-year climate change effort, the White House yet hasn't made a clear ruling on the pipeline.

Obama's former top environmental official, Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, opposed the project and departed frustrated over the administration's lack of progress on climate policies, sources told BuzzFeed late last year.

Biden's comments Friday, as told by Cooper, suggest that the administration may remain divided on the pipeline project, which is favored by the majority of Americans, according to recent polling.

But an official in the vice president's office said Biden's views on the Keystone pipeline remain unchanged, citing a 2012 interview in which he said the administration will make its decision on Keystone only after the State Department — the government body authorized to issue permits for cross-border pipelines — concludes its review of the project later this year.

"It's going to go through the process and it will be made on an environmentally sound basis," Biden said at the time.

The White House official added, "The Vice President has made his views known on this issue and his views haven't changed. Any impression to the contrary would be mistaken."

This article's headline has been updated.

In a video produced by his office for the annual N.J. Legislative Correspondents dinner, the governor pokes fun at his national prominence, and a possible 2016 bid, with cameos by Alec Baldwin, James Carville, and Jon Bon Jovi. “But you hate getting press coverage in DC!”

Via: youtube.com

Victory has a thousand mothers.

Via: Randall Hill / Reuters

A conservative non-profit that was among the few national groups to back former Governor Mark Sanford, despite his complicated personal life, claimed victory on Tuesday night, and celebrated a $250,000 independent expenditure spent in the final week in South Carolina's first district.

"Independent Women's Voice was the only outside group supporting Sanford on a significant scale, by educating voters about the facts about the Democratic candidate," said IWV president Heather Higgins in a statement.

The group came into the district to support Republican Mark Sanford after the National Republican Campaign Committee opted to stay out of the race when Sanford's ex-wife accused him of trespassing.

Sanford's poll numbers had dropped considerably two weeks before the election, and they showed him trailing his opponent Elizabeth Colbert Busch by 9 points. IWV says they had no plans to get involved in the race but they poll tested the district to determine if their money could help at all.

Mitt Romney won the district by 18 points, but Sanford's personal life had given Democrats a reason to believe the race was competitive. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $458,000 on the race along with the House Majority PAC, which spent $426,000. An official with the DCCC said the committee broke even on the race between their agressive fundraising and expenditures. Sanford ended up winning by 10 points.

With a specific focus on repeal of Obamacare, IWV ran TV and print ads, including a full page Monday ad, signed by 200 women, urging support for Sanford.

"Sanford's victory marked a tremendous comeback against long odds. He was out fundraised by Colbert Busch 3:2, and money poured into the race from the Democratic Party and from a number of PACs for his opponent," Higgens said.

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya and the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the Sept. 11th attack on the consulate, described loving every day of his 22-year foreign service career until the attacks on the consulate.

View Video ›

Via:

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya and the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the Sept. 11th attack on the consulate, said Special Forces were told they were not authorized to board a flight to Benghazi. Lt. Colonel Gibson, the the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told Hicks he “had bigger balls than somebody in the military,” according to transcript of an interview released by congressional investigators.

View Video ›

Via:

A rendered front page image asks, “Our New Governor?” How the local papers covered the governor's secret weight-loss surgery.

The Asbury Park Press photoshopped a picture of what Christie may look like after losing weight:

Via: newseum.org

The Daily Journal, a Gannett-owned paper like the Press, went with the same photo on their front page.

Via: webmedia.newseum.org

Here's how the other New Jersey papers covered Christie's surgery.

Via: newseum.org

Via: newseum.org

View Entire List ›

The conservative group's immigration expert, Jason Richwine, wrote in 2009 that immigrants have lower IQs than “white native” Americans. Heritage says that's not their view. Another bad news cycle for immigration opponents.

Via: Rainier Ehrhardt / AP

WASHINGTON — The Heritage Foundation was already on the defensive about its new study, which found immigration reform will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion. Now the foundation is running from the racially-charged past work of one of the study's authors.

On Monday, the Washington Post reported Heritage scholar Jason Richwine — one of the men behind the $6.3 trillion number some conservatives are using to argue that an immigration overhaul would be too expensive — wrote in his 2009 dissertation that immigration should be predicated on an applicant's IQ score and that "the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations."

Later in the dissertation, Richwine wrote that those differences in IQ are partially due to race. "The totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ," he wrote.

"No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites," he adds, "But the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against."

Heritage tried to get away from Richwine's 2009 writing Wednesday while still standing by his Heritage scholarship.

"This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation," Heritage VP of Communications Mike Gonzalez told BuzzFeed in a statement. "Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer."

Their petitions to White House: Take official stance on tofu, extradite a student, liberate Hong Kong — and China. “If we vote, will we be asked to drink 'coffee'?”

Via: freeweibo.com

Chinese "netizens" have been focusing intently on the unsolved 1994 murder of a college student, and have found a new tool in their quest: online petitions to the White House.

The 1994 death of Zhu Ling — and the suspected role of the granddaugher of a top Communist Party official — resurfaced after a popular Fudan University student was fatally poisoned by his roommate last month, and tapped into a widespread anger at the suggestion that high ranking officials and their relatives are above the law.

And as the Zhu Ling case dominated social media, Weibo censored Zhu Ling as a search term, which only inflamed suspicions of official meddling.

But when Chinese netizens discovered that their suspect lives in America under a new name, they flocked to sign a White House petition to have her extradited back to China:

View Entire List ›

Deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that he was told not to meet with a congressman sent to investigate the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Hicks said a State Department lawyer accompanied the delegation and attempted to be in every single meeting he was involved in.

View Video ›

Via:

WASHINGTON — The star witness at Wednesday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi said that a top State Department official called him after he met with a congressional delegation demanding a report from the meeting and upset that a State Department lawyer was not present.

"I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission — me — to be personally interviewed," said Gregory Hicks, the fomer Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attack. He said that was the first time administration lawyers had told him not to talk to a congressional delegation, and that a lawyer attempted to be present during the meeting.

"We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz," Hicks said again later in the hearing.

Hicks said that he was interviewed by a State Department Accountability Review Board assigned to investigate the attack, but was not allowed to read the classified report ARB produced.

Hicks also said that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chief of staff (who Ohio Rep. Jordan referred to as Clinton's "fixer" while questioning Hicks), had attempted to monitor the meeting between Hicks and the delegation consisting of Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

"The phone call from that senior of a person is generally speaking not considered good news," Hicks said.

Hicks said that Mills "demanded a report on the visit."

Spokespeople for the State Department didn't immediately return a request for comment about Hicks' claims.

Hicks also said that during a phone call with Beth Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, he had asked Jones why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice had said the Benghazi attack stemmed from a demonstration. Jones said that she didn't know, according to Hicks. "The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning," Hicks added.

“We're trying to get a commercial break. We're getting lopsided Democrats versus Republicans. We'll try to rectify that.”

View Video ›

“Biden is known for speaking his mind and speaking the truth, and I think that's what he did here,” an activist says.

Via: Rick Osentoski / AP

Environmental activists opposed to a controversial oil pipeline project have pinned their hopes on the same man they say forced the White House's hand on marriage equality: Vice President Joe Biden.

After Elaine Cooper, a South Carolina Democrat and member of the state's Sierra Club chapter, said Biden told her he opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, national climate change organizations seized on the account, reported Tuesday evening by BuzzFeed, as a sign Biden could help push the Obama administration to reject the project over potential environmental impacts.

It was a year ago to the week, activists said, that Biden let it slip on NBC's Meet the Press that he supported same-sex marriage rights — an admission widely thought to have hastened, if not prompted, the president's own shift on the issue, which he announced in an interview with ABC just three days later.

"He went off-message with the same-sex marriage debate, and forced the administration to question its response," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, a D.C.-based advocacy organization. "I'm looking at this as the vice president really having his thumb on what the administration should be doing environmentally."

Rachel Wolf, a spokeswoman for All Risk No Reward, an anti-Keystone coalition, said, "It just happens to be right around the one-year mark of those [marriage] comments. I think that Biden is very well respected within the administration, and to have him go public on this would really be a big move on his part."

The TransCanada Keystone project would transport crude oil from Alberta's tar sands to refineries along the United States's Gulf Coast.

FOE's Pica released a statement commending the vice president for "his blunt talk"; and Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, issued a press release calling the remarks "a big deal" and a "game changer that should encourage Secretary Kerry and President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline."

Biden met Cooper, the Sierra Club activist, last Friday at Rep. Jim Clyburn's annual fish fry in Columbia, S.C., where she asked him if he would help reject the pipeline once the State Department concludes its review of the proposal later this year.

In an email obtained by BuzzFeed, Cooper described the encounter as follows: "He grabbed my Sierra Club hat on my head and said, 'yes, I do — I share your views — but I am in the minority' and smiled." Cooper later blogged about her conversation on the Sierra Club's website.

Reached by phone Wednesday, Cooper confirmed the story as outlined above, and said she "purposely went to the fish fry to ask him the question." Asked if there is a chance she could have misheard the vice president — there were hundreds in attendance at Clyburn's fry — Cooper said no. "That is bullshit," she told BuzzFeed, adding that her husband was with her and "a direct witness."

Biden's public position on the pipeline has been more reticent. Asked last year about Keystone, he deferred to the State Department's ongoing review. "It's going to go through the process and it will be made on an environmentally sound basis," Biden said at the time.

What's more, the vice president's office told BuzzFeed Tuesday night that Biden's views "haven't changed" on the pipeline. "Any impression to the contrary would be mistaken," an official said.

But activists cast the incident in South Carolina as a moment of candor from the often loose-lipped vice president. "I felt it was sincere at the time," said Cooper, recalling her conversation at the fish fry. "That's my interpretation. I really feel that he's a sincere, honest guy and don't get the feeling that he blows people off."

"Biden is known for speaking his mind and speaking the truth, and I think that's what he did here," said Wolf, adding that the administration will likely hold off on further comment until the State Department wraps up its final review.

"My guess is this is the last we hear from Biden on Keystone," she said.

Keystone opponents hoping for another Meet the Press moment also willingly acknowledge that the two incidents aren't nearly comparable — to talk with a guest on a crowded ropeline is not to announce your unequivocal support for an initiative on national television, as Biden did last year on NBC — but that isn't stopping advocates, who will no doubt hype the South Carolina encounter as much as they can.

"We'll see in the next couple of days, but I think this has weight," said Pica. "Our release today called attention to it. And our hope and desire is that this becomes a talking point at the daily press briefings at the White House and the State Department."

Elaine Cooper, a member of the Sierra Club's South Carolina chapter, poses with Vice President Joe Biden at a fish fry hosted by Rep. Clyburn in Columbia.

Via: Sierra Club

Does the buck stop with the former Secretary — or is it a political hit? “Who is Cheryl Mills?”

Issa greets Hicks before the hearing.

Via: Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Republican investigation of the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya last September edged closer Wednesday to the woman who, though unmentioned, is its clear target: Former Secretary of State, and presumptive presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's figure loomed especially large in the proceedings, even when she wasn't directly mentioned, and her State Department was most directly responsible for the response to the attack on Benghazi that killed four Americans. But the explanation for the focus on Clinton is split down party lines, like much else about the incident. Democrats complain that the real end game of the now eight-month long investigation is for Republicans to destabilize Clinton, possibly handing her a subpoena, before the 2016 campaign. Republicans say, to the contrary, that they are only seeking answers — and that their questions are leading them naturally up the bureaucratic food chain.

Clinton — how much she knew, when she knew it, and whether she willingly participated in a cover up — was a central theme of the hearing. And Wednesday, the story did move a large step closer to Clinton. Star witness Gregory Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya the night of the attack, charged that Clinton's key State Department lieutenant and longtime family retainer, Cheryl Mills, made a concerted effort to block him from meeting with a Congressional delegation and that he had never been interviewed by the FBI in connection to the attack. Hicks said that he had been demoted after asking too many questions of his superiors about their response to Benghazi.

Republicans repeatedly raised the fact that Mills, a former deputy White House counsel and Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, personally called Hicks to express that she was upset that he had met with Rep. Jason Chaffetz without a lawyer present. So was the fact that administration lawyers had told Hicks and the Regional Security Officer not to speak with congressional investigators, as well as Hicks' claim that he briefed Clinton the night of the attack and characterized it as an act of terror. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio referred to Mills' as Clinton's "fixer" and "as close as you can get to Secretary Clinton."

"This goes right to the person next to Secretary Clinton, is that accurate?" Jordan said, to which Hicks responded "Yes, sir." Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina questioned Hicks further about Clinton's hand in the events leading up to and following from the attacks, including the decision to start an outpost at Benghazi in the first place.

"And a third point, to complete the circle, who is Cheryl Mills?" Gowdy asked Hicks.

The mention of Mills, a longtime member of the Clintons' inner circle, could prove problematic for Clinton if the Republicans continue their investigation — which they have promised to do. But the idea that Clinton engineered a conspiracy to tamp down the Benghazi news actually lost some momentum at the hearing during an exchange between Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, and Washington D.C.'s non-voting Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton.Thompson had said in his prepared testimony that Clinton had purposefully shut the counterterrorism bureau out of the decision-making process on the night of the attack for political reasons. Pressed by Norton, Thompson said that the quote wasn't accurate.

The Mills allegation, meanwhile, prompted a lengthy email to MSNBC from the aggressive Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who said that a lawyer was sent to Libya "so that any personnel on the ground who wanted their advice or presence for any conversation could avail themselves of that option." Reines says that the department was disturbed by the conduct of Rep. Chaffetz, whom he referred to twice as "Jeremy Chaffetz":

In this instance, I was with [Mills] and I remember it vividly because we were hearing from our people in Libya that some at Embassy Tripoli were left unsettled by their interactions with the CODEL – which was made up of only Jeremy Chaffetz because he refused to allow any minority member to join him (or is it Jason Chaffetz?) – and the position they felt they were being put in. Which btw, Jeremy/Jason Chaffetz pledged before his trip he wouldn't do, and that he would completely respect the integrity of the FBI investigation by not interrogating State personnel, who had also just been through hell, were still in a dangerous situation, and lost colleagues and friends – including their ambassador Chris Stevens who they adored.
State sent a legal advisor as sop to Tripoli so that any personnel on the ground who wanted their advice or presence for any conversation could avail themselves of that option. For their own protection and comfort. Chaffetz refused to let this person on government plane, and resented his being in Tripoli (after he was forced to fly there on his own). And he decided he didn't want this person around. Which wasn't his choice to make for the individuals on the ground. If those individuals didn't feel a need for it, they didn't have to take it. And nobody was told to keep Chaffetz from speaking with anyone. That's completely at odds with the cooperative approach the Department has taken with the Congress – all eight of the committees looking into this – from day one, until today.
So after hearing these disturbing reports from several people on the ground, Cheryl said she wanted to call Greg herself to find out how the CODEL went (also remember that it was soon after the attack and we were worried that a CODEL, which requires a great deal of embassy support, would tax their resources at a very difficult time), and that we were behind and with them 100%. She wanted them to know that no matter how far away they were from home, they weren't alone, that the Department was with them, that she was with them, and most importantly, that the Secretary was with them.

Asked for comment on the hearings, a State Department spokesman referred BuzzFeed to Reines' email.

Asked if there was any anti-Clinton motivation in the continuing investigation into Benghazi, Chaffetz told BuzzFeed that the idea was "baloney."

"Even ranking member [Rep. Elijah] Cummings at the end of the meeting concurred with more meetings, more information, and releasing of data," Chaffetz said.

Democrats, meanwhile, dismissed the entire investigation.

"Clearly when Darrell Issa gets involved the motivation is pure politics," said Tommy Vietor, Obama's former National Security Council spokesman. "Whether they're trying to take a run at President Obama or at Secretary Clinton. It's not like Darrell Issa cared about embassy security before Benghazi."

"I don't think it's going to hurt her," Vietor said.

If Republicans can keep up momentum on this story, though, it could. The Benghazi attack, with its hint of weakness in the face of terror, galvanizes the conservative base. And since there's been virtually no discussion of what kind of lessons could be learned from the attack about embassy security or diplomacy in troubled areas, the debate has become almost solely focused on politics.

And Republicans are vowing to continue to look into it.

"The hearing is now over, but the investigation is not, would be the message for the future going forward," Issa said in a brief press conference after the hearing.

David Vitter says Gina McCarthy isn't responding to his questions. But she's answered hundreds he submitted in writing.

Via: Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Gina McCarthy has answered more than written 600 written questions from Republican Sen. David Vitter since she was nominated by President Obama to head the EPA. Vitter's office, however, has called her "unresponsive."

Mirroring the playbook they used when Jack Lew was appointed to head the Treasury Dept., Republicans have bombarded McCarthy with more than 1,000 written questions (if you include the subparts) about her views. That's significantly more than any other EPA nominee has faced in recent memory. Lisa Jackson, Obama's first head of the EPA, was asked just 157 written questions.

Vitter, a Senator from Louisiana, has asked the vast majority of those questions. He's asked her 411 written questions, with 242 subparts. She's provided answers to them all, but on Monday, Vitter's office said McCarthy had been "unresponsive" (and published all 123 pages of her answers to Vitter online.)

Vitter's office quibbles with the idea that he's asked a lot of questions of Obama's EPA nominee. McCarthy served as a high-ranking official in Jackson's EPA, and Republicans say that means she has more questions to answer than past nominees.

"She's been assistant administrator for four years," Vitter spokesperson Luke Bolar told BuzzFeed. "She's been very involved."

What makes McCarthy unresponsive, according to Republicans, is the way she's answered the questions which they call evasive.

But Democrats say Vitter is playing politics by submitting the high volume of questions and then turning around and claiming that McCarthy is not responding to Republican concerns.

As with most political stories in Washington, there's debate over the meaning of words on this one. Vitter's office wouldn't say that 411 written questions is "a lot," while Democrats call it unprecedented, especially when the subquestions are included.

A source close to Democrats in the Senate sent over this chart comparing the volume of questions McCarthy has faced, to the EPA nominees that came before her from both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.

Cashing in.

The National Association of Realtors announced to its members this week that Hillary Clinton will offer the keynote address at their November conference in San Francisco.

Clinton joined the lucrative speaking circuit in April and reportedly pulls in $200,000 per speech.

From the book, Air America: The Playbook: What a Bunch of Left Wing Media Types have to Teach you about a World Gone Right.

"I want the next president of the United States to be a lot like George W. Bush....I want a George W. Bush-model presidency because I want a president who was not chosen for his supposed electability." — Rachel Maddow, 2006.

LINK: Air America: The Playbook: What a Bunch of Left Wing Media Types have to Teach you about a World Gone Right

View Entire List ›