“The repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was a monumental achievement for our military and for our country; however, it did not finish the entire job of ensuring that our gay and lesbian service members and their families are treated equally under the law,” the New Hampshire senator says.

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is pushing forward with legislation aimed at providing equal benefits for gay and lesbian married service members and veterans, planning to testify Wednesday before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in support of the Charlie Morgan Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as a few veterans-specific laws, prevent the wife of Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, who died in February, from receiving equal benefits. Shaheen's bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, aims to fix that.

"I am proud of this country's long-standing commitment to military families. LGBT service members serve openly in our military and we depend on them to keep us safe. Denying their legally recognized spouses equal benefit under the law is unjustified, and un-American," Shaheen plans to tell the committee, according to her prepared testimony, which was provided to BuzzFeed.

Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders has scheduled the hearing to address a variety of pending veterans' benefits issues and bills.

[UPDATE: Wednesday's hearing has been postponed. From the committee spokesman: "This afternoon's scheduled meeting of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been postponed. The hearing will be rescheduled." 5/15/13.]

Here is Shaheen's full testimony, as planned for delivery:

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. I know you have an extremely busy schedule today and will be considering a number of important pieces of legislation dedicated to ensuring that our nation's veterans receive the benefits and care they have earned.

I want to thank you for allowing me an opportunity to speak briefly about one of those bills, namely, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I introduced along with Senator Gillibrand in February.

The bill would address ongoing discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the military and their families. In particular, it would make a number of critical benefits, including TRICARE access, certain survivor benefits and travel and transportation allowances, available to all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation.

The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a monumental achievement for our military and for our country; however, it did not finish the entire job of ensuring that our gay and lesbian service members and their families are treated equally under the law. A number of important family benefits and support programs remain unavailable to same-sex spouses under current law – due to the Defense of Marriage Act and other discriminatory provisions. This bill would help ensure equality in military and veterans' benefits for all of our nation's military spouses.

I am certain the Committee will get into all of the various details on each of the benefits affected by this legislation, but today, I want to share with you a real life story of a true hero whose life was impacted by this inequitable policy. The bill before you is named after Charlie Morgan, a New Hampshire National Guard Chief Warrant Officer, who sadly passed away earlier this year after a courageous battle with breast cancer.

Charlie garnered national attention when she was one of the first service members to publically confirm her homosexuality soon after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." However, Charlie was first and foremost a soldier dedicated to defending her country.

She enlisted in the United States Army in 1982. After a brief period away, Charlie returned to service as a member of the Kentucky National Guard in 1992. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Charlie returned for a third time, joining the 197th Fires Brigade of the New Hampshire National Guard, a tour that included a year-long deployment in Kuwait.

Throughout her long career of service to our nation, she shouldered the incredible burden of keeping her life secret from her fellow soldiers. Married to her partner Karen in 2000, Charlie was unable to live openly under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In addition, despite enduring the same hardships as any other military family, Charlie and her wife were unable to take advantage of many of the same support programs that are so essential to the health and well-being of military families.

Soon after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, Charlie came out publicly and began the fight to pursue equal benefits for same-sex spouses, benefits she and her family had earned as much as any other military member.

This was not an abstract issue for Charlie. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, and knew that her time was limited. Concerned for the future well-being of her family, Charlie took aim at DOMA by challenging its constitutionality in federal court. Her case will be decided by the Supreme Court later this year.

Unfortunately, Charlie will not be able to see her final day in court. She passed away earlier this year. Charlie Morgan epitomized courage – in her military service, her fight for LGBT equality and in her battle with cancer.

I introduced this legislation in honor of Charlie's memory. Every individual that provides for our defense deserves the peace of mind that comes with knowing one's family will be taken care of should the worst happen.

I am proud of this country's long-standing commitment to military families. LGBT service members serve openly in our military and we depend on them to keep us safe. Denying their legally recognized spouses equal benefit under the law is unjustified, and un-American.

No one should ever again go through what Charlie and her family had to go through. I hope my colleagues on this Committee will act quickly to address this issue by passing the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act and sending it to the floor for its consideration.

“I don’t want to jump to judgment here, because many of us did call on the administration to investigate leaks,” said Sen. John Cornyn. Majority Leader Harry Reid calls the move “inexcusable.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (center) holds a news conference with fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Via: Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senate Republicans aren't quite ready to get up in arms over revelations that the Department of Justice seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors.

With lots of scandals to grip Washington's attention at the moment — including the news that the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups — many GOP senators were resistant to condemn the DOJ for the gathering of phone records, including personal phones, from the wire service as part of a wide investigation into national security leaks.

"I don't want to jump to judgment here because many of us did call on the administration to investigate leaks; I am struck by what appears to be a very broad net and not a very targeted look," said Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican Whip. "I think the best thing to do would be to have the attorney general come over and testify before the Judiciary Committee."

"The problem is, we have so many things happening now that cause people to question the motivation and the actions of the executive branch that it's easy to sort of jump to conclusions that this was wrong. I'm not yet convinced about that," Coryn said, before reiterating that he'd like to hear more from Attorney General Eric Holder about the DOJ's reasoning for seizing the phone records.

At a press conference with Republican leaders earlier on Tuesday, the IRS scandal remained the focal point for the senators, ready to rail against the Obama administration. None specifically mentioned the AP and the DOJ, with the exception of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who briefly answered a question on the sucject toward the end of the event.

"I can only speak for myself, but it strikes me this Justice Department inquiry will go forward and we'll look forward to seeing what comes of it," he said.

Sen. John McCain, not a senator known for holding back his feelings, told reporters that he would need to know more about the investigation before making a judgment that the DOJ's actions were inappropriate.

"I need to know the parameters of what the investigation was. Clearly there was a violation of national security and classified material. Now, did they just cast a wide net and see who they can catch or did they just look for information about specific individuals?" he said. "If the latter is the case then I don't have a quarrel with it. But if they are just throwing the net out and seeing what they can catch, then I think that deserves serious congressional scrutiny."

Sen. Ted Cruz, too, told BuzzFeed that while it appeared the DOJ had "cast a very wide net," senators "should await the facts of the specific predicate for that investigation."

"Given the apparent breadth of the taps into communications with some 20 reporters, it raises real questions as to whether this was a targeted investigation or something broader that was not respecting the important First Amendment role of the media," he said.

There were, of course, senators who said the DOJ seizure of phone records was inappropriate on its face.

"It was not appropriate," said Sen. Chuck Grassley. "Obviously something was violated."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out forcefully against the DOJ earlier on Tuesday and said even in the case where a national security breach was being investigated, the DOJ had gone too far.

"I have trouble defending what the Justice Department did, looking at the AP. I really believe in the First Amendment, I think it's one of the great things we have as a country," he said. "It's inexcusable, there's no way to justify this."

Rep. Trey Radel wants his fellow Republicans to get outside the echo chamber — and gain an appreciation for N.W.A.

Trey Radel on Capitol Hill.

Via: instagram.com

WASHINGTON — Rep. Trey Radel checks most of the boxes of a standard-issue tea party conservative: hates Obamacare, rails against out-of-control spending, thinks liberal policies are hurting the country, makes national headlines for criticizing the president.

But the 37-year-old journalist-turned-congressman differs from his peers in some conspicuous ways: For example, he would rather jam out to "Straight Outta Compton" than "I'm Proud to Be an American."

"I believe that groups like N.W.A play a part in history. As a kid growing up in the suburbs of Cincinnati Ohio, hearing about a young black male's experience on the Southside of Los Angeles — it was eye-opening," he said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "Part of my affinity for hip-hop and even gangsta rap is because it's changed my perception of the world and what people go through. If you look at songs like '911 Is a Joke' by Public Enemy and songs by N.W.A — and I'm going to put this lightly — they sing about their experience in the streets and with law enforcement; they are expressing a valid concern."

It's not common to hear a Republican lawmaker wax poetic about N.W.A, but Radel has deliberately avoided fitting the tea party stereotype. He's deeply conservative, yes, but he'll happily tell you about the time that he ended up eating Valentine's Day dinner with Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He's traveled the globe extensively and speaks Spanish and Italian fluently. And there's his hobby: making beats and remixing hip-hop songs.

"I love to make music...I used to play in a band in college. But I love make beats, House music, and remix my own hip-hop tunes."

He'll cut his own political videos, using these tracks as background music, a skill his chief of staff has dubbed "Beats with Trey." He's on Twitter and Vine constantly. And he is just as comfortable on Fox News as he is on MSNBC.

A sort of tea party renaissance man, Radel wants his Republican peers to break the political mold once in a while.

An example of some of Trey's homemade beats.

"We need to get out of the echo chamber of Fox News and talk radio. And we need to take better advantage of social media to get our message across. The Republican message, it doesn't have to be old and stodgy — it's not," he said. "One thing that I really hope to be able to do if there's any skill set I want to bring to our beloved Republican Party, is to have a more inclusive message that cuts across generational, ethnic, and cultural lines."

For Radel, that means embarking on a Spanish-language listening tour in his home district. It means he thinks some in the House need to tone down the rhetoric on things like immigration ("When you hear rhetoric like, 'We need an electric fence,' I mean, what good does that do when you say we are going to electrocute people to keep them out?") and spending a whole lot more time with people who don't necessarily agree with you.

"My first two weeks here, I made it a point to go meet every Democrat from Florida," he said. "I just wanted to say, 'I'm not here to yell at you, I'm not here to name-call, I'd just love it if we could find some areas to work together.'"

It was shortly thereafter that Wasserman Schultz invited Radel to dinner, which happened to be on Valentine's Day, with a group of other members of Congress.

"I was texting photos to my wife," he said laughing.

But beyond bonding with Democrats, Radel is a conservative member who feels that Republicans have shut out large groups of voters, like Hispanics, by their tone.

At a Heritage Institute–sponsored "Conversations with Conservatives" event on Capitol Hill in March, Radel said there were "emotional" arguments for immigration reform.

"We're not going to round up millions and millions of people, kids and grandmas and grandpas and send them to wherever," he said then.

Radel is also hoping to play a role in changing the perception that the party is stuck in the past. With iPhone in hand, Radel likes to give his constituents tours of the Capitol through videos on Vine, or communicate with them through Twitter. It's not exactly the kind of stuff that changes minds, but it gives voters a relatable glimpse into the life of the congressman.

View Entire List ›

Has anyone ever seen these two in the same place at the same time?

Just look at them!

Too Andy Kaufmanesque? Let's try a less weird theory...

Perhaps Colbert is just Koch's long lost son.

Son?

View Entire List ›

“If I was a Democratic hot-shot politician, I would primary her so fast,” says Stu Stevens. Hickenlooper 2016?

Via: AP

WASHINGTON — The top advisor to last year's Republican nominee predicted Wednesday that if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, she will lose in a Democratic primary.

Clinton is widely thought to be the strongest 2016 presidential contender in either party, with high approval ratings and early poll numbers that show her beating top Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio in their home states.

But Stu Stevens, the senior advisor to Mitt Romney's failed presidential bid, told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by National Review that Clinton wouldn't survive a Democratic primary.

"I would predict that if Hillary Clinton runs, she'll lose the primary," he said.

Asked what Democratic candidate might beat her, Stevens tossed out just one name: John Hickenlooper, the moderate governor of Colorado who is thought to be considering a bid, despite having little to no name recognition at the national level.

"She's been around since the '70s," said Stevens, adding that Clinton may very well end up running against a Republican many years her junior. "It's very rare that we go back a generation. And you know, unless we nominate Bob Dole, we won't be going back a generation."

"If I was a Democratic hot-shot politician, I would primary her so fast," he added.

Stevens cited Clinton's past stance in favor of the Iraq War and the fact that Republican Sen. Rob Portman endorsed same-sex marriage before she did earlier this year. The strategist also identified the ongoing investigation into the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consolate in Libya as a major hurdle for Clinton's possible 2016 campaign.

Although the State Department has borne the brunt of blame for Benghazi, Clinton did not appear to testify at last week's Congressional hearing on the investigation. "There's a big Benghazi investigation, but they forgot to talk to the secretary of state?" Stevens said.

Asked about the strongest Republican contenders for the presidency, Stevens refused to name a specific candidate, but did say the odds are "very positive" that a Republican will be elected in 2016.

"I think the moment forms the person," Stevens said. "Until we know more about what the moment will be like ... it's very difficult to say."

"I like the Republican bench better than the Democratic bench," he added.

And Stevens, whose longtime business partner Russ Schriefer is currently working for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, made clear that he's not done with the campaign trail just yet.

"I'll just keep working campaigns," he said, "and do what I do."

There’s little chance the IRS will enforce campaign finance laws now, say some advocates. Ennui is setting in. But some see hope down the road.

Via: Susan Walsh / AP

WASHINGTON — Campaign finance watchdogs are feeling a little low these days.

As more details of the IRS scandal emerge, it's become clear to the advocates who have been calling for robust investigations of political spending that not only did IRS agents ignore their pleas — they also did the exact thing that will keep talk of campaign finance off the agenda for the foreseeable future.

Fred Wertheimer, founder of campaign spending watchdog Democracy 21, has been pushing for campaign finance reform for four decades. He told BuzzFeed the IRS scandal is going to be another setback in his quest, but he's not sure how long of one quite yet.

"I don't believe it's years," he said. "That's hard to predict, but I certainly don't believe it's years. I mean, you are not going to be able to brush under the rug the fact that we have a secret money scandal that is undermining our political system. Maybe you can do it for a while, but I don't think you can do it for very long."

Watchdogs have waited for years for the IRS to investigate the ways campaign spending operations use 501(c)(4)s to anonymize political spending and deny partisan groups the "social welfare" designation that allowed them to dump millions into elections. The groups repeatedly called on regulators to dig in to big operations like CrossroadsGPS, the Republican-leaning group founded by Karl Rove and Priorities USA, the 501(c)(4) founded alongside a super PAC aimed at bolstering President Obama's reelection campaign.

Instead, the IRS targeted smaller, conservative groups requesting the social welfare designation for extra scrutiny. An inspector general's report found conservatives were expressly targeted while progressive groups got less scrutiny. President Obama, Treasury Sec. Jack Lew, and Attorney General Eric Holder, along with just about every member of Congress, have strongly condemned the IRS and demanded to know more.

The watchdog groups have condemned the politicized nature of the IRS scrutiny, too. But they're also scratching their heads at the ham-fisted approach the IRS took. They still want political 501(c)(4)s investigated, and they still want blatantly political groups stripped of their special status. But they now recognize that's not going to happen any time soon.

"I think an unfortunate byproduct of the wholly justified Republican outrage over this incident is that it will then be used an an excuse to avoid the kind of disclosure we need, disclosure which Republicans in the last few years have mostly opposed," said Rick Hasen, law professor at UC-Irvine and the author of Election Law Blog.

Hasen and Wertheimer said the only way for things to proceed now is for Congress to "step up," in Hasen's words, and pass campaign finance reform legislation. But that's not likely to happen now, either. In Congress, the chilling effect from the IRS scandal has extended to campaign finance reform, which even supporters acknowledge is now a lot less likely to happen.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for public citizen, said he doubts the IRS wanted to deal with political 501(c)(4)s in the first place. After the scandal they definitely won't.

"This has turned into a very unfortunate situation. The IRS never wanted to enforce the law, and they never have. And now they have every excuse to not even feel as if they should be enforcing the law," he said. "So this is a very unfortunate situation. I mean, if the IRS is going to apologize for anything, they should apologizing for not enforcing the law."

Even though the still-growing IRS scandal is likely to drown them out for the time being, watchdogs say they'll keep at it. And they say they'll win in the end.

"I believe we can over time, and you do that by continuing to do what we've been doing, which is building support exposing the problems that are arising because of secret money and demonstrating what is an ongoing scandal that is taking place at the expense of the American people," said Wertheimer. "I do not buy the argument that this is a long-term detriment to the goal of providing citizens with information they have a fundamental right to know," he added.

Wertheimer would prefer things get back on track for his cause sooner rather than later.

"I don't have another 41 years [to devote to this]," Wertheimer said. "You may."

Eric Holder told Congress that his Deputy Attorney General signed off on secret subpoenas for AP phone records.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly pled ignorance Wednesday about the Department of Justice's seizure of phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press.

"I don't know" was Holder's mantra, under questioning by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. He said he really had no clue why there was such a "broad scope" of phone records taken from the wire service.

"Yeah there's been a lot of criticism. In fact the head of the RNC called for my resignation despite the fact that I had recused myself from that decision, but be that as it may," Holder said. "I was recused … with that decision to issue the subpoenas made by people who are presently involved in the case."

Holder initially told Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner he wasn't even sure who had authorized the secret seizure of the AP's phone records, though he said he was "95 to 99 percent sure" it was Deputy Attorney General James Cole. After a few minutes, one of his aides handed him a note allowing Holder, the top law enforcement official in the country, to confirm it was, in fact, Cole.

Goodlatte pushed Holder as to why, if the rules indicate that the DOJ should give media organizations fair warning before issuing a subpoena, it was not done in this case.

"There are exceptions to that rule, I'm not sure why in this particular case why it was or wasn't done. I simple don't know that," Holder said.

"I take it that you or others in the justice department will be forthcoming with those answers," Goodlatte said.

LOL, Government.

President Obama has had a no good, rotten week so far.

Via: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

It all started when the IRS was found to be unfairly singling out certain groups for review.

Groups with "Tea-Party", "Patriot" and "9/12" in their names were being targeted and vetted with far more scrutiny than others.

Via: Evan Vucci / AP

Singling out groups because of their political orientation is not allowed.

View Entire List ›

The White House confirms they asked Schumer to reintroduce the bill.

Via: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

The White House went into damage control mode Wednesday to try and blunt a growing scandal over the DOJ snooping on the Associated Press, asking Sen. Charles Schumer to reintroduce media shield legislation that has been stalled since 2009 — even though that bill may not have even protected the AP.

The bill requires prosecutors to convince a judge information attempting to be obtained would "prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or harm to national security." The new bill would also mean the AP would have to be given notice of subpoena unless a judge could be convinced the instance required telling the AP after the records were obtained.

"This kind of law would balance national security needs against the public's right to the free flow of information. At minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case," Schumer said in a press release.

But Schumer's office also acknowledged that the legislation would not necessarily have protected AP from DOJ records seizure. "it is unclear whether the bill would changed outcome in phone records case" the release said, noting the bill would have set up a a legal process in which subpoenas are approved to consider the public interesting in protecting freedom of the press.

The 2007 version of the Free Flow of Information Act did not contain exemptions to the section protecting instances like the Associated Press. The new bill will most likely look similar to the 2009 version which contained exceptions to cases of national security leaks at the behest of the White House.

Longstanding animosities bubble to the surface during tense oversight hearing.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — If you ever doubted that Eric Holder really really hates Rep. Darrell Issa, Wednesday's hearing should put those doubts to rest as the nation's top law enforcement officer accused the California Republican of "unacceptable" and "shameful" behavior.

Holder, under fire from Republicans and even some Democrats over DOJ's secret seizure of Associated Press phone records, Holder and Issa engaged in a lengthy, and often bitter, back and forth during an oversight hearing Wednesday afternoon.

After a long line of questioning from Issa about labor nominee Tom Perez, a visably frustrated Holder proclaimed that he was not going to stop talking because Issa's questioning was "inappropriate."

"It's too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It's unacceptable and it's shameful," Holder said.

Issa made Holder a top target last year and led the charge in the House to hold the Attorney General in criminal contempt of congress over the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking scandal.

Issa wanted Holder to turn over emails from the personal accounts of Perez, an assistant attorney general, proclaiming that the committee had only seen the "to and from" in the emails.

"Our investigators have seen 34 of the 35 five written emails that violated the federal records act," Issa said. "We have just seen the to and from we have not seen the contents."

Holder told Issa "there must have been a good reason" the full emails were not made fully available.

"Yes, you didn't want us to see the details," Issa sniped.

Over the course of the questioning, Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee interrupted several times to protest Issa's use of a voice recording of Perez, with Chairman Bob Goodlatte having to call order to the hearing room several times.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder told the committee he was going to continue to speak. An earlier version of this item misstated that information (5/15/13)

“In this case it may be a more an issue of employment rather than policy,” says Spicer.

Source: static

Pablo Pantoja, a Republican official charged with directing the party's 2012 Hispanic outreach in Florida, made headlines earlier this week when he announced he was switching parties to protest the GOP's "culture of intolerance."

But even as he was growing disillusioned with his party's attitudes toward minorities, he was applying for jobs at the Republican National Committee, according to e-mails provided to BuzzFeed.

In January, Pantoja sent an e-mail to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus's office attaching his résumé, congratulating Priebus on his re-election, and encouraging him to "Lead the way!" He followed up with another e-mail at the end of February asking if he could drop off his résumé in person at the RNC's office in Washington.

Pantoja said in a letter published Monday at the Tampa Bay Times that he becoming a Democrat because he had grown frustrated with the "harsh undertones against immigrants and others" in Republican rhetoric — citing a series of examples that extend back to the period of his GOP job hunt, including a February column by Ann Coulter, and a racially charged outburst at a CPAC panel on minority outreach in March.

"The discourse that moves the Republican Party is filled with this anti-immigrant movement and overall radicalization that is far removed from reality," Pantoja wrote.

But RNC communications director Sean Spicer suggested Pantoja's switch in party affiliation might have less noble motives.

"The RNC is making historic investments in growing the party. While it's disappointing when someone leaves the party, in this case it may be a more an issue of employment rather than policy," Spicer told BuzzFeed. "This strategy didn't work too well for Charlie Crist."

Asked about his recent search for a job at the RNC, Pantoja said, "I respect Mr. Spicer and I have not talked about the RNC as an organization in my letter or anyone there. In this career and livelihood many of us in this process seek to grow and network for other jobs usually within the same circles. I have even considered leaving the process to non-political jobs because of my evolution."

"In good conscience, especially in light of recent anti-immigrant debate, I couldn't talk to those grassroots people and others that have known me for my work before and not openly share my convictions and political party change. I wish they would have been more animate and driven to respond when the eugenics-based report was exposed as they are now," he added.

Pantoja's brief career in Republican politics was a rocky one. According to the résumé he sent to the RNC, he worked as a regional field director in central Florida for the Romney campaign from until the state's primary in February 2012. One former campaign official told BuzzFeed he was a "patronage hire" who was brought on at the urging of a major donor in Orlando, and that he was let go after showing up at the campaign offices in Tampa on primary night instead of hustling to get last-minute votes in the field.

"I'm surprised he would put the Romney campaign on his résumé since everyone there would give him a bad recommendation," the former aide said.

This article has been updated to include information about Pantoja's time on the Romney campaign.

Congressional press galleries call on the Department of Justice to explain how the “unparalleled use of your investigative power is constitutionally consistent.”

WASHINGTON — The congressional press corps Wednesday harshly criticized the Department of Justice's secret seizure of Associated Press phone records, calling the action "disconcerting" while questioning the constitutionality of the investigation.

Pointing to DOJ's subpoena of records of phone calls made by AP editors and reporters from their offices, homes and cell phones and the House Daily Press Gallery, representatives of the print, broadcast and photo galleries in the House and Senate bluntly warned Attorney General Eric Holder that "your agency has not provided adequate reason for this disconcerting action."

The press representatives also warned DOJ's activities could "jeopardize the relationship between reporters and anonymous sources, decreasing the likelihood that people will come forward with vital information of public importance. The press must be secure in its ability to conduct its business within space provided solely for that business.

"This critical work of reporters is protected by the First Amendment. Please explain how this unparalleled use of your investigative power is constitutionally consistent," they added.

The head of the DOJ is all like, “idk, man.”

View Video ›

Washington could use a little Olivia Pope right about now.

Huck would be hacking into both the Justice Department and Associated Press databases.

(The Associated Press learned this week that the Department of Justice pulled two months of their phone records.)

And Abby would trick some intern into giving her access to a trove of documents.

It would have been Olivia's idea for the US Attorney General to be like, "Yeah, I'm not going to be part of this investigation."

(Attorney General Eric Holder recused himself from the investigation due to a potential conflict of interest.)

And then she'd dispatch Abby and Harrison to stake out his house.

The sexual tension palpable, they would stare longingly at each other.

Via: mynerdypony.wordpress.com

View Entire List ›

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert got into a heated discussion with Eric Holder today over a bunch issues, most notably the FBI’s interview with deceased Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. He mentions asparagus at one point.

Part 1:

View Video ›

Via:

Part 2 where things get very heated:

View Video ›

Via:

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) questions U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Oversight of the United States Department of Justice" on Capitol Hill in Washington May 15, 2013.

Via: Yuri Gripas / Reuters

White House releases Benghazi emails. Update: Official tells BuzzFeed the release vindicates the Obama administration.

Via: Carolyn Kaster, File / AP

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Wednesday released a cache of internal emails relating to last year's terrorist attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya.

During an hour long background briefing with reporters, senior administration officials presented the interagency emails in which the first public talking points surrounding the attack were developed, arguing they are indicative of routine communications surrounding national security matters. White House officials believe the emails prove there was no cover-up of a terrorist attack, as some Republican critics of the administration have alleged.

Members of Congress have already seen the cache of emails, which detail communications between senior CIA officials, White House officials and State Department officials.

Officials described a process where the talking points were drafted by the CIA at the request of Congress.

An administration official told BuzzFeed the emails refute Republican claims that the talking points were drafted as a political measure to cover the White House. The emails describe a request for talking points by House intelligence members, including Republican Rep. Mike Rodgers.

"As you can see, this was not a political process but an apolitical process in response to a request from Congress," the official said.

Read the emails, provided to BuzzFeed three-ring binder, as posted in electronic form by CNN.

Damage control in D.C.

Via: Susan Walsh / AP

WASHINGTON — A head rolled in the IRS scandal Wednesday. The White House released emails about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, too. And on Capitol Hill, members of Congress grilled Attorney General Eric Holder for hours over his agency's collection of Associated Press phone records — and the White House announced its support for a press shield law to protect reporters in the future.

Now, the Obama Administration insists it's back to business as usual. Or, at least, it hopes so.

After several days dominated by a series of explosive controversies, and complaints that the White House was slow to react, the administration shifted into high gear Wednesday. By the time the evening news casts started on the East Coast, the acting head of the IRS, Steven Miller, had been fired and 100 pages of White House emails on Benghazi were in the hands of reporters.

Obama put a public face on the IRS scandal response, announcing Miller's resignation himself.

"Given the controversies surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore leadership going forward," Obama said. The president promised "new safeguards to make sure this kind of behavior cannot happen again."

Just a few minutes earlier, reporters huddled in a White House conference room with several senior administration officials, going over the cache of emails about Benghazi, handed to reporters in three-ring binders. It was the same group of emails sent to Congress in February as part of a White House response to inquiries about the deaths of four Americans at a diplomatic compound in the Libyan city. Reporters were allowed to participate on the condition they not name the officials in the room or quote them directly, but as they went over the emails the officials made it clear they think the release should quell Republican concerns over the administration's early statements about Benghazi.

"This was not a political process but an apolitical process in response to a request from Congress," an administration official who was not in the room told BuzzFeed about the emails.

During the televised briefing around midday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly told reporters the swirling scandals were not getting in the way of governing.

"These are the kinds of issues that we deal with here in this room and that the appropriate people deal with in an administration, but the vast majority of the people working for the President every day are working on the agenda that he laid out in his State of the Union address and in his inaugural address," he said, "an agenda that is focused on what we can do to keep the economy growing; what we can to invest in infrastructure and in education; what we can do to expand our civil liberties; what we can do to enhance our national security."

Carney also confirmed Obama had called Sen. Chuck Schumer to voice his support for the New York Democrat's press shield law. It's not clear if Schumer's bill would protect the press against further dragnet-style phone record gathering by the federal government, but Carney said the president's reenergized support for the legislation shows he's serious about press concerns over the Justice Department's actions. Carney again said Obama was a lover of press freedom, and sought to navigate a balance between letting reporters work freely and monitoring their work in the interests of protecting national security.

"Part of finding that balance — again, not specific to [the AP] case — but part of finding that balance he has long believed is enacting the kind of media shield law that he has supported since he was a senator and which he looks forward to being reintroduced in the Senate in the coming days and weeks," Carney said.

Republicans have expressed mixed reactions to Obama's attempts to stamp out the last few days' fires.

House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the release of the Benghazi emails, but said through an aide that the release is not the end of the story.

"This release is long overdue and there are relevant documents the Administration has still refused to produce," Boehner spokesperson Brendan Buck said. "We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come."

The firing of Miller at the IRS was met with some Republican praise — Rep. Darrell Issa said Obama "struck the right tone" on CNN — but Republicans said the IRS story didn't die with Miller's job, either.

"If the President is as concerned about this issue as he claims, he'll work openly and transparently with Congress to get to the bottom of the scandal—no stonewalling, no half-answers, no withholding of witnesses," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

Holder's appearance on Capitol Hill wasn't likely to silence any critics, either. He had a testy exchange with Issa and offered a lot of "I don't know" to Republican questions.

But he was there, and the first part of crisis management, the White House seems to have concluded, is showing up.

“People did not understand what we were trying to do,” Brock tells BuzzFeed after a talking points controversy. Media Matters plans to spin “Message Matters” off into a separate organization.

Source: mediamatters.org

The chairman of the group Media Matters told BuzzFeed Wednesday that the group plans to split a project that develops talking points for progressive pundits into a new organization, and he acknowledged that a controversial memo released Wednesday was an error of style, if not, he said, of substance.

Media Matters, best known as the leading progressive critic and monitor of alleged conservative media sins, took a bipartisan pounding Wednesday after it posted a set of talking points that appeared to defend the Obama Administration's monitoring of Associated Press reporters' phone calls.

View Entire List ›

A slow start to the former congressman’s comeback attempt.

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) announces that he will resign from the United States House of Representatives during a news conference in Brooklyn, New York, June 16, 2011.

Via: Mike Segar / Reuters

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner's former admakers — the same firm that made many of President Barack Obama's campaign ads — won't work with him in his likely 2013 campaign for mayor of New York, the New York Times reported Thursday.

But the firm, GMMB, has also been doing work for another candidate: New York City Comptroller John Liu, whose campaign has been hobbled by the convictions of two top aides in illegal fundraising schemes. Weiner, for his part, is attempting a comeback the scandal that ended his congressional career, in which he sent graphic pictures to women he met on Facebook.

Liu paid GMMB $57,475 in March for radio ad placement, according to a campaign finance report. GMMB's Anson Kaye (a former Weiner campaign aide) said the money was spent on media placement, which is separate from the firm's creative and strategy side.

"We haven't produced any spots for Liu and aren't going to," Kaye, told BuzzFeed in an email.

Weiner's nascent campaign has barely begun A review of his campaign filings show he spent just over $12,400 between March 12 and May 11. Other than hiring a playwright, Jessica Provenz, to update a set of policy proposals, Weiner spent most of his money on office rent and other minor expenses.

In contrast, Weiner's top mayoral contenders (if he does decide to run) spent hundreds of thousands on their campaigns.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, NYC Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Liu all spent more than $200,000 in the last two months. Republican candidate Joseph Lhota spent more than $300,000.

And John Catsimatidis, a billionaire supermarket magnate, spent more than $600,000 out of his own pocket. He is not participating in New York City's public match program and thus is not limited by its fundraising and spending limits.

These candidates, other than Catsimatidis, also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars during the filling period, while Weiner raised $0.

“By showing you can actually change your gender marker with the Department of Defense, it shows that the Department of Defense actually will do that, and if they do that then it’s another stop toward figuring out a way to have open service for trans people,” activist says.

The Pentagon formally recognized earlier this month that there are transgender veterans — a step that LGBT advocates say is a long way from open transgender service in the military, but also a significant first step in that process.

In a short letter dated May 2, a Navy official told Autumn Sandeen, a veteran and transgender activist: "Per your request the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) has been updated to show your gender as female effective April 12, 2013."

Sandeen's military identification card now reflects the change, a move called "quite significant" by the head of OutServe-SLDN, a national organization for LGBT service members and veterans and their families.

"The fact that a process exists [to change the gender listed] indicates that there are people in the Department of Defense who are aware of the needs of transgender retirees and who are working to see those needs met. And, in that sense, the significance of this symbolic act for our broader work and for our goal of open service becomes I think a little bit more apparent," OutServe-SLDN executive director Allyson Robinson told BuzzFeed.

Although gay, lesbian and bisexual service members have been able to serve openly since September 2011, transgender people — those whose self-perception of their gender does not match the gender they were assigned at birth — continue to be discharged if they try to serve openly.

Sandeen had previously worked with the National Center for Transgender Equality to establish the standards used by the Department of Veterans Affairs for addressing transgender issues, and she also had changed her gender with other governmental entities.

"I have now done California, the Veterans Administration, State Department with a passport, and the Social Security office, I have changed all of this," she said. "The one last place that shows me as male is the Department of Defense — from being a retiree there."

Despite being a veteran, Sandeen is still listed in DEERS — a system generally used for current service members — because many veterans have their records and many of their benefits maintained by the Department of Defense, rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, Robinson said.

Sandeen decided to address the fact that the Pentagon still listed her as a man by asking the Navy to change her gender to female.

"I had heard that it could be done; I had never heard of anybody actually doing it. So, I went and called up OutServe-SLDN, and told them, 'OK, what I did with NCTE and checking the system there [in the Veterans' Affairs Department], trying to find out what the rules are, what do you want me to try and do to see what … policy is.' And they said, 'If you can just show us that it can be done.'"

Sandeen did, submitting the documentation requested, and then, in May, receiving the notification that the change had been made.

"To our knowledge, this is the first time that the Department of Defense has recognized and affirmed a change of gender for anyone affiliated, in a uniformed capacity — in this case a military retiree. That alone makes it very significant, not just for this veteran herself, but for likely thousands of others who can have these corrections made to their DEERS documents," Robinson said.

Sandeen said she saw it as a path forward for more movement.

"By showing you can actually change your gender marker with the Department of Defense, it shows that the Department of Defense actually will do that, and if they do that then it's another stop toward figuring out a way to have open service for trans people," she said.

Robinson noted that the decision itself is "limited in its reach" because "[i]t does not go back and correct historical records that the Department of Defense maintains on retirees, but it does correct all documents going forward, including the ID cards that veterans are issued that allows them access to the same kinds of military facilities that active-duty service members have."

Robinson pressed the importance of that change because it would mean that trans military retirees would have ID cards coded with the gender that the retiree would be presenting themselves as if they were using a military service.

"When transgender people are inadvertently outed on documents that don't match … that they become more susceptible to harassment and discrimination, more likely to face those kinds of responses. In a broad sense, having documentation that matches one's day-to-day presentation of gender is very important," Robinson said.

The limits to the move are significant. As both Sandeen and Robinson noted, the military will not alter the gender listed on a DD-Form-214, the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because the Pentagon considers it to be an historical document.

Sandeen, though dissatisfied with the military's unwillingness to alter that form, said the DEERS change is an important first step.

"They're starting with 'you can change your reported gender with the Department of Defense,' and then [transgender people can] take that into the next couples of questions: 'Why can't we update our DD-214s?' and 'Why can't we serve openly?'" she said.

"I would say that it is a very early and very small step in a long process to achieve our goals here," Robinson said. "But, it is significant, as the earliest steps always are, because it reflects a shift, even if it is a small one, in the way that transgender people are viewed within the institution of the United States military."

For Sandeen, it is that simple. "I'd like to see trans people being able to serve openly, and that's my end, and I think this is going to be a step to get there," she said.