RGA spokesman Jon Thompson’s background features New Jersey governor and RGA chair Chris Christie, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
“I’m sorry, I’m sorry; they’ve seen the [ Daily Show ].” — Jon Stewart
The government shutdown was good for fundraising.
Number of donors: 1,548
Via democrats.org
Number of donors: 902
Via dccc.org
Number of donors: 1,270
Via gop.org
Number of donors: 234
Via NRSC.org
They claim Gov. Bill Haslam, Sen. Bob Corker, and others engaged in a “coordinated and widely publicized coercive campaign” against the union.
AP Photo/Erik Schelzig
WASHINGTON —The United Auto Workers filed an objection with the National Labor Relations Board Friday claiming the election it lost last week at a Chattanooga, Tenn., Volkswagen plant was interfered with by outside groups and lawmakers.
The union says Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, Sen. Bob Corker, Grover Norquist, and others engaged in a "coordinated and widely publicized coercive campaign" to encourage votes against joining the union. The final tally was 712 votes against and 626 votes in favor.
If successful, the NLRB could set aside the election results and order a new one.
"It's an outrage that politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that that would grow jobs in Tennessee," said UAW President Bob King. "It is extraordinary interference in the private decision of workers to have a U.S. senator, a governor and leaders of the state legislature threaten the company with the denial of economic incentives and workers with a loss of product. We're committed to standing with the Volkswagen workers to ensure that their right to have a fair vote without coercion and interference is protected."
In the days leading up to the election, state legislators threatened that if workers voted to join the union, the plant might lose out on important state incentives.
In addition to that, Corker claimed that if workers voted against the union, VW would manufacture their new SUV at the Chattanooga plant — a claim he doubled down on in a statement released today. VW is also considering manufacturing the new product at a plant in Mexico.
VW has said the vote will not affect their decision.
"The workers at Chattanooga's Volkswagen plant spoke very clearly last week, so we are disappointed the UAW is ignoring their decision and has filed this objection. Unfortunately, I have to assume that today's action may slow down Volkswagen's final discussions on the new SUV line," Corker said in a statement. "This complaint affirms the point many of us have been making: that the UAW is only interested in its own survival and not the interests of the great employees at Chattanooga's Volkswagen facility nor the company for which they work."
Former NLRB Chairman William Gould said he thinks at first glance the UAW has a chance of winning appeal, but it will depend heavily on when VW actually responded to Corker's claims about votes affecting their decision to manufacture the SUV.
"It's going to depend upon both the timing of Volkswagen's repudiation and the extensiveness of the threats by state legislatures," Gould said.
The national security advisor denied misleading the American public last September during an array of Sunday show appearances, saying she used the best information available at the time.
An ex-WikiLeaks employee said the organization offered other things too: “I remember a remark along the lines of noting the women there were very lovely, and very friendly.” A WikiLeaks spokesman said a deal never materialized.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks to the media outside the High Court in London Dec. 5, 2011.
Suzanne Plunkett / Reuters / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Al Jazeera offered WikiLeaks money in exchange for access to the diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks amassed in 2010, according to the accounts of Julian Assange's former ghostwriter and of a former WikiLeaks employee.
In "Ghosted," a story by Andrew O'Hagan in the London Review of Books about his experience ghostwriting an autobiography of Assange that was never published, he alleges that Al Jazeera offered Assange $1.3 million in exchange for WikiLeaks data.
"That night, a guy from al-Jazeera was talking to the group," O'Hagan wrote of a night in January 2011. "The group was usually just Sarah, who lived there, and Joseph Farrell, a pleasant twenty-something whizz kid who came and went. Another guy, an activist and academic from Canberra University, was drinking wine and talking about how to mobilise the world. It turned out that the guy from al-Jazeera was hoping to strike a deal with WikiLeaks – that's to say, with Julian. He was offering $1.3 million to get access (via encryption keys) to the data. He also wanted to organise a conference in Qatar on press freedom."
According to James Ball, a former WikiLeaks employee, another meeting with Al Jazeera executives took place in December 2010 in the office of Mark Stephens, then Assange's lawyer. Ball and WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson represented Assange's side, while two high-level Al Jazeera employees, one described as the "third-in-charge" and one introduced as the head of investigations, represented Al Jazeera, according to Ball.
"It was a strange and uneasy meeting: we'd read in the cables a lot on political interference with Al Jazeera at the high levels, and Kristinn and I had talks wondering whether it was Al Jazeera or Qatar trying to get the cables," Ball said. "Julian was, however, very keen to close a deal and get some revenue."
"Kristinn and I were trying to suggest a journalistic collaboration which gave Al Jazeera only limited access to cables. They were adamant they needed direct access to the cables. This could, of course, have been for reasons of editorial independence," Ball said.
According to Ball, the Al Jazeera executives offered to fly the pair to Doha and "make us comfortable." They offered other things too: "I remember a remark along the lines of noting the women there were very lovely, and very friendly," Ball said.
At the end, one of the executives asked the men, "What would it take to make you happy?" Ball said.
Al Jazeera commonly pays for hotel accommodations and other travel expenses for "guests," Al Jazeera spokesman Osama Saeed told BuzzFeed in December. The network paid expenses for Yasser Arafat's widow Suha Arafat during the process of reporting their controversial story citing a contested Swiss report that said Arafat was killed by polonium poisoning.
"I've asked some colleagues but no one knows about this," Saeed said Monday when asked about O'Hagan's and Ball's accounts. "If you let me know who this alleged individual was, I can certainly find out more for you. As it stands, this was years ago, we've got hundreds of reporters, and multiple channels. It is strange that there are all these alleged details but no one has a name."
Hrafnsson said that Al Jazeera and WikiLeaks were planning on collaborating on a series of news programs.
"We expanded our media collaboration to broadcast in the Iraq War Log
release. In co-operation with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
(TBIJ) news programs where produced, based on the war logs, for Channel 4
and Al-Jazeera (English and Arabic)," said Hrafnsson. "The meetings you are referring to where an exploration into creating a series of news programs for Al-Jazeera as part of Cablegate. I believe we discussed 10 half-hour programs."
Hrafnsson said the $1.3 million number cited by O'Hagan "does not seem far off, considering the scope of the production," but said he could not confirm the amount and said that the deal was not signed. "This did not materialize and I believe it would be a fair description to say we never entered into formal negotiations."
A strange new attack from the NRCC.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has taken an odd course in the Florida special election to replace Republican Rep. Bill Young after his death in October of last year: The NRCC is bashing Democratic candidate Alex Sink for supporting Simpson-Bowles, a deficit reduction plan Republicans most often attack President Obama for abandoning or ignoring.
"Alex Sink supports a plan that raises the retirement age for Social Security recipients, raises Social Security taxes and cuts Medicare, all while making it harder for Pinellas seniors to keep their doctors that they know and love," Katie Prill, a spokeswoman for the NRCC said, according to the Sunshine State News. "Sending Alex Sink to Washington guarantees that seniors right here in Pinellas County are in jeopardy of losing the Social Security and Medicare benefits that they have earned and deserve."
The list of Republicans who have praised, cited, or attack Obama for ignoring Simpson-Bowles is long.
"He set up a deficit reduction commission a year ago. They did a lot of really good work," House Speaker John Boehner said on ABC's This Week in April 2011. "And while I didn't agree with everything they did, there was a lot in their — in their proposal that was worthy of consideration. And what did the president do? He took exactly none of his own deficit reduction commission's ideas. Not one. Come on? It's time to grow up and get serious about the problems that face our country."
"He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing," Paul Ryan said in his 2012 RNC speech as the vice presidential nominee. "Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing — nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue."
The Republican National Committee has also attacked the president on Simpson-Bowles numerous times. Here are just two examples from their website:
Republican Rep. Paul Broun, a congressman and candidate for Senate in Georgia said in a debate Friday he believes the United States must continue to support Israel for geopolitical reasons, but also to continue to be blessed by God. Broun cited a biblical promise God made to Abraham.
“If you even attempt to discuss these issues, people call you a bigot,” the conservative D.C. lobbyist says of his proposal.
WASHINGTON — The Washington lobbyist who announced Monday that he wants to put forward legislation banning gay people from playing in the National Football League told a reporter that the proposal is just about "common decency and civility."
Told by WJLA-ABC 7's Mike Conneen that some were suggesting the proposal is a stunt, Jack Burkman insisted, "No, hardly a stunt."
Prompted by NFL-hopeful Michael Sam's coming out, the conservative Burkman described his proposed legislation, saying, "If someone has come out as a homosexual, what this legislation would do is one of two things: It would ban them from the National Football League. Two, it would give the NFL a choice: It would allow them to create separate facilities, completely separate facilities."
Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz shot back, "This idea sounds more like something you'd read in The Onion rather than anything close to legitimate public policy."
In the WJLA interview, Burkman discussed the uphill battle he faces against the media and "political correctness," as well.
"If you even attempt to discuss these issues, people call you a bigot. They link it to race. They want to talk about everything except the substance of the issue," he said.
"[A]s [we] speak tonight, there are people drafting it," he said when pressed for specifics, including the names of supportive lawmakers. "We have — today's the kickoff, so you're catching me on day one. We expect to have a lot of support. I'll give you the projection. Within like three weeks, within 20 days, our projections indicate we'll have 36 members in the House, six in the Senate. ... You can't be too far right in many districts in this Republican Party."
Then, Conneen pressed further:
Conneen: Jack, can you name one lawmaker for me who supports this?
Burkman: I could but I won't for them —
Conneen: Why?
Burkman: I will be able to soon.
Conneen: Why?
Burkman: To protect their privacy. We're still working on the legislation. ... But soon enough, Mike, we'll be happy to.
Of his confidence in the bill's possibilities, Burkman said, "I think I can drive it through" — noting it would preempt state law and some state constitutions.
Of that, HRC vice present Fred Sainz told BuzzFeed, "If the concept weren't so laughable, I would be enraged."
Looks like Poehler has an excellent back-up sidekick option if Tina Fey ever retires.
Lower expectations — and reality — for the Obama administration. The HHS secretary walks back the 7 million enrollment target.
Jim Bourg / Reuters / Reuters
In 2013, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said "success" for Obamacare enrollment looked like 7seven million people. Now, she's contesting that.
"First of all, 7 million was not the administration," Sebelius told Huff Post Live in an interview Tuesday. "That was a CBO, Congressional Budget Office prediction when the bill was first signed. I'm not quite sure where they even got their number. Their number's all over the board, and you know, the vice president has looked and said it may be closer to 5 to 6. I'm more interested in what we are doing today: getting the word out to target populations."
Last June, according to the Washington Post, Sebelius told reporters, "We're hopeful that 7 million is a realistic target."
It's a number the Health and Human Services secretary reiterated to NBC News in September as well.
"I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014," she said.
The White House seems to have shifted its opinion on the enrollment numbers after Obamacare got off to a slow start when glitches and malfunctions plagued the website. In December of last year, White House aide Phil Schiliro made the claim 7 million was never a target number.
"That was never our target number," he said. "That was a target that came from the Congressional Budget Office, and it has become an accepted number. There's no magic to the 7 million. What there is magic to is that in the month of December a million Americans signed up for insurance."
“You’re much more likely to get the death penalty if you kill a white person than if you kill a black person — even controlling for the crime differences.” Two more executions are scheduled for Wednesday; both people were convicted of murdering white victims.
WASHINGTON — In 2014, eight people have been executed in the United States.
Three were white, three were black, and two were Hispanic; one of the eight was a woman; they were executed in five different states; they ranged in age from 38 to 62.
All had one thing in common: Their victims were white.
Despite the fact that about three-quarters of executions involve cases with white victims, only about half of the murder victims in the country are white — a fact that reflects longstanding questions about the many ways in which race plays a role in the death penalty.
"It's not surprising because it's been a consistent problem, and it hasn't gone away," Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told BuzzFeed. "Executions involving minority victims are rarer, and it's only February, so I wouldn't read too much from eight in a row — but it does illustrate that this is a continuing problem. These are just raw numbers, but even when you control for the severity of the crime ... it's still a bias in the system."
The next two executions in the U.S. are scheduled for Wednesday — both are black men, Michael Taylor and Paul Howell — convicting of killing white people.
If those executions go forward, 5 of the 10 executions in 2014 will have been of black men. All 10 executions will be for killing white people.
"It was brought up, with careful research to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a very close vote, 5-4, the court said, 'We accept this evidence, but we still don't find it enough to overturn the death penalty,' and so there it sits," Dieter explained.
More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court considered and rejected concerns about the racial disparities in the application of the death penalty.
In the challenge to the system, lawyers for Warren McCleskey, a black death-row inmate in Georgia, presented the findings of a study that examined more than 2,000 murder cases in Georgia during the 1970s. Defendants charged with killing white persons received the death penalty in 11% of the cases, but defendants charged with killing blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of the cases.
"The raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial disparity according to the race of the defendant: 4% of the black defendants received the death penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants," the court noted of the study. Defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely be executed as those charged with killing black victims, according to the study.
The court decided that the study indicated a "discrepancy that appears to correlate with race," but that "apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system."
The court ultimately ruled that the study did not "demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Georgia capital sentencing process."
Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision about the constitutionality of the reality, Dieter said, it's still the reality: "You're much more likely to get the death penalty if you kill a white person than if you kill a black person — even controlling for the crime differences."
And the issue does find its way forward every few years. As the New York Times wrote in 1995, "About half of all the people who are murdered each year in the United States are black. Yet since 1977, when a firing squad in Utah initiated the modern era of capital punishment, the overwhelming majority of people who have been executed — 85% — had killed a white person."
Although that statistic has become slightly less extreme — as of now, 76% of those executed since the death penalty was reinstated killed a white person — Dieter said, "To say that race is no longer a problem and doesn't effect the criminal justice system or the death penalty system in particular would be to have blinders on."
Structural components of the capital sentencing process play a role in the disparity, Dieter and said University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill law professor Rob Smith — like the race of juries and other factors.
"Juries come from middle America, and we all still have biases," Dieter said. "And, in particular, juries are picked a special way in death penalty cases so there's always going to be less blacks on the jury. The jury is composed of people who support the death penalty, and that tends to be more white, more men, more older, more conservative than a jury of your peers. "
"We don't get juries as diverse as our general population because of the way juries are picked in death penalty cases," he said. The jury selection process eliminates people who outright oppose the death penalty. Statistically, he said, that means juries in capital cases have fewer African-Americans, Catholics, and women — groups that generally have less support for the death penalty.
"It makes these juries not only more likely to impose the death penalty, but more likely to convict them as well," Dieter said.
As Smith put it, "You have all of these 'empathy' questions. You have a mostly white jury — and all of them have said, 'Yes, I could give the death penalty to somebody' — you've already cut out millions of people [who would never give the death penalty]. You're left with a mostly white, mostly conservative jury pool and a white victim, and then they're given victim impact evidence."
Dieter went further, saying, "If you had a diverse jury, they might see things differently."
But those who question whether racism causes the disparity, Smith said, raise two arguments, including how capital cases are prosecuted.
When prosecutors determine the sentencing they will pursue in a capital case, they often work with the families of victims. "Most of black victims have black offenders, and support for the death penalty is just so much lower in those communities, so you can imagine that prosecutors who are relying on victims' family members are — that makes a difference," he said.
Although it can be related to race, another factor that comes into play even before prosecution itself, Smith said, is the concept of "stranger danger." Particularly in cross-race cases, he said, "a lot of what the race of the victim effect is getting is 'stranger danger' — crimes where, spacially, there is perceived to be a threat from the inner-city coming into a neighborhood where there is not a terrible lot of crime."
But, once prosecution has begun, he said, "The more powerful and influential victims' families are ... in the community, the more likelihood prosecutors pay attention to what you say."
And, with regards to Dieter's point about the composition of juries, Smith pointed to retired Justice John Paul Stevens' comments in a 2008 death penalty case that he had reached the conclusion "that the process of obtaining a 'death qualified jury' is really a procedure that has the purpose and effect of obtaining a jury that is biased in favor of conviction."
Dieter, though, also pointed to what he sees a secondary problem with that.
"It not only makes for an unfair trial, but it excludes people from a badge of citizenship," he said. "It's like going to the voting booth, and saying, 'You can't vote because you support Obamacare, or you can't vote because you have religious views that are unacceptable to us.' We would never allow that.
"We would never allow that part of citizenship to be excluded, but we do allow people to be struck from serving on juries because of their moral or political views, and that tends to hurt minorities more than whites, it tends to hurt women more than men," he went on. "We're not just hurting defendants and skewing the system, but we're also depriving citizens of basic rights and that's something not always recognized."
Fighting against perceived racial or other disparities in the death penalty is difficult, Smith said, noting that the cases concern people who have already committed a homicide — and the racial issue can become an aggravating factor.
"If you raise the issue of race, especially among white citizens," Dieter said, "the problem is that you're still talking about a guilty person — guilty of a horrendous crime, so, if race entered into and they're still guilty, it's not as moving — it doesn't change minds."
Having lost those arguments at the Supreme Court, though, Dieter said the public presentation has taken a different — and, arguably, more successful — tack.
"If you approach it as a question of fairness, Americans are concerned about fairness in the death penalty, and a large chunk — about 40% of Americans in the Gallup poll — think the death penalty is administered unfairly. That's a large percentage," he said. "That unfairness is eating away at the death penalty."
And, despite the two executions scheduled for this week, recent numbers and trends across the nation bear that out.
With frayed U.S.–Afghan relations at a breaking point, the Obama administration has officially given the green light to begin planning for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of this year.
Department of Defense
WASHINGTON — After months of stalled talks on what the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would look after the war ends this year, the Obama administration has given the green light to begin planning for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the country.
Those plans will allow American and allied commanders to "accomplish an orderly withdrawal by the end of the year should the United States not keep any troops in Afghanistan after 2014," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday.
The U.S. defense chief will lay out the Pentagon's "zero option" plans — the term used to describe a complete U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — to top NATO commanders during the alliance's upcoming ministerial meeting in Brussels this week.
The announcement comes weeks after reports that top officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul have plans in place outlining how the U.S. diplomatic mission would continue under a full American withdrawal.
Hagel touted the move, one the administration has been wary to press forward on publicly, as a "prudent step" toward ending America's 13-year war in Afghanistan.
The announcement also represents the death knell for postwar negotiations between Washington and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"President Karzai has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he will sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)," Hagel said Tuesday, referring to the proposed U.S.-led postwar plan for Afghanistan.
His comments echo those of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who told Congress earlier this month that there was little to no hope the Afghan leader would agree to the American plan.
Karzai has made repeated attempts to stonewall postwar talks since negotiations with the United States and allies began nearly two years ago.
During those talks, the White House and Pentagon pushed for a postwar U.S. force of 8,000 to 10,000, to support the Afghan military and conduct counter terrorism operations after 2014.
But Karzai's public defiance of the U.S. plan has been seen as an effort to build support among Afghans in Taliban-controlled areas of the country, ahead of planned presidential elections set for April. Karzai's brother, Qayum Karzai, is one of several candidates vying for the presidency.
Tuesday's decision by the White House on an Afghan withdrawal is also being driven by the country's upcoming elections, a top defense lawmaker said Tuesday.
Washington's public pursuit of a full U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is a clear signal to Karzai's eventual successor that the zero option is a real option, not just rhetoric, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
For months, U.S. diplomats have "given [Karzai] the wrong impression that we need his signature" to lock in a postwar pact, Levin told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"We do not, we need the signature of an [Afghan] president" to solidify a deal, Levin said, adding Tuesday's announcement could set the stage for the BSA's approval by the new Afghan leadership.
Bullshit, says the paper. “I obviously don’t see it that way,” says the writer.
Ivanka Trump arrives with husband, Jared Kushner, at the Vanity Fair party to begin the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival in New York, April 17, 2012.
Lucas Jackson / Reuters
The New York Observer Tuesday published a long and negative profile of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The piece is also an extensive and detailed defense of Donald Trump, defending him in particular against Schneiderman's allegations that he profited from a "scam university." One sub-headline in the piece, which mentions Trump more than 90 times: "The Case Against Donald Trump: Too Much, Too Late?"
Trump himself tweeted about an upcoming article in December that would help him "get even" in December.
"Too bad about New York Magazine, but there's a much bigger one out there, currently doing a story on me to get even, that I'll soon discuss," Trump said.
The Observer is owned and published by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. Trump is currently being sued by Schneiderman for $40 million saying Trump University, Trump's for-profit investment school, engaged in illegal business practices.
The article comes with a long, and unusual, disclaimer:
The day before this story went to press, someone from Mr. Schneiderman's press operation apparently told another publication, "Donald Trump ordered up a hit piece in his son-in-law's newspaper to retaliate against Schneiderman for bringing a lawsuit against him." Bullshit. The notion that Mr. Trump can "order" The Observer to publish or not publish a story is ludicrous. All newspapers have a publisher. Most publishers have a father-in-law. The fact that The Observer's publisher's father-in-law happens to be well known—and appears to have gotten inside the attorney general's head—had no bearing on this story or on any other story in The Observer. If the anonymous press officer who made that accusation has any evidence that this story was "ordered up" by Mr. Trump, we'd like to see it.
But the process behind the piece appears to have been unusual. Observer editor-in-chief Ken Kurson said the first reporter to whom it was assigned was "spooked" and quit the piece.
BuzzFeed spoke to the original reporter, a freelancer named William Gifford, who said one of the reasons he quit was because he knew the Observer wanted the piece to be a negative article.
"They wanted to go at it a certain way and I wanted to go at it objectively," Gifford told BuzzFeed. Gifford added the article was "definitely meant to be negative on Schneiderman. Gifford said, "The more I learned about him (Schneiderman) the more I liked him....I knew they had their angle...I didn't feel comfortable going forward."
Gifford also described the New York Observer disclaimer as "accurate" adding he didn't see the article going anywhere and "kind of just gave up."
The final author of the profile, Michael Craig, told BuzzFeed that Kurson himself did a fair amount of the reporting on the article.
Kurson was "involved in the story before I was assigned it," Craig said.
Kurson is a former magazine writer and Republican political consultant described by New York Magazine as an "old family friend" of the Kushners, a powerful New Jersey real estate family.
Craig told BuzzFeed he dealt with Kurson, not Kushner when writing the article and cited the article's disclaimer.
Craig added he worked on the article himself and was "not discouraged or encouraged" to write anything about Schneiderman.
Asked if he was concerned the profile could be seen as part of vendetta by Trump, Craig said, "I obviously don't see it that way."
The piece itself is a broad political and policy indictment of Schneiderman. Its thesis:
A pattern of political opportunism in which enemies pay while friends skate, a questionable nine-figure slush fund and an inability to play nicely in his own party's sandbox have begun to make influential New Yorkers wonder if the attorney general has hit his political ceiling. In numerous cases, Mr. Schneiderman has shown vindictiveness toward political foes and been uncharacteristically lenient or ignorant of activities of political friends.
Trump's organization also involved denied involvement in the article. Michael Cohen, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald Trump, instead attacked Attorney General Schneiderman in an emailed statement when asked if Trump was involved.
"Most of Mr. Schneiderman's lawsuit has already been dismissed and, had they not changed their case in court during oral argument, the whole case would have been thrown out. The students that took the courses gave a 98% approval rating. Mr. Schneiderman should have better things to do with taxpayer money."
When BuzzFeed called Mr. Cohen to ask again if Trump was involved in the story, Cohen said, "You have my comment. You have my comment." He then hung up.
This story has been updated with comments from the original reporter on the New York Observer story.
The former Republican presidential candidate urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the controversial bill.
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters
Mitt Romney said Tuesday Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer should veto legislation that opponents say would create a "license to discriminate" against LGBT people in the state.
The measure, Senate Bill 1062, is currently pending Brewer's signature after passing in the Arizona House last Thursday, setting off an avalanche of pressure on Brewer from political figures and businesses to reject it. The bill's proponents say it would protect religious freedom in the state, but opponents say the law would open the door to widespread discrimination — particularly against the LGBT community.
Romney took to Twitter to publicly oppose the bill, which Brewer has until Saturday to sign or veto. She has not yet said what she intends to do.
Romney joins the state's two senators — John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans — in using Twitter to urge Brewer to veto the bill.
The case is set to be heard in the appeals court on April 10.
Jim Urquhart / Reuters
WASHINGTON — The key briefs have been filed in the appeals court hearing the challenge to Utah's marriage amendment, with the plaintiffs filing their brief late Tuesday.
The state will still be filing a reply brief, but all of the main arguments are now laid out in the appeal of the Dec. 20, 2013, federal trial court ruling striking down the amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying as unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is due to hear the case on April 10.
I guess not.
Politico reported this week that records from the Clinton White House held at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., are still being kept hidden from the public despite their processed status and the expiration more than a year ago of the legal reasoning for withholding the documents.
Politico reports that about 33,000 pages of documents have not been released, citing the National Archives, which runs the library.
In 2004, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton said that records at the Clinton Library would actually be available earlier than legally required. Clinton said the library would be about "openness" where people can "come and really study," adding "everything's going to be available."
Here's the transcript from Clinton's 2004 interview on CNN with Larry King:
Larry King: Well, make a call as I said. Do you think the impeachment thing was handled tastefully and well?
Hillary Clinton: I do. I do. I've told everyone that the history was going to be full and accurate. Nothing's left out. Obviously, not everything can be shown. But there's going to be access to all of the documents. In fact, Bill is going to be making his documents accessible even earlier than legally required.
LK: He is?
HC: He is. Because he really thinks it's important. That's one of the things the library really stands for. It physically stands for openness with all the glass and the light. But he wants it to be a place where people come and really study. And everything's going to be available.
A sixth federal judge in recent months strikes down a state ban, finding such bans to violate the U.S. Constitution. As in other cases, the decision is on hold pending appeal.
Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press / MCT
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Texas has joined judges in Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Virginia in ruling in recent months that bans on same-sex couples marrying or recognizing out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are unconstitutional.
In U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia's ruling Wednesday, he found:
These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Garcia granted the same-sex couples' request for a preliminary injunction stopping the state from enforcing the ban, but he put the ruling on hold "pending the final disposition of any appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals."
An appeal of the case by Texas officials, which is expected, would involve a fifth federal appeals court in the wave of cases challenging laws limiting same-sex couples' marriage rights since the Supreme Court ruled last June that the federal Defense of Marriage Act's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' marriages was unconstitutional.
Appeals already are pending in the 4th Circuit, from the Virginia case; the 6th Circuit, from cases in Ohio and Kentucky involving recognition of out-of-state marriages; the 9th Circuit, from the Nevada case; and the 10th Circuit, from the Utah and Oklahoma cases.
The first federal judge to rule a state marriage ban unconstitutional was U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, when he struck down California's Proposition 8 ban in 2010. No other federal judge did so, however, until the U.S. District Court Judge Tim Black did so in a case limited to death certificates and out-of-state marriage recognition after the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling in United States v. Windsor.
“DOJ definitely deserves some credit for moving quickly and taking some steps to protect press freedoms,” an ACLU lawyer who reviewed the new rule says.
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has submitted its final rule change governing the department's investigation of media organizations following last summer's uproar over surveillance of journalists, and it is set to be published Thursday.
"The revisions ... ensure more robust oversight by senior Department officials," the final rule states. "The changes to the policy also strengthen the presumption that Department attorneys will negotiate with, and provide advance notice to, affected members of the news media when investigators seek to obtain from third parties communications records or business records related to ordinary newsgathering activities."
The rule finalized this past week, as reported by The New York Times and follows last summer's announcement of changes — which include notifying the media of any planned subpoena in most circumstances and requiring the attorney general himself or herself to sign off on the issuance of such subpoenas — in the wake of opposition to the Justice Department's collection of Associated Press phone records and investigation into Fox News reporter James Rosen.
Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel at the ACLU, reviewed the final rule, which was posted to the Federal Register website at this link early Wednesday morning, although it does not appear on the front page of the recent rules. The document itself notes that it "is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 02/27/2014," which is Thursday.
"We had strongly urged the DOJ to reverse the presumption against informing the media" of a subpoena, "and they have done that," Rottman told BuzzFeed after reviewing the final rule. "The rest of it — as with the current regulations — can be subject to misuse or overreaching ... but the DOJ definitely deserves some credit for moving quickly and taking some steps to protect press freedoms."
Rottman pointed to three areas as potential changes from the Justice Department's initial announcement of the policy changes last summer.
First, in the requirement that the attorney general sign off on a subpoena for a member of the media, the rule exempts information about comment sections on media sites. The provision appears on page 10 of the final rule:
(B) To issue subpoenas to members of the news media for information related to public comments, messages, or postings by readers, viewers, customers, or subscribers, over which the member of the news media does not exercise editorial control prior to publication.
Second, in a provision that Rottman said "could reduce fishing expeditions," the attorney general is supposed to consider, before signing off on a subpoena, whether the subpoena relates only to published information. The provision appears on page 12 of the final rule:
(iv) The proposed subpoena generally should be limited to the verification of published information and to such surrounding circumstances as relate to the accuracy of the published information.
A final provision, which Rottman noted could have been implied in the initial announcement, is an "exigent circumstances" exemption that allows a deputy attorney general to authorize a subpoena to a member of the media under limited circumstances. The provision appears on pages 18 and 19:
(g) Exigent circumstances. (1) A Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division may authorize the use of a subpoena or court order, as described in paragraph © of this section, or the questioning, arrest, or charging of a member of the news media, as described in paragraph (f) of this section, if he or she determines that the exigent use of such law enforcement tool or technique is necessary to prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism; other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security; death; kidnapping; substantial bodily harm; conduct that constitutes a specified offense against a minor (for example, as those terms are defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. 16911), or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a criminal offense; or incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure (for example, as defined in section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
(2) A Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division may authorize an application for a warrant, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, if there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of the materials at issue is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a)(2) and (b)(2).
Or very conservatively? Either way, SWAG.
The Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a conservative outside group with a tendency to primary establishment GOP members, is living quite well on Capitol Hill.
SCF, which lists stopping wasteful spending and ending earmarks as their core tenets, has paid $50,000 since June to rent a plum Capitol Hill row house office worth $1.4 million. The five-bedroom, 3.5-bath, 2,800 square-foot house comes complete with a wine cellar and jacuzzi tub.
According to filings, the SFC has spent nearly $15,075 on "interior design services" since June and $11,212 on "Painting/Decorating" for their new location.
SCF's expenses have received attention before — Politico reported in January that SCF has paid $143,360 over the past three years to a luxury design firm to renovate office space, according to filings.
The rent is a drop in the bucket for SCF, which raised more than $7 million last year and spent more than $8 million, according to FEC reports.
SCF has made waves this election cycle by challenging GOP leadership in Congress, including spending more than $1 million to oust Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and publicly calling for the resignation of Speaker John Boehner.
A spokesperson for SCF told BuzzFeed that the organization uses the property for work space, meetings, candidate interviews, and fundraisers.
The photos below were obtained from a real estate listing for the property.
