Virginia has been “on the wrong side” of several key civil rights issues, Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring says. But not marriage equality, he argues in an interview with BuzzFeed hours before an appeals court considers the issue.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring answers questions on Tuesday, Feb. 4, about not defending the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages.

Adrin Snider/Newport News Daily Press / MCT

RICHMOND, Va. — As the sun set in Richmond on Monday, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring was talking about all the times the person who has sat in his seat has been on the wrong side of history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond will consider on Tuesday whether Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex couples' marriages violates the U.S. Constitution. And, unlike those former attorneys general, Herring believes that in choosing not to defend the law — and, in fact, arguing that the ban is unconstitutional — that he is on the right side of history.

"I looked at the brief that [former Virginia Attorney General Ken] Cuccinelli's office had filed" in the challenge to Virginia's marriage ban passed in 2006, Herring, a Democrat, said. "I had read large pieces of some of the briefs that were filed in some of the cases that Virginia was on the wrong side of decades ago, like the Brown v. Board Education cases. Prince Edward County in Virginia was one of those [school districts in the case], where the attorney general of Virginia argued the wrong position. And, same with Loving v. Virginia, same with the [Virginia Military Institute] case," where VMI's single-sex admissions policy was declared unconstitutional.

Sitting in his office overlooking the state capitol on Monday evening, Herring talked with BuzzFeed about how he made the decision not to defend the law in this case — Bostic v. Schaefer — and what difference he thinks it makes that he has done so.

Knowing that cases had been filed challenging the constitutionality of the 2006 amendment, Herring said that during his campaign what he would do as attorney general would be to bring together legal experts in the office to look at the ban, study their analysis independently, and then make a decision about its constitutionality. "And I also said that I did not think attorneys general should be defending laws that they concluded were unconstitutional," he said.

"That's exactly what I did — after the recount concluded," Herring said of the 43-day period when his race against Republican Mark Obenshain had been too close to call and then been subject to a recount sought by Obenshain.

But, when Herring was declared the winner — under a court order that he has framed and is hanging on the wall of his office — he got to work on the issue quickly. After naming Stuart Raphael his solicitor general, the top appellate lawyer in the office, Herring said he put Raphael — who left his job as a partner at Hunton & Williams for the role — in charge of the review.

"I tasked him with the job of leading a team to do that legal analysis and coming back to me with that research so that we could work together to come to a legal conclusion — and you know what I concluded: It's unconstitutional, violates due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment," Herring said, adding, when asked, that Raphael had reached the same conclusion in his analysis.

"And the more I looked at it, the more firmly convinced I became of that," he said, talking about the prior cases when Virginia "was on the wrong side" of history. "I felt very confident of our legal analysis, and given the strength of our legal analysis, given my firm belief that this is a fundamental right that's being denied to thousands of Virginia couples, and our own unique history, I was compelled to change the state's legal position."

And though "there was immediate criticism from some predictable circles," he said the bigger response came from those who supported his decision. "Some of the most moving conversations I've had, a lot of times, in the days following that, were from parents who came up to me — people I didn't know — who came up to me and said, first, that they wanted to thank me for what I'd done and, second, they told me that the day I made the announcement, that they got a call from their son or their daughter, in tears, because of what it meant to them to have their state's attorney general stand up, do what's right, and to fight for them and their rights."

After making the change in position, the case went forward, and on Feb. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen found the ban unconstitutional, opening with a statement from Mildred Loving — the woman who successfully challenged Virginia's law banning interracial couples from marrying in Loving v. Virginia — declaring her support for the right of same-sex couples to marry at the opening of her opinion.

That case — brought by lawyers at the law firm of Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock in Virginia who have since been joined by Ted Olson and David Boies and the American Foundation for Equal Rights — is being heard on appeal by a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. The ruling, Herring noted, will be legal precedent that applies to Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina — although he believes the Supreme Court will soon take a case to resolve the issue nationwide. "I think they have to," he said.

The 4th Circuit comes first, though, and it has been seen as one of the more conservative circuits in the country, with some of the most conservative appellate judges in the country counted among its members, although that trend has shifted recently with several appointees from President Obama now on the court. And while the three-judge panel hearing the case won't be made public until 7 a.m. Tuesday, Herring said that shouldn't make a difference in the ultimate outcome of the case.

"The legal principles apply just the same, and I keep coming back to the changing legal landscape. This is a legal case, this is a court of appeals in federal court, and it should be based more on what the law is. I come back to the Windsor case [striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act], and what Justice [Anthony] Kennedy said, writing for the majority, which is that laws that treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens violate due process and equal protection."

"In my opinion," Herring said of Tuesday's panel, "if they're thinking carefully about the most recent precedent, they'll see the direction that I think the Supreme Court is headed — regardless of who the panel is."

Despite the strong feelings he expressed about what he believes about that direction, he also sidestepped a question about whether he thought attorneys general defending their state's similar marriage bans — including fellow Democratic attorneys general Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas.

"I think different attorneys general approach decisions like this differently," he said. Noting all of the specific facts of the cases in Virginia — and Virginia's history on civil rights cases throughout the state's history — Herring said, "All of those things together led me to the conclusion that this was the right thing to do for Virginia at this particular time in this particular case. As to what other AGs do in cases in other states, they have to make up their own minds on that."

But, on Tuesday, Herring and Raphael will be sitting in the courthouse just down the block from Herring's office, and Raphael will be arguing that the appeals court should strike down the ban that voters of the state put in place less than eight years ago.

"I think it's going to be an interesting day," Herring said. "I think it's going to be a good day for Virginia."

Michael Boggs tries to keep his personal opinions to himself at confirmation hearing.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — Confronted with strongly anti-same-sex marriage statements he made on the Georgia state House floor in 2004, one of President Obama's nominees for the federal bench would not say if his views had changed or not since then.

"My personal opinion was, at the time, over a decade ago, that I was in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage," said Georgia state judge Michael Boggs, whose nomination to the federal bench has created an open war between Obama and progressives. "My position on that, senator, may or may not have changed since that time, as many people's have over the last decade."

In the opening round of questions at his confirmation hearing Tuesday, Boggs declined to state his personal views on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, saying it would not be "appropriate" to do so, but was quick to distance himself from controversial votes as a lawmaker.

Concerning his vote in favor of a law that would have required a state registry of doctors who perform abortions, Boggs said the vote was a "mistake" because the registry could have put doctors in danger. Boggs said he didn't understand that dynamic when he cast his vote.

Abortion-rights groups say Boggs' past show him to be anti-choice. Boggs said his personal views on the matter — whatever they are — aren't reflective of how he'll rule.

"My record [as a state judge] is the best evidence that i can separate any political or partisan or public policy position i have from my role as a decision maker," Boggs said. Later he said, "My personal opinion is irrelevant."

LGBT rights groups have also condemned Boggs' 2004 statements, which were specifically aimed at what he called "activist judges" who forced marriage for same-sex couples on states that tried to ban it. At a Senate confirmation hearing for the federal bench, Boggs refused to state his personal opinion on marriage or other matters, saying it wouldn't be "appropriate" for him to discuss them.

Regardless of where he stands personally, Boggs said, his views will not influence the way he rules on matters of law.

"My position on that, as reflected by those personal comments in 2004, have never had any import whatsoever in how I decided cases or how I analyzed issues both as a trial court judge an an appellate court judge," he said.

Throughout the early rounds of questioning Tuesday, Boggs distanced himself from his past positions as a state lawmaker. Stances in favor of abortion restrictions, the Confederate flag and opposition to same sex marriage have raised alarm among progressives hoping to scuttle Boggs nomination, which came as part of a White House deal with Georgia's Republican senators to prevent them from blocking a slate of judicial nominees.

Boggs said the controversial positions, such as the votes in favor of the Confederate flag, were a matter of him voting the conscience of his conservative Georgia district, rather than his personal views. When it came to the flag, Boggs said choosing between his own distaste for the Confederate symbol and his district's support for it was "agonizing."

The State Department is working behind the scenes to stop Congress from putting sanctions on the Maduro government.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Congressional backers of Venezuela sanctions have accused the State Department of actively trying to block a bill that would punish those accused of cracking down on the country's anti-government protesters.

The bill, which would impose visa bans and asset freezes on people accused of human rights abuses against participants and organizers of the anti-government protests that have rocked Venezuela since February, passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa and sponsor of the House version of the bill, said State Department officials have been calling Democrats in the House and asking them not to support it.

"I know folks are getting calls by the administration," Ros-Lehtinen said. "They've been calling the Democrats. And the Democrats have told me, 'I'm getting a call and this is what they're saying and they don't want the bill to pass.'"

"It's like the bare minimum," Ros-Lehtinen said. "I just cannot believe we're fighting so hard to get this bare minimum bill through Congress."

A State Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Both Ros-Lehtinen, who represents a district in Miami, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said they have many Venezuelan-Americans in their constituencies who are pushing for sanctions. A Human Rights Watch report on human rights abuses in Venezuela released last week, which counted instances of torture against detainees, has renewed interest in the crisis and in the push for sanctions. Forty-one people have died in incidents related to the protests since February. United States lawmakers have proposed sanctions as a response to the crisis, though the State Department is arguing that the opposition itself doesn't want them.

Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, said that members of Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), Venezuela's opposition coalition, had asked the administration not to impose sanctions on President Nicólas Maduro's government right now. Members of the opposition are participating in talks with the government over the crisis.

"Members of the MUD who are participating in the dialogue have discussed this with us," Jacobson said at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing last week. "We will speak out, we will make statements, but we will also consider those sanctions ... we will keep considering that and we will use those when we think the time is right."

"There's a timing element when it comes to the response of a particular tactic on human rights violations," Jacobson said.

The MUD later denied having asked Jacobson to hold off against sanctions.

In an interview, Rubio implied that Jacobson hadn't been truthful about what MUD had asked for.

"It's outrageous that last week on Thursday a State Department official said to us that the opposition in Venezuela was asking them not to move forward on sanctions for human rights violators and the opposition said that wasn't true," Rubio, who is sponsoring the Senate version of the sanctions bill, said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "Their sole argument for not moving forward has been removed."

"I hate to speculate on motives other than to say by and large they have tried to avoid instability and don't want to get pulled into another conflict," Rubio said. He said he intends to bring up the matter with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Both Ros-Lehtinen and Rubio rejected the concern, voiced by opposition leader Henrique Capriles earlier this year, that sanctions would give the Maduro government an opportunity to play the victim and further blame the crisis on U.S. meddling.

"[Maduro] is already saying that," Ros-Lehtinen said. "All of them do even when we do nothing — and we are doing nothing."

Rubio said that Capriles must have meant sanctions in the style of the Cuban embargo, which the bill is not.

"We are going to sanction and punish and name and shame individuals responsible for human rights violations," Rubio said.

Ros-Lehtinen declined to discuss which individuals she hopes to see added to a sanctions list. Rubio told BuzzFeed that his intended list would include Maduro government officials and some in the private sector, such as the owners of the television network Globovision, a formerly independent channel which is now owned by a group of businessmen with close ties to the government and has adopted a pro-Maduro line.

In last week's hearing, Rubio also named top government officials he would like to see on the sanctions list, including Public Defender Gabriela Ramirez, Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz, and Interior Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres, as well several state governors, National Guard commanders, and the heads of the National Bolivarian Police and the main intelligence agency.

Ros-Lehtinen said she expects to see her bill put to a vote on the House floor "soon," and Rubio said his bill could be put through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as early as next week.

"It's a bill that Obama should do automatically already, like he's done with Russia an Ukraine," Ros-Lehtinen said.

Update: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stop the execution of Robert James Campbell in Texas on Tuesday on the grounds of his intellectual disability.

Only hours before the scheduled execution of Robert James Campbell in the Huntsville death chamber in Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted a motion to stay his execution on the grounds that he is intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty.

One of Campbell's attorneys, Robert C. Owen, said in a statement:

"Today the Fifth Circuit has ruled that Texas may not proceed with the scheduled execution of Robert Campbell, a man whose lifelong mental retardation was not proven until new evidence, long hidden by prosecutors and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, very recently came to light."

Owen added that Campbell had been evaluated by a highly qualified member of the Texas Board of Examiners of Psychologists who confirmed that he was "a person with mental retardation." According the the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, this makes Campbell ineligible for the death penalty.

Texas death row inmate Robert James Campbell is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday for the abduction, rape, and murder of a Houston bank teller in 1991.

It will be the country's first execution since an Oklahoma inmate died of a heart attack after a botched lethal injection on April 29.

Richard Carson / Reuters

Handout / Reuters

View Entire List ›

On last night’s episode of CNN’s Crossfire, Gingrich weighed in on Michael Sam, soon to be the NFL’s first openly gay player. He criticized an endorsement deal Sam has with Visa.

Gingrich initially says that making people go through "sensitivity training" in regards to homophobic remarks is a form of "repression." He says later in the clip: "You have a clever, young guy who has manipulated the system brilliantly."

youtube.com

Here is the Visa ad Gingrich references.

youtube.com

Fox News’ highest rated host is mad about Michael Sam kissing his partner on live TV after being picked by the St. Louis Rams in the NFL draft.

View Video ›

I’m sorry.

Rosalynn Carter could have showed Iran.

National Archives / Via research.archives.gov

View Entire List ›

“I would look at Mr. Gowdy as the one honest broker in this whole circus.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

WASHINGTON — Democrats have harshly criticized the Benghazi select committee, calling it a political sideshow and questioning Republican motives behind the effort.

But what some key Democrats aren't questioning is the man who will lead the committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy.

While Gowdy is decidedly partisan and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration regarding its response to Benghazi, he has built up an enormous amount of goodwill among some of his Democratic colleagues, particularly those he's worked with on the Judiciary and Oversight committees. On the record and in private, Democrats praise Gowdy as fair and forthright.

"I would look at Mr. Gowdy as the one honest broker in this whole circus," said Rep. Lacy Clay, a Democrat who serves with Gowdy on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "That's probably why, with Gowdy at the helm, we would need full participation — because we would be heard and we would be able to defend some of the allegations that would arise."

"Every indication I have had in working with him on the Judiciary Committee is that he's thoughtful, careful, and trying to reach the truth," Rep. Luis Gutiérrez said. "That's been my experience. We disagree on many, many things, but he has a very clear moral compass."

The comments from Democratic lawmakers stand in contrast to some of the statements from the party's leadership, which has been just as critical of Gowdy as the entire select committee process.

As Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to mull whether or not her caucus will participate in the panel at all, some of her members point to Gowdy and their positive relationships with him as exactly the reason why members shouldn't boycott the committee.

Only seven Democrats joined Republicans in voting to establish the committee last week, but the caucus remains split on how to move forward. House Speaker John Boehner has repeatedly promised that the committee wouldn't turn into a political circus, and Democrats want — in writing — some assurances that the process would be fair. Specifically, they want the committee to function differently than that of Chairman Darrell Issa's Oversight committee. Issa's combative style has enraged Democrats and even rankled some fellow Republicans.

So Democratic leadership was quick to connect Gowdy to Issa, blasting out an email to reporters that Gowdy would be nothing more than Issa's "mini-me."

"Gowdy claimed to have evidence of a Benghazi cover-up just days before the evidence somehow disappeared — a tactic eerily reminiscent of Congressman Issa's behavior on the House Oversight Committee," the email read, pointed to instances where Gowdy had gone on television to claim he had evidence of the White House having a "systemic intention to withhold certain documents from Congress" and later walking that position back.

While practically all Democratic members are united in their opposition to the committee, the message that Gowdy chair the committee stands in stark contrast to the opinion of Democrats who have personally worked with the lawmaker and, for now, are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

"I try not to get my Republican friends in trouble because I speak highly of them," said Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who counts Gowdy as a friend. "Look, I don't see him that way. Maybe I just cloud it out."

Whatever personal respect some Democrats have for Gowdy, a few in the caucus are in a "wait-and-see" mode with to see how he'll handle the chairmanship.

"I like Trey Gowdy, we've come to get to know each other and like each other. We've jousted, but I think he's an honorable person and I think this is a real moment of truth for him," said Rep. Gerry Connolly. "It's a real existential moment. You have two choices here: You can rise to this occasion and make your mark and prove that you are willing to buck your party for the sake of truth and fairness or you can just feed the beast and be remembered as a partisan hack."

As the House voted last week on the establishment of the committee, Gowdy was seen sitting on the floor, not talking to Republicans, but engaged in what appeared to be a friendly conversation with Democratic Reps. Peter Welch and later, Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the Oversight Committee who has often battled with Issa.

Welch, who also serves on the Oversight committee, said that Gowdy hadn't "designed the process" of how the Benghazi panel would work and slammed the Republican leadership for the lack of balance on the committee. But like others, Welch believes that Gowdy is trying to approach the chairmanship in a way that's fair.

"He's been on the prosecution side but he has a respect for procedure, rules, evidence, and fair process because it's not just about winning a case for him, but there has to be confidence in the outcome," Welch said. "He's not designing the process. I do believe he comes at this with a sense of fairness. I do believe that. Trey as an individual will try to be fair."

That's not the view of everyone in the caucus. Like the Democratic leadership team, Rep. Jerry Nadler, who serves on the Judiciary Committee with Gowdy, immediately compared him to Issa.

"By appointing Congressman Gowdy as its chairman and refusing to allow Democrats to participate in a meaningful way, Republicans are setting up another kangaroo court, just like Chairman Issa's committee hearings," he said in an email to BuzzFeed. "If Congressman Gowdy were serious, he would stop politicizing Benghazi in service of the Republican obsession with Hillary Clinton and would allow fair hearings which, at the very least, would not depose witnesses without Democrats present and would hold votes on subpoenas. It would be great if Congressman Gowdy and the Republicans on his committee stopped making unsubstantiated claims and baseless accusations about Benghazi, but I'm not optimistic."

Cummings, one of the most high-profile Democrats to have sparred with Issa and who is close to Democratic leadership, has said that he has "no faith" in the Benghazi select committee but praised Gowdy for coming out to implore Republicans to not fundraise off of the proceedings. The GOP's campaign arm has continued to fundraise off of the committee, despite those calls.

"I have tremendous respect for Mr. Gowdy, and I am glad that he said that the fundraising should not be done on the deaths of these four people," Cummings said on the House floor. "And I hope that the Republican Conference will finally agree with that. We are better than that."

In a statement to BuzzFeed, Cummings reiterated his "respect" for Gowdy but said he did not believe that the committee will be conducted differently.

"Given the repeated abuses we saw under Chairman Issa, Democrats will have no faith in this select committee unless they put in writing fair procedures that give Democrats equal access to witnesses and documents," he said.

“If you’re concerned about the children, why does Virginia want to rip that away from a child?” Judge Roger Gregory raises the issue of children of same-sex couples in a court hearing Tuesday.

Supporters of marriage equality rally on the north side of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond on Tuesday morning.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

RICHMOND, Va. — The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals looks likely to declare Virginia's ban on marriages for same-sex couples unconstitutional, following the path set by trial judges all over the country.

Two of the court's three judges appeared ready to strike down the ban Tuesday at oral arguments in Richmond — the third federal appellate hearing on the question currently winding its way through federal and state courts throughout the nation.

Judge Paul Niemeyer was the only judge hearing the arguments who pressed heavily on the side of the state's ban, saying that same-sex couples are creating a "brand-new relationship" and that "it takes a male and female to have a child, to have a family."

The "core of a family" is the mother–father relationship, Niemeyer told Ted Olson, who was arguing for same-sex couples fighting the 2006 marriage ban. Describing that relationship as "A" and same-sex couples' relationships as "B," Niemeyer said that "the state can redefine it and call it marriage," but that wouldn't change the fact that "these are two different relationships."

Although arguments about defining fundamental rights and the level of scrutiny to be used in reviewing the 2006 amendment — the questions central to the briefs in the case — were discussed during the hour, Niemeyer's focus at times seemed out of place, echoing as it did a Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion from 1973 that dismissed a same-sex couple's attempt to get a marriage license because "what they propose is not a marriage."

The other judges mostly did not engage directly with Niemeyer's argument, appearing prepared to continue the path laid out by the Supreme Court in its trilogy of "gay rights" cases in providing additional protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and, in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act last year, same-sex couples' relationships.

Opponents of same-sex couples' marriage rights rally on the south side of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond on Tuesday morning.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

Although Judge Henry Floyd didn't ask much during the arguments, he suggested he understood a path was being laid out by the court — specifically in last year's opinion in United States v. Windsor striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's federal ban on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages.

Floyd led off the argument by asking lawyer David Oakley the first question of the day. Raising the 1972 Supreme Court decision dismissing a marriage case brought by a same-sex couple in Minnesota because, the court ruled, there was no "substantial federal question" raised by the case, Floyd asked whether it was left "intact" after last year's opinion striking down DOMA in United States v. Windsor.

And, though Oakley said it was, Floyd later returned to the question, noting that the case had been a "summary dismissal."

Judge Roger Gregory later picked up that point with Austin Nimocks, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who was representing clerk of court Michele McQuigg. Of the 1972 case, Gregory asked Nimocks incredulously, "You think this still isn't a substantial federal question?"

Gregory pounded Nimocks with questions throughout his argument. Detailing the line of Supreme Court cases addressing privacy rights, Gregory said of Virginia's ban on same-sex couples' marriages, "You can't make it so that this 'fundamental right' of choice is unrecognizable."

Of the argument that the ban is about supporting the state's aim of providing children with their mother and father, Nimocks said, "I don't think Virginia denies anything to same-sex couples that they don't deny a single mother" or a grandparent raising a grandchild. Gregory shot back: "If you're concerned about the children, why does Virginia want to rip that away from a child" whose parents are of the same sex?

Nimocks replied that same-sex couples don't give children a mother and a father and that that mother-father possibility is the state's reason for marriage — the point extended by Niemeyer in his questions in the case.

That, and an exchange about whether adopted children are different than biological children, led Gregory finally to say, "It's really disingenuous, your interest in children."

View Entire List ›

“I shall return.”

You ready?

youtube.com

And now you know.

Via youtube.com

Revelations that Hunter Biden and Aleksander Kwasniewski serve on the board of a company controlled by a Yanukovych ally raise serious conflict of interest questions for Western countries’ Ukraine policy.

Pool / Reuters

DONETSK, Ukraine — U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's youngest son has joined the board of a gas company owned by an ally of Ukraine's fugitive ex-president Viktor Yanukovych and a key European interlocutor with Kiev who was previously president of Poland.

The move raises questions about a potential conflict of interest for Joe Biden, who was the White House's main interlocutor with Yanukovych while the latter was president and has since spearheaded Western efforts to wean Ukraine off Russian gas.

Company documents in Cyprus show that Joe Biden's son, R. Hunter Biden, became a member of the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, which describes itself as Ukraine's largest private natural gas producer, on April 18. Burisma announced Hunter Biden's appointment in a press release Monday on its website which was quickly picked up by Russian state media.

"Burisma's track record of innovations and industry leadership in the field of natural gas means that it can be a strong driver of a strong economy in Ukraine," Hunter Biden said in the statement on Burisma's website. "As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine."

Hunter Biden could not be immediately reached for comment. An assistant at Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm where he is partner, said he was out of the office. A woman who answered the phone at the London number listed for Burisma on its website appeared to have no idea who either Biden was. By late Tuesday, however, Burisma had reacted quickly enough to remove a link to a New York Times story from April, when Biden visited Kiev and urged it to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, from a prominent position on the homepage.

Kendra Barkoff, a spokesperson for Joe Biden, denied to comment on the vice president's son's appointment. "Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer," she said. "The Vice President does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."

It proved difficult to discern at first whether the Burisma website carrying the press release was even real. Its photos of Hunter Biden and Rosemont co-founder Devon Archer, who is listed as a member of the Burisma board, are lifted from Rosemont's website. The company site carries a bizarre interview with Archer — apparently first published in the Ukrainian newspaper Kapital, then translated badly into English with Slavic syntax left intact — in which he tacitly acknowledges his connections to the Biden family and says Burisma "reminds [him] of Exxon in its early days." The Burisma site was registered anonymously through the domain service GoDaddy in 2010, according to the who.is service.

Company registration documents for Burisma show, however, that both Hunter Biden and Archer joined its board of directors in April. Burisma is completely owned by another Cypriot offshore company, Brociti Investments Limited, which, records show, belongs to Mykola Zlochevsky, who was energy minister and deputy national security council chair under Yanukovych, deposed in February. While in government, Zlochevsky claimed that he had sold his energy assets, though an investigation in Ukrainian Forbes later showed this was untrue.

As well as the other directors listed on Burisma's website, Cypriot records list a man named Aleksander Kwasniewski — the name of Poland's president from 1995 to 2005 — as having become a director Jan 2. Kwasniewski was a key figure in the European Union's attempts to draw Ukraine closer to Brussels during Yanukovych's presidency: he and former European Parliament president Pat Cox visited Kiev 27 times in failed attempts to secure the release of Yanukovych's rival, former prime minister and current presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko, from prison.

While it was not immediately possible to confirm that the Burisma director was the same Kwasniewski, the address provided in the company documents, Wilanowska 5/2 in Warsaw, matches addresses provided for Kwasniewski's wife Jolanta's real estate company, Royal Wilanow Agency, according to Polish media reports. Other Polish media reports list the address as the Kwaniewski family's private apartment. Jolanta Kwasniewska left the firm while her husband was in office, but returned to manage it after his term ended.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told BuzzFeed that Russia saw no conflict of interest in Joe Biden working to wean Ukraine off Russian gas - which makes up about 60 percent of the country's energy supply - while his son worked in the Ukrainian gas industry.

"Anyway, as everyone knows, there's no gas in Ukraine," he added. "The gas in Ukraine is Russian."

Rosie Gray contributed reporting from Washington, DC.

“These laws do not withstand any applicable level of constitutional scrutiny.” [ Update at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday: Judge denies governor’s stay request, although the order does not go into effect until Friday morning. ] [ Update at 3 p.m. Wednesday: Governor appeals case and stay denial to the 9th Circuit. ]

A federal judge in Idaho has joined in the chorus of judges to find that state laws banning same-sex couples from marrying are unconstitutional.

In the Tuesday ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale said Idaho's ban "den[ies] its gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental right to marry and relegate their families to a stigmatized, second-class status without sufficient reason for doing so. These laws do not withstand any applicable level of constitutional scrutiny."

In describing the level of scrutiny to which the Idaho law should face, Dale wrote:

With respect to Plaintiffs' due process claim, Idaho's Marriage Laws are subject to strict scrutiny because they infringe upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry. Under the Equal Protection Clause, Idaho's Marriage Laws are subject to heightened scrutiny because they intentionally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The heightened scrutiny decision regarding sexual orientation discrimination is required, Dale wrote, because of a case from the court of appeals that would hear any appeal of the Idaho marriage case. That decision from earlier this year, in which the 9th Circuit held that claims of government discrimination based on sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny, is "authoritative and binding upon this Court," Dale wrote.

Regardless of that, though, Dale found that — even under the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review — the marriage ban is unconstitutional.

The order that state officials stop enforcing the ban does not go into effect until 9 a.m. MT Friday, giving time for Gov. Butch Otter to attempt to secure a stay halting the order from going into effect.

[Update at 3 p.m. Wednesday: Following the trial court denial of the stay, the governor's office, now joined by Monte Stewart as outside counsel, filed a notice of appeal of the Tuesday decision and of the Wednesday stay denial.]

In summary, Judge Dale wrote:

Read the court's order:

LINK: Read the full decision.

View Entire List ›

The groups that promoted the boycott of the Sultan’s Los Angeles hotels have yet to call on the administration to slow down a high-profile trade agreement that would include Brunei.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Brunei's Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah.

Ahim Rani / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Outrage over Brunei's imposition of Sharia law sparked a celebrity boycott of Los Angeles hotels owned by the country's sultan — but there's been no similar outcry in Washington, where the Obama administration is pressing ahead with a high-profile trade deal that would include Brunei.

The agreement is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which also includes 10 other nations on both sides of the ocean. The threat of losing out on the agreement could provide far more serious leverage with Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah than driving his hotels out of business, which represent a small part of his vast fortune.

Yet key advocacy groups that helped publicize the hotel boycott, like the Human Rights Campaign and Feminist Majority, have not called for the deal to be halted or for Brunei to lose its seat at the table. And few of the senators who will have to ratify the agreement are ready to call for that, either.

"Boycott [the hotels] if you want to boycott, but if you really want to be strategic about what will harm Brunei's economic interest, focus ... on the TPP," said John Sifton, Human Rights Watch's Asia advocacy director. "The U.S. government can and should better use the leverage of this free trade agreement to get concessions on human rights issues — and if they can't get concessions, they oughtn't be signing an agreement."

Sifton argued that injecting a focus on human rights into the TPP debate could also address concerns about other candidate countries, including Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore, which also have troubling human rights records. In many Malaysian states, for example, transwomen are routinely arrested under Sharia codes, and the country's opposition leader is in jail after being convicted of sodomy charges he says are a political ploy to discredit him.

Spokespeople for the Human Rights Campaign, which sent out multiple press releases promoting the hotel boycott over the last two weeks, did not respond to multiple messages asking whether the group had a position on the agreement. Feminist Majority's headquarters in Arlington, Va., referred inquiries to its Beverly Hills chapter, where spokesperson Stephanie Hallett said the group had not given more attention to the issue since organizing a press conference in front of the Beverly Hills Hotel last week.

"It was a crazy week with the press and everything but we've had other needs as far as the organization goes," Hallett said. "So we're still figuring out our next steps from there."

This silence has been matched by Democratic members of the Senate, who have long been facing stiff pressure from organized labor to oppose the agreement that unions say will lower wages and labor standards.

While Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin said, "I'll be looking at Brunei, be looking at Vietnam, be looking at Malaysia and other countries to make significant progress" on their governance records before endorsing the deal in a brief interview on Tuesday, the comments of other senators suggested Brunei's Sharia code hadn't yet factored into the TPP debate.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin — who chairs the committee with jurisdiction over labor issues — told BuzzFeed, "We negotiate with China, I don't know if they're a hell of a lot better" than the countries in TPP. He said he will view this trade agreement "like I do others — What's their position on child labor and laborers rights and environment?"

He did not mention Brunei's Sharia code except when specifically asked about the stoning punishment for sodomy in a follow-up question.

"I'd be concerned about that too," he said.

A State Department spokesman dismissed the suggestion that the Sharia code should be factored into the TPP negotiations, though he said the administration is "closely monitoring how new rules" in Brunei will be implemented. He noted that the United States already has "trade agreements with a number of Muslim countries that have some aspects of Sharia law, including Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Jordan."

"We believe trade can be an effective way to broaden support for the universal values that Americans share, even as our trading partners have a wide variety of differences in their domestic legal systems," he added.

The relative silence about Brunei's Sharia code in the TPP debate could be broken in the coming days, as discussions are currently ongoing in labor circles to try to forge a coalition built on the dust-up over Brunei's Sharia law. That's according to Cleve Jones, the California LGBT and labor activist whose work on a long-running labor dispute involving the Dorchester Collection hotels helped spark the boycott last month.

"We are keeping together and growing a coalition in Los Angeles that includes all the groups who initially spoke out against [Brunei's ownership of the hotels]," Jones said. He added that he "had a call into" Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, but that it was not clear what role the group will play, if any.

But the loud protests over the Sharia code are making LGBT activists who work internationally increasingly uncomfortable. The campaign has been mounted with no input from activists inside the tiny nation, and the few sources international activists have been able to reach in the country have suggested they do not feel especially threatened by the law and do not think an international confrontation is helpful.

"According to my sources, they prefer quiet dialogue with their government officials rather than 'aggressive actions,'" said Julie Dorf of the Council for Global Equality, which advocates for LGBT rights in U.S. foreign policy and includes the Human Rights Campaign among its institutional members. Dorf said that she also heard from sources in the country that suggested that the law could actually make it even harder to bring sodomy charges than it was under the sodomy law that was already on the books — the Sharia code requires four male witnesses to the act in order to convict, a standard of proof so high that it seems unlikely to ever be met.

It is also unclear whether the sultan has any intention of enforcing the capital punishments under the new law; Brunei has had an effective moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1957.

A loud push on this issue without input from people in Brunei is risky, Dorf said.

"With U.S. activism going forward blindly independent of the people of Brunei, I think we all have a problem on our hands," Dorf said. "What I know from working in that region and knowing activists for many years is that going public with demonstrations and big loud activism without any connection to people on the ground who are fighting this fight is dangerous … first and foremost dangerous to the people there who may be subject to a very dangerous backlash and dangerous for your credibility as an activist."

This concern was echoed by Graeme Reid, LGBT rights program director for Human Rights Watch. The campaign surrounding Russia's "homosexual propaganda" law leading up to the Olympics drew American LGBT rights organizations into the international arena, which requires a very different approach.

"I think it would be a mistake to apply the same tactics and strategies that work domestically to international work," he said. Reid said the U.S. rhetoric that cast the Brunei code as an assault on LGBT rights could be especially problematic if it were to be picked up in Brunei, because it could make it harder to push back on a law that violates a wide range of human rights.

Brunei has long been an especially difficult place to find partners, said Jessica Stern, president of the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission, the oldest U.S.-based international LGBT rights group and part of a coalition of organizations in the region advocating LGBT rights inside the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, of which Brunei is a member.

"When I hear U.S.-based organizations starting to talk about LGBT rights in Brunei, I get very nervous, because there are no LGBT people in Brunei that we know of who are speaking [out] publicly — or privately — for that matter," said Stern, noting that the region has some of the world's most sophisticated and active LGBT activists.

"When you weigh in on another country's political developments, social or legal, you have to make sure the strategies that you're using are carefully vetted who are on the front line potentially experiencing harm," Stern said. Before getting involved in a new country, Stern said, one of that group's "guiding principles" is "learn the issue in depth — no knee-jerk responses. Ever."

“Just be honest and tell the rest of the country your priority isn’t Latinos; your priority is the Democratic Party,” the RNC writes in a letter provided to BuzzFeed. The group’s president pushes back hard.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

The Republican National Committee (RNC) argues a high-profile campaign backed by Eva Longoria meant to elevate Latino candidates is really a partisan group created to elect more Democrats in a letter first provided to BuzzFeed.

In the letter, the RNC says a nonpartisan organization dedicated to giving Latinos a greater voice in politics by supporting Latino candidates is a worthy cause, but that the Latino Victory Project is not being truthful about its intentions.

Longoria and Henry Muñoz III, Democratic National Committee (DNC) finance chair, founded the political action committee last year, with the stated purpose of elevating Latino political participation.

The letter attacks Muñoz for appearing on MSNBC in front of a DNC banner while promoting a nonpartisan organization. Longoria is also called out for an interview she did with Jorge Ramos, in which she named Latino candidates the Latino Victory Project would support and officials who are having an impact in politics, but did not name any Republicans.

"You didn't highlight the leadership of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who are two of only three Hispanic U.S. senators," the RNC letter reads. "Nor did you mention either of the nation's Latino governors—Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Susana Martinez of New Mexico—both of whom are Republicans."

In an interview with BuzzFeed, Cristobal Alex, the Latino Victory Project's president, fired back and questioned whether the RNC really wanted to get into a debate about elevating Latino voices.

"It's ridiculous that the RNC would question our mission to raise the political participation among Latinos," Alex said. "This sense of justice doesn't seem to affect them" when it comes to other conservative groups like Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, or the Libre Initiative, he argued, listing several outside conservative groups that are de facto partisan groups.

"At the same time the RNC is working to restrict the right to vote and diminish Latino voting power," Alex said of controversial voter ID laws pushed by conservatives. "Instead of attacking organizations such as ours, they should be looking at ways to attack these disparities."

Alex said the candidates the group supports are selected without regard to party but are chosen if they reflect the core values he said the Latino community cares about like a clean environment, changes to U.S. immigration policy, education, and health care.

He said Latinos score higher than any demographic group when it comes to environmental concerns like clean air and water and support an overhaul of current immigration law, including providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Alex would not comment when asked about the charge that Muñoz should not have gone on MSNBC with a DNC logo behind him.

He said Muñoz is someone who is a "visionary behind broad ideals on increased political participation" and that as president of the group, it is his job to work to achieve that for the Latino community.

Asked about someone like Rubio — who was part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators who helped craft the Senate's immigration bill, but has since backtracked on whether a comprehensive legislative action can make it through the House, and has recently questioned climate change science — Alex said the group might consider supporting him or another Republican under the right circumstances.

"We can cross that bridge when we get there, but I can tell you those values [mentioned previously] are critical to our community."

The side Longoria and Muñoz have supported isn't exactly a big secret. They led the Futuro Fund, which raised more than $30 million in contributions for Obama in 2012.

That's part of the reason why the RNC says the group is acting as a front for the DNC, "which has been unable to raise sufficient funds to get rid of their debt and compete in this year's midterm."

The letter argues the Latino Victory Project can get out from under these charges if its leaders spotlight the accomplishments of Republican Latinos, display them prominently on its website, and answer the question of which Latino Republicans it will be supporting in the midterm elections.

The RNC also argued that attacks on conservative outside groups demonstrated partisanship in a follow-up statement, dubbing the Latino Victory Project as "wannabes."

"It is extremely fitting they have chosen to attack conservative principles and organizations, further solidifying our concerns that the Latino Victory Project is far more preoccupied with pushing a Democrat agenda than being nonpartisan and supporting Hispanics across the ideological spectrum," Izzy Santa, an RNC spokeswoman said in a statement. "At the end of the day no one likes wannabes. If they are serious about a nonpartisan effort to elevate and advance Latinos in politics, they need to give Republicans a call."

Still, Alex seemed unperturbed by the charges of bias toward Democrats. He pointed to demographic shifts in states like Texas, as the promise for major Latino political power in the near future.

"In 2020, you have the presidential election, the Census and Latino majorities in the two biggest states of California and Texas," Alex said. "I think that Latino political representation, voter participation and registration rates will hit the point where Latinos will decide the future of that state and will help decide who becomes president."

So who are the Latino leaders in Texas and beyond that will usher in this new era of Latino political power?

Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro, who sat next to Longoria when the group launched recently, and his twin brother, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who gave the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, Alex said.

"The Castro brothers for us represent the future of the country," he said. "They're amazing leaders and shine a bright light on what our community and leaders can do."

“Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think.”

Ed Show/MSNBC

Ed Show/MSNBC

Ed Show/MSNBC

The Ed Show/MSNBC

View Entire List ›

The Human Rights Campaign is now formally opposed to Michael Boggs. But it’s not clear if they’ll hold it against senators who vote for his confirmation as a federal judge.

Michael Boggs

WASHINGTON — The nation's best-known LGBT advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, formally joined the progressive coalition calling for one of President Obama's picks for the federal bench to be scuttled by Democratic senators.

But it's not yet clear if HRC will score a vote for Georgia state judge Michael Boggs — whom Obama has selected to fill a seat on the federal bench — and penalize senators for casting it.

"HRC will encourage senators to vote no," spokesman Paul Guequierre told BuzzFeed in an email. "We do not score committee votes and will make a decision about a floor vote if/when one is imminent."

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, HRC government affairs director David Stacy said Boggs showed a "clear record of hostility towards equality" in his time as a Democratic state lawmaker a decade ago and failed to explain his record at a contentious confirmation hearing Tuesday.

"Given the lifetime tenure of his proposed appointment, it is paramount that all questions regarding Boggs' ability to fairly serve all Georgians regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity be resolved prior to confirmation," Stacy wrote. "Yesterday's hearing failed to alleviate concerns surrounding this fundamental qualification."

HRC joins other LGBT advocates and progressive groups spanning the spectrum from reproductive rights advocates to civil rights groups in trying to derail the Boggs nomination, which the White House has continued to defend.

Boggs was selected out of a deal with Georgia's Republican senators to clear a slate of nominees past the so-called "blue slip" process, which allows a state's senators to effectively veto nominees to the federal court in their home states. A White House spokesperson reiterated its support for Boggs and again cast his nomination as key to filling vacancies on the Georgia court.

"Our choice is clear: do we work with Republican senators to find a compromise or should we leave the seats vacant?" White House spokesperson Eric Schultz said, repeating a previous quote about the nominee.

“She works out every week. She is strong. She is doing great.”

Samantha Sais / Reuters

Bill Clinton dismissed questions about his wife's health on Wednesday afternoon, two days after Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested the former secretary of state might be suffering from brain damage following her 2012 concussion.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," said Clinton, who spoke at the Peterson Foundation's Fiscal Summit in Washington. "First they said she faked her concussion, and now they say she's auditioning for a part in The Walking Dead."

Rove, as reported by the New York Post, said at an event on Monday that Hillary Clinton, who might run for president in 2016, could be suffering from brain damage after a concussion and subsequent blood clot sent her to the hospital almost two years ago. The Republican pundit defended himself on Fox News on Tuesday morning, as Clinton aides dismissed "Dr. Rove" and his remarks as "flagrant and thinly veiled." Hillary, aide Nick Merrill told outlets, "is 100%, period."

Gwen Ifill, reporter at PBS, moderated the lengthy, wide-ranging conversation with Clinton, saving a question about Rove's comments until the end of the forum.

Clinton suggested Republicans would do "whatever it takes" to hurt his wife politically. "Look," he said, "she works out every week. She is strong. She is doing great. As far as I can tell, she's in better shape than I am."

"She certainly seems to have more stamina now," Clinton said, stressing that his wife had done six months of "very serious work" to get over the hurdle of the concussion and blood clot. "She never tried to pretend it didn't happen."

Clinton also suggested that Republicans will continue to use his wife's health and her age — she is 66 years old — to attack her politically. "You can't be too upset about it," he said. "It's just the beginning. They'll get better and better about it."

"It's just part of the deal."

“Unless I have a better explanation, I can’t vote for him,” the Senate majority leader said of Michael Boggs.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday said he opposes to the nomination of President Obama's pick for the federal bench, Georgia state Judge Michael Boggs, pointing to his history of controversial positions on issues ranging from abortion to the confederate flag.

Although Reid didn't foreclose the possibility of eventually being convinced, he made clear he is deeply troubled by Boggs' past.

"I've not talked to [Judiciary Chairman] Pat Leahy personally. I will do that," Reid said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "Unless I have a better explanation. I can't vote for him. This is a lifetime appointment. He's said some things and made some decisions I think are not very good."

Reid's comments come as Boggs' nomination facing mounting opposition both in the Senate and from the Democratic base.

Progressive groups and several Democratic members of Congress have openly questioned and fought with the Obama administration over Boggs, who as a state legislator supported abortion restrictions, the Confederate flag and opposed same-sex marriage. At a confirmation hearing on Tuesday in front of the Judiciary Committee, Boggs would not comment on personal opinions and said that his record as a state judge was non-partisan as opposed to the positions he took as a lawmaker when he was representing constituents.

In addition to progressive and abortion rights groups, LGBT groups have stepped up their opposition to the nomination, lobbying senators to vote "no." White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president believes "each senator should vote as he sees fit," however, Obama disagrees "with anyone ... who believes Boggs is not qualified for this post."

"Boggs is not somebody I'm going to vote for unless I have some explanations on why he did that deal with the rebel flag and things he's said about abortion," Reid reiterated.

Reid said he had not spoken with the White House yet about his objections, but he planned to speak with Georgia congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis about the nomination.

"John Lewis is my man in Georgia," he said.

“If they think Romney was watched closely by me, that’s nothing compared to what it’s going to be like with the Koch Brothers,” Senate Majority leader vows in BuzzFeed interview.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) answers questions from reporters after the weekly Republican caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington March 11, 2014.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Frustrated by the "sewer" of modern American political campaigns, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday said that he would bring a constitutional amendment to the floor granting Congress the ability to set strict new limits on campaign contributions, warning he will force multiple votes if necessary to pass the measure.

"When I came to Congress, when you got money you had to list who you got it from, what their occupation was, address, and phone numbers if you had it. Then I saw things change. In 1998, [former Sen.] John Ensign and I ran against one another and we spent about $10 million in Nevada," Reid told BuzzFeed during an interview in his Capitol office.

"Neither one of us outspent the other, but most of the money we spent was corporate money because there was a loophole where corporate money could flow through the state party. That was an election that was awful. I won it, but just barely. I felt it was corrupting, all this corporate money," Reid added.

Things had changed for the good, he said, by 2004. "I felt so clean and pure with McCain-Feingold, which had come into being, it was wonderful. We were back where we should have been," he said.

Then the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United ruling, Reid said, opening the flood gates to hundreds of millions of largely unregulated money to SuperPACs. "It was as if I had jumped into the sewer … it's awful what has happened."

Although a number of Democrats, most notably New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, have talked about passing a constitutional amendment to re-impose campaign finance restrictions, Reid had not been one of them — until now.

"(Former Supreme Court) Justice Stevens gave me the nudge that I needed and that is, 'Let's try and pass a constitutional amendment,'" Reid said. Stevens has recently talked heavily about campaign finance in the press.

"It's been tried before, we should continue to push this and it should become our issue. That really puts the Koch brothers up against it. We believe and I believe that there should be spending limits. We're going to push a constitutional amendment so we can limit spending because what is going on today is awful," Reid vowed, indicating that he'll bring Udall's measure to the Senate floor soon.

"We're going to arrange a vote on it. We're going to do it until we pass it because that's the salvation of our country."

Reid's legendary feisty streak was also on display during the interview, dismissing criticism from both the left and right for his focus on the Koch Brothers, as well as his recent positive comments about casino magnate Sheldon Adeleson.

"The Koch brothers, one of them ran for vice president in 1980 wanting to do away with Social Security, taxes, no unemployment insurance, I mean weird stuff. No minimum wage. That in 1980 was kind of on the fringes, now it's basically what the Republican Party is," Reid complained.

On Adelson, Reid argued he's been misconstrued. "Exactly what I said, is that Sheldon Adeleson is great on all social issues, that's what I said. I didn't talk about him any more. I didn't praise Adelson, I just said on social issues he's good. The point is this: We can speculate who is my favorite billionaire and everyone else can but the point is, there's too much money in politics. I've seen a change, I've seen a change that is really not good."

Reid also rejected concerns from many Democrats that his focus on the Kochs has done nothing to help the party.

"The Koch Brothers, I'm not walking away from them. I'm going to be on their tail for the whole campaign because if they think Romney was watched closely by me, that's nothing compared to what it's going to be like with the Koch Brothers. They're spending money in state party races. They're going after secretaries of state. They want to do everything they can to suppress voting. They want to do everything they can to go back to that 1980 campaign," Reid said.

Reid, who has presided over one of the most dysfunctional eras in the Senate, again blamed the media for covering for Senate Republicans by playing a "tit-for-tat" game, and insisted that it was Republicans — and not Reid — who have changed for the worse. "I ran the floor for [former Senate Majority Leader Tom] Dashcle. I did deals with everybody. That was who I was. Republicans loved me because I was so fair. Trent Lott was a pleasure to work with — right-wing conservative but pragmatic. He had conservative credentials but he knew how to get things done … But this new Republican, Frank Luntz, Karl Rove driven conference isn't good for the country," Reid argued.

"They set out to do everything they could to stop Obama and they've done it."

But the normally blunt Reid turned coy when it came to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's likely 2016 presidential run.

"I consider Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton my friends. Loyalty is a big deal to them. And I've had a bird's-eye view of what that means," Reid said, noting that his son ran Clinton's 2008 Nevada campaign.

"Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton treat him like one of the family … they are very close. So I have such respect for these two good people, once she decides she wants to run, I'll be making a decision. I don't want to be jumping out … I've talked to her. And in my conversations she didn't say no, but she didn't say yes. So once she says yes, I'll do the right thing."

Speaking with C-SPAN’s Washington Journal to promote his new book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State , Glenn Greenwald said he originally assumed NSA-leaker Edward Snowden was a senior official in the government and in his 70s when they first made contact.

View Video ›

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, an analyst with a U.S. defence contractor, is seen in this still image taken from video during an interview by The Guardian in his hotel room in Hong Kong, June 6, 2013.

The Guardian / Reuters