Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

Utah Asks Supreme Court To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeal

$
0
0

“This Court should grant the petition and answer, once and for all, the important question presented.”

Utah officials on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the case challenging the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages — the state's last chance to uphold its ban and a case with nationwide implications.

After losing at the trial court in December 2013 and in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in June, the request to the Supreme Court is the only option remaining for Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes, who are defending the ban.

If the court hears the case, the justices could issue a definitive, nationwide ruling on whether the many state same-sex marriage bans being challenged across the country are constitutional or not.

The Supreme Court, however, need not take the case. The process of seeking a writ of certiorari filed on Tuesday is the way of asking the court, which mostly gets to pick and choose which cases it wants to hear, to hear their case.

In the filing, Herbert and Reyes — represented by John J. Bursch, the former Michigan Solicitor General who has become a go-to conservative Supreme Court litigator since leaving that role; Gene Schaerr, a DC lawyer who left his role as a partner at Winston & Strawn to represent the state in the case; and state attorneys — gave the court eight reasons to take its case. Notably, although Schaerr argued the case at the 10th Circuit, Bursch is listed as the counsel of record in Tuesday's filing.

The request comes despite the fact that one of the main reasons the court takes a case — a so-called "circuit split" that happens when different courts of appeals reach conflicting decisions on a matter — does not exist among the courts to have decided marriage cases since the Supreme Court's decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013.

Nonetheless, Utah argues that the Supreme Court should hear its appeal because: (1) the court is "familiar" with the case because of the stay proceedings that were considered by the court, (2) state officials are "united" in defending the ban, (3) lower courts ruled that the state's laws "were not based on animus," (4) the "fundamental rights" questions are clearly presented, (5) the case involves both marriage and marriage recognition claims, (6) there are no standing issues at play in the case, (7) there is "no need to let the issue percolate even more," and (8) the harm in waiting to resolve the issue is significant, "regardless of which side prevails."

The plaintiffs in the case will now respond to the "cert petition," as will outside parties who wish to share their view with the court.

Clerks in Oklahoma and Virginia already have said that they, too, will be asking the court to hear appeals that they lost in the 10th Circuit and 4th Circuit, respectively.

The Supreme Court is not expected to take any action on the petitions before they return to begin their new term in late September. At the same time, however, they are not require to act then. In 2012, for example, the justices did not act on requests relating to DOMA or California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment until December of that year.

Here's how the petition ends:

Here's how the petition ends:

Read the Supreme Court filing:


View Entire List ›


Pat Roberts Outspent His Challenger (And The Senate Conservatives Fund) By A Lot On TV

$
0
0

Roberts has spent nearly $1.3 million vs. $769,875 to fend off a Tea Party challenge.

Pat Roberts

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Sen. Pat Roberts hasn't debated his primary opponent, but he has outspent him on TV by a large margin: The Republican senator's campaign has spent nearly $1.3 million on ads this year, according to a source tracking the race.

His challenger, radiologist and distant Obama cousin Milton Wolf, has spent $403,445 on ads; the Senate Conservatives Action Fund has chipped in $366,430 in ads to his bid to unseat the 78-year-old incumbent. Despite Roberts' very conservative record in the Senate, SCF made his seat one of the group's priority races late last year.

All told, pro-Roberts ad spending outruns pro-Wolf ads $1.4 million to $794,338. (Roberts has also benefited from $126,529 in spending by the American Hospital Association, and Wolf from a few other smaller buys by tea party groups.)

Roberts is generally expected to win Tuesday night, but the race has been relatively close and there have been surprises this year, most notably former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's defeat.

The race is also perhaps less than ideal: Roberts basically doesn't live in the state, and Wolf has had some strange episodes — he once posted the x-rays of gunshot-victim patients on Facebook, and said of Obama in 2012, "Some people say he's a Kenyan, and I don't know."

Government Declares Undocumented Immigrant Child, Mother A "National Security Threat"

$
0
0

Homeland Security attorneys are using a Bush-era Department of Justice ruling in opposing bond requests by undocumented immigrants at a New Mexico facility.

AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is using a Bush-era decision by former Attorney General John Ashcroft to classify the flood of undocumented immigrants that have hit the southern border as a "national security threat" in an effort to deny them bond during immigration status hearings.

Immigration attorneys said the argument, based on a 2003 decision by Ashcroft, has been employed against undocumented immigrant mothers with children being held at the Artesia, New Mexico, detention facility.

The nation's immigration courts are overseen by the Department of Justice, and the attorney general has the authority to rule on any appeal of a case before it can be taken to the judicial system for review.

During a Tuesday hearing viewed by BuzzFeed at a Virginia courthouse, a Department of Homeland Security attorney used the national security argument as part of her successful opposition to a bond request by an El Salvadoran mother and her child, who are being held at the Artesia facility.

In her statement against granting bond, the administration attorney argued that the current "mass migration" crisis has been "recognized as a national security threat by the [attorney general] … [and] it will encourage human trafficking."

The national security claim is based on an April 17, 2003 ruling by Ashcroft known as the "Matter of D- J." In that case, which involved an immigrant from Haiti, Ashcroft ruled against granting a bond, arguing, "I have determined that the release of respondent on bond was and is unwarranted due to considerations of sound immigration policy and national security that would be undercut by the release of respondent and other undocumented alien migrants who unlawfully crossed the borders of the United States."

Arguing that granting bond would encourage further illegal entries, Ashcroft explicitly cited 9/11 in his decision, writing, "in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there is increased necessity in preventing undocumented aliens from entering the country without the screening of the immigration inspections process."

It is unclear whether national security concerns weighed in Judge Roxanne Hladylowycz's decision: She did not specifically cite the argument or the Ashcroft decision when ruling against the bond request.

Two sources indicated to BuzzFeed that the national security argument has been used in bond hearings for others at the Artesia facility. The use of the decision has already angered advocates for immigrants.

"To impose mandatory detention on women and children who have established a credible fear of persecution in order to deter other families from seeking asylum in the United States is an egregious misuse of the government's detention authority," said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project.

"The government's invocation of Matter of D- J — an attorney general decision that upholds the categorical detention of individuals based on overblown allegations of risk to national security — violates the essence of due process, which requires individualized determinations of danger or flight risk in order to justify a deprivation of liberty," Robinovitz added.

A DHS spokesman did not return a request for comment.

Abandoned Factory In Democratic Attack Ad Against Florida Governor Is In Detroit, Not Florida

$
0
0

Um, okay.

The Florida Democratic Party released a new attack ad against incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott titled "It's Not Working" on their YouTube channel Tuesday.

youtube.com

A large portion of the ad features text about layoffs over an abandoned factory.

A large portion of the ad features text about layoffs over an abandoned factory.

Florida Democratic Party Ad

Florida Democratic Party Ad


View Entire List ›

Is This Hillary Clinton's New Office?

$
0
0

Clinton has leased a new office in midtown Manhattan. HollywoodLife.com reports it overlooks Times Square.

Hillary Clinton's leased office space in midtown Manhattan, HollywoodLife.com reported on Tuesday.

Clinton, according to the site, "has leased office space on a high-level floor of a corporate New York City office building, overlooking Times Square."

While the post doesn't provide an address for the location, as noted by an MSNBC reporter, a tweet from a reporter for the site might indicate just where it is:

HollywoodLife.com's office is located in midtown Manhattan.

HollywoodLife.com's office is located in midtown Manhattan.

The site is owned by PMC, whose New York headquarters are on West 45th Street, a few blocks from Times Square.

The building in question is owned by Stephen Green's SL Green realty. Green is a Republican donor and brother to former New York mayoral candidate Mark Green.


View Entire List ›

Documents Show What The Department Of Education Knew About Corinthian College's Financial Situation

$
0
0

A deliberate shutdown — or an accident?

The Department of Education has consistently maintained that it "didn't know" how precarious the financial situation of Corinthian Colleges was when it moved to cut off the for-profit college company's access to federal funding — leading the to the for-profit college operator's collapse.

But previously unpublished documents provided to BuzzFeed by the Department of Education show that the department was well aware of many details of the company's recent financial situation — including Corinthian's minuscule cash balance and its May 2014 disclosures that it had violated its bank covenants — and was actively trying to obtain more detailed financial information about the company. In a May 13 letter addressed to Corinthian vice president Linda Buchanan, the department detailed all of the troubled company's financial woes and asked Corinthian for updates on its financial situation, including its liquid cash availability and "projected capital expenditures" and copies of all of the company's debt covenants.

The Department of Education declined to disclose whether or not it ever received the requested updates, citing an ongoing investigation into Corinthian's financials, and Kent Jenkins, a spokesman for Corinthian, said only that the company had "responded" to the letter, but could not detail the documents it had provided the federal agency.

If Corinthian did provide the requested financial documents, the Department of Education would have had access to an even more detailed financial picture than the letter reveals, including information on Corinthian's liquid assets as late as May 22, the letter's deadline for response. The department has a special division devoted to tracking and understanding for-profit companies' financials, called the Publicly Traded and Large Schools Workgroup, one that a senior education official said "apparently didn't work in the case of Corinthian."

Many observers of the industry had been operating on the assumption that the Education Department had somehow missed signs of Corinthian's collapse that most others were aware of, an idea that the May 13 letter contradicts. Trace Urdan, a senior analyst at Wells Fargo, said that the Department of Education's apparently detailed knowledge of Corinthian's financials "definitely mitigates the idea that they didn't know what they were doing. They apparently knew enough to be asking the right questions."

Dorie Nolt, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, said the official who said they were unaware of the company's cash situation was referring to the company's financials on a week-to-week basis, not their public earnings reports, which the department has always monitored. The department has previously said it is "Not in the business of ensuring Corinthian's financial health," but rather ensuring it is fulfilling obligations to its students.

The federal government essentially brought about the shutdown of Corinthian after the Department of Education placed the company on a 21-day cash hold, restricting the company's access to the flow of federal loan money that makes up 90 percent of its revenue. It did so based on Corinthian's alleged failure to produce required documents related to its allegedly falsified job-placement rates and marketing practices, which have both been the subject of lawsuits. The company warned it didn't have enough cash on hand to cope with the funding delay and was headed towards bankruptcy, and ultimately reached an agreement to close or sell all of its campuses.

At the time, many observers credited the government with finding a way to shut down one of the for-profit college sector's worst actors. But the department quickly worked to dispel those allegations. In a July 7 briefing call with reporters, an official said, "We did not know the cash situation" and that it was "surprised" that the cash hold drove the company into bankruptcy.

Backing their position, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, wrote in a letter Tuesday that "though financial analysts were well-aware of the precarious financial situation of Corinthian, the Department apparently was not."

Urdan, of Wells Fargo, said that while he doesn't believe the department acted with "sinister" intentions, some the investors he talks to see other motives. Urdan said many investors in for-profit colleges are operating on the belief that the Department of Education may have intentionally shut down Corinthian — a belief that may have contributed to a mass sell-off yesterday of the stock of ITT Educational, another for-profit college that may be subject to a 21-day hold like the one imposed on Corinthian.

A May 13 letter from the Department of Education that the government was aware of many details of Corinthian College's financials.

Department of Education

Kansas Senator Pat Roberts Defeats Tea Party Challenger

$
0
0

Headed back to D.C. again most likely.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts will likely see another term after defeating a tea party primary challenge Tuesday.

The 78-year-old incumbent beat radiologist Milton Wolf, a distant cousin to President Barack Obama. Wolf represented one of the last serious primary challenges to a sitting Republican left on the calendar.

Similar to former Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, Roberts has faced questions about where he really lives; he doesn't own property in Kansas.

But unlike the moderate Lugar, Roberts is a noted conservative in the Senate. Despite his conservative reputation, however, the Senate Conservatives Fund, an outside group that has targeted incumbent Republicans, spent more than $350,000 on the race on ads in the race.

Wolf, his challenger, likely garnered the most press during his campaign for a series of Facebook posts featuring X-rays of people who'd suffered fatal gunshot wounds.

What The World Was Like The Last Time Someone From This Michigan Family Wasn't On The Ballot

$
0
0

In 1932, Democrat John Dingell Sr. won a House seat; his son, John Jr., won that seat in 1955; in 2014, John Jr.’s wife is running for it.

In 1930...

In 1930...

Dorothea Lange / Public Domain

• The Great Depression of the United States was just beginning.

• President Hoover asked Congress for a $150 million public works program to help stimulate the economy.

• Alcohol was still prohibited in the U.S.

Unknown / Public Domain

• The Mickey Mouse comic strip made its debut.

• Warner Brothers began producing the Looney Tunes animated films.

The Shadow radio series started airing in the U.S.

• Betty Boop appeared in an animated film for the first time.


View Entire List ›


Why The Republican Party Is Circulating A Petition In Support Of Uber

$
0
0

Because of regulation…and to get people’s contact information for future emails.

On Wednesday, people on Republican National Committee's email list received this message in support of taxi service Uber:

On Wednesday, people on Republican National Committee's email list received this message in support of taxi service Uber:

Andy's Inbox

The link led to a page on the RNC's website asking people to "add my name" to a petition to support Uber:

The link led to a page on the RNC's website asking people to "add my name" to a petition to support Uber:

Via gop.com

The rapid success of Uber has become politicized, especially in Washington, D.C.

In one protest in D.C. in June, more than 1,000 cabbies drove through the streets and refused to pick up passengers in protest of ridesharing apps like Uber and Lyft. Taxi drivers and companies say companies like Uber are unfairly breaking the law, avoiding regulation, and taking away their business.

Because ridesharing companies like Uber often work outside the strict regulation imposed on taxi companies and drivers in many cities, Uber has been able to pull a hearty share of the market owning to its straightforward app and pricing often in competition to street hailing cabs.

In June, Uber raised $1.2 billion in funding which valued the service at $18.2 billion.


View Entire List ›

Virginia Will Allow Uber And Lyft To Operate, But Only With "Extensive" Background Checks

$
0
0

“I knew there had to be a better way to ensure the safety of Virginia passengers.”

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — After an attempt to ice out the ridesharing apps Uber and Lyft earlier this summer, Virginia will finally officially allow the companies to operate inside the state.

The state announced that, in order to receive approval from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the companies agreed to "extensive" background checks, with "convictions for any felony, fraud, sexual offenses, or violent crimes, or registration as a sex offender" leading to automatic rejections for potential drivers.

"In order for Virginia to remain economically competitive, it is important that we welcome innovative companies like Uber and Lyft and provide them with the resources they need to safely and effectively operate in the Commonwealth," Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a statement.

Over the last several months the safety of ride-sharing apps has sparked national concern.

In the D.C. area, where Uber has become a core transportation option, an Uber driver allegedly took advantage of a drunk passenger, who said she woke up "to the sound of car doors locking" and the driver "feeling her breasts and pulling down her underwear down to her knees."

Also in D.C., one Uber user claimed his driver ran red lights, sped down the highway, and eventually let them off on an exit ramp as he tried to avoid a taxi inspector.

In another case in Los Angeles, an Uber driver allegedly kidnapped a woman at a nightclub and sexually assaulted her while she was drunk.

"I knew there had to be a better way to ensure the safety of Virginia passengers," said Attorney General Mark Herring in a statement Wednesday. "These companies offer services that Virginians want, but it just wasn't acceptable for them to operate without complying with regulations or other measures to help ensure the safety of passengers and motorists."

The decision is also a blow to traditional cab drivers in the region, who have been vigorously opposed to these companies coming in as they struggle to keep up with the technology.

But in a conveniently timed move, TaxiCab Magic — an app that helps connect users to "professional drivers" — just announced today it was rebranding itself as "Curb." As Curb's new CEO Pat Lashinsky told Politico, Uber and Lyft have "forced these companies to say, we're ready and we're open and we're going to innovate and get better."

Other provisions in the temporary arrangement with the state include "zero tolerance for the use of drugs or alcohol by any drivers," stricter insurance requirements, a way for customers to identify an Uber or Lyft car from the outside (Lyft already gives its drivers pink mustaches to put on the front of their cars), and an agreement to only accept rides through the app instead of street hails.

According to letters the DMV sent to Uber and Lyft, which were sent to BuzzFeed by a DMV spokesperson, their authority to operate legally in Virginia will expire Feb. 2 of next year. The letters also reveal Uber applied for its temporary legal status through a subsidiary Rasier, LLC.

"Rasier users are, to a significant degree, customers of a new service market rather than customers of a previously existing service market," the letter to Uber said. "Furthermore, Rasier has presented persuasive information that its services may help to reduce DUI rates, enable people to obtain more timely transportation servies in emergencies, and improve overall satisfaction with for-hire transportation services."

Even with this win, Uber and Lyft are already looking down the road to their next battles in the state.

"In addition to our our involvement in the DMV's ongoing study on Transportation Network Companies, we look forward to helping craft new rules for peer-to-peer transportation that increase access to safe, affordable and convenient rides for all Virginia residents," a Lyft spokesman said in an email.

"We'll need your voice again in January when legislators are back in session to make sure they hear you loud and clear and pass legislation that permanently allows us to operate," Uber wrote on its D.C. blog.

View the letters from the DMV to Uber and Lyft here:


View Entire List ›

The Tea Party Is Considering Backing An Obama Democrat In California

$
0
0

“Not one single supporter of mine jumped at financing the idea.”

zimmytws/zimmytws

WASHINGTON — Late last month, a former Republican congressman sent an unusual email to supporters: Help me bring the Tea Party Express to California's Silicon Valley — to support a Democrat.

To finance the effort, former Rep. Ernie Konnyu wrote, supporters would need to raise $50,000 to help out Democrat Ro Khanna, who is now challenging Democratic Rep. Mike Honda.

The Tea Party Express — a California-based group that raises money for grassroots conservative candidates — is interested, even if none of Konnyu's supporters appear to be so far. Should the plan come to fruition, it would be the first time a major tea party organization played in a race between Democrats — and on behalf of a Democrat who recently worked in the Obama administration.

Khanna, a former presidential appointee at the Department of Commerce, is running against longtime Democratic Rep. Mike Honda in one of California's "jungle primary" system. The scheme strips out partisan primaries, forcing the top two vote-getters from a field of primary candidates to face off in the general election, even if they're both from the same party.

Honda won the most votes in the jungle primary in June, and has establishment and progressive backing, but Khanna has raised a lot of money and has tapped the resources of top Obama 2012 field campaign architect Jeremy Bird and his 270 Strategies consulting firm to develop his field campaign.

The race is nasty, with Khanna accusing Honda of skipping out on his duties as a member of Congress and Honda backers accusing Khanna of being a Republican.

The GOP is actually playing an outsize role in the race, with Honda touting the endorsement of the Republican he defeated in 2000 to take the Silicon Valley seat.

Konnyu, the Republican, represented Silicon Valley as a member of the House for one term in the late 1980s, a seat he lost in a more traditional primary with another Republican. He's thrown his weight behind Khanna and urged Republicans to do the same. On June 23, in an email to supporters obtained by BuzzFeed and addressed "TO: All Republicans and Independent Voters," he tried to take that effort up a notch by pulling in help from the Tea Party Express.

"It's OK! Even Honda called Ro 'Republican-Lite,'" Konnyu told his Republican list before asking them for money to help pay Tea Party Express for mailer attacking Honda.

"I contacted my old campaign manager at the Tea Party Express in Sacramento for help. I asked him about sending out a mailer to the voters on what Honda has been doing," Konnyu wrote. "His Tea Party Express is willing to do that mailer provided we cover the postage, printing, and handling expenses. As you probably know it's expensive. Printing, postage and handling can cost perhaps $0.50 cents at minimum or $50,000 for 100,000 letters."

"Let me know by reply to this email...how much you are willing to pledge toward our $50,000 goal to do a NO ON HONDA mailer with the Tea Party Express," Konnyu concluded.

At the end of the email, there was a big chunk of research designed to rile up Republicans about Honda ("Throughout Honda's 14 years in Congress, 18 of 20 of his largest donors have been unions," was one hit) that looked a lot like the kind of background material campaigns send out to reporters when trying to attack their opponents. Konnyu wrote in the email that he got the material from someone else. "I received a well researched and referenced document I requested," he wrote.

Several weeks after his email request, Konnyu told BuzzFeed his Tea Party Express scheme had fallen flat, both with Republicans and the Khanna campaign.

It seems no one was interested in unleashing the tea party on Silicon Valley.

"Not one single supporter of mine jumped at financing the idea," Konnyu said. "As much as local folks dislike Honda for his 447 missed House votes and his around a dozen foreign junkets on fat cat paid joy rides, they were not interested in this venture with my former campaign consultant, the Tea Party strategist, Sal Russo."

Konnyu said Khanna's campaign didn't throw any money in, either, despite the fact that his polling shows them down double-digits to Honda.

"Nope. But if Khanna were interested they would have helped with financing probably indirectly because they are still down," he said.

For their part, the Tea Party Express is keeping an eye on Silicon Valley battle of the Democrats.

"Konnyu expressed interest in having Tea Party Express support Ro. Sal was out of the country but was open to talking about it when he returned," said Tea Party Express spokesperson Taylor Budowich. "I believe that's how it was left. We remain undecided as far as if we will or will not be involved in the race, but it's on our radar."

Tea Party Express has faced criticism over the group's spending practices — a 2013 ProPublica report showed the group had only put 10% of its money toward elections. Russo, the chairman of Tea Party Express, also came under scrutiny this week for Move America Forward, a charity that claims to provide care packages for troops overseas, centering around discrepancies found in the group's claims, as well as questions about how the group spent its money.

The Khanna campaign didn't respond to questions about the Honda opposition research, but distanced themselves from Konnyu's Tea Party Express plan.

"Ernie has publicly endorsed Ro and we're happy to have his support," said campaign spokesperson Tyler Law. "That said, he is acting on his own." Law accused Honda supporters of trying to tie Khanna to the tea party.

Walgreens Decides To Remain U.S. Company After Public Shaming

$
0
0

The company, which is merging with Alliance Boots, will not move its headquarters overseas for billions in tax savings. President Obama called such maneuvers, known as “corporate inversions,” unpatriotic.

Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Walgreens today scrapped a controversial plan to relocate its headquarters to Europe to avoid paying billions in U.S. taxes over the next five years.

The Deerfield, Illinois-based drugstore company, which was considering relabeling itself as Swiss or British in conjunction with its acquisition of Switzerland's Alliance Boots, has outraged lawmakers and Main Street over its proposed tax dodge. The tactic, which is perfectly legal, is known as a "corporate inversion," and has become popular in the past few years, primarily among U.S. pharmaceutical giants. By technically moving a headquarters to a tax-friendly address outside the U.S. via a merger or acquisition, companies can wiggle out of paying taxes on profits earned overseas — which in this case, would impact earnings from Boots.

Inversions also make it cheaper for companies to bring cash back into the U.S. — once they're "foreign," they evade taxes on using offshore cash hoards to fund U.S. investments, according to a column in the Wall Street Journal. Such maneuvers can help companies "goose their stock prices through dividends and buybacks funded by low-taxed foreign cash," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California. So why not head to Ireland, the Netherlands, the U.K. or Switzerland?

"It obviously saves people a lot of tax payments, right?" Rick Hans, divisional vice president of investor relations and finance at Walgreens, said of inversions in April. "We've never been a proponent to pay more taxes than we have to. We try to optimize that. It creates value, yes."

If it sounds kind of shady, it is. President Obama said in a CNBC interview last month that if "you're simply changing your mailing address in order to avoid paying taxes then you're really not doing right by the country and by the American people." Jon Stewart described corporate inversions on The Daily Show this week as "multibillion dollar corporations attempting to maximize profit through globalized tax evasion."

"People are paid to maximize profits," Obama told CNBC. "But people are also paid to be good corporate citizens...and this kind of strategy, I think undermines people's confidence in how companies are thinking about their responsibilities to the country as a whole."

The tax dodge isn't worth it, Walgreens says

The tax dodge isn't worth it, Walgreens says

Via files.shareholder.com

"Imagine that you woke up one day and read a headline that some of our wealthiest citizens were giving up their U.S. citizenship and declaring themselves citizens of Guernsey (or some other tax haven), which would cut their tax bill by two-thirds,"
hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson wrote in a July 20 e-mail he distributes to clients, friends and reporters. "But they weren't actually moving to Guernsey – in fact, absolutely nothing was changing: they still carried U.S. passports, sent their kids to U.S. schools, drove on U.S. roads, benefitted from the U.S. systems of laws and courts, not to mention the protections afforded by our police and U.S. military, went to work and/or operated their businesses in the U.S., etc. And all of this was 100% legal, thanks to a huge loophole in the U.S. tax code."

Corporations, of course, are incentivized to be ruthless in their pursuit of "value creation" for shareholders, and so it's no surprise that Walgreens sought to exploit this loophole. Some estimate the move could have saved the company $4 billion over the next five years, according to a group called Americans For Tax Fairness. And proponents of corporate inversions claim that it's only happening because American companies have been placed at a big disadvantage, tax-wise, against their foreign competitors. Companies often complain that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, of 35%.

But Walgreens said today that it couldn't reach an agreement on how to restructure its transaction with Alliance Boots to pursue an inversion. It also cited "potential consumer backlash and political ramifications" as reasons for forgoing the plan. The company will buy the 55% of Alliance Boots it doesn't already own for $5.27 billion plus stock, with a global headquarters in the Chicago area, it said today.

While Congress has been unable to devise a way to deter companies from pursuing corporate inversions, the Treasury Department said Tuesday it's looking into ways to limit the maneuvers without Congress's support, according to the Journal. That might provide a "partial fix" until a comprehensive solution is provided by Congress, a spokeswoman told the newspaper.

"The question is, Can we do enough that it will materially change the economics of inversions so that companies will make different decisions?" Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew told the New York Times. "The things we are looking at look to me like they could very materially change the economics of inversions," he said.


View Entire List ›

16 Things We Learned From Bill Nye The Science Guy's Emails With The White House

$
0
0

BuzzFeed obtained Bill Nye’s emails with the White House through a FOIA request. There is a science poem.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Bill Nye sometimes signs off his emails with hopeful messages and clip art.

Bill Nye sometimes signs off his emails with hopeful messages and clip art.

"Let's change the world(s)...

As well as other phrases written as only Bill Nye could.

As well as other phrases written as only Bill Nye could.

"What time does the shindig start diggin?"


View Entire List ›

Obama's Got So Much Swag While Singing Iggy Azalea's "Fancy"

Leader Of Republican's "Business Coalition" Resigns After Inquiry About Domestic Violence Conviction

$
0
0

The CEO was sentenced to 17 months in prison for domestic violence. Following an inquiry by BuzzFeed, he has resigned.

Two weeks ago, Oregon Republican Senate candidate Monica Wehby announced a "small business coalition" led by a CEO of a waste-to-energy company.

The co-chair of the committee was Tim Moles, CEO of Joules Power Inc.

Moles was convicted on domestic violence charges, for which he was sentenced to 17 months in prison in 2002. Moles also pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one of felony harassment. Court records detail various acts of domestic violence including Moles choking his wife, threatening to kill her, punching her in the face, and dragging her out of a car.

Following BuzzFeed's inquiry Wednesday about Moles' role in the campaign, the Wehby campaign told BuzzFeed he had resigned.

"The campaign was unaware of Mr. Moles' past," a spokesperson for the campaign said. "He has offered his resignation from his voluntary position, and the campaign has accepted."

In addition to the domestic violence charges, Moles was accused of trying to hire a hitman to kill his wife — but that charge was rejected by a judge as part of his trial. According to the Kitsap Sun, a fellow inmate at the jail where Moles was held claimed Moles offered him a share of his wife's life insurance policy for killing her. From the Sun:

Herman Driggers said Moles offered him a share of a $200,000 life insurance policy he had on his wife through the Navy, $1,500 cash and a $3,500 Chevy Blazer, the charge said.

But Superior Court Judge Russell Hartman told prosecutors they filed the solicitation charge too close to the start of trial on the assault charges. That trial was a few days away, and Moles wouldn't have had time to prepare a defense. They'd have to bring the solicitation charge separately later, Hartman ruled.

Prosecutor Russ Hauge said they chose not to do that. Readying witnesses for two trials, some time apart, would be a logistics problem.

And though they had some corroboration of Driggers' claim, Hauge said, Driggers "had just been convicted twice in our court, and we weren't really sure what he would testify to on the stand."

Now, the page on Wehby's website where Moles' role was announced, now returns a 404 error page:

Now, the page on Wehby's website where Moles' role was announced, now returns a 404 error page:

Via monicafororegon.com

And the tweet announcing the "small business coalition" was also deleted:

And the tweet announcing the "small business coalition" was also deleted:

Via politwoops.sunlightfoundation.com

But the page can still be found via Google's cache.

But the page can still be found via Google's cache.

Via webcache.googleusercontent.com


View Entire List ›


Four States' Same-Sex Marriage Bans Up In The Air After Three Hours Of Arguments

$
0
0

Cases challenging bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee likely will come down to Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s vote. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, on which Sutton sits, heard the cases Wednesday.

BuzzFeed/Chris Geidner

CINCINNATI — The fate of legal decisions about marriage for same-sex couples in four states likely rests, for now at least, in the hands of one federal judge.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard hours of oral arguments Wednesday about cases in four states — all concerned either bans on marriages for same-sex couples or the recognition of those marriages. And the question of whether the court will join the other federal courts to rule on those issues likely sits the hands of Judge Jeffrey Sutton.

Nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2001, Sutton was a prominent lawyer for conservative causes before being confirmed to the bench in 2003 — but he also cast a pivotal vote siding with the Obama administration in a 2011 challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, nominated by President Clinton in 1993, sparred forcefully with the various lawyers defending the states' bans — asking repeatedly how claimed state interests relating to procreation were furthered by excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Judge Deborah Cook, another nominee of President George W. Bush on the other hand, spoke the least during the arguments but raised issues generally sympathetic to the states when she did join in the fray.

Sutton was left in the middle, speaking positively about same-sex couples but focusing primarily on three questions: one that was, effectively, a procedural question of "hierarchy" and whether the appeals court is bound by an earlier Supreme Court decision against same-sex couples' marriage rights and two that were, for the most part, policy issues that could play into his ultimate decision in the cases.

Although there are distinctions between the marriage claims raised in Michigan and Kentucky and the marriage recognition claims raised in Ohio and Tennessee, most parties agree that a marriage decision in favor of the plaintiffs would render a separate decision on the recognition claims unneeded. Most of the states' lawyers, moreover, argue that the same is true if the court decides against the marriage case plaintiffs — although lawyers for the Ohio and Tennessee couples maintain a separate decision in their favor could come even if the court rules against the broad marriage claim.

Sutton's first issue concerned a 1972 Supreme Court summary decision that dismissed a Minnesota same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question," meaning that the justices did not believe the couple could make a claim that they had a constitutional right to marry. The case, Baker v. Nelson, was discussed in the briefing for the Supreme Court case challenging California's Proposition 8, but the court did not have to address the issue because it dismissed the case on standing.

Sutton's first question to Carole Stanyar, representing a Michigan couple seeking to marry in the state, was to ask her whether the appeals court — since the Supreme Court has not specifically overruled Baker — is "stuck" with the decision that same-sex couples cannot bring a constitutional claim for equal marriage rights.

Although other courts have held since last year's Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor that Baker is no longer controlling law, Sutton didn't sound convinced. He cited other Supreme Court cases where the court held that changed reasoning in a related line of cases is not enough to allow lower courts to ignore an earlier precedent that is directly on point.

If Sutton reaches the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, however, he suggested that he believed the states would lose if the court decided that some form of heightened scrutiny applied. This could happen either if the court were to decide that: (1) sexual-orientation claims are subjected to heightened scrutiny under equal protection, or (2) that the couple's claim was one of exclusion from marriage itself — an existing right protected as "fundamental" that would lead the bans to be examined under strict scrutiny, as opposed to a claim for a new right to same-sex marriage.

If the court finds no reason to view the bans under some form of heightened scrutiny, then the lowest level of scrutiny, "rational basis review," would apply. Then, the states only must show the bans have a "rational relationship" to a "legitimate state interest." Although state officials focused on procreation-related interests, Sutton's questioning mostly focused on allowing the democratic process to play out.

As a hypothetical, Sutton asked one point to imagine a world without marriage and then asked "why is [it] irrational" for the state to choose, as a first step, to have marriage only for opposite-sex couples, noting that the state might see this as a first step because of the fact that opposite-sex couples would be having children.

William Harbison, the lawyer representing the couples who married in New York and California and are suing because Tennessee won't recognize those marriages, replied that Tennessee isn't at step one because, after having marriage only for opposite-sex couples, it then chose affirmatively to pass laws that would ban recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.

Pushing the "democratic process" angle another way, Sutton asked several of the plaintiffs' lawyers why they wouldn't prefer to go about this by convincing people of the states, rather than, as he said, "five justices of the Supreme Court," to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Finally, Sutton asked multiple times throughout the argument about what implementing a ruling requiring marriage equality would entail. When Ohio Solicitor General Eric Murphy said it would "no doubt" require legislative changes, Daughtrey shot back, "Or forms being reprinted."

At the conclusion of the arguments, Sutton noted that the issue likely was headed to the Supreme Court and that, accordingly, the court would work to reach its decision quickly. He did not, however, give any sort of specific timeline for that decision.

In cases from Utah and Oklahoma out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and Virginia out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, judges in both circuits split 2-1 in deciding that such bans unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Officials in all three states have said they will be asking the Supreme Court to review the cases, with Utah officials filing a certiorari petition on Tuesday and an Oklahoma clerk filing a petition Wednesday. Virginia officials are expected to do so on Friday.

LINK: Find audio from the 6th Circuit arguments here on the court's site.

Why Isn't Andrea Mitchell Part Of The "Meet The Press" Speculation?

$
0
0

What’s the end game for a lifelong television journalist who’s worked almost 30 years for a legacy outlet?

The LIFE Images Collection / Getty Images

You'd think with all the talk about change coming to Meet the Press, there'd be at least someone out there advocating for veteran NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell to cap off her long, productive career at the network as host of television's longest running show.

You'd be wrong.

Fine, Mitchell isn't the greatest host working in television news. She's not even a really good host. Regular viewers of her daily MSNBC show, Andrea Mitchell Reports, know that her teleprompter delivery is still not so smooth. But she can conduct good interviews, can book big names, and, of course, wins Emmys. Since Mitchell will probably never get the other prestige news job at the network — anchoring the Nightly News — what other than Meet the Press could such a respected, respectable NBC News lifer merit?

Chuck Todd and the co-hosts of Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, have been the biggest targets of speculation about David Gregory's replacement. Either of these options would shake things up. But what's the worst that could happen if Andrea Mitchell hosts Meet the Press? Considering how unimpressive MTP's ratings have been recently, Mitchell would have to be phenomenally bad to make viewers and media critics long for the days of David Gregory. And even if she failed to improve on MTP's dismal numbers, just a short Mitchell era at MTP could help 30 Rock in more ways than one:

It might be that if Meet the Press is going to survive the next general election, it needs to become something very different from what it is now. There's already talk of someone like Today's Savannah Guthrie spearheading that sort of transition, which could include transporting the show from D.C. to Manhattan.

In giving Mitchell the Meet the Press job, the show could continue its traditional style of programming relatively undisrupted, giving NBC more time to figure out how the heck they're going to successfully bring, or if it's at all possible to bring, MTP into the 21st century.

Mitchell's MSNBC show — one of the last straight news shows left on the network's weekday schedule, is smack in the middle of the day. If Mitchell moved on, MSNBC would be able air a steady stream of its signature opinion talk shows from 12 p.m. to 12 a.m., and so move closer to a world in which the liberal cable talk network and NBC News don't have to deal with each other.


View Entire List ›

Obama Praises Republican Lawmakers As Key To Veterans Affairs Overhaul

$
0
0

In an alternate reality, President Obama always talks the way he did at Ft. Belvoir Thursday.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama praised several Republican lawmakers at a press event in Virginia Thursday, congratulating them for crossing the aisle and helping create legislation reforming the Veterans Administration he then sat down and signed into law.

It was a rare sight in modern Washington, and it sounded, well, bizarre. Obama himself noted the strangeness of the moment, quipping while signing the bill into law that he's "out of practice" when it comes to signing legislation.

"This feels good," Obama said. "You know, I don't get enough practice at this."

In an alternate universe, more Obama events would sound like the one the president hosted at Fort Belvoir, an Army base in suburban Virginia. In recent weeks, Obama's public appearances have featured the president openly mocking Republicans for the gridlock that's helped produce the least-productive Congress in generations.

The difference was stark. Late last month, Obama said the Republicans were "hating all the time" and ripped the House for voting to sue him over his executive actions.

At Fort Belvoir, Obama was markedly more friendly to the Republicans in the room who helped craft the bipartisan Veteran's Administration reform package, which was spurred on by the lingering wait list scandal at the agency in charge of delivering health care to former members of the armed services.

"I want to thank all the members of Congress who are here today, and I especially want to thank those who led the fight to give [new VA Secretary Robert McDonald] and the VA more of the resources and flexibility that they need to make sure every veteran has access to the care and benefits that they've earned," Obama said.

Obama called the bill "a good deal," and noted it "passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan majorities, and that doesn't happen often in Congress."

Obama then gave the Republicans who helped craft the bill along with Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, a shoutout by name.

While he was using the multiple pens to sign his name to the legislation typical of a bill singing, Obama commented further on how extraordinary the moment was — and ribbed the Republicans just a little.

"We should do this more often," Obama said.

Video of Obama signing the bill and talking about how weird it is:

View Video ›

How Not To Impeach Barack Obama

$
0
0

Rand Paul and other Republicans struggle to avoid the party base’s current obsession — and the Democrats’ favorite subject.

AP Photo/Molly Riley, File

DES MOINES — Across Iowa this week, in storefront Republican Party offices festooned with campaign posters, and photos of Ronald Reagan, and papier-mâché elephant busts, and illustrated quotes from Ronald Reagan, and red-white-and-blue streamers, and stylized cartoons of Ronald Reagan, civic-minded Iowans lined up to get their pictures taken with Sen. Rand Paul and politely ask him why he hasn't yet managed to impeach President Obama.

It seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. After all, the Republican voters greeting the Kentucky senator had, invariably, just finished listening to him rail against the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama and warn that the White House's eagerness to circumvent Congress represented a dire threat to the nation. Everywhere Paul went on his three-day, ten-stop swing through the Hawkeye State, he sounded the alarm bell. In Okoboji, Paul complained that "the president has ordained himself and he's just going to do whatever he wants." In Sioux City, he declared that Obama's "petulance" and "arrogance" threatened to create a "significant constitutional crisis." And in Urbandale, he said the president was acting "more like a king" who's "going to give royal edicts" that imperil the very "fabric of the republic." Over and over again, Paul made the case that Obama's disregard for the separation of powers was unprecedented and dangerous and needed to be stopped at once.

But he stopped short of calling for impeachment.

When Paul was asked by reporters Wednesday what he made of the impeachment talk emanating from some quarters of the political class in recent weeks, he offered a long, nuanced, see-where-you're-coming-from nod to the conservatives who held such a position, before finally confessing, "I don't support it."

Paul is straining to navigate a dilemma that's proving increasingly tricky for serious-minded Republican leaders across the country: They recognize that much of the recent impeachment buzz in the media is being fed by national Democrats in a cynical attempt to raise money from their liberal base and cast conservatives as kooks and cranks — yet they also have to reckon with the incontrovertible fact that a significant number of Republican voters believe the president's misdeeds are, in fact, impeachable offenses.

A CNN/ORC poll released late last month found that 57% of Republicans nationwide support impeaching Obama. And here in Iowa, Shawn Dietz, a GOP state Senate candidate who attended one of Paul's speeches, said many conservative voters are frustrated that congressional Republicans aren't aggressively going after impeachment.

"I think too often they think politically," Dietz said of Republicans in Congress. "We have to be bold enough to say, 'This is unconstitutional, and the political fallout be what it is, we have to do everything. As representatives who have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution, we have to follow that the Constitution has prescribed, up to and including impeachment.'"

Paul, of course, knows that joining the impeachment movement would be devastating to the political brand he has been fastidiously developing ahead of 2016 — that of the inclusive, big-tent Republican willing to work with Democrats while still clinging to his conservative-libertarian principles. It would also probably damage the GOP's chances of taking back the Senate if party leaders are widely seen embracing it.

But the current fervor of the Republican foot soldiers, however misguided he may believe it to be, is at least partly a consequence of his own persistent battle cries. For years, Paul has been a leading voice in his party condemning what he sees as the Obama administration's gross abuses of executive power — from the NSA domestic surveillance program, to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, to immigration policy. His arguments have helped provide the substantive underpinning to the howling of the conservative fever swamps, in which talk radio hosts and right-wing bloggers rake in ratings and page views with frenzied talk of kicking Obama out of office. For those voters who have found Paul's urgent denunciation of the president's lawlessness compelling, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to arrive at impeachment as a plausible solution.

Even as Paul works to broaden his coalition of supporters to include people of color and college students, he seems reluctant to put too much distance between himself and this contingency of his greatest admirers. While no one in the GOP's prospective 2016 Republican field is actively calling for impeachment, Sen. Ted Cruz, probably Paul's most serious competition for the conservative base in a Republican primary, has paid lip service to the idea (while conceding that it probably won't work).

When conservative voters press Paul to explain why he doesn't support impeachment despite all his ominous rhetoric about Obama trampling on the Constitution, he is ready with sophisticated reasoning.

"People come up and they say, 'Why won't you impeach him? He's done this and this and this,'" Paul said. "I try to explain that a lot of the bills that were written give latitude to both sides. So, for example, the Affordable Care Act, which I wasn't there to vote for, would have voted no on, and think was a bad piece of legislation — nevertheless, it passed. It's law. And in the law, it says in 180 different places, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may do 'X.' It leaves a lot of latitude for the executive branch to write the law."

"I think there's enough of a debate that a court has to decide, and it is being adjudicated in a court," Paul continued, referring to a lawsuit being brought by House Republicans against Obama. "I think when you do impeachment, it is a judgment call, but it's talking about high crimes and misdemeanors. And I think most people think that a dispute over the interpretation of the legislation doesn't rise to that level."

He hastened to add, "Some people do, though..."

This explanation shifts just enough blame off the White House and onto Congress as to logically justify his softer stance to conservatives — and he frequently tries to toughen it up by mentioning that, in addition to the House's Affordable Care Act lawsuit, he has helped file a class-action lawsuit against Obama over NSA surveillance.

But when a man in Council Bluffs asked him this week what Republicans could do to rein in Obama's use of executive power, Paul admitted that lawsuits had their limitations. "The courts have almost uniformly said legislators have no standing," he told the man at one point, before saying he still believed it was worth pursuing.

This is the sort of careful posturing that political clichés were written for; Rand Paul is threading the needle, walking a tightrope. He is also, apparently, confusing Rep. Steve King.

The conservative Iowa congressman, who spent Monday campaigning across the state with Paul, told reporters (after the senator had left an event) that he believed they were on the same page with impeachment.

"What I've said is I want to discourage the president from taking actions that create a constitutional crisis," said King, who has argued that the House should pursue impeachment if Obama tries to address immigration with an executive order. "If he does that, we can't take anything off the table. I don't know that Rand Paul is much different on that from me."

The strained nature of Paul's position on the issue may not ultimately matter. Calls for impeachment on the right haven't yet reached a fever pitch, and they may never get to that point, despite Democrats' best efforts. As long as impeachment doesn't become a conservative litmus test, Paul and other high-profile Republicans trying to hang on to their credibility can safely agree to disagree with their more bloodthirsty constituents and colleagues.

Still, as long as Obama is in office, it remains possible at any moment for the undercurrent of urgency on the right to suddenly change the dynamic.

On Monday afternoon, at the Iowa GOP Sioux City Victory Office, Paul stood dutifully for pictures with a slow-moving line of Iowans. A few feet away, King was chatting with an older couple.

"You've got six months to turn this country around," said a man in orthopedic sneakers, his voice rising. "After that, it's over." When King smiled politely, the man insisted, "I'm serious!"

The woman placed a hand on his arm to calm him down. "Now, now," she said, "don't get worked up."

"I'm just telling him the truth," the man said. "It's getting bad!"

U.N. Human Rights Chief Rebukes Congress Over Gaza Criticism

$
0
0

“The establishment of an independent commission of inquiry should be welcomed by all of us who cherish the rule of law,” Navi Pillay wrote in a letter to Congress.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay

Denis Balibouse / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights criticized Congress in a letter sent to members on Wednesday, denying that the U.N.'s Human Rights Council is "biased" against Israel.

The letter was sent in response to a July 25 letter signed by over 100 members of Congress that slammed the U.N. Human Rights Council for launching an inquiry into whether Israel committed war crimes during the conflict in Gaza, which is currently paused due to a ceasefire. The UNHCR "simply cannot be taken seriously as a human rights organization" because of its inquiry into Israel's actions in the war as opposed to Hamas', the members of Congress, led by Reps. Ted Deutch, Steve Israel, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Tom Cole wrote. Congress also passed two resolutions, one in each chamber, condemning the U.N. for the inquiry.

On Wednesday, U.N. rights chief Navanethem (Navi) Pillay responded with a letter of her own that offers a rare, direct rebuke of the U.S. Congress from the international body. The letter, which was obtained by BuzzFeed on Thursday, rejects Congress' complaints about the U.N.'s plan to investigate Israel and doubles down on her criticisms of Israeli actions in the war.

"I regret to note that resolution 107 passed by the United States House of Representatives on 30 July, and resolution 526 passed by the United States Senate on 29 July condemn the establishment by the Human Rights Council of a commission of inquiry on the basis that it is 'biased,' and 'calls for yet another prejudged investigation of Israel,'" Pillay wrote in the letter.

"In fact, resolution S-21/1 of the Human Rights Council mandates the independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in the Gaza Strip," Pillay wrote. "I have reiterated, on a number of occasions, the need for real accountability considering the increasing evidence of incidents that may constitute war crimes on both sides. The establishment of an independent commission of inquiry should be welcomed by all of us who cherish the rule of law."

"Let us not forget that the current conflict and destruction comes at a time when the people of Gaza have already been suffering from prolonged occupation and seven years of an air, land and sea blockade imposed by the Israeli authorities," Pillay wrote.

Full text of Pillay letter to Congress:

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images