Lawyers for California Attorney General Kamala Harris argued releasing non-violent inmates early would harm efforts to fight California wildfires. Harris told BuzzFeed News she first heard about this when she read it in the paper.

AP Photo/Richard Vogel

Lawyers for California Attorney General Kamala Harris argued in court this fall against the release of eligible nonviolent prisoners from California's overcrowded prisons — because the state wanted to keep them as a labor force.

Harris, a rising star in the Democratic Party, said she learned about the argument when she read it in the paper.

"I will be very candid with you, because I saw that article this morning, and I was shocked, and I'm looking into it to see if the way it was characterized in the paper is actually how it occurred in court," Harris told BuzzFeed News in an interview Monday. "I was very troubled by what I read. I just need to find out what did we actually say in court."

The Supreme Court found California's prisons were so overcrowded in 2011 that the conditions violated the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Since then, California has been under federal court supervision as it seeks to comply with the order that the state reduce its prison population. In February, the state had agreed to reduce its population by releasing nonviolent prisoners with only two felonies who had served half their sentences.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that attorneys in Harris' office had unsuccessfully argued in court that the state could not release the prisoners it had agreed to release because "if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool." Those prisoners, the Times reported, earn wages that range from "8 cents to 37 cents per hour."

In a Sept. 30 filing in the case, signed by Deputy Attorney General Patrick McKinney but under Harris' name, the state argued, "Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation — a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought."

Approximately 4,400 California prisoners help the state battle wildfires, at wages of about $2 a day. There is an exception in the agreement that allows the state to retain firefighters — but only firefighters — who are otherwise eligible for release.

Like incarcerated firefighters, inmates who perform "assignments necessary for the continued operation of the institution and essential to local communities" draw from the same pool of inmates who pose a limited threat to public safety, the state argued in a September filing. Therefore, reducing that population would require the prisons to draw more incarcerated workers away from its firefighting crews.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the prison overcrowding lawsuit scoffed at the state's argument. "They could hire public employees to perform tasks like garbage collection, garage work and recycling; if they deplete the fire crews in order to staff their garage crews, that would be their own choice," they responded in their filing.

The federal judges supervising the case didn't find the state's argument persuasive either.

"The record contains no evidence that defendants cannot implement the required parole process by that date, eleven months after they agreed to do so 'promptly,'" the judges wrote.

View Entire List ›

But noted President Obama has a big trump card: veto.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The soon-to-be leader of the Senate said Tuesday he wouldn't rule out trying to defund any executive action President Barack Obama takes in relation to the country's immigration system.

"It's always appropriate to use the power of the purse," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will take over as majority leader in January. "But it's important to remember that the president has an important trump card. It's called the veto pen."

McConnell added negotiations will be "ongoing" this year and next to keep the government funded. Both McConnell and Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested keeping the government open was a top priority.

According to several reports, Obama's executive action will affect as many as five million undocumented immigrants.

House Republicans have already floated plans to defund such an order — whether they'll seek to do that by threatening another government shutdown, a separate legislative maneuver, or by other means remains unclear.

"Just because the American people elected divided government doesn't mean they don't expect us to do anything," McConnell said.

Progressives are upset the Senate will vote on Keystone, and red-state Democrats who lost say it wouldn’t have made a difference in their elections. “It doesn’t help anybody now.”

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Facing increasingly long odds in her run-off race, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu got the one thing she wanted: a vote on the Keystone pipeline.

But some Senate Democrats say the vote is a lost cause — Keystone won't make a difference in her race, they say, and the timing is terrible. Even some red-state Democrats who lost re-election say they don't think a Keystone vote earlier this year would have helped them.

"I like Mary a lot," said one Democratic senator voting against the bill. "I don't think this is going to help her, though, and it's a lot of theater for something I don't think is really going to make a big difference in her campaign."

Landrieu is down in the polls against Rep. Bill Cassidy, and the vote on Keystone in the Senate is a last-ditch attempt to give her campaign a boost after Democrats suffered significant losses on election night. The outcome remains unclear — it seems unlikely the measure will have the 60 votes it needs to pass, although it's likely Senate Republicans will take the measure up again when they control the chamber.

Moderate red-state Democrats had been pushing for a vote on approval of the pipeline for a while now, and those who lost said on Tuesday a vote prior to Election Day wouldn't have changed the outcome for them.

"People knew my position. I've been very clear about it for years now. I don't think I can say that [it would have made a difference]," said Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor.

Sen. Mark Begich, who only conceded his loss on Monday, told BuzzFeed News that people in Alaska "knew I supported" Keystone's approval.

"It wouldn't have mattered in our election," he said.

Even if the vote would make a difference in Landrieu's increasingly unlikely re-election bid or others' bids, one former Senate Democratic leadership aide questioned the timing. Why now?

"It could have actually been used … I'm not saying it would have made a difference in all of these states but the vote could have been used more strategically, earlier in the year for moderates to show their independence," the former aide said. "It doesn't help anybody now. It might help Keystone, but it's too late to help Landrieu at this point."

"It's like, really? Now, after all this bloodshed? Now we're gonna have the vote?" the aide said.

Keystone has not been brought to a full Senate vote until now.

And it's unclear what President Obama will do with the bill, even if Landrieu does manage to find the 60th vote to get the pipeline approved.

The administration has indicated the bill would likely be vetoed, in deference to the administration's federal approval process being run by the State Department. Asked on Tuesday if the White House was leaving options open not to veto Keystone, press secretary Josh Earnest said, "I don't want to leave you with that impression" but did not offer veto threats.

But in general, administration officials have emphasized the "process."

On a White House climate change conference call Monday, senior Obama adviser John Podesta ignored a question asked by BuzzFeed News about Democratic strategy in Louisiana. Podesta has recused himself from advising Obama on Keystone due to his past public opposition to the program. On the call, he reiterated Obama's comments about the Keystone vote during his recent trip through Asia.

"I would just repeat what he said, which is that we ought to take the time to let the process play out, the analysis come in," Podesta said, "and that, as you know, is not finished as a result of the litigation that is going on in Nebraska … until that occurs, as he noted, no decision should be made."

In recent days, activist groups have started mobilizing on the issue. On Monday, an anti-pipeline group in Nebraska started asked supporters to send $4 for a wooden "veto pen" the group promises to send boxes of to Obama after the Senate vote.

The prospect of the pipeline, while approved of by a narrow majority of Americans, is deeply unpopular with environmental groups and many Democrats.

Several Senate progressives are vocally opposing Landrieu's bill: Barbara Boxer took to the Senate floor on Tuesday morning to say that the "XL" in Keystone XL stands for "extra lethal." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who also strongly opposes the pipeline, said on Monday that "one vote on Keystone wouldn't have made a difference" in any race because "the fossil fuel interests that support the Republican Party would be relentlessly attacking Democrats anyway."

Sen. Joe Manchin, who has long pushed for the pipeline approval and is a close ally of Landrieu, said he was unsure if a vote would have changed anything for his red-state colleagues who lost, but he was very clear to give the credit to Landrieu for getting Reid to allow a vote.

"It should have been done earlier," he said. "I would have liked it to have been done … we shouldn't be playing this political football right now. But Mary Landrieu has been pushing this for years, and it would have never come to the floor had it not been for her. If Mary had gotten 51%, she would be pushing just as hard today."

Vote on controversial pipeline came as Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu fights a quixotic battle to keep her Senate seat.

WASHINGTON — Despite heavy lobbying from Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Senate failed to pass a measure Tuesday to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The measure needed 15 Democrats along with all 45 Republicans in order to pass the crucial 60-vote threshold, but Landrieu was unable to muster enough support amongst her colleagues, and the bill failed on a 59 to 41 vote.

Democrats rushed to get a vote on the pipeline through before Landrieu's tight runoff election next month. Building the pipeline is seen as a politically popular position in Louisiana, but some Democrats have questioned whether this vote will have any effect at all on Landrieu's chances.

Landrieu's push for the vote highlighted one of the most stark rifts within the Democratic Party. Most Democrats and environmental groups are largely against building the pipeline, while red-state Democrats and labor unions have supported it.

House Republicans passed their version of the bill last week. That bill was sponsored by Landrieu's GOP challenger, Rep. Bill Cassidy.

The race between Cassidy and Landrieu will determine the final remaining seat in the Senate.

Hours before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was still unsure how it would end up. But either way, he said Senate Democrats hadn't "given up" on Landrieu's chances to be reelected.

Sen. Joe Manchin added that "whether it happens now or happens in January," with sweeping Republican support the vote on Keystone will occur no matter what, so it would make sense to just pass it now.

"Everybody knows where Mary is," Manchin said. "You know it's a tough race, but she's a tough woman."

Sen. Patrick Leahy’s USA Freedom Act, which would have put some limits on the capabilities of the NSA, didn’t get the votes for full consideration.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A bill that would put limits on certain parts of the National Security Agency failed a key procedural vote in the Senate on Tuesday night.

The USA Freedom Act, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and pushed by civil liberties groups, failed to reach the 60-vote threshold that would have opened the bill up to debate on the Senate floor. It failed 58-42.

Leahy had insisted on getting the bill a vote in the lame-duck session of Congress. It was co-sponsored by several key Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Sen. Rand Paul, a vocal opponent of NSA spying, voting against the bill because it extends the Patriot Act by two years.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was also whipping against the bill, saying early Tuesday on the Senate floor that in the middle of the fight against ISIS was not the time to reform the NSA. The Obama administration had come out in support of Leahy's bill.

"The programs we have in place strike an appropriate balance between protecting our civil liberties and keeping our nation safe. And I think the bill before us would upend that delicate balance completely," McConnell said.

The House passed a version of the USA Freedom bill earlier this year. Leahy said he was "disappointed" by the vote and he "would not give up the fight."

UPDATE: Leon Taylor was executed early Wednesday morning. He was sentenced to death by an all-white jury in 1999 for murder a gas station attendant in front of the victim’s 8-year-old stepdaughter.

Taylor, 56, died just minutes after receiving a lethal injection at a prison in Bonne Terre, Missouri, the Associated Press reported. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster issued a statement after the execution:

UPDATE — Nov. 18, 11:50 p.m. ET: Gov. Jay Nixon denied Leon Taylor's clemency petition.

View Entire List ›

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, same-sex couples will be able to marry in South Carolina beginning at noon Thursday.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Faith Ninivaggi / Reuters

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson on Tuesday evening asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop same-sex couples from being able to marry in the state beginning Thursday.

Wilson is seeking a stay during his appeal of a trial court ruling from last week that the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages is unconstitutional.

The application, which Roberts can decide on his own or refer to the full court for resolution, was filed just hours after the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a similar request.

The trial court judge put his Nov. 12 ruling on hold until noon Thursday, Nov. 20, and the state had asked the 4th Circuit and now the Supreme Court to keep that ruling on hold during its appeal.

Since the justices turned down five states' requests on Oct. 6 to take a marriage case appeal — including a decision from the 4th Circuit striking down Virginia's marriage ban — the justices have, on three occasions, turned down requests to issue stays of lower court rulings during appeals. This includes one, in Kansas, since the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld four other states' bans.

Now, however, with requests in from the plaintiffs in those four states' cases asking the Supreme Court to take one or more of the appeals and resolve the question, Wilson is hoping that he can get a stay issued from the court to stop the trial court ruling from going into effect Thursday.

Specifically, South Carolina is asking the chief justice to grant a stay pending appeal because, the filing asserts, the 4th Circuit Court was wrong in its decision in the case challenging Virginia's marriage ban, Bostic v. Schaefer, which the Supreme Court let stand on Oct. 6.

Read the stay application:

View Entire List ›

“We hear there will be a prime time Thursday evening announcement.”

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — An official for the AFL-CIO inadvertently forwarded an email seemingly meant for immigration activists to dozens of reporters on Wednesday morning.

The original email had the subject line "UNCONFIRMED" and was from Dawn Le at the Alliance for Citizenship asking activists to "begin to work and plan watch parties" for a potential announcement from President Obama on executive actions. The email was then forwarded by Jeff Hauser at the AFL-CIO to reporters from the New York Times, USA Today, Politico, the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed News, and several other news organizations.

"We hear there will be a prime time Thursday evening announcement (to preview) and full unveiling in Vegas on Friday," Le wrote to a Google listserv.

"Can folks begin to work and plan watch parties for Thursday and/or Friday? Unclear whether Thursday night content will be what is 'celebratory,' but Friday will be where we need a lot of energy guaranteed. Need to get a FULL list of locations, key spokespeople you want to lift up (please specify English/Spanish capacity) ASAP. And again, let's get your booking memos finalized and out. Please send my way."

Hauser sent a second email asking reporters to "please ignore last email."

President Obama will unveil his plans in a Thursday primetime address.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

LINK: Obama Executive Action To Protect 5 Million From Being Deported

The California attorney general is a rising national Democratic star. For now, though, Kamala Harris would rather talk about the evolution of Fourth Amendment law than D.C. political news.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Kimberly White / Getty Images for Vanity Fair

WASHINGTON — California Attorney General Kamala Harris wants people to stop saying "revenge porn."

The term — often used when an ex spreads nude photos or video after a breakup — totally gets it wrong, Harris says. She argues the word "revenge" suggests that someone is justified in sharing a consensual photo, and the word "porn" suggests the victim did something morally wrong.

"We have unfortunately a history around criminal justice policy on crimes against women and children of — especially when it involves sex — blaming the victim, frankly," she told BuzzFeed News on Monday in a wide-ranging interview in the second-floor lounge at the Mayflower Hotel.

This is something done with "the intent and certainly the effect of, at the very least, embarrassing her — but subordinating her in so many ways and really violating not only her privacy but her dignity."

Harris is not having it.

"So we are changing the name, and calling it cyber exploitation," she said. "Which in fact is what's at play."

Harris is one of the Democratic Party's rising stars — a charismatic attorney general in the country's biggest state. She's the state's first black attorney general; she's the state's first Asian-American attorney general; she's the first woman to hold the position. She was considered a strong prospect to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder, and she's certainly considered a strong prospect in California's state politics, where both senators and the governor are reaching the end of their careers.

She is a career prosecutor, a "very conscious decision" she made out of law school, who sometimes clashes with other elements of the party of progressives — even as her stature within the party rises.

Despite all of that, Harris doesn't talk like most strong prospects for national office.

She's not especially attuned to the D.C. news cycle, for one. She favors substantive, legal-process-heavy answers on topics ranging from the situation in Ferguson to a recent Supreme Court case in which her office argued unsuccessfully against requiring police to obtain a search warrant to examine the contents of an arrested person's cell phone. She goes into great detail when discussing her self-described "smart on crime" approach to the job — an attempt to find balance between her roles as prosecutor and partisan.

She also can be disarmingly candid — at one point, while talking about cyber sex crimes she noted that, "since the beginning of time, people would all agree, the camera was created to take a photograph of the naked human body."

She spoke Wednesday at the Center for American Progress' Making Progress Policy Conference, featuring a number of top progressives — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro.

The gathering is taking place as another Democrat, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, faces national scrutiny over his handling of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown and the impending grand jury decision whether to indict the man who shot him, police officer Darren Wilson.

Harris is among those watching the situation play out — saying that she is "troubled" by what's been happening there — but quickly broadened the discussion beyond Ferguson.

"If there's a distrust of law enforcement — and, by extension, government — all of the systems break down, at least for certain populations," she said. "When I charge a case … it's in the name of the people and the premise there is that a crime against any of us is a crime against all of us. If there are specific communities that are not receiving the full benefit of the protections we created, it's a problem for all of us."

Asked about the history of distrust between the black community and law enforcement, Harris said, "It's all of our responsibilities to acknowledge it and deal with it where it occurs. And it's not just because it's the morally right thing to do, I believe it's in the best interest of public safety for everyone."

She pointed to training and hiring as the most important counters to tensions between the black community and police — and between the police and other groups in especially diverse, immigrant-heavy California. "It's a matter of those of us in a position of authority and responsibility in law enforcement to understand the culture and the mores of those various communities, so when we walk in there we understand exactly what the perspective of the people we're interacting with might be."

Enter Harris the prosecutor: "It is also a reciprocal relationship, and that's going to be again about leaders, whoever they are, taking on the responsibility for also saying, 'When you get stopped and asked a question, just, just don't run. Stay there and answer the question, if you can. If you, if your lawyer, whatever,'" she paused, reiterating her initial point. "They're reciprocal relationships."

Ferguson also provoked bipartisan criticism of federal programs that provide local police with military equipment for free — a point of discussion that has faded somewhat as the months have passed since the initial protests.

Harris' position as a prosecutor puts her at odds, somewhat, with the national progressive conversation about police issues. She said the militarization of police forces is a "legitimate conversation to be had." But she also said she doesn't think "in general" that police have become too militarized.

"I would say we'd have to look at specifics," she explained. "I don't think in general that's the case, but I think there are certainly examples that concern us about that. Wherever it occurs is a problem for all of us. It's not just about, 'Oh, that's happening over there.' If there is a sense that, by the people, that law enforcement is militarized and is exercising excessive force, that's going to be an issue for everybody and that needs to be addressed."

MARK RALSTON/AFP / Getty Images

That tension between the prosecutor and the progressive was on display in last year's case over whether police would need to obtain a search warrant before examining the contents of an arrested person's cell phone.

Asked about it, Harris was first philosophical about the role of technology and the internet in today's society.

"We are at a moment in time, which is really I think an inflection point," she said. "When I think about technology I think of it in the context of, there was the creation of fire, the wheel, electricity, and this. This is a bleeping gamechanger. … It's incredible in terms of its expanse and its potential and the ubiquitous nature of it, right? And so everyone is adapting. We are at this point figuring out, in particular Fourth Amendment privacy."

In figuring that out, Harris' office took the position that police should not need a warrant to search an arrested person's cell phone. "And the court said, 'We disagree,' and I respect the court's decision," Harris said. "So my perspective as of today is respectful of the court's decision."

From smartphone access to sexual assault, Harris' more macro approach to changes in the law — the evolution of the law — was on display, especially in the case of California's affirmative consent law, which requires universities receiving state funds to include the policy.

"I think that the idea behind that is a good one, which is not just about, 'Did she actually say yes?'" Harris said. "Now, there are going to be abuses, and this is part of the argument against that, that can be abused. Good public policy is not crafted around the abuses," she said, adding that the system can "handle and address" such abuses.

Harris also noted that consideration must be given to someone who wants to report an assault, even if the person doesn't want to prosecute it. "So it's a complex issue, right, in terms of how the public policy should be constructed and what's the role of campus police, what's the role of the academic staff, the public health staff of the university."

"I think we're getting smarter, but there's a lot of work to be done."

View Entire List ›

The incoming judiciary chairman says “something has to be done before June 15.”

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Yuri Gripas / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee said he was keeping "an open mind" about a bill to rein in the National Security Agency after the Senate failed to pass a bill this term.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was a "no" vote on moving forward with Sen. Patrick Leahy's USA Freedom bill, which would have placed certain limits on the NSA's ability to spy and collect data on citizens. However, he wouldn't rule out taking another look at Leahy's bill when he takes over the Judiciary committee in the next Congress.

"I don't want to say that," Grassley told BuzzFeed News when asked if he would scrap USA Freedom entirely. "I just think I have to very much keep an open mind."

Grassley also pointed out that his committee will need to move some sort of bill forward in the next Congress because a key provision of the Patriot Act expires in June and will need reauthorization. The provision allows the government to search certain records without knowledge or consent in the name of counterterrorism.

In light of the revelations made by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, many members of Congress have called for stricter oversight of the agency's domestic spying practices.

"I'll have two less Democrats, two more Republicans and I think it's a case of looking at the whole field and finding out what needs to be done and where you can find some consensus," Grassley said. "We have joint jurisdiction with the Intel committee, you know, so there will be some cooperation there. And you know there's a new membership in the House and a lot of people in the House have strong feelings both ways on this."

"Something will get done because you have to track terrorists and something has to be done before June 15," he added.

“This injunction shall take effect immediately.

A federal judge struck down Montana's ban on same-sex couples' marriages on Wednesday afternoon, days after canceling a hearing previously scheduled in the case.

The order stopping state officials from enforcing the ban takes effect immediately, meaning same-sex couples can apply immediately for marriage licenses there.

Montana is the last state within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in which same-sex couples can marry, fallout from an October decision by the appeals court holding Nevada and Idaho's marriage bans unconstitutional. Since then, Arizona and Alaska bans have also been struck down.

Read the order:

View Entire List ›

Sen. John McCain says there isn’t standing yet to sue the president over his immigration executive actions.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A day before President Barack Obama is set to announce the details of his immigration executive order, some Republicans are rallying behind the idea of suing the president over them.

But at least one member has suggested there are some challenges to actually filing suit against the administration.

"We don't have standing," Sen. John McCain said. "We have to find somebody with standing to claim suit. But yeah, I'd love to challenge it in the court."

Standing, or ability to claim that an issue has directly caused harm, isn't the only concern Senate Republicans have raised about the whether the president's executive actions can be stopped.

One major concern is that in order to sue the president, the Senate would need to pass a resolution allowing it. That resolution would require 60 votes, and Democrats are all but certain to block that measure.

Another popular suggestion has been to use Congress's power of the purse to defund any action he takes. But without yet knowing the full details of his plan, some have said it may not even be possible to do that.

"If they're going to act and offer green cards, or some sort little certificate for permanent residency, or something like that, I think you can defund that," Republican Sen. Ron Johnson told BuzzFeed News last week. "But I'm not quite sure how you defund lack of action."

Sen. Rand Paul said Congress would have the power to defund an executive action when the Senate takes control next year, but he also supported forging ahead with a lawsuit.

"[Obama] was saying he's not a king, not an emperor," Paul said. "He can't write a law so maybe the media should be asking him why he changed his mind. We should take him to court."

Meanwhile, it's also been reported the House is considering a lawsuit of its own, either as an extension of a planned lawsuit on Obama's executive actions in general or as one on its own. Speaker John Boehner has not yet made any official comment on those lawsuits.

A source close to Boehner, however, said the issue of standing is "not something the speaker has discussed, at this point."

“Unless the White House genuinely engages with Congress, we see no way that any agreement consisting of your administration’s current proposals to Iran will endure in the 114th Congress and after your presidential term ends.”

Sen. Mark Kirk

Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Forty-three Republican senators sent a letter to the White House Wednesday night warning President Obama not to bypass Congress as the administration nears the deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Mark Kirk wrote the letter, which is signed by every Republican senator who co-sponsored Kirk's and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez's Iran sanctions legislation. That bill, co-authored by Menendez and Kirk, was prevented from coming to a vote by Democratic leadership earlier this year. No Democratic senators signed this letter, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News on Wednesday evening. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who will become the Majority Leader of the new Congress, is among those who signed the letter.

The letter heralds the stiff opposition that Obama will face from the new Republican-majority Senate if his administration signs a deal with Iran next week that they consider bad. Major world powers are in Vienna this week negotiating with Iran to try to reach a deal that would stop the country from developing nuclear weapons. The administration has been looking for ways that it could bypass Congress if a deal is struck.

"We have watched with concern as your administration has hinted at 'creative solutions' that abandon the clear requirements of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and shifted course away from essential requirements Congress has stressed in order to meet Iran's unreasonable demands," Rubio and Kirk write in the letter. "Your negotiators appear to have disregarded clear expressions from the Senate emphasizing the need for a multi-decade agreement requiring Iran to fully suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, to dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure, and completely disclose its past work on nuclear weaponization."

The letter mentions the Kirk-Menendez bill, which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, seemingly as a message to the White House that the administration will face opposition from its own party, as well.

"The Senate enjoys a broad consensus for continuing to increase the pressure on Iran, as evidenced by the bipartisan support for the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 (S.1881)," the letter states.

The letter also includes a firm warning to Obama that the deal will not survive if the administration tries to circumvent Congress, echoing Sen. Lindsey Graham's recent promise that "If it is a bad deal, I will kill it."

"We urge your administration to cease efforts to circumvent Congress and work with us on a smarter approach that will decisively end Iran's nuclear threat," Rubio and Kirk write. "Unless the White House genuinely engages with Congress, we see no way that any agreement consisting of your administration's current proposals to Iran will endure in the 114th Congress and after your presidential term ends."

The American Task Force on Palestine cancels its annual gala and prepares to downsize as it faces an uncertain future.

ATFP's president Ziad Asali and senior fellow Hussein Ibish giving interviews in April.

American Task Force On Palestine / Via Facebook: American.Task.Force.On.Palestine

WASHINGTON — The American Task Force on Palestine launched in 2003 with the goal of bringing the cause of Palestinian statehood into the mainstream of the U.S. political establishment. Since then it has hung on, with a tiny budget and staff, and its yearly gala often counts high-ranking U.S. government officials and other Washington eminences among its attendees.

Policymakers have seen ATFP as representing the best in Palestinian politics, partly due to their association with former Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad, who was praised in the West for his approach of institution-building. Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the group's gala in 2010, while still serving as secretary of state.

But things changed for ATFP this year. This summer's war between Israel and Hamas and the breakdown of U.S.-mediated peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians aiming to broker a two-state solution, which is core to ATFP's mission, have proven to be a toxic combination to the nonprofit. The group has decided to cancel its annual gala this year, which usually brings in half of its annual fundraising. And its founder says it will have to cut staff and office space. ATFP's situation is a casualty of a larger shift: The hope for a two-state solution, which is official U.S. policy and regarded by the establishment as the only legitimate way to end the conflict, is running out of steam, causing a major existential crisis for some of those most dedicated to it.

In an interview on Tuesday with BuzzFeed News at ATFP's office in downtown Washington, Founder and President Ziad Asali outlined the problems the organization is facing. He said the group had officially canceled its gala, which had been slated for this Tuesday, back in August — two days before the ceasefire in the Gaza war.

According to Asali, a Jerusalem-born medical doctor who practiced in Illinois for decades before moving to Washington to work on the Palestinian issue, the combination of failed negotiations and war this year proved extremely demoralizing.

"The way [negotiations] ended so completely as a failure without any pretense of a fig leaf was quite a setback," he said. "Not just to the negotiations but to the concept of a two-state solution, to the political expectations of any role in this the U.S. plays and its ability to impact it, so that was bad enough. And all that impacted us of course, because we are nothing but an organization that has a defined mission of a two-state solution."

"In one year we had negotiations and war, both of them with devastating results," he said.

The canceling of the gala has big repercussions for ATFP, since it usually represents a major chunk of the fundraising — the group's annual budget hovers around just $1 million. But Asali and his team came to believe that the political situation was simply too difficult for them to hold the event this year. They canceled it in 2012, but that was because of its proximity to the presidential election, which they feared would affect turnout.

"Not having a gala is detrimental to our health as an organization, it's not a decision we take lightly," he said. "Our issue is now number 17 of the priorities of the Middle East, let alone the world. We are not interested in a failed gala."

Thinking about the gala gave ATFP an entrée to think about its larger mission as an organization, and how it should shift.

"We, as part of the serious people in this establishment that deals with the Middle East in this country, have to figure out where do we fit, what is our thinking," Asali said. "And that is the subject of lively conversation within the organization that was partly related to this gala thing, frankly, and discussion started months earlier with the real lack of success of negotiations."

"We are more occupied with Syria and Iraq than we ever were," he said. "What happened in Egypt is of tremendous importance to us. The possibilities that have opened up in the whole region now are very interesting, how you can have a dialogue beyond Palestine-Israel in a serious way."

Internal Palestinian politics have also proved inauspicious. Asali said the group "saw the writing on the wall" when Salam Fayyad, the former Palestinian prime minister, resigned last year. Fayyad, a respected figure in the West who championed institution-building in the West Bank, never quite found a real constituency at home. Asali's group was "integrally engaged" in Fayyad's state- and institution-building program, he said, and so Fayyad's being forced out of power was a big setback.

Add to this the fact that ATFP is operating on, in Asali's words, a "shoestring budget." Like Fayyad, it has struggled to find a real constituency, and members of the Arab-American community who may have once been allies consistently attack the group from the left. Part of this, Asali thinks, is because ATFP deals with Israelis and with Jewish groups; for example, ATFP came under fire from the anti-Israel blog Mondoweiss after listing a pro-Israel donor as one of its donors on its 990 form. Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at ATFP, has especially feuded with elements from the left of the debate who do not believe in a two-state solution.

"That is part of the problem with raising money," Asali said. "The mere fact that we talk to the Israelis publicly, here and in Israel, and to the Jewish organized and non-organized community has presented a major obstacle in our communication with our community."

"We are for dealing with the establishment that deals with Palestine and Israel," he said. "Which means by necessity that at least half of it would be Jewish or Israeli."

It's unclear what the path forward is for ATFP, and whether there is one. Asali said they are "trimming both the office and staffing," but the extent of that "will depend on how things evolve in the next few weeks." Asali and his wife and Co-Founder Naila Asali both already work with the organization on a volunteer basis to save money. As the idea of a two-state solution to the conflict appears more and more tenuous, ATFP is facing a tough reality.

"We have the will, but we're no Don Quixote," Asali said. "We have the will but it has to be goal-oriented and focused will; that is why the conversation is very serious."

ATFP, he said, "is perhaps the only real organization on this side of the aisle that is totally committed to a two-state solution, and there is a certain symbolism involved in its lack of ability to raise funds to exist."

“Taxes and background checks aren’t amnesty. That’s accountability. Doing nothing—that’s amnesty.”

The White House takes on the idea of amnesty and more in talking points sent to Democratic Congressional offices, according to a Hill source who shared them with BuzzFeed News.

The talking points touch on legal authority and efforts to defund President Obama's imminent executive actions on immigration.

Read them here:

Talking Points: Immigration Accountability
November 19, 2014

Today, the President announced that he will address the nation tomorrow night from the White House, and on Friday he will travel to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas. In both speeches, the President will detail action he is taking to help fix our broken immigration system by increasing accountability and ensuring everyone plays by the same set of rules.

The actions the President will take this week are about securing the border, holding undocumented immigrants accountable and ensuring everyone plays by the same rules.

Acting with legal authority, the President's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions are an important step to fix our broken immigration system.

The executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes.

These are common sense steps, but only Congress can finish the job. As the President acts, he'll continue to work with Congress on a comprehensive, bipartisan bill—like the one passed by the Senate more than a year ago—that can replace these actions and fix the whole system.

Over more than half a century, every president—Democratic or Republican—has used his legal authority to act on immigration. President Obama is now taking another common sense step.

On amnesty…

Taxes and background checks aren't amnesty. That's accountability. Doing nothing—that's amnesty.

We need to focus on deporting felons, not families; criminals, not children.

On legal authority…

Every President for more than half a century, both Democrats and Republicans, has taken executive action on immigration.

The President's actions are temporary. House Republicans need to do their job and pass the bipartisan Senate bill to provide a permanent fix.

On funding or shutdown threats…

Republicans are blocking funding to conduct millions of background checks.

Another Republican Shutdown, but this time over collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants.

###

The former Virginia senator is the first candidate of either party to launch an exploratory committee and accept direct contributions for a 2016 bid.

Jim Webb 2016 / Via youtube.com

Jim Webb, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Virginia, said he launched a committee to explore running for president in 2016, according to a 14-minute video he sent to supporters by email just before midnight on Wednesday.

Webb gave no notice he would announce the committee this week. He has only said in recent months that he is considering a presidential run.

The video was sent in an email to subscribers of Webb's website. The message linked to another website, headlined, the Webb 2016 Exploratory Committee.

"I'd like to take a few minutes of your time to ask you to consider the most important question facing America today," Webb said at the start of the announcement.

"Is it possible that our next president could actually lay out a vision for the country, and create an environment where leaders from both parties and from all philosophies would feel compelled to work together for the good of the country, despite all of the money and political pressure that now demands they disagree?"

Webb made the announcement in front of a gradient blue backdrop on what appears to be a simple, rudimentary set. There are no special effects or features, and there is no additional video footage — just a direct-to-camera shot of Webb.

The 68-year-old served for one term in the U.S. Senate after his 2006 race. Webb did not seek reelection at the end of his six-year term. He is a decorated combat Marine veteran and a former journalist. During the George W. Bush administration, Webb gained notice as a veteran who opposed the war in Iraq.

As of late Wednesday night, a search of the Federal Election Commission database did not show filings for the committee Webb said he has launched.

Among the Democrats said to be considering a White House bid — including Hillary Clinton, Vice President Biden, Gov. Martin O'Malley, and Sen. Bernie Sanders — Webb is the first to open a federal campaign account to accept donations for a run.

No candidate on the Republican side has launched a committee.

An exploratory committee is considered a first, optional step to pursuing a presidential bid. The entity allows a possible candidate to raise money, hire staff, and build the beginnings of what could be a national campaign operation.

Before he ran, President Obama launched an exploratory committee in Jan. 2007. It was only about a month later that he officially announced his candidacy.

Should she decide to run, as supporters anticipate, Clinton is not expected to start a campaign — in any form — until after the beginning of next year.

Early polling shows that Webb, like O'Malley and Sanders, registers in the low single digits in a hypothetical primary against Clinton.

In his lengthy announcement video, Webb highlighted issues like economic fairness, redefining national security priorities, veterans benefits, and criminal justice. He also argued that Washington could "unparalyze the environment and reestablish a transparent" political system.

"In that spirit I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016," Webb said in the video.

"I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries and listening to many knowledgeable people. I look forward to listening and talking with more people in the coming months as I decide whether or not to run."

The 14-minute monologue suggests Webb's message to Democratic voters could have a working-class, progressive bent. In the video, he described the Democratic Party as a group that used to be defined by a "vital, overriding belief that we're all in this together and the system is not rigged."

The phrase — that the system, or game, is "rigged" — echoes a common tagline by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the popular progressive who has said repeatedly that she is not planning on running for president, despite appeals from the left.

Webb made a direct ask to supporters in the video for donations to his exploratory committee. "With enough financial support to conduct a first-class campaign, I have no doubt that we can put these issues squarely before the American people and gain their support," he said. "The 2016 election is two years away, but serious campaigning will begin very soon. The first primaries are about a year away."

Fundraising, particularly with Clinton in the race, would be an enormous hurdle for a lesser-known contender like Webb.

"Your early support will be crucial as I evaluate whether we might overcome what many commentators see as nearly impossible odds," he said.

The announcement video concludes with a final line that could easily double as a campaign slogan: "Let's fix our country together."

An email requesting comment sent to the address listed on Webb's exploratory committee website was not immediately returned.

The lawmaker also said that this September’s measure to train and arm Syrian rebels was mostly for show.

Neil Hall / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A Republican member of Congress on Thursday dismissed the notion that Congress will pass a bill to formally authorize military action against ISIS before the year ends.

Since President Obama announced air strikes in Iraq and Syria this summer against ISIS militants, the administration has largely argued that the president's actions are legal and covered by earlier, post-9/11 laws. Whether Congress would actually authorize military action has been unclear, though there appears to be support for doing so.

The lawmaker, speaking with reporters at a background Business Roundtable briefing on Thursday morning, also said the measure Congress passed September to arm and train Syrian rebels was largely for optics and only "10% substance."

"Most of this was done for public consumption prior to the election," the lawmaker said.

"It worked, unfortunately," the Republican added.

In recent weeks, at least one key Republican has said he's been kept in dark the military authorization issue. BuzzFeed News reported last week that ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker hadn't spoken with Chairman Robert Menendez about a possible AUMF. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy has said the committee is currently working on language for an AUMF.

Though publicly the White House said it welcomes an authorization from Congress, on Thursday morning a Republican lawmaker argued it is clear they don't actually care if they get one.

AUMF requests usually come down with some sort of specific action plan for what should be included in them, the lawmaker said, and in discussions with both Secretary of State John Kerry and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, no such request has been made.

The GOP lawmaker also attended a briefing with both Democrats and Republicans at the White House Wednesday night, where the plan to train Syrian rebels was discussed. The meeting, the Republican said, left many in the room thinking the administration's plan isn't even "quarter baked."

"A quarter would be an exaggeration of where they are," the lawmaker said.

Obama is expected to move to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation on Thursday. Scammers who profit from undocumented immigrants’ desire for legal status will be waiting.

Immigrants at a 2012 information session for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Ray Chavez/Oakland Tribune / MCT

After President Obama spared young undocumented immigrants from deportation in 2012, Elvira, a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant in Charleston, South Carolina, thought she might be eligible. So she turned to a so-called "notaria," a woman who helped immigrants in Charleston file paperwork with the government.

Elvira had arrived in the U.S. a year too late to qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program that would have shielded her from deportation and allowed her to get a work permit. But the notaria didn't tell her this. She also didn't tell Elvira that she wasn't a lawyer, as required by South Carolina law.

"She told me, 'I'm going to get you papers,'" said Elvira, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she remains undocumented and fears retaliation. Elvira paid the notaria $200 for her services, plus the $465 application fee — money she will never see again.

Immigrant advocates around the country are bracing for a surge in these types of scams, commonly called notario fraud. Obama is expected to announce executive actions preventing the deportation of millions of undocumented people on Thursday.

"Historically, every time there's been a big immigration announcement, immediately in a lot of ethnic communities we see shops spring up with signs offering these services," said Shiu-Ming Cheer, an immigration attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.

These scams have long been a scourge in immigrant enclaves, where notarios frequently target people within their own communities. Under U.S. law, only immigration attorneys and a small number of accredited organizations are legally allowed to assist immigrants seeking status. But scammers exploit the fact that, in many Latin American countries, the title "notario," unlike an American notary public, refers to an office with comparatively broad legal authority.

Notarios charge immigrants hefty fees for applications that are filled out incorrectly or with deliberately false information. Another frequent scam involves charging immigrants to submit applications for programs they aren't eligible for. In the worst cases, an incorrect or fraudulent claim filed by a notario can lead to a deportation order against an unwitting immigrant because immigration authorities have the discretion to place unqualified applicants in deportation proceedings.

Lawyers and advocates around the country are preparing to expand their public education campaigns warning undocumented immigrants not to seek assistance from anyone other than a lawyer or an accredited nonprofit.

"A ton of the initial work that we're going to be doing is getting the word out there, so people get the right information," said Daniel Coates, lead organizer for Make the Road New York. Coates' group is also preparing aggressive screening measures for immigrants in New York seeking to apply for administration programs.

"What you're dangling on the other end of it is a work permit, so people will pay, and they're willing to hold out hope," Coates said. "We want to be able to tell people that they don't qualify as quickly as possible, and we want to be definitive."

All of Elvira's plans were dashed by the notario scam. Elvira's father was deported while he was sick with cancer when she was 18 years old. She recalled hiding in her room when federal agents raided her house. He died within a few years of returning to Mexico.

"Imagine all the hope you feel," Elvira said in Spanish. "I thought that I would have a better life here."

With legal status and a work permit, Elvira said, she hoped she would be able to provide for her younger sister, a U.S. citizen who is now in college, and for her widowed mother. "She's alone now," Elvira said. "She can't really work."

Advocates say there is another aspect endemic to notario fraud: Scammers often develop strong connections within an ethnic enclave, which makes victims reluctant to come forward or file formal complaints. And because even unscrupulous notarios get some applications right, they can develop decent reputations by word of mouth. "People will call our assistants" to report scams, said Tammy Besherse, an immigration lawyer with South Carolina Appleseed. "But they're not willing to actually turn the notario in."

Immigrants, meanwhile, are left hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars poorer, with only their dashed expectations to show for it.

The notarios are "swarming like wasps," said Laura Cahue, a community organizer at South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center. "The program hasn't even been announced yet, and already they are thinking about how they're going to suck the blood out of people."

To contact the reporter, email david.noriega@buzzfeed.com

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero, envíe un correo a david.noriega@buzzfeed.com

President Obama is delivering a televised speech on immigration Thursday at 8 p.m. ET .

Watch the speech:

youtube.com

LINK: Read The Immigration Talking Points The White House Sent To Dems