He served as deputy defense secretary under Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel.

Ashton Carter in 2012

Yuriko K Nakao / Reuters

Ashton Carter, who served as deputy defense secretary under Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel, will be nominated for the top post at the Pentagon, according to reports.

Carter previously served as under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, and during the Clinton administration, was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy.

Hagel announced his resignation last week, but agreed to stay on as defense secretary until his successor is confirmed.

The path to nominate Hagel's replacement did not always lead to Carter. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was said to be considered for the job, as well as former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy. Flournoy removed her name from consideration due to family concerns.

Unlike his immediate predecessors, Carter has not served as an elected official nor did he serve in the military.

“Use what the Constitution says — but no, we won’t do that.”

Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina says just over a dozen of the Republican members of Congress think it is possible to impeach President Obama over his executive order to slow deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Jones, who has unabashedly and repeatedly called for the president's impeachment a number of times throughout the year for various uses of executive authority was speaking with NewsMaxTV's America's Forum Tuesday when he made the comments.

"I have been saying down in my district — whenever you reward someone that's committed a crime, then you as that individual if there's an impeachment, which was authorized by those who developed the Constitution — then that's what you should consider," Jones said, lamenting that no one else in the Republican House conference wants to discuss impeachment.

"You know, but nobody wants to talk even about impeachment, JD, and I don't want that as an option except this reason: Why in the world are we gonna spend millions and millions of the taxpayers dollars going to the federal courts to challenge president Obama on this decision, and have it thrown out of court. Here we go again as a nation — can't pay our bills — we gonna go to court and play a little political theater? Make everybody feel good, and then the federal courts kick it out? Use what the Constitution says — but no, we won't do that. "

The North Carolina Republican added that "probably no more than 20, and probably more like 12 or 14" thought impeachment of President Obama was a possibility.

View Video ›

“We need the backing of our black president to say that this is a racial issue and that he stands behind us. We don’t need him to come and put boots to the ground; he should have done it 100 days ago.”

Obama speaks at a meeting on law enforcement Monday.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A presidential visit to the site of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri would be "too little, too late" today, an activist who met with President Obama at the White House said Tuesday.

Ashley Yates, a leader in the Missouri-based Millenial Activists United protest group, was among the protest leaders who met with Obama at in the Oval Office Monday as part of a full day of White House meetings focused on police relations in the wake of events in the Missouri town.

On a conference call with reporters the day after the Obama meeting, Yates and other activists who were in attendance were asked if they pressured Obama to visit Ferguson, a trip the president has not taken since the unrest began in August.

Yates said the time for Obama to walk the streets of Ferguson has come and gone.

"Absolutely not, that's too little, too late," Yates said.

"What we need him to do now is him use the power of his position, the power of the highest office of the land to enact some real change," she said. "We have been on the ground making the changes that we can in our community, but these are high-level changes and these are systemic issues and we need systemic solutions for them. We need the backing of our black president to say that this is a racial issue and that he stands behind us."

"We don't need him to come and put boots to the ground," she said. "He should have done it 100 days ago."

Yates and other activists on the call approved of Obama's proposed executive actions calling for more transparency in how the military hardware sent to local police by the federal government is used, but called on the president to do more to curb so-called "militarization" programs entirely, a step the White House has so far declined to take, citing the intent of Congress.

Rep. Ted Yoho said the Senate has tried to coordinate a bill with him.

The Washington Post / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee are considering pursuing legislative language aimed at blocking President Barack Obama's immigration executive order, Rep. Ted Yoho told BuzzFeed News Tuesday.

While Yoho, who is the author of the House version of the bill, declined to say who on the committee is eyeing the move, he acknowledged his office has had discussions with Republican appropriations aides in the upper chamber about introducing his bill in the Senate.

According to the Florida conservative, Republican appropriators in the Senate are "looking at the funding on that and what they can do through different vehicles over there. So there may be a companion bill" to his measure, which would block Obama's executive orders.

Because Democrats still control the Senate, any companion measure or amendment to the upcoming spending bill has virtually no chance of passing. But even a failed attempt to counter Obama's immigration moves could act as a significant symbol to conservative activists that Republicans plan to take up the issue once they control the chamber in January.

That, in turn, could reduce pressure on GOP leaders in the House to tie the executive orders to overall government funding and avoid a repeat of the 2013 shutdown.

"Nobody's for shutting the government down," Yoho said. "We want to stop the process so we can come back and fix it legislatively the way it needs to be."

Meanwhile, conservatives have begun cross-chamber discussions on how best to tackle the issue next year. Kansas GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp Tuesday said he has been meeting with conservative senators like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to work on messaging when Republicans take over the Senate next year.

"We regularly have meetings," Huelskamp said. "We've had that discussion. It's like, 'Oh yea. Finally the Senate is back in the game.'"

Kate Nocera contributed reporting.

Representatives from the four major professional sports leagues met with the senators today to discuss policies addressing players and violence against women.

While speaking today in front of a U.S. Senate committee, Troy Vincent, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, broke down while talking about his own childhood experiences witnessing domestic violence in his home.

nbcnews.com

Domestic violence was a way of life in my home growing up. As young boys, my brother and I watched helplessly numerous times as our mother was beaten, and we called 911 while she lay unconscious.

We saw how she struggled to seek help, and find the voice and courage to say "no more." The sense of fear, powerlessness, and all the complexities that accompany this violence remain very real for me today.

I have worked for over 20 years as an advocate against domestic violence to try to help keep others from experiencing this pain. So I very much relate to the more than 12 million victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in every community in this nation, amongst every economic class and racial and ethnic group.

This is not an issue limited to the NFL, or to professional sports.

Doug Benc / AP Photo

In outlining the NFL's intent to change their handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases, Vincent outlined the following:

The NFL intends to create a "Conduct Committee of Owners" who will be responsible for regularly reviewing and recommending changes to the league's Personal Conduct Policy.

The league is creating a "comprehensive and mandatory education program for the more than 5,000 men and women in the NFL family."

In two weeks, anyone on the NFL's payroll will be required to undergo an education program on domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault, but family members of league employees are welcome to attend as well.

The NFL already has a Critical Response Team that Vincent said offers support for "anyone in the NFL family." The team, though, will be retrained to handle issues of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The NFL is also "supporting" organizations that focus on issues of domestic violence and sexual assault, although Vincent did not explicitly say if that support is financial.

The league is also promoting programs that "develop the character of young people" in an attempt to help educate coaches and players at the college, high school, and youth level.

View Entire List ›

Two states are now on board seeking review from the justices, as same-sex couples wait to see what the court does with the cases.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Louisiana have joined with Michigan officials in asking the Supreme Court to resolve the question of whether states can ban same-sex couples from marrying.

In the state's response filed at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell argues that the justices should take the case because the state's "case squarely implicates a spiraling national controversy that has already nullified the marriage laws of over twenty States and spawned a four-to-one circuit split."

The filing came quickly, as the same-sex couple plaintiffs in the case challenging Louisiana's ban had only asked the Supreme Court to take up their case on Nov. 20.

Moreover, the response from Louisiana came before the responses to other petitions filed earlier by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Michigan response — also supporting Supreme Court review — was filed this past week.

The petitions from states other than Louisiana followed the ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 6 upholding all four states' bans. The Louisiana petition was different, asking the Supreme Court to take up review of the case before the appeals court — the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — issues a decision in the case, which is pending in the appeals court currently and is slated for arguments on Jan. 9.

"Louisiana agrees with petitioners that 'the decision below is uniquely appropriate for certiorari before judgment and consideration along with the Sixth Circuit ruling,'" the state's lawyers told the justices.

Lawyers for the couples in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee tell BuzzFeed News that they have not heard any updates from their respective states about the timing of those states' responses. It also is not known whether they, when they do file, will agree with Michigan and Louisiana in support of Supreme Court review. The responses, under the Supreme Court's rules, are due within 30 days of when the cases were entered on the court's docket — meaning Dec. 15 in the Ohio and Tennessee cases and Dec. 18 in the Kentucky case.

The timing of the filings matter, as lawyers for the same-sex couples have been pushing to see the justices take up the case in its current term, which would mean a decision by June 2015. In order to have a case heard this term, the court likely would need to accept one or more of the cases for review at its Jan. 9 conference. In order to be considered at the Jan. 9 conference, the petitions would need to be distributed on Dec. 23, which means they need to be completed before then. The court could consider whether to accept one or more of the cases before all of the petitions are ready, or it could wait until all of the petitions are distributed.

While the court denied review of cases from five states in October, it did so in cases in which the request before the court was to reverse a decision striking down the state's ban. It also came before there was any so-called "circuit split" on the issue — meaning, the appeals courts had reached different conclusions on the issue.

With the 6th Circuit decision, there is a circuit split, however, and advocates are hoping the court resolves the issue.

View Entire List ›

The schizophrenic man was scheduled to be executed Wednesday for killing his wife’s parents. [Update: A federal appeals court has issued a stay of execution, which the state is not going to appeal immediately, meaning the execution will not go forward at this time.]

AP Photo/Texas Department of Criminal Justice

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Scott Panetti have multiple requests pending before Justice Antonin Scalia, asking the justice to stop Texas from executing their client at 6 p.m. CT Wednesday.

Panetti was sentenced to death in 1995 for the double-murder of his then-wife's parents, faced more than a decade of hospitalizations related to his schizophrenia before the 1992 killings, and has been challenging his competency or execution sentence for much of the time since trial.

In addition to the stay requests at the Supreme Court, there also are requests for the court to grant his habeas corpus petition and declare that he cannot be constitutionally executed due to his serious mental illness.

Panetti's lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to "review this case to determine whether the imposition of the death penalty on offenders with severe mental illness offends contemporary standards of decency."

Put together, the requests ultimately ask the court to issue a stay of execution in Panetti's case, accept and hear his case, and rule that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute a person like Panetti. Scalia could rule on the stay requests himself, or — more likely — refer the requests to the full court.

Texas officials, in a Tuesday filing, opposed the requests and were incredulous of his ultimate request, stating that it "would undermine the sentences of a majority of the nation's death row inmates." They went on to claim that Panetti did not cite to "a single example" where a court extended the categorical protection from execution extended to those with intellectual disabilities to those with serious mental illness.

Additionally, the state continued to press earlier claims that "Panetti's mental health condition has long been exaggerated to his benefit."

Beyond the Supreme Court, Panetti's lawyers still have another request pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing a district court's denial of counsel appointment to press a competency claim and a related stay of execution. That request makes Supreme Court action unlikely until the 5th Circuit resolves those claims because it is expected Panetti's lawyers also would ask for Supreme Court review of that decision if denied a stay from that court.

Finally, there is Gov. Rick Perry, from whom Panetti's lawyers are asking for a stay of execution. The state Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously recommended against reprieve or commutation on Dec. 1, leaving Perry only with the option of a 30-day stay of execution.

In this effort, Panetti's lawyers are not alone. Among those asking Perry to spare Panetti's life are a group of conservatives — from Gary Bauer to Ken Cuccinelli — who wrote to Perry, "As conservatives, we must be on guard that such an extraordinary government sanction not be used against a person who is mentally incapable of rational thought. It would be immoral for the government to take this man's life."

Update — 11:47 a.m. Wednesday: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of execution. The stay is only issued "pending further order of the court," which is expected to set a schedule for consideration of Panetti's appeal.

It was not immediately clear whether that unannounced schedule would cause a delay of execution beyond Wednesday. It also was not immediately clear whether Texas would, or even could, try to seek further review at this time in order to proceed with the scheduled execution.

View Entire List ›

Corker says the operations would have been “very targeted, very brief.”

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Wednesday that there was a "10-hour operation" ready to be carried out in Syria last August before President Obama announced he was going to go to Congress before taking action.

"I think the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here, as far as signaling to the world where we were as a nation, was August a year ago when we had a 10-hour operation that was getting ready to take place in Syria but it didn't happen," Corker said onstage at the Foreign Policy Initiative's annual forum at the Newseum.

"And not only did it not happen but we didn't communicate with those folks that were going to be a part of it with us, until they watched the president on CNN," Corker said. "In essence, I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical, we jumped in Putin's lap, and we are where we are today in Syria," Corker said, referring to the deal that was struck last year with Russia to get rid of the Syrian regime's chemical weapons stock.

The Obama administration had released few details of its planned action against Syria in August 2013, following a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

Asked to clarify his comments outside the forum, Corker said "I used the 10 hours to describe, that's my vernacular for an operation that was going to be very targeted, very brief, and hopefully have an impact."

"I think it's safe to say that during that period of time there were no ground forces ever contemplated," Corker said.

"Y'all have all read, it's been widely chronicled, that there was an evening walk" in which Obama decided to take the decision on air strikes to Congress instead of carrying them out without Congressional approval, he said.

The U.S. came close to striking Syria after the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against its own people last August. More than a year later, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes in Syria — but against ISIS, not Assad.

“I’m gonna tell you something — what gets you shot is when you grab a police officer’s gun, and you lunge at him, and you try to hit him in the face.”

View Video ›

Former Arkansas governor and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says members of Congress and NFL players doing the "hands up, don't shoot gesture" are "foolish and dangerous."

"Well, first of all, I found it just incredibly dangerous that you had members of Congress, on the floor of Congress, holding up their hands in the 'hands up, don't shoot' position, as if to say that somehow that is gonna get you shot," Huckabee said on NewsMaxTV's America's Forum.

"I'm gonna tell you something — what gets you shot is when you grab a police officer's gun, and you lunge at him, and you try to hit him in the face," added Huckabee. "And this nonsense that — telling young people 'don't hold up your hands, 'cause thats gonna get you in trouble,' and instead I guess what they're teaching 'em is go loot a store, beat up a cop, reach for his gun, hope you get it before he does."

Huckabee said we are "on the verge of anarchy" and he was disgusted with the emulation of the gesture by politicians and NFL players.

"This is not only foolish and dangerous, but is really on the verge of anarchy. And I'm just disgusted that you have NFL players, politicians, and others who, no matter what the evidence reveals, no matter how many sworn testimonies show that Darren Wilson, who, you know — it's a tragedy that the young man got shot, but this is a young man who had just roughed up a store owner, just robbed a store, and now he's going after a cop's gun."

Huckabee said Brown could have avoided his death "if he behaved like something other than a thug."

"And it's a horrible thing that he was killed, but he could have avoided that, if he behaved like something other than a thug."

Witnesses have offered varying accounts of what happened when Brown was shot and killed by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, with some witnesses saying Brown had his hands raised in surrender.

“If the price is right for them I think we need to be worried that they’ll collaborate with terrorists,” the senator-elect says.

Republican Tom Cotton speaks after the results of the midterm elections in North Little Rock, Arkansas, November 4, 2014.

Jacob Slaton / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Republican Senator-elect Tom Cotton maintained twice this week that Islamic terrorists could be collaborating with Mexican drug cartels to gain entry into the United States, a claim that he was first reported to have made during the election.

In response to a BuzzFeed News question at a roundtable discussion outside the Foreign Policy Initiative's annual forum, Cotton said, "They could collaborate, and our southern border, because it's so porous and defenseless, could easily be used by terrorists to infiltrate our country and attack us."

"There's a federal indictment against Iranian-linked operatives who were trying to blow people up in Café Milano just a couple blocks away from here, so it's obvious that anyone could penetrate our southern border to attack us in the United States," Cotton said.

Drug cartels have "morphed into human-trafficking organizations," he said, and, "It's clear what they care about is making money and expanding their own power. And if the price is right for them I think we need to be worried that they'll collaborate with terrorists. Not just Sunni terrorists like the Islamic State, but Shia terrorists like Hezbollah, backed by Iran."

The statement was a slight alteration of what Cotton, who defeated Sen. Mark Pryor in this year's midterm election, said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when he claimed that Hezbollah had planned the aborted plot to kill the Saudi ambassador at Café Milano, a restaurant in Georgetown. In fact, an Iranian-American man from Texas who was recruited by Iran's Quds Force was convicted for plotting the attack.

Cotton was first recorded making the border claim at a town hall in Arkansas during the election, when he said that "groups like the Islamic State collaborate with drug cartels in Mexico who have clearly shown they're willing to expand outside the drug trade into human trafficking and potentially even terrorism."

In the fall, DHS officials denied claims that foreign nationals with connections to ISIS had been apprehended at the border, as well as claims there was evidence ISIS militants were planning to cross the border.

A spokesperson for Cotton did not immediately respond to a follow-up query about whether Cotton believes that the collaboration between cartels and terrorists is currently taking place.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Florida’s request to issue a stay pending its appeal. “The stay … expires at the end of the day on January 5, 2015.”

Aaron Huntsman (left) and William Lee Jones ride the Grand Marshals' float during the Fantasy Fest Parade in Key West, Florida, on Oct. 25.

Andy Newman / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Absent further court action, same-sex couples should be able to marry in Florida beginning Jan. 6, 2015.

In a two-page opinion issued on Wednesday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Florida's request to issue a stay in the federal case challenging the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages. A federal district court judge in that case ruled the ban unconstitutional in August, and the state has appealed the case to the 11th Circuit.

Wednesday's ruling was not on the merits of the case challenging the ban, but only on whether the trial court's injunction barring the state from enforcing the ban could be put on hold during the state's appeal. The trial court judge had stayed the injunction until Jan. 5 to allow the state to seek a stay from a higher court.

"Having reviewed and fully considered the Motion, the parties' briefs, and the orders issued by the District Court in the proceedings below, the Court hereby denies Appellants' Motion," the three-judge panel ruled. "The stay of preliminary injunctions entered by the District Court expires at the end of the day on January 5, 2015."

The panel included Judges Frank Hull and Charles Wilson, both Clinton appointees, and Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee.

Florida officials could seek review of the 11th Circuit stay denial decision from the Supreme Court. A stay request from Florida would be directed to Justice Clarence Thomas, who could decide the matter himself or refer it to the full court.

Unlike other situations in which the Supreme Court has allowed a lower court order striking down a state marriage ban to go into effect during an appeal, there is no appellate ruling in the 11th Circuit holding that such bans are unconstitutional.

View Entire List ›

The rule is to be published in the Federal Register on Friday and will take effect 120 days later.

U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez applauds remarks by President Barack Obama at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's annual awards gala on October 2, 2014.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The federal government will, 120 days from Friday, bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers under a final rule posted Wednesday afternoon.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Houston group during the 2008 presidential campaign that he would support such a nondiscrimination policy as president. This week's move means that the policy change will take place in the opening months of the seventh year of Obama's presidency.

The Labor Department had been directed to write the rule under an executive order signed by President Obama over the summer. In October, BuzzFeed News reported that the rule had been submitted by the Labor Department for review by the Office of Management and Budget.

"Laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity are long overdue, and we're taking a big step forward today to fix that," Labor Secretary Tom Perez said in a statement.

Patricia Shiu, the head of the office the will enforce the new rule, talked about the protections provided under the rule in a statement.

"This rule will extend protections to millions of workers who are employed by or seek jobs with federal contractors and subcontractors, ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity are never used as justification for workplace discrimination by those that profit from taxpayer dollars," Shiu, the director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said.

Assuming Friday publication, the rule will take effect in early March 2015.

Read the final rule:

“Yes….I’m disappointed…and no….yes I’m disappointed.”

Six years after he produced the star-studded, Emmy award-winning video "Yes We Can," Black Eye Peas founder will.i.am hesitantly admitted he's disappointed in President Obama's performance.

"It would have been hard for anyone....it'd be hard for anyone...that's-a-that's a that question. I don't even know how to answer that question," the singer said to Larry King in an interview for his Ora.tv show Larry King Now.

"Yes and no," he added when asked again by King if he was disappointed in Obama. "Yes....I'm disappointed...and no....yes I'm disappointed."

The full interview airs December 11th at 5pm on Ora.TV.

Trent Lott said the immigration executive order is something to worry about next year.

AFP / Getty Images JIM WATSON

WASHINGTON — Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should tell the conservative wing of his party to "kiss off" when considering a response to President Obama's immigration executive order.

"I would tell them to kiss off and go forward with the CRomnibus," Lott said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Lott, who has worked closely with McConnell in the past, called last year's shutdown a "fraud" and said McConnell should force the more conservative Senators to fall in line with leadership.

The "CRomnibus" is a combination package plan to fund most of the government for almost all of next year but only fund certain areas, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, for a short time. Some conservative members of the House and Senate are calling for a bill that would defund the president's executive order and would only fund the government until early next year.

The deadline to pass a bill that would keep the government funded is Dec. 11.

Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner has done the opposite of what Lott suggested.

Boehner agreed to take up a bill that would explicitly block Obama's immigration executive order.

That bill, introduced by Rep. Ted Yoho, would be completely separate from a bill to fund the government and would keep the path to avoiding a shutdown clear. Because such a bill would have no chance of even coming to a vote in the still Democratic-controlled Senate, conservatives in both the House and Senate have criticized that tactic as a "show vote."

"This is what I miss about earmarks," Lott said.

After the dismal 2014 elections, House Democrats are anxious, critical of the leadership, and wondering if it’s time for a message overhaul. Leadership has plans in the works.

Pelosi and Israel on election night.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, House Democrats streamed out of their weekly caucus meeting slightly more upbeat than they'd been in weeks.

They'd just met with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and in the days after the Thanksgiving break, Democratic lawmakers sounded ready for the future.

"[Lew] has firm grasp of the facts and when you listen to him you think after, 'How the hell did we lose?'" said New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell. "It's obvious that we are our own worst enemies but there is some good news."

The slightly improved mood follows weeks of bitterness and finger pointing among Democrats over the results of the 2014 midterms. But many of those underlying tensions have not disappeared. The leadership has a plan in the works to attempt to address what went wrong.

Democrats are still anxious about what went wrong in 2014 and wondering what the next steps are to address it. A dozen members who spoke with BuzzFeed News (many of whom declined to go on the record so they could speak freely) said they feel the Democratic leadership hasn't done enough to fully evaluate — or even acknowledge — the extent of the losses.

But the prevailing concern was that Democrats failed to develop a cohesive message that broke through to the electorate — and it is time for an overhaul. Sources said hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent polling last year's "Jumpstart the Middle Class" messaging platform. Members want to know: What will be different this time?

"We lost 70 seats in the last four years and just kind of returned to business as usual," said one Democratic member. "We reelected leadership because there wasn't a sense that it was the leadership's fault."

"But where's the plan? Where's the assessment of what we need to do to win? There's been no re-evaluation to reckon that we've been hammered several elections in a row," the member added.

Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly said it was "unsatisfying" there hadn't been a caucus meeting yet to evaluate the losses.

"We collectively as a caucus need to spend some time in depth analytically looking at the results, what went wrong, and how we can take collective action to win the next cycle," he said. "That's the mission."

(A leadership aide later told BuzzFeed News that Connolly had missed a post-election caucus meeting where some of his points had been discussed.)

Although she was elected unanimously to lead Democrats again, Pelosi has not been immune to criticism. This became most clear when an election for the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee turned into a public spat over whether Tammy Duckworth — a pregnant, double-amputee Iraq War veteran — could vote by proxy. (She was unable to travel due to her pregnancy.) The Pelosi-backed candidate in the ranking member race, Anna Eshoo, ultimately lost to Frank Pallone.

"The first thing that absorbed our attention was completely about us and had nothing to do with the outside," one member said of the ranking member flap. "That's a very inward looking thing and we should be looking out now."

Pascrell was skeptical a real soul-searching would take place.

"I think there's a 50/50 chance it'll happen — I don't give it anything better than that," he shrugged.

But leadership seems aware of the concerns. An evaluation is in the works, and plans are under way for a more cohesive strategy heading into the 114th Congress.

In late January, Democrats will gather in Philadelphia for their issues conference, where much of the real planning will begin to take shape. They'll hear from President Obama, who is also confirmed to attend. And perhaps more importantly to the caucus, the conference will focus on coming up with a plan for the next two years.

Pelosi recently created a new policy and communications entity in the caucus to be led by Rep. Steve Israel, the former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. The caucus voted on and approved the new communications arm and Israel said the leadership team was working on developing it "in probably the most vigilant way we have ever have."

Israel is currently hammering out the details of the new communications group. He estimates roughly a dozen members will be involved, and he's currently on a self-described "listening tour" with caucus members to field complaints and hear suggestions. He anticipated the details of the membership and the budget would be completed this month so they would be able to start in earnest by the time the issues conference begins.

"The Republicans have done a much better job of laddering up taxes and spending where Democrats ladder down to 16-point plans. That's our problem," Israel said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. "We have to the ladder up to that one theme that voters identify with…. We're building out an infrastructure we've never built out before."

Israel stressed that polling had shown that voters agreed with Democrats on their overall economic message, but had deep anxiety and dissatisfaction with the economy.

"This historic anxiety by middle-class voters has put Republicans and Democrats on a very short leash," he said. "In 2006, they gave the leash to Democrats; in 2010, they yanked it and gave it to Republicans. Middle-class voters are looking for a party with specific solutions to their problems."

Israel also addressed a complaint some members have: that there has not been enough candid examination of the past year.

One member had complained to BuzzFeed News that, after the election, Democratic leadership focused too much on hailing the retention of many Democratic incumbents, despite such a terrible overall year for the party.

"A couple of the caucuses after the election, they were like pep rallies, people were like getting up and a bunch of us were shaking our heads and were like, Gosh, this sounds like we won," the member said. "We didn't."

Israel said he understands that but his goal is to not "re-litigate the past" but "reorganize the future."

"We have a responsibility to accept what we did wrong but not minimize what we did right," he said. "The fact of the matter is when you are looking at a 63% dissatisfaction with the economy — a worse mood than 2010 — we ought not minimize the fact we mitigated the losses. But we better not rest our cap on that."

Boehner said he hasn’t ruled out congressional hearings on the case.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that Americans "deserve more answers" about the circumstances surrounding the death of Eric Garner.

"The American people deserve more answers about what really happened here," Boehner said. "And was our system of justice handled properly?"

Boehner added he hasn't ruled out holding congressional hearings on the matter.

Garner died after being placed in an apparent chokehold by a New York police officer during an arrest earlier this year. The event was captured on video by witnesses. On Wednesday, a grand jury decided not to indict the officer involved in the case.

The Department of Justice is launching its own investigation into the case.

Boehner's statement puts him at odds with two New York House Republicans who sided with the grand jury in statements released Wednesday.

"There's no question that this grand jury had an immensely difficult task before them, but I have full faith that their judgment was fair and reasoned and I applaud DA Donovan for overseeing this case with the utmost integrity," Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm said in a statement.

"While the death of Eric Garner was tragic, all New Yorkers should respect the decision of the Staten Island grand jury not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo," Rep. Peter King wrote on Facebook. "During this tense time in New York, it must be noted and remembered that no organization has done more to safeguard the lives of young African Americans in New York City than the NYPD."

“But I don’t believe, you know, that this officer operated incorrectly, and that’s because the grand jury decided not to indict. That’s the way the process works.”

View Video ›

Republican Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon says the system worked and "justice was served" in reference to a Staten Island grand jury's decision to not indict a New York police officer over the death of Eric Garner.

"The process of indicting is a pretty easy one, and so the fact that this, you know, this officer wasn't indicted speaks volumes that it was clear to the grand jury that he operated under the scope of his authority and he did, you know, what any reasonable officer would have done to subdue somebody that was resisting arrest," Salmon said on NewsMaxTV's America's Forum. "And all I'm saying is that that is the process by which our country operates, and justice was served. That's the way the process works, and, y'know, I can't really expound on it any more."

Salmon said he didn't believe the officer acted incorrectly because the grand jury failed to indict Garner.

"But I don't believe, you know, that this officer operated incorrectly, and that's because the grand jury decided not to indict. That's the way the process works."

The Arizona Republican slammed those he said are "bringing up allegations" of profiling, saying law enforcement has a tough job to "secure the streets."

"But to constantly be, you know, bringing up allegations of, you know, profiling or whatever the case may be, when officers have a pretty darn tough job to secure the streets as it is, and then they're exonerated by their peers, who look at all of the evidence, instead of those that, you know, that profit off of perpetuating these kinds of, you know, schisms in our society, like, you know, like Al Sharpton and those guys that are always constantly out there, you know, trying to make something that doesn't exist — look, is there still racism in our country? Yes, there is. Is it a lot better than it's been in our lifetime? Absolutely it is."

The Louisiana governor’s views seem designed to avoid displeasing anyone. John Bolton and Jim Talent are advising the likely 2016 candidate.

Brian Frank / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, like the rest of the likely 2016 presidential candidates, is trying to publicly define his views on foreign policy ahead of the election.

So far, though, that definition hasn't quite arrived. Jindal appeared at the Foreign Policy Initiative forum in Washington on Wednesday and delivered polished lines about "peace through strength," not "leading from behind," and not being "the world's policeman." But based off this initial dive into the foreign policy world, it's unclear what Jindal believes in that will differentiate him from the rest of the Republican field, marked by tension between the new school of intervention skeptics like Rand Paul and establishment figures who favor a more muscular U.S. foreign policy.

In a roundtable meeting with reporters before appearing onstage, Jindal came down on basically every side possible in Republican foreign policy.

Asked how he would describe his foreign policy when compared with other notables in the party, he said: "I think that America cannot retreat from the world," because "It makes our final day of reckoning more expensive in terms of treasure and blood. It makes it even harder to defeat these enemies."

"We've seen that, when the president, I would argue for political considerations, overruled his military advisers and withdrew our forces according to a political deadline out of Iraq, left a vacuum, and now you're seeing the rise of ISIS, the political instability not only in Iraq but Syria as well," Jindal said.

On the other hand: "My views are that America can not be the world's policeman. We're not attempting and we should not attempt to be a dictator to the rest of the world. But neither can we be viewing multilateralism as a goal instead of a tactic. I think this administration too often defers to foreign capitals when it comes to defining our foreign policy — America must be willing to lead from the front, and that may mean at times leading coalitions of the willing, that may mean at times working with different allies and partners who share our vales share our interests according to the situation."

The trope-heavy answer indicates an approach that's cautiously hawkish, seemingly designed to displease as few people as possible. This offers a contrast to future potential rival Sen. Rand Paul, who has even applied a label — "conservative realism" — to his foreign policy philosophy, and to Sen. Ted Cruz, who is starting to carve out a space for himself somewhere between Paul and the hawkish wing of the party.

Jindal is making an effort to be taken seriously on foreign policy, an area in which governors often have little experience. Like most of the GOP field, he's recruited others to help him in this arena: He worked with former Sen. Jim Talent on a foreign policy paper in October; both Talent and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton have been advising him on foreign policy, according to a top Jindal aide.

Jindal was similarly vague on the topic of what he would do if the nuclear negotiations with Iran fail, one of the most pressing foreign policy issues facing the United States. The administration has maintained that military force remains an option if negotiations fail to curb Iran's nuclear program.

"I think this president's too quick to say what he's not going to do," Jindal said. "Nobody in America ever wants to see ground troops as the first option, but this president's very quick to take options off the table, I don't think he should ever do that."

"He's done that sometimes with his rhetoric vis-a-vis Iran, he's done that with his rhetoric vis-a-vis the Middle East," Jindal said. "So I think every option needs to be on the table to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."

He is more aligned with hawkish figures in his party like Sen. John McCain on the question of Syria. Jindal said he thinks that destroying ISIS shouldn't mean the United States should be "deterred from our longer term goal of removing Assad."

One thing Jindal is clear on, though, is advocating for increased defense spending, something he advocated for in the paper with Talent and in a speech in October at the American Enterprise Institute that observers saw as a sign he was aligning himself with the Republican hawks.

"I think we are less likely to deploy our armed forces if we are actually prepared," Jindal said at FPI.

“I don’t care if he had a weapon or not. He still has to comply with the order. He has to comply. That’s the law.”

View Video ›

Former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik lambasted those who claim that race played a role in Eric Garner's death on a Staten Island sidewalk last summer, saying Garner's death is the result of resisting arrest.

"I don't care what color he was. The bottom line is, he resisted arrest, a lawful arrest, that resistance escalated, the use of force by the officer escalated -- which resulted ultimately, and tragically, in his death," Kerik said in an interview with J.D. Hayworth of NewsmaxTV.

Kerik, who is under supervised release following a three-year stint in federal prison on eight felony charges, said he had seen the video taken of the incident, and what he saw was a man "resisting lawful arrest."

"I don't care if he had a weapon or not. He still has to comply with the order. He has to comply. That's the law. And the officer has the right to use force to put him in handcuffs. If you watch the video, even when he's on the ground, even when he has three officers around him, even when he has the guy on the back of him, holding him – he's still resisting. He's still not complying."

"So what are they supposed to do at that point? They're supposed to let him go? Get up and say 'Hey, dude, you know what? You're just too big for us, you're too strong. We're gonna let you go. You can go break the law all you want, and we'll go about our business. That's not the way it works."

Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand has been pushing a bill on the issue — but had no advance notice of the Pentagon’s new plans, nor did at least two other Democratic senators on the issue. Sen. Claire McCaskill was notified.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Several key senators were surprised when the Department of Defense announced four new initiatives to combat sexual assault in the military on Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and has led the effort to take the prosecution of sexual assault cases out of the military chain of command, said she had only heard of the initiatives from the Defense Department's press conference and news reports.

"I haven't seen them, I've only heard they had a press conference because they failed on retaliation," Gillibrand said. "I'm glad they are continuing to make efforts but I think what needs to be done is take the decision making out of the chain of command."

Earlier this week, Gillibrand said she was renewing her effort on the matter, and would try to attach an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

The initiatives, according to a statement, include a multi-year plan to "customize prevention efforts," training sessions for supervisors, and new procedures for sexual assault prevention personnel. On Thursday, the Pentagon also released a progress report on sexual assault.

Gillibrand was not the only Armed Services member unaware the announcement was coming: Retiring Sen. Carl Levin, the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not know they would be released, he told BuzzFeed News.

"I don't know what's in them yet," he said.

A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who also serves on the Armed Services Committee, said no one from the White House or the Pentagon reached out to their office to let them know the initiatives would be coming out. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a prominent supporter of Gillibrand's bill, said he had "no comment" when asked about the new initiatives.

At least two senators were notified of the initiatives, however, including Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

"I think they are great," she said, following a press conference on the progress report. "I was told, I wasn't briefed on the details, and I'll be honest with you, he was announcing them as I was going to vote, so I haven't yet had an opportunity to look at the details. I was just given a cursory top line."

In particular, she praised two of the initiatives that address the issue of retaliation within the military. McCaskill notably opposed Gillibrand's approach to handling sexual assault outside the military this year, proposing changes to the system that were seen as more in line with the Defense Department.

According to an aide, Sen. Ted Cruz's office also received advance notice about the initiatives. Like Paul, Cruz has supported Gillibrand's efforts on military sexual assault.

A White House spokesperson told BuzzFeed News "senior officials at DOD handled Hill notifications" on the new sexual assault measures. The spokesperson referred questions on specific notifications ("who was notified when") to the Defense Department. A request for comment to the Defense Department was not immediately returned.

The details of the initiatives are scheduled to be in by Jan. 30.

Evan McMorris-Santoro contributed reporting. This story has been updated.