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

Feds Release New Guidelines To Bolster Social Media Security After CENTCOM Twitter Hack

0
0

The guidelines call for agencies to integrate security systems built in to many social media networks, like two-step verification for logins, on all their accounts.

WASHINGTON — New government social media security guidelines call for federal agencies to develop "social media stakeholder teams" that can quickly identify and respond to a cyberattack and to strengthen social media passwords.

The new guidelines, released Tuesday on the General Service Administration's DigitalGov portal were created in the wake of the embarrassing hack in early January of the U.S. Central Command's Twitter feed by ISIS sympathizers, which exposed basic security holes in the thousands of social media accounts run by the government.

Hackers used password vulnerabilities at CENTCOM to take over the military organization's Twitter and YouTube page and fill them with pro-ISIS messaging. Government officials said sensitive or classified material was not accessed or threatened by the hack.

The GSA proposes agencies set up a "social media stakeholder team" to quickly respond to instances of "cyber-vandalism," the phrase used by government officials to describe the CENTCOM hack.

The guidelines also call for agencies to integrate security systems built in to many social media networks, like two-step verification for logins, on all their accounts. Passwords themselves should be drafted within guidelines established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2009.

Some of the other suggestions are more straightforward.

"Ensure no former employees, contractors or interns have access to current passwords," reads one of the guidelines in the GSA toolkit.

The goal of the toolkit is to both prevent future hacks with security improvements and also make government agencies able to quickly respond and reduce the impact of social media hacks. The GSA guidelines call for a full audit of social media account login information after one account is breached and immediate contact with the private firm that hosts the hacked social media account.

"If the social media cyber-security stakeholder team or responsible manager determines an incident is in progress, remember that minutes and even seconds count," read the guidelines. "Within minutes you'll need to alert internal stakeholders, alert outside stakeholders to help you regain control, and act to isolate the compromise."

The new GSA rules were drafted by a cross-agency task force assembled after CENTCOM was hacked. Representatives from social media companies were included in the review of government practices and drafting of new guidelines to bolster security and respond to hackers.

The GSA guidelines are voluntary and are advertised as a "Social Media Cyber-Vandalism Toolkit." Federal agencies make their own rules when it comes to social media, and there's no centralized rules regulating who has access to social media accounts, who uses them or how passwords should be set up. A government official with knowledge of the guidelines told BuzzFeed News agencies "plan to use" the toolkit.

Mikko Hypponen, a cybersecurity expert and head of the firm F-Secure, praised the GSA toolkit in an email.

"These guidelines look very solid - almost surprisingly so!" he wrote. "They've clearly done their homework. Other organizations should take note."


Sen. Al Franken Sent A New Letter To Uber Calling For Better Answers On Its Privacy Practices

0
0

Sen. Al Franken is following up on quesitons he felt were unanswered in Uber’s first letter. “I was—and still am—concerned about the lack of detail in the response.”

Beck Diefenbach / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In a letter sent to Uber Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken called for the ride-hailing company to give more specific answers about how it uses consumer data.

"I was—and still am—concerned about the lack of detail in the response," Franken wrote.

Uber first wrote to Franken in December in response to the senator's initial request for information on its privacy practices, and the company said it would improve its privacy practices.

In its initial response, Uber also detailed how and why a company executive accessed a BuzzFeed News journalist's information without express permission.

Franken said he wanted more answers in a statement back in December, but this letter formalizes the request.

In the letter, Franken calls for Uber to explain exactly what it means when it says employees can only consumer records for a "limited set of legitimate business purposes." He also asked how many employees have access to "God View." Uber's so-called "God View" function allows employees to see where all of its cars and all of its riders are at any given time. The company said it had scaled back the feature in response to the letter.

Franken also inquires about Uber's policy of "indefinite retention of customers' personal information" until there is no longer a "business need to retain them."

"I remain interested in understanding what, in your view, constitutes a legitimate 'business need' after a cancelled account is fully settled," Franken wrote.

An aide to Franken said the senator has no plans to request more information about the privacy practices of Lyft, Uber's chief competitor, "as of right now."

Franken asked for a response by Feb. 11.

Read the full letter here:

After Blizzard Misses NYC, De Blasio Pokes Fun At Himself By Reading Onion Article

0
0

The mayor read fictional quotes of himself predicting the dire effects of the storm.

w.soundcloud.com

The article included fictional de Blasio quotes, and warned that "the furious hoarfrost bearing down upon us knows neither mercy nor reason, and all within the five boroughs will perish, cowering in their brittle dwellings."


View Entire List ›

Some In Pro-Israel Lobby Argue Democrat's Hesitation Will Benefit Sanctions Bill

0
0

Sen. Bob Menendez said Tuesday he wouldn’t support a vote on his own co-authored bill before the March negotiation deadline.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — After Senate Democrats made it clear on Tuesday that they are not willing to vote for a controversial Iran sanctions bill until after a March deadline in the nuclear negotiations, some pro-Israel activists are arguing that the move is not a setback for sanctions, but a boost.

"This was a very good day for those who support this legislation, and for Senator Menendez as a leader in his caucus," said a source close to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has lobbied for the Iran sanctions bill co-authored by Sens. Mark Kirk and Bob Menendez.

"What you see is a clear message being sent to the president that despite your opposition to this, we stand in support of the bill — and if there is no satisfactory outcome by March, we will vote for this on the floor," the source continued. "And in the meantime, there is a mark-up and vote in committee coming, and you will see bipartisan support for the bill as it makes it way through the process."

"Contrary to those suggesting this was some kind of delay or set back, what you see is strong bipartisan momentum toward veto-proof numbers and in support of the legislation as it moves through the process and toward the floor," the source said.

AIPAC, which has traditionally been Washington's most powerful pro-Israel group, has pushed the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill, which would impose new sanctions on Iran in the event of the talks failing. Last year, the group was seen as alienating many of its contacts in Congress when a similar battle over last year's version of the Kirk-Menendez bill was playing out. The fight over the bill last year happened under different circumstances, especially since there was no real risk for Democrats of having to vote on it since the Democratic leadership would not schedule a vote.

This year, Democrats hesitated on the legislation, putting the touted bipartisan nature of the sanctions push into question. President Obama has said that he will veto the bill if it comes across his desk. Menendez, the co-author of the bill, and nine other Senate Democrats sent a letter to the president on Tuesday morning stating that they will support a vote on the bill after the March 24 deadline for a preliminary agreement in the talks. "In acknowledgement of your concern regarding congressional action on legislation at this moment, we will not vote for this legislation on the Senate floor before March 24," the letter reads. "After March 24, we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement."

Some are arguing that the letter is, in effect, a warning to the administration that the Democrats will indeed support the bill if a satisfactory resolution is not reached in March.

"Strong Democratic support for tougher diplomacy with Iran makes it increasingly likely that the Senate would override Obama's threatened veto of the legislation," reads a blog post today about the on the website of The Tower, the publication produced by pro-Israel advocacy group The Israel Project, framing the story as "Democratic Senators Set Deadline for Iran Nuke Deal."

"The White House has been exerting pressure on Senate Democrats to stay frozen on the sidelines. Instead 10 of them committed to voting on pressure in roughly 8 weeks, which is at most a couple weeks after even the best-case scenario for pressure advocates (the calendar was already filled up through February with Keystone, DHS/immigration, etc)," argued Omri Ceren, senior adviser for strategy at The Israel Project, in an email to his distribution list. "The bill will now proceed to markup in Banking on Thursday, and the letter signatories indicate that it will come out of committee with bipartisan support."

Seven Democrats, all of whom signed the letter on Tuesday calling for a delay in the vote, signed on to co-sponsor the bill when it is formally introduced. Sixteen Democrats ended up co-sponsoring last year's version of the bill.

But not everyone is buying the idea that the Democrats' move is a boon for the sanctions legislation, which some Republicans feel is already a weak version of what they really want.

"The effort to delay a vote complicates the legislative fight around the bill, which was watered down precisely so that Democrats could support it," said Noah Pollak, the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel.

Pollak pointed out that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could still hold a vote before the March 24 deadline.

"The question now is whether Sen. McConnell proceeds with a vote before the 24th," he said. "If he does Republicans may ask why they're not voting on a tougher bill that better reflects the party's skepticism of the Iran talks. I hope McConnell holds a vote, and I look forward to Schumer, Menendez, and other Democrats explaining to their constituents their remarkable faith in the Obama-Iran talks."

Asked about the bill on Tuesday, Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said "it would surprise me" if McConnell held the vote before March 24.

Corker and Graham have introduced an alternative bill to Kirk-Menendez which would allow Congress to vote on the deal itself if it is reached. On Tuesday, Corker argued that Menendez's move was aimed at ensuring that the bill would have bipartisan support.

"What you don't want Iran to see is that there's some partisan split on the issue of Iran," Corker told reporters on the Hill. "You want to keep as many people together. And so I looked at Sen. Mendendez's effort as that. Candidly, if we were to vote on a bill on the Senate floor and it got 53 votes and Iran's watching, that's not where we as a nation need to be."

Asked if he wanted to move his and Graham's bill now, Corker said "most of the Democrats want to take a few days off, this letter thing has killed a lot of brain cells over the last several days."

The two bills "don't work together well," he said.

"I support the sanctions bill but I'm willing to forego sanctions with the understanding that we'll pass Corker-Graham in a bipartisan fashion," Graham said.

Democratic Bill: Limit War Against ISIS To Three Years With No U.S. Combat Troops

0
0

“There is no doubt that our current offensive amounts to war, and Congress should take action both to authorize its prosecution and to set limits on that authorization,” Rep. Adam Schiff tells BuzzFeed News.

Iraqi Sunni fighters north of Baghdad.

Ahmad al-Rubye / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff Wednesday introduced narrowly crafted legislation authorizing the Obama administration to wage a limited, three-year war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria while prohibiting the use of ground troops.

Schiff's bill, which is similar to legislation the California Democrat introduced last year, will almost certainly face stiff opposition from the Obama administration and Republican leaders in both chambers, all of whom favor a far more expansive authorization.

But his bill stakes out an early, bright line position for the growing coalition of lawmakers who favor reigning in the administration's ability to essentially wage unlimited war against terrorists.

"There is no doubt that our current offensive amounts to war, and Congress should take action both to authorize its prosecution and to set limits on that authorization so it may not be used by any future administration in a manner contrary to our intent," Schiff said in a statement.

The White House's current war effort against ISIS has been conducted under a 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force bill originally designed to respond to Al Qaeda's attacks on the United States in 2001.

But that 60-word law has been read extremely broadly by the Bush and Obama administrations to allow for attacks in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That has led to bipartisan charges that the executive branch has overstepped its authority, and a growing number of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers have called for tighter limits on the war effort.

In addition to barring the use of ground troops, the new AUMF would also sunset in three years, as well as sunset the 2001 AUMF at that time. Additionally, Schiff's bill would be "geographically limited" to contain counter terrorism war efforts to Iraq and Syria.

Although the White House and hawks in both parties have argued tying the administration's hands is inappropriate, Schiff argued the overly broad interpretation of the existing AUMF should give Congress pause.

"If circumstances change, they should come to the Congress and make the case" for an expanded AUMF, Schiff told BuzzFeed News in an interview Tuesday evening. But "given how previous authorizations have been broadly construed, we would be wise to tailor this one to the current circumstances," Schiff added.

House Speaker John Boehner has committed to bringing legislation to the floor in the coming months, and the White House is expected to work with lawmakers in drafting a separate AUMF that would give the president the kind of broad latitude he enjoys under the existing AUMF.

But Schiff warned that approach is likely to run into stiff bipartisan resistance.

"I think there's a real reluctance in Congress to write a blank check," Schiff said.

How To Name A Super PAC

0
0

Some of these are real political action committees through which people raise millions and millions of dollars for politicians. Most of them are not.

Reclaim America PAC

Restore Our Future PAC

Salvage America's Virtue PAC

Gently Rekindle America's Last Flame Before It Is Extinguished PAC

You Know, This Used To Be A Place With Dignity PAC

A Woman Is Weeping PAC

Nostalgia For A Time That Was But Perhaps Can Never Be Recaptured, Like The Love Of A Good Woman Or American Manufacturing PAC

To Be Honest, Everything's Awful Right Now PAC

Right to Rise PAC

American Revival PAC

A Populist Phrase PAC

Pa Said There'd Be Days Like These PAC

The Guitar Solo in "Like A Rock" PAC

Priorities USA Action PAC

Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC

Reasonable Suggestions PAC

Some Goals PAC

A Sleeve Of Saltines PAC

Off The Sidelines PAC

Women Vote! PAC

Fair Share Action PAC

Level The Playing Field PAC

Look, It Could Get Worse PAC

Progressing From The Abyss PAC

If Only You'd Resign Yourself To What We Think Going Forward PAC

Volunteerism (For An Extremely Specific Set Of Cultural And Regulatory Standards) PAC

And We Stood There In The Clear, Bright Morning Selling Those Girl Scout Cookies And That Boy Scout Popcorn Out Of This Silver Volvo And Everything Was Wonderful PAC

Mike Huckabee: I Wasn't Talking About Fox News When I Called Women "Trashy" For Swearing

0
0

“The reporters who took those headlines and made those stories up made ‘em up out of thin air. It’s an outright lie.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, a potential Republican presidential candidate, says he wasn't talking about his former colleagues at Fox News when he said women in New York were "trashy" for swearing in the workplace.

"People actually have to read my book. I never said anything derogatory about the people at Fox News," Huckabee told radio host Tyler Cralle in an interview on Wednesday. "In fact, if they read the book they would see that the only time I mention Fox News is in an incredibly supportive and laudatory way. I talked about the overall coarseness of conversation and gratuitous profanity that I hear in places in what I call the bubble zoo like New York, Washington and Hollywood but clearly, the reporters who took those headlines and made those stories up made 'em up out of thin air. It's an outright lie."

In an appearance last Friday on Mickelson in the Morning, Huckabee described the "culture shock" he saw going to work in New York in which people used profanity in a professional setting.

"In Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the f-bomb and use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting," he said. "In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women do it," he added, "this is worse than a lot locker room talk. This would be considered totally inappropriate to say these things in front of a woman and for a woman to say them in a professional setting. As we would say in the south 'that's just trashy.'"

Huckabee called it "a clear indication that journalism is pretty much dead in America" that people believed he was talking about Fox News.

"I'm just amazed that I am having to face those headlines today because it's the people who are saying it can't find one page in my book where I said that. I can show them many pages where I said the exact opposite and it's a clear indication that journalism is pretty much dead in America and they cannot come up…I just wonder do some of the people in these news organizations, do they know how to read or are they do they copy what somebody else has said?"

"And it's really frustrating for me to see that because I love my former colleagues at Fox, it was a great place to work, and the only things that I've ever said about Fox was how terrific the experience was. And for them to come up with headlines that absolutely have no basis in fact, it is quite frustrating to me."

Here's chapter three of Huckabee's book on the "culture of crude":

Then I started working each week in New York. Guess what? People do talk like that! Even in business settings and in mixed company of men and women, I realized that some people's vocabulary was clearly limited to a small inventory of nouns and verbs with large doses of the "f-bomb" interspersed throughout. It must have seemed like maturity to those who found a way to make every third word a profane utterance, but it's always struck me that the ultimate definition of profanity is the forcible expression of a feeble mind.

Loretta Lynch: Undocumented Immigrants Could Still Face Deportation Under Obama's Executive Action

0
0

“I didn’t see anything in the opinion that prevented action being take [against] individuals who might otherwise qualify” for deferred deportation, Lynch says.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — Undocumented immigrants covered by President Obama's executive actions delaying deportation could still find themselves targeted by the federal government, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch said in her confirmation hearing Wednesday.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lynch, who is a federal prosecutor in New York, said that while she believes the Department of Justice has provided adequate legal justification for Obama's executive actions, she made clear it does not legally bind her hands.

"As a prosecutor I always want the ability to still take some sort of action against those who may not be in my initial category as the most serious threat. And I didn't see anything in the opinion that prevented action being take [against] individuals who might otherwise qualify for the deferral," Lynch said.

Under Obama's executive actions, most undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for an extended period of time and who are not violent criminals or felons can apply for a deferment of deportation. Those covered could then work legally in the United States.

Many people residing in the United States without proper documents are already leery of government — for instance, many undocumented immigrants don't report crimes against them out of fear of being deported. If undocumented immigrants believe DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security could decide to come after them in the future even if they qualify for the deferment program, it could make them less likely to apply.

Although Lynch spent much of the morning session, which is expected to last into the late afternoon or evening Wednesday, sidestepping specific pronouncements, Lynch did bluntly declare that waterboarding is torture "and thus illegal."

Significantly, Lynch also argued the "right" to work "is a right shared by everyone here in this country regardless of how they got here," though she was careful to not declare it a civil or human right.

Additionally, asked about the Obama administration's policy on marijuana legalization, Lynch said, "It is still the policy of the administration … to continue enforcing marijuana laws, particularly in respect to money laundering."

Lynch also said that if a state considering legalization came to DOJ for advice, she would warn them that, "federal laws will still be enforced."


Bobby Jindal's Super PAC Makes Its 2016 Pitch To Donors

0
0

Letter obtained by BuzzFeed News presents the Louisiana governor to Republican donor class as a “once-in-a-lifetime leader.” No mention of his recent criticism of Islam, though.

Bobby Jindal speaks at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa.

Brian Frank / Reuters

The coalition of allies and boosters who recently launched a super PAC to get Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal elected president is making its first major pitch to Republican donors, according to a letter obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The mission: Convince the GOP's big-ticket contributors that Jindal will be more than the single-digit also-ran that early 2016 primary polls make him out to be.

The recently formed "Believe Again" PAC began sending letters out to conservative donors on Wednesday touting Jindal as a "once-in-a-lifetime leader." Signed by former Louisiana congressman and PAC chairman Bob Livingston, the one-page letter argues that Jindal is "the rare person who has proven he can take big ideas and turn them into lasting change."

Among Jindal's accomplishments listed in the letter are the ethics reforms and tax cuts he has helped pass as governor, along with his controversial battle with the Department of Justice over the education overhauls he implemented in Louisiana.

"But the best way to convey his success is to tell you about the result," Livingston writes. "For the first time in generations, more people are moving to Louisiana than leaving it. Our economy is not just growing, it's thriving."

Absent from the letter is any mention of the various culture war fights Jindal has been picking in recent months — from his high-profile championing of the Duck Dynasty family a year ago to his recent criticism of Islam. As BuzzFeed News reported last year, Jindal has been methodically building a network of grassroots contacts on the religious right, speaking frequently on issues of religious freedom, and privately counseling with the conservative Christian power broker Tony Perkins.

Jindal's inner circle believes his compelling conversion story and marrow-deep Christian devotion — he calls himself an "Evangelical Catholic" — will help him appeal to the religious conservatives in Iowa, among other places. Just last weekend, Jindal hosted a widely publicized prayer rally in Baton Rouge.

But the Republican donor class generally skews more secular and tends to pick its horses based on successes in the economic arena, not social conservative bona fides. Jindal, like many of his prospective 2016 primary opponents, will thus likely spend much of the primary dual-broadcasting messages to the conservative base and the GOP elites.

Supreme Court Halts Next Three Oklahoma Executions During Court Case

0
0

The court ordered the state to postpone the executions until a legal challenge involving the use of a contested sedative in the lethal injection process is resolved.

The execution chamber at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary as seen from the viewing area.

AP / Sue Ogrocki

The court's order came two weeks after it refused to stop the execution of Charles Warner, who brought a legal challenge against the state along with three other inmates for the state's use of midazolam in executions, and days after the court agreed to hear the remaining three prisoners' challenge to the use of the drug.

Midazolam, a controversial sedative, was used in prolonged and problematic executions in Oklahoma, Arizona, and Ohio.

The order postpones the executions of Richard Glossip, which was scheduled for Thursday, John Grant on Feb. 19, and Benjamin Cole on March 5.

The order postpones the executions of Richard Glossip, which was scheduled for Thursday, John Grant on Feb. 19, and Benjamin Cole on March 5.

supremecourt.gov

Both the state and the attorneys for the three inmates had requested a temporary halt to the executions following the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 order granting review in the case.

The state's application asked for Glossip, Grant, and Cole's executions to be stayed "until final disposition of this appeal; or, alternatively, until ODOC has in its possession a viable alternative to midazolam for use in its executions."

The high court order specifically limited the stay to executions using midazolam, which is the state's currently used protocol and is the issue pending before the justices. The order did not say anything about alternative means of execution.

The underlying case is expected to be argued in April and decided by late June.


View Entire List ›

Obama's Attorney General Pick Doesn't Agree With Him That Pot Isn't Dangerous

0
0

Loretta Lynch tells the Senate, “I certainly don’t hold that view and don’t agree with that view of marijuana.”

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — President Obama's pick to be the next Attorney General of the United States has a very different view from him when it comes to the dangers of marijuana.

At her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, Loretta Lynch — a federal prosecutor Obama hopes will replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder — told Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions that she disagrees with the president on pot.

Obama told the New Yorker last January "I don't think [marijuana] is more dangerous than alcohol."

He went on to say that pot may even be less dangerous than drinking.

Less dangerous, he said, "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It's not something I encourage, and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy."

Lynch told senators she doesn't feel the same way.

"I certainly don't hold that view and don't agree with that view of marijuana," she said.

Lynch also told Sessions she does not support the legalization of marijuana.

Scott Walker On 2016: I'd Rather Be "Bland" Than "Dumb, Ignorant, Corrupt... Or Old"

0
0

“I’d rather have bland and uncharismatic than dumb or ignorant or corrupt or any of the other things they would label other would-be candidates out there — or old for that matter.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he won't let stereotypes about his persona get in the way of him running for president.

"The media is going to peg any prospective candidate with a tag. I'd rather have 'bland and uncharismatic' than 'dumb' or 'ignorant' or 'corrupt' or any of the other things they would label other would-be candidates out there — or 'old' for that matter," Walker told Wisconsin's WTMJ radio on Wednesday.

The Wisconsin governor moved closer toward a presidential run Tuesday when he announced the creation of "Our American Revival," a political committee that he can use to raises money and fund his travel as he mulls a White House bid.

Walker said people would ultimately like the accomplishments get done in Wisconsin, saying he pushed through a "commonsense conservative, fiscally strong message."

"I think as people see that, I'm fine with that expectation," he said. "We may have pushed that narrative off to the side a little bit after Saturday. But I think in the end certainly people in Iowa but also elsewhere around the country like what we have here in the state. Which is we have not just from me but our assembly and our Senate, our commonsense conservatives."

"We have a steady as you go, stick with a commonsense conservative, fiscally strong message. Follow through on your principals. You don't have to throw red meat all the time. Just say what you're going to do and then do what you say and get it done. I think people are hungry. After six-and-a-half-years of a guy who reads great off a teleprompter, I think what Americans want of any political background is authentic leadership that gets the job done."

Sorry, Conservatives: Republican Leadership Isn't Going To Block Loretta Lynch

0
0

A senior aide tells BuzzFeed News that if Obama’s attorney general pick passes a committee vote (which seems likely), Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not stop a full Senate vote — despite calls to block nominees over Obama’s executive actions.

Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell won't stand in the way of Loretta Lynch's nomination to become the next Attorney General despite pressure from conservative activists and Sen. Ted Cruz to hold up all of President Obama's nominees until he rescinds a controversial immigration order.

Angered over Obama's executive orders deferring deportations of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants, Cruz and other conservatives have called on McConnell to keep all of Obama's nominees off the floor of the Senate, save those that have a direct effect on national security issues.

On Wednesday a spokeswoman for Cruz said the Texas conservative stands by his position, though she noted it is up to McConnell to actually block nominees. "The senator has asked that leadership halt nominees until the president rescind his latest executive action. He is still supportive of that measure, but that is a decision up to leadership," the spokeswoman told BuzzFeed.

But according to a senior Republican Senate aide familiar with the situation, McConnell isn't going to stand in the way of Lynch's nomination. "If she is reported out of the committee favorably, she's headed to the floor for consideration," the aide said.

With at least three Judiciary Committee Republicans expected to vote for Lynch, the committee could send the nomination to the full Senate in as soon as two weeks.

That, in turn, means Lynch could take over from Eric Holder before the end of February, thanks to Democrats' elimination of nomination filibusters during the last session of Congress.

Cruz — who has not yet formally announced his opposition — could, in theory stage a symbolic filibuster on the Senate floor to delay the confirmation process, but Lynch now appears on the glide path to confirmation.

During the first day of her two-day hearings Wednesday, Lynch successfully avoided any major missteps, carefully endorsing the broad notions of many of Obama's most controversial policies while not being drawn into rhetorical traps set by Republicans.

According to Republicans and Democrats, part of Lynch's success has been her outreach efforts to lawmakers in both parties, which has gone a long way towards securing support from Republicans.

"I met with her. I had a question about something called Operation Streamline specifically in the Yuma sector of the border," Sen. Jeff Flake told BuzzFeed News Wednesday. "The answer was so-so on it but … my philosophy has always been the president should always get his people unless there is something disqualifying about them and there's nothing disqualifying about her."

Flake, a member of the Judiciary Committee, added, "She's got an incredible history and background and experience and so I can't see myself voting against her."

But Republicans also have another motivating factor to move quickly on the Lynch nomination: their hatred for the man currently running the Department of Justice, Eric Holder.

Holder, who has never been praised by friend or foe for his people skills, has had a combative, openly hostile relationship with congressional Republicans since he first came into office in 2009. At times almost derisive in his interactions with lawmakers during oversight hearings, Holder has rubbed the entire GOP wrong to the point that almost anyone would be seen as a better fit for Republicans.

And that, almost as much as Lynch's efforts to build relationships, has Republicans inclined to get her into office in a relatively swift manner.

"The surest way to get rid of Eric Holder is to replace him with someone else," the senior Republican aide said.

Scott Walker's "Our American Revival" PAC Uses Foreign Stock Videos In Debut Ad

0
0

“America stands on the brink.”

Republican Gov. Scott Walker announced Tuesday the creation of a political action committee to help him raise money as he mulls a presidential run. The PAC, "Our American Revival," debuted with this video:

youtube.com

The ad features various scenes of what one would assume is the United States. Several of the videos, however, come from foreign-based photographers and appear to have been purchased through stock image sites.

Using stock images and videos is common in political ads. However the choice of certain images at times has been embarrassing for political candidates.

Last election former Gov. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania was caught using a stock photo of a smiling black women in what appeared to be a group picture. A Wisconsin Republican Party billboard on outsourcing used photos of a Russian coal miner.

The image of the elderly man staring off into the distance comes from Dualstock, an Italian company.

The image of the elderly man staring off into the distance comes from Dualstock, an Italian company.

Via youtube.com

Here's the image on Shutterstock:

Here's the image on Shutterstock:

Via shutterstock.com


View Entire List ›

White House: The Federal Government Still Opposes Legalizing Marijuana

0
0

“The Federal Government opposes drug legalization because it runs counter to a public health and safety approach to drug policy,” a White House official tells BuzzFeed News after Loretta Lynch testifies.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — When Loretta Lynch told senators "I do not support the legalization of marijuana" during her confirmation hearing for Attorney General Wednesday, she upset a delicate balance for an Obama administration that has expressed support for current federal law banning pot use while also signaling a desire to loosen federal restrictions on the drug.

A White House official told BuzzFeed News Wednesday evening that Lynch's unequivocal opposition to marijuana legalization didn't set a new tone.

"Our position has been clear — marijuana remains illegal under Federal law," the official said in an email when asked if Lynch stated the administration position in her confirmation hearing. "The Federal Government opposes drug legalization because it runs counter to a public health and safety approach to drug policy."

But Obama has not been as hardline about marijuana as Lynch was Wednesday. Speaking to YouTube vlogger Hank Green last week, Obama said that pot was not a priority as the legal landscape has become muddied by states legalizing recreational use.

"The position of my administration has been that we still have federal laws that classify marijuana as an illegal substance," Obama said. "But we're not going to spend a lot of resources trying to turn back decisions that have been made at the state level on this issue."

Obama told the New Yorker last year that he doesn't think marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. In the interview with Green, he openly questioned the government's current approach to marijuana enforcement.

"You know, what we have done is instead of focusing on treatment, the same way we focused, say, with tobacco or drunk driving or other problems where we treat it as a public health problem, we've treated this exclusively as a criminal problem," Obama said. "And I think that it's been counterproductive, and it's been, you know, devastating in a lot of minority communities. It presents the possibility at least of unequal application of the law. And that has to be changed."

As he has in the past, Obama pivoted the question about marijuana to the push for changes to federal sentencing laws for drug offenders, which he has supported since the beginning of his presidency.

Since Colorado and Washington passed their state laws legalizing pot, the Justice Department has promised not to make prosecutions of recreational or medicinal users of marijuana a priority.

The White House official reiterated that stance after Lynch's testimony Wednesday. If confirmed, Lynch would be in charge of managing the prosecutorial discretion rules as Attorney General.

"The Administration's position on enforcement has been clear and consistent: while the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, targeting individual marijuana users – especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers – is not the best allocation of limited Federal law enforcement resources," the official wrote.


Plenty Of Innuendo, But No Hard Evidence Of New Clinton Sex Scandal

0
0

Much-discussed documents in Jeffrey Epstein affair don’t live up to the hype.

Carlo Allegri / Reuters

Over roughly the past month, coverage of Bill Clinton's travels with financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have made their way from a thick stack of court documents into something approaching political mythology, propelled by a string of innuendo-laced reports hinting that the former president must have been in some way complicit when he voyaged with a billionaire known for preying on underage girls.

It's a story with plenty to gape at, from horrific and excruciatingly detailed allegations against Epstein to the frequent presence of a former president who was, after all, nearly chased from office for a (consensual) affair with an intern.

But sometimes stories that seem too good to be true — just might be. A detailed review by a team of BuzzFeed News reporters of more than 2,000 pages of pleadings, depositions, affidavits, police reports, flight logs, and other documents filed in state and federal court found that many of the most provocative allegations about Clinton have little to no factual foundation and are exaggerated at best; that the documents — which appear to be the source for nearly all current reporting on this subject — themselves never suggest that Clinton was doing more than using his wealthy friend as a kind of global taxi service; and that many of the most lurid insinuations have been floated without any visible support from verifiable information.

While it's still possible that some Rosetta stone of Clintonian depravity will surface from a pair of ongoing lawsuits involving Epstein, the fact that nothing even close to that has been dug up over the course of a half-dozen years of heated litigation should not be encouraging for Republican operatives and other Clinton critics hotly anticipating the very worst.

One sign that the connection is a bit weak: The lawyers who have used the Clinton link to help publicize their cases have been markedly vague on details.

When asked to present actual proof, Jack Scarola, the Florida attorney responsible for filing some of the most attention-grabbing documents that have come to light in recent weeks, warned darkly in an email of "extortionate threats, power, wealth or political pressure."

"The time will come when all your questions will be answered," said Scarola, who represents another trial attorney suing Epstein in Palm Beach County Court. "But that time is not now."

Unwilling to wait, perhaps, publications on both sides of the Atlantic have gleefully dipped into those documents to publish breathless descriptions of Epstein's "black book," which contains a host of Clinton phone numbers (along with just about every other powerful figure in the Western world); dissections of handwritten flight logs for the financier's private 727 aircraft that frequently capture Bubba at 30,000 feet; and extensive allegations from a woman, Virginia Roberts, who claims she was Epstein's sex slave as a teenager and whose recollection places the former commander-in-chief on "Orgy Island" in 2002 to participate in a sexual romp, possibly with women who were not yet of age.

National Enquirer

Tellingly, many of those articles — which have notably increased in tempo in recent weeks following Roberts' late December accusation that noted attorney Alan Dershowitz was one of the men she was forced to have sex with — contain language underscoring the fact that none of this proves anything. "It should at this stage be stressed that the Mail has no evidence to corroborate this and other claims made by Virginia Roberts," the Daily Mail wrote in April. "Though her LinkedIn page claims a certificate in Swedish massage, there is no evidence that she ever actually treated Epstein to one," Gawker (in the most straightforward and clearest reporting on the documents to date) wrote last week. And the National Enquirer did not appear to rely on the court record for its conclusions, instead to the interpretation of an unnamed source who noted that "Bill's name is all over the legal papers, which are chock-full of sordid claims."

Clinton's discretion on matters of sexual restraint has attained permanent notoriety, so maybe it's natural to assume that particular leopard doesn't change his spots. But at this point, there is simply nothing to back those sordid claims up.

Here's what we do know:

Jeffrey Epstein is a secretive billionaire financier and Democratic donor who says he never attended college but whose "background is in physics." He owns properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, London, and Paris and also owns an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He has at least two private jets, including the 727.

He has known Bill Clinton since about 1995, and his relationship with him grew stronger after he left office. There is no question they were friendly. Epstein's so-called "black book," which is less like something out of the Heidi Fleiss affair and more what most people would call a "phone directory," contains 21 numbers for getting in touch with Clinton, as well as emails and addresses.

But that 92-page directory also contains exactly the range of eye-poppingly famous and powerful contacts one might expect of an incredibly rich, connected person who owns Manhattan's largest private residence, from Tony Blair to Elie Wiesel to Courtney Love.

Epstein was long rumored to be a sexual libertine; "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do," real estate personality Donald Trump once said of his old friend. "And many of them are on the younger side."


View Entire List ›

Top Democrat On Benghazi Committee: Gowdy Knew Hillary Clinton Would Testify Months Ago

0
0

Things are getting heated. UPDATE: This post has been updated with Gowdy’s response letter.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The top ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi says the Republican chairman has known for months that Hillary Clinton is willing to testify, but chose not to have her do so.

In a letter to chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings said that after receiving thousands of letters from the Stop Hillary PAC, Gowdy personally asked him to call Clinton and ask her to give public testimony to the select committee.

According to Cummings, she agreed to come to Capitol Hill as early as December 2014, and he said he told Gowdy that in October.

In a statement to Politico this week, a spokeswoman for Gowdy said he was "not aware of any formal notice that she would [testify]."

Cummings also writes there was a phone call on Nov. 12, 2014 involving Republican and Democratic staff members, where Clinton's attorney "confirmed the Secretary's willingness to testify."

Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential candidate who was secretary of state when the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was attacked, answered questions in front of Congress once before in 2013.

Cummings said that after learning Clinton was willing to testify, Gowdy said he wanted to obtain "additional documents" before setting a date for her to testify.

"This was a new standard you had not expressed before obtaining the secretary's agreement to testify, and this standard has not been applied to the other witnesses before the Committee," he wrote.

Read the letter here:


View Entire List ›

David Duke Says He Might Run For Congress Against "Sell Out" Steve Scalise

0
0

“He elected supposedly David Duke without the baggage but he is not David Duke, he’s certainly—he’s basically, condemning the people of his district who voted overwhelmingly for me to be their US senator and voted to be their governor.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke says he might run for office against Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

Scalise faced questions earlier this month about a 2003 appearance he made as a state representative before the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO) — a white supremacist group founded by Duke.

Scalise called the appearance "a mistake I regret" and condemned the sort of views groups like EURO hold.

Now Duke, who initially was supportive of Scalise, calling him a "nice guy" to the Washington Post, says he is a "sellout" for apologizing for speaking to the group over a decade ago.

"Steve Scalise, let me tell you something, this is the way I view it now: I mean this guy is a sellout. I mean he's a sellout. He's not David. He used to say that he was David Duke of course without the baggage, whatever that means," Duke told Louisiana radio host Jim Engster of the Jim Engster Show Wednesday.

"The New York Times admitted that the Republican Party won office and got control of the United States House of Representatives, essentially on my political issues. Opposed to the massive illegal immigration, the issues of welfare reform, so many other issues that I've talked about, and but the difference is with someone like me Steve Scalise, or David Vitter, you know the prostitution king. The difference between myself and those guys is that I did not sellout. I've never sold out..."

Duke said he took offense to Scalise's apology and repudiation of the views held by the group.

"He said specifically that he shouldn't have gone to the European American Unity and Rights Organization. That he shouldn't have done it, it was a terrible mistake. He shouldn't...what he's basically saying is that 60% of his district, the same people by the way who voted for him that they're just nothing but a bunch of racists. You know, I've said nothing at that conference any different that I ran for office on. It wasn't a klan meeting. It wasn't any sort of a radical meeting, it was a meeting that said there was European American rights, right? So he is a sellout, right? Because, you know he can't meet with members of his own district who have opinions like I have but he meets with radical blacks who have total opposite political positions than him."

Duke said he believed Scalise would survive politically being linked to him but didn't deserve to and should resign from the House for distancing himself from EURO's views.

"I call upon Steve Scalise to step down from his position of House of Representatives, in fact, he should resign his seat," said Duke.

Duke said Scalise's condemnation of him made him consider challenging Scalise for his congressional district.

"I am not registered to vote right now. I have legally been able to vote for years but I haven't registered right now and I'd be able to vote for, but I might just register. Just so, I might have to run against Steve Scalise because you know, I really might. I mean, I'm definitely going to consider it because its so disgusting to me to see…he got elected on false pretenses."

"He elected supposedly David Duke without the baggage but he is not David Duke, and he certainly doesn't —he's basically, condemning the people of his district who voted overwhelmingly for me to be their US senator and voted to be their governor. He's insulting every one of the members who actually voted for him because he is suggesting to they're racist because they supported my views. So that's the thing, again I call on him to step down. He should step down because he has betrayed, he has betrayed his people. that's the difference between, see they always talk about the fact that the Republican Party's issues are my issues. The difference with me in the Republican Party is that I didn't betray them when I got elected."

Senate Democrats Leave Door Open To Skip Netanyahu Speech

0
0

Only one senator asked by BuzzFeed News — Sen. Ben Cardin — said he’d definitely go.

ASSOCIATED PRESS Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress in March, it is unclear whether everybody invited will actually show up.

Democrats have criticized House Speaker John Boehner for circumventing the administration when he invited Netanyahu to speak, and the White House has already said Obama will not meet with him when he's here.

BuzzFeed News asked several Senate Democrats whether they planned on skipping the speech or not. Most said they either hadn't thought about it or they hadn't decided. But there were no hard answers in the negative. Only one senator definitively said he would go.

Sen. Tim Kaine, who serves on both the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees and recently traveled to Israel, said it's "too early" to decide whether he'll attend or not.

"It is not the norm to do this right before an election and it is being widely reported in the Israeli press as the U.S. expressing some kind of a preference," Kaine said.

Sen. Chris Murphy expressed a similar sentiment.

"I'm sick about the fact that protocol has been violated, but you know, I'm always eager to hear what he has to say," Sen. Chris Murphy said. "It's not something that I have thought about one way or the other."

A Democratic aide said their office was only informed of the scheduled date on Thursday and it was unclear if "anything's been discussed at this point by anyone in the Senate."

Netanyahu's arrival will come at a tense time. He's up for re-election in mid-March and many have said they are uncomfortable having him make a political speech to Congress so close to that vote. The U.S. is also in talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

Netanyahu is slated to address Congress on March 3.

When asked whether he'd attend, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said he'd "figure that out later."

Sen. Chris Coons, who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I'll be weighing what's the best thing to do."

"I remain hopeful that his address would be delayed until after their election," the Delaware Democrat told BuzzFeed News.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein declined to comment. Sen. Ed Markey referred BuzzFeed News to his press office.

Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was the lone senator who said he would attend no matter what.

"I'd be more than happy to meet with opposition leaders if they want to meet with us, give them opportunities, etcetera," Cardin told BuzzFeed News. "But if the Prime Minister of Israel addresses a joint session of Congress, I would be there."

Speaking at the Democrat retreat in Philadelphia Wednesday night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned of the effects a visit from Netanyahu could have on the Iran talks.

"In terms of invitations to speak to Congress — the Prime Minister has spoken two times. The only person who has spoken more is Winston Churchill," Pelosi said. "One of the times, my father was in the room; Dec. 26 — the day after Christmas — 1941, right when we were going into World War II. It's a serious, big honor that we extend. That it should be extended two weeks before an election in a country, without collaboration among the leaders of Congress, and without collaboration with the White House, is not appropriate. It is not appropriate."

Kate Nocera contributed to this report.

Top Congressmen: Turkey Must Do More To Stop ISIS Fighters Moving Into Europe

0
0

“This is a war. And they certainly aren’t treating it that way.” ISIS fighters have been leaving Iraq and Syria and passing through Turkey into Europe, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.

French citizen Fritz-Joly Joachin © arrives under police escort at a court in the southern city of Haskovo January 20, 2015. Joachin, arrested in Bulgaria for alleged links to the gunmen who attacked the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, denies being part of an Islamist group and is ready to be extradited to prove his innocence, his lawyer said last Friday.

Stoyan Nenov / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Senior members of the House and Senate warned Turkey that the country must take aggressive steps to stop the passage of ISIS militants from Iraq and Syria through Turkey and into Europe.

For months, ISIS leaders have been sending the group's fighters across the Syrian border to Turkish port cities where, posing as refugees, they use boats to enter into Europe. Once there, these fighters have been tasked with establishing covert cells to conduct attacks on targets in Europe.

In interviews with BuzzFeed News, leading members of the House and Senate slammed the Turkish government's handling of its borders, insisting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government must begin taking the threat from the terrorist group more seriously.

"I think the Turks have a lot of work to do, in terms of the level of their cooperation. This is a war. And they certainly aren't treating it that way," Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told BuzzFeed News.

Turkey over the years has received more than $26 billion in economic and military aid from the United States, including $4.8 million in the current fiscal year.

"We are certainly very concerned with the exodus of foreign fighters from Syria and Iraq," House Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff said earlier this week. "We continue to have a problem along the Turkish border," specifically with ISIS's ability to move money and fighters across the border largely unmolested, Schiff added.

Schiff said that while U.S. officials are in talks with the Turkish government to try and clamp down on ISIS movements through the country, "the Turkish border [remains] far too porous."

Turkey "has got to step up its game. When you look down the road, if you don't get Turkey involved in stopping the flow into Syria, you're going to have a nightmare … as to the outflow, we've got the same problem. So the key to this is Turkey," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said, adding that the situation is likely to become worse as Syria other neighbors begin closing their borders to refugees.

"If you don't stabilize Syria, you'll never get a handle on this. Wait until Lebanon and Jordan close their borders, which they're gonna. Lebanon and Jordan are saturated, and once they're closed, the only way out is Turkey," Graham said.

LINK: ISIS Operative: This Is How We Send Jihadis To Europe

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images