The state would be the first conservative state in decades to ban executions. Gov. Pete Ricketts says he will veto the bill — but it passed with a veto-proof majority.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha speaks on a bill to abolish the death penalty.

Nati Harnik / AP

The Nebraska legislature voted overwhelmingly — with a veto-proof majority — to repeal the death penalty on Wednesday, a step toward becoming the first conservative state in decades to do so.

Although Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts has pledged to veto the proposal, the unicameral body would have enough votes to override him if Wednesday's vote holds.

"The record should be crystal clear on what it is we are doing. It is historic," Sen. Ernie Chambers said during debate. "We have the opportunity to take one small step for the Legislature, a giant leap for civilization."

Ricketts is expected to make an announcement on a veto in the next several days. Of the consideration of repeal, he has accused the legislature of putting "the safety of the public and Nebraska families at risk."

The repeal vote came just a week after the Republican governor announced the state had purchased a massive quantity of lethal drugs — which he said was part of his promise to "resolve" issues with "the functionality of the death penalty" in the state — although the drugs come from a questionable source.

Rickett's office said the drugs were purchased from a distributor in India called HarrisPharma, a source that shouldn't be unfamiliar to Nebraska officials. The state purchased drugs from a broker named Chris Harris, who now runs HarrisPharma, several years ago, but Nebraska was never able to use them after questions over whether the purchase was done legally.

In 2011, the manufacturer claimed the drugs were free samples given to Harris for tests in Africa, but were "wrongfully diverted" to Nebraska's execution chamber.

"The agreement with Mr. Harris was that he would use these vials for registration in Zambia," the drug's manufacturer wrote to Nebraska. "Mr. Harris was authorised specifically to take the product to Zambia and get it registered there. He was not authorised to sell the product to the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services or to anyone else in the USA. Mr. Harris misappropriated our medicines and diverted them from their intended purpose and use."

Nebraska Solicitor General James Smith told the Fremont Tribune that he wasn't familiar with the details of how the purchase was made this time, but had been told it was done legally.

This time, the state purchased 1,000 units each of sodium thiopental and pancuronium bromide, according to KETV. The amount of sodium thiopental is enough for thousands of executions, although the state has only 11 inmates on death row.

The state paid Harris $54,400 for the drugs. So far, the governor's office has not responded to a BuzzFeed News open records request for the invoice.

‘Cause I’m a motorcycle man.

Mandatory soundtrack:

w.soundcloud.com

Edward David / Via Flickr: theaudioslave

Scott Walker Campaign Site

View Entire List ›

“The fact is, if we’re going to single an area out for being dangerous, Atlanta would come far ahead of New York.”

Darren McCollester / Getty Images

New York Rep. Peter King fired back Wednesday at his fellow Republican congressman, Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk, for saying that he felt safer during a recent trip to Israel than he "would in certain parts of New York or Chicago."

King said that Loudermilk's comments reflected widespread misperceptions about the city's crime rate, and claimed that Atlanta -- whose northern suburbs make up much of Loudermilk's own district -- has a much higher crime rate than New York.

"People from outside of New York, certainly from the South or the West -- they seem to have this compulsion to look upon New York as this high-crime den of evil," said King. "The fact is, if we're going to single an area out for being dangerous, Atlanta would come far ahead of New York."

"New York is, by most accounts, the safest big city in the United States; Atlanta is -- the last I saw -- on the FBI's list of most dangerous cities," King continued.

"It's just wrong when members of Congress take shots at New York and imply that we're some kind of crime area, when we're actually the safest."

King claimed that Atlanta's murder rate is "five times higher" than New York's.

w.soundcloud.com

King added that he could understand someone "coming from a small town, coming to New York, seeing things he never saw before, and not knowing how to react," and suggested that the "knee-jerk" impulse to demonize New York grew in part from the city's diversity, which he said can be overwhelming to people not used to life in a cosmopolitan center.

Because New York is "culturally different" from other parts of the country, King suggested, "they just then accept this total exaggeration and distortion about New York being the center of crime."

"I mean, we take it for granted in New York that you're gonna have different ethnic groups all over the place, that you're gonna have different religions all over the place, that you're gonna have so much activity," said King.

"Many other communities in the country are -- basically, they're all the same. They're not used to the diversity we have in New York."

"I'm not saying that as any great liberal," King added. "It's a fact of life that we accept, encourage, and actually thrive on this, almost, conflict of ideas at times."

View Entire List ›

Most GOP senators won’t be “standing with Rand” as Paul launched into what will likely be a very long floor speech on Wednesday to fight the Patriot Act.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — When Rand Paul delivered his now-famous filibuster on drones, he was joined by more than a half dozen senators — including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — who helped him out by asking long-winded questions to give him a break from speaking.

The drone filibuster is a key moment in the Paul's mythology as a candidate: The hours-long speech launched the phrase "Stand with Rand" and elevated his profile among a much broader audience of American voters on an issue that Paul clearly cares about.

But this time, as Paul speaks on the Senate floor against renewing the Patriot Act, he will mostly be on his own.

With the expiration of the post-9/11 law looming, several of Paul's allies on surveillance are supporting the USA Freedom Act, the bipartisan bill that ends the government's ability to bulk collect phone data along with other changes to surveillance but largely extends the Patriot Act.

At a recent event in Philadelphia, Paul acknowledged his battle would be largely symbolic. "I will do everything possible. The rules are tricky in the senate but we will do everything possible including filibustering Patriot Act to stop them," he said. "People watching the process realize that they can ultimately beat me if they have the votes. They have the votes inside the beltway but we have the votes outside the beltway."

Technically, Paul's Wednesday speech is not a filibuster (the pending business on the floor is a trade bill and debate can be cut off at a set time early Thursday morning). But he and his 2016 campaign team are banking that his largely libertarian base will be elated by the speech — aides and Paul's campaign Twitter account began tweeting about the "filibuster" shortly after Paul started speaking.

Paul says the bipartisan bill doesn't go far enough, and has actually argued it makes it worse, recently arguing that it "actually expands the Patriot Act" by allowing phone companies, instead of the government, to hold on to the data records. He wants nothing short of these provisions of the Patriot Act ending. A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee, who is a cosponsor of the USA Freedom Act, announced on Twitter that Lee would join Paul "in support of full debate and amendments on the USA Freedom Act." Paul said he wanted "time on the floor to debate this and amendments we put forward on the Senate floor will be given a chance to be passed or rejected."

But even Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who has teamed up with Paul to fight any kind of short-term extension to the Patriot Act, supports USA Freedom, the bipartisan effort. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he'll allow USA Freedom to come to a vote, and Paul aides said it was "tbd" if he'd try to stop that bill as well but that he would likely vote no on that bill. Wyden's support for Paul's efforts only go so far as to help him reject a short-term extension. Wyden was the first senator to join Paul on the floor Wednesday afternoon. On Tuesday he said his goal was to end the bulk collection program.

"I expect that there will be a number of members on the Democratic side who will oppose a short-term extension," said Wyden.

"[Paul] and I are very much of the view that the bulk phone record collection must go, it does not make America safer and it compromises our liberty," he added.

Paul is the only Republican member in the Senate opposing both the extension of Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act. Marco Rubio has sided with McConnell and others to push for a "clean" extension of the Patriot Act with no changes. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is the co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act along with several other Republican members who want to see changes to the data-collection program — an issue more or less spearheaded by Paul, who now stands alone.

More hawkish Republicans essentially rolled their eyes at Paul's filibuster threats.

"If he does that's fine. It'll be a 12-hour delay and he'll get his headlines and we'll move on," said Sen. John McCain, who has never been a big fan of Paul's. "There's an old saying that goes 'the dog barks but the caravan moves on … It'll last however long his bladder lasts. How could you possibly work out an agreement with him? Fortunately, he only has one vote."

But even a slight delay could mean the end of the bulk-data-collection program.

The National Security Agency has already announced steps are being taken to wind down the bulk collection program "to ensure that it does not engage in any unauthorized collection or use of the metadata."

The House is leaving town for Memorial Day recess on Thursday, and the Senate is scheduled to adjourn as well. McConnell is banking on the idea that the USA Freedom Act will fail and a short-term measure will be all that is able to pass the Senate, even though the House has said they've done their work already by passing USA Freedom.

Who’s the worst Republican presidential candidate according to King? Paul and Cruz!

w.soundcloud.com

Rep. Peter King says Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are in a "race to the bottom" of the Republican field. King, the Long island Republican who said he'll decided whether to run for president in "next month or so" said the pair appeal to the "lowest common denominator."

"I'd say it's a race to the bottom between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul," said King, asked who the worst Republican candidate was, adding that he judged them on "their policies, and also how they'd do in the general election."

"They both appeal to the lowest common denominator," he said.

King said he was bothered most by Paul's foreign policy.

"Starting with Rand Paul, I would say that — well, you asked me the thing that bothers me the most — I would say that he has this 'blame America' foreign policy, talking about America being an imperial power," said King.

King called the Kentucky senator's filibuster a waste of time.

"I mean, to actually waste 23 hours — I don't know how many hours his filibuster was on the House floor, about drones — I mean, he's really worried about CIA killing an American drinking coffee at Starbucks? You know, the enemy is al-Qaeda, and that to me is just creating unnecessary fears in people, and such a distortion."

"For him to say that Gen. Clapper belongs in jail, with Snowden, and to be saying anything good about Snowden at all — here's a guy who has put so many American lives at risk. And basically, I would say it's this moral equivalency he shows between the CIA and the NSA on the one hand, and the enemies of America on the other hand — to me, this is a Charles Lindbergh isolationism of the 1930s."

Turning to Cruz, Peter King said he was bothered most by Cruz's "irresponsibility" relating to the 2013 government shutdown.

"As for Ted Cruz, I would say it's the irresponsibility, going back to when he brought about the government shutdown in 2013, on the funding of Obamacare," said King. "Somehow he got people in the House to go along with that, then when it came to the Senate he admitted he had no answer to it. So you have the government shut down, there was no way out of it other than to re-open the government, at a loss of revenue to the government."

King added he "no idea" why House Republicans listened to Cruz on shutting down the government.

"People at a — again, causing Republicans, from a political perspective, our numbers dropped so dramatically during that time. And it was all because of him, with this totally false narrative of his that if the House just shut down the government over Obamacare, he'd be able to take care of it in the Senate. And why people listened to him, why they followed him over the cliff, I have no idea."

Hillary Clinton hosts a small business forum with members of the business and lending communities at Bike Tech, a bicycle shop in Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Hillary Clinton’s lines on the economy go something like this: President Obama has led the country out of the recession. (“But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”) People are back on their feet. (“But they’re not running.”) The toughest times have passed. (“But now it’s not enough just to tread water.”)

Clinton, now a month into her campaign, rarely strays from this carefully hewn pattern. At her events, she acknowledges six years of economic progress under a Democratic president — and then comes the gentle caveat: a forward-looking, aspirational, and not too specific pivot to all the work that lies ahead.

But in some settings, Clinton has revealed a sharper critique of the economy: Seated beside an entrepreneur in Iowa, or a factory owner in New Hampshire, she has sounded notes more often associated with Republicans on small businesses, regulation, and government, even as she runs more broadly as a populist liberal.

The topic of small businesses has, more than any other so far, offered a window into Clinton’s view of the economy — and an outline of the ways in which she may pitch herself to middle-class voters. Clinton is, in her own words, the “daughter of a waste-not, want-not kind of guy” — and a future “small business president.”

On Tuesday morning, at an roundtable in northeast Iowa with local business owners and the chair of a local bank, Clinton vowed to be that “small business president,” outlining the elements of a pro-business policy agenda that would offer tax relief and cut down on “excess in regulation and paperwork.”

The plan had four points: eliminate regulations on small businesses to “cut the unnecessary red tape”; offer relief through “targeted credits and deductions”; expand access to new markets using technology, “whether it’s across town, across the state, or across the world”; and finally, ease the path for entrepreneurs — and female and minority entrepreneurs in particular — to accessing credit.

“You shouldn't have to be a Fortune 500 company to get a loan," Clinton said.

Since announcing her campaign, Clinton has hosted six roundtable discussions. Half now have focused on small business. A campaign announced this week that Clinton's next event — a roundtable in Hampton, New Hampshire — will also focus on "ideas to expand small businesses" and "cut red tape" in the state.

At her events, Clinton often recalls memories of working as a young girl in her father’s drapery print plant building on the North Side of Chicago, where she and her mother and two bothers would “work the squeegee" over their silk screen machines. She has made the point that “it was a lot easier in those days” to start businesses. “You had an idea, you get what you needed, and you go to work.”

It's become far too difficult now, Clinton argues.

She has repeatedly cited a World Bank survey showing that the United States has fallen to 46th among other countries in “ease of starting a business.” She frequently casts small companies as the economy's “heart and backbone” — and attributes setbacks to an environment that doesn’t encourage new businesses.

“I want to be sure that we get small businesses started and growing in America again. We have stalled out,” Clinton said in New Hampshire last month, citing the World Bank study. “I was surprised to see that when I began to dig into it.”

The “stalled” comment — which spread across conservative news outlets last month — marked an early sign of distance between Obama and Clinton. During a press briefing shortly after the remark, the White House press secretary declined to comment on the assessment when asked. (But at the time, a Clinton aide dismissed the idea of a rift: “The tales about battles between White Houses and candidates of their party to succeed them are legendary in politics. If the start of this campaign is any indication, the legends may die here.”)

Clinton, to the surprise of some at a roundtable last month just outside Des Moines, attributed the World Bank ranking in part to “unnecessary regulation.”

“We have to be number one again,” she said.

On Tuesday — as she asked that the government look to “ease burdens” on community banks “without harming consumers” — she stressed that the proposal in no way applied to larger financial institutions. “Let’s be clear about this: It’s not the big banks that need relief… It’s small banks and small businesses,” she said, restating her support for Dodd-Frank, the financial reform bill. “But we should pass common-sense community banking reform right now.”

“We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Clinton.

She turned to one of the participants on the roundtable, Donna Sorensen, who chairs the board of Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust, and asked, “Isn’t that do-able?”

“I cannot tell you how many of us in the community banking world are thrilled to hear this,” said Sorensen. “We exist to support small businesses.”

Those who have worked with Clinton and her husband on small business initiatives in the past aren’t surprised to hear about her comments on the issue.

Betsy Myers, a senior official in Bill Clinton’s administration, worked first for the U.S. Small Business Administration, or SBA, as head of the women’s office.

“She is not going to come at these issues in a partisan way. Because they’re moderate. The Clintons are moderate,” said Myers. “You will never find a bigger advocate for small businesses than Hillary Clinton. She’s been a champion for 40 years.”

Myers recalled the Clintons’ efforts to promote micro-lending programs, and an SBA-led pre-qualification loan program that helped women, veterans, and others apply for and secure loans for new businesses. As president, Bill Clinton elevated the SBA director, then Erskine Bowles, to a cabinet-level position.

“We were so proud to work at the agency,” she said. “We felt connected to the White House — and we were at the table, not off to the side.”

“There isn’t a politician who will not try to represent themselves as a champion of small business. It’s like being against small babies and kittens,” said Jeff Milchen, the director a national confederation of advocacy groups for independent businesses, the American Independent Business Alliance.

But small business owners also touch, in a direct and daily way, the very issues that shape a presidential election: health care, taxes, banking, and trade. Advocates point out that the small business community is often misunderstood as an ideological block, “monolithically anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-regulation,” said John Arensmeyer, the founder of the Small Business Majority, a liberal-leaning nonprofit. “The reality is that small business owners are pragmatic.”

A considerable share of the small business community will also have a stake in the outcome of a contentious ongoing debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade deal that has pitted progressives against the White House.

Small business experts said that most entrepreneurs would be wary of TPP. Those in the Democratic Party's left-wing believe the deal will hurt U.S. workers and wages, or ignore environmental protections. But the details of the trade deal — negotiated behind closed doors — have yet to be released.

"I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s totally incongruous to make an argument in support of some of the things in the TPP," Milchen said of small business owners.

Without knowing the terms of the deal, "it’s almost an impossible question," Milchen added. "But there some ways that international agreements could help small businesses? Sure. Does this cover it? We have no idea yet."

Clinton has, on the same grounds, declined to take a clear position on the deal — or on whether Congress should grant President Obama the “fast track” authority to negotiate it. "I want to judge the final agreement," she said on Tuesday.

Clinton, though, has promised that she will make small business owners and entrepreneurs a priority of her campaign. As she told the owner of a family-owned furniture manufacturer in New Hampshire, where she held an event last month, “I can assure you that I don’t want to make your life any more onerous."

“I would not support anything that makes your business more difficult to run," she said. "You have a real business and real economic imperatives."

The Oklahoma Republican Party’s chairman has refused to fire an official who pleaded guilty to domestic violence, despite demands within the party for him to do so. Cruz is scheduled to speak at the party’s fundraiser on Friday.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

When presidential candidate Ted Cruz walks into the Oklahoma Republican Party fundraiser he is scheduled to headline Friday night, he will find himself in the middle of a charged intra-party battle over a staffer who was recently revealed to have a history of domestic violence.

The Cruz campaign did not respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News Wednesday night, but the Oklahoma party's website and Facebook page continue to list the Texas senator as the star attraction for the $100-per-plate fundraising gala. The event will take place during the three-day Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City, where a host of presidential prospects are expected to speak.

But Cruz is the only candidate directly raising money for the state party — and his appearance will come at a time when Republican officials across Oklahoma are pledging to withhold funds from the cash-strapped organization until its newly elected chairman Randy Brogdon agrees to fire a key lieutenant.

The infighting began earlier this month after Brogdon named Thomas Clint Ryan executive director of the Oklahoma Republican Party. The next day, a local political blog called The McCarville Report reported that Ryan had pleaded guilty in 2012 to domestic assault and battery in the presence of a minor, and interference with an emergency telephone call — both of which are misdemeanors. Republicans across the state were soon clamoring for his ouster.

Brogdon resisted, calling Ryan an "example of how God's grace and redeeming power can change lives." As pressure mounted, he sought to appease his critics by demoting the man he called his "good friend" to political director.

But the move has done little to quiet the growing chorus of Republicans in Oklahoma who say it's unconscionable for their party to employ a man with a recent record of domestic abuse at any level. Multiple GOP lawmakers — including the three Republican women in the state senate — have continued to call for Ryan's removal.

"That's not the face of my party and that's now how I want it represented," state Rep. Lisa Billy told The Oklahoman newspaper, echoing several of her colleagues.

Several Republican officials have also said they will not give a dime to the state party — which is reportedly in debt — as long as Ryan remains in its leadership ranks.

"I cannot imagine how any elected official or business leader could possibly donate to the Oklahoma state Republican party knowing that the money might fund the employment of somebody who recently pleaded guilty to domestic violence," said Republican state Sen. David Holt. "I certainly will not be doing that until the situation changes."

Though Cruz's appearance at the fundraiser was booked before this recent dispute, the timing could prove awkward for him. Already, some Republicans in Oklahoma are questioning why the candidate would show up and raise money for the state party given the developments.

"You have people saying, 'OK, so Ted Cruz is running for president — and he's gonna be helping pay the salary of this guy convicted of domestic abuse?" said one Oklahoma Republican consultant who is not affiliated with any presidential campaign.

Brogdon has so far dug in his heels, insisting that "the Republican Party is the party of hope and second chances." What's more, some of the chairman's tea party allies in the state are claiming the controversy has been fueled by the GOP establishment, which is unhappy that Brogdon unseated his more pragmatic predecessor last month.

But Holt dismissed that idea. "To me, this issue is about domestic violence," he said. "It really shouldn't be controversial in 2015 that you don't think the Republican Party should be accepting of domestic violence abusers. We should have a zero tolerance policy."

Asked whether he believed Cruz should still speak at the fundraising dinner, Holt replied, "That's a question for Sen. Cruz. I won't be there."

“Knowing now — and again, you never know at the time what you’re gonna find out years later — knowing now that the WMD were there, it probably — it would not have been appropriate to invade at that time.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Peter King, one of most hawkish members of Congress, said "it would not have been appropriate" to invade Iraq if we had known that Saddam Hussein's regime did not possess an active program of weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States.

"Knowing now — and again, you never know at the time what you're gonna find out years later — knowing now that the WMD were there, it probably — it would not have been appropriate to invade at that time," said the New York Republican to BuzzFeed News.

"However Hussein was still a very serious threat to the region, and we could have allowed more time to bring pressure on him, and to insure that he did not take any further action."

King, who is weighing a presidential bid had said however it would have been "criminally negligent" to not invade Iraq based on the intelligence at the time.

"First of all, knowing what we did know at the time, it would have been criminally negligent not to invade Iraq. Based on what was thought to be known at the time by every intelligence agency, including every leading Democrat, from John Kerry to Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, it was essential that the president take the action that he did.

He added it the world knew Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction it would have been "a different story."

"His strength was built on the fact that he had no WMD. If the world knew that he had no WMD, then it's a different story, and he could have been monitored more seriously. The fact is, everyone in the region, including his own generals, though he had WMD, and that was a source of real disarray in the Middle East."

King still said "all efforts should have been" for regime change in Iraq, but such efforts could have taken place over time and not have been an invasion.

"No. If I had known then, in March of 2003 — knew conclusively, and the world knew — that he did not have WMD, then we could have waited to remove him. But all efforts should have been to remove him," he said. "But it did not have to be an invasion at that time. And that's assuming not only that we knew, but that the whole world knew and believed that he did not have WMD, because the source of his power then was countries in the region thought he did have WMD."

In a letter signed by 21 Democrats and one Republican, the senators call on Defense Secretary to implement named protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter

MANDEL NGAN / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Nearly two dozen senators will ask Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday to take action to include explicit nondiscrimination protections for lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members — calling inaction on the issue since the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" a "failure."

Led by Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy and Tammy Baldwin, the 22 senators, in a copy of the letter provided to BuzzFeed News, "strongly urge" Carter to update equal employment opportunity policies at the Pentagon and in all the service branches "to prevent discrimination, harassment, or intimidation of service members based on sexual orientation." The group includes Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a leader on DADT repeal in 2010.

The question of whether sexual orientation would be added to equal employment opportunity policies in the military was raised by reporters and advocates even before the repeal of DADT took effect in September 2011. In Thursday's letter, the senators write to Carter, however, "equal opportunity policies for the military continue to lag behind" policies for the military's civilian employees.

"The repeal of DADT represented great progress toward eradicating a significant barrier to formal equality, but the military is not yet an equitable environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members," the senators write. "The absence of formal equal opportunity protections not only undermines foundational American principles of fairness and equality, it also presents an unneeded risk to national security by negatively impacting the morale and readiness of our all-volunteer force."

Notably, the letter makes no mention of the continued regulatory obstacles to out transgender service in the military — another key area where LGBT advocates have been pressing for military action in the second term of the Obama administration.

Asked about the decision not to mention transgender service in the letter, a spokesman for Murphy, Chris Harris, told BuzzFeed News, "This letter is an effort to close the book on the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' by urging the Pentagon to finally update its equal opportunity policies and ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Expanding rights and opportunities for transgender Americans seeking to serve their country is hugely important, but is a separate issue from fully implementing the repeal of DADT as passed into law in 2010."

In addition to Murphy, Baldwin, and Collins, the letter also was signed by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Martin Heinrich, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Bob Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Gary Peters, Bernie Sanders, Brian Schatz, Jeanne Shaheen, and Elizabeth Warren.

The Honorable Ashton Carter
Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1300

Dear Secretary Carter,

We are writing to strongly urge you to update the equal opportunity policies across the Department of Defense (DoD) and military services to prevent discrimination, harassment, or intimidation of service members based on sexual orientation. In the three and a half years since the end of the discriminatory policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), the military services have failed to include binding protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members in Equal Opportunity Programs. The need to correct this failure becomes even clearer in the context of DoD's 2014 Human Goals Charter, the Department's cornerstone document governing the fair treatment of people, which states that DoD will "strive to make military service in the Department of Defense a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin."

Formal equal opportunity policy in the military provides no protection or redress for service members who find themselves victims of sexual harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation. The repeal of DADT represented great progress toward eradicating a significant barrier to formal equality, but the military is not yet an equitable environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. The absence of formal equal opportunity protections not only undermines foundational American principles of fairness and equality, it also presents an unneeded risk to national security by negatively impacting the morale and readiness of our all-volunteer force. Conversely, an environment in which all service members can defend their country with honor and personal integrity, and without fear of discrimination, strengthens the bonds of shared sacrifice and maintains good order and discipline.

While DoD has made great strides toward ensuring equal opportunity for its civilian workforce, based on sexual orientation, equal opportunity policies for the military continue to lag behind. Under Army, Navy, and Air Force policies, only race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are protected under equal opportunity policies by all three services. We ask that you carefully reexamine your current policies (Air Force Instruction 36-2706, SECNAV Instruction 5350.16A, and Army Regulation 600-20) and amend them to include sexual orientation as a protected category.

We have the finest men and women serving in uniform and they all deserve equal respect and a safe working environment. It is long past time that the military services enact comprehensive reforms to protect all of our men and women from any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Thank you again for your service and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

The former defense secretary, now president of the Boy Scouts, called upon the organization to make a change “sooner rather than later.”

Boy Scouts carry an American Flag in the annual Memorial Day Parade on May 26, 2014 in Fairfield, Connecticut.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The president of the Boy Scouts, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, told the organization Thursday that its current blanket ban on gay leaders "cannot be sustained" and called on the group to revise the rule "sooner rather than later."

Gates was at the helm of the Pentagon at the end of "don't ask, don't tell" and is now leading the Boy Scouts as it addresses its ban on gay members. In 2013, the scouts ended its ban on gay youth members but maintained its ban on gay adult leaders.

According to his prepared remarks, Gates said that "events during the past year have confronted us with urgent challenges I did not foresee and which we cannot ignore." Gates also said some local councils already are "in open defiance of the policy" — specifically referencing the actions of the Greater New York Council, on which BuzzFeed News previously reported — and "the social, political and juridicial changes taking place in our country" surrounding gay rights.

While Gates said he is "not asking the national board for any action to change our current policy at this time," he stated the issue confronting the organization unequivocally.

"I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of the CIA and secretary of defense," he said. "We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The status quo in our movement's membership standards cannot be sustained."

As to those councils in "open defiance," he added that, while the national organization "technically" could revoke the charters of those councils, "I will not take that path." The decision effectively means that councils can ignore the ban — but Gates said nothing about whether the national organization would take action to revoke the membership of individual scout leaders who are gay.

Gates did go on to detail the potential legal problems the organization could face if it does not act, noting of the possibility that a court could order a change to the policy, "We must all understand that this probably will happen sooner rather than later."

He went on to note the 2010 order striking down "don't ask, don't tell" by a court and temporarily ending the ban even before congressional action. His reference of that lawsuit — and his warning to the Scouts that "[w]e cannot predict if or when this might happen to us" — was striking acknowledgement from Gates of the impact on him of the lawsuit, brought by Log Cabin Republicans, against the military's since repealed gay ban.

Rather than wait for that, he urged the organization not to end the ban altogether, but instead to "allow charter partners — unit sponsoring organizations — to determine the standards for their scout leaders." He said that path forward "would allow all churches, which sponsor some 70% of our scout units, to establish leadership standards consistent with their faith."

Zach Wahls, the executive director of Scouts for Equality, celebrated the news — while calling for action.

"This is another step forward for the Boy Scouts of America," he said in a statement. "I'm proud to see Dr. Gates charting a course towards full equality in the BSA. While our work won't be done until we see a full end to their ban on gay adults once and for all, today's announcement is a significant step in that direction."

The relevant portion of Gates's remarks:

View Entire List ›

“Do you think street gang members spend more time watching Murphy Brown, or Terminator?” A look at the DNC’s surrogate oppo book in 1992.

White House Photo / Via whitehouse.gov1.info

In July 1992, the Democratic National Committee put together a document with attacks and criticisms to use against surrogates campaigning for President George H.W. Bush's re-election.

University of Arkansas Special Collections

Among other things, the document provided suggested questions for the press to ask the surrogates.

University of Arkansas Special Collections

The surrogates list was mostly politicians but also included Arnold Schwarzenegger, a prominent Republican who campaigned for Bush.

University of Arkansas Special Collections

View Entire List ›

“There’s a good number from Indonesia, there are from Morocco, and other places around the world, many of whom aren’t looking for work in the United States. They’ve got other motives and we need to wake up to that.”

youtube.com

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warned a crowd at the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association Thursday that Americans need to "wake up" to the fact many people aren't crossing the border with the intentions of looking for work and are coming with "other motives."

"Increasingly, when you look at the list, when I was down there earlier in the year, at the countries of origin, it's not just Mexico, it's not central America, or even South America," the Wisconsin governor said in footage clipped the Democratic research firm American Bridge.

Walker said his trip to the border showed him that "a good number" of people are coming from Indonesia and Morocco and "other places around the world." He said many of these people weren't looking for jobs but instead had "other motives."

"There's a good number from Indonesia, there are from Morocco, and other places around the world, many of whom aren't looking for work in the United States. They've got other motives and we need to wake up to that. So, securing the border is important, and on the larger part on immigration, securing the border is a key part of immigration."

Walker's position on immigration has been fluid over the past several years. He once expressed support for citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He changed his view to oppose citizenship for undocumented immigrants and has publicly acknowledged a change on the issue. A Walker aide previously cited President Obama's executive action on immigration as a driving force for the change.

A Walker spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

The two developments were announced Thursday in a closely watched transgender case out of California.

Courtesy of Transgender Law Center

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Thursday put on hold a trial court order that a transgender woman in a California prison receive sex reassignment surgery — a move that came the same day a state parole board found the inmate suitable for parole.

In Thursday's order, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also set the argument in the state's appeal of Michelle Norsworthy's case for the second week of August. If, however, Norsworthy is paroled before then — a process that could take up to five months — her case would be dismissed because it would be moot.

Norsworthy, who is serving 17 years to life prison for a 1987 second-degree murder conviction, sued the state for treatment of her gender dysphoria, specifically seeking sex reassignment surgery.

On April 2, U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar ordered that Norsworthy be provided "adequate medical care, including sex reassignment surgery." Additionally, he ordered that the state "take all of the actions reasonably necessary to provide Norsworthy sex reassignment surgery as promptly as possible."

The state, in filings by Attorney General Kamala Harris on behalf of the state corrections officials facing the lawsuit, asked Tigar to put his order on hold during the state's appeal. He denied that request on April 27, so the state, which appealed Tigar's underlying order, then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay.

In addition to the usual arguments provided by the state for granting a stay — such as that they expect to win on appeal and will face "irreparable injury" if a stay is not granted — state officials noted that "the only factor that seemed to show any type of urgency for Ms. Norsworthy's request [for surgery] was her scheduled parole hearing, which she postponed and might have led to her release, rendering her constitutional claims moot."

In other words, the state suggested that the court might not end up needing to decide the case at all if Norsworthy is paroled.

In an unsigned order from the 9th Circuit on Thursday, the court granted the stay pending appeal.

The court issued the stay with brief notes that "serious legal questions" are involved in the case and that a stay helps provide the court with time to "act responsibly." But the order also notes that the court paid attention to the state's mootness argument, stating: "Also weighing in favor of a stay here is the likelihood that, absent a stay, this litigation would become moot before receiving full appellate consideration."

Notably, the three-judge panel of Alfred Goodwin, Joseph Jerome Farris, and Michelle Friedland — while agreeing that "serious legal questions" are at issue in the case — was not necessarily making any comment about the merits of the state's arguments against the trial court's order, writing that "[a] stay is appropriate when an appeal presents 'serious legal questions,' even if it may be more likely than not that those legal questions will be resolved against the party seeking a stay."

Norsworthy, according to the trial court decision in her case, has been eligible for parole since March 1998. Thursday's parole board decision could lead to her release any time in the next five months.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the parole suitability finding goes through a review that can last up to 120 days. At that point, Gov. Jerry Brown then has up to 30 days to conduct his own review of the parole board's decision — choosing whether to reverse, modify, affirm, or decline to review it.

Although Judge Callie Granade expanded a marriage case to the whole state on Thursday, she also put the ruling on hold until the Supreme Court rules on its pending marriage cases.

Newly married couple David Roby, center, and Erik Obermiller, right, are cheered by supporters of marriage equality as they leave the Jefferson County courthouse, Monday, Feb. 9, 2015, in Birmingham, Ala.

Hal Yeager / AP

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade applied her marriage equality ruling statewide on Thursday, but she put the ruling on hold until the Supreme Court issues a decision in the marriage cases pending at the high court.

In a series of orders, Granade first granted a request to expand a marriage case that had covered one county statewide to all probate judges, who are responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses in the state.

She then went on to declare the marriage ban unconstitutional, yet again and issue an injunction stopping state officials from "enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage."

Finally, however, Granade put the injunction on hold "until the Supreme Court issues its ruling" in the marriage cases, led by Obergefell v. Hodges, which she noted "are subject to an imminent decision."

From Judge Granade's ruling:

View Entire List ›

“If it’s all about the past and you know, about whether the Bushes are going to break the Adams family in terms of the number of people that are president, that’s a loser and I’ll totally get that.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he "totally gets" that if his campaign is "all about the past" and the Bush last name it's a losing argument.

"If it's all about the past and you know, about whether the Bushes are going to break the Adams family in terms of the number of people that are president, that's a loser and I'll totally get that," the former Florida governor told Concord News Radio in New Hampshire Thursday. "But I think that people have the right to question me and I'll have every opportunity to convince them of who I am and what's in my heart.

Bush added earlier he loved his family but was "different from them."

"Well first, I love my family and its impossible for me not love my mom and dad and love my brother," said Bush "We are a very tight family but I'm different than them."

"And I know what my challenge is," said Bush. "It's an opportunity actually to tell my life story, let people figure out where I'm different where I'm not. I'll let them judge that and focus on the future."

He noted the world "is radically different" from when his brother and father were president.

"My dad was president in 1988 and my brother was president in 2000. The world is radically different in 2016 and I'll—if I get the honor and consideration to be a candidate, I'll be successful if I change the conversation about what the future holds if we fix a few things. Share my heart, show what kind of person I am, and talk about the leadership skills that are necessary to move our country forward."

“We need to have the capacity to collect information that can be used to identify individuals who are linked to enemy combatants who are gonna do us harm.”

w.soundcloud.com

Likely 2016 presidential candidate Scott Walker said on Wednesday that if he were in the Senate, he would not have supported Rand Paul's protest against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the the NSA's domestic surveillance programs.

Paul held the Senate floor for almost eleven hours earlier this week to object to the ongoing collection of Americans' telephone records.

Speaking to talk radio host Michael Medved, Walker said it was "incredibly important" for national security that the government retain the legal authority to collect Americans' metadata en masse.

Walker said that he understands Paul's concerns, but thinks that the problems with the surveillance programs are "specific to this president and this administration," rather than issues with the law itself.

"We need to have the capacity to collect information that can be used to identify individuals who are linked to enemy combatants who are gonna do us harm,"
Walker said, adding that recent events at home and abroad — including the attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo earlier this year — "further reinforce" the importance of such programs.

Walker suggested that the French government had been monitoring the perpetrators of the Paris attack, but had "lost track of them" prior to the shooting -- and that France has decided "to pursue [...] even more aggressive legislation than the Patriot Act" as a result.

Calling such a move an "overreaction," Walker said that America must "balance the ability to protect ourselves from those sorts of terrorists and attacks" with the need to "hold the government accountable, to make sure that they do so in a way that protects our civil liberties."

"I think we can do that," concluded Walker, "and that's why, in this one, I don't share the same sentiment that Sen. Paul does."

“I haven’t had a chance obviously to talk with all the military experts that I would respect but from what I can see and from the information that I have, absolutely.”

Mark Humphrey / AP

Ben Carson said Thursday that he would "absolutely" put American troops on the ground in the Middle East to fight ISIS now, "from the information that I have."

The Republican presidential candidate made the comments a day after he said he was "never in favor of going into Iraq" and in a week when other Republicans have come out in favor of sending ground troops to fight the Islamic State.

On Thursday, Carson was being interviewed by conservative radio host Howie Carr on the Howie Carr Show when he was asked how he would address ISIS' presence in Iraq and Syria.

"We have to recognize that the jihadists have a goal of destroying us and our way of life," Carson answered. "And we have two choices—we can wait for them to do that or we can destroy them first. So I think that would be my goal, if I were President."

Carr then asked if Carson would "send U.S. ground troops back into the Middle East." Carson responded that "if that was necessary," he would, "absolutely," and further argued that our military had in the past been hampered by "people who have no idea what they're doing."

"If that was necessary, absolutely," he said. "I think, one of the things I've learned over the years is we have some incredible people—or at least we used to—in our military—with tremendous strategy and know-how. The problem is that we tried to micro-manage them. Micro-manage them by people who have no idea what they're doing. And that's resulted not only in a lot of loss of good people in the military but terrible morale there."

Carr pressed Carson on whether he meant it was necessary to send in ground troops "at this point." Carson clarified that he thought it was.

"In my opinion, yes," he said. "I haven't had a chance obviously to talk with all the military experts that I would respect but from what I can see and from the information that I have, absolutely. Because as you can see, they continue to gain ground. And that's a very important part of their ideology. And if you can deprive them of that, you've struck a major blow."

Later in the interview, Carson also contended that "what we're dealing with today" is different from the "much simpler al Qaeda" facing the country under President Bush and that the American public would support a ground invasion "if it's explained to them."

"I think if it's explained to them," he said. "If they understand what's at stake. We can't have the same mindset that we had 10 or 15 years ago, when we were dealing with a much simpler al Qaeda than what we're dealing with today. The stakes are extraordinary at this point. And if we don't play it the right way, everything else is going to be irrelevant."

Carson finally claimed that an Arab coalition hadn't formed to send ground troops to fight ISIS because "they need to have a leader."

"Why should U.S. troops go in if the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudis aren't willing to put their troops on the ground to fight ISIS?" Carr asked.

"Why is there a coalition not forming?" Carson said. "Because there's nobody to form behind. They need to have a leader. When you show appropriate leadership and you show that you can take the war to the enemy, you will have people who will get on that bandwagon. But they're not gonna get on it before that happens."

Carson concluded by paraphrasing Winston Churchill: "Winston Churchill put it best when he said, you need to fight your enemy today, while you can beat him or you will fight him tomorrow for your life."

Here's the audio:

w.soundcloud.com

“It’s a shame to see that the Washington machine has co-opted Gov. Walker on” the Patriot Act.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Rand Paul's presidential campaign is firing back at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker over comments he made about Sen. Rand Paul and NSA surveillance.

Walker, the likely presidential contender said on Wednesday that if he were in the Senate he would not have supported Rand Paul's Senate floor protest against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the the NSA's domestic surveillance programs.

"It's a shame to see that the Washington machine has co-opted Gov. Walker on this crucial issue," a Paul campaign spokesman said.

"We can protect Americans WITHOUT violating our freedoms and privacy. Clearly Gov. Walker is wiling to trample the Constitution and American's right to privacy in support of a program that law enforcement says has not resulted in a single terrorist arrest or thwarted terror plot and our courts have ruled to be illegal."

Walker said on Wednesday the United States needs "to have the capacity to collect information that can be used to identify individuals who are linked to enemy combatants who are gonna do us harm."

Walker added he didn't "share the same sentiment that Sen. Paul does."

Here's the audio that prompted the response from Paul's campaign:

LINK: Scott Walker: I Don’t Stand With Rand

w.soundcloud.com

View Entire List ›

Gary Patton, center, and his wife Lenore Patton, to his right, as the center of the press scrum with Hillary Clinton that held them captive for 10 minutes on Friday in New Hampshire.

Ruby Cramer / BuzzFeed

HAMPTON, N.H. — When they heard Hillary Clinton would be here on Friday in Hampton — a small coastal town just south of the Maine border — Lenore and Gary Patton contacted the campaign. They wanted to lend a hand as volunteers.

The morning of the event — a roundtable discussion about small businesses at the locally owned Smuttynose Brewing Company — the Pattons arrived early, help set up, and secured the best spot in the house: front row, first two seats.

Lenore, 78, and Gary, 77, had a perfect view of the candidate.

Had this been a typical event, the Pattons may not have been able to attend.

Clinton aides emphasize — in every email, memo, and press release — that this campaign is about “everyday Americans.” But as a result of efforts to keep each gathering intimate — allowing Clinton to best “get the input of everyday Americans” — few Americans of that particular stripe actually end up in the room.

Clinton’s campaign functions are typically so small that there is barely an audience, just a handful of invited guests, often local Democratic officials.

Last month, before her first event in New Hampshire, a group of young supporters stood outside the venue in the rain, hoping to catch a glimpse of the candidate. Clinton never materialized. But every now and then, one could be seen at the window, face pressed to the glass, hands cupped on either side for a better view.

The roundtable in Hampton was Clinton’s largest yet. About 60 people came — including the Pattons, who described themselves as local activists who “fervently supported” Barack Obama in 2008 and now “fervently support” Clinton. The rest of the group was a mix: some invited by the campaign, some invited by the brewery, and others who’d simply asked to come. According to a Clinton aide, the campaign was able to accommodate nearly every request to attend that they received.

For about an hour, the Pattons and the five other dozen guests watched Clinton, alongside her seven roundtable participants, discuss in granular detail the challenges facing small businesses.

And then the spell of the everyday was broken. Clinton was swarmed by reporters. From the aisle, pressed up against a wall of beer cases stacked to the ceiling on pallet shelves, they gathered in a thick circle that happened to coalesce right around the two best seats in the house. Lenore and Gary Patton could not talk to the candidate they had come to see. They could not even get out of their chairs.

Cameras flashed wildly. Lenore was crunched. Gary had a tape recorder in his right ear, a television camera in his left, and microphones just overhead. They were inches from Clinton, with her “in the eye of the hurricane,” as Gary put it after watching her field questions on Iraq, her emails, and her image. (“Do you have a perception problem?”)

“I’m gonna let the Americans decide that,” Clinton replied on her way out.

“Hey,” Gary said to no in particular. “She’s smart. She’s experienced. End of story.”

But most people had left by then. One reporter turned to the Pattons to remark on their good view. “Well, we could hardly help it,” Gary said. “We couldn’t get out.”

There was a certain disconnect the Pattons felt they had just witnessed.

“My God, end of story. Stop telling me about the tape recorders,” Gary said, referring to the media swarm. “This woman has what it takes.”

“She has ideas for the direction of the country,” said Lenore. “She cares about the middle class. We’re about as middle class as you can get.”

“She’s so experienced, she’s so bright, and she’s so adroit,” her husband added. “And I came in here not necessarily feeling all of those things, but I go away thinking that we would be lucky to have her as the president, because she has so many attributes that you need.”

“It’s an incredibly impressive performance,” he said.

Clinton announced this week that her first rally wouldn’t be until June 13, a month later than originally expected, kicking off what aides have signaled will be a faster, bigger phase of the campaign.

On Friday afternoon, at her second event of the trip, Clinton suggested that she’d prefer to push that all back indefinitely — staving off for a little bit longer the reality that her campaign isn’t small, intimate, or everyday.

"Some people had asked me, particularly in the press, ‘When are you going to have really big events?” she told a group of supporters.

“And I said, ‘Later, later, later…’”

Gary Patton shows the photo he took on his digital camera of Hillary Clinton's press gaggle.

Ruby Cramer / BuzzFeed

“I object.” The Senate blocked an outright extension of the Patriot Act, and failed to pass the bipartisan USA Freedom Act, which would change some of the surveillance program early Saturday morning.

Sen. Rand Paul is getting his way on Capitol Hill, as the Senate leaves without extending the Patriot Act.

View Video ›

The Senate will not return until May 31st, a day before the key provisions of the law expire.

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

It was a lot of this, basically.

vine.co