BuzzFeed News; Getty images (2)

WASHINGTON — Over the past few years, some Democrats — including the Clintons — have offered a new explanation for why they supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

The threat of a federal constitutional amendment, these Democrats have argued, motivated them to support DOMA — a law that defined marriage for federal government purposes as between one man and one woman and said states could refuse to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages from others states.

“We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress,” Bill Clinton told an audience in 2009, “to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states.” Four former senators — including Tom Daschle, who made the claim in 2011 — raised the idea in a Supreme Court brief in 2013. Clinton later cited that brief when, in a Washington Post op-ed, he called for the law he signed to be struck down by the court. Hillary Clinton just last week called her husband’s decision to sign DOMA “a defensive action.”

There is no contemporaneous evidence, however, to support the claim that the Clinton White House considered a possible federal constitutional amendment to be a concern, based on a BuzzFeed News review of the thousands of documents released earlier this year by the Clinton Presidential Library about same-sex couples' marriage rights and the Defense of Marriage Act. In the documents, which include correspondence from a wide array of White House and Justice Department officials, no one even hints that Bill Clinton’s thinking or actions regarding DOMA were animated by the threat of a federal constitutional amendment.

Former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa, Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015.

Charlie Neibergall / AP Photo

The claim has faced renewed scrutiny in recent days after Hillary Clinton made an extended argument in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that DOMA was a “line to be drawn” to prevent further action.

“I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that,” she told Maddow.

“I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers, and occasionally I would chime in and talk about, ‘You can’t be serious, you can’t be serious.’ But they were,” Hillary Clinton said. “And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn, that was to prevent going further.”

Maddow pressed here, asking, “It was a defensive action?”

“It was a defensive action,” Clinton replied.

In the days since, many longtime LGBT advocates have called the comments inaccurate — and her leading opponent for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, who voted against the legislation as a congressman, criticized her implicitly but sharply on stage at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa.

By Monday afternoon, Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon had pulled back a bit, telling the Huffington Post, “Whatever the context that led to the passage of DOMA nearly two decades ago, Hillary Clinton believes the law was discriminatory and both she and president Clinton urged that it be overturned.”

He did not, however, say whether Clinton stood by her comments — and her version of history.

At her husband’s presidential library in Little Rock, however, the history is clear. There was no documented discussion in 1996 within the White House or Justice Department about any momentum for a federal constitutional amendment that DOMA was intended to prevent.

For the most part, White House staffers assumed Clinton would eventually support DOMA once the bill’s introduction was certain. Bill Clinton had already stated his opposition same-sex couples’ marriage rights. In 1996, Clinton repeatedly marked his approval of talking points on same-sex marriage, as it is referred to in the documents and will be referred to throughout this report, and DOMA; the talking points included his opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to providing federal benefits to same-sex couples.

While some of the few out gay employees and their strongest straight allies worked in the spring of the year to find a way to keep Clinton from supporting DOMA, the internal conversation surrounding the bill mostly concerned when Clinton would announce his support.

And Clinton ended up announcing his support sooner rather than later. On May 23, 1996 — less than three weeks after the bill was introduced in Congress — Clinton announced that he would sign the bill if it came to him as he understood it.

Through it all, though, no one discussing the bill in the Clinton administration — from the White House senior staff to gay staffers and their strongest allies to the press office to Justice Department lawyers — ever mentioned any concern about a federal constitutional amendment.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had said he opposed same-sex marriage. Still, by the beginning of 1996, there was optimism inside the White House about how Clinton would treat same-sex couples during his re-election bid.

On Feb. 1, 1996, a law clerk in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a memo about the same-sex marriage question, at the request of her superior.

Although no state would legalize marriage equality until 2004, the treatment of same-sex couples — and in particular the landmark marriage case in Hawaii — had begun to force consideration of the issue. So in the winter of 1996, associate counsel Marvin Krislov asked the law clerk, Chrysanthe Gussis, to do some research and draft a tentative statement on the issue.

“The administration believes that the legal status of same-sex unions, and the accompanying rights and benefits, should continue to be determined on the state and local level,” Gussis wrote in the draft statement.

In an “optional” section, she added: “The lack of legally recognized alternatives to marriage and the exclusion of gay and lesbian relationships from marriage have left many couples unable to define their relationships as they choose, and often has led to disparate and unfair treatment of similarly situated couples.”

In other words, in January 1996, a law clerk in the White House Counsel’s Office strongly implied that differing treatment of same-sex couples likely violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. And, perhaps, as Gussis put it, “states should give serious consideration” to same-sex unions.

By late March, however, the internal discussion had become more defensive. Marsha Scott, a straight woman who Clinton had named as his first gay and lesbian liaison, convened a meeting of gay and gay-supportive Clinton administration officials and Capitol Hill staffers.

Via assets.documentcloud.org

In the two weeks that followed, the group and others debated how the president should express his 1996 position on marriage. White House senior staff eventually settled on three bullet points, and Jack Quinn, the president’s counsel, provided them to Clinton on April 8 — noting that Scott gave input and that George Stephanopoulos had approved them.

“The institutions of traditional marriage and family face tremendous pressures in today’s society. We must do everything we can to support and strengthen these institutions. The president has previously said that he does not personally support same-sex marriages,” the first bullet point read.

The second noted that “many communities and institutions” were considering whether to offer “certain basic benefits … outside the context of traditional marriage.” Even those protections, however, face the “challenge” of “remain[ing] sensitive to the traditional values” of communities while “preserving the fundamental right to live free from unjustified discrimination.”

The final talking point noted that the country has “looked first to state and local governments, as well as the private sector, to consider issues like these.” It concluded, “The president believes that these issues continue to be best resolved at this level of civil discourse.”

A stamp confirms Clinton saw the “GAY MARRIAGE” talking points document — and the reverse checkmark that staffers say he used confirms his agreement with the three points.

Over the course of the next month, the hypothetical language in the talking points was put to the test as Rep. Bob Barr introduced the Defense of Marriage Act on May, 7, 1996.

Even then, though, nothing in the voluminous communications among members of the White House staff or between the Justice Department and White House mention any concerns about or even consideration of the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment that might explain support for DOMA.

President Bill Clinton, Feb. 23, 1996.

Nick Ut / AP Photo

The story detailed in the discussions is simpler: Clinton opposed same-sex marriage and opposed federal recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages. Ultimately, then, he supported the substance of the bill — and efforts to get him to oppose the bill on federalism grounds or due to constitutional concerns were shut down within a week of the bill’s introduction.

DOMA had two substantive parts after its title section. Section 2 purported to give states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages authorized by other states or jurisdictions, and section 3 defined marriage for all federal government purposes as only being between one man and one woman.

The White House, which had already been deciding how to handle the same-sex marriage question from a legal and messaging perspective, now also began preparing for DOMA.

Harold Ickes, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and Stephanopoulos had previously asked the Justice Department whether the Constitution would require states to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages if Hawaii ended up allowing such marriages. On May 1, Quinn reported back that the Justice Department had concluded that states would not need to recognize such marriages.

On May 9, Quinn alerted Leon Panetta, Clinton’s chief of staff; Stephanopoulos; and Mike McCurry, the president’s press secretary that DOMA had been introduced in the House. They advised that, if asked about the bill, Clinton should say that he had not yet had an opportunity to review the legislation.

Meanwhile, Scott and Richard Socarides, who was in the process of taking over from Scott as gay and lesbian liaison, were trying to come up with ways for Clinton to take a position against the bill. In May 9 memos, Scott sent Stephanopoulos and others language provided by Socarides as a potential administration position on the bill.

Arguing that “Congress has more important things to do,” Socarides suggested the White House should express concern about “legislat[ing] in quintessential state issues” and that its position should be: “The institutions of traditional marriage and family face tremendous pressures in today’s society. The president believes that we must do everything we can to support these institutions, but this particular legislation does not seem to advance that goal.” She also followed up with additional thoughts of her own.

The next day, Scott and Socarides sent a two-page memo to Ickes, arguing forcefully that Clinton should not back the bill because it would cause a serious rift with, as they put it, “our friends in the gay community.”

“[O]ur support of this bill would be taken by many in the gay communities as an expression by the president of deep ceded [sic] bias against gay people,” they wrote, urging Clinton to oppose the bill as an “unwarranted intrusion” on states’ role in defining marriage or, if not that, at least say that he is withholding judgment while “the Justice Department is studying the serious constitutional issues raised by the legislation.”

At the same time, however, the Justice Department recommended that Clinton back the bill.

“Given the president’s opposition to same sex marriage, it would seem to me to make sense to make clear as quickly as possible that, in light of that opposition, he supports enactment of the proposed statute.”

In a two-page memo, Associate Attorney General John Schmidt wrote that it would be difficult to explain how opposition to DOMA was compatible with opposition to same-sex marriage. “Given the president’s opposition to same sex marriage,” Schmidt wrote, “it would seem to me to make sense to make clear as quickly as possible that, in light of that opposition, he supports enactment of the proposed statute.”

The senior staff took Schmidt’s advice. In a memo dated May 10, Quinn, Stephanopoulos, and Scott wrote to Clinton that “there would not be a substantive basis” for him to oppose DOMA and recommended that he “sign this legislation if it is enacted.”

They also, however, wrote that the the White House could reiterate Clinton’s stated opposition to same-sex marriage but add “that there has not yet been an opportunity to review this legislation” — a nod toward Scott and Socarides’s last-ditch recommendation. Only “[i]f and when this approach is no longer viable,” they recommended, should the White House state that Clinton would sign the bill.

The document — bearing the reverse checkmark — is noted as not having been seen by Clinton until May 14. As with the prior talking points memo reviewed by the president, the memo contained no mention of any concern about a federal constitutional amendment as a reason to support the legislation.

While that memo was sitting on Clinton’s desk, McCurry, the press secretary, struck the first blow to the viability of the “wait-and-see” approach. At the press briefing on May 13, McCurry responded to a question by saying that Clinton opposed same-sex marriage. Asked why, McCurry said, “He believes this is a time when we need to do things to strengthen the American family.”

The comment caused a stir, outside and inside the White House. In later communications, staffers argued that McCurry went beyond the April talking points in his comment by directly connecting Clinton’s opposition to same-sex marriage to his desire to strengthen the traditional family. In the talking points, the sentiments were in separate sentences in the same bullet point. McCurry, however, walked the comments back the next day, saying that Clinton opposed same-sex marriage but that McCurry had not “gone deeper into the moral philosophy behind it” with Clinton.

Over the next few days, a second event made the “wait-and-see” approach exceptionally difficult to maintain. In a letter from the Justice Department, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois informed Rep. Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “The Department of Justice believes that [DOMA] would be sustained as constitutional, and that there are no legal issues raised by [DOMA] that necessitate an appearance by a representative of the Department.”

Although the letter was dated May 13, it was not made public until the morning of the first House hearing on DOMA two days later — to the disappointment and consternation of Democratic opponents of DOMA on the Hill and LGBT advocates fighting the bill.

White House officials have previously maintained that the White House was caught off guard by the letter. But one document found in the Clinton library files proves that, at the least, the White House Counsel’s Office was kept informed about drafting of the letter. Walter Dellinger — a senior lawyer in the Justice Department who had previously worked in the Counsel’s Office — sent a memo to Quinn on May 14, noting that the Justice Department had prepared “a new version of the Defense of Marriage letter,” taking out reference, Dellinger wrote, to Clinton’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Via assets.documentcloud.org

Everything’s great!

View Video ›

- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in an interview that aired on NewsMaxTV this week.

Related:

Via media.giphy.com

View Entire List ›

“This thing is beginning to hurt us.”

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says he thinks debates are going to start hurting the candidates soon if the debate structure isn't changed.

"I like Reince Priebus, he has brought the party back. He's a good man. It is time to reevaluate, yes, this debate process needs to change," Graham, who so far has been relegated to the undercard Republican debates, told Boston Herald Radio on Thursday morning.

"Have a more serious discussion. Test each other, so we can win this election. You're dead right. This thing is beginning to hurt us."

Graham wants a "random draw" where debates happen in groups of six instead of the current debate structure. Conservatives overwhelmingly panned the CNBC debate that took place Wednesday evening for what they say was unfair and biased questioning.

Graham noted the small difference in the polls between many of the candidates, sometimes only one or two percentage points.

"I think we're setting ourselves up for a fall," said Graham, again pushing for changing the debate structure. "We need to do it differently."

He added, "If they don't make this correction we're gonna wind up hurting ourselves in 2016."

Take a listen:

w.soundcloud.com

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

LINK: The U.S. Is Sending Special Operations Forces Into Syria

AP Photo/Michael Dwyer/Courtesy Steve Pavey

Erika Andiola, the most well-known immigration activist in the country, is joining the Bernie Sanders campaign, according to three sources with knowledge of the hire.

It's a big splash in the immigration movement, as Andiola is respected up and down the loosely connected advocacy apparatus that includes groups close to the Democratic establishment, groups far to the left, and undocumented immigrants in local communities, where Andiola has worked across the country.

Andiola joins her boyfriend Cesar Vargas, himself a high-profile DREAMer activist, who was hired by Sanders last week and will also focus on Latino outreach in the southwest states, with Nevada and its early caucus, a focal point.

Andiola declined to comment for the story.

But behind the scenes, she has been involved in the Democratic primary process for months, as each major campaign has reached out to her for suggestions and advice on immigration policy.

Before Hillary Clinton even announced that she was running for president, her National Political Director Amanda Renteria was talking to Andiola on the phone, and after Clinton's major spring event in May they exchanged emails for the campaign to connect with policy experts. The campaign would go on to hire another advocate, Lorella Praeli, from advocacy organization United We Dream, to lead Latino outreach.

Martin O'Malley's campaign and Director of Public Engagement Gabriela Domenzain also used Andiola, along with other activists, as a sounding board as they crafted their immigration policy.

Andiola has long explained that her objective during the cycle was to push Clinton, the presumed favorite for the Democratic nomination, to the left on immigration.

Now she joins Sanders, who has now hired a string of activists long-involved in immigration battles. In addition to Andiola and Vargas, the Sanders campaign recently hired Arturo Carmona of Presente to lead Latino outreach, and named Javier Gonzalez formerly of SEIU the campaign's Nevada field director.

"She is definitely one of the most well-known DREAMers and she has a huge community following in the undocumented and immigrant rights community," said Gaby Pacheco, herself a veteran of fights for immigration legislation over the last decade.

For Andiola, this reservoir of goodwill flows from her personal involvement in deportation cases for families, using her national celebrity to push for parents to get out of detention so they can be with their children or for prosecutorial discretion to be used to stop deportations.

In 2013, when her mother was taken in a nighttime raid, Andiola helped stop her deportation even though Maria Arreola was already on a bus headed toward the border.

"It's just a testament to the power of the individual, even if they’re not able to vote, to have a voice," Pacheco said, noting how far activists have come with Praeli, Vargas, and Andiola now working on campaigns.

While Sanders has shown a real commitment to hiring immigration activists, he is also in catch-up mode when it comes to Hispanic voter engagement, name recognition among Latinos compared to Clinton, and organization in Nevada, where many of these hires will be focused.

Clinton, for example, has had operatives in place in Nevada since April. Sanders also has not been perfect on the issue in the minds of activists, who have criticized him for comments he made in 2007 and again this year.

As with other activists who have joined Democratic campaigns, Andiola now will become a target of advocates who aren't going to roll over just because one of their own now works for a candidate.

"When you join a campaign, you box yourself in and you can’t be as critical an advocate," Pacheco said.

“It’s not helpful and it is an example of the media’s leftwing agenda.”

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says it is "crazy" for Republican primary debates to be moderated by journalists who would never vote in a Republican primary.

Speaking about the criticism CNBC has received from Republicans for its handling of Wednesday night's debate, Cruz on Thursday said on the Heidi Harris Show, "You know we've seen this throughout the debates where they have tended to really be looking for just a food fight and looking for insults and one candidate attacking another."

Cruz, who got his biggest applause Wednesday night at the CNBC debate when he criticized the moderators' questions, said that mainstream media hosts simply want to help Democrats.

"That is not helpful to Republican primary voters who are making a decision who to support," added Cruz. "But unfortunately, the moderators interest is not in actually trying to determine who would be the strongest conservative to, number one, fight for the principles we believe in and number two, to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

"The moderators' interest is just, causing, insulting every candidate there," he continued. "Causing everyone of them to fight and no one should be surprised that none of those moderators in all likelihood are planning to vote in the Republican primary. There interest is whoever the Republican nominee is, they want to beat that person up as much as possible and cause people either to stay home or vote for Hillary."

Cruz noted it wasn't a good idea to let those in the mainstream media host debates.

"And I think it's crazy that we have Republican primary debates moderated by people who would never in a million years vote in a Republican primary. It's not helpful and it is an example of the media's leftwing agenda."

Cruz said "every question is designed to be an insult," singling out questions for Ben Carson, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Donald Trump he thought was unfair.

"They attack Ben Carson, a world renowned neurosurgeon, and say, 'you can't do math,'" said Cruz. " Cruz said a better question for candidates would be, "tell me about your tax plan," or past immigration positions and then ask candidates to show how it differed from other candidates.

Carson was asked by CNBC moderator Becky Quick specifically asking about his tax plan and how his flat tax would work if it was bringing in trillions of dollars less in government revenue than the current structure. Quick, said. "I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.

"None of those moderators have any interest whatsoever in asking those questions and I was glad that last night, particularly after I called out the moderators to see a number of other candidates stepping forward and doing the same. You know, it was really striking that as the debate went the audience began booing the moderators. More and more ridiculous questions."

w.soundcloud.com

Hillary Clinton is expected to unveil the first parts of her criminal justice agenda at Clark Atlanta University.

Jessica Mcgowan / Getty Images

After being introduced by Rep. John Lewis, Clinton began her speech on Friday in Atlanta — before protesters began chanting.

Clinton initially received applause after shouting out local schools Clark Atlanta, Morehouse, and Spelman.

Clinton is, in the coming days, unveiling major pieces of her criminal justice agenda — something that activists in the broader Black Lives Matter movement will be closely watching.

View Entire List ›

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

NASHUA, N.H. — Criminal justice — an issue thrust into the Democratic primary fight by bipartisan legislative efforts in Washington and Black Lives Matter activists on the campaign trail — has emerged as one of the clearest divides between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in their quest for the presidency.

In short, Sanders says the racial disparities in the justice system cannot be remedied without ending the federal war on marijuana and banning the death penalty. Clinton is not ready to change federal law on marijuana and says the death penalty is an important tool in the belt of federal prosecutors.

As Sanders criss-crossed New Hampshire Friday, his campaign bracketed her criminal justice policy rollout in Atlanta with a statement saying Clinton wasn't going far enough.

"When we talk about criminal justice reform, we also need to understand that millions of people have been arrested for using marijuana," Sanders said in the statement, adding, "Any serious criminal justice reform must include removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act."

Sanders debuted his new, sharper-elbowed rhetoric against Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa earlier this week.

Sanders also said the death penalty needs to go, a position his aides are quick to point out he's held publicly since 1991. In the statement Sanders said the U.S. needs to join "every other major democracy in eliminating the death penalty" if there is to be "real criminal justice reform."

Both the marijuana policy and the call for a death penalty ban are connected to Sanders' plan to attack what both Clinton and Sanders have said are racial inequities in the justice system. When he rolled out his support for decriminalizing marijuana last week, he did it by focusing on an arrest rate that shows black people are far more likely than whites to get busted for pot, despite equal usage rates.

When Sanders took to the Senate floor to talk about the death penalty recently, he said continuing its use perpetuated the violence it tries to prevent.

"We are all shocked and disgusted by some of the horrific murders that we see in this country, seemingly every week," he said. "And that is precisely why we should abolish the death penalty. At a time of rampant violence and murder, the State should not be part of that process."

The death penalty policy, while not expressly tied to race in the statement, has racial justice overtones as well, said Symone Sanders, national press secretary for the Sanders campaign.

"The Senator is vey much aware of the racial disparity for the death penalty," she told BuzzFeed News. Criminal justice advocates on the left like the ACLU have long pointed to a number of factors in the use of the death penalty they say show it's more likely to affect minority defendants than white ones.

Including marijuana decriminalization is crucial for any efforts to reduce the racial disparities in the criminal justice system, the Sanders aide said.

"We cannot talk about ending the disgrace that is the mass incarceration of African Americans in the country if we don’t also include real change to our marijuana policy," Symone Sanders said.

“But, I’m not gonna stop a sense of humor and I’m not gonna even stop talking factual things that are the basis of humor, because it offends somebody who really isn’t offended.”

with dog.

Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said a joke he tweeted about North Koreans eating dogs was very funny.

During the Democratic presidential debate, Huckabee tweeted "I trust @BernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador!" The joke caused outrage online as many decried the joke as racist.

"You have to understand, the left doesn't care what the facts are," Huckabee said on the Louder with Crowder program on Thursday. "They manufacture their offenses. So even if there's nothing to be offended about, they can pretend that they're offended so that they can demand an apology, demand a retraction."

Huckabee, who defended his joke by saying he was talking about the brutal dictatorship in North Korea, said conservatives are too accommodating when people are upset with them.

"You know what, for far too long conservatives have tried to be so accommodating," said the former Arkansas governor. "'Oh, well I shouldn't have said it that way. It was inartful.' No, I just say, 'that was actually what I meant to say. I said it because I thought it was funny. And, if you don't think it's funny then, you know what, don't listen to me.'"

Huckabee says he won't stop, and people are just feigning outrage.

"But, I'm not gonna stop a sense of humor and I'm not gonna even stop talking factual things that are the basis of humor, because it offends somebody who really isn't offended," said Huckabee. "This is the point. They're not really offended but they pretend they are because if they ever had to debate the substance of the issue they know they would lose. They cannot stand to deal with the logical conclusion of their own irrational points of view."

Huckabee then chuckled after a joke about President Obama eating a dog, noting that as a child, Obama ate dog meat in Indonesia, so Obama ate a dog.

"He admitted it," Huckabee said of Obama eating a dog. "The whole point of the North Korea joke, is in North Korea they're eating lawn clippings and the barks off trees because unless you're in the military, you're starving to death under this dictator, communist regime, and that was really the point to be made."

w.soundcloud.com

Jessica Mcgowan / Getty Images

ATLANTA — Moments after renowned civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis delivered a rousing introduction of Hillary Clinton at an event in Atlanta Friday, protesters interrupted her speech, chanting in unison, "black lives matter."

After acknowledging the protesters ("Yes they do," Clinton replied), the Democratic presidential candidate attempted to move on with her speech, increasing her volume as the chants continued.

The Georgia congressman, who led non-violent protests during the fight to end segregation in the 1960s, went into the audience to intervene, trying to get the protesters to allow Clinton to speak.

"I just said to them that at some other time we could all sit down and talk," Lewis said in an interview with BuzzFeed News after the event. "Just that we shouldn't disturb the speech when she was trying to get a message [across]."

When that failed, he and Kasim Reed, the mayor of Atlanta, joined Clinton on stage in a show of solidarity. "We thought that would help move things [along]," Lewis said.

The students who participated in the demonstration were eventually shouted down by a throng of students who came to hear Clinton, shouting "Hil-lar-y!" and "Let her talk!"

Lewis said that, regardless of what side they were on, he was proud of the students' spirit of engagement.

"I think it's happening all across America," he said. "[Especially] on college campuses. I've been going around speaking to many colleges and HBCUs and it's a good thing. It's a good spirit."

Lewis' signature speech that he gives to groups in Washington and to future activists, operatives, and others, recalls his years as a protester, his several dozen arrests, and putting his body on the line for the cause of freedom and civil rights. "Good trouble," he calls it.

When asked about whether this new generation of activists — particularly the ones who confronted Clinton — had lived up the admonition, Lewis said they had.

"Most of the things that we did back in the 1960s was good trouble, it was necessary trouble. And so what I try to say to young people is when you see something that is not right, not fair or not just, you have to speak up. You have to speak and and make some noise. So in some sense, [protesters] were speaking up. They were speaking out.

"But we have to respect the right of everybody to be heard," he said. "And you do that in a non-violent, orderly fashion."

Lewis told the protesters in a brief meeting outdoors that he wanted them to come meet with him in his district office. As for Clinton, Lewis said he was flattered by Clinton's praise of his life's work and legacy as a freedom fighter.

"I think she gave a powerful speech," Lewis said. "It was all-inclusive as what she proposes to do as president. I think she'll make a great president and I meant everything I said in my introduction of her. I've been knowing for her for a long, long time. She has a good heart."

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas — Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson chalked inconsistencies in a story he often tells about nearly stabbing a friend while in his teens up to the passage of time on Friday.

"The explanation is that that occurred over 50 years ago," Carson said in response to a question from BuzzFeed News in a media availability after a rally here. "Have you ever played that party game where you whisper into the person’s ear and then they tell it, and by the time it gets all the way back around it’s a different story? That's what we're talking here." Carson was referring to the game of "telephone."

Over the years, Carson has told a story about nearly stabbing a classmate of his when he was a teenager, as an example of a moment when he lost control of his temper and a turning point in his life.

The Daily Beast compiled instances of times when the details in Carson's story have shifted; sometimes, the knife is a different kind of knife, and in other instances, the almost-victim was described not as his friend "Bob" but just as "a boy" or "a classmate." In some versions, the story has been detailed, and in others vague. The basic outline of the story of the attempted stabbing, which Carson says was averted by a belt buckle, has largely stayed constant.

Carson discussed other matters with reporters for about 12 minutes after a rally at West Memphis High School, across the Mississippi River from Memphis, Tennessee.

The Washington Post's David Weigel asked Carson about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention not being permitted to conduct research on gun violence, something that has been attributed to pressure from the National Rifle Association, which opposes such research.

Carson said that he is in favor of research on gun violence, putting him at odds with the NRA's position.

"I say more information is better," Carson said. "You know, whatever it is. Put the information on the table and let’s make decisions based on real evidence."

Carson also discussed a visit he made on Friday to the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, where Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968 and which has been made into the National Civil Rights Museum.

"It was very touching emotionally to see some of the things that I saw there," Carson said. "They’ve done an excellent job, particularly with the interactive displays."

"My thinking is that I wish more people would have more of an appreciation of what people went through in order to gain their rights for education for some Americans," Carson said. "I think maybe they might be more prone to take advantage of those things."

Carson said during the visit, "I was thinking back 47 years ago about when it occurred. It was very emotional."

Lin-Manuel Miranda appears at the curtain call following the opening night performance of Hamilton at the Richard Rodgers Theatre on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in New York.

Charles Sykes / AP Photo

WASHINGTON — On Monday afternoon, President Obama will be sharing his love of Broadway's hottest show — the new musical, Hamilton, about Alexander Hamilton — with up to 1,300 of his closest donors.

The Democratic National Committee has bought out the whole house of the 1,319-seat Richard Rodgers Theatre for a special performance of the show, a DNC spokesperson confirmed to BuzzFeed News. The fundraiser was first reported by the New York Times.

Obama is slated to give remarks at the conclusion of the 5 p.m. performance, according to the president's schedule for Monday, but will not be attending the performance itself. (He is scheduled to give remarks and take questions at another event — benefitting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — while the performance is taking place.)

Monday's ticket sales, according to an invitation obtained by BuzzFeed News, benefits the Democratic Hope Fund, which is a joint fundraising committee between the DNC and Obama for America. According to the invitation, the first $2,500 of any ticket purchase will go to Obama for America to retire its debt from the 2012 general election campaign. As of the end of June, the campaign still had more than $2.4 million in outstanding debt.

"We just bought all the seats at face value of what the show normally sells them and then marked them up at various rates of giving to raise money for the DNC on top of that," DNC spokesperson Miryam Lipper said. "Tickets are between $500 and $10,000 depending on where your seat is. $10,000 includes a photo with the president and two seats, which is something offered at various DNC fundraisers at that price."

Although the website for the event still shows seats available for purchase, the $10,000 tickets that include a photo with the president were no longer available as of Sunday afternoon.

For his part, Obama has already seen the show, written by Lin-Manuel Miranda about the country's Founding Fathers, attending a performance with his daughters, Sasha and Malia, in July.

Back in May 2009, in fact, Obama helped give Miranda one of his first audiences for what became the opening number in the show at a White House night celebrating art and poetry.

youtube.com

The invitation for Monday's event:

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Fred Thompson — the former U.S. senator, Republican presidential candidate, and actor — died Sunday in Nashville, Tennessee, at the age of 73.

According to a statement from his family released to the Tennessean and the New York Times, Thompson died from a recurrence of lymphoma.

"It is with a heavy heart and a deep sense of grief that we share the passing of our brother, husband, father, and grandfather who died peacefully in Nashville surrounded by his family," the statement read.

"Fred was the same man on the floor of the Senate, the movie studio, or the town square of Lawrenceburg, his home," his family said.

After representing Tennessee in the U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2003, Thompson went on to play the role of a district attorney in NBC's Law and Order between 2002 and 2007.

In 2007, he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. His campaign was short-lived, however, and he dropped out of the race in early 2008.

With his height and a booming voice, the character actor made a name playing roles that demanded a sense of gravitas, such as judges, attorneys, police officers, and military figures.

In addition to Law And Order, his television credits included appearances in The Good Wife, Matlock, and NBC's short-lived 2015 drama Allegiance.

His film roles included turns in Days of Thunder, Cape Fear, Die Hard 2, and The Hunt For Red October.

But it was in political and legal circles that Thompson first made his name, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney before rising all the way to Congress.

Thompson in 2014.

Ilya S. Savenok / Getty Images

After he earned a law degree from Vanderbilt University in 1967, he started working as an assistant U.S. attorney, where he met current U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander.

“Very few people can light up the room the way Fred Thompson did," Alexander said in a statement Sunday. "He used his magic as a lawyer, actor, Watergate counsel, and United States senator to become one of our country’s most principled and effective public servants. He was my friend for nearly fifty years. I will miss him greatly. Honey and I and our entire family send our love and sympathy to Jeri and the Thompson family.”

In the early 1970s, he served as committee counsel on the Watergate investigation into President Richard Nixon.

Thompson was 30 at the time, and Nixon was none-too-pleased with the appointment, considering the young lawyer not "very smart," according to a review of his White House tapes by the Associated Press.

Thompson's knowledge of the Watergate tapes eventually helped determine the president's resignation. Thompson was the first to bring up the tapes in a public hearing nearly one year before, the Tennessean reported.

Thompson's first acting role came in 1985 and was actually to play himself, a whistleblower in a major Tennessee political scandal, in the movie "Marie."

The movie was based on Thompson's 1977 case, when he had represented Marie Rigghianti, a parole administrator, who refused to release inmates who had paid for pardons from then-Gov. Ray Blanton. He won the case for Rigghianti, which allowed her to return to work in 1978.

He was first elected to the Senate in 1994 to replace Al Gore, who had been elected vice president. Thompson was re-elected in 1996.

"Fred believed that the greatness of our nation was defined by the hard work, faith, and honesty of its people," his family said. "He had an enduring belief in the exceptionalism of our country, and that America could provide the opportunity for any boy or girl, in any corner of our country, to succeed in life. "

According to the Tennessean, he is survived by his wife, Jeri, and their two young children, as well as his two surviving adult children from a previous marriage and several grandchildren.

This is a developing news story. Check back for updates or follow BuzzFeed News on Twitter.

States attempting to illegally import execution drugs, an outside lawyer helping them do so, and an overseas drug supplier have coordinated their efforts more than previously known, documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show.

BuzzFeed News previously reported that three states — Arizona, Ohio, and Texas — hired outside lawyers to help them on drug importation issues. Several states have paid Ben England or his companies — Benjamin L. England & Associates, LLC and FDAImports.com, LLC — to represent the states in their attempts to import the drugs.

New public records provided by Nebraska to BuzzFeed News show that it, too, has hired England to not only import sodium thiopental but register an overseas supplier with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The documents, however, also show much more about the work going on behind the scenes to bring execution drugs into the country that the FDA says cannot legally be imported.

The records, some of which are marked confidential and “attorney-client privileged,” show Nebraska’s Department of Corrections paid attorney Ben England $399 to register sodium thiopental with the FDA that a man named Chris Harris and his company, Harris Pharma, claims to be able to manufacture. But prior reports from BuzzFeed News call into question information listed on the registration.

The registration, sent to Nebraska officials in early September, lists an address in Kolkata, India, as the location where Harris Pharma manufactures its drugs. A BuzzFeed News investigation, published in October, revealed that the location is a small rented office space, and an employee at the building confirmed that no drugs were being manufactured there.

Record provided by Nebraska Department of Corrections

The records also show that England's company, FDAImports.com, LLC, listed itself as the U.S. Agent on the FDA form.

Record provided by Nebraska Department of Corrections

England did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday and has not returned numerous requests for comment in a span of several months.

Harris, for his part, does not have a pharmaceutical background and has sold execution drugs to states at least six times over the past six years. Each time, after questions are raised about the legality of the sale, his drugs have gone unused. Harris, in response to multiple requests for comment, has told BuzzFeed News repeatedly that he does not speak to reporters.

As state efforts to import sodium thiopental ramped up in 2015, the Food and Drug Administration has been clear — in repeated written communications, including to England — that sodium thiopental cannot be imported, under the law and a related federal court order. States ignored the FDA and bought the drugs anyway.

The agency followed through on its promise and is detaining hundreds of vials of the drug that were on their way to Arizona and Texas. Additionally, Harris attempted to ship sodium thiopental to Nebraska in late August, but Fed Ex returned the drugs to the sender after receiving information that it was not approved by the FDA.

Although Harris sold the drugs and claims to be a manufacturer, BuzzFeed News previously reported that he did not make the drugs intended for Texas and Arizona. Instead, a company in India called Health Biotech Limited is listed as the manufacturer of the drugs on FDA paperwork regarding the shipments. An employee of Health Biotech told BuzzFeed News that the company made the drug for Harris, who then marketed it on his own. “We don’t know what he does with the product,” the employee said.

Ohio, which responded in October to an FDA letter about the legality of importing sodium thiopental, has paid England more than $30,000 over the past two years. Texas paid one of England’s firms more than $15,000 in April, although the payment was rescinded days later.

England also recommended that Nebraska provide $2,500 as a legal retainer “as it is needed.”

In the registration documents for Harris Pharma, England’s firm puts that the drug is “[f]or law enforcement purposes only.” The proposed label includes Harris Pharma’s logo.

Records provided by Nebraska Department of Corrections

England also listed an email address for FDAImports.com in the space where the form asks for contact information for the drug registrant.

Record provided by Nebraska Department of Corrections

This isn’t England’s first time dealing with the legal questions involved in importing this drug. Although he now is doing extensive work for numerous states seeking to import sodium thiopental, as well as the seller of the drug, in the past he was worked as an expert on behalf of Arizona death row inmates to keep the drug out of the country.

In that case, he said shipments of sodium thiopental destined for Arizona were illegal. In 2012, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that the FDA could no longer let sodium thiopental into the U.S.

But now, England is on the other side. In Ohio’s letter to the FDA, which came after the state had been working with England for two years, the state corrections official argued that there should be a legal way for states to import sodium thiopental.

Texas has not confirmed that England is working for the state, and it’s still unclear who Arizona is paying for legal advice on importing sodium thiopental. Both states have redacted that information from records mentioning their outside counsel. In his engagement letter with Nebraska, England says that secrecy would be wise.

“As you may know, it is in your best interest to preserve the confidentiality of all communications between us,” England wrote.

“There’s a lot of alternatives then to picking them up and throwing them on the ground.”

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Hillary Clinton says she's "very disturbed" by a video that shows a South Carolina school resource officer forcibly removing a student from her desk.

"Well, I feel very disturbed by what we have all seen," the former secretary of state said of the video in an interview with radio host Joe Madison on SiriusXM that aired Monday. "And violence of any kind has no place in any school, and the adults in a school should be modeling appropriate behavior to deal with any disciplinary issues that might arise and that was clearly not the case in the incident we have seen in the school in South Carolina."

Several videos taken last week at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, South Carolina show a school resource officer forcibly removing a student from her desk and throwing her across the floor. The officer has been terminated, and the Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation of the incident.

"I think there are several problems here," Clinton added. "One is, we need to make sure that all the adults, in any school, whatever the role they play, have sufficient awareness and training and understand alternatives to dealing with kids that might be difficult."

Clinton said that even though she didn't know the facts surrounding the incident, the officer's behavior was not justified. She said it was important to understand how to better deal with kids who have different challenges in their lives.

"One of big concerns should be that black children are disciplined much more frequently. They're suspended and expelled from school much more frequently, so clearly there is something that is not working right," Clinton said.

"We've got to have a greater awareness that the adults in kids lives today," Clinton added, citing institutions like school, family, and law enforcement that need to understand the challenges kids are facing.

"It's one of the reason I am huge proponent of early intervention into families, so that if there are problems in the family, if there are developmental problems with the children, there is a way to help support getting the kind of expert assistance or changing the behavior," she stated. "Well that's just as true for school. We need to deal with the world that we're in.

"I know a lot of adults claim that kids aren't as respectful. That they don't follow authority. Well the fact is we are responsible in many ways for modeling the behavior we want from our children."

Clinton said people in positions of authority need to take a "very hard look" about how they deal with kids problems.

"There's a lot of alternatives then to picking them up and throwing them on the ground."

w.soundcloud.com

“Think about the repercussions of what is free and what is a drug, an addicting drug like heroin.”

Nati Harnik / AP

Rand Paul says young people should treat offers of free college like heroin.

The Republican presidential candidate and Kentucky senator made the comments on Friday to Iowa radio host Jeff Angelos, arguing that America's youth should think about "what is free and what is a drug, an addicting drug like heroin."

"The main thing I would say is that nothing's free," Paul said. "If someone offers you something for free, treat it as if they're offering you heroin and think about the repercussions of what is free and what is a drug, an addicting drug like heroin and the ramifications of that. There's nothing free. It just means somebody else is gonna pay for it, you don't see them. So the plumber, the welder, the carpenter, the people who don't go to college are being asked to pay for your education."

Paul went on to argue that higher education was "so expensive" today because of an "educational monopoly," saying his solution would be to allow college students to deduct "the entire cost of going to college" over the course of their working careers and to "allow the internet to blossom."

"I imagine a hundred professors that would get together that would be able to sell their services to the entire world," he said, describing his vision for higher education online. "Not just one university, but the entire world and we have to convince them that they would be more and more successful and financially rewarded by doing this, but then the pupil would get a cheaper and cheaper educational experience, as it spreads throughout the world using the internet."

In another Iowa radio interview on Friday, with host Simon Conway, the Kentucky senator commented on the ongoing controversy stemming from last week's CNBC debate, contending that networks should "pay the Republican Party" to air debates.

"We have a product that 20 million people want to watch," Paul said. "And so we should negotiate. People should bid for this. In fact, I think the networks ought to pay the Republican Party to air it."

Paul further argued that "we ought to choose who the moderators are," praising some in the media for being "objective down the middle."

"And then we ought to choose who the moderators are," he said. "And there are some good people in the media. There are some people who are objective down the middle. There are some television journalists who I do not know whether they are Republican or Democrat because they're always a fair-shooter and they are not somebody who really plays gotcha and wants to play games. They let you present your ideas. That's what it's supposed to be about running for office."

Paul also said that he didn't know if anyone from his team would be attending Sunday's meeting of GOP presidential campaigns about the primary debates.

"You know, I'm assuming my staff is, but I don't really know," he said.

w.soundcloud.com

Can you blame him?

This Halloween, President Obama totally lost it when he met this little kid dressed up as the pope at the White House.

Andrew Harnik / AP

The president just couldn't deal with how cute the kid's costume was.

Andrew Harnik / AP

Like, he really couldn't deal.

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

But our meticulous research shows the president often loses his cool when he meets with kids — especially kids in costume for Halloween.

instagram.com

View Entire List ›

Questions of procedure bogged down nearly half of the hour-long arguments.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

WASHINGTON — While hearing a case about whether prosecutors discriminated against a black defendant by impermissibly rejecting black jurors from his death penalty trial, Supreme Court justices spent nearly half of the hour-long argument debating procedural questions that could lead the court to avoid a decision on the discrimination question.

The court heard the case of Timothy Tyrone Foster on Monday morning, and spent much of their time not on debating whether prospective black jurors were wrongly kept off Foster's jury (in violation of an earlier court decision), but rather on winding discussions of what could seem like insignificant procedural minutiae.

The procedural question ultimately boils down to which lower court the U.S. Supreme Court will address when (or if) it issues a decision in the case — the Georgia Supreme Court or the trial court. To answer that question, the justices must determine whether the Georgia Supreme Court's decision to reject Foster's discrimination claim was a decision on the merits of that claim, or whether it was a discretionary decision not to hear it. If it was a merits decision, cert goes to them. If it was discretionary, cert goes to trial court.

The possibility was raised that the question should be sent to the Georgia Supreme Court to issue a definitive interpretation of its state law on the matter.

If it is directed to the trial court, a further procedural issue was raised about whether the trial court's rejection of Foster's claim was made on an independent state law ground that the question of the race discrimination claim had already been heard. If it was an independent state law ground, that would mean the U.S. Supreme Court had no basis for taking up the case at all.

Lawyers had prepared for arguments on the merits of the claim relating to notes made public years after Foster's trial -- notes that provided several examples of the prosecutor's office focusing on potential black jurors within the jury pool — all of whom were rejected for Foster's jury. The notes were released under a public records request. One note, for example, listed the jurors the prosecutors would definitely want off the jury: The first five were the potential black jurors, the final name was a non-black person who had expressed an unwillingness to vote for a death sentence.

Under a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Batson v. Kentucky, jurors of the defendant's race cannot be rejected from his or her jury because of their race.

In asking the state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Beth Burton, about the merits of the case, Justice Elena Kagan bluntly said at one point: "I'm just going to ask, isn't this as clear a Batson violation as the court is going to see?"

Burton, unsurprisingly, said it was not.

“I mean, it is, it is important. I’m not discounting it. I’m not complaining at all. I’m gonna get better at that for sure.”

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he has to become a better "performer" in the debates after his showings at the first three debates were criticized by political commentators and those within his own party.

"Well it isn't a debate, it's a performance and I've got to get better as a performer," Bush said on New Hampshire's Concord News Radio on Monday morning. "I think that's the better way of saying it."

Bush said he wasn't complaining, just saying the debate wasn't really a debate.

"A debate would look a lot different than having 10, 11 people on a stage where gotcha questions are asked," he said. "I mean, it is, it is important. I'm not discounting it. I'm not complaining at all. I'm gonna get better at that for sure."

Bush said a real debate would be a "deeper conversion" about what's on the minds of voters, saying people were concerned about "pocketbook issues" and "national security issues" not fantasy football.

"So it's part of the process and I'm pledging to myself to do better, cause I know a lot of people watch this and they're informed by that part of the process," he added.

On South Carolina's The Morning Report with Jay & John Bush hit a similar line, saying the debates didn't need to be changed, but have rules applied fairly.

"You know, I'm not, I just think the issue is whatever the rules are, apply them, and apply them fairly," Bush said when asked if changes were need to the debates. "Don't say you are going to do one thing, and do something completely different.

"That's the problem with CNBC, was that they said that they were going to have a substantive debate and it was going to be the moderators would control the debate and make sure that everybody had similar kind of access to the stage, to the questions and then it didn't work," he continued. "Didn't even come close to doing it, in any of the things they promise, so, whatever the rules of engagement are, make sure that you apply them clearly, and make sure that they are applied."

Bush said if people thought the debates were hard imagine facing down Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"That is the only suggestion that I have to the team," he said. "Other than that, look—this is all part of the process and I'm not complaining at all. I think, I got to get better at debates, I'm not saying well, life's not fair, you think this is hard, how do you think it's going to be dealing with Putin?"

w.soundcloud.com

“We could create a corpus, an endowment fund, the interest on which we use to pay the medical expenses of the neediest.”

youtube.com

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has, in recent weeks, laid out a health care plan that would repeal Obamacare, keep government programs like Medicaid and Medicare in place, and encourage the use of health savings accounts.

Absent from his recent plan is any mention of proposal he once advocated for: a national endowment for heath care that could cover the bills of patients who could not afford treatment.

Carson argued in his 1999 book, Take the Risk, that an endowment could even replace Medicare and Medicaid.

"We see a broader application that could better address the growing financial crisis in American health care today," Carson wrote of an endowment. "I know it's a lofty goal, but if we can show how this works on a small scale, we can take this idea to Congress and say, 'What about the concept of national endowments for medicine?' We could create a corpus, an endowment fund, the interest on which we use to pay the medical expenses of the neediest.

"The numbers could work. Approximately one-seventh of our national economy today is health care related," wrote Carson. "What if we were smart enough to set aside just 10 percent of that each year to begin a national medical endowment? If we were wise enough and disciplined enough to risk doing that for 10 to 15 years, we would be talking a corpus of three trillion dollars. What could we do with the interest on that? We could easily take care of the forty-four million people who have no insurance and quite a few more than that."

Carson added, "And if we continued to do that for another ten to fifteen years, we might be talking about a corpus large enough to fund American health care forever— without ever adding another dime to it. Not only would we provide for everyone Medicare and Medicaid now provide for (only better and without the complex rules and costly bureaucracy), but we would actually have what many think they should have— free, universal health care. Except it wouldn't really be free, just paid for. Once and for all."

Carson's plans to address health care in America have shifted over the course of his campaign. For more than a decade, Carson had said the government should take over the responsibility of catastrophic care and health insurance companies should be regulated like utilities. During much of this campaign season, Carson's health care plan included doing away with Medicaid and Medicare and giving a $2,000 stipend to each American to set up health savings accounts. For both plans, Carson advocated for giving the equivalent of food stamps to the poor for medical care.

Carson wrote in the late ninties that his interest in the idea of a national health care endowment came from the success a program "Angels in OR," (video above) which provided funds help the needy pay for medical operations.

Wrote Carson:

The nonprofit structure (including legal and financial oversight) for Angels of the OR is in place. We've had several medical device manufacturers, some big corporations, and a few wealthy and nationally prominent people contribute so far. We expect participation to grow, but we have raised enough endowment money already that we hope to begin distributing funding by the time this book is published. Over the next few years, we'll see how the experiment works— and if the results are impressive enough to transfer to a national scale. I am well aware this revolutionary idea would require considerable forethought and discipline, all-too-rare commodities in our American government where political leadership tends more to the reactionary than to the proactive. But we have some very smart people in this country, and I believe God has given us human beings this remarkable problem-solving potential for innovation, insight, and application. I'm optimistic that if we show at a local level how the endowments work, many bright people across this country (and maybe even enough smart people in Washington) will recognize the wisdom of such a plan to address a looming national catastrophe in health care.