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

Donald Trump And The Case Of The Elusive Scottish Poll

$
0
0

Trump has said for years that 93% of people in Aberdeen support his golf course there. That poll has long eluded those who have tried to track it down.

youtube.com

Donald Trump's obsession with polls has been a running theme of his presidential campaign and not just when he's touting the latest numbers that show him leading the pack of Republican candidates. Trump has also cited questionable polls to support his statements, like one from an anti-Muslim think-tank that he used to back his call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

Another example, less-known on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, is Trump's claim that 93% of people in Aberdeen, Scotland support him and the golf resort he built there.

That poll has long eluded those who have tried to track it down.

In Scotland, the construction of Trump's golf course and resort was the subject of much controversy, as local residents accused Trump of bullying them out of their property, while environmental groups were concerned about the adverse effect of the project on the area's wildlife and dunes.

In the face of controversy, Trump claimed to enjoy the overwhelming support of the public. "I see polls showing 93% in favour" of the plan to build a golf resort, he said in 2008, according to the Yorkshire Post, a British paper. "I have never seen polls in the 80s and 90s like this," he added.

In 2010, a BBC documentary showed numerous clips of the real estate mogul saying things like: "93% of the people in Aberdeen were in favor of this job", "As you know, we have 93% approval rating in the polls", "93%, that's almost impossible," and "I've never even heard of 93."

The BBC couldn't find any poll that showed 93% support. Trump said the poll was "from one of the newspapers" and that he would produce it for them, but he never did, nor did anyone from the Trump Organization.

"93% is typical of the results of countless polls," a Trump spokesperson told the BBC.

Trump did receive one positive poll result in December 2007 from a local Aberdeen paper, which also petitioned in support of Trump's plan. The poll showed 80% support for the golf resort and almost 80% agreement that a local government's initial decision to block the plan had damaged the reputation of the Scottish Northeast. The Trump Organization's head of international development called the numbers "very solid figures."

But Trump has always claimed 93% support.

Other polls showed that a majority of people actually opposed the project. Apoll of Scottish opinion on the project, commissioned by the Scottish Green Party in 2010, showed 64% opposed to it.

And one other poll, conducted by a newspaper in 2013, showed that 67% of respondents disagreed with Trump's opposition to the construction of a wind farm near the golf course.

In 2014, Trump's claim of 93 support changed slightly, as he portrayed the number as his own regional approval rating. "I have a 93 positive rating in that part of the world," Trump said, according to a story last year in the UK paper, The Telegraph. "It's a great relationship."

Similarly, he told Golf Digest last October, "Look, 93% of the people in Aberdeen love me." Trump's interviewer for that story was, like the BBC, unable to confirm the existence of such a poll.

When BuzzFeed News e-mailed a spokesperson for his campaign to ask about the elusive Scottish poll, she did not reply.

Whatever Trump's real level of support in Scotland, there was one sign on Wednesday that it may be on the decline: first minister Nicola Sturgeon stripped him of his role as an ambassador for Scottish business.

"Mr Trump's recent remarks have shown that he is no longer fit to be a business ambassador for Scotland and the first minister has decided his membership of the respected GlobalScot business network should be withdrawn with immediate effect," a statement from the Scottish government said.


This Is How The Democratic Candidates For President Talk To Progressives

$
0
0

A grassroots progressive group’s presidential endorsement process shows of the various pitches Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley are making to the hard left.

Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The three candidates for the Democratic nomination are attempting to win the endorsement from Democracy for America, a progressive grassroots group founded out of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.

DFA is going to make a primary endorsement soon, and that means leaders from the group are polling its members to find out who they like the most. Whichever Democratic candidate wins the DFA membership vote will get the group's endorsement, as well as grassroots political efforts to bolster that candidates campaign using DFA's well-established national political network.

The Democratic campaigns are pushing to win that vote. And so this week, each candidate is sending a letter to DFA members stating his or her case for the group's endorsement. Members then vote in an online poll running through next Tuesday. Final results will be announced next Thursday.

BuzzFeed News obtained the candidate letters this week. A top aide at DFA said their endorsement program "marks the first time that these candidates are openly competing for the support of members of a grassroots progressive group."

Much of each letter is boilerplate, easily found in the respective candidate's stump speeches or fundraising communications. But there are some key differences, tailored for the liberal audience, that showcase some of the strategy each campaign is using to win over the left.

Howard Dean founded DFA and is a Clinton supporter. But the group will go its own way on the endorsement — if Sanders gets more votes, he'll get the backing of DFA. But Clinton is taking advantage of the situation. Her letter to DFA members is "forwarded" to them by Dean, who sings her praises.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hillary Clinton & Howard Dean
Subject: Your vote
To: [recipient]

[Recipient] --

As you make your decision about who Democracy for America will endorse to be our next president, I want to share a few words about my choice: Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate who shares our progressive values on issues like climate change, immigration reform, and LGBT rights -- and she has the experience and ability to turn those values into policies that will help Americans. She has spent her entire career fighting for families, from her first job out of law school helping disabled kids at the Children's Defense Fund to her courageous work standing up for women and girls around the world as First Lady and Secretary of State.

In the 25 years I've known Hillary, I've learned that she has a work ethic that drives her to persist until the job is done and done right. And she has a record in the Senate of successfully working with both sides of our very combative political spectrum in order to accomplish goals that improve the lives of ordinary Americans. I trust her do the same as president.

I trust you, too. I know you'll take this decision as seriously as I have, and I hope that Hillary will be your choice. Click here to vote for Hillary in DFA's 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll now.

That's enough from me -- read on to see what Hillary has to say about why your vote matters to her. Thanks for your commitment to this process, and to our democracy.

- Howard

Gov. Howard Dean, Founder
Democracy for America

------- Forwarded message --------
FROM: Hillary Clinton
SUBJECT: Your vote

Ashley,

I want to thank you for your involvement in Democracy for America, and for taking the time to be thoughtful and engaged in our democracy. I'm excited for all that we're going to accomplish together during the course of this campaign, and I'm really looking forward to all the good we can do if I'm elected president.

I've said before that I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. So I want to talk to you about the things I'd like to accomplish in the White House.

First, I'll work to make sure all Americans are treated fairly -- no matter what you look like, where you live, or who you love. I'm going to fight hard for racial justice in this country: The first speech of my campaign was about ending mass incarceration, and I want to require body cameras for every police force in America. I support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. I want to make sure everyone earns equal pay -- an issue that disproportionately affects women of color. And I'll work to make sure LGBT Americans finally have equal protection under the law, especially trans Americans, whose needs are too often ignored.

I'm going to raise wages for the middle class. I believe this is the defining challenge of our time. I'm the only Democrat in this race who's pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year, and I have a comprehensive plan to grow small businesses, make health care and college more affordable, and give employees a chance to share in their companies' profits just like shareholders do.

If you agree that we need to strengthen the middle class, stand with me: Ask DFA to endorse me by casting your vote in their 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll now.

I'll also work to bring the best of American values -- equality, justice, and innovation -- to tackle our biggest global challenges, whether that's climate change or the Syrian refugee crisis. When I was Secretary of State, I brought leaders to the table on issues like girls' education and LGBT rights in countries where those issues had previously been non-starters -- that's how you make progress. I hope to continue that work as president.

Finally, I want to make sure that my term in office would ensure a strong progressive legacy for decades to come. That means appointing the right judges to the Supreme Court and the federal bench, and it means protecting voting rights and overhauling campaign finance law to ensure that people -- not corporations -- are choosing our leaders. I'm going to get corporate money out of our electoral system, even if that means a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

We all know I'm not afraid to go after Republicans when I need to, but I'm also not afraid to roll up my sleeves and do the hard work of getting unlikely allies to join coalitions. I did that as first lady when I fought for the Children's Health Insurance Program (which still covers 8 million kids today), as a senator when I got health care for 9/11 first responders, and as Secretary of State when I convened a global coalition to bring sanctions against Iran.

I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values. The plans I've outlined above aren't rhetoric; they're a concrete outline of what I will do everything in my power to accomplish if I'm elected president.

If you support the bold vision I've outlined above and you're ready for DFA to join Team Hillary, please cast your vote for me in DFA's Presidential Endorsement Poll today.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to earn your support. I promise that if I'm elected, I'll keep working for it every single day I'm in office.

With deep appreciation,

- Hillary


View Entire List ›

Key Justice Suggests Supreme Court Could Punt, Again, On Affirmative Action

$
0
0

Abigail Fisher, second from right, speaks to reporters after her case was heard a second time at the Supreme Court on Dec. 9, 2015.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony Kennedy found himself at the center of the Supreme Court’s debate over affirmative action on Wednesday — and suggested, for a second time, that avoiding a decision on the constitutionality of the University of Texas-Austin's admissions plan could be the path forward for the court.

The Supreme Court in 2013 avoided a decision on whether Abigail Fisher’s claim that UT-Austin’s admissions plan unconstitutionally considered race should succeed. Instead, the court, in an opinion written by Kennedy, found fault with the way the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the high court’s test for reviewing such policies, and sent the case back to the appeals court.

That ruling avoided addressing the sharp divisions on the court over affirmative action — divisions on full display Wednesday and that Kennedy appeared open to avoiding yet again.

Three-quarters of the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions come from the so-called “Top Ten” plan adopted by the state, which provides admission to any student in the top 10% of their high school class. The remaining quarter, under UT-Austin’s plan, are admitted through a “holistic review” process that includes consideration of several factors, one of which is race.

After the Supreme Court sent the case back in 2013, the 5th Circuit held in July 2014 that the plan passed the “strict scrutiny” test. Fisher appealed, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case again, and, on Wednesday, the justices fought out the underlying questions of whether the university met the “demanding burden” of strict scrutiny, as Fisher’s lawyer, Bert Rein, described it.

Rein argued that the university had not passed the test: UT had not, he argued, clearly shown what compelling interest it was advancing that justified the use of race, that the use of race was necessary to advance that interest, or that the program was narrowly tailored to advance the interest.

The university and the Obama administration, on the other side, counter that the test has been passed: The record in the case supports the use of race in the holistic review process, UT lawyer Gregory Garre said, and it has had a “meaningful impact” in the years since it was implemented.

Repeatedly, however, Kennedy raised the possibility of the “perspective [that] could be gained” by sending the case back to the trial court, where additional evidence on these issues could be submitted into the record. The recent aversion to deciding affirmative action cases is a relatively new move for Kennedy, who has voted to restrict affirmative action in other cases from earlier in his time on the high court.

“This is the kind of thing we should know but don’t know,” Kennedy said in response to a question from Justice Samuel Alito regarding classroom diversity changes in the wake of the holistic review process including race as a factor.

Kennedy later raised the issue with Garre repeatedly, asking what could be gained on remand. The question was raised again during the Obama administration’s time defending the program, with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., asked about the possibility.

While such a ruling would not appear to make anyone particularly happy, it did appear to provide Kennedy with a path other than those offered by the more conservative justices, who have made their aversion to affirmative action abundantly clear, or the more liberal justices, who have made their support for continued affirmative action programs where necessary equally clear.

Throughout the argument, it appeared at several points that Chief Justice John Roberts and Stephen Breyer appeared to be keenly aware of Kennedy’s struggle — with both of them providing evidence that they were open to working with him on finding out where he stood and how the case could be resolved in a way that would get him voting their way.

In contrast, Alito and Justice Antonin Scalia, on the right, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who was the sole justice dissenting from the 2013 Fisher decision because she believes the program should be upheld) and Sonia Sotomayor, on the left, appeared more interested in pressing their case against or for the program than in figuring out where Kennedy stood.

Alito and Scalia railed against the program, with Alito sparring with Garre at one point over the university’s position that it needs to add race in as a factor to its holistic review process in order to ensure diversity in that quarter of the class. Alito said this position “suggest[s] that there is something deficient about the African-American students and the Hispanic students who are admitted under the top 10% plan,” later adding that a “pernicious stereotype” about the quality of those students was underlying that position.

Roberts, on the other hand, suggested at one point that affirmative action could be continuing in higher education for at least some time more, asking Garre, “Are we going to hit the deadline? Is this going to be done in 12 years?” — a reference to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s 2003 decision upholding the use of race in university admissions, in which she also noted, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

On the other side, Ginsburg and Sotomayor pressed on the perceived strength of the university’s case for its program and for affirmative action more broadly, with Sotomayor reading out statistics about African-American and Hispanic enrollment numbers after race was added as a factor to the holistic review. On the larger question, she said to Rein at one point, “I fear something,” and asked of the proof he said the university would have to show, “Will any holistic review ever survive [court review]?”

Breyer — though he did some of that, to be sure — at multiple points joined in with Kennedy’s line of questioning regarding what could be gained through a remand of the case to the district court.

Justice Elena Kagan, due to her involvement in the case while in the Obama administration, is not participating in the arguments or decision of the case. A 4-4 split decision in the case would keep the 5th Circuit ruling upholding the program in place, but the Supreme Court’s decision would not serve as a national precedent.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

Huckabee: Trump's Plan To Ban Muslims Unconstitutional, Never Going To Happen

$
0
0

“Besides, you can’t bar people from America for holding any particular religion. That would plainly violate the First Amendment, so it’s never gonna happen.”

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said on Wednesday that Donald Trump's plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States was clearly unconstitutional, adding that Trump doesn't need the extra publicity that comes when candidates condemn him.

"Speaking of making blanket judgements, the media keeps pressuring me and another other Republican candidates to condemn Donald Trump's comments that caused such a ruckus on Monday," said Huckabee on his Huckabee Exclusive podcast on Wednesday morning.

"Look Trump can get enough publicity without me talking about him," he added. "Besides, you can't bar people from America for holding any particular religion. That would plainly violate the First Amendment, so it's never gonna happen."

Huckabee noted there were many patriotic Muslims in the United States and it is most often Muslims who tip off law enforcement about terrorists in their communities.

"There are many hardworking, patriotic American Muslims who bravely stood up to condemn racial Islam," continued Huckabee. "I know some of them personally. In fact, a 2013 Duke University study found that more terrorism have been made known to law enforcement thanks to fellow Muslims tipping them off by all of our federal agencies and investigators."

From Love To Hate: How Donald Trump Went From Gushing Over Obama To Conspiracy Theories

$
0
0

A time to build up, a time to break down.

Sean Rayford / Getty Images

Donald Trump is running for president as an outsider and rabid critic of President Barack Obama, a leading champion of the libel that the president was born in outside the United States.

But before Trump was against Obama, he was for him. And a detailed review of the real estate developer's shifting opinions about the first black president — reproduced in full in our timeline, below — offers a glimpse at a man whose opinions seem neatly shaped to match nothing more than public opinion polling.

Though Trump endorsed John McCain (who he has, more recently, trashed) in the 2008 election, Trump was openly (and enthusiastically) supportive of the 44th president. He defended the president's handling of the economic crisis — Obama, he said, is a "champion" who had saved America from a depression — and seemed excited by the ways that Obama might change America's image around the world.

But as President Obama's popularity began to decline in the months before the 2010 midterms, Trump's view of Obama's presidency did as well. A note of skepticism creeps into Trump's comments in early 2010, around the time that Obamacare became law; while he did not criticize Obama overtly, Trump appeared suddenly hostile to the president.

A sudden change took place around the 2010 midterms, which were disastrous for the Democratic Party, however. That October 5, Trump appeared on Morning Joe to float the idea of running against Obama in 2012. And after the president's party lost badly in the midterms, Trump's views shifted dramatically. By the next April, he was referring to Obama as the "worst president ever."

What happened in the winter of 2010? Mostly, Obama's winning streak — his electoral win, his legislative victory in passing Obamacare — came to an end. Trump decided Obama was a loser, and began digging into the internet fever swamps for bizarre allegations with which to tarnish the president.

It was, for Trump, a familiar pattern. Trump had nothing but praise for George W. Bush through his first term and reelection campaign. Bush, he said in 2004, is "very good." But as that year went up Trump turned loudly against Bush and Iraq, a war he had previously been largely silent on. By 2005 and through 2008, Trump found himself regularly saying George W. Bush needed to be impeached and would go down as one of the worst president's in U.S. history.

Unlike Bush, however, Obama noticed the developer's hostility.

His birther phase caught Obama's attention, and brought Trump a presidential humiliation: The same May night that Obama sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden, the president looked across the room and sneered:

Donald Trump is here tonight! Now, I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter –- like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?

Needless to say, Trump has been a bitter enemy ever since:

Andrew H. Walker / Getty Images


View Entire List ›

Former FDA Investigator Now Backing Four States' Execution Drug Import Efforts

$
0
0

Via fdaimports.com

Ben England, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator, testified in federal court on behalf of death row inmates four years ago. Now, he's the leading consultant and lawyer for states trying to import execution drugs — over the explicit warnings of his old employer that it is illegal to do so.

Records obtained by BuzzFeed News detail England’s extensive involvement in four states’ attempts to import sodium thiopental for use in executions over the past year. The records also highlight the close attention the federal agency has been paying to his moves — up to the highest levels of the FDA.

Although no one is saying so publicly, the moves suggest both sides see the issue potentially ending up back in court.

Earlier this year, the Arizona Department of Corrections acknowledged it had hired a firm to represent it in its efforts to import execution drugs, the result of an open records lawsuit brought by the Arizona Republic, but the state attempted to keep the identity of the firm a secret. Texas, for its part, redacted the name of the firm representing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on a contract for outside counsel.

The firm, it turns out, that is representing those two states is the same one, FDA documents show: FDAImports.com, run by England and affiliated with his law firm, Benjamin L. England & Associates.

In late July, the FDA detained illegal shipments of sodium thiopental from a seller in India that were on their way to Arizona and Texas. As soon as the FDA detained the shipments, England sent separate emails to the head of the FDA’s import division, informing the agency that he was representing the two states and asking to discuss the detention “at your earliest convenience.”

BuzzFeed News has previously reported that Ohio's Department of Rehabilitation and Correction also has paid England for work. Ohio has so far agreed to pay England up to $60,000 over a two-year period, documents provided to BuzzFeed News by ODRC show, although the state redacted what specific services England is providing it.

In spite of the FDA’s insistence that states cannot legally import sodium thiopental, Ohio has argued that it should be able to do so legally. The director of FDA’s import operation, however, reaffirmed to Ohio in a letter dated Nov. 19 that the drug is unapproved by the agency. Approving a new drug is an involved process that can take years.

BuzzFeed News has reported previously that a fourth state, Nebraska, also has enlisted England’s services. There, the state paid England to register the execution drug seller’s facilities and the drug with the FDA. The seller is a man in India named Chris Harris, who has sold execution drugs illegally numerous times although they have never been used in an execution. Harris also sold the drugs to Texas and Arizona that are being detained by the FDA.

Late on Dec. 4, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts announced that the state was abandoning its attempts to import the drug.

The FDA's decision to detain those drugs should not come as a surprise to these states — or to England. The FDA had already warned England that importing sodium thiopental would be illegal. In June, FDA Director of the Office of Enforcement and Import Operations Douglas Stearn wrote to England, informing him “on the regulatory status" of the drug.

“Please note that there is no FDA approved application for sodium thiopental, and it is illegal to import an unapproved new drug into the United States,” Stearn wrote, adding that “any shipment would not be allowed into U.S. commerce.”

But Texas and Arizona paid to import it anyway, and Nebraska unsuccessfully attempted to import the drug as well — a shipment that didn’t even make it out of India.

Arizona and Texas have appealed the FDA's decision to detain the drugs through the agency's normal procedures. Internal FDA documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show that process employed thus far by the agency has been very intentional. High-ranking officials at the agency have been aware of and followed the states’ attempts to illegally import the drug for months, these records show.

In the wake of a 2012 court order, which followed several states’ overseas importation of the drug, the FDA enacted stringent new guidelines on how to handle future shipments. The guidelines dictate that the shipments are to be detained and not released “without direct instructions to do so from District or Headquarters management.”

Documents show that in May of this year, following news reports about Nebraska’s attempts to import sodium thiopental, FDA Commissioner Stephen Ostroff asked to be briefed on “the history of the importation of sodium thiopental.”

In June, the FDA issued a “SPECIAL ALERT” to import managers, asking them to “be on the lookout for shipments of sodium thiopental.” The import managers were given the strict guidelines the FDA enacted in 2012.

The documents show that the FDA also called FedEx that month to warn the company that someone might try to use its shipping service to attempt to import sodium thiopental. In late August, Harris attempted to send the drugs to Nebraska using FedEx. The company, however, did not allow the drugs to leave India.

via Food and Drug Administration

The recent aggressive moves from the FDA represent a change for the agency, which fought in court from 2011 through 2013, unsuccessfully, to keep out of the business of regulating some states’ lethal injection-based execution efforts.

The FDA — in the course of fighting a lawsuit brought by prisoners from Arizona, California, and Tennessee — then acknowledged that it was choosing not to enforce the federal law that bars importation of adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved new drugs when it allowed the importation of sodium thiopental. It argued, however, that the “FDA’s non-enforcement decision is the reasonable result of FDA’s ‘complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise.’”

In his 2012 opinion rejecting that argument (which was later upheld by a federal appeals court), Judge Richard Leon wrote that “the FDA appears to be simply wrapping itself in the flag of law enforcement discretion to justify its authority and masquerade an otherwise seemingly callous indifference to the health consequences of those imminently facing the executioner's needle.”

His response: “How utterly disappointing!”

Leon’s order, issued June 22, 2012, and still in effect today, bars the FDA from allowing sodium thiopental to be brought into the U.S. if it is misbranded or an unapproved new drug. For this reason, the FDA continually points to the fact that there is “no FDA approved application for sodium thiopental” and bars importation.

Notably, before Leon’s ruling, there was another lawsuit — brought solely by Arizona inmates — aimed at stopping that state’s overseas execution drug importation attempts. As part of their case, inmates argued that Arizona was violating the law by attempting to import sodium thiopental from an online, overseas pharmacy. The suit also alleged Arizona intentionally minimized orders to reduce FDA scrutiny.

The inmates brought in an expert to testify as to why the whole process was illegal: Ben England.

England is, the inmates argued, an expert regarding the FDA’s processes, having worked for the agency from 1986 through 2003 and in private practice advising clients on FDA matters since then. Although he started out with the agency as a biologist, according to a copy of his resume submitted to the court, England moved into compliance and enforcement four years into his 17 years with the agency. Over the course of his time at the FDA, England was a compliance officer, a special agent with the FDA’s criminal investigations arm, and a senior legal adviser for regulatory matters.

On Dec. 5, 2011, England testified for the inmates that Arizona’s attempts at execution drug importation in 2010 — attempts that included sodium thiopental — were illegal.

“I was able to determine … that the September 2010 shipment was composed of drug products that were unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration and they were misbranded in that they were not listed with FDA as required by the law,” England testified, adding that the state’s later attempt to minimize the size of orders was itself “improper and in violation of customs regulations.”

In a corresponding expert report he submitted, he similarly concluded that “[i]mportation of such drugs lacking an approved new drug application on file with the FDA for such intended uses is a prohibited act under the FDCA, and punishable as a strict liability misdemeanor” — also specifically noting “FDA’s vigilance in attempting to keep unapproved new drugs from entering the U.S. market from foreign sources.”

Now, however, England has switched sides — representing state officials in Arizona and Texas — and is pressing the FDA to allow the sodium thiopental it detained this summer to be imported to the states for execution purposes.

England has not provided comment to BuzzFeed News about his representation of the states or his sparring with his former longtime employer, the FDA.

Even as the FDA is hearing Arizona and Texas’s challenges, the agency suggested in a letter to Ohio that no change in its policy has been reached at this point. On Nov. 19, the FDA’s Domenic Veneziano wrote that the agency’s June letter stands — noting specifically that there is “no FDA approved application” for the drug currently.

But if the FDA denies Arizona or Texas’s challenges, the states could try to challenge the FDA’s interpretation of the 2012 court order — or the court order itself — by going back to court. Texas has shown a particular affinity toward challenging Obama administration actions in recent years. It currently has lawsuits pending challenging aspects of Obamacare, Obama’s immigration executive actions, and the administration’s refugee policy.

Texas is not alone. In August, Ohio officials retained England’s company for up to another 100 hours worth of work over the next year, records the state recently released show — a number that likely could be increased if corrections officials there deem it necessary.

Read the documents:


Connecticut Governor Plans Order To Stop Gun Purchases For Those On Watch Lists

$
0
0

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy

Jessica Hill / AP

WASHINGTON — Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy on Thursday announced that he was planning to sign an executive order barring gun purchases by those on government watch lists.

"If you cannot fly due to being on a watch list, you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm," he said in announcing the planned move. "Why anyone would stand idly by and knowingly allow those on government watchlists to purchase guns is truly unbelievable. Since Congress so far has failed to act, we will."

Malloy's office is seeking federal government approval for the state to use federal watch lists for this purpose, his office stated in a news release explaining his plans. Once that approval is given, he plans to issue the executive order.

"The Governor is working directly with federal officials to use government watchlists for this purpose and, upon approval, will sign the Executive Order," the release states. "He urged the U.S. Congress and other states to take action with similar commonsense steps. The Governor will work with the federal government to determine the specific lists – be it the 'no-fly' list, terrorism watchlist, or some combination – used in this regard."

The effort to ban those on watch lists from buying guns, which has been supported by President Obama and most congressional Democrats, has arisen in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks and has been strongly opposed by Republicans, including the party's presidential candidates.

Malloy's office also noted he previously asked Congress to pass legislation making this a national policy.

Already, Sen. Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut has tweeted his support.

Mark Zuckerberg's Immigration Group Launches Push Against Trump's Deportation Plans

$
0
0

The Mark Zuckerberg-backed immigration advocacy organization FWD.us launched a web series Thursday called 11 Million Stories to push back against Republican frontrunner Donald Trump's calls for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

youtube.com

Trump, who has advocated for a "deportation force" to remove more than 11 million undocumented immigrants from the U.S. — which he stressed will be done in a "humane" way — is the focus of the video.

FWD.us president Todd Schulte said the purpose of the campaign "is to show the American public the devastating toll that mass deportation will have on our economy, our communities and to millions of American families" and to illustrate the "astronomical costs of mass deportation," which the video pegs at $600 billion.

The video, by Colombian filmmaker Paola Mendoza, features immigration activists of different races that would be effected by such a policy. But FWD.us argues the costs wouldn't just be financial.

"I wrote and directed 11 Million Stories to humanize the people and families who would be directly impacted by the horrible policy of mass deportation," Mendoza said. "We cannot deport 11.3 million people humanely."

The group reached out to the family of Sophie Cruz, the 5-year-old U.S. citizen who ran to Pope Francis motorcade during his American visit to give him a letter asking for help in protecting her parents from deportation. Cruz is featured in the video, along with her mother.

"We cannot stay silent when we are being threatened to be torn away from our families," her mother Zoyla said. "Everyday they deport and destroy families for the simple fact that they don't have papers."

"We cannot stay silent when we are being threatened to be torn away from our families," her mother Zoyla said. "Everyday they deport and destroy families for the simple fact that they don't have papers."

The six-part 11 Million Stories series comes as Trump has been further condemned by officials in both political parties and the media for his calls to register Muslims in the U.S., as well as end immigration of Muslims to the country.


Ted Cruz Votes Against Senate Resolution That Rejects Trump's Proposed Muslim Ban

$
0
0

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz and three other Republican senators voted on Thursday against a non-binding Senate resolution affirming that the United States does not use religious tests for immigrants seeking admission into the country.

The resolution, which is an amendment to a maritime security bill, reads simply “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

Prior to the committee’s vote, Leahy said, “I know many on this committee on both sides of the aisle rightfully expressed their outrage about the call earlier this week to shut our borders to Muslims. Now let’s just go on record, as formally rejecting this reprehensible proposition. We’ve heard from FBI Director Comey that ISIL’s narrative, part of it, is that the United States is anti-Muslim, they use that in recruiting. The Department of Defense has told us the same thing. I think we ought to listen to what our national security leaders and send a clear and direct message that America welcomes all peoples of all faiths.”

It is not entirely clear why Cruz doesn’t support the amendment's language, which was proposed by Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy. The Texas Republican did not attend the meeting, and his spokesman did not return a request for comment.

Cruz’ vote was cast in proxy by Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the fiercest opponents of immigration on Capitol Hill who has advised Trump on immigration in the past.

Sessions spent nearly 30 minutes on a rambling statement that invoked the memory of Kate Steinle who was killed by an undocumented immigrant earlier this year and whose murder Trump has used to rail against undocumented immigrants. Sessions also charged the one sentence amendment is “In effect, it's a move towards the ratification of the idea that global migration is a human right and a civil right for those of us in the United States. And that these immigrant rights must be supreme to the rights of nations, of sovereign nations, to determine who and who cannot enter their borders. Fundamentally, foreign nationals, living in foreign countries, do not have a constitutional right to enter the United States. If they did, any alien denied entry could file suit to demand entry, claim damages for loss of employment, lost benefits or welfare income if they believe they were improperly denied.”

After insisting that under the non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution “the United States could not favor for entry, maybe we don’t want to do this, could you favor for entry a moderate, moderate Muslim cleric over a radical Muslim cleric,” Sessions then argued that ultimately, Leahy and others were looking to eliminate any questions about applicants for entry. “The next step of course … is to say we cannot consider history, or geography, or culture,” Sessions said.

The amendment passed 16 to 4, with Sens. David Vitter and Thom Tillis joining Sessions and Cruz in opposing the language.

LINK: Watch the video here.


Jeff Sessions: Trump's Muslim Comments Have Forced "Appropriate" Discussion On Immigration

$
0
0

Alex Wong / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions says that Donald Trump's plan to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States has forced an "appropriate" conversation on how the country should decide which immigrants to accept into the country.

"He’s treading on dangerous ground because Americans are so deeply committed to freedom of religion, that is a major part of who we are," Sessions said on Breitbart Radio this morning when asked about Trump's proposal. "But at the same time, we’re in an age that’s very dangerous and we’re seeing more and more persons enter and a lot of them have done terrorist acts."

"Their faith commands them to do these things. They’re not committing suicide on the assumption that this is the end, they're doing it because they believe their faith will reward them for doing it. So I think it’s appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has forced that discussion," Sessions said.

Sessions, who helped Trump craft his larger immigration policy, said that current immigration law gives the president the authority to prevent migration of any class of people what would be detrimental to the United States.

Sessions continued, saying of potential Muslim immigrants: "They’re not in the United States and they’re not entitled to the constitutional protections of the United States," but added that "there's millions of wonderful, decent, good Muslims--hundreds of millions worldwide—and, so, we gotta be really careful so we don’t cross that line."

He concluded, saying, "I guess Mr. Trump has caused us think about it a lot more concretely."


Rubio: If "Western Force" Defeats ISIS, "Something New Will Pop Up And Replace Them"

$
0
0

“I’ve said repeatedly that the only way to defeat ISIS is for them to be rejected ideologically and defeated militarily by a ground force made up primarily of Sunni Arabs.”

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Marco Rubio said on Thursday that if ISIS is defeated by a Western military force as opposed to a predominately Sunni Arab force, "something new will pop up and replace them."

Rubio has generally said that Sunni Arabs will have to take the lead in the fight against ISIS, with assistance from a smaller number of U.S. special forces.

On Thursday, Rubio told New Hampshire radio host Jack Heath, "I've said repeatedly that the only way to defeat ISIS is for them to be rejected ideologically and defeated militarily by a ground force made up primarily of Sunni Arabs. Otherwise, if you defeat them with a Western force—you can defeat them militarily, but something new will pop up and replace them."

Rubio made the comment while answering a question about Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which he said "has no chance of ever happening," and called "counter-productive," adding that the U.S. was "going to have to work with non-radical Muslims to defeat radical Islam."

Rubio said that he wanted Muslims in the United States to come forward if they notice those in their community, including family members, exhibiting signs of radicalization."

"We want the patriotic Muslims in the United States to come forward when they see someone, whether it's at the mosque or in their community or even in their families quite frankly who are exhibiting signs of radicalization," he said. "So I think it's important for us to be careful about who we allow into the country. I don't think a religious test is the right way to do it and in fact I think it would prove to be counter-productive."

Democratic Congresswoman: "Between 5 And 20%" Of Muslims Willing To Use Terrorism To Institute Caliphate

$
0
0

“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20%, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible.” UPDATE: In a statement, Sanchez said, “I strongly support the Muslim community in America and believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support terrorism or ISIS.

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez said on Wednesday that "between 5 and 20%" of Muslims "have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," including the use of terrorism.

"But certainly, we know that there is a small group, and we don't know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20%, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in anyway possible, and in particular go after what they consider Western norms — our way of life," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."

Sanchez, who is running for Barbara Boxer's open Senate seat, added that this group of Muslims was "willing to use and they do use terrorism."

"They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world," she said. "And again, I don't know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism."

Sanchez added that they were using terrorism "in the name a very wrong way of looking at Islam."

Watch Ben Carson Joke About Mispronouncing "Hamas"

$
0
0

“Now how do you pronounce that?”

Scott Olson / Getty Images

During an exchange with a voter at an event in Atlanta on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson joked about his repeated mispronunciations of "Hamas" at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum last week.

At the end of a question and answer session, a voter asked Carson about President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

The questioner said he believed that the Iranian government "will use the money that they receive from this deal to go fund terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, and to murder Americans, Israelis, Europeans."

"Now how do you pronounce that?" Carson interrupted, laughing. "Hamas," repeated the questioner.

"No, just kidding," Carson replied.

"You know, you didn't sound that bad," the voter added. "I went and listened to it."

"I know," nodded Carson.

"You pronounced it right!" the voter concluded, before pivoting back to his question.

Watch the exchange here:

View Video ›

Donald Trump Has Even Flip-Flopped On Bigotry

$
0
0

Does he stand for anything?

Scott Olson / Getty Images

As Republican front runner Donald Trump has rooted his campaign in anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric, the question has been raised: Does Trump mean this? Is he articulating the wishes, as his campaign signage says, of Nixon's "silent majority"? Or is he just saying whatever it takes to get attention and support?

Even as his repeated shifts and flips on all kinds of positions have been covered extensively this year, Trump has been portrayed by supporters as a straight-talker who says the thing others are too afraid to say.

A detailed review of old interviews over the last decade — which you can see below — shows Trump has at other moments donned an anti-racist mantle, however.

In fact, Trump once cast himself as a champion of "Jews, blacks, gays, and Mexicans" against a populist Republican presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan. His tough new rhetoric is the latest in a series of evolutions that has shown him go from Reform Party populist to Bush critic to Obama fan to conspiracy theorist to nativist Republican frontrunner.

Can the nativists even trust Trump?

"Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," the billionaire developer says.

"The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it," Trump says. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."

Romney's solution of "self deportation" for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.

"He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal," Trump says. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote," Trump notes. "He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."

The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy "to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country," Trump says.

Or what Trump said to The Advocate in 1999 about Pat Buchanan when he was flirting with a Reform Party presidential run.

Or what Trump said to The Advocate in 1999 about Pat Buchanan when he was flirting with a Reform Party presidential run.

The Advocate


View Entire List ›

Univision Poll On "Persuadable" Hispanic Voters Draws Eyerolls From Democrats And Republicans

$
0
0

AP images

Univision, the Spanish-language giant, proclaimed on Wednesday that the Latino vote is up for grabs in big bold letters.

"Directly contradicting the common assumption that Hispanics always vote Democrat, the study found that 55% of Hispanic registered voters age 25-54 are persuadable and in fact, frequently cross party lines," read a Univision release for a new poll released by the network with bipartisan polling firms.

The idea that Latino voters are not strong partisans, and are more likely to cross party lines, is not new. Groups like Pew Hispanic and Latino Decisions have released past data supporting that point.

But this new Univision poll drew scrutiny — from both parties. It was just a few months ago that Univision's news division released data that put Hillary Clinton far ahead with Latinos against Republicans. This new poll, both Democrats and Republicans told BuzzFeed News, looks a lot more like spin by Univision to secure ad revenue.

"It sounds like they concocted a poll to appeal to Republicans: 'Spend your ad dollars here, Latinos are up for grabs,'" said Frank Sharry, a veteran immigration advocate and head of America's Voice, adding that Univision released a similar poll towards the end of 2011 ahead of the 2012 race. "They could make that case without concocting a poll because there is enough evidence already out there."

Republicans, who asked not to be named to avoid drawing the ire of the powerful Spanish-language network, said Univision has released polls like this in previous cycles, with the same goal in mind.

“Absolutely, they’re shopping for dollars," said one Republican consultant who has worked with Univision in the past.

But that doesn't mean the data is wrong, the Republican said.

“The Latino vote will always be up for grabs but at a cost, at an investment," the source said.

A former Republican official who has worked with the network said Univision is trying to make the point that "they have unique reach and that to connect with their audience you're going to have to spend resources to advertise," but that the poll is still rooted in truth.

"I do think Hispanics are persuadable but even if Marco Rubio ran tomorrow and showed up on every television show, and in ads in Spanish, he's still not going to win 80% of the vote," the source said. "If he gets 45% it would be amazing."

Ultimately polls like this are good for Republicans, the former official said, reminding GOP operatives "that Hispanics are not a lost cause" which in turn is "better for the Hispanic community, when they’re not taken for granted."

The December Univision survey found that of persuadable voters ages 25 to 54 — which the survey defines as all voters except for those who identify as strongly in favor of either party — 61% of those who lean Republican had voted for a Democrat, and 41% of those who identify as a Democrat had voted for a Republican.

Mark Hugo Lopez of Pew Hispanic said he has found that Latinos are more likely to cross party lines than whites or blacks, but that the majority do not do so. He noted that there is a "social desirability" to telling pollsters you are willing to consider both parties.

Mixed into the data of the deck prepared by Univision and reviewed by BuzzFeed News is the fact that Latinos who lean Democrat outnumber those who lean Republican 62% to 19%. The figure is similar to the data released by Univision News in July when pollsters found Clinton leading Jeb Bush among Latinos 64% to 27%.

The party identification figure led one Democratic official who has worked with Univision in the past and asked not to be named to be speak frankly to call the poll "a blatant attempt by a Spanish-language network to fool Democrats into booking TV time beginning tomorrow."

Chiqui Cartagena, Univision's senior vice president of its political and advocacy group, disputed that characterization. She said the July Univision News poll, like all polls, "captured a moment in time."

"The point of this poll was to understand the persuadability of Latinos and that they cross party lines," Cartagena said.

The survey employed a bipartisan team of pollsters: Bob Moore of Moore Information, who is working for Jeb Bush; and David Binder of David Binder Research, who is working for Hillary Clinton. Moore said based on what they found in the data, "I would say that yes, the Hispanic vote is up for grabs."

"From a Republican standpoint I would tell my colleagues, 'Don’t rule out Hispanics,'" he said. "To Dems I would say, 'Hey guys, there's no guarantee you’re going to get all the Hispanic support.'"

So what shapes the decisions of Latino voters, according to Univision's new poll? The poll found candidate debates, candidate interviews, and local news coverage do. And where do they get their information? From television news and ads, the survey said.

A slide headlined "For Hispanics, TV ads still matter," found that 1 in 2 Latino persuadable voters prefer to get political information from television ads.

"The advertising part was pleasantly surprising," Univision's Cartagena said.

"Latinos are not being actively courted by either party to their own peril," she continued. "Candidates who want to win the Latino vote should message to them as much and as often as possible."


Black Lawmakers Split On Whether Rahm Emanuel Should Resign

$
0
0

Jim Young / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are split on whether Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel should resign for his actions in the case of the police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

Emanuel has been under fire since the November release of video showing the 2014 police shooting of McDonald. The video — which the city refused to disclose until a court order forced it to do so — showed McDonald being shot 16 times by police in an encounter that played out much differently than the original police account of the incident.

Some CBC members told BuzzFeed News that Emanuel should step down. Others believe it's unlikely that Emanuel would resign and said protesters should use the mayor's vulnerability to push through their demands.

“On the specific case I think there’s enough there to warrant the federal investigation that [U.S. Attorney General] Loretta Lynch said she’s launched,” Rep. Bobby Scott, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told BuzzFeed News. “Whether or not Rahm ought to step down or not is a question the people of Chicago are going to have to decide.”

Demonstrations in Chicago continued this week with protesters calling for the mayor’s resignation. The protesters say they don’t accept the mayor’s apology and believe he was complicit in a cover-up of the video.

Hundreds of protesters gathered Wednesday at police headquarters demanding the police board be fired. Hundreds more shut down traffic in central parts of the city for hours, shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho, Rahm Emanuel has got to go.” They say protests will continue until Emanuel, who polls show 51% of Chicago want removed, is out of office.

A spokesperson for Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago’s South Side told BuzzFeed News that the congressman does not believe Emanuel should step down. Instead, he believes the focus should be on “real systemic change, hiring, training of officers and real conversations and dialogue on how they patrol communities,” the spokesperson said. “He believes there needs to be systemic change, rather than just removing people from office.”

However, two Congressional Black Caucus members, granted anonymity to speak freely, told BuzzFeed News Emanuel should step down if he withheld information about what happened to McDonald. They both expressed serious doubt that Emanuel was not aware of the video, considering the $5 million dollar settlement distributed to McDonald’s family by the city of Chicago.

“You’re going to tell me that $5 million dollars goes to that boy’s family, and you don’t know why?” one member asked.

NBC Chicago reported Thursday that emails show officials in Chicago city hall were aware of the video at least two months after the 2014 shooting.

However, several black lawmakers said their opinion on whether Emanuel should step down is shaped by the prospect of who would take over during a time of unrest in the city.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of Queens questioned whether new leadership in Chicago is what’s best for the city. He said it’s unlikely Emanuel would step down and that said activists and organizers should use the leverage they have at this critical moment in Emanuel’s tenure to push through a set of demands.

“Hold his feet to the fire,” Meeks said.

Val Demings, a former police chief who is running for Congress in central Florida in part on a platform of bringing her expertise in police-community relations to the House of Representatives, told BuzzFeed News that even a perceived cover up in a high-profile case is hard to bounce back from.

“People understand that bad things happen,” Demings said. “But they want to understand that their leaders will take the appropriate action to address it. A cover up, or the appearance or perception of one, is difficult for a mayor or any leader to overcome. Once you lose to public’s trust and confidence, it’s tough to get it back.”

“The challenge for the mayor right now is that he was running in a very tough election during the time the incident originally happened,” she said. “It appears there were facts about the case that were [intentionally] concealed for political purposes. So it’s incumbent upon the mayor and anybody else who was involved to clearly communicate to his constituents that that’s not the case. But that is exactly how it appears right now.”

When asked in passing if he should step down, Rep. Brenda Lawrence, of Michigan, stopped in her tracks.

“Yes, I do," she said.

New Ad Ties Clinton's Role In Obama Syria Policy To ISIS Attacks

$
0
0

youtube.com

WASHINGTON — A new online ad from a Republican super PAC frames Hillary Clinton's role in President Obama Syria policy as a factor in the rise of ISIS.

The ad is part of a $100,000 digital ad buy by Future45, a super PAC that launched this year that is funded by top Republican donors including hedge fund managers Paul Singer and Ken Griffin, who have both endorsed Marco Rubio.

Titled "No Responsibility," the ad is coming out in the wake of terrorist attacks and a refugee crisis that have placed national security squarely in the center of the presidential race. It shows footage of Syrian refugees, news coverage of the San Bernardino attack, and footage of ISIS fighters and cuts to a recording of Clinton saying, "I don't think you can draw any kind of straight line between whether or not something happened in Syria, to ISIS." The 30-second spot also weaves in images of Clinton and Obama, tying Clinton to Obama's policy in Syria.

"Syria is a glaring failure both of President Obama and Secretary Clinton,” Future45 president Brian Walsh said in a press release going out with the ad, seen in advance of its release by BuzzFeed News.

Future45's online campaign is focused on independents in four states: Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Another Syria-related ad that is part of the campaign launched on Tuesday.

Future45 and a related group, issue advocacy organization 45 Committee, were launched earlier this year to make TV and online ads targeting Clinton.

Pro-Kasich Super PAC Riffs On Trump Steaks In New Anti-Trump Campaign

$
0
0

youtube.com

WASHINGTON — A super PAC supporting John Kasich is launching a new website, online ad, and computer game using Donald Trump's steak business to go after the candidate.

The video, titled "What's At Steak," shows Trump extolling the virtues of Trump Steaks while dissatisfied reviews of the steaks pop up at the bottom of the screen. "Don't have buyer's remorse," the ad, which is being released on Friday, concludes.

The video is on a "Put A Steak In Trump" website along with a computer game of the same name. Those who donate $2 can play the full version of the game, which has four levels: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. The high score board will include winking references to Trump's ex-wives and to people he's attacked, like Ivana_01, Ms_Maples_02, Bloody_Megyn, and Rosie_OD.

The game is similar to Pac Man, but the player controls a little Trump head that chomps on steaks and hot dogs. "The game is intentionally primitive — like Trump's campaign," said Matt David, chief strategist for the super PAC, New Day for America.

New Day for America is also planning to launch a TV ad targeting Trump in New Hampshire next week.

A source familiar with the steak campaign said the super PAC is spending approximately $250,000 on it. It's the largest digital buy of the campaign.

New Day for America has sought to aggressively oppose Trump's candidacy, promising a $2.5 million investment in New Hampshire against him. The group has repeatedly gone after Trump, questioning his ability to be commander-in-chief, using old footage of Ronald Reagan to attack Trump for his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country, and highlighting his hotels' hiring of undocumented workers.

Republicans are divided on the efficacy of attacking Trump, with some in the party arguing in favor of letting the mogul's candidacy fade out on its own, with others advocating that as he isn't showing signs of a fade after months as the frontrunner, he has to be confronted head-on. There's some evidence that negative attacks on Trump aren't working to alienate voters from him.

"Conventional wisdom seems to be attacks on Trump are not working, but this web video along with our TV ad next week will be the first sustained effort across multiple mediums targeting Trump, so it's a bit premature to say it doesn't work since no one has done it," David said.

The Secret Plan To Nominate Mitt Romney From The Convention Floor

$
0
0

David Ryder / Getty Images

With Donald Trump's ruinous domination of the Republican primary polls showing no signs of abating, top leaders in the GOP are reportedly now preparing for the possibility of a contentious brokered convention next year in Cleveland.

If that happens, a small group of wealthy donors and die-hard loyalists close to Mitt Romney will be ready with a strategy to win him the nomination from the convention floor.

Romney thought seriously about entering the 2016 race earlier this year, and ultimately decided against it. But as I report in my new book, The Wilderness, when the former Republican nominee informed friends, family, and a few close allies late in January that he was going to announce his decision to bow out, some urged him to reconsider:

Romney had tried to explain his reasoning to this chorus of confidants, but they were still urging him not to shut the door. They contended that even if he didn’t want to launch a formal campaign right now, it would be a mistake to take himself entirely out of the running. They laid out a vivid, detailed scenario in which a fractured Republican Party — divided by a wide field of niche presidential candidates — fails to unite behind a single nominee in 2016, and ends up with a chaotic, historic floor fight at the national convention. Facing a televised descent into disarray, the GOP delegates would naturally turn to Romney — the fully vetted, steady-handed Republican statesman — for salvation.

Your party might still need you, Mitt’s loyalists insisted. The country might still need you!

All the last-minute lobbying gave Romney pause. Was he certain this was the right choice? Their appeals to his deeply felt sense of duty were compelling. He spent his final hours before the conference call consulting with his family and praying for guidance — and by Friday morning, he had inserted a bit of rhetorical wiggle room into his draft. “I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again, if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind,” he wrote toward the end of his statement. “That seems unlikely.” Unlikely. The word managed to appease the die-hards in his orbit, and it served to keep hope alive among some of his most loyal donors. As one of Romney’s 2012 fund-raisers would tell me months later, “There are bitter-enders who have read that statement a hundred times, and they think it’s going to happen—maybe on the floor of the convention.” Some even began to devise the crude outline of a strategy to jump-start a “draft Mitt” movement from the floor, which would involve flipping the delegates in Mormon-heavy states like Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho. In the meantime, the statement gave Romney that rare peace of mind afforded by political flexibility. Yes, he was withdrawing from the race for now — but if, come summer of 2016, his party needed a savior, Mitt Romney would be ready.

A spokesperson for Romney did not respond to a request for comment Thursday night, and the former candidate himself has said repeatedly this year that he won't seek the nomination.

Last month, the Washington Post noted, in a story about the Trump panic consuming the GOP establishment, that friends of Romney had "mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks." The details of the plan were not included.

In recent months, Romney loyalists have told me (on condition of anonymity) that Trump's rise has added urgency to their strategizing. One former Romney fundraiser said he was in contact with several serious 2012 donors and fundraisers — particularly wealthy Mormons and people in private equity — who were "keeping their powder dry" in hopes that Mitt would enter the race.

And several sources have noted, hopefully, that fundraising guru and longtime Romney friend Spencer Zwick turned down multiple offers from Republican candidates this year, making him available to join the campaign should the time come. (Zwick didn't respond to an email Thursday, but he told me in June that he was skipping the primary fight so that he could focus his energies on defeating Hillary Clinton. He has since signed on to lead House Speaker Paul Ryan's fundraising.)

The notion of a dramatic, eleventh-hour bid for the nomination by Romney has been floated in the political press several times over the past year, often prompting eye-rolls and sarcastic jokes on Twitter. There are plenty of reasons to question the plan's viability. The likelihood of a contested convention remains low, and even if it happens, Romney could resist the draft efforts. What's more, current convention rules dictate that a candidate needs a majority of delegates in each of eight different states to be considered for the nomination — something Mormon support alone is unlikely to provide. And, of course, there's the fact that Romney has already lost a general election once, and has reportedly acknowledged that he would have a difficult time beating Clinton.

But Romney loyalists say all bets will be off if the first ballot vote at next year's convention fails to produce a nominee, arguing their candidate's sense of duty will ultimately win out.

Excerpted from The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party’s Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House. Copyright © 2015 by McKay Coppins. Reprinted with permission of Little, Brown and Company. All rights reserved.




American Nazi Party Chairman: Trump's Muslim Ban Is Unrealistic

$
0
0

“Unless Trump plans on ruling by Presidential Decree, I don’t see how he would implement ANY of his ‘plans,’ the rest of the sold out ‘mainstream’ political whores would block his every move.”

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

Donald Trump's plan to ban Muslim immigration has drawn rave reviews from America's most prominent white nationalists, but at least one prominent racist, who has spoken favorably of Trump in the past, is throwing cold water on the idea: the chairman of the American Nazi Party.

Rocky Suhayda, who runs the American Nazi Party said he didn't see how Trump would be able to implement any of his plans, saying he would be blocked after every turn.

"Look, this phrase 'muslims' is simply a PC code word to cover the reality of all these THIRD WORLD peoples invading OUR country," Suhayda told BuzzFeed News in an email. "Don't you realize that in about 2025, if these trends continue, White people will become a continuing MINORITY in our own land(s)?"

Suhayda, who often rotates between all caps and putting things in quotes, continued about how he thought soon there would be no more white European culture in America.

"If they sprinkled 'holy water; on themselves and suddenly began praying to another Middle Eastern supernatural entity, would that suddenly make them all 'ok?' The systemites are determined to make ALL White homelands obsolete. Soon there will be no more White/European culture and peoples," he continued. "Oh, there will be ALL non-White lands and peoples, be the brown, black or yellow - but, good bye White folks - except in the revised history books, where Whites will be denigrated as everything evil, by the new rulers..."

He then got to the point, Trump's plan would never happen.

"Unless Trump plans on ruling by Presidential Decree, I don't see how he would implement ANY of his 'plans,' the rest of the sold out 'mainstream' political whores would block his every move," he said.

And, Suhyada pointed out, he doubted Trump's sincerity.

"I seriously doubt if he even believes all what he says, but its nice to have someone like him saying it," he said in an email.

Suhayda also pointed BuzzFeed News to past American Nazi Party reports where he had mentioned Trump. In one September report, the Nazi wrote that Trump's statements showed the Nazi viewpoint wasn't as unpopular as portrayed by the media.

"We have a wonderful OPPORTUNITY here folks, that may never come again, at the RIGHT time," he wrote. "Donald Trump's campaign statements, if nothing else, have SHOWN that 'our views' are NOT so 'unpopular' as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!"

"But, and here's the kicker - so WHAT do we DO - sit back and heartily congratulate ourselves that our viewpoints are NOT the pariahs that we have been told that they are, and get all warm and fuzzy feeling," he continued. "OR, do we FINALLY get SERIOUS about what we are supposed to be engaged in?"

Another September report, entirely on Trump, was largely supportive.

Wrote Suhayda:

Since as I predicted in my last ANPReport several weeks ago, the system's controlled media whores are going after Donald Trump with a vengeance - filling the internet with gripping stories of Trumps "EVIL, RACIST, NEO-NAZI SUPPORT" - simply because of his realistic campaign statements on various issues, but especially his statements about stopping the Third World INVASION of America, building a "WALL" to secure our borders, and shipping 11 MILLION (or more) of these ILLEGALS back to where they came from.

He also made clear he'd avoid giving statements on Trump, knowing it would hurt Trump.

"Comrades, getting 'sound bites' in the ENEMY'S controlled MEDIA is not a wonderful accomplishment, especially when you're being USED to harm someone else, that the 'mainstream' hates. I believe that it's DISHONORABLE. It's NOT how an Aryan should behave," he wrote.

"Ok, so Donald Trump is stating things, that BEFORE - ONLY - a 'HATER' was accused of saying," he continued. "The system is unhappy with him for saying those obvious (un-PC) truths. Do you HELP to PULL HIM DOWN? You COULD applaud WHAT he says, without making out you're his best pal, and help the enemy SMEAR HIM while doing so, because YOU'RE viewed as a slimeball..."

And in August, the Nazi chairman wrote that Trump's plans drew wide support, while saying he didn't believe Trump that Trump believed what he was saying.

"Americans of ALL races are FED UP with this ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION — so he says that he'll BUILD a WALL to keep them out! CHEERS! He states that 'Political Correctness' is disgusting and it's time to STOP IT! More CHEERS! He DARES to turn his guns on the paid morons of the system controlled MEDIA! And regular folks LOVE it," he wrote.

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images