Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

LAS VEGAS — Donald Trump's campaign rally had only been underway for a few minutes Monday night when the first angry eruption occurred.

The Republican frontrunner had invited a supporter up to the stage to recount how his son was killed by an undocumented immigrant. Midway though the story, a pair of protesters interrupted.

"That's why we need gun control!" one called out from the sea of Trump die-hards in the Westgate Resort and Casino ballroom.

A zealous chorus of boos filled the room, while the two protesters brandished a homemade poster ("NO HATE. YOU'RE FIRED.") and began shouting over the din. Demonstrations of this sort are fairly common in presidential campaigns, and the brigade of meaty security guards on duty had strategically positioned themselves throughout the crowd so as to be able to swiftly and discreetly remove any troublemakers.

But it quickly became clear Monday night that the protesters had no interest in a quiet extraction — nor, for that matter, did Trump.

By the time security swooped in, several amped-up Trump supporters had already encircled the protesters — booing, and chanting, and slowly closing in — while a crush of smartphone-wielding media scrambled to capture footage of the clash. The guards managed to remove one protester, but the other resisted, stiffening his limbs and screaming about the First Amendment as they tried to haul him toward the exits. When he toppled to the floor, a horde of rallygoers assembled to hurl insults and threats at him.

"Light the motherfucker on fire!" one Trump supporter yelled.

Physical altercations between protesters, security, and the occasional tough-guy supporter have been a running theme in Trump's combative campaign this year — but Monday night was different. Reporters who regularly cover Trump said they had never seen anything like the fevered, frenzied mood that gripped the ballroom in Las Vegas.

With the candidate's ever darkening political style seeming to grow more perversely effective by the day, his grassroots opponents on the left are becoming more defiant and effective at causing trouble. Activists interrupted Trump at least half a dozen times at the event — and the longer the night wore on, the more crazed many in the crowd seemed to get.

One after another, protesters were forcibly dragged from the ballroom — limbs flailing, torsos twisting in resistance — while wild-eyed Trump supporters spewed abuse and calls to violence.

"Kick his ass!" yelled one.

"Shoot him!" shouted another.

When a white activist proclaimed "Black lives matter!" as she was being carted out of the building, a male Trump supporter leaned toward her and snapped, "White lives matter."

According to NBC News, someone at the Trump rally even yelled a German Nazi-era salute — "Sieg heil!" — while a protester was being removed from the event.

Trump, meanwhile, gleefully narrated the madness from his podium like a tabloid talk show host presiding over an on-camera brawl between guests — egging on the confrontation, whipping the audience into a frenzy, and basking in his fans' celebratory chants.

"Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!"

"This is what we should have been doing to the other side for the last seven years!" Trump exclaimed during one of the scuffles with protesters.

At several points, Trump berated the reporters in the room for taking pictures of the clashes. "They are terrible!" Trump hissed of the press. "The worst!" Hundreds of riled-up Trump fans turned to face the press corps, and booed loudly.

But while Trump and his hardcore supporters seemed to be enjoying themselves, not everyone was thrilled by the night's unexpected turn toward mayhem. Families with young kids scampered toward the exits well before Trump wrapped up, and some elderly people had to leave in search of medical assistance.

Among those most put off by the display, though, were the recreational spectators who had stopped by simply to see Trump's famous performance in person.

"I just came for the spectacle," said Stephan Reilly, a left-leaning Las Vegas resident whose college-aged son had tagged along for kicks. "This is the best show in town!"

But by the end of the night, neither of them were smiling much.

"I'm very alarmed," Reilly said.

But Tump was a yuge fan!

youtube.com

Donald Trump had a banner year in 2005. He married his current-wife, Melania, in a lavish ceremony in Palm Beach, Florida. HIs new reality series, The Apprentice, was a certified hit. And ABC produced and aired a two-hour long melodrama based on his life.

The movie, Trump Unauthorized, starred actor Louis Ferreira as The Donald, and was based on author Gwenda Blair's biography of Trump and his family. The film heavily played up the drama of Trump's personal life.

Although Trump initially threatened to "sue their asses off" when the movie was announced, it appears, according to the New York Post, that Trump came around to liking the movie, calling it a "great compliment."

"Having a two-hour movie on network television while you're still living is sort of wild," he told the Post in 2005. "You're supposed to be gone for that to happen."

Melania also told the Post she enjoyed the film, despite the movie's handling of Trump's frequent womanizing with Marla Maples (his second wife) for years when he was still married to his first (Ivana).

"I think it was fun to watch, but it was nothing new. His life is an open book and there were no surprises," she said to the Post.

The TV movie predictably garnered negative reviews.

"It fails to get under that famous mop and expose what makes Trump tick — perhaps because there's limited evidence of depth beyond the bluster," read a Variety review. "Fun in a campy way, the telefilm has its moments, but it won't inspire many to say, 'You're TiVo-ed!'

Here's a montage of it:

vimeo.com

President Barack Obama speaking Tuesday at the National Archives.

Evan Vucci / AP

Amid a heated national debate on immigration, President Obama on Tuesday made an impassioned defense of migrants and refugees at a naturalization ceremony in Washington, D.C. — telling some of the country's newest citizens they were emblematic of America's longstanding cultural diversity.

Speaking before the original copies of the founding documents at the National Archives, the president told the 31 new Americans, "as of today your story is forever woven into the larger story of this nation."

Turning to history to defend immigrants, the president noted that eight of the people who signed the U.S. constitution that lay in bullet-proof glass behind him were immigrants themselves.

"We are born of immigrants. That is who we are," he said. "Immigration is our origin story. For more than two centuries, it's remained at the core of our national character. It's our oldest tradition. It makes us who we are."

With Republican contenders for the presidency calling for walls to be constructed along the U.S. border with Mexico and a total ban on Muslims entering the country, and as dozens of governors across the country demand an end to the resettlement of Syrian refugees, Obama instead in his speech harked back to some of the most shameful moments in history to make his defense of immigration.

He referenced Africans brought over on slave ships; Irish people once barred from New York City employment; Catholics coming under suspicion for having a possible foreign allegiance to the pope; Chinese people being banned from entering the country; and German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants and dual citizens being detained and interned in camps during World War Two. "We succumbed to fear," he said of these episodes. "We betrayed not only our fellow Americans but our deepest values. We betrayed these documents. It's happened before."

Evan Vucci / AP

"Those who betrayed these values were themselves the children of immigrants. How quickly we forget," he said. "We suggest that somehow there is us and there is them, not remembering that we used to be them."

To applause that echoed throughout the rotunda, Obama said Americans must resolve never to repeat such mistakes.

At times, the president fell silent for long stretches, his eyes becoming glassy, as he exulted the contributions of American immigrants to business, culture, and society.

"The tension throughout our history between welcoming or rejecting the stranger, it's about more than just immigration. It's about the meaning of America. What kind of country do want to be?"

"In the Mexican immigrant today," he said, "we see the Catholic immigrant of a century ago. In the Syrian seeking refuge today, we should see the Jewish refugee of World War Two."

Speaking to those present, who hailed from 25 different countries, Obama said he hoped they would participate in all elements of American life.

"You will not and should not forget your history and your past. That adds to the richness of American life," he said, "but you are now American. You've got obligations as citizens — and I'm absolutely confident you will meet them. You'll set a good example for all of us because you know how precious this thing is."

Watch the speech here:

youtube.com

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney suggested the park be renamed after folk singer and environmental activist Pete Seeger.

Alan Kroeger

Democratic congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, whose district is home to much of Donald J. Trump State Park, said Tuesday that he backs an initiative introduced this week by a New York state senator to rename the park following Trump's derogatory rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Maloney said in a statement to BuzzFeed News that Trump's recent anti-Muslim rhetoric was against the values of the district he represents.

"Donald Trump's rhetoric and proposals are hateful, un-American, and certainly don't reflect the values of my friends and neighbors in Putnam and Westchester Counties," Maloney said.

Maloney suggested legendary folk singer and environmental activist Pete Seeger, who famously wrote the progressive anthem "If I Had A Hammer," as a possible alternative to name the park after.

"Local heroes like Pete Seeger fought to make this country a better place for everyone, and are far more deserving of this lasting tribute," Maloney wrote.

On Monday, State Sen. Daniel Squadron, who represents the 26th district in the New York state legislature, announced plans to introduce legislation to strip the park of its name. He also wrote a letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, asking him to begin the process of renaming the park.

The more than 400 acre park is largely undeveloped and was closed due to budget cuts in 2010. The land was donated to the state by Trump in 2006 after environmental regulations and permit requirements kept him from building a golf course. Trump donation resulted in a tax credit.

Meanwhile, the state assemblyman who represents the park, Steve Katz of District 94, said renaming the park is a distraction from economic issues facing the state. "New York State is ranked dead last in economic development because members in the state legislature do not have their priorities straight," he told BuzzFeed News.

The Republican super PAC dedicated to keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House will roll out a new series of Snapchat ads with a Clinton double dancing with foreign dictators.

The three ads from Future45, the super PAC whose backers include Rubio supporters Paul Singer and Ken Griffin, will run during the Snapchat live story for Tuesday’s Republican debate in Vegas. (The ads will be geofenced to run in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, D.C., and, of course, Nevada, where the bulk of the political media will be on Tuesday night.)

The conceit of the ad is pretty straight-forward: Clinton’s family foundation has accepted millions in foreign donations from countries like Saudi Arabia and Oman, and so, in the ad, a dancing Clinton double parties with dictators while phrases like “Why’d they give all that money?” flash. Although the foundation has receded somewhat in recent months as a campaign issue, the foundation's decision to quietly accept foreign donations in the past, and to continue to accept them, came under media scrutiny this spring.

Unlike some digital efforts this cycle, the ads actually have the look and feel of a Snapchat ad:

youtube.com

This ad follows a more serious spot from the group, which has made an earlier effort to define the likely Democratic nominee. Last week, the group made a $100,000 buy for an ad that argued a line could be drawn between the Obama administration’s Syria policy and the recent ISIS attack.

"The reviews are in. Notorious HRC's latest hit from Slick Willy Records, 'Pay My Foundation' is straight fire. Snapchatters found their newest jam about the Clinton's blatantly unethical dealings,” said Dan Conston, a senior adviser to the group, which also created a website for the effort, SlickWillyProductions.com. “The Clinton Foundation’s been a bank account for foreign dictators to curry favor with the State Department when Hillary Clinton was secretary. They've been showered with up to $100 million from eight foreign dictators and at least nine big banks.”

Rubio attacked Cruz for voting against annual bills to authorize military spending, but missed one of those votes on Oct. 7, 2015.

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Marco Rubio attacked Ted Cruz during Tuesday's CNN debate for voting against the annual bill that authorizes military spending for the following fiscal year, but Rubio missed this year's vote to campaign in New Hampshire.

"Three times he voted against the Defense Authorization Act, which is a bill that funds the troops," the Florida senator and Republican presidential candidate said. "It also, by the way, funds the Iron Dome and other important programs and I have to assume that if you vote against it in the Senate, you would also veto it as president."

One of Cruz's "nay" votes came on Oct. 7, in a vote Rubio missed. The bill passed 70-27, despite Rubio's absence.

Rubio, who also missed a procedural vote that led to the bill's passing, told CNN at the time that, while he would do "everything possible to be present for any vote," being a presidential candidate meant that he was going to miss some.

"When I miss a vote, it's not because I'm out playing golf. We're out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator," he said.

He said “Fort Dix.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie touted his record on national defense at Tuesday night's GOP presidential debate, citing his prosecution as a U.S. attorney of five men who allegedly plotted to attack Fort Dix military base in his state.

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

"We prosecuted two of the biggest terrorism cases in the world and stopped Fort Dix from being attacked by six American radicalized Muslims from a Mosque in New Jersey because we worked with the Muslim American community to get intelligence and we used the Patriot Act to get other intelligence to make sure we did those cases," Christie said on Tuesday evening at the Las Vegas debate. "This is the difference between actually been a federal prosecutor, actually doing something, and not just spending your life as one of hundred debating it."

Here's a Vine of Christie saying "Fort Dix."

vine.co

View Entire List ›

John Locher / AP

LAS VEGAS — Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off in a bitter back-and-forth on the issue of immigration Tuesday night at a Republican presidential debate hosted by CNN, marking the most high-profile battle by the candidates on a hot-button issue for GOP primary voters.

Amid the backdrop of the glitzy Venetian hotel owned by billionaire Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, Rubio became the target of other candidates for his stance on immigration, specifically on creating a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The attacks on Rubio were foreshadowed by an early volley from Rand Paul, who called the Florida senator the "weakest of all the candidates on immigration."

CNN debate moderator Dana Bash later asked Rubio about co-authoring a bipartisan 2013 immigration reform bill — the so-called "Gang of Eight" bill — that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Rubio had been able to mostly escape previous debates unscathed on immigration. He was asked about that part of his immigration record only once at a previous CNN debate, and Fox News twice avoided directly asking him about the issue.

The Florida senator approached the issue the same way he did the first time CNN asked him, referencing his family's history as immigrants and saying the American people don’t trust the federal government on the issue.

Rubio said the U.S. can’t do anything on the issue until it proves illegal immigration is under control, including completing miles of border fencing and a entry-exit tracking system for immigrants. After that, Rubio said, Americans would be open to discussing what to do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

Ultimately, the immigrants could receive a work permit and eventually a visa, he said, avoiding the "path to citizenship" term deeply unpopular with Republican voters.

"I am personally open — after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card," Rubio said."That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road."

Cruz pounced on the comments, saying Rubio has tried to muddy the waters on his position on immigration. Cruz framed the debate as choosing sides in a crucial battle over "amnesty."

"There was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan," Cruz said. "Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people and secure the border."

Border security is national security, Cruz said, calling Kennedy airport in New York City and the Rio Grande the front line with ISIS just as much as Iraq and Syria are.

The protracted exchange then turned to the issue of legalization for undocumented immigrants. The Cruz campaign was prepared. A day before the debate, Cruz campaign chairman Chad Sweet privately told a group of Hispanic Republicans that the Texas senator was opposed to any form of it.

"Ted, you support legalizing people who are in this country illegally," Rubio shot back, adding that Cruz supported a 500% increase in the number of H-1 visas for guest workers. "And Ted supports doubling the number of green cards."

"I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization," Cruz said.

In the spin room after the debate, Sweet said the American people aren't fully aware that Rubio and the Gang of Eight supported amnesty, and that the campaign felt good about how the exchange played out.

"Senator Cruz unequivocally, unequivocally does not support legalization," Sweet said. He repeated what he had told Latino conservatives on Monday: that Cruz believes in "attrition through enforcement" — using enforcement to make life for undocumented immigrants so difficult that they return to their native countries.

Sweet disagreed with the notion that this blanket rejection of any form of future legalization could affect the Republican Party's standing with Hispanic voters, especially in a state like Nevada, where the debate was held, which has a sizable Latino population. He said it's a myth that those "who've come here legally in the Hispanic community would actually abandon all the various issues that they care about whether its jobs, growth, opportunity, education for their children just over this sole issue."

Asked if attrition through enforcement amounts to "self-deportation," a policy widely considered to have harmed 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney with Hispanic voters, Sweet stopped and started before saying, "We don't choose to use that phraseology. We believe that enforcing the law is the right thing to do."

"Over time we will preserve and expand immigration," Sweet continued, but he said the campaign must first address the trust deficit from American people on the issue.

Rubio campaign communications director Alex Conant criticized Cruz after the debate, saying no viewers were confused about Rubio's "clear and consistent" position on immigration. He accused Cruz of leaving the door open for legalization once again in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper after the debate.

Alfonso Aguilar, the leader of the Hispanic Republican group that met in Las Vegas the previous day, said the Cruz campaign fundamentally doesn't understand Latino voters and their concerns.

"Look, what happened with Romney is going to happen to Cruz," Aguilar said. "When it comes to Hispanic voters and immigration, they are really clueless. They don't understand the impact this is having on the Hispanic community."

On Cruz's pledge to oppose any and all forms of legalization, Aguilar called it a "desperate strategy" to win the primary.

Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

LAS VEGAS — The leading contenders for the Republican nomination brought a central schism in the party’s foreign policy to the fore on Tuesday night: how to handle dictators.

In a campaign year increasingly dominated by national security issues, this section of the debate encapsulated the split between Republicans on whether democracy promotion abroad is in the United States’ national security interests. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul explicitly made the case that Libya, Iraq, and Egypt would have been better off under their now-deposed dictators. On the other side of the debate, candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio defended, to various degrees, U.S. interventions that have resulted in toppling dictators.

In recent weeks, Cruz and Rubio have increasingly placed each other in their crosshairs — and this represents a critical split between the rising contenders.

Debate moderator Wolf Blitzer kicked it off by posing this question: “Sen. Cruz, you have said the world would be safer today if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, Moammar Gadhafi ruled Libya, and Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt. So would it be your policy to preserve dictatorships, rather than promoting democracy in the Middle East?”

“Assad is a bad man. Gadhafi was a bad man. Mubarak had a terrible human rights record,” Cruz responded. “But they were assisting us — at least Gadhafi and Mubarak — in fighting radical Islamic terrorists.”

“Instead of being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill ISIS rather than creating opportunities for ISIS to take control of new countries,” Cruz said.

Cruz has positioned his foreign policy as a third way between the libertarian views of Rand Paul and the hawkish ones of Marco Rubio. He’s in Paul’s corner on this issue, however, and they aren’t the only ones — Donald Trump and Ben Carson, who like Cruz have captured much of the non-establishment attention this year, also voiced skepticism of this kind of regime change.

Trump said he regarded toppling dictators as a waste of money that could be better spent on infrastructure.

“In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now,” Trump said.

“No one is ever better off with dictators but there comes a time you know, when you're on an airplane, they always say,’"in case of an emergency oxygen masks will drop down. Put yours on first and then administer help to your neighbor,’” Carson said. “We need oxygen right now. And we need to start thinking about the needs of the American people before we go and solve everybody else's problems.”

The George W. Bush administration represented the moment when regime change was most in vogue in Republican foreign policy. But since the Iraq War there has been a shift towards tolerating secular dictators in the Middle East, no matter how loathsome, instead of toppling them and risking empowering militant groups. This is a view that Cruz espoused at length in an address to the Heritage Foundation last week that drew upon the influential views of Reagan’s U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, who argued that the U.S. should support allied dictators.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush defended his previous assertion that getting rid of Hussein was a “pretty good deal,” saying he still feels that way. And Chris Christie’s response showcased the tension in the current iteration of this debate: whether to fight ISIS or Assad, and by proxy his Iranian sponsors. “We need to focus our attention on Iran, because if you miss Iran, you are not going to get ISIS,” he said. “The two are inextricably connected because one causes the other.”

Rubio, for his part, mentioned the Lockerbie bombing as an example of a secular dictator posing a threat to American national security, saying, “Muammar Qaddafi is the man that killed those Americans over Lockerbie, Scotland.” Rubio also obliquely defendaed removing Hussein. “And you want to know why Muammar Qaddafi started cooperating on his nuclear program? Because we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And so he got scared that he would be next, and that's why he started cooperating.”

Rubio stopped short of calling for Assad’s ouster, though he indicated he would rather have him gone. “Look, we will have to work around the world with less than ideal governments. The government in Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, but we will have to work with them. The government in Jordan is not perfect, but we will have to work with them. But anti-American dictators like Assad, who help Hezbollah, who helped get those IEDs into Iraq, if they go, I will not shed a tear.” (Despite statements like these, Rubio didn’t vote for airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria when the issue came up for a vote in 2013, though he called for Assad’s “removal.”)

Rubio appears prepared to bet that Republican voters fall more into his camp than Cruz’s: His campaign sent out a fundraising email after the debate’s conclusion calling Cruz and Paul “the isolationist tag team duo.”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

LAS VEGAS — For more than two hours Tuesday night, Marco Rubio stood patiently onstage at the Republican presidential debate while his opponents took turns whacking him.

Ted Cruz ripped him for supporting a "massive amnesty plan," cited a commentator who compared Rubio to an "arsonist," and accused his backers of deploying "Alinsky-style attacks" in recent TV ads.

Rand Paul tore in to Rubio's position on the NSA surveillance program, and repeatedly invoked his moderate immigration record to cast him as weak on national security.

"He thinks he wants to be this, 'Oh, I'm great and strong on national defense.' But he's the weakest of all the candidates on immigration," Paul said. "He is the one for an open border that is leaving us defenseless. If we want to defend the country, we have to defend against who's coming in, and Marco ... has more of an allegiance to Chuck Schumer and to the liberals than he does to conservative policy."

But after months of successfully pursuing an "under-the-radar" strategy that has allowed him to make his pitch to voters without taking much enemy fire from his rivals, Rubio is now fending off attacks on multiple fronts — and his campaign expects the dynamic of Tuesday's debate to continue into next year's primary race.

"I think a lot of people look at their pathway to the nomination and they see Marco in the way," said Rubio's spokesman Alex Conant after the debate, citing the fact that he is actively competing in all four of the early primary states. "Obviously they came after him tonight, but I think he acquitted himself exceptionally well."

While Rubio may be a top-tier candidate, his third-place standing in the race has remained mostly static in recent weeks. He currently sits at around 12% in national polls and his numbers haven't moved much over the past month.

What's more, the establishment-friendly candidates who stand to gain most from Rubio's decline — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich — weren't the ones battling him onstage Tuesday. Instead, Rubio spent the debate tussling with two of his young, outsider Senate colleagues, each of whom has his own reasons to pick fights with him.

In Paul's case, Rubio represents the embodiment of the hawkish, neoconservative foreign policy establishment that the libertarian's base loves to see him take on. Though Paul had once sought to court that influential segment of the GOP as part of a broader effort to build a sprawling, diverse primary coalition, he has since retreated to his libertarian niche, and is always on the lookout for chances to rally the true believers.

This was evident in Paul's opening statement in the debate, during which he used Rubio as an ideological foil while discussing how to keep the country safe from terrorism.

"Rubio says we should collect all Americans' records all of the time," Paul said. "The Constitution says otherwise."

Cruz is in more direct competition with Rubio, but he too seems to gain the most from the rivalry by using it to enhance his own status as the one true conservative in the race. While both men were elected to the Senate as insurgent outsiders crusading against the establishment, Rubio has pursued mainstream appeal while Cruz has continued to cater exclusively to the right.

The Texas tea partier has eagerly highlighted Rubio's Senate record — particularly his work on the 2013 bipartisan immigration bill — as a way of touting his own die-hard loyalty to the conservative movement.

"You know, there was a time for choosing as Reagan put it, where there was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Sen. Rubio, to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan," Cruz said. "Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people and secure the border."

The ensuing exchange over immigration — which was one of several moments when the issue came up for Rubio Tuesday night — delighted the Cruz camp (even if their own candidate struggled to articulate his position). In the spin room after the debate, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler was practically giddy.

"Finally, finally, finally, finally he was asked about Gang of Eight in a debate. Wow!" Tyler said.

Tyler said he had gotten an early peak at Frank Luntz's focus group dials during the debate, which showed Rubio's favorability among conservative voters dropping every time he talked about immigration.

"He was losing conservatives and doing well with the establishment," Tyler said of the focus group. "And you would expect that because he's an establishment candidate."

“The USA Freedom Act has not made us less safe at all.”

Andrew Burton / Getty Images

Republican Sen. Mike Lee on Wednesday slammed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for attacking Texas Sen. Ted Cruz over the USA Freedom Act at Tuesday night's GOP debate.

Lee, who along with Cruz sponsored the bill that halted the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone metadata, said Rubio was wrong to say the bill made America less safe.

"Look, Marco Rubio has been attacking Ted Cruz on the USA Freedom Act, for his vote in favor of the USA Freedom Act, and he's been doing so by suggesting that this has somehow made America less safe," Lee said on Boston Herald Radio. "It simply is not true, and look, I'm really good friends with both of these guys, I really like both of them, but Marco's wrong on this."

"He's just dead wrong," he added, emphatically.

Cruz and Rubio clashed in a heated exchange at Tuesday's Republican debate with the Florida senator arguing Cruz's votes and advocacy for the bill weakened America's defenses.

"The USA Freedom Act has not made us less safe at all," continued Lee, saying he talked with the FBI director who said the program did not impair looking into the records of the San Bernardino terror suspects.

Take a listen:

w.soundcloud.com

Graham said of Cruz, “He is trying to be an isolationist when that’s hot; he’s trying to be a Lindsey Graham-type when that’s hot.”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says Ted Cruz's debate performance shows that he is lost on foreign policy, and compared Donald Trump's foreign policy to "a drunk driver going from one lane to the other."

"Isolationism is in full retreat within the Republican Party," Graham told Brian Kilmeade on his radio show Kilmeade and friends in an appearance on Wednesday. "Events have proved me right, them wrong. I'm very pleased with the way the party is moving: Marco, Jeb, Christie, Carly – all of these folks articulated a foreign policy that I'm comfortable with."

Graham then turned his attention to Cruz, saying, "Ted Cruz's carpet-bombing comments made no sense, and I've been in the Air Force for 33 years. I think that Ted Cruz is a man who is lost. He is trying to be an isolationist when that's hot; he's trying to be a Lindsey Graham-type when that's hot."

Graham saved his harshest criticism for front-runner Donald Trump, who he said "really doesn't understand this war."

"There's three lanes, here," explained Graham. "There's leading from behind by Obama, which is not working. Isolationism, which is a step behind leading from behind. Then there's Donald Trump, which is a drunk driver going from one lane to the other."

"What he is selling is a false sense of security. What he is selling is helping the enemy," Graham continued. "If you're a soldier or a diplomat in the Mid-East, Donald Trump is putting you at risk.

"He appears to be strong, but in my view he is very weak, when it comes to understanding how to win this war."

Graham also told Kilmeade that if he doesn't start rising in the polls, "I'll be in trouble."

"I've gotta show some life here. I've gotta show movement," Graham explained. "I've got a lot of people who believe in me, that want me to stay in this debate, to challenge people who talk about foreign policy in a fashion that will make us less safe, to be a critic of Obama but also to have a way forward, talk about problem-solving."

"I gotta start moving here, Brian," he said. "And time will tell – I hope I do. I've enjoyed the heck out of it."

Here's the audio:

Fox News Radio / Kilmeade and Friends

Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton resigned in the midst of a grand jury investigation over the state's execution procedures.

Sue Ogrocki / AP

WASHINGTON — By the numbers, the use of the death penalty in America continued its decline in 2015, with only 28 executions having taken place and 49 new death sentences imposed this year.

As the number of executions and death sentences dropped, though, attention this year was focused primarily on two issues: the Supreme Court and the drugs states use to conduct executions. Those stories came together throughout the year in the case of Richard Glossip, on death row in Oklahoma for the 1997 murder of a man Glossip says he didn't kill.

Glossip was named first in Oklahoma inmates' lawsuit challenging the state's use of the sedative midazolam in executions when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge. The drug had been employed in three problematic executions in 2014, including the Oklahoma execution of Clayton Lockett.

The court's decision to accept the case slowed down the pace of executions through June, since several states include midazolam in their execution protocol. When the justices upheld the use of the drug at the end of June, however, another, more fundamental issue was raised in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

In the dissent, Breyer — joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — suggested the time had come to revisit the larger question of the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. They gave no timeline for a revisitation, though, and the two have not publicly voiced their opposition to allowing states to proceed with executions since then.

As those questions proceeded — with advocates against the death penalty invigorated and preparing to move forward with challenges to death penalty laws — BuzzFeed News began its own, extensive investigation into states' efforts to obtain execution drugs from overseas. Prompted by Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts's announcement that his state had reached a deal to obtain sodium thiopental from India, reporting eventually revealed that at least four states — Arizona, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas — have been attempting to purchase execution drugs from overseas.

Most of the efforts surround Chris Harris, a salesman in India who has sold execution drugs to several states over the past several years. None have ever been used in any executions. In the U.S., meanwhile, all four states have retained the services of Ben England, a former longtime Food and Drug Administration investigator, or his companies in order to advance efforts to get the drugs imported over the warnings of the FDA that doing so would be illegal.

Even in states where overseas drug shipments are not known to be at issue, obtaining execution drugs has been a problem. Virginia had to ask Texas to give it a supply of pentobarbital in order to execute Alfredo Prieto in October. Arkansas's attempt to restart executions there is on hold while inmates challenge a law enabling the state to keep its drug supplier secret.

And in Oklahoma the planned execution of Richard Glossip in September was put on hold shortly before he was due to be executed after it was discovered that the state had obtained the wrong drug. In the weeks the followed, the mix-up led to further discoveries about improper execution drug use, all of which preceded a grand jury investigation and the resignation of the state's director of corrections, Robert Patton, earlier this month.

Although questions about drug supplies will continue in 2016, those states with access to execution drugs are proceeding with executions.

The first execution of 2016 is due to take place on Jan. 7, when Florida is scheduled to execute Oscar Bolin for the 1986 murder of Teri Lynn Matthews.

There were 28 executions in the U.S. in 2015.

Death Penalty Information Center

Among the executions carried out in 2015 were several that exemplified the challenges the death penalty faces, both for states attempting to carry out executions and for opponents of the punishment.

One of the first executions of the year was the January execution of Charles Warner in Oklahoma. Nine months later, after Richard Glossip's execution was called off because the state had received the wrong drugs, Warner's autopsy revealed the state had actually used the same wrong drug in Warner's execution. The aftermath has been extreme: The state stopped all remaining executions for the year; outside lawyers were brought in as a multi-county grand jury began looking into the issue; the prison warden where executions take place announced her resignation; and, as noted, the state's corrections director resigned earlier this month.

Texas also executed Robert Ladd, whose lawyers pointed to evidence that his IQ was 67, in January.

Death Penalty Information Center

In March, Missouri executed Cecil Clayton over the objections of his lawyers, who argued he was mentally incompetent because of a 1972 sawmill accident that resulted in him losing 20% of the frontal lobe of his brain.

The execution of Lester Bower in June featured a man who had consistently maintained his innocence in a 1983 quadruple homicide and whose lawyers argued that six witnesses agreed with Bower.

The September execution of Kelly Gissendaner in Georgia had initially been set to take place in February but was called off because of a coming storm. The execution was rescheduled for March, but that, too, didn't happen because of concerns about the drugs set to be used in her execution. Initial reports said state officials found the drugs were "cloudy," later clarified as particles having precipitated in the mixture. Although Georgia initially tried to withhold the results of a test looking into what happened, state officials eventually made them public.

On Oct. 1, Virginia executed Alfredo Prieto, a serial killer sentenced to death in Virginia and California. It did so, however, with a Supreme Court application for a stay of execution still pending. Although a state has no legal obligation to hold off on an execution once a death warrant is active unless a stay is granted or executive clemency is granted, the general practice across the country is to wait until pending stay requests have been resolved.

The final execution of 2015 took place in Georgia in the early morning of Dec. 9. Brian Keith Terrell was executed for the 1992 murder of John Watson. Terrell, however, maintained his innocence, and his lawyers argued that the case against him was predicated on false testimony.

After the 2000s began with about 150 death sentences being imposed in a year — a steep drop from the high of 315 death sentences imposed in 1996 — the number has steadily decreased over the past 15 years.

This year, for the first time since the Supreme Court ended its own moratorium on executions in the country in 1976, less than 50 new death sentences have been imposed, new data provided in a report issued by the Death Penalty Information Center on Wednesday shows.

There have been only 49 death sentences imposed this year.

Death Penalty Information Center

In Texas, for example, the first death sentence was not imposed until October. Only two death sentences were imposed in the state all year. In contrast, in an era when nearly 300 death sentences were imposed each year across the country, 48 death sentences were imposed in Texas alone in 1999.

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice

As Justice Stephen Breyer detailed in his dissenting opinion in Glossip, the imposition of the death penalty is not only a state-by-state penalty. It is, in many ways, a county-by-county penalty.

New analysis from the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School illustrates that point. From 2010 through today, only 10 counties in seven states imposed the death penalty more than five times over that six-year period.

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice

Despite the decreases in imposition of the death penalty, questions about the death penalty's use — from access to drugs or other execution methods to the constitutionality of the punishment itself — will not easily be ignored.

There remain nearly 3,000 people on death row across the U.S., according to the Death Penalty Information Center, more than half of whom have been sentenced to death in just four states. As of July 1, California had 746 inmates on death row, Florida had 400, Texas had 265, and Alabama had 195.

“To think that Mrs. Clinton could secure something like that in her home is ludicrous.”

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas says Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state shows she is "an idiot" and "a liar too."

"Hillary Clinton and her media machine try to dismiss but anybody who understands anything about how email works — and this is millennials in particular who grew up on the Internet — know that you're an idiot to keep sensitive information on a server in your house," Farenthold said on 1440 KEYS radio in Corpus Christi.

Prior to serving in Congress, Farenthold was a longtime computer consultant, and once owned the domain Blow-Me.org (which he relinquished this year).

"It's hard enough for government to secure servers," added Farenthold, citing the hack of the Office of Personnel Management and private sector hacks of companies like Sony.

"To think that Mrs. Clinton could secure something like that in her home is ludicrous," he continued.

The Texas congressman noted he thought it showed an incredible "lack of judgement," saying her emails contained clearly labeled classified and sensitive information that was vulnerable to hacking.

"It's more evidence that just like President Obama, Hillary Clinton is a liar too," he concluded.

Bryan Woolston / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Black Lives Matter activists responded to news of a mistrial Wednesday in the case of Baltimore police officer William Porter — who was charged with involuntary manslaughter and three other charges associated with the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray while in police custody — with anger and anxiety over what it means for the other five officers yet to stand trial.

Porter's trial ended with a hung jury, and the judge in the case, Barry Williams, declared a mistrial. Jurors could not reach unanimous agreement on any of the four charges. Legal experts said the outcome of Porter's trial was expected to set the tone for at least three other officers charged with involuntary manslaughter: Sgt. Alicia White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officer Caesar Goodson. Only Goodson faces a more serious charge of second-degree depraved-heart murder.

With no verdict, activists reacted Wednesday with equal parts frustration over the deadlock, angst over what lies ahead, and relative optimism that there was no acquittal. Protests had begun Wednesday night, and activists said they were beginning to organize around the next steps.

"It's great to see charges being brought against these officers, but it would be even better to see it brought all the way home with convictions," said Autumn Marie of Black Lives Matter network.

Marie said Porter's testimony was illuminating because the way Gray was handled in the police wagon was, by and large, standard police procedure.

She said Porter's admission that he never strapped in prisoners — and the apparent nonchalance with which the evidence was treated in the case — was cause for a paradigm shift; just because the law allows you to not strap somebody in a paddy wagon, she said, does not mean officers should set aside someone's humanity.

"It's a very clear reminder that it's not just one officer or one police department, but the way police work is done across the board disregards the humanity of the people they police," Marie said. "It says a lot about how they regard us."

DeRay Mckesson of Campaign Zero, which recently released a set of policy recommendations to challenge what the group says are protections given to officers in their union contracts, told BuzzFeed News that in some ways a mistrial is a better result than if Porter was found not guilty.

"The police expected an acquittal," Mckesson said. "A hung jury is better than an acquittal and provides an opportunity for the prosecution to reflect on which arguments resonated with the jury and which did not."

"This case calls into question whether we can convict an officer given the current systems of accountability and is a reminder that we need to update the laws in ways that ensure accountability," Mckesson, a Baltimore native, continued. He added the current system of accountability could be addressed with an overhaul of use of force standards, or by removing or "heavily amending" the law enforcement officers' bill of rights.

Sharon Black, of Baltimore's People's Power Alliance, called the hung jury "a miscarriage of justice" and said she and others were already set Wednesday evening to begin protesting outside of the courthouse in downtown Baltimore.

"On the one hand, from the standpoint of activists in the street, this isn't what we were hoping for," Black said. "On the other, it's been a long long fight for justice in this case and it's one step toward the next step."

Black said there was an emerging "police state" in Baltimore, an atmosphere bringing added tension between the protesters and police. Photos and video of a well-known protester, Kwame Rose, being taken away by Baltimore police were were already getting major traction on social media Wednesday night.

In a statement, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake pleaded with the public to protest peacefully.

"In the coming days, if some choose to demonstrate peacefully to express their opinion, that is their constitutional right," she said. "I urge everyone to remember that collectively, our reaction needs to be one of respect for our neighborhoods, and for the residents and businesses of our city."

Black said anger over the outcome was tempered by low expectations about whether Porter could be convicted. Also, there was added uncertainty over whether the prosecutor in the case, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, would decide to convene another jury.

"Many activists believe that it's not over," she said. "It's not a good thing, but it's not a done deal, either."

Huckabee says voters are punishing him for being qualified.

View Video ›

Pressed on his low poll numbers, Mike Huckabee on Wednesday attributed the lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy to the "weird and strange election" in which voters are punishing candidates with political experience.

Asked by Steve Malzberg why he has been relegated to the undercard debates, the former Arkansas governor, striking an almost defeatist tone, said, "this is a weird and strange election in which people almost are punishing folks for being qualified. It's like they say if you've ever been in politics then we don't trust you and we don't want you."

Earlier in the interview, Huckabee was asked if he was ready for the field to narrow down so voters could coalesce around fewer candidates, to which he responded "absolutely not."

"Voters haven't even gone to cast one single vote," Huckabee said. "And when people say that, then I would ask them 'okay well which four?' Do you want the four that have the least experience, the least preparation to be president. Is that what you're gonna do, based on some opinion polls that don't mean diddly squat when it really comes to how people are gonna actually vote."

"Because, if that's what we were gonna base it on, we would have the least experienced people that would end up being who to choose from," he continued.

Huckabee said the candidates in the so-called undercard debate had much more experience than those in the primetime debate. The former Arkansas governor cited the strong and extensive records of those in the debate such as former New York Gov. George Pataki, Sen. Lindsey Graham, himself, and former Sen. Rick Santorum.

Huckabee, who won the Iowa Caucuses in 2008 is currently polling between 1% and 2% in most polling averages. Just this week, his campaign's communications director departed under unclear circumstances.

The GOP presidential candidate stopped by Jimmy Kimmel Live a day after the Republican debate.

One day after the GOP presidential debate, Trump stopped by Jimmy Kimmel Live! and the television host pulled no punches, calling Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States “un-American and wrong.”

youtube.com

"Isn't it un-American and wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion?" Kimmel asked.

"We have people coming into our country that are looking to do tremendous harm," Trump said referring to the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks. "These people did not come from Sweden, OK?"

The presidential candidate went on to say that several of his Muslim friends called him to thank him for his controversial proposal.

"Those may have been crank calls," Kimmel said. "Did you check the caller ID?"

Kimmel pushed Trump on his immigration proposals, including plans of building a wall at the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump responded by saying, "I'm going to win the Hispanic vote."

youtube.com

Kimmel used his sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez to question Trump on his immigration policies, saying that Rodriguez came to the United States illegally before gaining legal status.

"Don't we want people who want to be here so badly that they will risk everything to be in America and to be an American? Aren't those the people that we want in this country?" Kimmel asked.

Trump responded by saying "we're going to have a big, beautiful door" that will allow people to enter the country legally.

View Entire List ›

“And sadly a lot of Americans seem to be falling for Donald Trump’s appeals.”

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Martin O'Malley, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says the United States faces a danger from fascist demagogues like Donald Trump during times of uncertainty.

"I am betting that Americans are not scared stupid like so many of the unscrupulous leaders in the Republican presidential field, namely Donald Trump, believe," O'Malley said on the Alan Colmes Show on Wednesday. "When democracies are attacked, as ours has been once again with the attacks in San Bernardino, we face a very grave danger from within. And that is the danger that these sort of fascist appeals from unscrupulous demagogues like Donald Trump will turn us upon one another."

The former governor of Maryland said Republican rhetoric was playing "right into the hands of ISIL," and slammed Trump repeatedly as a fascist.

"We needed to defend our values against the sort of fascist appeals that democracy's become vulnerable too when people are apprehensive and when they are filled with fear," he continued. "And sadly a lot of Americans seem to be falling for Donald Trump's appeals. I believe the truth can damn well defend herself but she needs to be stated and that's what principled leaders do and that's what I intend to do."

Rename it after a Muslim who fought in the American Revolution, he says.

Alan Kroeger

A Long Island Democrat will introduce legislation in the New York State Assembly to strip the name of Donald J. Trump State Park, moving the measure a step closer to reality.

Assemblyman Charles Lavine of Long Island said in a letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo he thought the park should be renamed for Muslim Revolutionary War veteran named Peter Salem.

"It is time the State of New York sends a message to Donald Trump that his hate speech is not welcome in our great state," said Lavine in a statement on Thursday. "I am confident that the governor will take our letters into consideration. If he is unable to act, then we are prepared to move forward with this legislation."

"When it comes to demagoguery and the primitive impulse to fan the flames of religious bigotry and xenophobia, Donald J. Trump seems to be doing just fine all on his own without the need for New York State to promote his un-American ideations by displaying his name on one of our State Parks," he added.

On Monday, State Sen. Daniel Squadron, who represents the 26th district in the New York state senate, introduce legislation to strip the park of its name. He also wrote a letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, asking him to begin the process of renaming the park.

The fate of the park — and of prominent signs on New York roads advertising Trump's name — now rests on legislative leaders, Republican John Flanagan in the Senate and Assembly Leader Carl E. Heastie.

The proposal to rename the park has also drawn support from Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, whose district is home to much of Donald J. Trump State Park, who proposed renaming the park for legendary folk singer and environmental activist Pete Seeger.

Local Republican leaders, however, are resistant to the idea.

"We should be focusing on ways to regain the public's trust and changing the name of a state park is just a pathetic, small minded, self-serving political diversion from what is important to New Yorkers," said Republican Assemblyman Steve Katz, who represents portions of the park in 94th district.

Huckabee also discussed Islam and “homosexual rights” on “the only newscast reporting the countdown to the second coming of Jesus Christ.”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Mike Huckabee, whose presidential campaign is showing signs of its own end times, appeared on "the only newscast reporting the countdown to the second coming of Jesus Christ" on Wednesday to discuss Islam, "transgenderism," "homosexual rights," and how he believes the objective of gun control is "making people total servants of the states."

The former governor of Arkansas was asked by TruNews host Rick Wiles if he thought the Left didn't care about the 14 people who were killed in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, to which he answered, "They're able to sock that away in a whole different dimension. It's almost as if they're living in the Twilight Zone. They can make a neat separation between reality and what their policies are and they don't have to mesh."

"The reason they keep pushing for things like gun control even though gun control would not have stopped the San Bernardino killers, gun control wouldn't have done anything to stop Sandy Hook, wouldn't have stopped the Colorado shooter, you can go on and on, even though there's no evidence whatsoever that the proposals they put forth would stop the very things they're crying about, they keep putting it forth anyway because it's not about protecting people, it's not about the real agenda, it's about control, controlling people," Huckabee said, "making people total servants of the state, and it's a very dangerous political philosophy to adhere to."

Huckabee, asked if the Left was "in alliance" with Islam because Islam and the Left share a "common enemy" in Christianity and Israel, said, "It's hard for me to even get my arms around why the Left is so protective of the religion of Islam. Especially when the Left wants to embrace homosexual rights and yet Islam would carry out the death penalty for a person who's homosexual."

"There's such an irrational position on the part of leftists," he continued. "You have these positions that are supposedly so sacred to the people on the Left: protecting abortion, protecting same-sex marriage, protecting homosexual rights, protecting transgenderism."

Huckabee said liberals should "go to Tehran and get out on the town square and make a big speech advocating transgender rights and let's see how long is Tehran you last saying that."

Huckabee concluded it was "irrational" and "laughable" for the Left to defend Islam.