youtube.com

Since it was announced earlier this month that Nikki Haley would deliver the official Republican response to the State of the Union, excitable pundits have hyped the speech as a dramatic, made-for-TV "audition" — a chance for South Carolina's young, telegenic governor to prove her talents, and compete for a coveted spot on the GOP's presidential ticket.

But while Haley's performance Tuesday night may have indeed solidified her A-list status in the Republican establishment, the primetime moment was actually the culmination of years of careful — and often quiet — backstage maneuvering by the governor's team as they worked to position her as a top-tier contender for the vice-presidential nomination.

“I think she’ll be on everybody’s [2016] short list,” one Haley aide confidently predicted to BuzzFeed News in spring 2014. Similarly, Haley's top adviser, Tim Pearson, said at the same time that when it came to her prospects in a national campaign, "She has certainly been vetted and come out looking good on the other side."

Haley's high-profile role last year in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds, and her leadership in the wake of the shooting at a black church in Charleston, helped turn her into one of the most popular governors in America.

Now, with her upbeat State of the Union response winning rave reviews from both pundits and many Republicans, Haley seems destined to become both a prominent fixture of this year's "veepstakes" conversation — and a target of hard-right populists.

In a striking illustration of the widening schism in the contemporary GOP, the most provocative portion of Haley's response Tuesday was aimed not at the Democratic incumbent, but at the front-runner for her own party's presidential nomination. After making reference to her upbringing as "the proud daughter of Indian immigrants" in the rural South, she took a barely veiled swipe at Donald Trump's signature nativism and rancorous rhetoric.

"Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory," Haley said. "During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country."

The message was perfectly pitched to the anxieties of GOP leaders who have been increasingly dismayed at the sight of a mean-spirited billionaire hijacking their party. Haley's measured, hopeful tone seemed almost diametrically opposed to that of the daily Donald show. If a coma victim awoke today with no knowledge of America's political landscape and then watched Haley's address back to back with Trump's latest stump speech, he would almost certainly not guess the two belonged to the same party.

For Republican elites — as well as moderate women, college-educated suburbanites, right-of-center Latinos, and a host of other swing-voting demographic groups who tend to find Trump repellant — the contrast drawn by Haley was probably an appealing one.

But of course, to The Donald's most rabid supporters, Haley's gentle criticism constituted something akin to a political war crime. The governor hadn't even finished her eight-minute remarks Tuesday night before talk-radio provocateurs and other right-wing critics were trashing her on Twitter.

As someone who came up through the festering swamps of South Carolina politics, Haley has heard worse. (The first time she ran for governor, a state lawmaker called her a "raghead.")

For a time, she all but vanished from the national stage while she fended off a procession of personal attacks, smear campaigns, and legislative investigations pushed by political opponents — an onslaught so relentless that some Washington Republicans declared the end of her national electoral prospects.

Now that Haley is in possession of a newly pristine political brand, however, her team seems doggedly determined to preserve it. Reporters from out-of-town news outlets who travel to South Carolina routinely complain about how much less accessible she is than other governors, and Haley's aides have been known in the past to brag about the number of times they've turned down invitations from Meet the Press.

There are greater sins than playing keep-away with the media, of course, but traditionally, in campaign politics, the running mate isn't the one fleeing at the first sign of mud — she's the one slinging and being slung at.

By taking on Trump in such a high-profile setting Tuesday, Haley signaled she isn't afraid of a fight. And if the angry din of conservative critics continues to grow noisier in coming days, the governor will face plenty more 2016 auditions.

Warren Buffett (right) enjoys an ice cream bar with Kevin Clayton, CEO of Clayton Homes, before Berkshire Hathaway's 2014 shareholders meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

Nati Harnik / AP

Senior Democratic lawmakers want federal regulators to investigate Warren Buffett’s mobile-home company following a BuzzFeed News/Seattle Times investigation that found the company’s predatory practices have harmed minority communities.

Rep. Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the House committee that oversees financial companies, called on the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to “investigate and pursue appropriate corrective action” about “potentially discriminatory lending and collection practices” at Clayton Homes and its lenders, Vanderbilt Mortgage and 21st Mortgage.

“I was appalled,” Waters said of the findings in the recent Seattle Times/BuzzFeed News investigation. “There is no place for the kind of sleazy and deceptive practices alleged in the Seattle Times articles. I was further taken aback by Mr. Buffett’s defense of Clayton’s lending practices given the concerns that were raised” in articles earlier last year by the Seattle Times and the Center for Public Integrity.

The letter was also signed by Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri and Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts.

“Surely, if news outlets can launch an investigation into potential violations of federal fair lending and consumer protection laws, agencies charged with protecting the nation’s consumers should be able to investigate these allegations,” Waters wrote in in a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and CFPB Director Richard Cordray.

The BuzzFeed News/Seattle Times investigation, published last month, detailed how Clayton Homes charges minority borrowers higher annual interest rates than white borrowers. The company systematically pursues minority home buyers and baits them into costly subprime loans, the investigation found. It found that many of the loans fail, allowing Clayton to repossess and resell the homes.

The practices described in the story “are clear violations of federal fair lending and consumer protection statutes,” Waters wrote in the letter. She noted that many of the issues were first raised in a series in early 2015, as Clayton pressed Congress to roll back key consumer protections. Waters asked the two agencies to update her on any actions taken in response to the stories.

The company did not immediately answer a request for comment Tuesday evening. In response to last month’s investigation, Clayton issued a news release accusing the reporters of “activism masquerading as journalism” and stated: “We categorically and adamantly deny discriminating against customers or team members based on race or ethnicity.”

Rep. Maxine Waters is the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. The committee oversees financial companies like Clayton Homes' two in-house lenders.

Susan Walsh / AP

The Justice Department enforces federal fair-lending laws. The CFPB oversees nearly all consumer loans. The issues raised in the stories by BuzzFeed and the Seattle Times “are squarely within the Agencies’ authority,” Waters said.

Clayton Homes is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, the investment conglomerate that Buffett founded and controls. Clayton earned more than half a billion dollars, before taxes, in the first nine months of last year. The company dominates nearly every part of the mobile-home industry: It builds homes, sells them, finances them, and provides insurance and other add-on products.

In minority communities, Clayton’s grip verges on monopolistic: Last year, according to federal data, the company made 72% of the loans to black people who borrowed to buy mobile homes.

Last month’s investigation described “a disturbing business model” that leaves “already vulnerable consumers uniquely susceptible to default,” Waters wrote.

Watch me Trey Trey.

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina characterized the private email usage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as "a smoking gun," in discussion on whether Clinton put U.S. intelligence information at risk by sending classified information over her private email account.

"I am very glad that our committee was the first committee to uncover the fact that here emails were not in public domain," said Gowdy on Tuesday on Kilmeade and Friends, a Fox News radio show before adding he was only interested in emails related to the Benghazi attack.

Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said he trusted the director of the FBI to recommend charges against Clinton if her actions proved criminal.

"I actually trust Jim Comey, who's the Director of the FBI, and I am not a trusting guy, I am not trusting of the government in general, but I think Comey is a straight arrow and if there is something to the national security or the potential criminality, I trust the Bureau to uncover it and we will all know about it," he said.

"I know we will," Gowdy assured Kilmeade, who said he wasn't sure we'd know if Clinton committed criminal acts.

"I was hired by Bill Clinton," he said. "The thing I love about federal prosecutors and FBI agents is there is no discussion of politics. These are career law enforcement officers. I'll tell you this, they are all political appointees at DOJ, there are some, but the bulk of the folks who work there transcend administrations."

"If there is a good case presented for indictment or for prosecution by the FBI and that good case is turned down, you and I and the rest of the world will know about it and then the ultimate jury will weigh in in November 2016," he added.

Gowdy called Clinton's private email system the "smoking gun."

"We're up north of a thousand documents that have been retroactively classified as classified," he said. "Some of which may have been classified at the time they were received. When you're dealing with a handful of things sometimes the explanation is X, when you're up north of a thousand documents – I can't even fully get to that point. Because we have talked for so long about this unusual email arrangement she has had with herself. We have a tendency to just gloss over the fact that for two years none of her emails were in the public domain, so whether it is classified or not classified, this transparent administration that wants everybody to know everything did nothing for two years for us to find out what happened at the State Department. People want a smoking gun; I think her email arrangement is your smoking gun."

“The Tom Brady effect.”

USA Today Sports / Reuters

w.soundcloud.com

Donald Trump says Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is responsible for him having high poll numbers in Massachusetts.

"I'm friend of Tom Brady, very good friend and he was so nice to me," Trump said on Iowa's KXEL's On Press Row this week. "'Cause he said, you saw what he said a couple weeks ago. He called, he said Trump is the greatest winner, when you get that, and then all of sudden in Massachusetts, I saw that cause Tom is New England, Massachusetts, and all of sudden in Massachusetts we got poll numbers that were 52%."

"I said, that's the Tom Brady effect," he continued. "When he says great things about you in Massachusetts you know, that's pretty much about as good as you can get. He's an amazing guy, great athlete, great quarterback. It will be interesting to see the playoffs now."

Brady in mid-December declined to weigh in on Trump's politics but called him "a good friend of mine" and "I support all my friends."

An October poll showed Trump at 48% in Massachusetts.

Brady was spotted with a Trump hat in his locker in September of last year.

Supreme Court of Florida / Via floridasupremecourt.org

WASHINGTON — The Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered state officials there to address questions by Friday about the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down the state's death sentencing law on a man due to be executed in less than a month.

The brief order from the Florida high court came in the case of Cary Michael Lambrix, who currently is scheduled to be executed on Feb. 11. On Jan. 11, his lawyers had filed a petition for relief based on a similar argument to that made by Timothy Hurst at the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 12 in Hurst's case that Florida's death sentencing law was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment because it violated the right to a jury by making the imposition of a death sentence the responsibility of a judge and not a jury, the Florida Supreme Court amended its order in Lambrix's case.

Lambrix was convicted and sentenced to death in 1984 for the murders of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant.

Noting on the docket in Lambrix's case that the order was amended on Wednesday "to include reference to Hurst," the court has now ordered the state to address "the applicability of Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, 2016 WL 112683 (Jan. 12, 2016), to each of Petitioner’s first-degree murder convictions and sentences of death." Specifically, the state is ordered to address whether the U.S. Supreme Court's decision should apply retroactively to past death sentences in Florida, how Hurst applies given the specific facts of Lambrix's sentencing, and whether any error in Lambrix's case should be viewed as harmless.

A reply from Lambrix's lawyers is due by Jan. 20.

Read the Florida Supreme Court's order:

Read Lambrix's petition:

Trump’s rival Ted Cruz said yesterday that Trump “embodies New York values.”

Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Donald Trump responded on Wednesday to Ted Cruz's claim that he "embodies New York values", saying that those values are the "energy" that helped the city recover from the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.

"One thing it means is energy," Trump told New England radio host Howie Carr. "You know, when the World Trade Center got hit, we rebuilt that World Trade Center and we got through and very few places in this world could have gotten through what we went through. I mean, I was so proud of New York, the World Trade Center, these two massive, 110 story buildings come down, thousands of people killed. I've never seen anything like it in my life."

Cruz suggested on Tuesday that Trump, who has recently questioned Cruz's eligibility for the presidency, might start playing the Frank Sinatra song "New York, New York", instead of "Born in the U.S.A., saying "Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values."

Asked by Megyn Kelly on Tuesday night what he meant by "New York values," Cruz said, "The rest of the country knows what New York values are, and they aren't Iowa values and they aren't New Hampshire values."

Pressed by Carr on whether Cruz was referring to his religious faith, Trump said, "I don't know what he's doing. I mean, honestly, he's very nervous. He's, you know, very frightened by what's happening."

Trump went on to say that he thought Democrats would "bring lawsuit" against Cruz to test whether he qualifies under the Constitution's "natural-born" citizenship clause.

In the interview, Trump also commented on South Carolina governor Nikki Haley's response to the State of the Union address. Haley said on Wednesday that Trump was one of the people she had been talking about when she called on Americans to resist "the siren call of the angriest voices."

Trump said, "I mean, you do have anger and you have unbelievable people that are angry. You have good people. You have kind people — kind-hearted people — that are angry. And who wouldn't be? I mean, if you're intelligent you have to be angry at the way the country is run."

He also called Haley "weak on immigration."

"She's weak on immigration," the businessman said. "She's very weak on immigration. And she knows I feel that way. And I feel that, you know, I'm not happy with her for that. We have to have very strong borders. She's weak on the border. She's very, very weak on illegal immigration."

youtube.com

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee criticized South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for criticizing Donald Trump on Tuesday night.

Newsmax TV host Steve Malzberg said Haley “bashed” frontrunner Donald Trump and asked Huckabee his thoughts on her comments.

“I’m not sure why she needed to do that, because it very well could be Donald Trump may be the Republican nominee,” Huckabee said. “And if he is then we need to unite behind him.”

Huckabee went on to criticize the Republican National Committee for weighing in on the primary process.

“You know, the RNC has been very forceful in saying, ‘We have to all line up and agree that we’re gonna support the nominee and not be third party candidates,’" he said. "Well, if we’re supposed to pledge loyalty to the RNC, then I have every expectation that the RNC had better pledge their support to whoever the nominee is.”

In her speech Tuesday night, Haley criticized Obama’s State of the Union address, while also criticizing heated rhetoric in her own party.

“During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices,” Haley said. “We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

In an interview on Today, Haley confirmed her comments were directed towards Trump and others who contributed to, what she called, “irresponsible talk.”

“Her purpose was to respond to the president, and be more specific in just pointing out that his comments on how great the economy is, how strong our military is — the president was just making it up out of thin air,” Huckabee said.

1978. Van Buren, Arkansas, Bill Clinton on a visit to Juanita Broaddrick's (right) nursing home

Getty Images / Getty Images

NBC News pursued, but ultimately did not obtain, an on-air interview with Juanita Broddrick, the woman who 17 years ago publicly accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the '70s in an interview with the network's newsmagazine show Dateline.

A producer for NBC News traveled to Van Buren, Arkansas, and met with Broaddrick on Saturday in an attempt to secure a sit-down interview, BuzzFeed News has learned.

The producer, according to a source familiar with the exchange, told Broaddrick that the network was trying to arrange a sit-down interview with several women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault in the past, and specifically named Kathleen Willey, the White House aide who accused Bill Clinton of assaulting her in 1993, as one of the accusers the network wanted to pursue. When reached for comment, Willey told BuzzFeed News that she had not been contacted by NBC.

The source said the producer indicated to Broaddrick that she had worked on the Bill Cosby story for NBC, and asked if Broaddrick was aware of any women who may have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton but had not yet come forward.

Though the source understood the interview on offer to be with Andrea Mitchell, an NBC News official said the interview was in fact not being pursued for Mitchell.

Broaddrick, according to the source, ultimately declined NBC’s request.

An NBC spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that it was the network that made the decision not to do the story.

"When Juanita Broaddrick went public last week, NBC News sent an associate producer to Arkansas to see if there was anything new in her story. We established there was not, and decided not to pursue it any further," the spokesperson said.

Broaddrick re-emerged last week on Twitter, writing, “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73.... it never goes away.” Broaddrick’s allegations received renewed attention later last year, when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received questions about believing rape accusers and Donald Trump began talking on the campaign trail about Bill Clinton's sexual history. Notably, NBC News has not run a story about Broaddrick on any of its broadcasts since Broaddrick has re-emerged.

NBC's decision to look into to the Broaddrick story revives a heated media controversy from 1999. Broaddrick first came forward to NBC News in an interview that aired on Dateline in February 1999. That interview was heavily vetted by NBC News brass for more than a month, and faced internal opposition from Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw, according to reports from the time, something two people involved also confirmed to BuzzFeed News. The interview finally aired Wednesday, Feb. 24, 1999, opposite the Grammy Awards on CBS. When Bill Clinton was asked about the accusation at a press conference the next month, he referred it to his attorney, who denied that a sexual assault took place.

Now, almost 20 years later, Trump and some others have revived Broaddrick's claims as a weapon against Hillary Clinton. And the advent of social media — and the change in attitudes towards the treatment of sexual assault accusations — have reignited the debate on what, if any, relevance they have to Hillary Clinton’s campaign to be president.

Steve Pope / Getty Images

DORCHESTER, S.C. — Ted Cruz said Wednesday night that a Goldman Sachs loan he took out during his 2012 Senate campaign was "public and transparent for many years," and the fact that it was not in a campaign disclosure was a "technical and inadvertent filing error."

Following an event in South Carolina the night before the next Republican debate, Cruz briefly huddled with aides before taking questions from reporters. During the rally, the New York Times reported that Cruz took out two loans — one from Goldman and one from Citibank — during his campaign for Senate that were not disclosed in his campaign filings; the loans were, however, in his Senate financial disclosures.

"Heidi and I, when we ran for Senate, we made the decision to put our liquid net worth into the campaign," Cruz said, and that included a "brokerage account that has a standard margin loan like any brokerage account has, and we borrowed against the stocks and assets that we have under ordinary terms."

"Those loans have been disclosed over and over and over again on multiple filings if it was the case that they were not filed exactly as the FEC requires then we’ll amend the filings," he said. "But all of the information has been public and transparent for many years and that’s the end of that."

Cruz reiterated that the disclosures had been made, and downplayed the significance of the lack of disclosure, calling it a "technical and inadvertent filing error."

"It is an inadvertent filing question," he said. "The facts of the underlying matter have been disclosed for many years."

Campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said the fact that the loan should have been disclosed had "just now come to our attention," and they are asking the FEC "what their recommended action is."

"This was a loan taken out against his own assets so that he could get through his race, so that he could be competitive 'til the very end," she told reporters.

Frazier said that "there were details that should have been noted in that FEC report that weren't."

"Again, it just came out our awareness that it was supposed to be disclosed. The senator still wrote his own personal check to the campaign," she said.

In recent weeks, Cruz, who is polling well, has increasingly come under attack by Donald Trump and others over his Canadian birth and other matters. After months of not saying anything negative about Trump, Cruz has begun to respond and on Tuesday, knocked Trump's "New York values."

After the media availability concluded on Wednesday night, several reporters asked Cruz what "New York values" are; he ignored the questions.

Harmonizing “cowardice.” From a recent Trump rally Wednesday in Pensacola.

youtube.com

Fusion did a nice job on the gifs.

“At least with him there’s an authenticity.”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Mike Huckabee says if he's not the Republican nominee, he will likely support front-runner Donald Trump before other candidates in the race.

The comments by the former Arkansas governor are the latest in a string of praise for The Donald. On Wednesday, the author of God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy said, "it very well could be Donald Trump may be the Republican nominee and if he is then we need to unite behind him."

Huckabee says Trump is just saying what people are thinking.

"I do think he's touched a nerve with people, he's saying things at the podium that a lot people might say around their closeted circle of intimate friends and he's kinda giving them a sense of boldness that maybe they're right to believe in and say," Huckabee said on the Alan Colmes Show this week.

Huckabee noted he deeply admired Trump.

"That's fine, I admire him, I think frankly there's a more readiness on my part if I don't make it I'd support him before a lot of people," he said. "Because at least with him there's an authenticity. And you know, he may say some bold things, but he deep down knows that if were the president he'd have to surround himself with people who fill in blanks for him and I respect that."

The petition also includes a link to donate to Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney re-election campaign.

Alan Kroeger

Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney — who represents the district that is home to much of Donald J. Trump State Park — is currently circling a petition among supporters seeking to rename the park.

The petition, which was sent to the congressman's email list and contains a button to donate, seeks to rename the park after folk singer and environmental activist Pete Seeger.

"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 had said in comments suggesting to name it after Seeger last month.

Legislation was introduced last month by a New York state senator to rename the park following Trump's demeaning comments on immigrants and Muslims.

The petition is the latest sign the initiative is gaining steam among New York lawmakers.

Last month State Sen. Daniel Squadron, who represents the 26th district in the New York state senate, introduced legislation to strip the park of its name in state senate. Assemblyman Charles Lavine of Long Island introduced similar legislation in the state assembly.

The petition is below:

View Entire List ›

AP images

A year before Gang of 8, the 2013 immigration effort that has become again a flashpoint in the Republican presidential campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio picked up the phone to talk immigration.

Then, in early 2012, he spoke to Gaby Pacheco, a DREAMer activist who gained prominence after taking part in a four-month walk from Miami to Washington to bring attention to undocumented immigrants under the threat of deportation.

Rubio's message, Pacheco says, was that they could work together to craft an alternative to the failed DREAM Act: legalization, but not citizenship, for undocumented youth brought to the country as children.

He thought immigration activists could make his effort work or derail it, so Rubio asked Pacheco for a favor. If at any point she felt that she could no longer support what he was trying to do, he wanted her to let him know, before telling the media.

There were twists and turns, a firing squad of suspicions, and eventually a major immigration policy change took place before the 2012 election. But it wasn't a legislative plan, it was Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), cheered by activists and derided by Republicans.

Many activists say it wouldn't have happened without one man — Marco Rubio.

As soon as Pacheco got off the phone, she huddled with leadership at United We Dream, where she served as political director at the time. While she appreciated what she felt was a good faith effort from Rubio, one thing nagged at her.

"If he’s just going to give us something temporary that doesn’t lead us to eventual citizenship, this is something the president can do," she recalls thinking at the time.

The strategy for activists quickly became figuring out a way to leverage Rubio's involvement to get what they wanted from the White House. At that time, in early 2012, the united front among activists toward a "comprehensive immigration reform" (CIR) approach was beginning to fray.

An early example of the growing split: An email from Mohammad Abdollahi of Dream Activist to an immigration listserv that featured advocates as well as prominent establishment figures in the movement, like Angela Kelley from the Center for American Progress.

"At the end of the day any relief is better than no relief, which is what the failed CIR strategy y'all been pushing has gotten us," he wrote in the March 2012 email provided to BuzzFeed News.

In a meeting confirmed by two other sources, Pacheco met with White House officials Valerie Jarrett, Cecilia Muñoz, Felicia Escobar, and Julie Chavez Rodriguez. The message from the administration was don't trust Rubio, Pacheco said, and the early pushback to the idea of executive action was reminiscent of what Obama himself would say when asked: He's not a king; he can't do as he pleases.

(Later, Pacheco contends, White House officials would email her articles that painted Rubio in a negative light on immigration, without comment, just as an FYI of sorts.)

She was working with a group that included Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, Rubio, and the White House, and her authenticity and independence was a major key to success, said Rick Swartz, who founded the National Immigration Forum in 1982. Swartz connected her with then Rubio chief of staff Cesar Conda.

"She legitimized him, which legitimized her at the higher levels of power," he said.

As is often the case with rumored bills that never get introduced, some have speculated whether Rubio's effort produced real legislative language. Pacheco said she was brought into Conda's office with another activist and Rubio staffers and shown a draft, which a source in the room confirmed.

Part of the reason other activists say they're sure there was language is because Rubio's efforts would eventually be introduced as the ACHIEVE Act in late 2012 by retiring Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, who he worked with before abandoning the effort after Obama's actions.

Swartz said many of the Washington establishment immigration activists close to the administration resisted Rubio's effort purely because he was a Republican.

"Doing something administratively with DREAMers — they couldn’t budge the White house for a long time until Rubio became a player," Swartz said. "The Rubio play became a pivot that led to DACA, and without it, I don’t think DACA happens."

Another activist involved with the effort at the time who asked for anonymity for fear of angering the administration said, "The minute the White House found out about the prospect of those DREAMers endorsing 'DREAM Act without citizenship,' that was an 'Oh shit' moment that directly led to DACA."

A former White House official familiar with the road to deferred action disputed this. "That's horseshit," the former official said.

Of working with Rubio, the former official said, "The caution wasn’t 'don’t work with him,' but 'know what to expect.'"

"On immigration Republicans do this dance, pretend to do something, and then leave you at the altar," the former official said. "You have to get real commitments, don’t just believe it if he says it."

Still, prominent activists say the administration "freaked out" when they heard DREAMers were going to support Rubio's bill, perhaps further spurred by fears that Rubio could improve his standing as a potential vice presidential pick for Mitt Romney, particularly in the eyes of Hispanic voters.

By May 2012, Rubio's team was saying his bill would be ready by the end of the summer. But, according to Pacheco, they were also getting nervous. If the White House does something, we're done, Pacheco said they told her.

"One of the things [Rubio] warned about throughout was the importance of Congress taking action through a law," a source close to Rubio told BuzzFeed News. "Because the fear was that Obama would start acting unilaterally."

That fear proved well-founded.

Pacheco had one last big meeting: On May 29, 2012, she met with White House legal counsel — the only meeting she ever had with them — and they sketched what DACA would look like legally.

Pacheco had been at the cusp of what she felt was a real break before. The previous summer, the Department of Homeland Security released the infamous Morton Memo, which clarified immigration enforcement priorities. Advocates felt that was never actually put into practice. But against hope, she began to think something significant could actually happen this time.

Two weeks later, in the Rose Garden, Obama announced temporary deportation deferral for eligible youth that would provide them with work visas. "It makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans," Obama said at the time.

“When the president ignores the Congress, ignores the Constitution and forces a policy like this down the throat of the American people, it’s going to make it harder to have a conversation like that,” Rubio said at the time. He'd met with United We Dream activists, including Pacheco, just days before Obama's announcement.

The source close to Rubio said one consequence of Obama acting unilaterally was that it eliminated the political will to act on immigration, a reference to the larger and failed 2013 effort. "In the long run it was one of those things that started to chip away at Obama’s credibility, about his willingness to enforce any law that Congress would pass."

Pacheco compared the political victory of DACA to a vehicle with many parts — and "Rubio was the gas," she said.

"Having Rubio be our go-to person was us saying, 'We can support the Tea Party sweetheart or President Obama,'" she said.

A source close to Rubio's office at the time said, "My sense was they didn’t want to take credit for how they forced DACA."

And with pushback from all sides, it was a preview of what working on immigration would like in 2013 and beyond.

"It was like, 'God, this is a swamp,'" the source said.

A 1992 family photo shows Juanita Broaddrick.

Ho New / Reuters

Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who 17 years ago publicly accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the 1970s, told BuzzFeed News in an interview on Thursday that public attitudes have shifted toward believing victims of rape.

“I think it’s changed tremendously,” Broaddrick said of the treatment of sexual assault allegations. “I hate to say it, but I think a lot of it has to do so recently with the Bill Cosby thing. I just think it’s a different environment. I think people are more ready to believe victims.”

BuzzFeed News reported on Wednesday that NBC News sought a sit-down interview with Broaddrick last week. An NBC News spokesperson said, “We established there was not [anything new], and decided not to pursue it any further.”

Broaddrick, who went public with her allegations in a 1999 interview with Dateline and re-emerged last week on Twitter, took exception to NBC News’ response.

“I was really surprised when they said I had nothing new to offer,” Broaddrick said.
"I never said I had anything new to offer. What I said on Twitter is what I said in 1999.”

Broaddrick said she received a flood of calls from reporters the day she tweeted out her allegation against the Clintons. “I was shocked,” she said. “When I made that tweet, and everything was just going wild, I just hadn’t expected it.”

One of the calls, says Broaddrick, was from NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, who was interested in speaking to Broaddrick about her allegation that Hillary Clinton had attempted to silence her two weeks after the alleged assault occurred. Broaddrick has long claimed that at a political rally in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton approached her to shake hands and to thank her for everything that she had done for Bill Clinton. Broaddrick took this as a threat to remain silent.

“I get this call from Andrea Mitchell. She called me personally,” she said. “She asked me about my meeting with Mrs. Clinton in 1978. That’s the only thing she was interested in. She didn’t want to go into anything else. And when I told her, she seemed she was being very defensive of Mrs. Clinton. She said, ‘How do you know what she meant?’ And I said, ‘You had to have been there. I knew what Mrs. Clinton was trying to say.’”

The conversation between Mitchell and Broaddrick, which was recorded, did not air, NBC News sources say, because they determined there was nothing new.

“I really felt bad with how she was questioning me, she wanted to know what I thought and then right in the middle of it to question my sincerity,” she added. “That hurt my feelings.”

Broaddrick has never suggested she had evidence — beyond her impression of an implied, silent thanks — of Hillary Clinton's complicity in covering up what she alleges.

After she finished her conversation with Mitchell, Broaddrick said an NBC News producer flew down to her home in Arkansas, and, after initially refusing to speak with the producer, she sat down last Saturday to discuss an on-air interview. An NBC official told BuzzFeed News the interview being discussed was not for Mitchell.

“I was just surprised about their response to the article. After chasing me for a few days, then to say I hadn’t nothing new to offer. I was just shocked,” Broaddrick said.

NBC News declined to comment further.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says he's not sure if Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is eligible to be president and added that Democrats are sure to take Cruz to court to resolve the mater.

“I gotta say, I've had this problem ever since Cruz announced. There is a difference between the definition of natural born and naturalization and it has not been settled by any branch of government,” DeLay said on the Steve Malzberg show on Newsmax TV. “So I think Cruz needs to address this in some way because I think it is a cloud right now in Iowa.”

Delay continued, saying that the matter wouldn’t be settled until it was heard in court.

“He can’t do anything through Congress. Congress isn’t gonna pass any bill to protect him, and I’m sure Obama wouldn’t sign anything,” DeLay said.

“He's going to the courts if he's the nominee. I think Trump is right in that. The Democrats will use every avenue available to them, they sued me over a ballot issue.” DeLay continued, referencing his own indictment under money laundering and conspiracy charges.

In 2005 a Texas judge found DeLay had violated campaign law by not disclosing $600,000 worth of fundraising. Later that year the Federal Elections Commission found that DeLay’s political action committee had failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds. In 2014 all charges we dropped.

“They'll sue him,” DeLay said of Cruz, “He'll end up in the courts one way or another.”

Ralph Freso / Getty Images

Donald Trump was supposed to be negotiating a new Celebrity Apprentice contract by now.

For seven months, it has been an article of faith among anti-Trump Republicans that the billionaire's calamitous campaign would eventually melt down on its own before things got too serious — and if it didn’t, they assured themselves, a cash-flush coalition of conservative groups, super PACs, and presidential campaigns would chase him out of the race. Attack ads would blanket the airwaves in Iowa. An army of activists would descend on New Hampshire. Trump would be exposed for the charlatan that he is, and he'd drop out before a single vote was ever cast.

But the cavalry never came.

Now, 18 days out from the Iowa caucuses, Trump is leading every national poll by 10 points or more — and while single-digit candidates and their backers spend millions to bludgeon each other on TV and radio, they’ve barely lifted a finger to take on the frontrunner.

It isn't for a lack of antipathy that Trump's opponents on the right are giving him a free ride. The Republican establishment continues to believe his nomination would spell political apocalypse for their party, while small-government purists remain deeply opposed to many of his less-than-conservative economic proposals.

Yet, for a variety of reasons, major Republican donors and well-funded political groups have failed to fund a robust anti-Trump campaign, despite increasingly desperate pleas from some quarters of the GOP.

"I've been much more blunt in the past couple of weeks when I talk to these guys," said Rick Wilson, an outspoken Trump critic and political strategist who advises several major Republican donors. "I've said, Look, you guys pay me money to tell you what's going on, and you have to start taking [Trump] seriously. When President Hillary Clinton names her second or third Supreme Court justice, I'm going to call and tell you, 'I told you so.' When Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fucks over your industry, I'm going to call and say, 'I told you so.'"

Liz Mair, another Republican strategist who doubles as a Trump-hostile talking head on cable news, expressed frustration that the GOP donor class isn't urgently mobilizing against The Donald.

"The Republican Party's strategy with regard to dealing with Trump is basically prayer — and that's it," said Mair, who launched a "guerilla" political group in November aimed at "destroying" the candidate. "I think there's a lot of people in the party who go to bed every night and pray that our long partisan nightmare will be over. But they don't do anything to change the equation."

"It's disconcerting, to be honest," Mair added.

One reason is that Trump's dominance in the polls has been such a conspicuous fixture of the Republican landscape for so long now that his primary opponents have largely accepted it as an all-but-unalterable part of the 2016 topography. Instead of taking strategic strides to diminish the frontrunner's standing or poach his voters, most are simply looking for ways to turn his presence in the race to their advantage.

Jeb Bush and John Kasich are the only two candidates in the GOP field who routinely go out of their way to publicly bash Trump. But their attacks often seem less geared toward doing actual damage to the billionaire's candidacy, and more about appealing to the moderate voters and establishment elites who comprise the core of their support. When Bush calls Trump a "chaos candidate," or when Kasich laments the harsh treatment of protesters at Trump rallies, they are using him as a foil — a reasonable strategy for their own campaigns, perhaps, but one that's unlikely to have much of an effect on their target.

What's more, when their super PACs produce choir-preaching ads against Trump, they rarely put any money behind them: Rather than airing in primetime TV where large numbers of primary voters can be reached, the commercials are uploaded to YouTube and embedded in email press releases, where they ping-pong around the political class for a while and then quickly get forgotten.

Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Bush, has been a special subject of scorn among anti-Trump Republicans. Many grumble that Mike Murphy, the veteran operative who runs the lavishly funded organization, has squandered millions of dollars churning out vicious (or, occasionally, silly) attack ads against Marco Rubio — who's competing for a similar swath of the electorate as Jeb — while devoting only a meager portion of their budget to ineffectual swipes at Trump.

When, for example, Murphy took to Twitter last week to show off their new digital billboard ads in Iowa, he was met with mockery from many conservatives.

"Does anybody think they're going to convince someone not to caucus for Donald Trump by putting up a fucking billboard that says 'Donald Trump is unhinged —Jeb Bush'? Is that going to pick off a single Trump voter?" said one GOP strategist, who went on to speculate that if anything the message would further motivate Trump's base.

Bush's spokesperson, Tim Miller, rejected the notion that the candidate and his backers were taking on Trump solely out of strategic self-interest.

"Jeb has attacked Trump more than anyone," Miller said. "I am mystified as to why other campaigns have not done so." He added that Rubio and Chris Christie have mostly held their fire when it comes to Trump because "they are afraid to be attacked."

Asked to respond, Rubio campaign spokesperson Alex Conant fired back, "I do appreciate the irony of Jeb's camp now offering strategy advice to us... Last time I checked, they've spent millions against every candidate not named Cruz in this race."

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz — who is tied with Trump for first place in Iowa and seems best-positioned to beat him elsewhere — has steadfastly avoided criticizing even Trump's most outlandish stump stunts and policy proposals. Journalists have attributed the Cruz campaign's approach to a "kill him with kindness" strategy, but the senator himself frequently argues that the always-on-camera billionaire is a godsend for his candidacy, having framed the race as a competition to prove antiestablishment bona fides — a contest Cruz thinks he'll ultimately win.

Whatever the rationale, the result is that the candidate with arguably the most credibility to question Trump's commitment to conservatism has spent the entire race keeping his mouth shut. (On Tuesday, after weeks of getting pummeled by Trump, Cruz did take a swipe at his opponent, saying he was a product of "New York values.")

In traditional GOP money circles, the most common argument against launching an anti-Trump assault is that it could backfire and make the candidate stronger — reinforcing his message that corrupt political elites and their corporate cronies are out to get him (and, by extension, his supporters).

What frustrates many anti-Trump Republicans is that there’s some evidence that an aggressive, well-targeted ad blitz against the candidate can work. Last September, the conservative group Club for Growth spent a million dollars airing commercials in Iowa that attacked Trump for his long history of liberal positions, including one that specifically took aim at his support for eminent domain laws.

According to the polling average at RealClearPolitics, Trump peaked in Iowa right around the time the omnipresent commercials began airing. By the time the three-week ad campaign was over, Trump had dropped nearly six points and fallen from first place in the state. Some question whether the ads were directly responsible for the candidate’s decline, particularly since they were on at the same time Ben Carson was rocketing up polls across the country. But, unlike in other states, Trump has been unable to reclaim a consistent grip on first place in Iowa.

In October, just as the first round of Iowa ads went off the air in Iowa, the Washington Examiner reported that Club for Growth would join a constellation of conservative groups that was preparing to mobilize against Trump. Sources told the paper at the time that if the candidate was still leading in November, and if he began running his own ads, the onslaught would finally begin.

But November came and went, and so did December, and toward the end of 2015, Trump grandly announced that his campaign would soon hit the airwaves. But the onslaught never materialized.

Doug Sachtleben, a spokesperson for Club for Growth, said the threat of Trump's wrath ultimately kept many conservative groups on the sidelines.

"There seems to be a general fear of being attacked by Trump and getting crosswise with his most ardent followers, who may be among their donors," Sachtleben said. Conservatives are especially worried, he said, about being "falsely labeled as pro-amnesty," given Trump's focus on immigration.

Sachtleben argued that Club for Growth's experience demonstrates that Trump's bark is worse than his bite. "There's nothing to fear. He threatened a lawsuit, the ads kept running, and he did nothing."

There continues to be talk of new anti-Trump efforts in the works, but the projects seem unlikely to have the force or focus required to make a dent in his campaign. As BuzzFeed News reported this week, the nonpartisan League of United Latin American Citizens is spending $300,000 to turn out Latino caucusgoers in Iowa against Trump. And a brand-new policy and advocacy group called Americans for the Real Deal has been developing potential ads that take on what founder Jasper Schaible calls Trump's "economic isolationism."

In the meantime, anti-Trump Republicans like Wilson continue to plod along, imploring the party's high-dollar donors to get in the game — and hoping it's not too late.

The strategist recalled a recent conversation with a "hedge-fund billionaire" he consults for. No matter how hard he tried, Wilson said, he couldn't convince his client, a Bush supporter, that Trump was a genuine threat to win the nomination.

"The Bush guys have a cultural disconnect with Trump and his supporters. They think he's a vulgar animal," Wilson said. He then adopted the voice of a prim and proper Downton Abbey aristocrat. "Oh, I can't believe anyone would speak this way!"

"There's a bit of prissiness there," Wilson concluded.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

BALTIMORE — Pitching policy ideas over doom-and-gloom rhetoric, Republican lawmakers are taking steps to at least preserve their control in Congress in the event that Donald Trump becomes the party's presidential nominee.

Huddled behind closed doors in Baltimore for a three-day retreat this week, congressional Republicans sought to come up with a "bold agenda" to show voters they're "the party of ideas," amid the ruckus GOP presidential primary. The agenda might not have much of an influence on drowning out the divisive element of the presidential campaigns, but they’re hoping it could bring voters to the polls in November, and — if needed — help incumbents in tough re-election races distance themselves from the top of the ticket.

"What we want to be prepared to do is see that our members — both House and Senate — are positioned well going into this election year to make their case to their voters about why we need to retain the Republican majority in the United States in Congress," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune on Wednesday.

Thune and other lawmakers repeatedly side-stepped questions about how their policy agenda would sync with the presidential nominee if it ends up being Trump or Ted Cruz. But they insisted that these ideas would ultimately unite the Republican Party, and instead, pointed to the Democratic presidential primary as one that could be more damaging.

"I don't want to wade into that. I just think that whoever (the nominee) is, it's going to be a competitive presidential campaign," Thune said. “But our senators are going to run their own campaigns to make an effective argument to their voters."

He later added: “What I'm sort of perceiving right now is what's happening with the Democrats. You've got Hillary, who everybody thought was going to the be the heir apparent, but she's proven to be not a very good candidate. I think it's a wide open race. I don’t know who our nominee is going to be...It's a very unpredictable political year.”

With a narrow majority in the Senate, Republicans are defending several seats in swing states in November. Party leaders fear that a Trump or Cruz presidential nomination could alienate the independent voters those senators need to keep their seats or discourage voters from showing up at the polls.

Some of those senators up for re-election skipped the retreat on Thursday for more face time with their constituents.

On the House side, Republicans would likely still keep their majority if Cruz or Trump are the nominees, but it could cost them more seats. Speaker Paul Ryan — who has been leading the policy push on issues like health care, taxes, and criminal justice — recently asked a top pollster about which of the presidential candidates would hurt down-ballot Republicans the most, Politico reported. The answer, according to the poll conducted by The Tarrance Group, was Cruz and Trump.

As the House promises a bold policy agenda, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing a focus on passing 12 separate spending bills this year instead of a large package at the end of the year. The approach -- which he realizes is not exactly going to "titillate" voters -- would keep vulnerable incumbents from having to vote on controversial legislation while allowing them to tout specific spending measures in their home states.

"Our presidential candidates are out there beating each other up at the moment, and that's going to solve itself sometime in the process,” he said. “What Paul has laid out, I agree with totally, which is we're going to do issue development ...One obvious step I'd mention we can take is not going to titillate the public, but — it would be the first time since 1994 — is do all the appropriations bills."

Lawmakers held breakout policy discussions on jobs and the economy, health care, national security, and poverty as part of hammering out the agenda. Republicans heard from their leadership, but also Jim Koch, co-founder of Boston Brewing Company; James Park, CEO of Fitbit; and several columnists and policy thinkers including Larry Kudlow and George Will.

Besides touting their policy push, nearly all Republicans who spoke to reporters during the retreat also quickly pivoted to the Democratic primary when asked about divisions within their own party -- a tactic vulnerable incumbents could start using more on the campaign trail, especially in the aftermath of new early state polls showing frontrunner Clinton losing ground.

"If you look on the Democratic side, there's actually more fractures there right now," House Majority Whip Steve Scalise told reporters when asked about Trump and Cruz. "If you look at the fact that Hillary Clinton has a trust factor still within her own party. She has not been able to close the deal on the Democratic side. In fact, Bernie Sanders seems to be gaining momentum and nobody wants to talk about that. They want to talk about Republican nominees."

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy went so far as to say Clinton wasn't as strong of a candidate as she was in 2008.

"I think in a short amount of time you're going to start writing more about the Democratic campaign," he told reporters. "You think it's all a foregone conclusion? Remember this: Hillary Clinton was stronger eight years ago than she is today. Hillary Clinton won California, Texas and New York and she did not become the nominee. She lost every single state that had a caucus. I think you're underestimating the movement within the Democratic party and how far left they've gone and she's gone."

And hours before another GOP presidential debate, Sen. John Barrasso accused the Democrats of "hiding their divisions" by holding debates on weekends and nights of big sporting events.

"They're trying to hide whenever the Democrats debate. We're going to have 25 million watching the Republican debate because it's such a discussion of ideas and plans for the future," the Wyoming Republican said.

"I think the Democrats are trying to hide the divisions within the party, but the divisions are running very deep."

“If you’re not a constitutional scholar, if you’re not a constitutional expert, then what the hell are we voting for you for,” Beck said to Paul.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Prominent conservative radio host Glenn Beck took Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul to task on his radio show Thursday for questioning Canadian-born Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president.

In the interview, Paul admitted after much prodding that he thought a court would most likely decide Cruz to be eligible for the presidency, but maintained that it was an open question.

Right off the bat, Paul found himself on the defense against Beck, who has notably supported Paul in the past.

"I have real respect for you and you are a constitutional expert. I mean that's why I like you. And you've done something that I just don't understand, that I just didn't expect. I expected it from Rubio. I expected it from everybody, but I didn't expect it from you," said Beck to Paul on Thursday. "And that's this birther nonsense with Ted Cruz where you joke — and I accept the joke at first, 'eh, might be a good prime minister in Canada,' I accept the joke — but then when you're pushed on it you say, 'well, I'm not a constitutional expert. I don't know.' Come on man, yes you do. Yes you do."

Paul last week mocked Cruz saying, "You know, I think without question he is qualified and would make the cut to be prime minister of Canada," which he defended to Beck by saying the issue was undecided.

"Well, I think the reason that nobody really knows the answer is it's never been adjudicated," Paul said. "You know, we've never had a nominee or a president who wasn't born in the United States. I'm not saying that he isn't eligible. I'm simply saying that Democrats of course will bring this up and it will have to be adjudicated because it's never happened before."

Beck cut off Paul, citing John McCain and Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was just a U.S. territory and McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

"The court decided in those cases that U.S. territories were part of the U.S. and Canada, frankly, is not a U.S. territory," Paul answered.

"If you're not a constitutional scholar, if you're not a constitutional expert, then what the hell are we voting for you for," Beck said to Paul.

Paul responded, "If we want debate what a natural born citizen is, you have to go back to either what the Founding Fathers said or the constitutional convention said, and the bottom line is it is ambiguous, and when things are ambiguous..."

Beck cut him off, saying, "Let me ask this question, what does Rand Paul say, not what the courts say, what does — you know you've studied this out in your head enough. If you weren't running for president of the United States and I understand the politics of it, I really do, but if you weren't running for president of the United States, come on man, if we're justing sitting in a room together, what would you say? Is he qualified to run for president or not?"

"If I had to guess I would say the courts, in all likelihood, will say yes, but I would say that no court has ever decided what it means to be natural born with regards to eligibility of the president," said Paul. "I think it's an open question as far as the courts are concerned."

“And Governor Haley is an immigrant. She has powerful stories of being an immigrant,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Nikki Haley, who was born in South Carolina.

youtube.com

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson inaccurately described South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley as an immigrant while praising her response to President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Asked about the possibility of Haley getting a backlash from supporters of Donald Trump for her jab at the GOP presidential candidate during the response, Johnson said Wednesday, "That may be, but let's face it. No two people agree on everything. And Governor Haley is an immigrant. She has powerful stories of being an immigrant. And experiencing discrimination herself. And so she's obviously gonna react different to somebody who's never experienced that. I tend to align myself more with Governor Haley's comments on the issue."

Haley, whose parents are Indian immigrants, was born in South Carolina.

Evan Vucci / AFP / Getty Images

HANOVER, New Hampshire — As Bernie Sanders reveled in the potent insurgent campaign his small-dollar donors have given him on Thursday night, his campaign team was rolling out a new tool to instantly turn progressive frustration at Republican rhetoric into even more small-dollar cash for the Sanders campaign.

At 7 p.m. ET, Sanders supporters who signed up for campaign text messages were hit with the following:

Watch the GOP Debate tonight & donate $20 to Bernie through your ActBlue Express account. Simply REPLY to this msg with the word NOW every time they upset you!

Sanders was up at Dartmouth, stumping for New Hampshire primary votes and rolling out his most establishment backer yet, former DNC chair and interim U.S. Sen. Paul Kirk. Across the country, Revolution Messaging — the D.C. political firm that runs much of Sanders's operations, from digital to branding to his Artists for Bernie celebrity endorsement program — was debuting the new text-to-donate tool that an aide to the firm said was a first for modern politics.

The text-to-donate system will be officially rolled out Friday morning. BuzzFeed News obtained details of it shortly after the debut text message was sent to Sanders supporters on Thursday.

In order to use the system, Sanders supporters must have an ActBlue Express account — basically an Amazon one-click button for Democrats. Express users register a credit card or other payment source and then can just click once to make a donation at various progressive websites.

Revolution has added text messaging to the mix. Other campaigns have raised money with text messages before, but the money would be held for possibly weeks until donors paid their phone bills. The new system instantly blasts small-dollar donations directly into Sanders campaign coffers with a text message.

The result is a kind of debate drinking game on steroids. Instead of taking a shot or draining a beer each time a Republican says something they find provocative, Sanders supporters can now send $20 to the campaign each time they're upset. (There's an "Are you sure?"–style text that goes out every time a donor texts NOW to the system to make sure people aren't donating funds they don't intend to donate.)

Sanders' huge base of donors — more than 1 million people have sent in more than 2 million contributions, Sanders told reporters at Dartmouth — and their relatively small average donation means Sanders can go back to the same donors over and over again before they max out according to federal election law. In an election cycle pundits predicted would be dominated by big money and super PACs, Sanders' active and generous small-dollar funding base has proven to be one of the biggest surprises of the cycle.

Now, with weeks to go until caucusing begins in Iowa, the campaign has an even simpler way to pull in big numbers of small-dollar donations through the simple act of texting. On Thursday night, the motivating tool was the Republican field. On Sunday, the Democrats will debate, giving the campaign another nationally televised opportunity to ask donors to turn frustration into instant donations.