Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The publisher of the conservative National Review suggested on Thursday that the Republican National Committee is "depriving" its party by disinviting the magazine from hosting a debate because of an anti-Donald Trump symposium it published.

National Review publisher Jack Fowler told BuzzFeed News in an email Thursday night that he was not surprised that the RNC had rescinded its invitation to the magazine to co-host a GOP debate next month. "That said I would argue that the RNC should have waited for someone to complain, if someone was going to," Fowler said. "The presumption is that our moderator / participant would not have asked an intelligent / fair question."

"But maybe the RNC based the decision on something along the lines of — you guys just crossed a line (for a debate participant). I'd like to see their statement, if / when it comes out," Fowler said. "After all, it's their party and they can deprive [it] if they want to."

On Thursday, National Review published an "Against Trump" issue that features essays arguing against nominating Trump by a range of conservative thinkers, including radio host and blogger Erick Erickson, radio host Glenn Beck, writer John Podhoretz, and evangelical leader Russell Moore. The magazine also published its own editorial calling Trump a "menace to American conservatism."

Fowler published a post on Thursday after the manifesto came out announcing that the RNC had uninvited National Review from the debate it was supposed to co-host on February 25.

Reached on Thursday night, RNC spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed the rescinded invitation and said "A debate moderator can't have a predisposition."

Fowler told BuzzFeed News that the magazine had not yet had pushback from the Trump campaign itself, apart from several tweets by Trump on Thursday night. "The late, great, William F. Buckley would be ashamed of what had happened to his prize, the dying National Review!" Trump tweeted.

While there have been signs that parts of the Republican establishment may be reconciling to Trump, the "Against Trump" issue is a significant salvo against Trump from within the conservative intelligentsia.

youtube.com

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has launched an app for playing a version of solitaire favored by Winston Churchill.

The app, Churchill Solitaire, is Rumsfeld's brainchild and became available on the Apple app store this week. The game is a simulation of the particular kind of two-deck solitaire Churchill was known to play, and players can reach levels named after stages in Churchill's own career, reaching all the way up to prime minister.

According to the website copy, Rumsfeld learned the game while serving as U.S. ambassador to NATO from a Belgian diplomat who had played it with Churchill himself. Rumsfeld himself plays the game frequently, according to the website: "While contemplating moments of war and peace, and traveling to many distant lands, the future two-time Secretary of Defense would play the game many times over the next 40 years."

"Rumsfeld is planning a major national media tour discussing the app beginning Monday," said Keith Urbahn, a former aide to Rumsfeld who now runs the agency Javelin, which worked with Rumsfeld's office and Churchill Heritage Ltd. to develop the game. "We're delighted that Apple has featured Churchill Solitaire as one of its 'best new games.' Stay tuned."

Rumsfeld spokesperson Remley Johnson also said Rumsfeld will embark on a media tour and said "We’re very excited about the app and thrilled it’s been featured by Apple as a 'best new game.'"

“It’s a national tragedy, all of us I think have a responsibility to roll up our sleeves — I don’t think blaming the president is appropriate.”

Don Emmert / AFP / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Jeb Bush said in a radio interview on Thursday that it wasn't appropriate for Sarah Palin to blame President Obama for her son's actions.

Palin's son, Track, was arrested on domestic violence charges earlier this week stemming from altercation in which he allegedly hit his girlfriend while drunk. The former Alaska governor in a speech on Wednesday said President Obama didn't do enough for veterans, citing her son.

"I don't know the details of it, but I do know that we have a problem of post-traumatic stress," the presidential candidate and former Florida governor said on Kilmeade and Friends. "It's a serious problem and that the Veterans Administration needs to do a better job of creating centers of excellence to deal with veterans."

"Our communities need to rise up to help veterans," he continued. "We have homeless veterans, we have people that are suicidal and who have committed suicide. It's a national tragedy, all of us I think have a responsibility to roll up our sleeves — I don't think blaming the president is appropriate."

Still, Bush said, Obama can be blamed for the dysfunction at the VA.

"You can blame the president for the dysfunction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, where they are giving out bonuses totaling $140 million. Included bonuses for people that reduced workloads or the wait list for veterans, but they didn't give veterans care and veterans died, that's a scandal. That I think we all can is the responsibility of the president."

“Let me tell you this: Unions still have a place in American society. In fact, with the globalization craze in full heat, unions are about the only political force reminding us to remember the American working family.”

Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images

Part of Donald Trump's success in the Republican presidential primary is his appeal to working-class white voters. As it turns out, Trump has long advocated for organized labor to have a seat at the table.

In his 2000 political manifesto, Trump praised Teamsters boss Jim Hoffa at length, saying he'd call on him as president to help solve America's problems.

"Another person I'd call on has a familiar name: Hoffa. That's Jim Hoffa, the new president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters," Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve, which came out as Trump was flirting with a presidential run on the Reform Party ticket.

"He has all of his old man's good qualities — toughness, fairness, and an unbelievable talent for perseverance — with none of the bad," continued Trump. "Before he moved to the top of the union line he was a street-smart labor lawyer. His knees don't jerk, and if anyone knows how to bring the Teamsters back to their rightful place at the table, Jim is that man."

Trump noted at the time that conservatives would not be comfortable with his embrace of unions.

"Some of my conservative friends are frowning," Trump wrote. "Is Trump a union man? Let me tell you this: Unions still have a place in American society. In fact, with the globalization craze in full heat, unions are about the only political force reminding us to remember the American working family. Does that make me an America First-er? When it comes to protecting the jobs of American families, I'll gladly step to the front of that line. And this is no cheap stance on my part. I've had innumerable requests to do business overseas. Before I make any decision, I always check to see how it will impact American wage earners. This has cost me plenty, but when I see American companies put profit before patriotism, it makes me ill."

Last year, the New York Times reported that the Teamsters were meeting with Trump.

People came for the visuals of snow falling on Capitol Hill, but stayed for THE INCREDIBLE MUSIC.

You can watch it here:

youtube.com

Viewers had a lot of theories about how it got set up and what's actually going on.

Via youtube.com

View Entire List ›

CC New Hampshire voters

Jim Rogash / Getty Images

Here's where the presidential candidates stand on the 12-4 New England Patriots as the team enters the AFC championship against the Denver Broncos on Sunday.

Former Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich: "I like the Patriots," though he denied it had do with being in New Hampshire campaigning.

w.soundcloud.com

View Entire List ›

Eric Gay / AP

With a few words and an endorsement at the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce gala on Saturday, the effort by Latino groups to get HUD Secretary Julian Castro on the Democratic ticket will begin.

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce president Javier Palomarez, who leads an organization that represents 4.1 million Latino small businesses, will say that Castro has the track record, temperament, and experience informed by his background to be named the vice presidential nominee.

"I’m a native Texan and he did an amazing job as mayor of San Antonio, he really put it on the map," Palomarez told BuzzFeed News, "while simultaneously working across the aisle and demonstrating finesse working with the public and private sector."

He added that Castro has been responsible for 1 million people living in "affordable, clean housing through his leadership at HUD."

Castro, who endorsed Hillary Clinton and made his debut as a top surrogate for her at a splashy Oct. 15 Latinos for Hillary event in San Antonio, declined to address the vice presidential talk.

"I'm happy with the progress we’re making at HUD and concentrating on that," he told BuzzFeed News.

Palomarez said that while his organization is nonpartisan, it understands the intersection of business and politics, and he suggested Clinton is not the only Democratic candidate who would consider Castro.

"Privately, in conversations with other candidates, his name has come up," he said.

Detractors, and even other Democrats, believe Castro's experience — he was mayor of the country's seventh largest city for three terms, but did not hold higher office before joining Obama's cabinet — will be a factor in whether Clinton would name him vice president if she became the nominee, but she fanned the flames when asked directly about it in an interview with Palomarez the day of the San Antonio event in October.

“I think really highly of him and I’m happy to have his endorsement today," she said. "I will look at him for everything.”

Castro's name has long been mentioned publicly for the role by his allies. In May, DNC Finance Chair Henry Muñoz told BuzzFeed News that Castro certainly "deserves to be on the short list for vice president of the United States." Henry Cisneros, who like Castro was HUD Secretary and San Antonio mayor, told Univision in June that people close to Clinton said he was first on their VP list.

But now with primary voting set to begin and the Democratic convention on the horizon this summer, Latino groups are also positioning themselves behind the scenes to aid the effort to get the nominee to commit to having prominent Hispanic officials join their cabinet as well as push Castro for vice presidential consideration.

Hector Sanchez, chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of 39 national Latino organizations, said it has pushed the three Democratic candidates to commit to having four Hispanics in their cabinet as part of its presidential appointments project.

For Sanchez, it's about fair representation of the Latino community.

"As we get closer to the next administration we're going to offer lists of highly qualified latinos and Secretary Castro is a certainly a strong candidate," he said.

The Latino Victory Fund, a group that has helped Democratic candidates get elected, and counts Castro's brother Rep. Joaquin Castro as a co-chair, suggested that it would put money and resources behind a push to get Castro named the vice presidential nominee, as the election progresses.

"I do think it’s clearly early to be making public endorsements for a vice president at this early stage, but at the same time there is a growing sense of urgency in the community to see a Latino leader on the ticket," said the group's president, Cristobal Alex.

Castro cheerleaders are also aware that they have to be careful with how much they push, sensitive to not wanting to anger a campaign like Clinton's by boxing them in too much.

In addition to Castro, Alex said Labor Secretary Tom Perez and former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar should be considered, while "candidates on the right, not just Donald Trump, but Ted Cruz and Rubio, attack Latinos."

Alex held an event last month in Las Vegas where progressive activists tied Cruz and Rubio to Trump's harsh rhetoric and policies toward Mexicans and immigrants.

He pointed to the Latino Victory Fund's Firsts campaign, on Latino firsts like the first astronaut and the first person in the family to graduate from college. Vice president would be a big one along those lines.

"It would be a critical first for our community to have that," he said. "Julian is perfectly suited to do that and at the same time win the Latino vote."

Castro, who will be campaigning for Clinton in Iowa this weekend when Palomarez delivers his endorsement, was happier to discuss his work for her.

"I’m excited to get out to Iowa — it’s a crucial state in the primary but also in the general election," he said, adding that the growing Hispanic electorate has a "tremendous amount at stake" when it comes to education, health care, and immigration, among other issues.

"I’m more than happy to do my part to motivate and encourage people to vote," he said. "As the recent Pew Report demonstrated, we have the numbers — we just need to get out and vote."

Jemal Countess / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The water crisis in Flint, Mich. should be a signature issue for the Black Lives Matter movement, as well as political candidates and the private sector, one of the movement's most prominent activists told BuzzFeed News.

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Patrisse Cullors of #BlackLivesMatter said her organization has been coordinating with activists in Flint. This weekend, Black Lives Matter network chapters in Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids, Mich. will work together to deliver clean water to families, she said.

“Clean water is a human right," Cullors said. "And I think that part what happens often times is that poor black communities end up getting the shorter end of the stick."

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with the community of Flint, specifically because it’s a majority black city and the water crisis there is just a microcosm of the water crisis that's happening across the country in places like Detroit where it shut off, and California with the drought," she continued. "We clearly have a national crisis that's not being taken seriously.”

Thousands in the area have been left without safe water because of lead poisoning and other contamination from the Flint River.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder apologized for the crisis during his State of the State address on Tuesday, but there have been increasing calls for his resignation over his administration's inaction.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton brought up the Flint crisis in a presidential debate last Sunday.

"I spent a lot of time last week being outraged by what's happening in Flint, Michigan, and I think every single American should be outraged," Clinton said. "We've had a city in the United States of America where the population which is poor in many ways and majority African American has been drinking and bathing in lead-contaminated water. And the governor of that state acted as though he didn't really care."

Cullors said it's "really important" that Clinton spoke out on the issue, and said she "would hope that more people, whether it's candidates or elected officials would show up right now for the people of Flint."

Cullors said the matter was less about Clinton and more about the people affected in the communities.

“I think everybody should participate,” Cullors said. “Whether you're a presidential candidate, a community member, we should have all hands on deck in Flint."

Cullors told BuzzFeed News that Snyder has taken on a more apologetic public stance only now, because of the media attention on the crisis.

“What we’re saying as part of the Black Lives Matter movement is that when our communities don't have access to clean water that is also state violence. You know, we’ve talked a lot about police and vigilante violence but it's a matter we have to take up as a movement."

“It smacks me the wrong way. I agree with Donald Trump,” Virginia’s Democratic governor said.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said on Friday that he supports legislation that would bar the Virginia Republican party from requiring voters to sign loyalty pledges to vote in the state's primary.

Democratic state senator Chap Petersen has proposed legislation that would prohibit such a pledge in Virginia's open primary, telling the Richmond Times-Dispatch he was "happy to save the Republican Party from itself." McAuliffe, a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, said he would sign that legislation if passed, saying, "I agree with Donald Trump."

Trump has strongly criticized the statement of affiliation, which the party says will read, "My signature below indicates that I am a Republican." Trump has said the pledge is an attempt "to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters."

"And I do agree with Donald Trump on this issue, I would say the same on the Democratic side," McAuliffe said on the John Fredericks Show. "The more people who want to come in, people don't like to sign oaths on anything. People vote, they may change their mind the next week, whatever, you're entitled to do that so I just, instinctively, I don't like the idea of loyalty oaths. It smacks me the wrong way. I agree with Donald Trump."

The Republican Party of Virginia claims that it informed the Trump campaign in September of the possibility of requiring that primary voters sign a statement. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has called this assertion "just not accurate," though an e-mail from the RPV's executive director addressed to the campaign appears to back it up.

On Jan. 14, a federal judge rejected an attempt by Trump supporters to stop the pledge. The plaintiffs, a group of African-American pastors, had argued that the pledge would deter minority voters.

In the interview, McAuliffe agreed that the pledge would discourage new voters from participating in the primary.

"I agree with Chap Peterson, that politics is about addition," he said. "You want more people voting. If you can convince them to vote in the primary and you can't hold them for the general election, no offense, shame on you. Then obviously, your message or candidates not working. Don't make you sign some foolish oath."

So, what do you think he would have to do to lose supporters?

In a speech Saturday, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said that his followers are so loyal that he could shoot someone and still maintain their support.

Ralph Freso / Getty Images

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" Trump said to the laughter of the audience at a rally at Sioux Center in Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

Trump made the remark while discussing recent polls, which found that he is not only the GOP frontrunner – with 35% support – but has the most loyal and enthusiastic fan base of the GOP candidates.

Some 51% of Trump supporters say they are "absolutely certain" they will vote for him, NBC reported. Another three in 10 say there is a "large chance" he will get their vote.

Supporters of Cruz and Rubio supporters, however, said they were not certain they will vote for the candidate they currently support come the Republican primaries.

Hillary Clinton and Mike Bloomberg with the Dutch Crown Prince and Princess in 2009.

Lucas Jackson / Reuters

Anonymous aides to Mike Bloomberg are floating the idea that he might run for president. Again.

This is more of the same — more of the attention-grabbing, low-cost fake campaigning that we saw from Bloomberg's aides in 2008 and, a bit, in 2012. But that's no reason to dismiss it.

Bloomberg's thinking about running for president has always been, like the man, unromantic and pragmatic. And his presidential plans have never been driven by anything hopey or changey. He'll run if and only if the two major parties totally screw things up for themselves.

Kevin Sheekey (also known as Anonymous Bloomberg Aide Number One) laid out this logic for me on the record for a piece I wrote in the New Republic* in 2006.

"If John McCain gets beaten to the right — which is possible in a conservative Republican primary — and if Democrats elect someone through a primary who Democrats generally view as unelectable, there's a large segment of the American electorate that is looking for something different," Sheekey told me back then.

An anonymous aide confirmed this general outline of affairs still holds to me via email this morning.

The specific dream in 2008: progressive populist John Edwards versus conservative populist Mike Huckabee, two candidates rooted in — among other things — the white working-class politics that have defined the early 2016 campaign. Both, heading into Iowa, looked like they had a shot.

Most states allocate their electors on a winner-take-all model, so the path to victory requires a mere plurality. With Edwards and Huckabee speaking in the same accent to the same people, there was a path.

There were hints of a similar plan in 2012: "If Perry's the nominee," said NBC's Chuck Todd that September, "I think there's going to be be a serious effort of some sort of moderate Republican linking up with a conservative Democrat of trying to run in some sort of like, 'Let's throw all the bums out — let's crash the party."

And so here we go again. The Times piece, co-bylined by longtime Bloomberg chronicler Maggie Haberman, lays it out this way: "If Republicans were to nominate Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a hard-line conservative, and Democrats chose Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg … has told allies he would be likely to run."

Haberman later tweeted:

There's not a whole lot more to say. Bloomberg has reportedly set himself a deadline of March. If the parties nominate Trump and Sanders, there's obviously a big lane up the middle — though it's not clear that what America wants is a purebred son of Wall Street with a reputation capable administrator. Maybe! Though that lane would theoretically be open to someone who came from, and could speak to, the politics of a younger, more diverse America than will come naturally to any of those three.

In any event, I emailed Sheekey this morning to pick up our long conversation about a possible Bloomberg White House.

"Was thinking about writing that Mike was always ready to run if gop nominated a joke candidate," I emailed. "Does that make sense?"

"Yes and no," Sheekey replied.

He declined to elaborate.

*The New Republic column is no longer available on their website; I also quoted it in a column in the New York Daily News, which is also unlinked. Thank God for Free Republic.

Brian Snyder / Reuters

DAVENPORT, Iowa — Regardless of whether Democratic caucus-goers stand for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders next week, they’ll be standing for a candidate who wants to end the Hyde Amendment, the ban on federal funds being used for most cases of abortion.

Clinton and Sanders agree on abortion policy, and they’ve long drawn praise from abortion rights activists. But the leadership at the biggest names in the abortion rights movement have backed Clinton, and many are campaigning for her in Iowa and even firing off some of the toughest shots at Sanders before Iowa caucus day.

The difference between the two: In Clinton, the advocates see a candidate who promises a revolution in abortion politics in America.

Clinton, they say, is more aggressive in her calls to expand abortion access, and that means a future in which Democrats no longer tip-toe around the issue. No more hopes that abortions are “legal, safe and rare” (as Clinton said in July in an interview with a New Hampshire newspaper) or suggestions that abortion is “a difficult and painful choice” (as Sanders said in a September speech at Liberty University). Abortion rights activists are aiming for a future in which they can de-stigmatize abortion and make expanded, inexpensive access to it a core tenet of American progressive politics.

Clinton has been far from perfect on the topic this cycle, according to activists. For example, she upset abortion rights supporters when she distanced herself from Planned Parenthood after the release of undercover videos that accused the group of selling for profit fetal tissue and featured Planned Parenthood employees talking about procedures in detail.

But they’re excited by her recent language on the topic, and the most powerful voices in the abortion rights movement have now lined up squarely behind her campaign.

On the trail, that’s meant Clinton has spoken about not just maintaining the current Democratic position on abortion rights, but expanding it — backing federal funding for abortion coverage and increased government support to Planned Parenthood. Sanders supports those things, too, but Clinton talks about frequently, and has framed it as a core part of her agenda.

Clinton’s language on the topic makes the abortion rights movement think a Clinton presidency would entail new rhetoric that will change the way abortion politics work. Which, by the way, is exactly what Sanders’s abortion rights supporters also think they’re going to get from him.

The different visions for the same thing are neatly explained by looking at the issue of Hyde, the Washington shorthand for a political compromise on abortion that has been a part of the federal budgeting process since 1976.

After the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Medicaid began paying for abortion coverage for benefits recipients. Abortion rights opponents in Congress wanted that to end and threatened to halt funding for the Department of Health and Human Services until it was. Eventually the two sides agreed on Hyde: an annually-passed “policy rider” to the HHS funding bill that prevents government money from going to abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

The result, according to studies by abortion rights proponents, was that poor women and women of color could not get access to abortion coverage in the same way that wealthier, white women could. This is unacceptable to the abortion rights movement, which sees abortion access as a tool of economic empowerment.

So abortion rights groups have tried for decades to get Hyde scrapped. But anti-abortion lawmakers and activists have maintained enough votes on both sides of the aisle in Congress to make that impossible. The abortion rights advocates say many Democrats would rather not get involved in the issue at all — and that’s what activists are trying to change with the 2016 presidential primary.

Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America — which backed President Obama in 2008 and is backing Clinton in 2016 — said Clinton has been more forceful about her desire to get rid of Hyde this cycle, a shift in rhetoric that is necessary to move Democrats into a place where they can get it done.

"We're getting killed all over this country. And we've gotten killed with lots and lots of solid voting records in Congress,” Hogue said. “And we're not doing our jobs if we're not recognizing that reality and demanding more. And only one candidate made that call for more and it was Hillary."

Brian Snyder / Reuters

Lucy Flores, a congressional candidate from Nevada and a rising star in Democratic women’s circles, became a nationally-known figure in July 2014 when, as a state lawmaker, came out with the story of her own abortion during a debate over a sex-ed bill. She was 16 years old when she terminated the pregnancy that she told fellow lawmakers she wasn’t ready for. It wasn’t a story of regret, she said, it was a story of solidarity with other young women who become pregnant before they’re ready. The public admission of an unregretted abortion is exactly the tone for abortion politics that abortion rights activists hope to see more Democrats adopt.

Flores has endorsed Sanders, and her take on Hyde is exactly the same as Hogue’s — but her solution is precisely the opposite. It’s only a Sanders-led political revolution that can put an end to Hyde.

"The Hyde amendment comes up every single year and we have been able to do nothing about it. And the reason why we haven't been able to do anything about it is because of the systemic failure of our political system right now,” she told BuzzFeed News. “If we do not change the way that we do business in this country, then what's going to happen? We're going to vote on the Hyde amendment again, it's going to fail again. I mean what makes anybody think that continuing to do the same thing over and over and over again is going to produce different results?"

Flores says she doesn’t care about talk when it comes to abortion — records matter most. Sanders’s promised revolution in American politics, and the leftward tilt that would come with it, would bring the end of Hyde and other changes to abortion policy, she said.

“To me, it's about what we're going to do and not so much about who talks about something more so than the other,” Flores said.

For her part, Hogue says talk is extremely important when it comes to abortion politics. As president of NARAL, she helped oversee a new criteria for political endorsements that takes rhetoric into account. That’s one big reason Clinton got the endorsement over Sanders, who has a 100% score in NARAL’s legislative scorecard.

“What's required is not just voting right, but introducing and co-sponsoring legislation and using your platform, whether it's on the floor or the stump to make the issues of abortion access and reproductive freedom central to the political debate,” she said.

Election politics have entered into the abortion debate in recent days, with Clinton allies calling Sanders essentially dishonest when it comes to abortion.

On Friday, Clinton aide Teddy Goff, formerly a creator of viral content for the Obama campaigns, tweeted a gif of Mitt Romney laughing aloud with a link to a Sanders campaign Roe v. Wade anniversary tweet, in which Sanders said: “no one will be a stronger defender of a woman's right to choose than me.”

EMILY’s List, which also backs Clinton, pushed the rhetoric on Sanders and abortion further on Friday. “Bernie Sanders does not have what it takes,” EMILY’s List president Stephanie Shriock wrote on Medium, saying that when it comes to abortion politics, “Bernie Sanders just doesn’t get it.”

It was a step up in rhetoric from the previous week, when in an interview with BuzzFeed News, Shriock said of Sanders and abortion, “He’s a good vote. But that’s not enough right now.”

(The intervening period included the release of Sanders’ health care plan, which was light on details and made no mention of women or any other group. Clinton supporters also leaped on Sanders’s claim that abortion rights groups who endorsed Hillary Clinton over him “are, in fact, part of the establishment.” He later reversed himself after Clinton campaign fueled outrage.)

Steven Senne / AP

Clinton supporters are, of course, looking for every opportunity to score political points in an increasingly tight primary, but abortion rights advocates insist they’re keeping their distance from negative attacks on Sanders, who they say remains a strong ally of their movement.

"I actually reject the notion that pointing out where a candidate can do better or fails to match where a candidate has done better is going negative. That's exactly what advocates do to make sure that our issues are central and that there is a mandate on them when people get elected,” Hogue said. “You're not going to see one ad on the air from us, one mailing in the mailbox, that has anything but positive things about Hillary Clinton. There's no negative campaigning against Bernie. Because we don't think we have to. We save the negative stuff for the guys who are actually our opponents.”

In an interview just prior to the Clinton endorsement, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told BuzzFeed News that Sanders was an ally but Clinton was a leader when it came to abortion politics. She steered clear of going negative on Sanders.

“Sen. Sanders has always been a very reliable vote and supporter as has Gov. O’Malley,” she said. “I have absolutely nothing but good things to say about them. I think the difference is that Sec. Clinton hasn’t just defended reproductive rights, she has made expanding women’s opportunities, both domestically and globally, part of her entire life.”

Asked if Richards wanted to add to her comments in the wake of the recent abortion-focused days in the Democratic primary, an aide to Richards declined.

Sanders says Clinton's supporters are playing political games with his words, and that he's behind the abortion rights movement 100%.

“If I’m not mistaken, I have a 100 percent lifetime voting record with NARAL, a 100 percent voting record with Planned Parenthood,” Sanders told the Washington Post Saturday. “To be attacked for that is, I think, unfortunate. It’s unfortunate, and it’s obviously wrong. I’m a fierce believer in a woman’s right to choose, and as president, I will do everything I can to take on those people around the country who are making it more and more difficult for a woman to choose.”

Abortion has already dominated parts of the 2016 cycle — and with congressional investigations into Planned Parenthood and general election talk about choosing Supreme Court justices looming, the issue seems poised to play a more significant role this year than in past presidential years. Activists have already seen gains that they want: Both Clinton and Sanders discuss their support for it at every campaign stop, and both candidates draw sharp contrasts with a conservative Republican Party that’s become more anti-abortion. But they want something bigger than that.

Hogue said NARAL will be a strong supporter of either Sanders or Clinton, whomever wins in the end.

“There is no comparison between any of our candidates and the race to the bottom on the side,” she said, referring to the GOP. “Sen. Sanders is a great ally and we will 100% support him if he wins the nomination.”

But she said it’s completely fair game for her group to push legislative allies like Sanders to go further in their rhetoric.

“What civil rights activist has ever said, 'Uh oh, I better not ask more of my friends, even though we're suffering on a daily basis?'” she said.

Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, is a close adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Michael Loccisano / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Former congressman Anthony Weiner, whose wife Huma Abedin is the vice chairman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said Friday that he thinks Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders can beat Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, resulting in a drawn out Democratic presidential primary.

"I think Bernie is doing remarkably well, a lot of my friends are supporting Bernie," the former New York congressman said on the Alan Colmes Show during a discussion on universal health care. "I think it's gonna be very close in Iowa and New Hampshire and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bernie won both states."

Weiner noted that he wasn't involved in the Clinton campaign at all, saying there is a "firewall in his household," but added that the campaign was not taking anything for granted, with people if every precinct in Iowa.

"I would not be at all surprised if this goes on for a while and you know, Iowa and New Hampshire are important states...but the rest of us in the country want to have a crack at this too," he said.

Via bloombergnation.com

WASHINGTON — “Join the movement,” the opening page of the Bloomberg Nation website proclaims. “Save the nation.”

An effort is launching to urge former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president — one day after Donald Trump, the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said he could shoot a person on Fifth Avenue in the city and "wouldn't lose any voters."

“Bloomberg Nation is a grassroots movement dedicated to making our nation bloom. We are concerned citizens who believe Mike Bloomberg is uniquely suited to turn around an ailing economy, spur growth and create stability in the world,” the Bloomberg Nation site declares. “It's time for a change. Bloomberg is the man to usher in that change.”

Bloomberg often has toyed with the idea of running for president, and the New York Times — citing anonymous sources — reported on Friday that, once again, he is considering a run. Now, however, at least one person other than Bloomberg is putting his name behind the concept of a Bloomberg campaign because he believes the time is right.

Richie Hecker, a tech entrepreneur who currently is the CEO of Traction + Scale LLC, talked with BuzzFeed News about the effort, saying that he is the group’s spokesperson.

"You have both parties, really, in disarray, and they're rolling out the red carpet" for someone like Bloomberg, Hecker said. "There isn't any candidate who is promoting a track record."

But Bloomberg, he said, is different. “He can actually operate. He runs the largest media company in New York. And he ran the largest city in the world.”

The "About" page for Bloomberg Nation:

Via bloombergnation.com

Of the effort, a bare-bones website at this point, Hecker said, “This came together, grassroots, in the past couple days ... people involved in different types of organizing and technology.”

Referring to “all of the negative noise being created by one of the other candidates,” Hecker said the group’s aim is “to create positive content” aimed at supporting a Bloomberg run. “The way to win it is to understand the media channels today, and no one is doing that.”

Additionally, he said another aim of Bloomberg Nation is to serve as “a call to action to the tech community at large," which he said can elect the next president "on the basis of the skill set, the connections, and the know-how to get it to happen."

"It doesn't take billions of dollars and campaign ads,” he added.

Although Hecker said the group has “nothing, formally, to do with Bloomberg,” he would not give many details about who’s backing Bloomberg Nation — saying only that it was people involved in the tech industry and civic society efforts.

"A group of concerned citizens," he said, when asked specifically who was behind the effort. "I wish I could give you more information. I'm just a guy building a website."

Following up, Hecker also provided BuzzFeed News with the following statement about the effort:

"BloombergNation is a grassroots movement of concerned citizens from the tech industry and political world who want to see the best possible leader take the reigns of our nation. We are doing this because we care. We love our country and want it run by the most qualified person on earth for the greatest office in the land. Our goal is to inspire Mike Bloomberg to run for President and to know we will help him get elected by harnessing fusing the unstoppable tidal wives of social media with the power of grassroots organizing."

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both counting on first-time caucus-goers to push them over the edge in Iowa. That could prove more challenging for Sanders.

In just about a week, thousands of Iowans will head to their designated caucus locations (churches, school gyms, public libraries, etc.) and cast their support for a presidential candidate.

Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images

Here's what Republican caucus-goers have to do on caucus night:

*Show up at their caucus location
*Listen to representatives for each candidate give speeches
*Cast a secret ballot
*Go home

And here's the process for Democrats:

*Show up at their caucus location
*Listen to representatives for each candidate give speeches
*Organize in a spot at that location dedicated to their chosen candidate or declare themselves uncommitted
*If a candidate doesn't get at least 15% of caucus-goers at that location (looking at you, Martin O'Malley), then that support is deemed not viable, and those caucus-goers are released and can cast their support behind a viable candidate
*Delegates are counted and rewarded proportionally once attendees have aligned themselves into viable groups.
*Go home

View Entire List ›

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that juveniles previously sentenced to life without the possibility of parole automatically for homicide offenses are covered by a 2012 decision that banned the practice going forward.

The 6–3 decision in Henry Montgomery's case out of Louisiana, giving retroactive effect to the 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, could affect any person who was automatically sentenced to life without parole for a homicide.

The court's decision Monday does not require that states re-sentence all of those who were sentenced to life without parole automatically. "[P]ermitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole" is sufficient, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.

Such procedures will need to be implemented in any state that had refused to give retroactive effect to Miller before today. In three of those states with the largest population of juvenile homicide offenders — Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — more than 1,000 people will be affected.

"Miller's conclusion that the sentence of life without parole is disproportionate for the vast majority of juvenile offenders raises a grave risk that many are being held in violation of the Constitution," Kennedy wrote. (Kennedy also wrote the Supreme Court's 2010 decision ending life without parole for non-homicide offenses.)

In 2012, the Supreme Court held that states could not have a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The question in Monday's case was whether that ruling applied to past offenders like Montgomery, who was convicted of killing a deputy sheriff in Louisiana in 1963 at the age of 17.

While several states already had held that the decision was retroactive to past convictions, the Louisiana courts decided that Miller v. Alabama did not apply retroactively. Other states with significant numbers of juvenile homicide offenders serving life sentences that had held Miller was not retroactive include Michigan and Pennsylvania.

When the Supreme Court held arguments in the case this past fall, the first question was whether the court even had jurisdiction to hear the case. The argument against jurisdiction was that the court's past cases addressing retroactivity related to the federal habeas corpus statute, not a constitutional rule that would apply to state court proceedings.

Generally speaking, the Supreme Court ruled previously in Teague v. Lane that if a criminal law ruling is substantive, it applies retroactively; if procedural, it does not. The jurisdictional question was whether that retroactivity rule applied only to federal habeas proceedings — or, as a constitutional rule, also to state court proceedings.

In Monday's decision, the court's majority decided that, yes, Teague's ruling applies to state court review because, Kennedy wrote, states must give retroactive effect to "a new substantive rule of constitutional law" when declared by the U.S. Supreme Court. (The ruling did not address the second part of Teague, relating to retroactive effect given — under federal habeas claims — to "watershed rules of criminal procedure.")

Moving on to the specifics of the 2012 decision about juvenile homicide offenders, then, Kennedy wrote for the court that the decision, Miller v. Alabama, "announced a substantive rule of constitutional law."

Explaining further, Kennedy, quoting from past decisions, wrote, "Like other substantive rules, Miller is retroactive because it 'necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant' — here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders — 'faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.'"

As such, it is retroactive to past sentences like Montgomery's one under the court's rules for deciding whether criminal law decisions apply retroactively.

Because "children are constitutionally different," Kennedy wrote, "prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored."

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Calling the court's decision that it had jurisdiction to hear the case "nothing short of astonishing," Scalia wrote for the trio: "The majority ... creates a constitutional rule where none had been before: 'Teague’s conclusion establishing the retroactivity of new substantive rules is best understood as resting upon constitutional premises' binding in both federal and state courts. 'Best understood.' Because of what? Surely not because of its history and derivation."

As to the substance, Scalia wrote, "This whole exercise, this whole distortion of Miller, is just a devious way of eliminating life without parole for juvenile offenders."

Trump said he would solve the Arab-Israeli conflict in two weeks.

Joshua Lott / Getty Images

If Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were to have won the election in 2004, Donald Trump was ready to negotiate his biggest deal yet: bringing peace to the Middle East.

Trump, who in present day has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, was so confident in his deal-making abilities, he estimated it would take him two weeks to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

According to the Trump biography No Such Thing as Over-Exposure: Inside the Life and Celebrity of Donald Trump (which Trump is so fond of he sells in the lobby of Trump Tower), Kerry said to Trump: "You know how to negotiate. You'd be the best person to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Trump, volunteering his services, said, "It would take me two weeks to get an agreement."

Trump praised Kerry several times in 2004, telling Playboy in October of that year: "I know him. He's a great guy. He's a very smart guy. I think he's highly underestimated, and I think he's going to run an amazingly successful campaign. Look at what he did in the primaries. It appeared as if he was off the radar, and all of a sudden he made this great comeback. I have a feeling he's going to do very well."

Trump in 2004 said both Kerry and George W. Bush would make great presidents. Trump later called Bush the worst president ever, and he now routinely mocks Kerry as a terrible negotiator.

“There is no case here,” Heidi Cruz says about questions over the citizenship of her husband, Ted Cruz.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

In a radio interview last week, Heidi Cruz answered an awkwardly worded question about the natural-born status of her husband, Ted Cruz.

Speaking with Iowa local radio 1400AM KVFD, Cruz was asked, "Would you please respond to the fact of whether you're sleeping with a, uh, uh, uh, uh, an immigrant?"

Cruz, laughing, replied, "There was a funny post on the Internet that the Canadians saying, 'don't worry he's 100% American,' so I think that can partly settled the question," Cruz told Iowa local radio 1400AM KVFD last week. "But this is not hotly contested in the law. There a few liberal professors out there who are trying to stir this up, but there is a definition of a natural-born citizen, and Ted fits that definition. He was born to an American mother in a foreign country."

Heidi Cruz noted that questions were also raised about the natural-born status of Mitt Romney's father and John McCain, who was the 2008 Republican nominee.

"There have been a number of other people who have run for president that had the exact same circumstance," she said. "Romney's father ran for president, he was in Mexico on a ranch in Mexico. McCain was born in Panama and not on the base. Not on the American base in Panama. He was born in a hospital in Panama City. He ran for president."

The issue, she said, was settled.

"This will not be a hotly debated issue. There's a definition. It's stated in the Constitution you're eligible if you're a natural-born citizen. There is a definition of a natural-born citizen. There is no case here."

Iowa Rep. Steve King, who was being interview alongside Heidi Cruz, chimed in to say the controversy over Ted Cruz's birth was just Donald Trump playing playing politics.

"This is a Trump ploy," said King, noting Trump had no issue with it until Cruz became a threat to Trump.

King, who has endorsed Cruz, said he had "looked into it" and said Cruz was eligible.

"I think there is zero legal question about this," he said.

From an interview with Matt Frei of Channel 4 in 2013.

On Trump's disdain for shaking hands...

vine.co

On being the butt of President Obama's jokes at 2011's White House Correspondents' dinner...

vine.co

On whether he is equipped for politics...

vine.co

And then Trump finally breaks when asked about China hurting the U.S. economy...

vine.co

View Entire List ›

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

A new lawsuit challenging Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president was filed last week in a federal district court in Utah.

The complaint, signed last Thursday and filed on Friday, is the second of its kind known to have been brought against Cruz, as Donald Trump and his supporters continue to question whether the Canadian-born senator from Texas is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution. (The first was filed in Texas earlier this month.)

The plaintiff, Walter L. Wagner, asserts that Cruz is not natural born as defined by the Constitution because only one of Cruz’s parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen at his time of birth in Canada and because, he alleges, their intention at Cruz's birth was "to have residency or citizenship in a foreign (non-U.S.A.) country."

This is so, he claims, because, Cruz's "mother was a citizen of the U.S.A. and a resident of Canada seeking permanent Canadian residence at the time of defendant's birth."

In a interview with BuzzFeed News, Wagner said he had just heard about the issue surrounding Cruz's citizenship recently, and the more he looked into, the more he thought Cruz's assertion that he was natural-born was incorrect.

"I’m a natural-born citizen, and most people are in this country, and it just doesn't seem proper," Wagner said of Cruz's claim.

"This is about Mr. Cruz and his assertion that he is a natural-born American, even though he was raised Canadian his first four years," Wagner continued. "That would mean anyone raised in any country would be able to claim that they are a natural-born citizen if they had a parent that's an U.S. citizen."

Wagner, who described himself as a political centrist, said he reached out to opposing campaigns after he filed his claim for their assistance in helping serve Cruz. Wagner added that he is a trained lawyer but has not practiced in 30 years.

Wagner is seeking a declaratory judgment from the court that Cruz is not a natural-born citizen and therefore not eligible to run for president.

In 2008, Wagner filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Energy and European Center for Nuclear Energy Research (CERN), alleging that the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator might create a black hole that could destroy Earth — and that the governmental entities were covering up this risk.

A spokesperson for the Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Here's the complaint: