Trump’s old line about his opposing the Iraq War: “I’ll give you 25 different stories.” His new line after no one has found proof he actually opposed it: “I wasn’t a politician so people didn’t write everything I said.”

View Video ›

Donald Trump offered a new reason for why, after exhaustive searches, no one has found proof he opposed the Iraq War before it began: People didn't write everything he said.

The comments are a stark difference from what The Donald said at a Republican debate in September of last year, when said he could provide 25 stories showing his early opposition to the Iraq War.

"Well, I did it in 2003. I said before that — don't forget, I wasn't a politician so people didn't write everything I said," Trump said to Meet the Press host Chuck Todd push Trump on the lack of evidence. "I was a businessperson, I was as they say, a world-class businessperson. I built a great company, I employed thousands of people so I'm not a politician but if you look at 2003, there are articles. If you look at 2004, there are articles -- in fact, I saw somebody commenting on it last night, that Trump really was against the war."

In September, asked about his Iraq War opposition, Trump said this:

"You can check it out, check out — I'll give you 25 different stories."

A detailed search by BuzzFeed News in September (and other news organization in recent days) did not produce evidence at all Trump opposed the war before the March 2003 start.

The week the war started Trump was quoted as saying it was turning into a "mess" but also said the war would positively impact the stock market, causing it "to go up like a rocket."

Similarly his 2000 book, The America We Deserve Trump noted Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and targeted Iraq strikes had little impact on their overall capabilities. The Donald said the best course might be against Iraq to "carry the mission to its conclusion."

Wrote Trump:

Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq's crash program to become a nuclear power. They've got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They've got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don't even know for sure if they've laid their hands on that yet. That's what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn't let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don't know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

In August 2004 Trump turned loud and vocally against the war in an interview with Esquire, more than a year after it started and it was clear after the initial successes an insurgency was developing.

Ethan Miller / Getty Images

LAS VEGAS — The Bernie Sanders experience is now a touring block party.

For months, a Sanders event stood out for how ridiculously serious it was. Defying conventional political practice, Sanders wouldn’t open with a joke, wouldn’t keep it brief, and wouldn’t tell people things were going to be all right just as long as they elected him. His nearly hour-long stump speech remains a vegan’s crisper drawer of policy vegetables, with basically no rhetorical fluff common to the conventional campaign speech.

But last year, Bernie’s massive crowds watched, rapt, as Sanders ticked off America’s ills and said they would never be cured with anything short of a full-scale reboot of the political left that transforms it into a never-surrender activist army. There wasn’t much laughter, though there was plenty of cheering, and a lot of head shaking at the problems.

Something happened on the way to Sandersmentum, though: The Sanders stump speech has become a party anthem, his rallies a raucous, fun homecoming for his faithful. Everyone, including Bernie, is having a damn good time.

Bernie is now the fun one. And his speeches are The Rocky Horror Picture Show of political events. His crowds have increasingly heard him speak before, sometimes multiple times, and they come now for the audience participation.

What that’s like, from Sanders’s large Bonanza High School event here Sunday: When Sanders got to the part in his stump speech that mentions his average contribution, the crowd chanted “twenty! seven! dollars!” in unison back at him. When he said the word “huge,” the crowd let out a collective “yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.” They did that twice, and Sanders loved it. When he mentioned the name Donald Trump, they booed loudly. Same goes for when he mentioned “the Walton family.”

When they booed the Waltons in Vegas, Sanders deadpanned, “Oh, so you’ve heard of the Walton family?” It’s a joke he makes a lot these days — sometimes “Koch brothers” are subbed out for Waltons — and everyone seems to enjoy it.

Standing at the lectern in the Bonanza High gym Bernie grinned, laughed, and joked through it all, the master of ceremonies at his roadshow.

The experience was similar a day earlier in Denver, when Sanders spoke in a cavernous convention center hall and 18,000 people showed up, according to the campaign’s figures. It was all there — the boos at the right time; the “twenty! seven! dollars!”; the moment in the speech where everyone yells “yeah!!!” at the top of their lungs when Sanders asks, “So, are you ready for a radical idea?”

The lines outside Sanders events have also become a kind of festival for lefties. When Justice Scalia’s death was announced, thousands of people that would be in the Denver crowd were already in line outside. Marilyn Welsh, a psychology professor from the University of Northern Colorado in Greely, said the news traveled up and down the line and became a big topic of conversation among the Berners who were hanging out and connecting with each other as they waited for their man to arrive. They were excited for a new Supreme Court, she said, that they hoped would be crafted by President Obama. Or President Sanders if the Republicans get their way and block the White House’s pick.

But mostly, they talked about how big their club has gotten, she said. The Sanders corps, the ones like Welsh who have been for him from the early days, know his speeches by heart, and were happy for months to be the weird ones in the Democratic Primary. But now they’re living in a world where everyone else is starting to catch on.

That’s an exciting feeling, Welsh said.

“Bernie is not such a pipe dream anymore,” she said, a huge smile on her face. “He’s real. I’m still kind of stunned by it.”

Denver may have been fun, but it mostly sounded like the Sanders rallies of old — save for the new call-and-response spirit of fired-up Sanders rally vets. Nevada, where Sanders is very clearly increasingly confident of his chances in this coming Saturday’s caucuses, was a celebration.

“We began this campaign nine months ago. And we were taking on a candidate who was, indisputably, the anointed candidate of the establishment,” Sanders began.

Boooo, went the audience.

“It was like the campaign was already over, why run? The establishment had determined who the Democratic nominee would be,” he said.

That was met with laughter.

“But then a funny thing happened,” Sanders went on. “And the people became involved in the campaign.”

That triggered 12 seconds of total pandemonium.

Sanders said at the Vegas rally his campaign has “momentum” in the state and can win here — if the turnout is good enough.

Sanders greets Susan Lomas and her son Oliver on Sunday.

Jim Young / Reuters

The Sanders campaign has been from the start about ignoring the predictions of the establishment and the pundit class, attempting to change the political laws of physics (74 years old, “democratic socialist”) and basically telling everyone what they believed to be so isn’t.

Or, at least, isn’t if he converts a tie in Iowa and a blowout win in New Hampshire into a win in the more diverse Nevada caucuses.

The newest doozy for the political professionals: Is the self-described angriest man in the race running the most fun campaign around? All signs point to yes.

Up near the front of the Las Vegas rally Sunday was Tonnya Norbury, a 37-year-old photographer from just down the road in Boulder City and her 62-year-old aunt, Theresa Valentein, a retired beautician and aspiring artist from Henderson. After the festivities were over, they went on about Sanders “blowing kisses” during the rally (reporters corralled in the back couldn’t see, and couldn’t confirm it), “telling jokes,” pointing at signs, and generally appearing to have the time of his life.

The feeling was mutual.

“Oh my gosh, this is like a big party. Like we’re all going to go party afterwards,” Valentein said. “Everyone is just excited about the changes, and I think people have hope in a new revolution. It’s kind of like John Lennon, you know? ‘Whoohoo!’ I’m serious.”

“We met people in line today, we exchanged phone numbers, emails. We’re all on the same page about it,” Norbury said. “It’s like, best friends.”

LINK: Bernie Sanders And His Fans Are Literally Finishing Each Other’s Sentences Now

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Rep. Maxine Waters had a question.

She emerged on Capitol Hill on Thursday, after the cameras had gone and the spectacle was finished. The Congressional Black Caucus PAC had just endorsed Hillary Clinton, and nearly two dozen members of the CBC had stood behind a lectern and extolled Clinton’s many virtues, and criticized the plans and interests of Bernie Sanders. “Our goal and responsibility is to make sure they do their homework,” one lawmaker had said of young voters enamored by the idea of “political revolution.”

Waters, the California Democrat and Clinton supporter, did not participate — and apparently had not watched.

After the event, with her colleagues mostly gone, Waters walked out and wanted to know: Had her colleagues publicly chastised young voters for their naivete?

Some lawmakers had, onlookers told her. Her face dropped.

“You can’t do that,” she said. “That’s why I can’t stand behind them. Because I don’t want my young people to think I think that way.”

And off she went, flanked by an aide.

In recent weeks, Sanders has surged and Clinton has stumbled. Sanders is very popular with young voters, especially young white voters, and Clinton is less popular. And the generational tensions within the Democratic Party have burst into public, as party elders unleash their frustrations with the, for instance, young women voters not rallying behind Clinton.

Now that the primary is moving into more diverse states, the generational question is taking on new, added dimensions of race and racial politics. Even in Washington inside the Congressional Black Caucus, there is a generational divide, particularly between the lawmakers and their staffers.

The split between comes at a time of heightened tension. For months, the assumption has been that Sanders could never win over minority voters, but that tenet has frayed somewhat, bolstered by a cultural conversation online and in other places about Sanders, Clinton, and the past. Last week, the leftist intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michelle Alexander, both widely read black authors, wrote on the topic of Clinton vs. Sanders — and, particularly in the case of Alexander, found Clinton wanting.

On Capitol Hill, four staffers told BuzzFeed News that they had sent Coates and Alexander’s essays to their bosses. The staffers feared a social media backlash from activists during the CBC PAC endorsement, which came one day after Alexander’s essay was published. In her essay (“Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote”), Alexander criticizes the Clintons for the tough-on-crime, anti-welfare-state policies and politics they championed in the 1990s. The optics of so many CBC lawmakers endorsing Clinton together on the day after Alexander published her essay, the staffers felt, could create problems.

And Alexander’s essay was particularly piercing, three CBC lawmakers told BuzzFeed News. One lawmaker told BuzzFeed News that people had flooded his email with the articles by Alexander and Coates. “And most of them were young people.”

“I do think that there is a clear divide between the caucus and some of our constituents,” the lawmaker said. “I think a lot of them are upset with us. I think they saw what happened with the president — and I am a big supporter of him and will defend him to the end — but I think a lot of them think that we sold ourselves too cheap, particularly our young people.”

According to the lawmaker, it was clear that their young staffers and constituents wanted them to take the criticisms of Clinton seriously. “The younger generation has begun to look at us and they’re asking the question, Is Hillary really on my side? When my brother was put in jail for marijuana under her husband? Welfare was taken away, and so forth.”

This is not to say there is not vast support for Clinton among aides inside the CBC. “It has been frustrating to watch the level of discourse play out among people who clearly have no clue how government works, nor understand Congress’s role, nor have any sense of historical context when it comes to our country 20 to 25 years ago,” said a pro-Clinton aide, who works for a member also supporting Clinton.

But there is a growing sense among young CBC staffers that the attacks lobbed at Sanders are unseemly. In recent days, black lawmakers have called Sanders an “absentee” on issues important to black voters. On Wednesday — the day the endorsement was first reported — three aides said they had been asked to draft talking points for lawmakers on how to hit Sanders indirectly.

“It’s not stately,” a senior aide to a member of the CBC granted anonymity so that the aide could speak freely. “I’ll kiss the ring of whoever my party nominates, but right now I’m with Bernie and I’ve seen the behind the scenes efforts to discredit and suppress him. It’s not us and it’s not the way we should be approaching this.”

Said another aide, “I am pretty unconvinced that having [Clinton’s] CBC surrogates blast Bernie is the right strategy.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said he was endorsing Clinton in part because he trusts her record of service. An early beneficiary of the Children’s Defense Fund, Thompson came out for her early but said he understands why young people are gravitating to Sanders.

“I can see somebody in college staring at $75,000, $80,000 in debt would want to support Bernie Sanders,” he said. “But I also understand that you've got to have a pragmatic approach to fixing the problem. I can identify with the problem, I just haven't heard the solution from Bernie Sanders.”

That general idea — that Sanders hasn’t been specific enough, or realistic enough, about what he plans to accomplish and how — has informed much of the CBC lawmakers’ critique of Sanders. It’s also informed a primary in which Clinton and Sanders often spend debates trading, respectively, granular policy proposals and progressive indictments of problems in the United States.

“Obviously Bernie is appealing” to voters, Rep. Elijah Cummings told BuzzFeed News. “To raise $6 million is nothing to sneeze at. And you're talking about people with a little bit of money. So he is appealing to a group of people who Hillary needs to pay attention to. While the polls show that she's got some of the black vote, those ‘$34’ people probably fit into the same economic situation as many African Americans — and you still don't know how many of those are African American.”

Cummings said while young black voters were excited about Obama’s election, they also “found themselves in a situation where they lost a lot. It wasn't his fault, but they did during that period.”

BuzzFeed News first reported Cummings was one of two member of the CBC PAC board who abstained from a vote on either Clinton or Sanders, because of his role on the select committee on Benghazi.

He told BuzzFeed News he believed that Sanders had pushed Clinton toward more progressive rhetoric after she lost in New Hampshire. “That's the best compliment,” Cummings said.

John Locher / AP

LAS VEGAS — Bernie Sanders’s passionate campaign and following is powering the Vermont senator’s bid into new, tougher states. In Nevada, it’s also pissing a lot of people off.

Against the tightening race in Nevada, the Sanders campaign is still trying to catch up organizationally — and the battle for every Latino and union voter has become critical. At a union rally outside Palace Station Hotel on Friday, staffers for both campaigns were handing out leaflets. Some Hispanics approached by the Sanders campaign could be heard saying, "Si ya estoy con el," or "Yes, I'm already with him." Others, mainly Latinas, said they're with "La Hillary."

Behind the scenes, the Sanders campaign has angered people inside the Culinary Union — in instances both reported and previously unreported. The campaign has also unleashed demolition derby tactics on the DREAMers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Both have given the battle for Nevada a harder edge, and made activists, members of the union, and supporters of both candidates question the Sanders campaign’s tactics in the key state.

There have been concerns that the campaign has at times not used union labor. There was the time Sanders was set to stay at a non-union hotel, a big no-no among people close to labor groups, and Yvanna Cancela, the union's political director called the campaign with a list of hotels he could stay at instead. Sanders never stayed at the non-union hotel. ("I would have done that for any campaign as a courtesy," Cancela said, when asked to confirm it happened.)

There was the time — last week — when a reporter called Culinary officials to ask: Was it true that Bernie Sanders had personally convinced the powerful Nevada union to stay out of the race and not endorse Clinton, in effect helping him? The union official, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation, said no and asked where the reporter had gotten that information. It came from the Sanders campaign, the reporter said.

In the most publicized instance, in late January, two Sanders staffers wore Culinary Union pins to gain access to employee-only areas in four hotels in an effort to persuade union members to support Sanders. The union was "disappointed and offended," leader Geo Arguello-Kline said at the time.

The union sought to put the issue to rest and worked with the campaign on a response. Behind the scenes, though, union officials were upset because they felt the campaign's actions could harm the union, which relies on access to the "back of the house" to organize its members. There were concerns the incident could lead hotel management to question who is gaining access to that area.

"We would ask campaigns to respect the long history of workers fighting to make Vegas a true union town but also the organizing that happens everyday and the work it takes to ensure that workers are able to not only keep their union but also keep their opportunity to provide a better life for themselves and their families," Cancela told BuzzFeed News. "When campaigns fail to respect the organizing that we do everyday it becomes a problem."

In recent weeks, likewise, the endorsements of DREAMer activists have become a major source of contention — even among some of the activists who remain unaffiliated or are lining up behind Sanders.

This began in earnest when the Clinton campaign trumpeted an important endorsement from a longtime and well-liked Nevada DREAMer activist, Astrid Silva. In her endorsement, Silva said Sanders’s immigration plan was unrealistic. Erika Andiola, herself a national figure in the immigration movement, who is now a staffer for Sanders, blasted Silva on Twitter as a "press hit" for Clinton and said the immigration movement has achieved success when it has challenged the status quo, not called progressive plans unrealistic.

Sanders’s Latino outreach director, Arturo Carmona, himself a tough immigration activist, said Silva "put politics over people."

Days later, DREAMer Brenda Romero, the 19-year-old student body president of the College of Southern Nevada (CSN), released a letter to the state's dean of political journalism, Jon Ralston, saying she didn't intend to endorse Sanders when she agreed to serve on his "voluntary steering committee" on immigration, and was instead endorsing Clinton. She added that she was "disappointed by the attacks" on Silva.

In a move that upset Nevada activists, the Sanders campaign then released emails between the 19-year-old and Andiola (Cancela on Twitter called it "disgusting"), and while the word "endorsement" wasn't explicitly written, the young woman acknowledged that she didn't want her college title used because she is supposed to stay "neutral" to candidates.

The Sanders campaign has repeatedly responded to these incidents saying they want to focus on the issues.

"It disappoints me, they know it’s not personal," Andiola told BuzzFeed News. She argued that her Facebook post on the endorsement issue went into further detail; she brought up specific things Sanders wants to do that are not unrealistic, she said. No one took issue with those points, she said — only with the shorter tweet.

Tick Segerblom, the first Nevada elected official to support Sanders, was criticized for being a white man who jumped into the fray on Twitter the day Silva was criticized by Andiola. "Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic DREAMers are telling us not to dream?" Segerblom wrote.

"I didn't mean to get involved," Segerblom told BuzzFeed News, but "when you’re a DREAMer, why not dream?"

To him, the issue got to the core of what it means to be a Democrat today and is the reason why Sanders staffers became so passionate in their pushback. "We realize Bernie’s ideas won’t be implemented tomorrow," he said. "My position on the Democratic Party is if you don’t start on the left you’ll end up in the middle. The problem with the Clintons is they start in the middle and by the time you compromise you might as well be a Republican."

Andiola said the community doesn’t care who has the most DREAMer supporters or the most endorsements but whether their families are no longer getting separated, and noted the influence of young activists this cycle.

"We have had so much influence on this campaign, we've worked with [Sanders] to make a platform that hasn’t been seen in years," she said. "If we have all these DREAMers that make sure Hillary goes on the right side on this issue that right there is going to help our community."

But activists and operatives, on either side, feel these incidents show a campaign that has lots of passion and excitement, but has at times gone too far in Nevada.

"Campaigns should really be focusing on the work in the field and be more careful of what they're doing when it comes to Nevada — Culinary's turf is the casinos," said Jose Macias, a well-known local activist who is supporting Sanders, because of his support for a $15 minimum wage.

"I don't think Astrid is a press hit, she has done so much important work in Nevada in the immigrant community," he said. "It was a hard decision for her to choose a candidate and she chose someone who she thought will fight for her and her family."

Another prominent progressive in the state, Annette Magnus, the executive director of Nevada progressive organization Battle Born Progress, criticized the incidents with DREAMers she knows well. "These young folks have been through enough and have really put themselves out there in a way I won't understand as a white person.”

"They're willing to risk deportation for their family for the things they believe in and the fact that they’re willing to do that for a presidential candidate speaks volumes," she said. (She was tougher on the topic of impersonating Culinary workers. "I don’t believe cheating and lying is a way to go about a political revolution.")

And the Sanders campaign continues to try to flip superdelegates — the delegates not tied to a state’s electoral returns, who largely support Clinton and who’ve become a source of contention in recent weeks. Andres Ramirez, a superdelegate and veteran operative in the state who supports Clinton, said the Sanders campaign continues to try to get him to change his endorsement. He told them he has been in the state a long time and has seen political revolutions come and go, and was critical of the campaign's missteps with well-known figures like Silva and the Culinary Union.

"It shows that they don’t have the political intellect to know how to win in a state like Nevada," he said. "Some of this outsider, upstart shit can work in other places. But when you’re talking about mobilization and so-called economic issues that Bernie says they stand for, the Culinary represents that more than anyone, so why would you antagonize them?"

It's not like Sanders has gotten to this point — coming off a decisive New Hampshire victory, with momentum heading into Nevada — by being flush in establishment support, or by playing nice with the Democratic Party. But the incidents angered some who feel the Sanders campaign is coming off as outsiders unnecessarily needling grassroots elements of the state.

An Obama veteran who has worked in Nevada called it an oft-repeated "criticism of people parachuting in to organize communities of color."

"People are absolutely pissed," the source said. "Who was on the ground organizing? Astrid. Who is the one that has been there? Astrid."

Jocelyn Sida, who worked for the effort to draft Joe Biden into the race before becoming the state director of Mi Familia Vota in Nevada, said making things personal only helps forces who want the Latino and immigrant communities to fight amongst themselves. "The so-called sleeping giant is only good if we're together," she said. "If we're separated because of personal differences we're no better than the people trying to oppress us."

One well-known grassroots activist in Nevada who planned to caucus for Sanders but is now undecided asked for anonymity to avoid antagonizing campaign staffers who have shown a willingness to fight publicly. The activist didn't like any of the incidents with the union or with the DREAMers. "Everybody knows someone who works for Culinary and if you’re a Nevada staffer, you’ve been asked to do that before but you're not going to do that," the activist said.

The last straw for the activist was a Sanders campaign ad released Friday that opens with a biographical look at Lucy Flores, a surrogate who recently endorsed Sanders and is locked in a primary battle with Ruben Kihuen for Nevada's 4th congressional district seat. Kihuen's campaign filed a complaint calling it a violation of FEC coordination laws, essentially alleging that the Sanders campaign was paying for an ad for Flores campaign.

"It's like they're splitting the community saying you can't support Ruben and Bernie," the activist said. "They're punishing Ruben for supporting Clinton."

There have been attempts at resolution on the personal level in recent days, at least on the DREAMer front: At the Real Solutions for Real People Summit in Nevada on Saturday, Sanders Latino outreach director Carmona approached Silva. "He said this isn’t personal, but unfortunately when you do things like that it is personal," she said.

Later, the young activists from different organizations — including Macias from Fight for 15 and Silva, piled into a bus for the ride back from Reno to Vegas. They watched Selma, which features a scene of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. talking about their different approaches. They also joked that the activists who endorsed different candidates should take a DREAMer photoshoot together.

Segerblom, who said Silva is the real deal in Nevada ("If she wants to support Trump, that's fine with me, she’s earned her cred"), defended Sanders’s issues with the Culinary Union.

"He's the last person in the world who would do something anti-union," he said. "One of the sad things," he continued, before trailing off. "It will be fine."

Alex Wong / Getty Images

AIKEN, S.C. — Ted Cruz on Monday criticized Donald Trump for his past and present comments about George W. Bush, and whether the former president should have been impeached for the Iraq War.

Speaking with reporters before an event in South Carolina, Cruz criticized Trump's foreign policy credentials and positions at length, including Trump's position on impeachment:

On Saturday, one of the strangest moments was when Donald Trump repeatedly attacked George W. Bush and defended his position seeking to impeach George W. Bush. Now, when he was arguing for the impeachment of George W. Bush that was not a reasonable position — that was an extreme and radical position. Trump, on the debate stage said, well, he thinks George W. Bush made a mistake in Iraq. Well, under the Constitution, you do not impeach a president for a mistake. The constitutional standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors. When Donald Trump sided with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore and the extreme fever-swamp left wing, on calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, that demonstrated where he was coming from.

In Saturday's debate, moderator John Dickerson asked Trump about comments he made in 2008 when he expressed surprise that Nancy Pelosi had not moved to impeach Bush over the Iraq War.

“George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East,” Trump said during Saturday night's debate, adding that the war cost trillions and thousands of lives.

When pressed on whether Bush should have been impeached, Trump said "you call it whatever you want" and said of the Bush administration, "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

“I thought Trump really exposed himself as a truther and I don’t think that will play real well in South Carolina.”

Scott Olson / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Republican South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan said Monday that Donald Trump "exposed himself as a truther" with his criticism of George W. Bush during the GOP debate on Saturday night.

"I thought Trump really exposed himself as a truther and I don't think that will play real well in South Carolina," Duncan, who is supporting Ted Cruz in the presidential race, said in a radio interview on The Tara Show. "I think some of the people that were on the fence and maybe leaning toward Trump in South Carolina at least probably took that wrong and probably will go another way now."

In Saturday's GOP debate, Trump said it was undeniable that the World Trade Centers fell under Bush's watch, and that the Bush administration lied the American people prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying, "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."

Duncan said of Trump's comment, "It hit me wrong, I will say. You know, in South Carolina, we were pretty big supporters of George W. Bush and supported the war in Iraq and pushed back against radical Islam and some of the WMDs."

"You know, we're looking at, Obama administration just gave $150 billion to Iran and allow them to have a nuclear weapon, yet a conservative president President George W. Bush actually said, we're not gonna allow an Islamic state to have these weapons of mass destruction, which has been proven to be true," he added.

They only missed Jim Webb.

Two teen sisters from New Hampshire are getting a lot of attention because they managed to take a selfie with almost every 2016 presidential candidate.

Twitter: @PrezSelfieGirls

Addy and Emma Nozell are from the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, and have always been engaged in the political sphere.

Addy, left, and Emma Nozell.

Twitter: @PrezSelfieGirls

Emma told BuzzFeed News that their parents have always brought them to election year events in the state, and it was a common thing for them growing up.

"We don't go on vacations to Disney World and things like that, we just go to the local political stuff," she said.

They started the project after attending an event for Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey who dropped out of the race last week.

Twitter: @PrezSelfieGirls

View Entire List ›

(Ted Cruz plot?)

youtube.com

"It's morning again in America," a calm narrator says as an idyllic scene of a boat crossing a harbor plays in Marco Rubio's latest ad — a darker riff on the classic Ronald Reagan ad.

Based on a quick internet search, though, the boat scene in the "Morning Again" adappears to be Vancouver, Canada.

View Entire List ›

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

GILBERT, S.C. — “Whether it’s ISIS or the shootings in San Bernardino, I like that he’s not afraid to stand up and say, ‘Enough,’” explained Nyjel Jackson at a recent Donald Trump rally.

Jackson had driven three hours, up from Georgia Southern University, where he’s a freshman, to attend the rally. He’s a Ben Carson supporter, but would vote for Trump if he won the nomination (he wishes Trump were a little more professorial at times). Like nearly all black attendees at the rally, this will be his first time voting.

Others, like Shaun Cook, of Gilbert — who came to the Trump rally with his friends Bree, Jeremiah, and Jan — say they’re voting for Trump in the primary because “I like what he’s saying about illegal immigration and the wall. I think everyone in the U.S. should be legal, and we should have more rules to stop illegals. I really like that.”

Cook, 17, said he never “liked” Obamacare. “It doesn’t work for everyone, just some people. He did some good things but black people should be doing better.”

Several of the young and black attendees echoed that idea — that black America hasn’t succeeded under President Obama. “Obama hasn't helped black people,” said Alex Chalgren of Irmo, S.C. who is the state director for SC Students 4Trump. “If Trump stresses the point that Obama has not helped his own people he can get a lot of the black vote.”

As the possibility of Trump winning the nomination sinks in, some Republicans have been floating this theory: that Trump could put black voters like Jackson and Cook in play for Republicans in the general election.

This theory — which is mostly being pushed by a few pollsters, fringe black operatives, Trump sympathizers, and Trump himself — is rooted in the idea that black voters aren’t as excited about either of the leading Democratic contenders, and that Trump’s high name ID and life story could win over a higher percentage of black voters than GOP nominees have been able to secure in recent presidential elections.

One problem: Public polling does not currently back this theory up, when it comes to Trump himself or the policies he’s proposed. And in Gilbert, there were only about a dozen black Trump fans — at a rally attended by hundreds of people.

Still, the theory hasn’t died — even among establishment Republicans in Washington. They won’t publicly talk about it, but the idea has come up in private discussions on Capitol Hill, half a dozen sources say.

That Trump fans harassed black protesters at his rallies, or that Trump himself has said that maybe a protester should have been “roughed up,” or called for a ban on Muslim immigration, or alienated some of his very famous black friends, or fanned the Obama birther conspiracies years ago has made for bad news, sure, but some Republicans sympathetic to Trump believe he would change his tone — and has a particular agenda — that would appeal to voters in a general election.

"I think he’s going to be talking about issues that could appeal to African Americans — like trade,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions told BuzzFeed News. "So I think there could be support for him there.” (Sessions hasn’t endorsed in the presidential primary, but a top aide from his office recently left to advise Trump’s campaign.)

Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott — one of two black senators — said he hadn’t heard the theory, but it shouldn’t be ruled out.

“All things are possible,” he told BuzzFeed News. “I haven’t heard that specifically, but I think our candidates are doing their very best to make sure that we have a message that resonates all over the place and with all constituencies, and I hope that whoever our nominee will take to heart the opportunity to win votes in non-traditional Republican camps.”

The senator, who recently endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio, also said that Trump has made an effort to meet with black voters in his home state. "He had a meeting in North Charleston where I believe over 100 young, professionals, small business owners showed up and had a very interesting and invigorating conversation with Donald, and it seemed to have gone well.”

The overflow crowd at the Gilbert, S.C., event in January.

Sean Rayford / Getty Images

Last September, Trump met with Greater Charleston Business Alliance and the South Carolina African-American Chamber of Commerce (SCAACC) at their annual meeting. Trump told the group that over-regulation is terrible for small businesses of color, for whom trying to borrow money is hard. But “they’ll lend me all the money I want,” he said according to two people present.

“You should have seen the number of heads nodding in agreement,” Stephen Gilchrist, chairman of the SCAACC, which is strongly considering endorsing Trump, told BuzzFeed News.

(Another notable feature of Trump’s speech to the SCAACC: There were a lot of empty seats, and several people BuzzFeed News spoke to at the time were just curious about Trump, not interested in voting for him. One man, referring to a poll Trump cited that gave him 25% of the black vote in a hypothetical general election scenario, said, “I don’t believe that. Where did he get that from? He got that from the comics section this morning.”)

Gilchrist, who described Trump’s courting of the business leaders that day as “impactful and engaging,” said his membership was looking for a presidential candidate who understands the problems black businesses face in the current economic climate. “When we start thinking about where we want to go economically and the leveling of the playing field that needs to occur, there are a lot of people that see value in his candidacy.”

Gilchrist, who said he met again with Trump in New York two weeks after the engagement in South Carolina, said black people have long admired Trump's business acumen — but are less familiar with his political identity.

Trump himself has been talking about black support for his candidacy. "Look, the African Americans love me because they know I am going to bring back jobs,” he said in a recent interview with Fox News. "They are going to like me better than they like Obama. The truth is Obama has done nothing for them.”

“He has not done anything for the African Americans in this country, OK?” Trump said Monday in South Carolina. “He got a free pass and he shouldn't have. Because if that were me or that was somebody else we would be taken over the coals, believe me. It would not be a good situation. President Obama has done nothing [for] the African Americans. You look at African-American youth, you look at African-Americans that are 30 years old, 40 years old and 50, in their prime — take a look at their statistics. It's very sad.”

Gilchrist said there’s truth to Trump’s statements about the state of black America related to economic prosperity.

“It’s certainly a conversation that’s being had in the African American community,” Gilchrist said. “We know there’s been a huge decline in African American-owned businesses, unemployment in our community has been at an all time high and it’s hard to get capital. It’s given rise to interest in people like Trump and even Sanders.”

Where this theory got started as a popular topic of conversation is less clear, but may trace back to a recent Politico interview with GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "If he were the Republican nominee he would get the highest percentage of black votes since Ronald Reagan in 1980,” Luntz said. “They listen to him. They find him fascinating, and in all the groups I have done, I have found Obama voters, they could’ve voted for Obama twice, but if they’re African-American they would consider Trump.”

Asked for more details on the claim, Luntz told BuzzFeed News in an email: "I just put out a release on [former New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg. That's my focus now.”

The National Black Republicans Association — which recently endorsed Trump — has said something similar, “He is the only candidate who can both unify our party and attract new, independent and conservative black voters.”

Niger Innis, spokesman of conservative group Congress of Racial Equality, is especially bullish on the effect a Trump nomination would have on the black vote for Republicans, saying his “brash, bold style” appeals “to a sizable silent black minority” and has the potential to “realign the post-Obama electorate.”

“Potentially that coalition would remake the electoral map. It would put states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in play for the GOP in ways they have not been since the ‘80s,” he said. “It would take Florida and North Carolina off the map of battleground states, and it would lead to a potential Trump landslide in the election.”

But most Republican operatives aren’t convinced.

Kevin Madden, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, acknowledged there is an opportunity for Republicans to make gains within the black community in the 2016 because Clinton and Sanders both underperform with that demographic compared to Obama and former President Bill Clinton, but added that it’s unclear if black voters will be able look past Trump’s comments.

"The challenge for Trump is whether his populist rhetoric on the economy and immigration will outweigh his negative personal ratings, which are high among minority groups, when trying to appeal to these voters,” he said.

Another strategist, Brad Todd, who until recently worked for the super PAC supporting Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s White House bid, said a Trump nomination would have a “hard time holding the Republican coalition,” so operatives are looking at other ways he could win the general. "If Trump is the nominee, it would force us to look at unusual coalitions.”

“I haven’t heard it from serious Republican operatives,” he said of the theory. "Certainly, you’ve heard that from Trump himself.”

And Charlie Black, a former senior adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, said the idea of Trump over-performing among black voters was representative of Trump’s overall personality. "His ego leads him to believe that he can attract all voter groups, but that is all wishful thinking."

In South Carolina, though they may be small in number, the people who like Trump really like Trump.

One black Trump volunteer, Joan Martin, said her affection for her candidate goes back to the 1980s. She said her father had caddied for Trump in Florida, and always spoke highly of Trump and the millionaire class. “He always said they were good to him,” she said.

As Trump spoke, she clapped and laughed as he meandered through his stump speech. “When my friends found out I was volunteering for Trump, they asked me if I was crazy for not voting for Hillary Clinton,” she said. “I just wanna tell ‘em, ‘Look, I’m not in slavery anymore. The only person I take orders from is in Heaven sitting on the throne.’”

She even explained away Trump’s “two Corinthians” mishap.

“Anybody knows it’s Roman numerals. One and two.”

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — Exactly a year ago this week, Jeb Bush gave his first major foreign policy speech as he geared up for a presidential run and insisted: "I'm my own man."

Bush repeated that line over and over again in the coming months. But a lot has changed for the former Florida governor since last February. One glimpse of the stage here at a rally on Monday evening, where Bush embraced his brother former President George W. Bush, encapsulates his fall from the presumed frontrunner for the GOP nomination to his current standing: fighting to stay relevant in the race by calling on his big brother for help.

With Bush still struggling in polls behind Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and even his once protege Marco Rubio, his family has increasingly become part of his campaign. At first, the involvement was limited to headlining fundraisers. But in the last few weeks, Bush family members — Barbara Bush and now George W. Bush — have cut ads and campaigned on his behalf.

In a 20-minute speech Monday evening, weaving in funny anecdotes from his time campaigning in South Carolina and growing up with his "big, little brother" Jeb, George W. Bush drew a strong contrast between Bush and the party's current frontrunner Trump — without ever mentioning the billionaire by name. Although he’s been off the campaign trail for nearly a decade, he also effectively made the case for Bush as a leader with a "quiet conviction and a core of conscience that cannot be shaken."

"We need somebody who can take a positive message across the entire country, someone who’s going to inspire and appeal to people from all walks of life, not just one party or just one class of people," he told the crowd. "Jeb listens to the voices of the disenfranchised. He will rise above the petty name-calling, and once elected he will not need a poll or focus group to tell him what to do. He will stand on principle. He not waiver in the wind, and he will always do what's right from American people."

"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated, but we do need someone in Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our frustrations,” he said. “We need someone who can fix the problems that cause our anger and frustrations, and that's Jeb Bush."

The shift in Bush's strategy of leaning on his last name more and more heavily underscores how important a strong showing in South Carolina is for his campaign. A fourth-place finish in New Hampshire was enough to calm some nerves, but that won't be enough this time.

Sixteen years ago, George W. Bush was able to revive his campaign with a Palmetto state victory. The South Carolina Republican Party still prominently features on its website a Feb. 20, 2000 clip from the front page of The State, proclaiming in big, bold letters "S.C. Saves Bush." It's definitely more of an uphill climb for Jeb, but Bush supporters are hoping the family name carries enough weight for a repeat headline.

"When you're in a fight for your political life, you'll pick up every weapon in the room and literally and figuratively run home to mama," said Bruce Haynes, a GOP strategist who has worked in South Carolina politics.

"There is great affinity and affection for the Bush family in South Carolina, so it's no shock that if he was ever going to embrace the brand and the family, this is the place to do it."

The dynamics of the race have completely changed since Bush made those comments last February, forcing the campaign to evolve, said Joel Sawyer, an unaffiliated strategist in the state. "The race was supposed to be Jeb vs. not Jeb and now it's become Donald Trump vs. not Donald Trump."

But change in race dynamics or not, Curt Anderson, who guided Bobby Jindal's presidential run last year, said the campaign strategy of distancing Bush from his family of two presidents was never going to work.

"Be who you are," he said. "Should've embraced it from day one. There was never any remote possibility to do otherwise."

Ahead of Monday's rally, Bush's embrace of his family didn't go unnoticed by Trump, who has been attacking George W. since the last debate on Saturday. "Funny that Jeb(!) didn't want help from his family in his failed campaign and didn't even want to use his last name.Then mommy, now brother!," he tweeted.

Trump has been targeting Bush over his brother's decision to invade Iraq. "Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?" he said during the debate. "Now, you can take it any way you want," he eventually said. "So George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We shoulda never been in Iraq."

Bush offered a strong defense of his brother during the debate, saying he was "proud" of what George W. did as president to keep America safe.

And during the rally on Monday, Jeb Bush once again came to his brother's defense, adding that the debate was "wow, kind of weird." "I never thought that at a Republican debate, we would be talking about impeaching a Republican, two-term president who is extraordinarily popular and for good reason among Republicans."

That popularity drew several undecided voters out to see Jeb Bush on Monday evening. Among the voters that BuzzFeed News spoke to, there was a common thread — they're looking for an anti-Trump candidate and are still considering Bush, but his brother influenced their decision to come out to the event and keep Bush on the short list.

Roberto Guadalupe, a 42-year-old engineer, was one of them. "I was on active duty under the president. I did two tours in Iraq, so I wanted to come out and see Jeb," he said.

Guadalupe is still deciding between Bush, Rubio, and Cruz but said the former president's presence in the state could sway undecided voters. "A lot of people here really like President Bush. They think very highly of him."

Joy Standafer, a 61-year-old nurse, said having his brother by his side could help out in an aspect she thinks Jeb Bush is lacking. "Jeb needs to come off more confident," she said.

Several also said they weren't sure the campaign's now-emphasis of the Bush name in South Carolina was ultimately going to be enough, but they're not surprised by Bush now embracing his brother and his national security record.

"It's not a predictable year," said Joe Holcomb, 56, resident of Summerville. "You gotta do what you gotta do to get the votes."

A high-tech negative attack ad — but seemingly for people who already support Clinton?

On Monday, Hillary Clinton's campaign sent a Presidents Day-themed attack ad aimed at Bernie Sanders to people who had signed up for campaign text messages.

How the text message appeared on a BuzzFeed News reporter's Android phone.

Evan McMorris-Santoro/BuzzFeed News

When recipients replied "hear," their phones would ring and a sort of radio ad would play. The ad included audio of Clinton praising President Obama and Bernie Sanders suggesting he be primaried from the left in 2012.

w.soundcloud.com

After the message played, the recipents phones would buzz again, this time with a followup text message from the Clinton campaign saying she's "the only one" who will fight to protect the president's legacy.

Evan McMorris-Santoro/BuzzFeed News

The ad struck Scott Goodstein, the creator of campaign text messaging in 2008 and a senior member of Revolution Messaging — the political firm running Sanders's digital operations — as strange.

Negative ads are generally aimed outside a campaign's list of supporters. The Clinton text message arrived in the phones of people who had signed up for her campaign texts. (That includes a lot of political reporters, as well as Clinton's political rivals.)

View Entire List ›

A guide to everything happening in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death this past weekend.

Charles Dharapak / ASSOCIATED PRESS

On Saturday, the legal and political worlds were upended when news came from Texas that Justice Antonin Scalia — the firebrand whose voice controlled the conservative legal movement for decades — was found dead.

Scalia, 79, had been a fixture on the court since October of 1986, when he took his seat on the bench after being nominated by President Reagan and approved by the Senate on a 98-0 vote.

Scalia's departure from the court has the potential to move the court significantly to the left for the first time in President Obama's presidency. While Obama already has made two appointments to the bench — and even though both of those were replacing justices appointed by Republican presidents — both of those justices had, by the time of their retirement, been consistently voting with the more liberal bloc of the court.

Now, however, the vacancy left by Scalia's death is a seat held by one of the most forceful conservative voices on the court for the past 30 years.

The unexpected vacancy raises many questions — immediately shifting the bedrock at the Supreme Court, setting up an intense battle between the White House and the Senate leadership, and changing the presidential campaign overnight.

So, what's going on with the Supreme Court, and what happens next?

The Supreme Court:

Drew Angerer / Getty Images

What happens to the Supreme Court's normal work?

The Supreme Court will continue to function with eight justices for the time being.

What happens to cases where the judges have heard arguments but haven't issued a decision?

There are 24 cases in which the justices had granted certiorari (agreed to hear a case) and held arguments but have not yet handed down a decision.

The justices vote on cases in a private conference shortly after arguments, in order to decide what the majority view of the court is and who should draft the opinion of the court. The vote, however, is only tentative: Justices can and do sometimes change their votes up to the days before a decision is handed down.

Scalia's votes in these 24 cases are now gone; there are only eight justices (or seven, if a justice already had recused herself or himself, as happened in one major case still pending) who will be deciding these cases as of now.

Since most Supreme Court cases aren't closely divided decisions, it's expected that Scalia's death won't change the outcome in most of those 24 cases.

There are two ways, though, in which they will change things — one of which is the most dramatic, immediate effect of Scalia's death.

What happens if the court voted 5-4, but hadn't issued an opinion yet, and Scalia was in the majority?

If the initial vote had been 5-4 and Scalia was in the majority, the court is now evenly divided 4-4. A tie vote on the Supreme Court, effectively, allows the lower court ruling that was being appealed to stand. But this scenario creates no national ruling like one from the Supreme Court does.

In some instances, when less than a full court was to decide an issue, the court has ordered cases for reaurgument in the next term. As a 2003 article on Supreme Court reargument notes, "there is no specific rule governing" reargument. The authors go on to add that "the practical norm governing reargument" is that reargument is ordered when a member of the court's majority requests reargument and that a majority of the justices agree.

Finally, the court could make a procedural or technical ruling — something that could get the support of a majority of the justices, and avoid a decision on the constitutional or statutory issue. An example of this would be when the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to California's Prop 8 marriage amendment on standing grounds, holding that the supporters of Prop 8 didn't have the authority to bring the appeal.

What important cases had arguments heard but no decision yet? In other words, what major cases that are in progress could be affected by Scalia's death?

There are at least four major cases where Scalia's vote may have been important to the outcome of the decision.

A public union case: In this case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the court appeared to be tilted 5-4 against the unions. Now, it's 4-4. Because the lower court — the generally liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — had sided with the unions, a 4-4 decision would mean that public unions would continue to be free to collect fees from nonunion members, called "agency fees."

Two voting rights cases: One concerns how population is considered for redistricting; another concerns how much partisanship is allowed in redistricting

An affirmative action case: This case is already being heard for a second time, over the affirmative action admissions plan at the University of Texas at Austin. (The affirmative action case was already one justice short, as Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself from participating due to her involvement in the case when she worked in the Obama administration.)

So, do we know what the Supreme Court will do with this term's close cases?

We don't know.

Linda Greenhouse wrote in the New York Times in 1985 that when Justice Lewis Powell had been out for prostate cancer surgery and recovery for a period, the court issued several 4-4 decisions — but also ordered several other cases for reargument. "If there was any principle at work here that determined which cases to preserve for reargument and which to terminate, it was neither explained nor apparent," she wrote at the time.

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein pointed to what happened after the 1954 death of Justice Robert Jackson as evidence that he expects reargument in close cases. Even in that example though, Goldstein notes that three cases were set for reargument but one was decided with the court evenly divided 4-4.

As with much of the Supreme Court's internal procedures, however, the public tends to find out how the court is dealing with an unclear issue when it decides the issue by handing down decisions or orders.

What happens to the opinions Scalia was supposed to write?

If Scalia had been writing the majority opinion in the case, it will have to be reassigned to another justice. If he was in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts decides who writes. If he was not, the most senior justice in the majority decides. All of Scalia's majority opinions were assigned to him either by the chief justice or by himself, as Scalia was the most senior justice on the court. What will happen now: Either the chief justice or the new most senior justice in the majority — likely Justice Anthony Kennedy, but possibly Justices Clarence Thomas or Ruth Bader Ginsburg — will reassign the majority opinion, but the ultimate outcome of the case is unlikely to change.

What happens to the major cases that haven't had oral arguments yet?

There are still two major cases in which the court has granted cert but has not yet heard arguments: the challenge to Texas's abortion provider restrictions and the challenge brought by several states to Obama's immigration executive actions.

Those arguments are expected to go forward as planned, but Scalia's absence could have a dramatic effect on both cases. Both cases come out of the more conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and 4-4 split decisions would let conservative decisions — upholding the abortion restrictions and striking down the immigration actions — stand. But, as discussed above, the cases also could be ordered for reargument.

(It should be noted that the court previously put the 5th Circuit's decision that upheld the abortion provider restrictions on hold, meaning that five justices already have signaled that think there's a strong likelihood that the restrictions are unconstitutional. Scalia had opposed that request, meaning his death leaves only three justices on the court opposed.)

What happens with new cases this year? The court's next term starts in October of this year. Will the Supreme Court accept new cases now for that term?

It only takes four justices to take a case. That often presents a kind of game theory regarding the potential outcome of the case: Why would four justices ask the court to take a case to decide an issue if they know the other five justices oppose their preferred outcome?

Now, though, there are only eight justices in the mix and the eight don't know who their next colleague will be — let alone when that person will be joining the court. With many petitions pending — in other words, many potential cases — the question now is how aggressive the justices will be about pushing to bring their issue up for argument.

The justices are scheduled to meet on Feb. 19 for their first conference since Scalia's death. (The conference is when the court grants cert — accepts new cases.) If the conference goes ahead as scheduled, this will be the first time to gauge the effect of Scalia's death on that process.

What happens to those emergency requests that the Supreme Court gets?

Stay applications are requests that ask the Supreme Court to stop government action or put lower court rulings on hold until further decisions can be made in ongoing litigation, either at the high court or before a lower court.

Scalia's absence, quite simply, will make it impossible for the conservatives on the court to issue a stay without support from Justice Anthony Kennedy and at least one of the liberal justices. As has been noted often since Scalia's death, the Feb. 9 order granting a stay of — effectively and temporarily halting — Obama's Clean Power Plan during ongoing litigation would not have happened had it come to the justices at their next conference.

Additionally, applications out of the 5th Circuit — Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — that previously went first to Scalia will now, under the court's rules, go to Kennedy for the time being. Most potentially close questions like this are generally referred by the justice receiving the application (called, "circuit justices") to the full court. But temporary orders often come from the individual justice and, technically, the circuit justice does have the capacity to issue a solo decision on the application (although the requesting party can then resubmit the application to another justice).

That sounds complex, but here's an example: The Supreme Court often gets last-minute request to put executions on hold. A "circuit justice" (i.e., Kennedy, overseeing applications out of Texas for now) could issue a temporary hold to allow the court more time to consider such a request.

View Entire List ›

“Then again, recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there’s really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn’t be an ideologue also.”

Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Dr. Ben Carson says Republican presidential candidates wouldn't be calling on deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement to be nominated by the next president if a member of their party currently held the White House.

Asked on WRNN 99.5 FM in South Carolina if his fellow candidates would say the same thing about waiting to nominate a new justice if there was a Republican president, Carson replied, "No, they wouldn't."

"But then again, recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there's really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn't be an ideologue also," Carson said.

Carson said the Supreme Court has become a "political tool," adding that it might be time to look at term limits for the justices.

"When we enacted that program, the average age of death was 47. And now it's 80. You know, things have changed, so we need to change with them," Carson said.

“They were well aware that things were taking place both on our soil and internationally,” said Corey Lewandowski.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said in a radio interview on Monday that the Bush administration either "ignored" or "chose to do nothing" about threats from al-Qaeda before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"In the administration of George W. Bush, the CIA was not talking to the DIA which was not talking to the FBI," Lewandowski said Monday on Breitbart News Radio. "They were well aware that things were taking place both on our soil and internationally. And, they either chose to do nothing about it, maybe through miscommunication, or weren't prepared for it, or ignored it."

"I don't know which one it was, and it's not for me to say, but what we do know is we had the worst terrorist attack on our soil during that administration — and that's very clear, in a lifetime," he continued. "And, the War in Iraq was a disaster. Those two things are basically unequivocal."

At the the Republican debate on Saturday, Trump loudly noted that it was fact the World Trade Center collapsed on Bush's watch,and that the Bush administration subsequently lied the American people to draw support for the invasion of Iraq. Said Trump at the debate: "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."

Trump is also very concerned about sexually transmitted infections.

View Video ›

Donald Trump has made several memorable appearances on The Howard Stern Show, where he is often at his most candid and crude.

As has been previously reported, it was on Stern's program that Trump said Kim Kardashian had a "fat ass" and where he explained how he made potential partners take STI tests from his personal doctor.

But there's more.

Trump told Stern in 2004 he is not a fan of anal sex.

vine.co

Trump, referencing an earlier conversation with Stern, said, "You said something a while ago about Beth (Stern's girlfriend) that amazed me, because it applies to Melania. You said you've never seen here do anything like, bad, in terms of her own personal."

"You said you've never heard her fart. Is that true? Is that amazing? In years, three and a half years," Trump continued. Stern told Trump that his girlfriend had only pooped four times in three years.

"I'm gonna say, I can say the exact say thing about Melania," Trump responded.

Stern then asked Trump if Melania ever "makes a doody." Trump replied, "I've never see any, it's amazing. Maybe they save that for after marriage."

Asked about former wife Ivana's bowel movements, Trump said, "It was a little more normal."

View Entire List ›

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Speaking at a campaign event in Greenville, South Carolina on Tuesday, Bill Clinton incorrectly said the married couple who perpetrated a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, had never been to the Middle East.

One of the shooters was raised in the region; the other had made several trips.

The former president was discussing the need to have a robust defense policy without undermining America’s core values when he made the comments.

“We got to have a strong defense, we got to have tough diplomacy. Also, in a world where the borders look more like nets than walls," Clinton said. "Keep in mind, the people that perpetrated that travesty in San Bernardino had never been to the Middle East. They were converted over the social media."

Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia for most of her life. Syed Rizwan Farook, Malik’s American-born husband, had also been to Saudi Arabia multiple times, including for several weeks in 2013 as part of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime.

Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2014 and returned with Malik after they had met online. Soon after, they married in California.

Although Malik expressed her allegiance to jihadist groups through social media, there has been no evidence to formally link the shooters, or their plot, to any larger terrorist organization, and officials have said the couple may have been self-radicalized.

Watch the speech below

youtube.com

Ric Feld / ASSOCIATED PRESS

As Georgia prepares to carry out another execution Wednesday, documents and eyewitness accounts show the state has struggled recently in setting the IV to administer lethal drugs.

In each of the state’s past two executions, the executioners took nearly an hour to set the IV in the inmate, according to timelines kept by corrections employees obtained by BuzzFeed News. Those timelines show the executioners made several unsuccessful attempts at setting the line, switching to and from different arms, and in one case resorting to the groin area.

In December, the state took 54 minutes to set the IV lines into Bryan Keith Terrell. After several attempts, the executioners were eventually able to get access in his arms.

And in the execution of Brandon Jones two weeks ago, members of the IV team spent 24 minutes trying to get an IV into Jones’ left arm. They were ultimately unsuccessful, so they tried to set another line in his right arm. They spent 8 minutes on his right arm before going back to his left for one more attempt. It didn’t work, again.

The IV team eventually had to call for the help of a doctor who was present to monitor the inmate’s vital signs during the execution. The doctor spent 13 minutes setting an IV near Jones’ groin, which the state’s execution protocol says is a last result if lines in the arm are not possible.

Afterward, one press witness noted that Jones “fought death” and that “his eyes popped open” six minutes after the warden left the room. According to a handwritten timeline from a corrections employee, pentobarbital would have already been flowing into him by this time.

Handwritten notes show that the doctor stitched the catheter near the inmate’s groin. The typed version of the employee’s notes leaves that detail out.

The doctor also did not use an ultrasound to help set the femoral line in the Jones execution. Typically an ultrasound is used to help set femoral lines. An expert referred to using an ultrasound as “industry standard” for femoral lines in a separate case on execution methods.

The notes say that the femoral line — the line set near Jones’ groin — was originally intended to be the line used to administer the lethal drugs. But just minutes before the execution, that decision was changed.

“Physicians discretion” is all spokesperson Gwendolyn Hogan would say when asked why the last-minute switch occurred.

A femoral line is the back-up plan in Georgia’s procedures because it is significantly more painful to set, more difficult to do, and can lead to problems in executions.

Executioners in Oklahoma attempted to use a femoral line in Clayton Lockett’s botched 2014 execution. They covered up the IV site with a sheet to “protect his dignity.” The sheet allowed problems happening under the cover to go unnoticed before it was too late. By the time officials noticed, the area near Lockett’s groin had near tennis-ball sized swelling and had clear liquid and blood around the IV site. A state investigation found the sheet allowed the problem to go unnoticed.

Notes from the Georgia execution also point out a sheet was placed over the site of the femoral line. Corrections spokesperson Gwendolyn Hogan told BuzzFeed News that the site was visible to executioners throughout the process.

Georgia has withheld other details about the Jones execution. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation said it could not turn over some records due to “an investigation that is currently open.”

The Georgia Department of Corrections also refused to turn over some emails to BuzzFeed News, saying the records were exempt under a statute that protects “investigation reports and intelligence data prepared by the Internal Investigations Unit.”

However, the Georgia Department of Corrections insists there was no investigation or review into the Jones execution.

“Again, there was not an investigation,” Hogan said. “Information was gathered by the Intelligence Unit and that information is protected by the above statute.”

Read the execution timeline:

“The question is going to be, is he too meek?”

Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Billionaire Mark Cuban said he'd like to see former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg run for president, though the Mavericks' owner wondered if Bloomberg might be "too meek" to win a presidential election.

"I have no idea, but I'd like to see him run," Cuban told WABC radio's Election Central with Rita Cosby on Tuesday. "I think he'd bring a different perspective. We know his policies, from his time as mayor of New York. We know where he stands on guns. We know where he stands on other issues. He's very, very progressive in a lot of respects on social issues, and he's somewhat conservative on fiscal issues. We know he understands business."

Cuban continued, "The question is going to be, is he too meek? And when I say meek, I mean just force of voice. You know, can he shout loud enough? Certainly in the business world he's far from meek, and he can handle himself in any circumstances, and he's proven that when he was mayor. But in this election, the way things are running right now, being loud unfortunately means something and it takes a force of voice to stand out, particularly on the Republican side."

Bloomberg is reportedly considering a run, and sees an opportunity for an independent candidacy if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were to become the nominees for their respective parties.

In race with Trump and Clinton, said Cuban, Bloomberg's lack of charisma might be a negative.

"So, if you get into a race where he's the independent candidate, most likely the Republican candidate — and let's just say it's Hillary on the Democratic side, it's going to be loud. It's going to be boisterous. And I don't know how he'd fit, and even more importantly, I don't know how he'll be perceived," he said "And if he's not loud and he's kind of reserved in how he speaks, you know, will that be perceived as negative? Will that be perceived, that he doesn't, he doesn't have what it takes to be president? And you hate to think, that those are decision points for people, but they may be."

Cuban added that he isn't ready to pick a candidate, but he again encouraged Bloomberg to run to see if he would change the tone of the debate.

"Yeah, I mean look at I'm not ready to, we've got enough time, that I'm not ready to pick a candidate yet, or endorse anybody," Cuban said. "But I certainly would encourage him to run so that we can see, you know, where he is on the issues and others can see where he is on the issues, and more importantly, to see if it changes the tone of the debate. You know, with Michael coming in, if he comes in, like I said, there might be issues that he's not, he's not loud and that might impact people's perceptions. But if he can change the tone of discussion. If he can make it so that we're actually debating issues and looking for details on where they stand on issues, and getting into minutia in some cases, I think if he can drive that, then that would be a huge benefit."

“Is there an Antonin Scalia, Jr.?”

Alex Wong / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said on Tuesday that the Senate would likely confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace Antonin Scalia — if the president nominated "a Justice Scalia clone."

"What I've heard leader McConnell say and maybe he said something else is, let's, in the end, let the American people decide," the Republican senator said on the Big John Howell Show on Chicago radio. "So hey, if President Obama appoints a Justice Scalia clone, my guess is we confirm a Justice Scalia clone. That's not gonna happen. We already know the type of justices he put on the court and so I doubt a liberal activist justice, judge, would be confirmed by the Senate."

Johnson went on to say that the Senate "might" hold hearings for the person nominated to the court, but that it didn't make "much political difference" whether they didn't act or voted the nominee down.

"I don't think Chuck Grassley or Senator McConnell are saying no process whatsoever," Johnson said. "They're just saying, their advice is, let the American people decide in 2016 and if we do vote and we vote 'no' on confirmation that would be saying let the American people decide the direction of the court by having the next president choose."

Asked if he had heard any names that he would vote to confirm, Johnson answered, "No. No. Is there an Antonin Scalia, Jr.?"

Joshua Lott / Getty Images

Killer Mike has become a major — and effective! — surrogate for Bernie Sanders over the past year and went to Morehouse College on Tuesday to make the case for Sanders.

During a riff in the speech comparing Sanders and an unnamed Hillary Clinton, Killer Mike quoted an activist who said that a uterus did not qualify someone for the presidency:

When people tell us, 'Hold on, wait a while.' And that's what the other Democrat is telling you. 'Hold on, Black Lives Matter. Just wait a while.' 'Hold on, young people in this country, just wait a while.' And then she — she get good, she have your own mama come to you. Your own mama say to you, 'Well, you're a woman.' But I talked to Jane Elliott a few weeks ago, and Jane said, 'Michael, a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to be — you have to have policy that's reflective of social justice.' Paying women a fair wage is social justice. Making sure that minorities is social justice. Ending a bullshit drug war is social justice. Making sure our children can go to college is social justice.

His full speech (starting around the 33-minute mark):

youtube.com