Alex Wong / Getty Images

One of the stranger stories about Donald Trump to emerge this election cycle is that, on occasions in the past, he posed as his own publicist using the alias "John Baron" when speaking with the press.

Author Jerome Tuccille, who wrote a biography on Trump in the 1980s, had a run in with Baron when conducting research for the book — and told BuzzFeed News he only realized it was Trump when it was revealed this election cycle in press reports.

Tuccille wrote about his interaction with Baron in 1985 book, Trump: The Sage of America’s Most Powerful Real Estate Baron.

“This is John Baron of the Trump Organization, I understand you’ve been calling people all over town harassing them and misrepresenting yourself," Tuccille recounts Baron saying in the book.

“Nonsense,” replied Tuccille. “I’ve kept Donald informed every step of the way about the book. I still hope to see him.”

Tuccille told BuzzFeed News in a phone interview this week he now realizes that “Holy shit, it was the Donald.”

“It was just a revelation to me,” Tuccille said. “That the man is duplicitous and that’s how he operates. It’s just the way he does business.”

The author said Baron issued a threat, not mentioned in his book, which caused him to shift all of his assets to his wife’s bank account.

“It was chilling,” Tuccille told BuzzFeed News. “It was chilling because I assumed that John Baron was a higher-up in his organization and that he was threatening me.”

“I think it was so-called John Baron who said I wouldn’t have a pair of socks left to my name if I went ahead with the book,” Tuccille said.

He continued, “I was spooked enough to go home and put all my assets in my wife’s name at the time, praying that she wouldn’t want to divorce me. I figured it was safer in her hands with Trump’s lawyers coming at me.”

Tuccille said that he was informed by Trump, acting as Baron, that Roy Cohn, the businessman’s longtime ally and the notorious ex-aide to Joseph McCarthy, would be in touch.

“Roy Cohn actually got me on the phone and said, ‘Do you know who I am?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, I know who you are.’ And he said, ‘Do you know what I do for a living?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ ‘I make people get down on their hands and knees and beg for mercy.’ That sent a chill up my spine at the time,” Tuccille said.

Tuccille writes in the book that, at the end of the conversation with “Baron,” the disguised real estate developer told him to send along a copy of his previous book and that he’d try to get him an interview with Trump. Tuccille said, however, that his conversation with Baron was the only time he ever talked to Donald Trump, though he heard from him after the book came out.

“To show you how he does business, after my book was published, I get a letter from Donald Trump thanking me for the professional manner that I approached his family and all this nonsense,” Tuccille said.

“And I’m thinking to myself, ‘You son of a bitch, this is just your way of doing business, threatening to sue people,” he said. “They gotta go out and hire a lawyer, maybe bankrupt themselves. And for him, it’s just a manner of doing business. It meant nothing to him. The real reason he was trying to head me off at the pass was, he had his own book coming out, The Art of the Deal, and he didn’t want me scooping him with my book. But you know, it worked in my favor in the end because I piggy-backed on sales of his book, which became a bestseller, so my book did well.”

Rep. John Lewis

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are moving forward with sanctions against Democrats for breaking rules during a sit-in for gun control, despite Democrats' efforts to cast the punishment as a direct attack on civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis.

Democrats launched their floor protest in late June, as the House was preparing to leave for the July 4^th recess without addressing gun violence. The move angered GOP leaders, and Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed the sit-in as little more than a fundraising stunt.

With punishments looming, Democrats are fighting back, painting Ryan’s decision less about enforcing the rules and more about personally attacking Lewis, one of the chief architects of the civil rights movement.

“We have time apparently to bring up a resolution condemning those of us — including John Lewis a man who has given his entire life to civil rights, to freedom of expression, who has recognized this is one of the most important civil rights of our time: the right to not be killed by a gun,” said Rep. Joe Crowley, vice chairman of the Democratic caucus, during a press conference on Wednesday.

“They will attack him, they will censure him, they will go after John Lewis in some way. I would suggest that by going after any of us you are going after John Lewis... We are all John Lewis and that's something Republicans need to understand.”

The timing of the sanctions remains unclear — as does what, exactly, those punishments are — but GOP leadership aides say they are close to announcing them. And House Republicans maintain that Lewis deserves to be penalized for being part of the sit-in as well.

"Sometimes the most popular kid in the class breaks the rules, and he needs to be treated the same way as the other kids," Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio told BuzzFeed News. "I know they have some popular figure heads, but why shouldn't everybody be treated the same if they're breaking the rules?"

"They are clearly trying to make it not about breaking the rules. But it was breaking rules."

Democrats used phones to tweet and live-stream video of the June sit-in, which is against House rules. However, members regularly use phones on the floor. Republicans have also criticized Democrats for fundraising off the sit-in. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out fundraising pleas signed by Lewis and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

"I think we can sanction anybody for trying to raise money on the House floor," said South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney. "That is a sanctionable offense. I don't know what the appropriate sanction is, but I don't care if you're a civil rights leader from the 1960s or if you've been here three days, if you raise money on the floor, that is a sanctionable offense."

"Maintaining decorum on the floor should be an important issue to everybody. I was one of the ones who defended Sen. [Chris] Murphy when he had his filibuster in the Senate — that's the rules of the body. But they didn't abide by the rules of the party. You break the rules; you deserve a penalty," Mulvaney added.

Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said if the roles were reversed, Democrats would have done the same. "If we had behaved like this during Obamacare or Dodd-Frank, I have no doubt that then Speaker Pelosi would have been swift and pretty tough in her sanctions, and she should have been."

Republicans staged a sit-on of their own in 2008 — when Democrats held the majority — over a vote on a proposal to expand oil and gas drilling. But livestreaming was not an option at the time and social media was not used as widely.

"This doesn't have anything to do with John Lewis," Cole said. "It has to do with the Democratic leadership and even the president encouraging them to break the rules. Some were fundraising while it was happening. It's an egregious set of violations. I have great deal of respect for John Lewis, but the rules are the rules. If you want to demonstrate, perfectly appropriate for you to go outside the chamber and do it."

Asked about the sanctions at a press conference Wednesday morning, Speaker Paul said his goal simply to protect the institution "so that democracy can work... so that Republicans and Democrats can actually talk to one another and be reasonable with one another."

South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford wasn’t as supportive of the move by House leadership to reprimand Democrats as some of his colleagues were — citing the civil disobedience of the 60s and 70s. But he was still sympathetic to leadership, and said that the rules were there for a reason and the House wouldn’t work well without them.

“It's an impossible position they find themselves in. At the one level, civil protest has been a part of the American experiment for a long time. Sit-ins, whether in the 1960s or Vietnam War movement have been a part of the Democratic tradition. Not widely used on the House floor — but certainly part of the Democratic tradition which makes people sympathetic to it,” he said.

“Rules are the key to the functioning of any place with 450 people. It's a tough choice from their end; they are between a rock and a hard place.”

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein at a protest in North Dakota Tuesday.

Alicia Ewen/KXMB / AP

An arrest warrant was issued for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in North Dakota on Wednesday after she was captured on video spray painting a bulldozer during a protest against an oil pipeline.

The warrant, as well as misdemeanor charges for criminal trespass and criminal mischief, were filed Wednesday in Morton County. At a news conference Tuesday, Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said Stein was "seen at the construction site actually vandalizing, spray painting, a blade on the equipment."

"This is not the way to protest," Kirchmeier added.

On Tuesday, the Bismarck Tribune posted video to Twitter of Stein spray painting the words "I approve this message" on a bulldozer.

The Morton County Sheriff's Department — which did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment — has also filed misdemeanor charges and a warrant against Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka. The Tribune reported that Baraka spray painted "decolonization" on equipment.

Stein allegedly spray painted the bulldozer at a protest over the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project that will transport crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota’s Bakken oilfields to Patoka, Illinois. The pipeline has been controversial, prompting large protests from Native American tribes, who say it will traverse sacred lands pose environmental risks.

Over the weekend, the protests turned violent as private security guards clashed with demonstrators. One protest leader said six people were bitten by security dogs and at least 30 others were pepper-sprayed.

Stein has publicly opposed the pipeline in the past and Tuesday tweeted that the issue represents a "human-rights crisis."

Though Stein's campaign did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment, on Wednesday — the day the charges were filed — she repeatedly tweet a picture of herself spray painting the bulldozer. In her tweets, she described the pipeline as "vandalism on steroids" and called on authorities to "press charges against the real vandals who bulldoze sacred burial sites."

Though Stein currently trails Clinton, Trump, and Libertarian Gary Johnson by large margins — a recent CNN poll had her getting only 2% of the vote — she has been a vocal presence during this year's election season. At the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, she repeatedly (and successfully) pitched her candidacy to hundreds of disillusions Bernie Sanders supporters.

In a statement Wednesday, Stein stood by her actions at the protest, calling the pipeline "another deadly blow to a climate teetering on the brink. It cannot be allowed to go forward."

"Our campaign supports the courageous Indigenous leaders who are taking a stand to protect future generations from the deadly greed of the fossil fuel industry," the statement added. "We approve of their vision and courage."

LINK: Multiple Injuries In North Dakota As Oil Pipeline Crews Destroy “Sacred Land”

LINK: Photos Show Why The North Dakota Pipeline Is Problematic

Mike Segar / Reuters

Republican nominee Donald Trump was faced with many examples of how Russian President Vladimir Putin undermines American interests at NBC News' presidential forum on Wednesday night — and still went on to praise Putin.

Moderator Matt Lauer asked Trump about Putin complimenting him and his compliments in return.

"Well, he does have an 82% approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here," Trump replied.

Lauer then listed off Putin's many actions in opposition to US or allied interests — including the Russian president's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, his support for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, his support for Iran, and Russian intelligence's reported involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's email.

"Want me to start naming some of the things that President Obama does?" Trump replied.

"I think when he calls me brilliant, I'll take the compliment," Trump added. Trump said Putin's praise won't affect negotiations.

"The man has very strong control over a country," Trump said. "Now it's a very different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's been a leader. Far more than our president has been a leader."

Evan Vucci / AP

During a forum on national security issues Wednesday, Donald Trump said he would work with undocumented immigrants who were admitted into the US military.

“I think that when you serve in the Armed Forces, that's a very special situation and I can see myself working that out,” Trump told NBC News moderator Matt Lauer. “It would be a very special circumstance."

Trump was responding to a question from an audience member at the "Commander-in-Chief Forum" who asked if he would consider allowing undocumented immigrants who plan to serve the ability to stay in the US.

Trump in recent days has doubled down on his hardline rhetoric regarding immigration, particularly along the US-Mexico border, where he continues to promise to build a wall.

While the Republican presidential nominee on Wednesday appeared to be open to working on some sort of residency program for immigrants who serve in the military, he made clear that they would still have to be vetted very carefully.

Trump also addressed sexual assault rates in the military, calling them “a massive problem” made worse by an ill-equipped court system.

“The court system practically doesn’t exist,” Trump said. “When you have someone who does something so evil like that there has to be consequences for that.”

He added that sexual assaults should be dealt with by a military — not civilian — court system.

Trump also defended a tweet he posted earlier this year that was critical of the low number of sex assault prosecutions and ended with: “What do those geniuses expect when you put men and women together?”

“The tweet is right,” Trump said Wednesday. “No, I’m not saying take [men and women serving] out, but something has to happen. Right now, part of the problem is no one gets prosecuted. There are no consequences.”

Mike Segar / Reuters

During NBC News' presidential forum on Wednesday night, Republican nominee Donald Trump once again asserted that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning and that he warned of its dire consequences.

The assertion was false — something that went unchallenged by moderator Matt Lauer.

At the forum, Lauer asked Trump what he had done in his life to prepare him to send US men and women into battle.

Trump responded, "Well, I think the main thing is I have great judgment. I have good judgment. I know what's going on. I've called so many of the shots. And I happened to hear Hillary Clinton say that I was not against the war in Iraq. I was totally against the war in Iraq. From a — you can look at Esquire magazine from '04. You can look at before that."

"And I was against the war in Iraq because I said it's going to totally destabilize the Middle East, which it has," he added. "It has absolutely been a disastrous war, and by the way, perhaps almost as bad was the way Barack Obama got out. That was a disaster. "

Lauer then moved on to another question.

As BuzzFeed News has reported on extensively, Trump expressed support for invading Iraq in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern and praised the invasion in the days after it commenced. Trump became a vocal opponent of the war later in 2004. He told GQ in 2008 he would get out of Iraq immediately.

Trump supported the Iraq War, praised it as a success in its early days, and then later opposed the war and argued for troops to be withdrawn immediately, which he now criticizes Obama for doing.

LINK: The Media Keeps Letting Trump Get Away With His Iraq Lie

LINK: Trump One Day Into Iraq Invasion: “It Looks Like A Tremendous Success”

Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton poked fun at Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for not knowing the city of Aleppo in Syria.

"You can look on the map and find Aleppo," Clinton said at a press conference on Thursday morning.

Earlier on Thursday, Johnson was asked on Morning Joe what he would do about Aleppo. His response: "And what is Aleppo?"

In a statement after the interview, Johnson said he "blanked."

"Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes," Johnson said in the statement.

LINK: This Presidential Candidate Does Not Know What Aleppo Is

A new book investigating the murders of eight Louisiana sex workers raises questions about a United States congressman’s alleged ties to a local prostitution hub.

In the book, Murder in the Bayou — which will be released by Simon & Schuster’s Scribner imprint next week — investigative journalist Ethan Brown cites three anonymous sources claiming Republican Rep. Charles Boustany was a “client” of some of the murdered sex workers known as the “Jeff Davis 8.” The book also reveals that the motel where some of the victims did their sex work was run by Martin Guillory, a field representative for Boustany who goes by the nickname “Big G.”

Boustany, who is now running for U.S. Senate in Louisiana, denied the allegations to the author through a spokesman. Guillory, who ran the Boudreaux Inn from the late 1990s through the end of 2004, told the author he’d met “one or two” of the sex workers, as well as Frankie Richard, their pimp. But Guillory said he was unaware of any criminal activity taking place at the motel.

Between 2005 and 2009, the bodies of eight women were discovered in the canals and swamps surrounding the small town of Jennings in Louisiana’s Jefferson Davis Parish. The victims, whose murders remain unsolved, became known in the national media as the “Jeff Davis 8.”

Brown, who has spent more than five years investigating the case, writes in Murder in the Bayou that Boustany’s name first came up in his reporting during a 2012 interview with Richard, the pimp who was briefly charged with one victim’s murder. (The charges were later dropped.)

The author then cites three independent sources claiming that some of the slain sex workers counted Boustany as a customer. One source is described in the book as a “former Jennings sex worker” who knew the Jeff Davis 8; another is described as a “friend” of some of the victims.

The third source is a witness who in 2012 told a law enforcement taskforce investigating the murders that Boustany had engaged in sexual activity with at least one victim:

I will call this witness Boustany Witness A. Taskforce investigators took Boustany Witness A seriously enough to interview her over several days in October of 2012. Boustany Witness A kept meticulous logs of her visits with the Taskforce, and according to these logs, she was interrogated by the upper echelon of the Taskforce … In an August 2015 meeting at the FBI’s Lake Charles office, I asked Agent Reed about his meeting with Boustany Witness A, and he refused to confirm or deny that such a meeting occurred. Agent Reed also refused to confirm or deny that the feds have received information that Boustany patronized any of the Jeff Davis 8.

Brown stresses in the book that “there is no evidence that either Congressman Boustany or Big G had any involvement with the murders of the Jeff Davis 8.”

In a statement provided to the author, Boustany’s then-spokesman Jack Pandol said, “Dr. Boustany had no knowledge of Martin Guillory’s prior involvement at the establishment you mentioned. After double checking our office’s records, Dr. Boustany has never had any contact with any of the eight victims you mentioned. Obviously this case is a tragedy and Dr. Boustany is saddened something like this could happen in southwest Louisiana.”

Reached Wednesday by BuzzFeed News, Boustany spokesman Jordan Gleason said, “We stand by the statement provided to Mr. Brown. These are outrageous lies and Dr. Boustany has no knowledge of this whatsoever.”

Boustany’s discovery of Guillory’s connection to the Boudreaux Inn has apparently not put an end to their professional relationship. According to FEC documents, Guillory has received payment from Boustany’s current Senate campaign.

In Murder in the Bayou, Brown details police reports showing that “Frankie Richard and several of the slain workers were constantly involved in incidents resulting in police presence at the Boudreaux Inn” during Guillory’s proprietorship. One of the sex workers was accused of stealing from an apparent John at the motel; another was stabbed in the head during an altercation there.

“Big G” Guillory himself shows up in a July 22, 2003, incident report in which the Sheriff’s Office was called to the motel because he had “pulled a black pistal [sic] on” the complainant during an argument. Guillory’s handgun was confiscated and placed in evidence, and he received a citation for aggravated assault.

Guillory did not respond to repeated requests from comment from BuzzFeed News. But he told the book’s author that he didn’t know any of the Jeff Davis 8 were engaging in prostitution at the Boudreaux Inn:

When I asked Big G if Congressman Boustany had engaged in relationships of any nature with the women of the Jeff Davis 8, he replied, “Well, of course not, that I know of. Why would that man deal with any of the women at the Boudreaux Inn?” Big G then angrily concluded the call, told me to never call him back, and warned, “I assure you when you come out with all of these allegations we’re gonna file suit against you.”

View Video ›

FOX 31 Denver

Donald Trump Jr. said Wednesday that all undocumented immigrants will have to leave the country if his father is elected, seemingly contradicting his father's suggestion earlier this week that some would be able to stay.

In a local interview with Joe St. George, a reporter for FOX 31 Denver, Trump Jr. was asked to clarify his father’s immigration policy, after the weeks of the Trump campaign oscillated between harsher and more lenient immigration policies.

"The policy is you can't start a negotiation with someone perpetrating a crime—" Trump Jr. began, before being interrupted by St. George.

"They all have to go?" St. George asked.

"Everyone does have to go," Trump Jr. clarified.

Trump Sr. began his campaign promising to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, but has recently dodged questions over whether that is still his policy. As recently as Monday, he told ABC News’s David Muir that it “could be” that some undocumented immigrants could stay in the country.

Also in the interview, Trump Jr. defended his father's campaign policy of banning certain media organizations from covering his events.

"There is one thing to be critical there is another thing to cover lies that are then retracted once the headline is published," Trump Jr. said.

When asked the reasoning behind the campaign's recent decision to end the blacklist though, Trump Jr. admitted he did not know the reason.

"I don't know -- I don't know what the policy is. Ultimately, they're gonna report what they're gonna report."

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Delivering a rebuke of Donald Trump's national security credentials here on Thursday, Hillary Clinton did something that, these days, is more unusual than not for the Democratic nominee: calling out the Republican Party.

"Republicans are just in a terrible dilemma trying to support a fully unqualified nominee. I have no sympathy for them," she told reporters during a tarmac press conference before taking off to campaign in North Carolina and Missouri.

"He's their nominee."

Clinton called on Republicans to reject what she cast as Trump's "scary" and "disqualifying" candidacy and offered a sharp response to his performance in Wednesday night's NBC News Commander-in-Chief Forum, a pair of back-to-back interviews with both candidates on national security and veterans issues.

Since late this spring, Clinton has sought to avoid alienating Republicans, attacking their nominee not on mainstream GOP policy, but as an outlier with questionable temperament, qualifications, and character — too extreme for his own party.

She and her campaign advisers have spent the summer and early fall aggressively courting endorsements from across the aisle, launching a so-called "Together For America" initiative last month aimed at Republican and Independent voters.

Rarely does Clinton put the mainstream Republican Party in her crosshairs or address the GOP in language as harsh as she used albeit briefly here on Thursday, standing on the Westchester County tarmac in front of the campaign's new "Stronger Together" Boeing 737, which shimmered nearby in the morning sun.

"Every Republican holding or seeking office in this country should be asked if they agree with Donald Trump about these statements," Clinton said.

"I was just thinking about all the presidents that would just be looking at each other in total astonishment. What would Ronald Reagan say about a Republican nominee who attacks American generals and heaps praise on Russian presidents?"

"I think we know the answer," she added.

In Wednesday's forum, Clinton received a series of tough, at times biting questions about her private email server and her support for the war in Iraq. Trump, speaking second, was not questioned by NBC moderator Matt Lauer on his public support for the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria, which he now denies he ever voiced.

Instead, Trump spoke in vague terms about a plan for ISIS he says he won't reveal for strategic reasons ("The word is unpredictable") and about what he would do in the Middle East ("Take the oil") — comments Clinton seized on Thursday morning.

Trump has not outlined his ISIS plan, she claimed, because "the truth is, he doesn't have one."

And "'take the oil?'" she said incredulously. "The United States of America does not invade other countries to plunder and pillage. We don't send our brave men and women around the world to steal oil, and that's not even getting into the absurdity of what it would involve: massive infrastructure, large numbers of troops, many years on the ground. Of course, Trump hasn't thought through any of that."

Clinton argued that terrorists would only be encouraged by a president who has made statements as controversial as Trump's — particularly, she said, his proposal late last year to ban Muslims entering the country and his attack this summer on the Gold Star family of the late Captain Capt. Humayun Khan.

And for the third time this week, she referenced an article by Matt Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which raises comments by ISIS members and spokesmen such as "I ask Allah to deliver America to Trump" as a source of concern and alarm — proof that terrorists are "rooting" for Trump.

"A very distinguished and effective former director of the National Counterterrorism Center was so disturbed by what he has seen coming from the Trump campaign that he wrote an article," Clinton said.

The research showed, she warned, that Trump would amount to a "gift to ISIS."

Ross D. Franklin / AP

PHOENIX — Before Donald Trump returned to the state for the fifth time, Latino groups here kept coming back to an old saying: "Dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres” — tell me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are.

In Arizona, the activists are quick to tell you, Donald Trump is with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the infamous hard-line sheriff of Maricopa County.

Known for his raids in heavily-Latino neighborhoods, and media-seeking, brutal measures — requiring inmates to don pink underwear or making them sleep outside in his "Tent City" jail — the 84-year-old sheriff hasn’t moderated. He has, however, become a constant presence during the 2016 campaign, frequently appearing before Trump in Arizona.

And across the street from Trump’s recent rally last week, protesters blasted ranchera songs, and held signs bearing things like, “Arizona rejects your racism. Dump Trump. Dump Arpaio.” They didn’t go inside the rally, fearing violence, but they linked the two men outside. Some groups drop the distinction: "Trumpaio."

That idea — Trump and Arpaio as two-headed monster — is just the thing those activists hope could defeat Arpaio, deliver unprecedented Latino voting, and upend the landscape of Arizona politics. If 2016 has given new life to hardline immigration policies, activists think their community, who is also listening, can produce a sharp turn in the other direction.

New Hispanic voter registration and get out the vote efforts are underway — One Arizona, a coalition of more than a dozen groups funded by Unbound Philanthropy's Four Freedoms Fund and created after the SB1070 immigration fight, recently launched an initiative to register 75,000 new Latino voters, but privately expects to get closer to 100,000. Canvassers in Phoenix, Pima County, and Tucson are out every day from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., targeting low-propensity voters.

Bazta Arpaio — a play on "stop Arpaio" in Spanish — is a political organization allowed to go after him, rather than just register voters. Taking the baton from groups like One Arizona, it is using its access to the NGP VAN voter data system, to target Latino voters that didn't vote in 2012 or those who turned 18 since the last election. The group currently has 20 staffers and is looking to add 100 canvassers for the painstaking door-to-door work.

"It's about ending Arpaio's reign and stopping Trump's rise," said Carlos Garcia, a well-respected activist in the community who works to stop deportations of parents and families. "Taking two people out with one vote."

Since becoming sheriff in 1993, Arpaio has been re-elected five times. But he did not become a national figure until immigration battles in Arizona went cross-country in the past decade. His national celebrity has coincided with a series of legal battles that have embroiled his office and damaged his reputation in Arizona, however, particularly since his last re-election.

In 2013, a federal district court ruled Arpaio had racially profiled Hispanic drivers. Two years later, Arpaio said under oath that he had hired a private investigator to investigate a judge’s wife. Three weeks ago, that same judge referred a ruling to the U.S. attorney's office to determine whether Arpaio should be held in criminal contempt of court for his repeated refusal to abide by orders to stop profiling.

Seizing on Arpaio's problems with the law, activists believe him to be more vulnerable than ever. Longtime Arizona activist Dulce Matuz, who was undocumented for 12 years, said she couldn't help thinking of Arpaio as she studied for her citizenship test and came upon a question about the "rule of law."

Arpaio, she said, has acted as if he’s “untouchable” and above the law. "He was investigating the judge's wife, who is he to do that to a federal judge?"

"He's weaker than ever and that's because of the community," Viridiana Hernandez of Bazta Arpaio said, adding that what is being exposed in court is what Latinos already knew Arpaio was doing. A common chant at protests has long been "Arrest Arpaio, not the people!"

"Community members are no longer afraid — the same community members that were targeted and separated, those are the same people organizing and hitting the streets," she said.

But despite the energy, much will depend on whether some Republican voters turn on Arpaio.

Seated under a white board that reads "Enjoy the ride" and "#ItsTime," Paul Penzone — the same man that Arpaio defeated four years ago by six points — looks the part of a detective from “Law & Order” and at 49-years-old is seen as a more seasoned challenger by Democrats. He was quick to say Republicans walk up to him to tell him they support him this time around.

"Well, why not last time?" he recalled saying to one.

"I'm tired of the sheriff, I'm tired of the nonsense," the voter responded.

But there are also those who write him off because of his party identification.

"I encounter that," Penzone acknowledged.

"But you have to simplify the message. If you or your family is in need of law enforcement to protect them, you don’t care who shows up at the door, whether there's a D or R next to their name, you care that they’re competent," he said. Talking about the Trump immigration speech hours later, Penzone joked he would give someone a "c-note" if they wore a Paul Penzone for Sheriff sign to the rally.

And while the rally was full of Arpaio fans, he garnered 60,000 less votes a day earlier in the Republican primary than he did in 2012, even though more people voted this time around.

Turning to the general election, polling has been scant. A Penzone commissioned poll showed him up by 4, while a Republican firm showed him up 45-42.

Mary Altaffer / AP

Arpaio plays dirty, Penzone argued, showing BuzzFeed News one of the sheriff’s flyers, which detailed how the Democrat will give porn and cigarettes back to inmates and that he's soft on the border and is going to let ISIS in. (Penzone, meanwhile, said, “Arpaio brought up his age last night, his energy. I’m not going to judge him on his age, I’m going to judge him on his record, which has diminished, but I'm going to let him answer for the reason for that. Maybe it's because he's spending most of his time in court.”)

He’s floated some changes to Arpaio policies — an end to racial profiling and a focus instead on immigration enforcement on criminal organizations that bring drugs into the country. But he’s less firm on what his election would mean for tent city’s fate. He may eliminate it if it's a drag on taxpayers or he may keep it, he said.

So activists aren’t exactly in love with him, not entirely unlike the voters who say Trump is unacceptable but Clinton isn't great herself. That's fine with Penzone.

"I don’t expect to be a white knight, but I do expect a fair evaluation of what I’ve done," he said, stressing that he will work with activists in good faith.

Penzone said he has worked with the Hispanic community his whole career, focusing on getting drug traffickers out of neighborhoods, with the Testigo Silencioso or Silent Witness program. He said he had two detectives who were bilingual do outreach to Hispanics so "they didn't have to come to us."

Garcia of Bazta Arpaio said he would meet with Penzone if he wins, but the experience with Arpaio means he will enter the meeting with eyes wide open, and won't be easily swayed.

"If we go talk to Penzone of course he's going to tell us he's going to give us the moon and the stars," Garcia said. "But if Penzone decides to be Arpaio we're going to be standing in the same place in four years to get him out."

On the heels of Spanish-language media in the state banding together to register Latino voters, Univision and Mi Familia Vota invited Arpaio and Penzone to a September 20 debate, but only Penzone has accepted, BuzzFeed News has learned. If Arpaio does not accept, the event will be turned into a townhall conversation with Penzone.

Penzone said he's worried about two things — voter turnout and having enough polling stations, after issues during the primary because of reduced polling stations and unexpectedly high turnout. In Phoenix, where Latinos comprise 40% of the population, the New Yorker recently reported, "There was one station for every hundred and eight thousand residents. Some precincts in the south of the city, where the majority is Latino, had no polling places at all."

(The year after Penzone last ran, in 2013, the Supreme Court overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act, which allowed Arizona to reduce the number of polling stations without federal review.)

This year, voting regulation changes in Arizona no longer allow groups like One Arizona, a nonpartisan 501C3, to collect ballots from residents, which the group says was helpful when dealing with lower propensity Latino voters.

"That was important because you have to keep reminding people," said Pita Juarez of One Arizona. "That's when that came in handy, 'Your ballot is due in two days, I can even take it for you, if you want.'"

Activists have also taken things beyond the election, to what they call direct action. When Bruce Halle, the multi-billionaire owner of Discount Tire, put signs in the windows of his stores last month reading, "Re-Elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio," he was picketed for four weeks by Bazta Arpaio and other groups until the signs were taken down. They’ve bristled too that Democrats are taking credit for things they're doing — "Stop stealing the credit from a 17-year-old kid who is registering people to vote because his mom is undocumented," Juarez said was her message to local Democrats.

But in the last month the party's coordinated campaign field efforts have seen investment from the Clinton campaign and a small, six-figure Arizona ad buy was announced last week. The Arizona Democratic Party has 160 field staff and is focusing on hiring organizers that are fluent in Spanish. Penzone has been added to the coordinated field efforts and the party is highlighting his candidacy when it speaks to Maricopa County voters.

"As we engage Latino voters with this particular race, we’re not just talking about how terrible Arpaio has been for Maricopa County, but we’re educating voters on the Democratic Party’s nominee," said Arizona Democratic spokesman Enrique Gutierrez, citing daily phone banks and canvassing shifts to warn voters of the danger of continuing Arpaio’s policies.

Ruben Alvarez, co-founder of Molera Alvarez, and a 25-year Republican veteran of Arizona politics, said defeating Arpaio will still be a challenge: Voter registration is dominated by the Republican vote and he has raised millions of dollars from donors outside of the state.

"One of the reasons [Penzone] lost the last time around is because he was painted in a negative way by Arpaio’s campaign," Alvarez said, advising Penzone to harp on what Arpaio's legal problems are costing taxpayers.

Democrats say the real impact of having two divisive figures on the ballot is that it is accelerating the demographic changes that were already happening in Arizona.

"The Democratic shift is naturally occurring but what Trump is doing is helping us accelerate it," said a Clinton official. "Trump and Arpaio are motivating people to get involved, whether we get there this year, we still have a lot of work to do. But this is accelerating it in a way we couldn't have planned for."

Back in the Bazta Arpaio offices the next afternoon, Garcia and Hernandez mulled the question of what it would mean to the community to have Arpaio lose.

"Growing up, I didn't know Arpaio, but I knew we should be afraid of him," Hernandez said, recalling that her parents once told her not to go protest in an area he patrolled. "He's been around 24 years — I've been alive 25. But my niece, she's one, she doesn't need to know who the hell Arpaio is."

BuzzFeed News' Adolfo Flores contributed reporting.

Mark Makela / Getty Images

The pro-Donald Trump PAC “Liberty Action Group” was sued in federal court last week in a class action complaint alleging that the group robocalled thousands of people without their consent.

In the complaint, plaintiff Erik Trimble alleges that the Liberty Action PAC illegally placed automated calls to his cell phone, causing him and, he alleges, thousands of others, to incur unwanted charges.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

Trimble, who says that he had not given prior consent to receive the robocalls (and even at one point asked the PAC to stop calling), claims that he and the others should be compensated up to $1,500. The complaint claims that because of the number of people the PAC illegally called, the total damages exceed $5 million.

The listed contact for the PAC on FEC records, Josiah Cammer—a 24-year-old man who appears to have no prior political experience—and Robert Reyes of Modern Media Group LLC, did not return requests for comment on the lawsuit.

The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

BuzzFeed News reported last week Liberty Action Group has raised almost $800,000 dollars, according to FEC records, but those records reveal little about where money is being spent and to whom it is going. One of the group’s largest expenditures—more than $450,000—is for an unspecified “media consultant.” No address or purposes is given on any of the disbursements at all from the group in federal filings, which prompted a letter from the FEC asking for more information. Despite FEC records showing a massive amount being spent radio ads and robocalls, the group has failed to note any money spent on independent expenditures.

BuzzFeed News reported on Tuesday that a Democratic PAC, Progressive Priorities PAC, is run by the same set of individuals, according to records and sources. On Thursday, a representative for Dr. Ben Carson said Liberty Action Group had used his name without permission. Carson's name has since been removed.

The complaint can be read below:

LINK: A Pro-Trump PAC Raised Nearly $800,000 — Where Did That Money Go?

LINK: Ben Carson Says Pro-Trump PACs Are Using His Name Without His Knowledge

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Donald Trump said in a radio interview on Tuesday that he found it "very sad" that Hillary Clinton coughed during a Labor Day campaign event.

"Well, I don't know," Trump said on the Lars Larson Show when asked if he thought Clinton is healthy. "I saw what happened yesterday. I thought it was sad. It was very sad to see it, with the coughing. But I just don't get involved in it, Lars. I just don't think it's appropriate, but hopefully she's gonna be OK. But that was a tough, that was a tough, that was a tough period of time she had yesterday, there's no question about it."

Trump seems to have gotten over any uneasy about discussing the cough. On Tuesday, he said the media was not covering Clinton's cough.

Conspiracy theorists have said video of Clinton coughing shows she's suffering from an undisclosed illness. Clinton joked that she was coughing because “Every time I think about Trump I get allergic.”

Gabriella Demczuk / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk from Illinois said on Thursday that the Obama administration should not have sent $400 million in cash to Iran that coincided with the release of four detained Americans, stating that the US didn't need to get its hostages back.

"I chair a committee of Senate Banking on international security," Kirk said on the Steve Cochran Show on Thursday on WGN Radio. "We're going to be doing a hearing coming up on the $400 million ransom payment that was made by the administration to Iran. I would note, when we look at the details, they made the payment in cash. It was 500 euro notes and the irony is the European Union has already discontinued the 500 euro note because they worried that note was so heavily used in drug trafficking and terror."

Cochran interjected, "It's just so clumsy because we had to get our guys back but there had to be a way to get them back without making—"

"But you know, we didn’t have to get our guys back," Kirk replied. "We shouldn’t have paid the ransom. The irony is the State Department, shortly after the payment was made, issued a worldwide travel alert to Americans saying, ‘you know there are a lot of people out there looking to kidnap an American in return for a ransom payment.’"

A Kirk spokeswoman clarified his comments in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

"Senator Kirk has been clear that paying ransom for American hostages to the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism puts more Americans in danger and believes the Iranian prisoners released from the U.S. to Iran should have been the sole basis for exchange."

Kirk explained in the radio interview that he wanted to make sure a price wasn't put on Americans heads for kidnappers when traveling abroad.

"And I want to make sure you as an American citizen, you get to travel to any country that you want to," said the senator, citing the Beirut bombing of a U.S. barracks in the 1980s. "We shouldn’t put a price on the heads of Americans, in this case it was $400 million. $100 million per person. I've just backed legislation by Senator Rubio of Florida to block any ransom payments and make sure that any money from the judgement funds, which the president used as the source for this payment, go to the victims of Iranian terror."

Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Democrats are putting renewed pressure on Republicans to act on certain priorities — Zika funding, gun control, and approving their Supreme Court nominee — dispatching Vice President Joe Biden to the Capitol to help make their case on Thursday.

With the election two months away, Democrats are pushing their "Do Your Job" campaign, arguing that Republicans, who have the majority in both chambers, are stalling on issues where there is a national consensus in the Democrats' favor. Several Democrats from both the House and the Senate lined up on the steps of the Capitol and sporadically chanted "Do your job" in 90-degree weather Thursday afternoon, as Biden spoke of the dysfunction in Congress.

"This is a national emergency. If you care about children — and that's the argument that a lot of our conservative friends are making dealing with Planned Parenthood — if you care about them, wake up, man," Biden said of Zika on the steps of the Capitol alongside Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

"The health of the country at large is at stake. Act!"

A bill that would fund efforts to combat Zika has failed three times in the Senate, after Democrats filibustered due several riders they describe as "poison pills" inserted by Republicans.

Biden also spoke of his time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urged GOP leadership to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a vote.

"You don't have to support Merrick Garland...vote 'no,' but give him a vote," he said. "We're setting a dangerous precedent in this institution that I love."

Garland returned to Capitol Hill a few hours before Biden's visit for a photo-op and to meet with Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee. Garland was nominated in March.

The vice president also asked Republicans to allow a vote on a gun control measure that would make it harder for those on the no-fly list to buy firearms.

"If you're on the watch list, you shouldn't be able to go in an buy a weapon," he said. "We've already had three bites out of that apple here with lone wolves acting and devastating communities."

Biden closed by stressing his close relationship with Republicans on the Hill. The vice president spent nearly four decades in the Senate.

"I have a close personal relationship with the Republican leadership," he said. "[Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and I worked well together. I worked well with John McCain, who is always beating up on me. He's my friend...and with Paul -- the speaker of the House. So I never tell another man or woman what their responsibility is, what their duty is and how they should vote. But look guys...I can't tell you how many times the dysfunction in Washington has affected our ability to get things done."

"The single most significant thing we can do now is act on all of those things that are an absolute consensus and fulfill your constitutional responsibility."

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON – Speaker of the House Paul Ryan condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin at a press conference Thursday morning, but pointedly refused to comment on Donald Trump's praise for the Russian leader.

At an NBC forum Wednesday, Trump cited Putin's high approval ratings and said he's more of a leader than Barack Obama. Ryan took the opposite approach at a Thursday press conference, calling Putin an adversary and "an aggressor that does not share our interests."

Ryan was asked repeatedly asked about Trump's comments.

"He praised Vladimir Putin and said that he’s a better leader than the United States. Do you still think Hillary Clinton is the worst thing that can happen?” one reporter asked.

At the press conference, Ryan refused to comment on the presidential race. “You think I’m going to stand up here and be an election pundit? I’ve got other things to do," he said.

When asked if he still feels comfortable voting for Trump, Ryan again refused to comment.

“I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Ryan later told BuzzFeed News that "In reading the speaker’s comments on Putin it’s clear he does not agree" with Trump.

This post has been updated with a comment from a Ryan spokeswoman.

On Tuesday evening, Sean Hannity had a special guest. It was someone who has played an important role in highlighting Hillary Clinton’s email and foundation scandals, someone who threw a wrench into the election by bringing questionable behavior among Democrats to light. Long story short, this person was the perfect Hannity guest.

The weird thing about it was that it was Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder appeared from his exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, clad in a suit, beamed across the Fox News airwaves to Hannity’s studio in New York, and causing cognitive dissonance everywhere as Hannity questioned Assange on upcoming Clinton releases that Assange promises are coming. WikiLeaks has already been a player in this election, making waves earlier this summer when it released unflattering hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Then, Hannity signed off with some praise for the man he once criticized. “I do hope you get free someday,” the host told him. “I wish you the best.”

Hannity has said that he isn’t a journalist and that he openly wants Trump to win. The Assange interview was the apotheosis of Hannity's commitment to doing what it takes to oppose Clinton: going after her even if it meant giving a sympathetic platform to an anti-American, pro-Russian figure hated by the right.

This year, Hannity’s program has become an object of fascination, rage, and at times mockery, particularly among the conservatives still not on board with Donald Trump. Hannity is one of the loudest voices in the media constellation of Trump boosters — from Breitbart News, whose chairman is now the CEO of the Trump campaign, to Matt Drudge — who appear at times to work in tandem with the campaign. Any casual viewer of Hannity’s television show or listener to his radio program can see that Hannity devotes a large amount of time to Trump. The New York Times reported that Hannity has even become a kind of informal adviser to the candidate.

But Hannity isn’t the one who’s changed. He gave John McCain and Mitt Romney similarly generous treatment when it came to the general election. The difference this time is that Trump is an intensely polarizing figure, and Hannity has broken with much of the conservative punditry establishment in backing him to such a pronounced degree. His show is now a glimpse into the mind-meld of a certain segment of the conservative media with Trump’s campaign and the movement he represents. Hannity's story plays into some dominant themes of this election; how the Trump campaign has broken new ground by becoming a sort of media organization in its own right, and how the conservative movement has tried and failed to stamp out the ascendant nationalist Trumpist movement, forcing longtime conservative warriors like Hannity to either get on board or risk irrelevance. Winning has become an ideology of its own, and Hannity is dead set on winning.

“It’s boosterism,” said Brad Thor, a conservative author who has harshly criticized Trump but thinks highly of Hannity, whom he says “has always been very nice to me,” in an email last month. “Sean, Drudge, and Breitbart saw a wave coming and they decided to ride it. That's their job — to do well. They are private businesses. And they have done very well backing Trump.”

“Conservatives in general, though, have been far too trusting of rightwing media to be gatekeepers and ambassadors of their brand,” Thor said. “Not all of us are aligned.”

“I told the audience what I was going to do, I did it, and now people are critical I did it that way,” Hannity says.

Hannity says this isn’t his first time coming under fire for his aggressive advocacy.

“Eight years ago I was vetting Obama in probably the most aggressive fashion in the country,” Hannity told BuzzFeed News. “I took a lot of heat then. I had prominent conservatives calling me and saying I was ruining my career.”

And Hannity points out that he never hid his intentions. In speeches to CPAC last year and this year, Hannity said that he would give each of the primary candidates as much time as possible on radio and TV and that he would support whoever the voters chose as the nominee. Hannity sees this as “a service to the audience.”

“I told the audience what I was going to do, I did it, and now people are critical I did it that way,” Hannity says.

Hannity says there hasn't been an honest effort on the part of the media to understand his motivations: "Nobody who interviews me gives a rip about why I do what I do and say what I say," he said.

Still, friends and friendly colleagues — and Hannity has many — don’t quite know what to make of this year. Some are dismayed with Hannity’s Trump support; others think he’s been criticized too harshly for doing what he always has. He’s known as a hard worker, spending hours a day on air both on the radio and on TV. “He is the most loyal and kind person to work for and he's passionate,” said a former Hannity producer.

“He gets to know everyone’s staff and he really is just such a friendly person, and what’s almost refreshing about it for people is he’s not corrupted by being a New York City star,” said Elise Jordan, a Republican operative who worked on Rand Paul’s campaign and who used to go on Hannity’s show semi-regularly.

“I just don’t get the whole outrage over his role in this election,” Jordan said, noting that Hannity has been open about not being a journalist and that she believes Hannity would do the same with any Republican nominee. “I might completely disagree with his ideology but I still really like him and think the world of him as a person."

But his role vis-a-vis Trump this cycle has confounded many, including colleagues at Fox. "I don't watch his show anymore,” said one Fox News source. “It's very predictable. He's had Donald Trump on more than anyone, and how many of those shows have made news? None."

“I will enthusiastically pull the lever for Donald Trump,” Hannity said, reeling off a list of issues including the Supreme Court, border security, and taxes, on which he believes Trump is clearly a better choice than Clinton. Conservatives who are still resisting Trump, Hannity said, should “suck it up" and are showing a "stubbornness and arrogance that is bordering on sabotage, because I think some elites want to be able to stick their fingers in the faces of the voters."

"I can understand ratings... I can't understand the abandonment of conservatism."

Some ascribe a more cynical motive to Hannity when it comes to Trump: ratings.

"I can understand ratings,” the Fox News source said. “I don't like them, but I understand them. I can't understand the abandonment of conservatism."

Hannity, a registered Conservative in New York, argues that it’s his critics who are the ones doing the abandoning.

The ratings are good, however. His radio program, which has been syndicated since the day before the 9/11 attacks, is only bested by Rush Limbaugh when it comes to audience size. According to Nielsen ratings figures provided by a Fox News spokesperson, Hannity’s TV show averages 2.4 million in total viewers and 500,000 in the 25-54 demographic, and is up double-digits from the same time last year.

Those shows have seen different iterations over the last 15 years. For 12 years, Hannity wasn’t just Hannity: He was one half of Hannity & Colmes, facing off every night against liberal co-host Alan Colmes. The program was in the vein of the Crossfire-style point-counterpoint programs that have now gone by the wayside in favor of greater ideological uniformity at the cable networks. Hannity told the New York Times in 1999 that Roger Ailes had asked him, “You know any good liberals?” and that the show’s working title had been “Hannity & LTBD” — “Liberal To Be Determined.” Colmes left in 2008. Hannity appears to think fondly of him; in 2013, he told the Hollywood Reporter that the two talk “almost every day.”

Alan Colmes (left) and Hannity

Duffy-marie Arnoult / WireImage

Years later, Hannity still relies on the occasional liberal guest to spice things up. But in Colmes’ absence, his show has struck many as becoming one-note — sometimes literally, as Hannity has hosted a number of townhalls with Trump that take up the entire show.

At his core, Hannity is a party guy despite his image as a smashmouth conservative talker. While he often criticizes Republican establishment figures, in the end he’s most interested in taking on liberals and defeating Democrats electorally. “Hannity has long been among the biggest party loyalists on talk radio. While he would identify himself as a conservative first and a Republican second, he has long embraced a party leadership role,” said Brian Rosenwald, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies conservative media. Rosenwald says he has “uncovered tons of cases in which he emceed rallies, hosted fundraisers, etc for GOP candidates."

That enthusiasm for party sent Hannity down a peculiar path over the last five years. After the Republicans failed to win the White House in 2012, Hannity announced that he was “evolving” on immigration and that he supported a pathway to citizenship — in line with the thinking at the time. On air, he was friendly with Marco Rubio, who then seemed poised to be the next GOP nominee.

The evolution didn’t last long. And in the run-up to the 2016 election, with the Gang of Eight immigration bill fiasco a close memory, Hannity no longer evinced an affinity for establishment figures and causes.

Last year, Hannity interviewed several of the presumptive presidential candidates onstage at the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to two sources, Hannity became agitated backstage before Jeb Bush’s appearance. There were rumors that the crowd would loudly boo Bush and even walk out of the venue. Hannity “freaked out,” according to a source who witnessed the scene. Worried about being booed, Hannity attempted to convince Bush to change to a sit-down interview to calm the crowd. Bush ended up going ahead with his original plan of standing up, but “Hannity had to be talked off a ledge,” the source said.

Hannity disputes that characterization of the incident, saying that when he was giving his own speech to CPAC earlier that day and mentioned Bush, whose name was booed, and that he had simply warned Bush about the booing. “I just had a standing ovation — why would I be afraid to go out there?” Hannity said. “Number one, I’m actually very chill, I don’t freak out. I can do this in my sleep.”

The interview itself went on without incident, and no walkout occurred. Hannity is known for his kid-glove approach to Republican politicians of whom he approves, and for a while most of the Republican candidates could count on his show as a safe haven to spread their message and not have to answer tough questions. Hannity hosted hour-long townhalls with Cruz and Trump during the primary, a practice he has continued with Trump in the general election. Hannity told BuzzFeed News that he offered Cruz a town hall every time he offered Trump one during the waning days of the primary when they were the two remaining viable candidates, but that Cruz was harder to book.

Hannity is known as a hands-on kind of host, not leaving everything to his producers

Hannity is known as a hands-on kind of host, not leaving everything to his producers, and is known as being competitive about landing interviews. According to a Republican operative who has worked on campaigns that dealt with Hannity, Hannity calls candidates and their staff personally to book interviews.

“He would call you personally and make it impossible to say no,” the operative said.

“He's competitive when it comes to this election and winning for the Republican Party,” said the former Hannity producer. “That has always been at the root of his hard work, efforts. But Sean is also very talented and knows it’s important to bring in ratings and be competitive on TV as well. If Trump was doing that — then he would make it a priority to have him on.”

Hannity’s gotten personally involved in key campaign moments. During the period in which Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and Mike Pence were all vying to be Trump’s running mate, Hannity was one of the key people pushing Gingrich. CNN reported that he flew Gingrich out to meet with Trump in Indiana before Trump made his final decision.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, right, and Fox News host Sean Hannity, talk off air.

Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

Hannity’s efforts to promote Trump have at times struck observers almost like a tacit job application. Rumors swirled during the Republican convention in Cleveland that Hannity had expressed interest in serving as White House chief of staff in the Trump administration. (Hannity denies these, saying he has never asked for a job with Trump. He also dismissed rumors that he might join some kind of future Trump media organization in the event Trump loses. Would he ever consider any sort of job with Trump? “If I had no money and no job,” Hannity says, he’d consider it.) And he has defended Trump privately, too; a source with knowledge of the incident told BuzzFeed News that in the Fox News greenroom in Cleveland, Hannity cornered Utah Sen. Mike Lee — a Trump critic who became one of the most prominent figures in the Free the Delegates movement at the convention — and berated him for not getting on board with Trump, telling Lee he needed to get over his ego.

“At first it started out in a stern but friendly tone but it was enough that there were people who left the green room” as the conversation became “heated,” the source said.

Hannity said he and Lee are “friends” and that he didn’t remember such an argument. “I think maybe once we might have discussed [Lee’s opposition to Trump] mildly or briefly but I don’t remember where,” Hannity said. “We’ve never had a negative word towards each other at all.”

There’s no doubt that in giving Trump such a major platform over the course of months, Hannity played a role in his ascendancy to the nomination (though the same could be said for a number of other figures in the cable news world). Hannity has a friendly relationship with Trump going back years (“I do like Donald Trump’s ties”, he told GQ in 2011). And Trump is a ratings boon. These two factors — combined with the fact that Hannity’s move to the 10 p.m. slot in 2013 put him at a disadvantage ratings-wise — have been viewed as a driving force behind Trump’s omnipresence on Hannity’s show. According to a source with direct knowledge of the conversation, Hannity called Trump after Trump made his initial Iowa appearance in January 2015, urging him to enter the presidential race. Hannity told BuzzFeed News he never urged Trump to get in the race. “I’m friends with Donald Trump, I talk to him, and I talk to every other candidate,” Hannity said.

But that’s not to say that Hannity has always favored Trump in this particular election, or that his motivation during that time was to help him succeed in the race. Last summer, Hannity held a panel on his show with two guests. The topic was the nascent primary campaign that summer, and particularly Trump, who at the time was still considered an entertaining anomaly by most of the media and political class. After the segment wrapped up, according to one of the guests on the panel, Hannity turned to his two guests to ask them if they thought Trump could win. Neither did — and nor did Hannity, who laughed about Trump’s candidacy and said he didn’t think he could win the nomination, referring to him as an “idiot” in over his head, according to one of the panelists who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Hannity says he never said any of this and described the anecdote as “total bullshit,” saying “those words never came out of my mouth.”

Times, clearly, have changed. And not just in the campaign. Hannity’s increased behind-the-scenes Trump advocacy has come at a time of extreme turmoil in his network. Hannity is seen as a loyalist of Roger Ailes, the Fox News boss ousted following revelations that he allegedly sexually harassed female employees at the network. Hannity called the allegations “all BS” on Twitter — an assertion that hasn’t aged well considering Fox settled with Gretchen Carlson, the first Ailes accuser, for $20 million. Ailes, for his part, is now advising Trump and assisting with debate preparations.

“I do think that he thinks he's under attack,” a Fox News source said.

Hannity has been relatively tight-lipped in public about the drama at Fox, telling the Washington Post on Wednesday, that “I have no comment about any of these topics involving the Fox News Channel and what’s happened.” But his public persona has become more conflict-driven over the past few months as his feuds with various other media and political figures have become increasingly aggressive. He’s recently gotten in drawn-out public spats with CNN’s Brian Stelter and with the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens — another prominent voice from the Murdoch media empire, whom Hannity referred to as a “dumbass” and an “asshole” after Stephens called him “America’s dumbest anchor.”

“I do think that he thinks he's under attack,” a Fox News source said.

Recently, Hannity traded barbs with Glenn Beck, who has staunchly opposed Trump. “Glenn Beck is like on a — it's a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he's off the rails attacking me every day,” Hannity said on his show. Beck responded: “Don't condemn him. Please. The pressure on this job, the pressure on him, is enormous. Enormous! I truly believe he is trying to do the right thing. We just strongly disagree.” And earlier this week he got into a drawn-out Twitter fight with National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. The spats don’t bother him, he says. Asked if he’s worried about burning bridges with former allies, Hannity dismissed the idea.

“Burning bridges? Who am I serving here? Am I going to live my life caring what people at WSJ and the NRO think of me?” Hannity said. “You can’t live your life caring how the punditry class thinks of you.”

Hannity blasted Beck and others who still oppose Trump for their “mysterious reluctance and sabotage” and he partly blames them for the fact that Republicans have not fully unified behind Trump. Hannity calls them out for their “constant negativity towards Trump, who’s offering you a pretty good vision.”

Regardless of whether Trump is offering a clear vision, or the vision is to your taste, Sean Hannity hasn’t done much different. The outrage about Hannity’s support of Trump from conservative figures didn’t happen when Hannity was similarly supporting McCain or Romney. In a year where Republicans are more divided than ever, Hannity has become a symbol of that division and a flashpoint for anti-Trump frustrations.

“I think the reason you’re seeing it’s appearing he’s going out of his way for Trump is you might not be taking into account that this is a unique election because the GOP is splintered in media, there’s an anti-Trump faction in media,” said AJ Delgado, a Trump surrogate and adviser who regularly goes on Hannity’s show. “Normally where you see the entire GOP pundit class behind one person, that’s why Sean appears to stick out.”

Delgado said she never feels pressured to say anything on Hannity’s show and that she appreciates how he hasn’t pigeonholed her to just speak about Hispanic issues. As for the rumors of Trump TV, she dismissed them as “just rumors.”

Hannity says he is under contract for both radio and TV until the end of 2020. He makes millions of dollars hosting his radio show, for which he signed a contract with Premiere Networks in 2013. It’s for this reason that some dismiss out of hand the rumors that Hannity wants some kind of role with Trump in the future. But as speculation ramps up that Trump is building some kind of media organization for after the election, a possible future for Hannity could take shape. One Fox News host speculated to New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman that Hannity would join Trump’s media outlet in a recent story. “I have no idea where that mysterious story popped up from,” Hannity says of Trump TV rumors, and he says no one in Trump’s world has approached him about such a move.

On Tuesday, Greta Van Susteren announced she was leaving Fox News, taking advantage of a “key man” clause in her contract that allowed her to leave in the event of Ailes leaving, which he has. In a statement, Van Susteren said that Fox no longer felt like home to her. It’s believed that other big names at Fox, including Hannity, also have the key-man clause in their contracts. In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Hannity would not talk about details of his contract beyond its length.

But “it would take a lot for him to leave,” the former Hannity producer said, pointing out that Ailes is not the only higher-up Hannity is close with. Bill Shine, who is now in control of the network, was once his producer.

So Hannity may stay where right where he is — the same “cheerful soldier,” as one Fox News source put it, continuing to do the same work he’s always done. It’s the world that has shifted around him.

"At the end of all this he'll still be cheerful,” the source said, “but who knows what he'll believe."

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Voters in Michigan will continue to be allowed to vote a straight-ticket ballot — casting their votes for all candidates of one party with a single mark — following a Supreme Court order issued on Friday morning.

Straight-ticket voting has been allowed in Michigan for more than 100 years, but legislation signed into law in January was set to end that practice this November until a federal judge halted enforcement of the law earlier this summer.

Friday's Supreme Court action formally is an order denying Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson's request to put the district court's injunction on hold during Johnson's appeal of the injunction. Johnson, a Republican, had requested a ruling by Thursday, the day before a ballot wording deadline.

In the brief Friday morning order denying the stay request, in which the justices gave no reasoning for their decision, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted that they would have granted the stay.

After the legislation was signed into law in January, a lawsuit challenging the new law was filed by the Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute and others in March. A federal court ruled that the law likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and, accordingly, issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law.

Neither the district court nor the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals would issue a stay of the injunction pending the state's appeal, leading Johnson to seek a stay from the Supreme Court on Sept. 2.

Mary Altaffer / AP

The House passed a bill Friday that will allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts over its alleged involvement in the attacks.

The bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, will authorize US courts to hear cases against foreign states for injuries or death resulting from an act of international terrorism by reducing the states' scope of foreign sovereign immunity.

The bill, which was passed in the Senate in May, cleared the house by voice vote on Friday, two days before the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. President Obama is likely to veto the controversial bill.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters in July that the administration was opposed to the bill because it "could open up" US companies and personnel "to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas."

He said the White House was concerned about protecting sovereign immunity which benefited the US and its interests in different countries.

"There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity," Earnest said. "And when you’re the most powerful country in the world, you’re invested in the idea of sovereign immunity, given how deeply the United States is involved in so many other countries."

In April, Earnest said it was "difficult to imagine a scenario in which the President would sign the bill as it's currently drafted." He said that since 9/11 the Saudis were focused on efforts to counter extremist ideology and the two countries were working together to fight terrorism.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called on Obama to sign the bill into law after the vote, saying, “Today’s vote sends an unmistakable message that we should combat terrorism with every tool we have, and that the families of those lost in attacks like that on September 11^th should have every means at their disposal to seek justice."

Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes, told reporters in April that while the White House was "sympathetic to the concerns of 9/11 families," they objected to the bill's principle of undermining sovereign immunity.

However, the bill's proponents said it would fix a law that has shielded foreign countries to finance and enable large-scale terrorism. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said in a statement Wednesday, "The victims of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on US soil have suffered much pain and heartache, but they should not be denied justice, and so, I am telling the House: pass this bill."

The Cube

Mike Windle / Getty Images

Independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin says if elected he might want billionaire Mark Cuban as his vice president. Cuban told BuzzFeed News he's open to the idea.

"Mark Cuban is somebody, frankly, we’ve talked about, but I haven’t spoken with him directly but that sort of person, somebody who understands, somebody who’s been an entrepreneur, somebody who understands the bigotry and divisiveness of Donald Trump isn't something that helps our country," McMullin said on the Alan Colmes Show on Thursday evening.

McMullin has said he is using a placeholder vice presidential candidate on the ballot until he picks his potential running mate. Cuban, who is currently backing Clinton, says he's open to discussing it if McMullin were to win.

"If he gets elected I'm happy to discuss :)," Cuban wrote to BuzzFeed News.

McMullin has said his campaign's goal is take enough votes to deny either candidate a majority and throw the election into the House of Representatives.