Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

North Carolina State Board Of Elections Extends Voting In A Handful Of Precincts

$
0
0

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

Sara D. Davis / Getty Images

Groups in Durham County, North Carolina, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, asking for polls there to be kept open an extra 90 minutes — until 9 p..m. — due to voting issues that allegedly took place earlier in the day.

The lawsuit is based on alleged issues with "the use of the electronic pollbooks" in about five Durham precincts, the lawsuit claims.

Additionally, the North Carolina State Board of Elections met at 6 p.m. to consider whether to adjust any poll closing times — which are set to close at 7:30 p.m. — under state law.

At the meeting, the board voted to extend voting in seven Durham precincts—two by 60 minutes, one by 45 and three by 30 minutes or less. They also voted to extend voting in one precinct in Columbus County for 30 minutes.

After informed of the results of the board meeting, the judge hearing the legal challenge denied the request.


NEVADA

NEVADA

Judge Gloria J. Sturman

Via lasvegasnow.com

A state judge in Clark County, Nevada, rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit in a fiery hearing on Tuesday morning.

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in state court on Monday, asking for ballots and voting machines to be "set aside, sequestered, and impounded" from four early-voting locations. The campaign alleged that people at those locations were allowed to get in line and vote after the time for voting had concluded on Friday, Nov. 4.

A little before noon, local time, on Tuesday, Judge Gloria J. Sturman denied the request, after a hearing.

At the hearing, she expressed significant, repeated skepticism of almost every aspect of the lawsuit — from the campaign's standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place to the question of whether other relevant parties like the secretary of state had appropriate notice to the remedy the campaign was seeking.

"You've failed to exhaust [your] administrative remedies," she said, noting that the Trump campaign should have first asked the secretary of state to address the campaign's concerns.

Sturman also expressed significant concern about whether an order in the Trump campaign's favor would lead to poll workers being harassed — after what she has seen from "trolls" on Twitter.

"I am not going to expose people doing their civic duty to help people vote ... to public attention, ridicule, and harassment," she said. "I'm not going to do it."

"I am not going to issue any order," she concluded. "I'm not going to do it."

View Video ›

video-cdn.buzzfeed.com


People Are Sharing This Video Of A Broken Voting Machine That's Already Fixed

$
0
0


Randall Hill / Reuters

People are widely sharing a video of a voting machine refusing count a man's vote for Trump in the Emanuel Recreation Center polling station in Philadelphia as evidence that machines were being rigged against Trump.

The video, which shows the man's finger repeatedly hitting the button for Trump while the cursor remains on Clinton, was first tweeted just after 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday. It was quickly picked up by several accounts run by Trump supporters and spread as evidence of election-rigging.

The individual behind the account, however, told BuzzFeed News that the machine was fixed. On his account, he later tweeted that he was able to vote for Trump.

Elections officials stressed to BuzzFeed News that machines break during every election year, and that broken machines are immediately replaced or fixed. So far, voting machine problems have been reported in North Carolina, New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, and Ohio, though in each cases they have been limited to isolated machines that were immediately fixed.

Voting officials stress that hacking, or rigging machines across the country is actually very hard to do. Kay Stimson, from the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), told BuzzFeed News that as of 2 p.m. ET there had been no reports of any widespread issues affecting voting machines.

Trump, who has made frequent claims that the election might somehow be "rigged" said Tuesday on Fox News that he had heard about a problem with voting at some polling places. "There are reports that when repeople vote for Republicans, the entire ticket switches over the Democrats."

The Decision Desk HQ Results Map

$
0
0

Results and race calls powered by data from the Decision Desk HQ.

Here are results and race calls powered by data from the Decision Desk HQ. Full Senate and gubernatorial results as well as updates on control of the US House of Representatives are available at DecisionDeskHQ.com.

BuzzFeed News will be following Decision Desk's calls — with a rule of thumb that we’ll be looking for a second trusted source, from the great network decision desks to the analysts at 538, before we are confident telling our readers that a decision is final.

Fox Anchors Were So Bored On Election Day They Spent A Minute Talking About Chapstick

$
0
0

View Video ›

video-cdn.buzzfeed.com

Presidential election days in the US can be a bit weird. For months, the candidates crisscross the country, pleading with the American people for their votes. But on the day people actually vote, everything sort of comes to a bit of a halt and it's wait, wait, wait until the results start coming in.

During this waiting period, two Fox anchors, Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith, got so bored they pivoted from a conversation speculating about the meaning of turnout numbers (spoiler: You can't read much into them) to a discussion of ChapStick that went so far off the rails the words "ChapStick fetish" were uttered.

You can watch the full discussion embedded in the tweet above, but here's a taste:

Wallace: "Coming into today, you would rather be in Hillary Clinton’s spot than Trump’s… What are you doing?"

Smith: "I dropped my ChapStick — I got to have it."

Wallace: (cracks up)

Smith: "I mean, should I leave it on the floor for someone else to pick up?"

Wallace: "Well, I don’t know, or you could wait till the break?"

Smith: "I need it, it’s ChapStick."

Wallace: "You have a little ChapStick fetish, don'tcha?"

Smith: "Fetish? No!"

Wallace: "I think you…"

Smith: "Do you know what that means?"

Wallace: "What, ChapStick? Yes, I know what ChapStick — it’s a lip balm."

OK then.

Nebraska Votes To Bring Back The Death Penalty

$
0
0

Nate Jenkins / AP

Nebraska voters decided on Tuesday to bring back the death penalty in the state, more than a year after the legislature voted to repeal it.

When the legislature abolished the death penalty, overriding a veto by Gov. Pete Ricketts last year, death penalty abolitionists held up the state as a sign that even conservative states could abandon the death penalty.

But Ricketts and his family bankrolled a campaign to allow voters the chance to bring the death penalty back, spending more than $400,000 to do so.

His bet paid off. On Tuesday, voters in Nebraska voted in favor of the death penalty by nearly 20 points.

Although the symbolic effect is legitimate, the practical effect could be minimal. Nebraska has just 11 inmates on death row, and the state hasn’t executed anyone in nearly 20 years.

The state has not ever carried out a lethal injection — its three executions in the modern era were all done using the electric chair. The state’s recent attempts at getting required execution drugs has met disastrous results.

Last year, in an attempt to convince lawmakers that the death penalty was salvageable, Rickett’s department of corrections purchased more than $50,000 of execution drugs from India. As BuzzFeed News reported, the drugs were illegal to import and were blocked from exiting India. What’s more, the man they purchased the drugs from has a history of selling states execution drugs even though his drugs never end up being used after legal questions are raised.

After the shipment was blocked, Nebraska attempted to get a refund on the money it spent. The supplier declined.

Republican Sen. Colby Coash, who voted to repeal the death penalty last year and was part of the anti-death penalty movement, said the referendum sparked "an important conversation" about the death penalty and that the "vote isn't the end."

Republicans Hold On To Their Senate Majority

$
0
0

Yuri Gripas / AFP / Getty Images

Republicans will be holding their majority in the Senate, denying Democrats the four seats they needed for a takeover — a surprising outcome following months and millions of dollars Democrats spent pounding GOP incumbents for their ties to Donald Trump.

With the Trump's campaign performing much better than expected, the Democrats strategy of tying GOP incumbents to Trump didn't help the party's challengers. And even races that the Democrats had been counting on — like Wisconsin, they couldn't close on Tuesday night.

Polls showed several of these races to be pure toss-ups heading into the election, but Republican incumbents were able to survive the lack of organization from the top of the ticket and Trump's controversial remarks by focusing on hyper-local issues.

The Senate majority is a big win for Republicans after a chaotic year in which the map clearly favored Democrats, who defended only one tough seat this year -- retiring Sen. Harry Reid's seat in Nevada. Democrats were able to hold on to that seat with former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto defeating Rep Joe Heck.

Outside GOP groups also played a major rule in keeping the Senate majority for Republicans with a late infusion of tens of millions into top races. In the final days, Republican incumbents tried to tie Democratic challengers to Hillary Clinton, following an FBI letter days before the election to Congress indicating a continuation of the investigation into Clinton's emails. Two days before the election however, FBI Director James Comey said after a review, there was nothing to change their July recommendation of no charges for Clinton.

Vulnerable Republicans — including North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey — were able to hold their seats. So far, only Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, lost his race. The Senate race in New Hampshire remains too close to call.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold on to his leadership position. And Looking ahead to 2018, Republicans will have a good opportunity to expand their majority with a map that favors them. Democrats will be defended a handful of seats in GOP-friendly states.

Faced With A Trump Presidency, Could A State Actually Secede?

$
0
0

In the face of a surprisingly close presidential election one tech mogul has promised to fund "a legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation."

So: Can a state secede?

In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia said no.

In a letter written to a screenwriter, the former justice, who died in February, was unambiguous:

"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, 'one Nation, indivisible.') Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit."

Law professor Eugene Volokh said ... it depends on how Americans feel.

While calling the question "foolish and pretty obviously empty posturing," Volokh suggested, in 2010, that the Civil War tells us little:

"If in 2065 Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas (just to consider some examples) assert a right to secede, the argument that 'in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right' will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it — which should be very little.

"And beyond that, even if there is some precedent of some sort properly set by the Civil War (and I continue to disagree that there is), any such precedent can’t tell us much about consensual secession. The talk I occasionally hear of secession (again, talk that I think is not really serious) is not about departure in the face of military opposition — it’s about creating a political sentiment in some place in favor of seceding, and a political sentiment in the rest of the country in favor of allowing the secession. The results of a bloody civil war tell us nothing about the propriety of a Velvet Divorce."

The secession discussion, obviously, goes back to the Civil War.

The Supreme Court, back in 1869, said no — but in a way that left open the possibility Volokh discussed.

Chief Justice Salmon Chase the decision for the court about whether actions taken by Texas after it seceded from the Union during the Civil War should be honored. The court held that Texas never actually left the Union — because it could not do so unilaterally — and so, therefore, actions taken by the Texas government under the Confederacy were invalid.

Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote the decision for the court about whether actions taken by Texas after it seceded from the Union during the Civil War should be honored. The court held that Texas never actually left the Union — because it could not do so unilaterally — and so, therefore, actions taken by the Texas government under the Confederacy were invalid.

First, he discussed the country in general:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

Then, Chase discussed what that meant for Texas:

"When ... Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. ... The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null."

People With Disabilities Are Expressing Disbelief That Trump Is President

$
0
0

“If I met Donald Trump, he’d be happy to mock my disability. Imagine what he will do to people like me.”

Trump was heavily criticized during the campaign for apparently mocking a reporter who has arthrogryposis, which restricts muscle movement.


View Entire List ›


Trump Wins

$
0
0

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

It’s real: Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States.

The Republican nominee defeated Hillary Clinton, a stunning victory that concludes a stunning two years in American history.

"I will be president for all Americans," Trump said at his victory speech in Manhattan after saying Clinton conceded. He vowed to "unify our great country."

"Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream," he said. "The forgotten men and women will be forgotten no longer."

Trump will enter office after he pulled the country into one of the darkest and most fraught elections in decades, one that brought forth deep schisms within both parties, and one that he ultimately dominated with his personality, words, and actions.

Underneath the Trump show, the election centered on massive economic and demographic changes taking place that seem destined to alter US politics. But for now, there are still many, many white voters — and they have delivered the presidency to Trump.

What happens next is unclear. Much of the political and national security establishment opposed Trump, and Washington Democrats in recent days have said they do not have a plan for a Trump presidency.

Few, if any, expected Trump to capture the Republican nomination last summer when he entered the race. His running for president was seen more as finally making good on a long-held dare: Since the late 1980s, the New York real estate developer had teased a presidential bid.

In 2015, he launched one, and with the aid of a pliant cable television apparatus, articulated the clearest platform in the party: stricter immigration policies, less trade, law and order, no cuts to entitlement programs, and a shift away from social issues. Those positions offered a sharp, populist contrast with many in the Republican field, as well as conservative orthodoxy in recent decades.

And from the very beginning, Trump offered another contrast: his willingness to cross any rhetorical line, including making racist and derogatory comments about Mexicans, Muslims, and others. At times, he could be shocking but in an entertaining way — for instance, he gave out Senator Lindsey Graham’s phone number on live television to prove the point that only now did his opponents reject him — but his dark, anti-immigrant, conspiratorial overtones eclipsed all else at various points.

He said he would ban Muslim immigration and attacked the Muslim parents of a fallen soldier; he mocked a disabled reporter, accused a judge of mistreating him because the judge is Latino, and was heard more than a decade ago telling an entertainment reporter that he could grab women “by the pussy”; he threatened lawsuits, promised to loosen up the libel laws, and said soldiers would obey his commands even if they were illegal.

And still he won.

The defeat of Clinton — long expected to win this race by wide margins, despite the aura of controversy that never left her candidacy — defies expectations in recent months. It’s terrain that Clinton knows personally; she lost the primary she seemed guaranteed to win in 2008 to Barack Obama. But the candidate herself cast this election’s choice in existential terms, and herself as the “last thing standing” between us and the “apocalypse.”

The results represent perhaps the sharpest break possible with generations of political leadership. One of the most ostensibly qualified candidates ever, and the first major party female nominee, Clinton positioned her candidacy as a counter to Trump, emphasizing shared American values and a turn against nationalism. She cast her signature policy issues — a citizenship-based immigration shift, a turn away from tough-on-crime justice policy, and new government initiatives on mental health, substance abuse, and early childhood education — as part of those values. Service, in Clinton’s telling, is the highest calling.

She, however, faced difficulties throughout the election. If not for Trump, Bernie Sanders’ performance in the Democratic primary might have been the year’s biggest surprise. The socialist remained competitive in the race for months, stressing the importance of his “political revolution” of better trade deals and a clean break with Wall Street. Emerging activists associated with the greater Black Lives Matter movement pressed Clinton on past words and deeds on crime and black youth in the 1990s. Ethical questions about her family’s foundation and investigations into her use of personal email and a private server shadowed the campaign for its duration.

And, of course, Trump dominated the proceedings, as well. For all the candidate’s flaws advantageous to Clinton, few candidates in history have gone as aggressively against an opponent as Trump. He referred to her as “crooked,” said she ran a criminal enterprise while secretary of state, questioned her health, and called her a liar. His rallies became known for the “Lock her up!” chant that, at one point, Gov. Chris Christie led the Republican National Convention audience in shouting.

Cast by an activist left as too hawkish and too corporate, and derided by the right as a corrupt leftist, Clinton never quite emerged with one comprehensive message. And her coalition — led by college-educated whites and people of color, especially Latinos and Asians — likely represents the demographic future of the Democratic Party, and could portend a realignment in the electoral map, as states like Georgia and Arizona finally become battlegrounds. But not yet.

Instead, the white voters who have formed the core of the Republican Party’s support in recent decades voted again for the party’s candidate, despite the enormous tensions within the party over Trump. Conservative intellectuals balked at his rejection of free-market constitutionalism. Many despised his treatment of minorities and women, especially Latino Republicans and the college-educated white women who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

In Trump’s wake, a new white nationalist movement, the alt-right, flourished. Though narrow and mostly online, the loosely organized alt-right achieved notoriety during the campaign for their targeted use of graphic anti-Semitic and racist slurs and memes, directed especially at those who opposed Trump or championed perceived political correctness. Trump never condemned — or even commented on — the development.

His rejection of free trade and promises to steer the country toward a less interventionist foreign policy, too, reflect vast shifts in Republican dogma — and could ultimately change the country’s direction for decades to come, if actually implemented.

These are the questions that Republicans, and now the rest of the country, will deal with.

In the interim, though, Trump’s victory validates his base, whom Trump described in his nomination speech as the “neglected, ignored, and abandoned,” “the forgotten men and women of our country, people who work hard but no longer have a voice.”

“I am,” he said, “your voice.”

Middle America Trump Supporters: This Was Our Night

$
0
0

The watch party in Pennsylvania.

Dan Vergano / BuzzFeed News

From here, deep inside the Bible Belt, Donald Trump’s seemingly improbable victory over the vaunted Clinton political machine wasn’t that improbable.

“Nobody thought he could do it. But I could see he wanted it,” a jubilant Rep. Billy Long said Tuesday evening. Holding court in the back of the Ramada Oasis Convention Center, Long epitomizes Trump’s America. A large man with a larger personality — like Trump — Long’s signature rhetorical move is the quick, easy simplification of issues that tie intellectuals into hand wringing emotional knots.

“People are fed up,” Long said simply of Trump’s victory. And they — the largely white, Christian working- and middle-class masses of middle America — have been for a while.

For years resentment has simmered been just beneath the affable, country demeanor of Trump’s America. Fueled by a mixture of racial tensions and a feeling that, rightly or wrongly, promises of perpetual economic and social prosperity had been made and broken, on Tuesday night white, middle America took its anger out on the system it believes has betrayed them.

Rep. Billy Long

Ethan Miller / Getty Images

“When I was elected six years ago the front of my signs said ‘Billy Long For Congress,’ the back side said ‘Fed Up?’ Like the ‘Got Milk?’ I had people stealing my signs and taking ‘em over to Illinois. They didn’t know who I was, but they knew they wanted a ‘Fed Up’ sign in their front yard. Because people are fed up in this part of the country, and they’re ready for a change,” Long said.

If the evidence was there, nobody in the media or the establishment wings of either party seemed to be paying much attention. Trump’s rallies had become massive, cultural events for much of white America, and people would drive across multiple states to wait in lines hours long to attend. And it wasn’t just rural America or the southern states. Huge crowds greeted Trump in suburban Philadelphia and Cleveland, Miami, and Chicago.

And for all the talk about Trump’s lack of a traditional campaign apparatus, Cambridge Analytica, the same firm that conducted polls in the United Kingdom for UKIP that predicted Brexit, polled for him. The firm adjusted its polling models to account for larger turnout from white, working-class men. The results, according to a source familiar with the data, made clear that his strategy was working — and that increases in Latino voters would be offset by depressed black voting levels. All Trump had to do was energize as many white men as possible.

Chris, a truck driver from the Springfield area who wouldn’t give his last name, was matter of fact when talking about his feeling of being neglected. “Oh yeah, the people with the money are the ones that get all the attention. They need to pay a lot more attention to the every day middle class,” he said simply. And like the several hundred people gathered at the convention center Tuesday night, Chris’ view of the country is dim. “The last eight years have been terrible. Doubling the national debt, 19 trillion in debt, 43 million people on food stamps, you know, it’s a disaster what Obama has done to this country,” he said.

Now, however, it’s different for Chris, thanks to the prospect of a Trump presidency. “I’m hopeful,” he said.

Across the country in Altoona, Pennsylvania, a once industrial city where Trump supporters — largely white, older, and with fewer college degrees — turned out in big numbers, the explanation for Trump's success was equally as simple.

"I think it was blue dog Democrats, the kind who voted for Ronald Reagan turning to Trump," said Lois Kaneshiki, chair of the Blair County Republican Committee.

"Particularly in the southwestern coal mining counties, you saw union coal miners hear that message from Trump," she said, upset over Hillary Clinton's stance on coal and displeased by the Obama administration's environmental regulations that they saw as being enacted without concern for their future.

"That vote right there is what will have shifted Pennsylvania to Trump," she said. She also credited Trump with bringing out new voters, who previously shied from the political process.

In the weeks ahead of the election, "I would go into the calling center and there would be all these new volunteers I didn't know, and I know everyone, usually," Altoona Republican city councilman Dave Butterbaugh said. "I believe we were seeing a lot of new voters at the polls. He has brought in so many people outside of politics to voting."

At the polls throughout the day in Altoona, the lines were steady and long in some precincts, but not overwhelming in a way that hinted at a shift in votes. The heart of Trump support in Pennsylvania is often locally called "the T" for the shape of the state with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia cut out. However, voting for Trump seemed to have turned the Pittsburgh corner of that map Republican red.

"I think a lot of the new voters ended up voting party line for Republican after they voted for Trump, and that probably helped the rest of the ticket too," Butterbaugh said.

Josh Hawley, Missouri’s attorney general-elect, was swept into office on a message aimed squarely at voters like Chris. His campaign site brands him prominently as a “political outsider,” and he leaned heavily on the sense that government has abandoned rural and exurban America.

A kinder, better looking version of Trump, Hawley is on the leading edge of a new generation of white, populist-minded politicians appealing to people “fed up politics as usual, [and] they’re fed up with the poll-tested bromides … they can tell somebody who shoots from straight.”

And Hawley said Tuesday night’s results could be only the beginning. “It doesn’t stop now. It doesn’t stop when you get their vote. If this is really going to be a movement that changes our state and changes our country, we’ve all got to stand together and keep it moving forward.”

John Stanton in Springfield, Missouri; Dan Vergano in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

People Are Fuming Trump Won The Election, Declaring “He’s Not My President”

$
0
0

“Trump did not win. Hatred won. Racism won. Sexism won. Ignorance won. I will not recognize a bigot as my leader #HesNotMyPresident”


View Entire List ›

Trump Leads A Global Nationalist Wave

$
0
0

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s victory Tuesday is the new high-water mark for the populist nationalist movement sweeping Europe and the United States, but the tide is still rising.

The media and political elites missed the story on Donald Trump and the voters he rallied. His win over Hillary Clinton — which wasn’t foreseen in the polling leading up to the election — stunned his supporters and enemies alike.

But we should have seen something coming. Voters in the United Kingdom chose Brexit earlier this year. In France, polling has shown the National Front’s leader Marine Le Pen reaching the second round of the presidential election next year. In Austria, a member of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria stands a good chance of being elected president next month.

All over what was called in Cold War days the “First World," signs have been there. It took Donald Trump to deliver to political and media elites the bad news: The liberal world order is nearly over, and the age of populism is here.

Trump has increasingly seemed to be aware of his movement’s place among what the journalist Anne Applebaum calls the “Populist International.” He has repeatedly predicted that this election would yield “Brexit plus,” “Brexit times five,” and “beyond Brexit,” among other superlatives. He has explicitly framed Trumpism as a class-based movement, saying in recent speeches that the working class would “strike back” on Election Day. Trump’s astonishing break with Republican orthodoxy has from the beginning aligned him more with European far-right movements than with American conservatism. Trump wants to disentangle the United States from trade deals, crack down on immigration, and decrease America’s commitment to the Western alliance, empowering Russia. And his appeals to the white working class have been calibrated to ethnic concerns, whether via dog whistle or more overtly.

Steve Bannon, center, on Nov. 8 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The man who brought a certain level of cohesion to Trump’s scattered worldview is Steve Bannon, the Breitbart chairman who became Trump’s campaign CEO over the summer. Trump’s victory cements Bannon’s position as the chief ideologue of the populist nationalist movement in the United States. Bannon fashioned Breitbart News into a home for an aggressive brand of right-wing populism, and he used the site as a weapon against establishment Republicans and so-called globalist elites. Bannon’s site has been viewed in mainstream circles as a sloppy, offensive irritant. But its influence is now undeniable. Bannon has been conscious of Breitbart’s role in a larger global movement, saying in 2014 “You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, right. Whether that government’s in Beijing or whether that government’s in Washington DC, or that government’s in Brussels. So we are the platform for the voice of that.” It is Steve Bannon’s world, and we just live in it.

Unlike in Europe, where populist movements have formed their own political parties and fielded candidates against establishment parties, Trumpism attacked from the outside to take over one of America’s two main parties. And the takeover was complete. In the end, though there were a few holdouts among elected Republican officials, the infrastructure of the party and most of its top brass fell in line behind Trump, lending their imprimatur to his movement.

At Trump’s jubilant victory party at the Midtown Hilton, surrogates hailed his win as a triumph for the working man.

“Thomas Jefferson in 1787 said that in order for liberty to endure, there would need to be revolutions periodically,” said Jerry Falwell Jr. the Liberty University president and son of Jerry Falwell who has ranked among Trump’s most devoted evangelical endorsers this election cycle. “I think what we’ve seen this year is a peaceful revolution by the American people by the common man to take the government back from the elitists and the establishment.”

“This election’s gonna be known as Trexit,” Falwell said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s first endorsement in the Senate who became a key adviser during the campaign, told reporters before the race had been called for Trump that Trump “has certainly taken an extraordinary route. He’s gone against the settled forces in the Republican mainstream and now he’s taken on the leader of the global Washington establishment, Hillary Clinton.”

Senator Jeff Sessions October 10, 2016 in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.

Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

“What you have to know is when these politicians say something, or some TV person does, they only have one vote,” Sessions said. “So the average guy that works at the automobile dealership, the barber, the beautician, he has the same vote.”

Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway spoke with reporters in the early hours of the morning after Trump’s event had wrapped up.

“This is an election for the people. It really is,” Conway said. “I think it showed the establishment, the elites, everybody who thinks they know how everybody else feels.”

The triumph of Trumpist populism has empowered the vanguard of the movement, including Bannon’s Breitbart, whose homepage in the early hours of Wednesday showed a pop-up ad that said “Together we walk towards the fire” and advertised a T-shirt with the word “History” emblazoned across the front.

And Trump’s win has also offered vindication for the rawest elements of nationalism, notably the alt-right, the online-based white nationalist movement that rode to prominence on his coattails. They are now the tip of the spear of the ascendant ethno-nationalism.

Reached by email on Wednesday, Richard Spencer, one of the figureheads of the alt-right, was thrilled.

“The Alt Right has been declared the winner,” Spencer said. “The Alt Right is more deeply connected to Trumpian populism than the ‘conservative movement.’ We're the establishment now.”

Instead Of Voting To Abolish The Death Penalty, Californians Decide To Speed It Up

$
0
0

Shown is the caged exercise yard area of the adjustment center on death row at San Quentin State Prison Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016, in San Quentin, Calif.

Eric Risberg / AP

Voters in California elected to keep the state’s death penalty, meaning the nation’s largest death row is here to stay. More than that, though, the state voted to speed up its death penalty.

There were two death penalty propositions on the ballot in the state. One would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life without the possibility of parole. That proposal lost by nearly eight points.

This wasn’t California’s first attempt at abolishing the death penalty. Just four years ago, voters rejected a repeal by a very narrow margin. This year, the repeal effort lost by a much larger margin.

The United States had roughly 2,900 inmates on death row, and a quarter of them are in California. Although California prosecutors send inmates to death row at a high pace, the state hasn’t carried out any executions in a decade.

The state has executed only 13 people since it brought back the death penalty in the '70s.

But California will now attempt to speed that process up. The proposal that passed will reduce the appeals available to death row inmates and will remove some oversight from the process of selecting execution procedures.

The effort to speed up the process ended up winning by less than two percentage points.

“Human rights, by their definition, are inalienable and cannot be voted away,” Sister Helen Prejean, an advocate against the death penalty, said in a statement. “They cannot and should not be subject to the whim of the majority. And so it is perhaps fitting and inevitable that we turn to the courts, in particular the United States Supreme Court, to do the right thing.”

Just this past week, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation published a new lethal injection protocol allowing for one of four drugs to be used. Two of the drugs have never before been used in an execution, and one drug has no legal source in the United States. The fourth is increasingly hard for death penalty states to obtain.

The Election Changed The Politics Of The Supreme Court

$
0
0

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Merrick Garland will not be on the Supreme Court.

With Donald Trump's election, the leftward shift of the American legal landscape has been halted in its tracks.

Earlier this year, as liberals had prepared for a progressive majority on the high court for the first time in generations, Donald Trump proposed a list of 21 names for his potential picks for Supreme Court vacancies.

Now, with Trump's election, it is his vision — with a Republican-led Senate — that will control what comes next for the federal judiciary.

Trump's list of possible judicial nominees included some — like 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes — who would have been on any Republican candidate's Supreme Court shortlist.

But the list also included some — like Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, with a well-known Twitter account — who could dramatically alter the style and spirit of the court.

Now, in addition to putting together an administration, Trump also will have to decide how he is going to make his first mark on the Supreme Court.

A Google-cached version of the Trump campaign's potential Supreme Court justice picks news release.

Via webcache.googleusercontent.com

Trump does not, of course, need to keep to the list. In fact, the news release announcing the completion of the 21-member list was removed from the Trump campaign website sometime after Monday evening. The original news release of 11 names was also removed from the campaign website sometime after Sunday morning. [Update: It appears that all news releases from the campaign — including, for example, Trump's December 2015 call for a ban on Muslim immigration — were removed from the website in recent days. This could have been the result of a technical issue with the site that was being exploited.]

The Senate could potentially give Trump even greater control over the future of the courts, as well.

The filibuster — long used as a procedural hurdle to allow the opposition party some control over preventing the most extreme of nominations by requiring 60 votes to end debate on an issue — was diminished in 2013, when Democrats ended it as a requirement for lower-court judicial nominees. Earlier this year, Sen. Lindsey Graham said it was likely that the filibuster would, eventually, be ended as to Supreme Court nominees as well.

"There'll come a day when you have a Republican or Democratic president with a Republican or Democratic Senate, and they’re going to change the rules on the Supreme Court," he said in March.

Come Jan. 20, 2017, there will be a Republican president with a Republican Senate. If Democrats don't allow an up-or-down vote on the nominee Trump puts forward, expect Graham's warning — which he presumed at the time was a warning to Republicans — to become a reality.

After all of that, though, filling the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia's death with a conservative will not change the balance of the court on most high-profile ideological disputes. But Tuesday's elections stop the leftward shift.

Once Scalia's seat is filled, Chief Justice John Roberts will regain control of a marginally functional majority on the court — with Justice Anthony Kennedy serving, yet again, as the key vote on a number of cases.

The future of the court — a potential long-term conservative resurgence — will, ultimately, depend on what happens after that and whether Trump also gets to name a successor to a justice on the left side of the court's bench.

If that happens, which is entirely possible given the ages of the justices, then the progressive possibility could become a conservative, long-term reality.

After Trump Election, Immigrants Fret Over Deportation Protections

$
0
0

Border Patrol agent Eduardo Olmos walks near the secondary fence separating Tijuana, Mexico, background, and San Diego.

Gregory Bull / AP

Cristina Martinez awoke to news that Donald Trump was headed to the White House and was immediately filled with dread.

“I’m worried because I have a pending immigration case,” Martinez said. “Before he won the election, Trump was saying he was going to get rid of a lot of programs that benefit immigrants.”

The 32-year-old mother of two in Los Angeles is trying to get a waiver that would allow her to stay in the US and get permanent residency without having to leave the country in 10 years. With Trump now the president-elect, Martinez called her attorney as soon as she could to ask about what will happen.

She was not alone.

Attorneys, pro bono organizations, and immigrant advocacy groups reported getting a flood of calls from concerned immigrants worried about their chances of being deported or losing their legal status.

Evan Vucci / AP

Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), said a lot of the phone calls came from recipients of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) who were wondering if they should renew it or apply for the first time.

“A lot of them will ask, ‘What will happen to me now that my name is on a certain list?'” Cabrera told BuzzFeed News. “Questions from the general public were, ‘Am I going to be deported? When will we know when the deportations are going to start?’”

Cabrera said they do their best to calm their clients by telling them that generally the next administration respects these types of protections, even if they disagree.

“But in this case, there’s so much unknown,” Cabrera said. “We have to wait and see.”

Trump launched his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans immigrants drug dealers and rapists. He continued to make immigration a central part of his campaign, pledging to increase border enforcement and deport millions.

The soon-to-be president also promised to end programs like DACA calling it “one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a President.”

Nicholas Espiritu, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Council who works with a lot of DACA recipients, said he’s gotten calls from young immigrants themselves as well educators who are wondering what the implications of a Trump presidency will be.

“They’re very concerned, scared, and upset,” Espiritu told BuzzFeed News. “We’re going to do as much advocacy and work to help protect them, but unfortunately we just don’t know what might transpire.”

Maria Rubalcava, right, hugs her mother Maria Hernandez, of Mexico, after Hernandez took the oath of allegiance to become a US citizen.

Lynne Sladky / AP

Many of the questions are coming from people who want to know what’s going to happen to their pending application, as well as those wondering if they will be put at risk for deportation if they apply for DACA.

“For the time being, we’re telling them the Obama administration is still in effect, that their work permits are good, and that we’re going to as much advocacy and work to help protect them,” Espiritu said.

University of California President Janet Napolitano also issued a statement after the election assuring the public that the college system remains "absolutely committed" to adhering to UC’s Principles Against Intolerance.

Rosario Blanco, left, is helped with her paperwork by a volunteer during a two-day citizenship workshop at the South Florida AFL-CIO in Miami Springs, Fla.

Wilfredo Lee / AP

"In light of yesterday's election results, we know there is understandable consternation and uncertainty among members of the University of California community," she said.

At the Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, about 97% of their clients, mostly unaccompanied minors from Central America, are in court fighting their deportations, program director Patricia Ortiz said.

One of their attorneys, who was in court Wednesday for a case, was inundated by people outside the courtroom asking for information.

“We try to calm them down and explain to them that there is a process and we are following it,” Ortiz said. “Just because Trump wishes he could deport everyone doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to do it.”

What surprised Ortiz the most, however, was getting calls from former clients who already have legal status and were worried about losing it.

“They know and are aware that a large part of the United States really hates them and it makes them feel vulnerable,” she said.

LINK: Mexico’s President Says He Will Meet With President-Elect Trump

LINK: Immigrants Are Telling Trump That They’re #HereToStay



Secretary Of Education Ben Carson? Here's A List Of Potential Trump Cabinet Picks

$
0
0

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has put together a who’s who short list of Trump surrogates and advisers to take top positions in his administration next year, ranging from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for attorney general to 39-year-old Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. to be the secretary of defense.

The list of 41 names, obtained by BuzzFeed News, covers 13 departments, the attorney general, Office of Management and Budget, White House chief of staff, and White House counsel.

A source familiar with the list stressed it was not final, and it is unclear whether transition officials have narrowed it down or added more potential candidates for consideration by Trump.

In a handful of instances there is only one candidate listed — Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is the only name listed for Chief of Staff, EEOC Commissioner Victoria Lipnic is listed for secretary of Labor, Rep. Jeff Miller as Veterans Affairs administrator, Sen. Jeff Sessions as director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Donald McGahn, who has served as counsel to Trump’s campaign, to be White House counsel.

In some cases, it appears the transition team is looking to find a home for a particularly loyal ally — Ben Carson, for instance, is listed as a potential candidate to be the secretary of education and secretary of Health and Human Services, while Sen. Jeff Sessions is listed as a possible attorney general, head of the Office of Management and Budget, or secretary of defense.

Likewise, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is heading up the transition team, has his chips spread across the board, listed as a candidate for AG, commerce secretary, and homeland security secretary. Christie may face unusual scrutiny after the guilty verdicts handed down to two of his former advisers in the trial over the George Washington Bridge lane closures.

Although political appointments, cabinet level positions typically require some level expertise in the issues they cover. Most of the candidates either have at least nominal experience in their issue areas — for instance, Sessions is a former judge who has also served on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Still, some seem clearly designed to create buzz — like the possible nomination of Sarah Palin to head the Department of Interior.

List of Potential Trump Cabinet Nominees:

Attorney General:

Gov. Chris Christie

Attorney General Pam Bondi

Sen. Jeff Sessions

Former Mayor Rudy Guiliani

Secretary of Commerce:

Christie

Former Nucor CEO Dan DiMicco

Businessman Lew Eisenberg

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

Sen. David Purdue

Former Sen. Jim Talent

Agriculture Secretary:

Gov. Sam Brownback

NationalCouncil of Farmer Cooperatives CEO Chuck Conner

Gov. Dave Heineman

Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller

Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Education:

Ben Carson

Hoover Institution fellow William Evers

Secretary of Energy:

Venture Capitalist Robert Grady

Businessman Harold Hamm

Secretary of Health and Human Services:

Former New Jersey state Sen. Rich Bagger

Ben Carson

Newt Gingrich

Gov. Rick Scott

Secretary of Homeland Security:

Christie

Sheriff David Clarke

Secretary of the Interior:

Gov. Jan Brewer

Gov. Mary Fallin

Grady

Hamm

Oil Executive Forrest Lucas

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

Former Gov. Sarah Palin

Secretary of Defense:

Former Gen. Mike Flynn

Stephen Hadley

Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr.

Sessions

Former Sen. Jim Talent

Secretary of State:

John Bolton

Sen. Bob Corker

Gingrich

Treasury Secretary:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling

Businessman Carl Icahn

Banker Steven Mnuchin

Chief of Staff:

Reince Priebus

Director of Office of Management and Budget:

Sessions

Secretary of Labor:

EEOC Commissioner Victoria Lipnic

Veterans Affairs:

Rep. Jeff Miller

White House Counsel:

Donald McGahn

These Latino Voters Explain Why They Voted For Trump

$
0
0

Yose Chiquillo.

Leticia Miranda / BuzzFeed News

Yose Chiquillo is still in shock that Donald Trump won the presidency.

"I didn't think he was going to win," she told BuzzFeed News as she sat in her Audi on the way home from a grocery store in Hialeah, Miami. "I don't like when he's insulting, but I like that he is honest and says what he thinks in the moment."

Chiquillo, a 44-year-old Venezuelan immigrant who has lived in the US for 21 years, voted for Trump on Tuesday in part out of frustration with how the Clinton administration handled immigration in the 1990s.

"They made life really hard for Latinos," she said, noting Clinton's deal that would send Cuban migrants caught at sea back to the island while granting citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants in the US. "It was hard, really hard."

Chiquillo's dismay with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, who she said "deceived" voters by deleting her emails, may explain in part how Trump, who has called Mexicans "rapists" and said an "overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics," earned such a high percentage of the Latino vote in Florida compared to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Early predictions showed that Clinton would take the state as a record number of Latinos took to the polls. But the actual Latino voter turnout shows that Trump was stronger competition for those votes than expected.

While 65% of Latinos voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump, a high margin compared to the 2012 elections, according to CNN exit polls. Obama won 71% of the Latino vote in 2012, while Romney got 27%.

This twist of events caught many analysts by surprise, prompting some to ask, "What makes these people tick?"

Getty Images / David Mcnew

A.J. Delgado, a Florida native and Trump adviser, told Breitbart News that Trump's anti-corruption message put the state "in the bag."

"I think the theme of corruption, when we look at Hillary Clinton, is one that speaks very powerfully and really resonates with Latinos in particular, especially first-generation immigrants who have become citizens and now vote, because that’s exactly what we fled," she said. "Whether it’s Communism in Cuba, Maduro in Venezuela, Puerto Ricans, whatever. By the way, Puerto Ricans aren’t immigrants, but still, leaving their homeland, as it were. It resonates across the board."

Antonio Torres.

BuzzFeed News

Antonio Torres, a 44-year-old Cuban Republican in Miami, told BuzzFeed News that his parents' experiences as immigrants fleeing the repression of Fidel Castro's dictatorship has shaped his political views, and made him especially in favor of Trump.

"A smaller government always represents more personal freedom," said Torres, who runs the survival training company Urban SurvivalCraft. "Large government oversight eventually leads to large scale abuses and inefficiencies. That’s the way I’ve seen it."

About 68% of Miami-Dade County is Latino and although many are Cuban, there is a growing number of people from Central and South America, which have been ravaged by political unrest and economic instability.

Torres believes Florida's Latinos came out in support of Trump because after eight years of Obama they see the country going in a direction that reflects the "socialist programs run amuck" in their native homelands.

"They saw too much government, not enough accountability, loss of control of people themselves, and it was a recipe for disaster," he said. "I think Latino voters are a big voice in the United States ... I think that they want to come here and they want to live as Americans and they want to enjoy the benefits of being an American."

Getty Images/John Gurzinski

The trauma of surviving a dictatorship has ripple effects in a family that touches even younger generations who have never lived under such conditions.

Irene, 24, and Aaron, 29, are a married couple with a 6-month-old baby whose parents both immigrated from Cuba in 1969. (They declined to give BuzzFeed News their last names.)

The couple grew up hearing each of their grandparents tell stories about repression in Cuba under Castro. Irene's grandfather worked as a truck driver delivering meats and other groceries. Food was tightly rationed, so he'd hide extra meat in his home to share with neighbors.

"Because of my Cuban background, I'm less inclined to more socialist ideas because of my upbringing," said Irene, who is a teacher. "Hearing talk about 'Let's tax the rich and give it to the poor' — obviously no one doesn't want to help the poor, but that approach is less appealing to someone from my background."

How Donald Trump Could Revitalize The Death Penalty

$
0
0

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Over the past several decades, President-elect Donald Trump has proved malleable on a wide array of policy — from Iraq and abortion, to marriage equality and immigration.

But he has been steadfast in his support for the death penalty.

Back in 1989, Trump paid for a full-page ad calling for the reinstatement of New York’s death penalty to be used on five young black men after a grisly and violent rape in Central Park. Even after the five men were exonerated and another man confessed to the crime, Trump expressed skepticism that the men were actually innocent, as recently as this fall. More broadly, Trump continued to advocate for the death penalty in the time since 1989.

Now that Trump will become president, he will have a chance to revitalize the death penalty. Here’s how he could do it.

The Supreme Court

Trump’s most obvious effect on the death penalty will be through the US Supreme Court. The prospect of the court ruling the death penalty unconstitutional in the near future was already a longshot. Now, abolition would dependent on support from all four more liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy — with no likelihood of getting a supportive sixth possible vote over the next four years.

In practice, the high court’s actual interaction with the death penalty is much more mundane than a hypothetical sweeping ruling on its constitutionality. The court deals with questions about how the death penalty is carried out: from decisions about who is even eligible for the death penalty to issues with trial procedure and sentencing rules to challenges to the methods of execution.

These are the questions that, absent outright abolition, have a massive effect on how the death penalty works in practice. Another conservative vote (or more) could have a lasting effect. This is particularly true when it comes to challenges relating to sentencing law. Justice Antonin Scalia had been a leader on the court in advancing a resurgent jury trial right, which — in one of his last votes — was solidly, and broadly, applied to provide the protection of a jury vote not just for guilt but also as to the sentencing part of a death penalty trial. Whether that area of law continues to advance — as criminal defense lawyers hope — could change dramatically depending on Trump’s nominee or nominees to the court.

Reinvigorating The Federal Death Penalty

A Trump administration — from Trump and his attorney general on down — likely will be more supportive of the death penalty across the board.

The federal death penalty exists, but is extremely rare currently. There are only 64 people on federal death row, and there’s hasn’t been a serious prospect of them being executed in years. There have only been three federal executions in the modern era.

Obama has called the death penalty “deeply troubling” and his former Attorney General, Eric Holder, was an outspoken critic of it. His current attorney general, Loretta Lynch, still has not announced findings of a review of the death penalty that was begun during Holder’s tenure. Needless to say, the outcome of the review — even if it comes before the end of the Obama administration and is critical of the death penalty — likely will not form the basis of a Trump administration’s implementation of it.

These effects wouldn’t only be seen in the higher echelons of the administration, either. Trump almost certainly will appoint U.S. attorneys more eager for the death penalty than those under Obama.

Across the country, this could have a broader effect as well. Currently, new death sentences are way down. The sentences that are given out now are sought by just a handful of prosecutors, and the cases are incredibly expensive. A Trump administration could be more eager to help provide assistance to state death penalty prosecutions — or to seek the death penalty more frequently when it is possible to do so under federal law.

Allow States To Get (Illegal) Execution Drugs

An important reason executions have been on decline is because there’s been a difficulty in obtaining lethal injection drugs. For years, states have struggled to find a consistent supply of them after manufacturers began enacting stringent guidelines to keep their products away from lethal injections.

Trump’s largest impact on executions in the United States could be getting involved in an ongoing, but little noticed, feud between death penalty states and the federal government over importing illegal execution drugs.

The states’ reliable lethal injection drug for decades, sodium thiopental, has been impossible for states to get. The sole Food and Drug Administration-approved manufacturer stopped making the drug to keep it out of the hands of executioners.

States have turned to illegal suppliers of the drug. Last year, BuzzFeed News reported that Texas, Arizona, and Nebraska all purchased illegal sodium thiopental from a supplier in India. Nebraska’s shipment never left India. The Texas and Arizona shipments were detained by the FDA once they entered the US.

Two thousand vials of execution drugs have sat in a government warehouse for well over a year while the states and the FDA argue behind the scenes over whether the drugs can be released. The FDA argues that there is a court order preventing them from releasing the drugs.

The decision over what to do with these execution drugs involves the highest-ranking people at the FDA. Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show the commissioner of the FDA asked to be briefed on the issue last year.

With a Trump-appointed FDA head, the decision could be different.

The FDA, under Obama, initially wanted no part of the issue. Years ago, the FDA allowed drugs to be imported by states wishing to carry out the death penalty, with the federal agency saying it wasn’t its role to regulate execution drugs. But a federal appeals court panel ruled the FDA didn’t have discretion to ignore a law that says unapproved drugs aren’t allowed into the country — leaving in place a court order that mandates such continued enforcement.

If Texas and Arizona were to sue over such drug importation while Obama was president, they would not only have to argue that the drugs should be allowed to come in — they’d have to go much further. They’d also have to argue that the court order doesn’t apply and that the FDA doesn’t have discretion to bar the drug.

Under an FDA commissioner that’s more sympathetic to the states’ argument, however, their case could become significantly easier to make. If the FDA wants to allow the drugs in, states would just need to convince the court that the earlier injunction doesn’t apply now and that the court should defer to the FDA’s interpretation and expertise on what drugs should be allowed into the country.

Large drug manufacturers in the US and Europe take great lengths to keep their products away from executioners. That would not be true of small manufacturers and distributors in countries like India. The change could be huge — and could allow for a steady supply of execution drugs.

Democratic Congressman: "It's Not A Race Issue. It's A Class Issue."

$
0
0

Ryan, left, with Hillary Clinton

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Congressional Democrats, reeling from Hillary Clinton's defeat and a steep drop in white working-class support, are searching for answers to help understand their defeat and chart a path forward in Washington.

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, whose district covers Youngstown and a swath of Akron, said Thursday that Democrats had lost touch with the white working-class voters who provided a base of support for Donald Trump in the Rust Belt. In Ohio’s Mahoning County, home of Youngstown, Clinton's support dropped 13 points from Obama's 2012 showing.

"We do need an overhaul and a completely new approach," Ryan said in an interview with Ohio radio host Ron Ponder.

"We have allowed our party to drift from talking about working-class issues," Ryan argued. "It's not a race issue. It's a class issue. It's about making sure that we're doing the kind of things that make those people feel at home with us."

Ryan told Ponder that he was willing to work with Trump on infrastructure overhaul and jobs programs. "My responsibility is to find some common ground," he said. "Let's try to get some work done."

Ryan warned, however, that repealing Obamacare, a likely top priority in the new administration, would leave 20 million people who have gained health coverage under the Affordable Care Act without insurance.

"It's going to be a very cruel world for a lot of people."

Alabama Offers To Execute Inmate With Never-Before-Used, Single-Drug Injection

$
0
0

The Alabama Department of Corrections has offered to kill an inmate facing an execution next month with the drug protocol he requested, one never before used in an execution, provided the man consents to it. On Wednesday, a federal judge asked inmate Ronald Smith to decide by next week if he will agree.

Alabama's current lethal injection protocol calls for three drugs to be administered. The first is midazolam: A controversial sedative used in several botched executions. The second is a drug that paralyzes the inmate. And the third is a drug that stops the heart; it is undisputed that the drug causes severe pain to a conscious person.

Death row inmates in Alabama have argued that the risk of pain is too high to use the third drug, and offered up a few different ways they could be killed. If death row inmates want to challenge their method of execution, the Supreme Court has said they have to propose better alternatives.

One of the options they proposed is to use a single dose of midazolam, the controversial sedative, and no other drugs. In previous executions throughout the United States, midazolam has always been paired with other execution drugs.

"While Defendants continue to maintain that the current lethal-injection protocol is constitutional," Attorney General Luther Strange's office wrote in May, "Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs’ proposed third alternative is at least feasible."

Alabama "would consent to the ADOC executing Plaintiffs by lethal injection using only midazolam" but added that the department may need to use additional doses in case the initial dosages do not kill the inmates.

A "one-drug protocol using midazolam has never been tested, and thus, the ADOC reserves the right to administer further doses of midazolam as required."

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Watkins ordered the state to produce a one-drug execution protocol with only midazolam by early next week. Smith, the inmate, will have to decide within 48 hours whether he will consent to that execution or possibly face the three-drug protocol.

The state offered up the possibility a year ago for another inmate, Christopher Brooks. He declined, arguing that there was no official one-drug protocol and that the case should first be decided on the merits of whether the three-drug protocol is constitutional.

Brooks ended up being executed with the three-drug protocol. The federal judge noted that "a witness in the viewing room testified that Mr. Brooks’s eye opened after the consciousness assessment and remained open until the curtain was closed in the viewing room."

Just this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court halted the execution of another Alabama inmate who raised similar concerns about the three-drug protocol.

Read Judge Watkins' Order:


Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images