The president-elect held his first news conference since July.

View Entire List ›

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party's effort to repeal Obamacare — and fulfill a promise they've made to American voters repeatedly for seven years — is getting chaotic.

The party's three key leaders gave varying messages on the issue in the span of just a few hours on Tuesday. First, Speaker Paul Ryan said in a morning press conference that their goal was to bring up repealing and replacing the health care law "concurrently" through the process the Senate is setting up. "We already showed people what we believe in, what Obamacare should be replaced with, so we're going to use every tool at our disposal through legislation to regulation to bring [a] replace[ment] concurrent along with repeal so that we can save people from this mess," he said.

Then, President-elect Donald Trump told The New York Times in an interview he wanted a repeal vote next week and a replacement "very quickly or simultaneously, very shortly thereafter.” Trump's comment seems far removed from what Congress is currently doing: moving forward this week on a budgetary resolution that would set up a repeal bill on Jan. 27, with efforts already underway by five GOP senators to delay that date to March 3.

And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell followed up with only a commitment to the budgetary process for repeal that is in the works for this week, saying "we're working on what comes next." The Senate will vote Thursday on a resolution to set up the repeal bill and vote. Actual repeal will come later.

Specifically on Trump's timeline of holding a repeal vote next week when Republicans don't even have a bill yet, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said that "would be fast, but it's possible."

Pressed on if that scenario was likely, Hatch laughed.

McConnell declined Tuesday to give a timeline for votes on repealing and replacing the legislation in the Senate and whether replacement will be done simultaneously, drawing contrast with Ryan who — along with other lawmakers — has indicated that some replacement language could be included.

But it's still unclear what that language would be and if the Senate would only need 51 votes to pass the replacement under the budgetary tool Republicans are using or the usual 60 votes that legislation in the Senate typically needs. That latter scenario would mean they'll need Democratic cooperation.

Despite disjointed messaging, McConnell maintained that he, Ryan and Trump were all on the same page. "As I indicated earlier, we'll be working with the president-elect's [Health and Human Services] nominee Tom Price, and he'll be helping us craft a way forward," he said. "So this is going to be a joint effort between the administration, the House and the Senate to put together the replacement...not in anyway inconsistent."

Asked if there was a lack of direction on the best path forward on Obamacare, South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott said that the problem was actually the opposite. "I think we have a lot of direction from a lot of people," he said.

A top Trump ally on Capitol Hill, New York Rep. Chris Collins, acknowledged that "there’s confusion within our conference" on what the president-elect wants on Obamacare. "To me that says he does want Obamacare repealed quickly because there were folks today who didn’t think he did," Collins said of the Times interview. "So that is helpful. But now as to the replacement piece, weeks not months, weeks not years does leave a whole lot of interpretations."

Meanwhile, Louisiana GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy — one of the senators pushing for a delay on the repeal vote — told reporters "as I speak to people, they see the wisdom in it" in moving the date from Jan. 27 to March 3.

"Clearly if we go by the 27th of this month, four major elements we need to resolve we don't have time to resolve. Those being: What can Tom Price do? How do we pay for it? What is the blueprint or a pathway forward for repeal — pathway and substance of the bill itself? And does it meet the 50-vote threshold?"

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham clarified that although Republicans aren't entirely sure on path forward, they have "a consensus on what they don't want to do," he said, listing parts of Obamacare that Republicans want to keep, including allowing adult children to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26 years old.

With Republicans still figuring out the process and timeframe for repeal and replace, Senate Democrats are going on the offense.

"It's a little like Abbot and Costello," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters, comparing the GOP leaders to the comedic duo. "Each of them says, 'We must repeal and replace,' and then says, 'You come up with the plan.'"

Alexis Levinson contributed reporting.

Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

DC police are increasingly concerned that some of President-elect Donald Trump’s supporters traveling to the nation’s capital for next week’s inauguration will be bringing not just heavy sweaters and down jackets, but firearms too.

Police prepare for armed individuals at demonstrations and at the inauguration itself, but have rarely had to deal with any in recent memory: no gun related arrests were made during the 2009 and 2013 inaugurations.

But with racial tensions high and coming on the heels of a divisive, sometimes violent presidential campaign, police are wary guns could make an appearance this year.

According to a DC police department source familiar with preparations for the Jan. 20 inauguration, the department is particularly concerned that members of white supremacist groups and other radicals who backed Trump may be carrying concealed weapons to protect supporters — and Trump — from protesters.

Second Amendment and so-called “open carry” activists were a common sight at Trump rallies and at the Republican National Convention in 2016 — in states where it was legal to do so. Because the District does not allow open carry, and weapons aren't permitted at the inauguration, such demonstrations aren’t expected.

Although open carry activists often draw media attention for displaying their weapons, neither they nor Second Amendment activists more broadly are typically a concern for law enforcement, in large part because they take great pains to stay within the bounds of the law.

Rather, the bigger concern for law enforcement are any inauguration attendees who may come with illegally concealed firearms with the purpose of protecting themselves.

A Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Tuesday told BuzzFeed News the department is “aware of various groups planning on exercising their First Amendment rights. Although we do not discuss operational strategy or tactics, MPD is prepared to both protect the rights of individuals to exercise their First Amendment rights and ensure public safety.”

The spokesperson also warned, “If individuals or groups decide to act unlawfully, plans have been put in place to efficiently address them.”

The inauguration always presents particular challenges for law enforcement in Washington. Although adept at handling protests, with hundreds of thousands of people attending the event, it’s a security nightmare.

But Trump’s swearing in will be no normal inauguration. For months during his campaign for the presidency, Trump’s rallies were routinely marred by violence by protesters and supporters alike, leaving dozens hurt during riots in Chicago, Albuquerque, and San Jose, California. Most of those incidents occurred during rallies held at venues in downtown areas, and the routine violence only subsided once the campaign began holding events in more remote facilities or at airports with heavy security.

In addition to the estimated 800,000 people expected to attend the inauguration in support of Trump, thousands of anti-Trump protesters are also coming to town. While most are expected to participate in peaceful demonstrations, according to an MPD source, police believe at least one anarchist group is planning to try and block the inaugural parade route from the Capitol to the White House.

Meanwhile, vigilante style groups like Bikers for Trump are planning to participate in the inaugural festivities, and police sources said they are monitoring the plans of white supremacist organizations as well.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters Friday that city officials are “prepared for any and all circumstances,” and warned that anyone not participating peacefully will face consequences.

“We expected them to exercise their rights peacefully … and we’ll be prepared should anybody not,” Bowser said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Rex Tillerson at an awards ceremony.

Michael Klimentyev / AFP / Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump believes his secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson to be the "embodiment of the American Dream” with a "deep understanding of geopolitics.” But senators from both parties aren't entirely convinced he's up for the job.

In a confirmation hearing starting Wednesday and potentially extending through Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to challenge Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, on his close ties to Russia at a time when lawmakers are also investigating the country's involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails during the 2016 election. An unconventional pick for the role, the 64-year-old Texas oil executive — who has never been vetted for a government position — will face scrutiny on his business deals, his personal wealth, ties to foreign leaders, and how he will advise the new administration on issues, including NATO and Taiwan, on which Trump has taken an unorthodox view.

Here are five things to watch during the hearing:

1. Will Tillerson go tougher on Russia than Trump has?

Senators from both parties have expressed discomfort with Tillerson’s close ties to Russian leaders and the country's economy. Within the Senate, there remains a lot of enthusiasm for increased economic sanction on Russia.

In private meetings, Tillerson has indicated he will back sanctions. Republican senators who met with him assured reporters this week that Tillerson’s views on Russia were “mainstream.” But the hearing will be the first time the nominee publicly tries to distance himself from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who previously bestowed Tillerson with the Russian Order of Friendship Award.

The hearing will also give an indication of where President-elect Donald Trump stands on Russia. Questioning will likely focus on how Tillerson will deal with the Russian hacking and whether Tillerson will advise Trump to soften sanctions that have hampered the company that employed the nominee for four decades. Short on the engineering skill needed to build offshore rigs in icy seas after years of communism, Russia turned to Exxon for an exploration partnership in 2011. But that massive $500 billion deal is on hold after the Obama administration sanctioned some Russian companies, including the state-owned fossil fuel driller Rosneft, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

2. Will Tillerson win over Marco Rubio?

The Florida Republican has “serious concerns” about Tillerson's nomination — and on a committee where one vote could make a difference Sen. Marco Rubio will be closely watched. Rubio, who supports congressional action for more sanctions against Russia, is establishing himself as one of the strongest voices against Putin in Washington. He met with Tillerson ahead of the hearing, but hasn’t indicated which way he is leaning.

With only a one-seat advantage for Republicans on the committee, Rubio’s support is crucial. How will Tillerson get him on his side? And if his answers don’t satisfy Rubio, will the former 2016 presidential candidate — who went after Trump at the end of the GOP primary — be willing to stand up to the incoming leader of the Republican party? Two other senators on the committee who have been open about criticizing Trump and his picks in the past — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jeff Flake of Arizona — could also be interesting to keep an eye on.

3. Can Democrats actually make a stand against a Trump nominee successfully?

Tillerson is a top target for Democrats and their line of questioning will be revealing of their overall strategy — and strength — in taking on Trump. For weeks, Democratic groups and lawmakers have been going after Tillerson not just on Russia, but also on potential conflicts of interest related to his time as CEO of Exxon Mobil and the lack of paperwork filed by Tillerson and other nominees. Although Tillerson has taken steps to divest himself of financial interest in the company, Democrats will likely continue to push the ethical argument. Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, who is becoming a key ally of anti-Trump outside groups, sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and could take the lead on implementing the party’s playbook.

4. Is the Paris Climate Accord going down?

The former chief executive of Exxon is one of the few cabinet nominees that has publicly agreed with the consensus of climate scientists that human activity is warming the planet.

In November, as Trump mulled tapping Tillerson, the oil and gas firm announced its support of the Obama administration’s biggest effort to curb climate change, the Paris climate agreement, under which nations voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to hold the rise of global average temperatures below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whether Tillerson will continue that support while working for Trump is likely to be one of the top questions from Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and other environmentally minded Democrats on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

5. Will anyone even be watching this thing?

Wednesday is a busy day for the incoming administration. With Trump scheduled to give his first press conference in months and two other confirmation hearings scheduled to start on the same day, will Tillerson's answers get drowned out? His supporters and critics are hoping to use the hearing for messaging purposes, but the message might not get out the way they planned.

It will also be interesting to watch how senators split their time. The GOP majority claims it stacked confirmation hearings to speed up the process, but Democrats have indicated the move was politically motivated to keep their attacks on Trump’s cabinet picks from being in the spotlight. A handful of senators on the Foreign Relations Committee also sit on at least one other committee also holding nomination hearings on the same day.

David Pulphus / Via conginst.org

WASHINGTON — A painting by a black teenager depicting police brutality is hanging again in the US Capitol after being removed by multiple congressmen, but Republicans are promising to take it down for good.

The painting by Missouri teenager David Pulphus depicts pigs as police officers as part of a message about police brutality. Several Republicans have deemed the painting offensive and unacceptable.

The painting is a symbolic depiction of the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and inequality in general. It was one of 400 paintings to win a high school art competition and earn a spot in a hallway in the basement of the Capitol. For months it was displayed without controversy.

But its depiction of pigs dressed up as police officers pointing guns at black men recently became a hot topic in some right-wing media circles across the country. And now it has led to a standoff between members of Congress who think the painting is offensive and those who are defending the young artist's free speech.

So far, the painting has been taken down three times by four different congressmen.

Last week Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter took the painting without authorization and returned it to Rep. Lacy Clay's office. (Clay, who represents Ferguson in Congress, picked Pulphus's painting as the winning entry from his district last spring.)

"It was something that had to be done, so I just did it," Hunter told reporters today.

Clay and other members of Congress hung the painting back up Tuesday morning. But a few hours later, a Fox News cameraperson witnessed Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn take it down again, becoming the second congressman in a week to take the painting without authorization. The painting was then returned to Clay's office, again, and rehung for the second time that day.

By mid-afternoon a small group of reporters were staking out the hallway underneath Capitol Hill waiting to see if any other members of Congress would steal the painting.

Sure enough, before long two more Republican congressmen — Reps. Brian Babin of Texas and Dana Rohrabacher of California — took down the painting in front of rolling cameras.

Clay reinstalled it a third time shortly after. "This is dizzying," said Clay. "It's so childish."

Meanwhile, Hunter is promising to have the painting taken down permanently for breaching contest rules banning controversial subjects or depicting modern events, in this case the Ferguson, Missouri, protests.

"It's offensive. It portrays police officers as pigs and it doesn't belong in the US Capitol, it's that simple," said Hunter.

The Congressional Black Caucus has responded that Capitol Hill features several paintings of segregationists and slave owners that black people could find offensive. But Hunter dismissed the notion.

"That's ridiculous. There's no comparison between things that were painted 50 years ago or 100 years ago... it's a false analogy," he said.

Speaker Paul Ryan told Republicans that party leadership also believes the painting breaches contest rules and they will try to take it down, according to Hunter's office. But members of the Congressional Black Caucus are promising to fight to keep the painting up.

"I do not agree or disagree with this painting, but I will fight to defend this young man's right to express himself because his artwork is true for him and he is entitled to that protection under the law," Clay said.

Congressional Republican staff say they are "making it a top priority" to draft a letter to Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers to ask that he review whether the painting should be taken down.

Clay said that the art piece was inspired by the high-profile killings of black men from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown in the artist's home state.

"His winning entry is a provocative, symbolic representation of the great anger, pain, frustration, and deep deficit in trust for local law enforcement that many young African-Americans feel in their heart," said Clay.

"The larger, much more fundamental question is why does this artist feel this way? And what can we do as leaders of a compassionate and just nation to remedy that?"

BuzzFeed News reached out to Pulphus for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Clay said he has filed a complaint against Hunter for taking down the painting without authorization. Congressional Black Caucus chair Rep. Cedric Richmond accused Hunter of trying to distract from ethics investigations into his own behavior, including using taxpayer funds to pay for the flight of a family rabbit. Hunter's office has said that those expenses were billed to his office by mistake.

Richmond chalked up the thefts to publicity stunts, but said he hopes Speaker Ryan has other priorities.

“If this is something that Speaker Ryan thinks is one of his priorities in a new Congress, to pick on an 18-year-old art student who only depicts what he sees in his community, then I just think that that’s sad," he said.

LINK: GOP Congressman Removes Student Art Depicting Police As Pigs From US Capitol

Armstrong Williams.

Kirk Irwin / Getty Images

Armstrong Williams, a longtime conservative media entrepreneur and adviser to former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, said he has offered to pay $60,000 in travel expenses for Talladega College’s marching band to perform at the inaugural parade on Jan. 20.

Williams told BuzzFeed News he hadn’t heard back from the president of Talladega College — the oldest historically black, private liberal arts school in Alabama — since making the offer Friday.

“The issue is: The kids want to go,” Williams said. “I don’t want resources to be a reason they can’t go.”

Of the 41 organizations formally invited by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Talladega College — founded in 1867 by former slaves — is the only historically black college or university (HBCU). Talladega applied to participate in the event before the election.

Talladega College President Billy Hawkins said Wednesday that the school's Board of Trustees has told him they'd prefer to raise their own money. Hawkins noted that the school has raised nearly $32,000 of its $75,000 goal through a GoFundMe account.

"I think they didn't want it to seem like we were taking a political donation," Hawkins said. "But I'm confident that we're going to get there. We’re maintaining preparations to move 250 people to Washington."

But if the school falls short of its goal, Hawkins indicated he'd be prepared to use donations from Williams and others.

"That's sitting out there to finish it up," he said.

Complicating matters is an ongoing debate among current and former students about whether the performance constitutes support for President-elect Donald Trump, who won only 8% of black voters in the election.

Barack Obama with his wife, Michelle, takes the oath of office in 2009.

Ron Edmonds / AP

Petitions have been circulating both in favor of and against the marching band’s performance, and the school has faced harsh criticism on social media. The band director for Howard University, an HBCU based in Washington, DC, that played during President Obama’s first inauguration, told NBC Washington in December that conflicting political views may have kept other institutions from offering to participate in the inauguration parade.

“I think everybody knows why and no one wants to say and lose their job,” he said.

A school of about 1,000 students, Talladega College has a fairly small profile for even an HBCU. The school has no football team and only started its marching band, known as The Great Tornado, in 2012. With 230 members, the band is the largest student organization on campus.

Hawkins said the band has marched mostly in smaller regional events like Mardi Gras parades, but recently performed at a New Orleans Saints game in November. The inauguration would be, by far, the largest event the band has played in its short history.

"You're talking about a national stage here," Hawkins said. "Lots of people have told me they had never heard of Talladega College until now. I just believe that we're going to be blessed in so many other ways."

Williams said he personally reached out to Talladega College after reading about their inaugural invitation in media reports.

A graduate of South Carolina State University, also an HBCU, Williams said he felt moved to make the offer when recalling his first visit to Washington, DC, as a student in 1979.

“I was raised on a farm, so Washington, DC, was like a Galactica, it was so enormous, so cultured and I was blown away by it,” Williams said. “The trip made a lasting impact. And I saw myself as one of those kids.”

He talked with Hawkins for three straight days after making the initial offer, but hasn’t yet heard back from the president, Williams added. The offer, he said, is still on the table.

“The president has made it clear that he’s under enormous pressure,” Williams said. “My offer to underwrite the $60,000 still stands with no strings attached. The only people who lose here are the kids and I pray that doesn’t happen.”

LINK: Historically Black College Accepts Trump’s Invitation To Perform At Inaugural Parade

Elijah Nouvelage / Reuters

Chelsea Manning can't see the FBI's files about her, a federal judge in Washington, DC, ruled on Wednesday.

Manning went to court after the government denied her request for records about the investigation into her role in allegedly leaking a large cache of classified and confidential documents to WikiLeaks. The FBI and US Department of Justice had argued that disclosing the records Manning wanted would interfere with a pending investigation into WikiLeaks. The judge found that the government "adequately justified" its request to keep the records secret.

Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in a court-martial in 2013 and is serving a 35-year prison sentence. According to an NBC News report on Wednesday, she is on a short list for consideration to receive a commuted sentence from President Obama.

In 2014, Manning filed a public records request asking for documents about any investigation of her activities by the FBI or the US attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia, and any records about alleged civilian co-conspirators. The FBI denied the request, saying that disclosing the documents could interfere with pending law enforcement activities related to the WikiLeaks investigation.

Manning filed a lawsuit seeking to force the release of the documents in October 2015. She argued that disclosing the records couldn't interfere with a pending case because she was already convicted in a court-martial, and double jeopardy rules barred a separate criminal case against her in a US court.

The Justice Department in court papers called Manning's request, filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act, "a quintessential example of an improper attempt to use FOIA to force the government to open its investigative files to public inspection." The information that Manning wanted was collected as part of a broader, ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks, the government said, and should be kept secret.

The government didn't provide many details about the contents of the documents at issue, but did say that they included confidential source statements — releasing that information could put a source at risk, the government said — communications between the FBI and other agencies, and other evidence.

The Justice Department also said it wasn't possible to segregate out information that was solely about Manning in a way that wouldn't jeopardize the pending investigation.

Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote on Wednesday that the government established that the records related to a pending investigation that went beyond the particulars of Manning's case, and that releasing the documents she wanted would interfere with that.

Mehta also denied Manning's request to review the documents himself. He wrote that there was legal precedent that a judge should avoid doing that type of review unless it was unavoidable or there was evidence of bad faith by an agency in responding to a public records request. "Neither of those
conditions is present here," the judge wrote.

A lawyer for Manning was not immediately reached for comment on Wednesday evening. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Evan Vucci / AP

After a meeting in Trump Tower with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mobilized anti-vaccine activists to promote a controversial new safety panel.

"They are getting massive blowback and waivering [sic]," Kennedy wrote in an email reviewed by BuzzFeed News.

Kennedy, 62, is a longtime environmental activist, the son of the late attorney general, and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He has gained acclaim in vaccine skeptic circles for his 2014 book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, in which he argued that a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines was linked to autism. He emerged from meeting Trump just after 2 p.m. ET on Tuesday, and said the president-elect had personally asked him to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity.

The Trump transition team later released a statement saying that while the new administration was considering forming a committee on autism, “no decisions have been made at this time.”

Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed News.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has clearly stated that there is "no link between vaccines and autism.” Public health groups echoed that point yesterday as word came of a potential safety commission headed by Kennedy, and reacted strongly against the suggestion that vaccines are dangerous.

"Vaccines protect children’s health and save lives," the American Academy of Pediatrics reiterated in a statement on the news. "Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature."

"Some people may choose not to believe the facts, but perpetuating a myth from the very highest levels poses a dangerous threat to public health," Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, said in a statement.

"Creating a commission makes it look like scientists have not already studied this issue for many years, and it may lead people to think this is still an open question. It is not."

According to Kennedy's email, he responded to the criticism at 11 p.m. ET by contacting a long list of anti-vaccine activists for support. "Hey everyone. Need you to email Trump support of vaccine commission. They are getting massive blowback and waivering [sic]," he wrote, in an email sent from his iPhone.

Trump's potential appointment was strongly welcomed on Wednesday by many in the activist community who believe that excessive vaccination is spurring an "epidemic" of autism and other chronic diseases among children. US autism rates have been rising since the late 1990s, and now 1 in 45 children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, though the CDC has attributed this to changes in diagnoses and surveys. Thimerosal was discontinued as a preservative in children's vaccines in 1999, though it is now widely considered safe by the medical community.

Many activists feel that Kennedy could spearhead a sea change in how decisions about vaccines are made in the US.

"I’m pretty tapped in to the autism community, and I never got more emails in a shorter period of time than yesterday afternoon — this is electrifying," Dan Olmsted, editor of a blog called Age of Autism, which saw a nearly twofold increase in website traffic after yesterday's news, told BuzzFeed News. "Now you’ve got the president-elect talking to the most high-profile vaccine safety challenger in the country. It’s just a whole different universe."

Kennedy suggested yesterday in an interview with Science that the main focus of a vaccine safety commission would be on the CDC, which he said "is the locus of most of the most serious problems with the vaccine program."

The focus on the CDC is being heralded as a victory by some in the anti-vaccine community, as well.

"My hope is that this commission cracks open the data that exists at CDC and tells the American people the truth," J.B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy's autism organization, told BuzzFeed News. "We are mobilized, energized, and extremely hopeful based on the appointment of Bobby Kennedy. In my personal opinion [Trump] picked the best possible person to head the commission."

While Trump's team backpedaling on Kennedy's appointment to lead the vaccine safety commission was dismaying, activists still see the overall move as a boon for the anti-vaccine and autism movements.

"People went from I think elated to kind of confused and disheartened," Olmsted said. "But this is how things move forward. I think we all feel it's moving forward in a way where in this new administration we’re going to get more attention paid to this."

"It’s already a fringe issue," Olmsted continued. "I think it’s actually coming to the mainstream now."

LINK: Trump Moves To Challenge Vaccine Science

Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive officer of ExxonMobil, testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 11.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's choice to run the State Department, Rex Tillerson, testified in Congress that, to his knowledge, the company he ran for a decade did not lobby against economic sanctions issued by the United States.

“To my knowledge, Exxon never directly lobbied against sanctions," the former chief executive of ExxonMobil told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under oath on Wednesday morning.

But documents filed by the company suggest otherwise. Since Tillerson took the reins of the largest US oil and gas firm in 2006, disclosure after disclosure in filings on "lobbying activity" show that Exxon lobbied on several pieces on legislation regarding sanctions against oil-producing nations, including Iran and most notably Russia.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber's top Democrat, said on the Senate floor Wednesday that he was "very concerned" about Tillerson's comments, noting that the Senate has "registered lobbying disclosures from ExxonMobil itself documenting their involvement" in the lobbying effort.

Tillerson's relationship with Russia has been a major focus of questioning in the hearing on his nomination for the secretary of state job Wednesday.

One of the most powerful instruments in a president's diplomatic toolkit, economic sanctions ban US companies from doing businesses with individuals and institutions in designated foreign countries. Their purpose is to put pressure on countries to comply with international law — in the case of Russia most recently, to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor Ukraine.

Earlier this year, for example, Exxon disclosed in paperwork plans to lobby on a bill that sought to make permanent a series of sanctions the Obama administration issued against entities in Russia, including a state-owned oil firm with which Exxon was drilling, named Rosneft.

Because the sanctions were done through executive orders, they could be undone with the stroke of a pen by the next president unless Congress passed the bill. A bipartisan group of senators are currently working to codify those sanctions and add others in response to intelligence reports showing that Russia was behind cyberattacks targeting the American political system last year.

The lobbying pressure from Exxon and others in the US business community seemed to be successful. Between being introduced in April and passing committee in July, the bill was stripped of a provision codifying the specific executive order — Executive Order 13662 — used to sanction Rosneft and other members of the Russian energy sector.

Even after the modified bill, titled the STAND for Ukraine Act, passed the House of Representatives in September, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is holding the hearing on Wednesday with Tillerson, let the bill languish in committee.

Exxon also lobbied on sanctions legislation in 2014. As President Obama began sanctioning Russia for the annexation of Crimea that year, there were at least three proposed pieces of sanctions legislation that would, among other things, increase military aid to Ukraine and issue sanctions specifically against Russian energy firms.

Exxon lobbied on all three bills, filings show. While the filings don't indicate the details of Exxon's lobbying effort, Tillerson himself made the company's views clear at the time.

“We do not support sanctions, generally,” Tillerson told shareholders in 2014. “We don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well-implemented comprehensively — and that’s a very hard thing to do.”

The leaders of Rosneft and Exxon's exploration company sign a deal in 2013 before Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sergei Karpukhin / AFP / Getty Images

But Obama acted more quickly than Congress, announcing sanctions against Russia's energy industry in September of that year, while Exxon was exploring for oil offshore, north of Siberia.

"ExxonMobil was in the middle of drilling a well in the remote part of the Russian Arctic in the Kara Sea, several hundred thousand miles away from any safe harbor," Tillerson said during his testimony Wednesday, explaining that he was worried about the environmental risk of leaving too quickly.

"I engaged immediately with the State Department and the Treasury," he said. The company was granted a temporary license to secure the wells before leaving.

The license also afforded Exxon the time to officially announce the discovery of over 1 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalent in the Kara Sea only a few days after Obama issued the sanctions.

Initially during the hearing on Wednesday, Tillerson was emphatic when describing Exxon's lobbying. "I never lobbied against the sanctions," he said. "To my knowledge, ExxonMobil has not lobbied against the sanctions."

Corker, seemingly confused, interjected. "I think you called me at the time," he said.

Eventually Corker called for a early break before noon. When questioning reopened, Corker's first question was to ask Tillerson to clarify his statement: Has Exxon simply lobbied on sanctions rather than "against" them?

"Senator, that is correct," Tillerson responded. "I never lobbied against the sanctions." He added that "the characterization that ExxonMobil lobbied against the sanctions is just inaccurate."

Tillerson's former employer echoed that explanation.

"As our former chairman said, we provided information about impact of sanctions, but did not lobby against sanctions," Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for Exxon, told BuzzFeed News. "The lobby disclosure reports you cited do not contradict his testimony."

But some Democrats on the committee were skeptical of the claim. At one point in the hearing, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey held up Exxon lobbying disclosure documents printed out for him.

"I know you weren’t lobbying for the sanctions," he said.

LINK: Marco Rubio Grills Trump’s Secretary Of State Nominee Over Ties To Putin

President-elect Donald Trump at his news conference Wednesday.

Seth Wenig / AP

Explaining how he will avoid conflicts of interest as president, Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that he owes little money to anyone, and none to Russia. "As a real estate developer I have very, very little debt," Trump said at his first press conference since winning the presidency in November. "I have assets that are — and now people have found out how big the company is, I have very low debt."

But companies that Trump owns entirely or in part owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign banks, fringe lenders, and mortgage companies, according to financial disclosures filed during the election and news reports based on public records.

According to his own most recent financial disclosure, filed in May with the Office of Government Ethics, companies and properties that Trump controls owe at least $315 million. Because the debts were listed in broad numerical ranges, the actual figure may be much higher.

The New York Times reported in August that companies owned by Trump owe at least $650 million. Much of that money is owed to foreign banks, including the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank, the Times reported.

Trump's development company for his new hotel in downtown Washington, DC, borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank, among Germany's biggest lenders, to cover construction costs. To secure that loan, Trump put up a lease granted to him by a federal agency that he soon will oversee.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Lucas Jackson / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump's congressional liaison wants an investigation into who, if anyone, in the intelligence community leaked an explosive dossier alleging Russian influence over Trump.

The document published by BuzzFeed News Tuesday contains unconfirmed allegations that have been passed around political, intelligence and media circles in recent weeks. Trump has blasted the documents as fake and a "disgrace."

Rep. Chris Collins, Trump's go-between for members of Congress, said he does not believe the allegations of Russian ties to Trump contained in the dossier are true, and that he does not think Congress has a role in investigating them. But he does want to see an investigation into how these documents were shared and eventually made public.

"My first thought is we need to know who in the CIA or in the intelligence community was leaking confidential information to the press, and there needs to be repercussions for that," Collins said.

"I would absolutely support congressional action to find out who in the CIA is so focused on undermining the Trump presidency that they 'leaked' this third-party opinion thing. You can call it blackmail-ish," he said, referring to the document. It's not clear that the CIA was involved in the leak. It was compiled by a former British intelligence official.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of leadership, are calling for an investigation by Congress into Trump's alleged ties to Russia. "The allegation that an American president could be susceptible to blackmail by a hostile foreign government is historic and deeply troubling," Durbin said in a statement Wednesday.

But there seems to be little interest among Republicans in delving into the contents of the unverified document.

Sen. John Thune dismissed the report as "discredited," while Sen. Richard Shelby said "Russia's been putting that kind of stuff out for years." Sen. Lindsey Graham said that everything that comes from Russian sources should be treated with suspicion and the matter should be left to intelligence officials, not politicians.

Sen. Rand Paul, however, joined Collins in proposing an investigation into how the document got out, rather than its contents.

"I think we should investigate who in the intelligence community is leaking privileged and classified information," he said.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday that he had not seen the 35-page report until it was published by BuzzFeed News. Asked if he is confident Russia does not have compromising information on Trump, he said “I have no idea. I have no idea.”

Nunes said there is a "finished intelligence product" on Russian interference in the US election, and the Intelligence Committee voted to share that with the entire House. He said that briefing should take place Thursday or Friday. An unclassified report on the Russian hacking was released to the public last week.

Senator Marco Rubio questions witnesses during a hearing on “Russia’s intelligence activities" on Capitol Hill January 10, 2017.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, who has expressed concerns about President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state Rex Tillerson and is a must-get vote for the nominee, wasted no time in grilling the former Exxon Mobil chief about his views on Russia Wednesday.

Rubio asked Tillerson about the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committees emails during the 2016 election, sanctions against the country, his views on Russian President Vladimir Putin, and human rights abuses by foreign countries, expressing dissatisfaction repeatedly with the responses he was getting from Tillerson. Members of both parties have been particularly uncomfortable with the nominee's close ties to Putin.

Rubio, whose support is crucial because Republicans have only a one-seat advantage on the committee, has been a vocal critic of Tillerson's relationship with the Russian president, and it wasn't clear if Trump's nominee had eased or aggravated the senator's concerns by the end of the hearing.

"I'm prepared to do what's right," he told reporters after the hearing. "I'm not analyzing it from a partisan perspective...My view is that the president deserves wide latitude in his nominations. But the more important the position is, the less latitude they have."

During Wednesdays nine-hour hearing, Tillerson, who didn't use any notes throughout the day, acknowledged that the report on Russian hacking was "clearly troubling." But when asked if he believed Putin directed the hacking, Tillerson began dodging. "I'm not in a position to be able to make that determination," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before admitting that it was a "fair assumption."

Rubio then pushed Tillerson on whether he would advise Trump to keep the sanctions against Russia that the Obama administration ordered in response to the hacking.

"The president-elect has indicated what's really required is a comprehensive assessment of cybersecurity policies," he responded.

The former GOP presidential candidate continued his line of questioning, asking if Tillerson believed Putin to be a war criminal. "I would not use that term," he said, adding he hasn't had access to classified briefings to make that determination.

Rubio also delved into the atrocities in Aleppo that have been widely reported, and then asked if Tillerson thought Putin was responsible for countless murders of dissidents.

"I do not have sufficient information to make that claim," Tillerson responded.

Rubio later questioned Tillerson on the incoming administration's position on Cuba and human rights violations in countries like the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.

Tillerson responded to some of the questions by saying he needed more information, which frustrated the senator and led the secretary of state nominee to try to ensure him he was on his side. "Our interests are not different senator," Tillerson said. "There seems to be some misunderstanding ... I share the same values as you."

After each round of tough questioning, Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tried to clean up Tillerson's statements. Other than Rubio, Democratic senators including Sen. Bob Menendez, Tim Kaine and Chris Murphy asked the toughest questions of Tillerson. Exxon Mobile's lobbying on Russian sanctions in particular was a Democratic line of questioning that Tillerson didn't seem to answer clearly.

But in the end, Rubio's vote will be most notable. In his final remarks, the Florida senator commended Tillerson for putting himself through the tough confirmation process, explained his tough questioning was "in pursuit of realism" and didn't quite give a clear indication of how he will vote after the hearing.

"He's been nominated to what I think is the second most visible American on the planet from a government perspective, so I intend to take this very seriously," Rubio told reporters after the hearing.

"I'm going to go back and go through this and this is a very important decision, and I recognize the partisan split on the committee and what it would all mean. I would have to make sure I'm 100 percent behind whatever decision I make."

Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The incoming president will undoubtedly face another dangerous disease outbreak during his tenure, global health experts agreed, scarred by recent Zika, Ebola and dengue virus epidemics. But some worry that President-elect Donald Trump’s past statements bode ill for the next big one.

“I think there’s a lot of reason for concern at this moment,” Ron Klain, who led the White House Ebola response under President Obama, said on Tuesday at a meeting of global health experts at Georgetown University.

Among Klain's concerns is that "Donald Trump was virtually silent on the question of Zika" despite the fact that the outbreak was a major issue during the campaign. Earlier this year, the WHO had declared a public health emergency over the virus, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued travel advisories for parts of the United States.

In contrast, Trump did speak up during Klain's tenure as "Ebola Czar," he noted. When two US medical workers were brought back to the US after contracting Ebola in Libera, Trump tweeted his disapproval, calling President Obama's decision "psycho."

"That’s not the kind of leadership we need in our next president and not the kind of leadership we need at this critical moment of threat from pandemic," Klain said.

Klain also criticized the "isolationist" approach touted by Trump during the campaign — about closing off trade and immigration borders, for example. Public health researchers agree international collaboration and data sharing are critical to successful pandemic responses.

"The idea ... that we can build a wall ... high enough to keep out pathogens, to keep out diseases, and that that would make the world a safer place, is so badly misguided," Klain said.

Trump and Klain go back a ways, which might help explain his views. The President-elect criticized the Ebola czar when he was named in 2014, in his signature style:

An attorney, Klain was a former chief of staff to Vice President's Joseph Biden and Al Gore.

LINK: White House Appoints Longtime Political Operative As Ebola Czar

LINK: Obama: Civilians Who Volunteer To Treat Ebola Patients In Africa Define "American Exceptionalism"

LINK: Dallas Nurse Nina Pham Is Declared Ebola-Free

FBI Director James Comey

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's inspector general on Thursday announced a wide-ranging review of department activities — including those of FBI director James Comey — in the run-up to this past year's presidential election.

The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General is an independent entity created by law that is empowered to investigate misconduct within the Justice Department.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who was confirmed to the position in 2012, announced the investigation eight days before Donald Trump's inauguration and the day after the confirmation hearings for Trump's nominee to be attorney general, Jeff Sessions, concluded.

The review will look into Comey's July 5, 2016, news conference about the recommendations the FBI made regarding its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, as well as his letters of Oct. 28, 2016, and Nov. 6, 2016, regarding emails that had been discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop, as well as actions leading up to or related to those events and whether "underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations."

Additionally, the review will look into whether the FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe, should have been recused from participating in certain matters. The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2016 that McCabe's wife, who had run for public office in Virginia, had received significant campaign support from Clinton's longtime ally, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

The review also is to examine allegations regarding the Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, allegations of improper disclosure of non-public informations, and questions regarding the timing and manner of the FBI's release of certain documents relating to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The request notes that "if circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review."

FBI Director James Comey said in a statement that he was "grateful" for the review.

"He is professional and independent and the FBI will cooperate fully with him and his office," Comey said. "I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency regarding this matter."

Unlike many presidential nominees, inspectors general neither serve for a set term in office nor ordinarily leave office at the end of a president's term. Under the federal law regarding the inspector general, Horowitz will continue to serve until he steps down or its replaced by the president. If a president wishes to remove an inspector general, the president must send a letter to Congress 30 days before doing so, laying out reasons for the decision.

Notably, the law also provides exceptions to the total independence of the Justice Department's inspector general. In a section of the law that lays out "special provisions concerning the Department of Justice," it notes that the attorney general has the authority to stop an investigation by the inspector general if "necessary to prevent the disclosure" of information relating to "ongoing criminal investigations" or "intelligence or counterintelligence matters" or to "prevent the significant impairment to the national interests of the United States."

If the attorney general acts to stop an investigation under this provision, he or she must inform the inspector general in writing, laying out the reasons for doing so. The inspector general then must provide a copy of that letter to relevant congressional committees within 30 days.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

More than 120 top Democratic donors will spend next week's inauguration near Miami at the Turnberry Isle resort for three days of closed-door meetings and strategy sessions with elected officials, progressive leaders, and key strategists — all organized by David Brock.

Participants next week include familiar faces: attorneys general, state and federal officials, representatives from the four major labor unions, Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice, as well the five candidates running for chair of the Democratic National Committee, who will participate in a forum on Saturday and mark the close of the conference.

Brock, a prominent strategist with a web of liberal groups, organized what he’s calling “Democracy Matters 17.” He plans to hold a regular retreat as often as twice each year and, he said in an interview, eventually build it into a donor network dedicated to political causes and capable of funding groups beyond his own.

“We really aspire to be like the Kochs,” Brock said.

Brock, the Clinton hitman-turned-defender, now without a Clinton cause to defend for the first time in years, said an expanded Democracy Matters would distinguish itself with a square political focus and by keeping control with the strategists not donors.

The Democracy Alliance, the leading donor network on the left, has a different focus and structure. But Brock did not dispute the idea that a new liberal donor network could pose a challenge, though he noted that the DA hasn’t been focused on political fights, leaving a void.

“The DA has veered away from politics,” he said. “This conference is openly political.”

Gara LaMarche, the president of the Democracy Alliance, said he is planning to attend part of the Democracy Matters conference next week. The network funds a variety of progressive policy and advocacy groups, including Brock’s own press watchdog organization Media Matters.

The DA, he added, has seen about 50 new members in the past few years. And given “deep concern about Trump,” LaMarche said, the DA has organized a summit on regaining power in 2018 and 2020 state races as part of the organization’s spring meeting in Washington.

The donor conference programming will focus almost entirely the party's political position: Clinton pollster John Anzalone on “Tactics To Win”; Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and veteran strategist Ron Klain on Donald Trump’s first 100 days; former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder, by videoconference, on redistricting; and three sitting attorneys general on strategic role of Democratic states in the first term.

Next week’s retreat, according to Brock, has drawn interest from new donors. Of the 120 who are confirmed to attend, about one third, he said, have never given to one of his organizations, including a “new contingent” from the Silicon Valley community.

Brock’s move toward a donor network makes one in a list of other prominent Democratic groups that unveiled plans to transform, expand, or retool, with many competing for the same donors and indistinct roles that make up the loosely termed “Resistance.”

Both American Bridge, Brock’s group, and the Center For American Progress, run by Clinton ally Neera Tanden, have been presented as a central clearing house for research. (Neither Tanden nor Guy Cecil, who runs another central group, Priorities USA, will be attending the Brock conference.)

Brock is already planning the second Democracy Matters 17 conference for the fall, followed next year by “Democracy Matters 18” retreats. It is not clear when he hopes to be able to start raising for other groups, or how that network would be structured or its groups selected.

Brock hosted his first donor retreat in 2013, where Bill Clinton keynoted, but his groups were the only ones represented. Next week’s Democracy Matters conference will be his featuring other organizations, but the event is still aimed at promoting and raising a undisclosed multimillion-dollar amount for four of his organizations: American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, ShareBlue, and Media Matters.

Brock said that any group at the conference will benefit alone from access to 120 donors. The group will also include 10 of Clinton’s top fundraisers, he said, each of whom raised more than $1 million for the campaign. Brock declined to provide any donors’ names.

In their closed-door meetings, donors will receive two debriefs on the 2016 loss, one from AFL political director Michael Podhorzer, and the other from Cowan of Third Way. Other sessions include Roberta Kaplan, a top litigator in the Supreme Court marriage cases, on “Holding Donald Trump Accountable To The Court," as well as "Democratic Messaging That Can Work" from Schriock of Emily’s List, John Neffinger of the DNC, and former congressman Harold Ford Jr.

The conference's more eclectic offerings include an speech from liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann to open the retreat; cameos by two Republicans, Bill Weld and Richard Painter; and a session on “Fake News: What It Is and What To Do About It” led by Brock’s ex-boyfriend of 10 years, James Alefantis, who owns D.C. pizza shop Comet Ping Pong and became ensnared for weeks in an offensive viral conspiracy theory involving his restaurant and Hillary Clinton known as #pizzagate.

The conference sessions, running Thursday to Saturday, will take place almost entirely behind closed doors.

Brock said he is planning to credential press for his opening remarks, as well as an interview with Sen. Jeff Merkley and the forum with the five DNC chair candidates.

David Pulphus / Via conginst.org

WASHINGTON — A Capitol Hill painting by a black teenager critiquing police will be taken down permanently Tuesday, according to a congressman who objected to it.

The painting was one of hundreds of winners of a high school art contest that have hung in a Capitol Hill hallway for months. But it recently became the subject of controversy in right wing media circles because it depicts a police officer as a pig.

The painting was physically taken down three times by four different Republican congressmen, only to be put back up each time by Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay. But now it appears the painting is being taken down for good.

Republican Dave Reichert appealed to the Architect of the Capitol that the painting broke office rules. The Architect agreed and will take the painting down when Congress reconvenes on Tuesday, Reichert said.

"With any competition there are rules, and these rules exist for a reason. This painting hung in clear defiance to those rules and was a slap in the face to the countless men and women who put their lives on the line everyday on behalf of our safety and freedom," said Reichart in a statement released late Friday.

Specifically, the rules of the contest stated that all art must adhere to the policies of the House Office Building Commission. That includes a ban on "depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature."

The artist, David Pulphus, is from St. Louis and the painting was widely interpreted to be about the protests in nearby Ferguson after Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was killed by police.

The Congressional Black Caucus has defended the painting on freedom of speech grounds. Clay, who had to hang the painting back up three times in one day last week after Republicans kept taking it down and bringing it to his office, could not be reached for comment Friday. But his chief of staff said "he will have much to say on Tuesday."

Earlier in the week, CBC chair Cedric Richmond blasted Republican leadership for focusing their energy on taking down a teenager's work of art.

“If this is something that Speaker Ryan thinks is one of his priorities in a new Congress, to pick on an 18-year-old art student who only depicts what he sees in his community, then I just think that that’s sad,” said Richmond.

Tasos Katopodis / AFP / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Behind closed doors this week, Democratic lawmakers sharply questioned FBI Director James Comey about a letter he sent less than two weeks before the presidential election to Congress informing them about a new review into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Since the briefings on Capitol Hill this week, Democratic lack of confidence in Comey has spilled out, amid scrutiny and turmoil in the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The Senate briefing was supposed to be on the Russian hacking during the 2016 election, but some senators’ line of questioning focused on an unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin, and how that led to Comey's decision to send the letter, sources say. One senator in particular — Al Franken of Minnesota — asked tough questions, sources told BuzzFeed News and Politico.

Sources told BuzzFeed News the questioning was on the custody of Weiner's computer, the search warrant and general timeline, and that Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill also did some of the grilling.

Franken has previously called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Comey's handling of the Clinton since before the election. His office declined to comment on the senator's questioning.

According to the same sources, who requested anonymity because of the nature of the briefing, Comey seemed to contradict himself, frustrating Democratic senators — many of whom blame Comey's decision to send that letter for Hillary Clinton's loss.

The briefing happened just after the Justice Department's inspector general's office announced an review of Comey's decision to send the letter, among other issues. A Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday evening also called for the next attorney general to ask for Comey's resignation.

Comey didn't alleviate lawmakers' concerns during a House briefing Friday morning, where both Republicans and Democrats asked similar questions, either.

Several House Democrats came out of the meeting troubled with what they had heard from Comey. "He was asked for some specificity and his answer, I think, eroded any level of confidence in his ability to deal with this matter," said Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, one of those Democrats.

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former head of Democratic National Committee, also confronted Comey during the briefing, saying he didn't immediately notify the DNC of the hack, The Hill reported.

And Maryland Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings told reporters he had initially been "willing to give [Comey] the benefit of the doubt" regarding his decision to send the letter so close to the election.

"But there's been a lot that has happened since then and today I must tell you that when I left the hearing I felt a great sense of disappointment."

"Before, there was no jury in my mind," Cummings said. "Now there is a jury in my mind, and the jury is out."

The FBI declined to comment.

Paul McLeod and Alexis Levinson contributed reporting,

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Rep. John Lewis and other Democrats are refusing to attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration — and more black lawmakers could be joining them.

Members are individually considering if they should participate in the inauguration of Trump, who this weekend, in a series of tweets, attacked Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement, after Lewis criticized Trump and said he is an “illegitimate” president, because of Russian attempts to influence the election through email hacking.

The Congressional Black Caucus has not formally discussed boycotting as a group, sources told BuzzFeed News. Sources close to members that the CBC said it was unlikely the group would boycott the inauguration en masse. An official position from the group could come on Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, a source said.

So far Lewis, Reps. Barbara Lee, John Conyers, and Lacy Clay have all said they won’t attend. The members opposed to attending have cited Trump’s controversial campaigning, cabinet appointments, and the Russian efforts.

“I respect the peaceful transition of power, so this is not a decision I came to lightly,” Lee said in an email to BuzzFeed News. “After taking into consideration the concerning and divisive circumstances that led to the Trump presidency, I realized I could not in good conscience attend his inauguration.”

At the center of whatever the CBC decides, however, is Rep. Cedric Richmond, the young, newly-elected chair of the CBC.

On MSNBC’s AM Joy, Richmond said he had “serious doubts” about attending the inauguration, calling the criticism levied against Lewis “unfortunate, petty and silly,” and unbecoming of the president-elect just days out from becoming president.

In recent weeks, Richmond has led the CBC efforts against the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to lead the Justice Department. This week, he compared the timing of his, Sen. Cory Booker’s and Lewis’ testimony against Sessions at the end of the Senate Judiciary Committee witness hearing to being put “at the back of the bus.”

“The one thing, that I will not do is allow a personal attack or disrespect on any of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus,” Richmond said Saturday on MSNBC, “but certainly not John Lewis.”

For the inauguration, 393 of 1,200 bus parking spots have been filled. For the Women’s March on Washington, they’ve already exceeded capacity.

Three times as many bus parking permits have been requested for the Women's March on Washington, DC, than for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, city councilman Charles Allen told BuzzFeed News.

DC area students protest the election of President-elect Donald Trump, while marching past the US Capitol.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

As of Thursday, when Allen held a hearing to review inauguration preparations, 393 charter bus permits had been requested for the inauguration on Jan. 20.

In comparison, a week before President Obama's inauguration in 2012, about 900 bus permits had been requested.

Allen, who serves as chairman of the Council's Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, said all1,200 available charter bus parking spaces at RFK Stadium, the city's largest bus parking area, have been filled for the Women's March on Jan. 21.

It is highly likely that due to the RFK Stadium parking lot already being filled, even more buses will be coming for the march and parking elsewhere, Allen said. He was not aware of how many additional buses that might mean, though.

"While the demand for bus parking seems significantly less than for previous inaugurations, the District is well prepared and will be ready for all visitors and guests making their way here," Allen said.

"As the nation's capitol, DC is no stranger to major events and we are ready to provide a safe experience for everyone and to protect their First Amendment rights in the process — including the large crowds expected for the Women's March on Washington."

As of Saturday, 191,000 people have said they are going to the Women's March, with another 254,000 saying they are interested, according to the event's Facebook page.

Facebook: events

Smaller marches will also be held in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, England, Switzerland, and Australia.

View Entire List ›

Rep. Earl Ehrhart

Ric Reld / ASSOCIATED PRESS

A Georgia politician is looking to put campus sexual assault investigations into the hands of law enforcement, clashing with existing rules laid out by the US Department of Education.

Under legislation introduced Wednesday by Earl Ehrhart, a Republican state representative in Georgia, colleges would not be able to punish a student accused of rape until they were found guilty or entered a guilty plea in criminal court. Employees at colleges and universities in the state would also have to turn over information and “all evidence” related to sexual assault claims against students to law enforcement.

The bill would allow schools to suspend accused students “while felony criminal charges are pending” if the alleged perpetrator “poses an immediate threat to the life, health, or safety of the student body,” but colleges would still need to hold a due process hearing in order to do so.

Preventing colleges from investigating sexual assault incidents until the conclusion of a criminal case, which typically takes anywhere from six months to three years, sometimes even longer, would directly conflict with what the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights says schools must do under the gender equity law Title IX.

“When you limit when schools can take action, and how schools could take action, there would be a lot of questions for me about what schools could do to promptly address [sexual assault allegations],” Anne Hedgepeth, a lobbyist for the American Association of University Women, told BuzzFeed News. “It is longstanding OCR policy that you can’t defer to law enforcement.”

But Ehrhart told BuzzFeed News he isn’t worried about that conflict, because he doesn’t think the department’s current stance on Title IX is “going to hold a heck of a lot of water” with the Trump administration. Ehrhart intends to press the Education Department on whether that will still be the policy once Trump takes office. “I don’t think it will be,” he said. “I’ve had preliminary discussions. I’m hoping to be in DC at the end of the month to meet with the department.”

Many victims’ advocates are worried that the Trump administration will rescind documents outlining requirements for how colleges must handle sexual assault. Neither Trump nor his pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, have commented on this possibility, but the 2016 GOP platform called for campus rape cases to be handled by law enforcement, and not school administrators.

One of the most consequential documents activists and critics alike are keeping an eye on is a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Education Department that describes the standard of evidence colleges should use to comply with the law, among several other major policy prescriptions.

Campus investigations of sexual violence cases often lack key due process protections, Ehrhart said, like the right to be represented by a lawyer, or a guaranteed ability to cross-examine witnesses. Ehrhart sued the Education Department last year, arguing that it issued the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter illegally because it did not effectively solicit public input first.

Erin Buzuvis, a professor at the Western New England University School of Law, isn’t sure if Ehrhart’s bill would escape conflict with federal law even if Trump’s administration rolled back the “Dear Colleague” letter. This is because the actual statutory regulations of Title IX require schools to provide “prompt and equitable resolution” to complaints of sexual harassment or violence.

“This is an important point because it means that even if the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter were repealed, Title IX would still require schools to take action independent of local law enforcement, because avoiding that responsibility in cases that law enforcement has not decided to pursue is not an ‘equitable’ response,” Buzuvis said.

Ehrhart said schools could still issue no-contact orders between alleged victims and accused students, and he’s open to tweaking the language based on feedback from colleges in his state. He hopes to reroute money spent on Title IX investigators toward prevention efforts and counseling for sexual assault victims.

Ehrhart also noted that colleges and universities are increasingly facing criticism from both victims and accused men who say they were mistreated in how schools responded to sexual assault reports. His legislation, he argued, would present a concrete framework of what schools should do and what they cannot do.

“What I’m saying you cannot do is create this special investigatory and adjudicatory system,” Ehrhart said. “I want to put it the hands of special victims units in the DA’s office.”

Charles Sutlive, a spokesman for the University System of Georgia, told BuzzFeed News that “while we have not taken a position on the bill at this time, we are planning to follow up with the bill’s author to share our concerns.”

LINK: Senators Urge Trump Not To Roll Back Federal Rules On Campus Rape

LINK: People Are Telling Trump’s Education Nominee To Protect Rape Survivors