In a Facebook town hall, Biden said no weapons would be taken off the streets under the Obama administration's gun control proposals.

Source: youtube.com

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden addressed concerns among gun-owners that banning assault rifles will make it more difficult to defend themselves by mentioning his own arsenal.

"No one's taking my shotguns," Biden told Parents Magazine in a Facebook town hall, adding that no weapons would be taken off the streets under the Obama administration's gun control proposals.

Criticizing those who want to purchase AR-15 semi-automatic rifles for self-defense, Biden tried to sell them on the alternative. "You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use," he said. "Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun!"

Biden added that if he and his wife wanted to deter intruders, they'd walk outside their home and blast their shotguns, and no one would give them trouble anymore.

Biden rejected the notion that banning any weapons infringes on second amendment rights. "How can I say this politely...," he said, before noting that the government already bans flamethrowers and machine guns

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun," he said.

At a time when partisan bickering rules the day, Republicans and Democrats have found one area they can agree on: nobody's doing anything to stop the sequester.

Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — It's an open secret in Washington that next Friday the federal government will be forced to undertake massive spending cuts that hit the military, first responders, and teachers — and nobody is doing anything to stop it.

Senior Obama administration officials told reporters Tuesday that the cuts, known as the sequester, will hit next week unless Republicans accept revenue-raising tax reforms. Republican leaders said it will hit unless Obama forswears any effort to raise revenue. Either way, the two sides aren't negotiating with each other. With the clock counting down to March 1 and with the two sides stuck at the same impasse for the past six weeks, the result is clear: the sequester will take effect.

President Barack Obama took the stage in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building earlier in the day to warn of the dire consequences of the cuts — for at least the third time top officials have done so this month.

"These cuts are not smart," Obama said. "They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again."

But Obama was silent on his plans to avert the sequester, despite White House assurances that he is "leading," indeed, because he has none other than Republicans acquiescing to his demands.

A mile away on Capitol Hill, the flags are down and the lights are off as lawmakers are in their districts for the week.

"Washington Democrats' newfound concern about the president's sequester is appreciated, but words alone won't avert it," said Speaker of the House John Boehner in a statement. "Replacing the president's sequester will require a plan to cut spending that will put us on the path to a budget that is balanced in 10 years. To keep these first responders on the job, what other spending is the president willing to cut?"

Officials warned that there is no way in existing law to shift money around — all programs would be cut by the same amount: 9 percent for non-defense programs and 13 percent for defense programs.

And though aides say Obama and his administration are working at all levels to deal with the mandatory cuts along with other legislative priorities, GOP aides say Obama haven't spoken top congressional Republicans since the inauguration nearly a month ago.

Instead of talking, officials on both sides have traded barbs over who "owns" the sequester. The GOP has branded it the "Obamaquester," while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called it "House Republicans' Sequester" just Tuesday. But the bottom line is, the White House proposed it, Republicans overwhelmingly backed it, and Obama signed it — and thus far none of them have made progress in averting it.

Administration officials did little Tuesday to express optimism that a deal can be struck by next week, noting only that Republicans caved late last year on their steadfast opposition to raising tax rates. (Republicans note Obama caved the year before, agreeing to a spending-cut-only measure that also created the sequester.)

No one else is optimistic either.

"We've been betting against there being a deal for weeks," one senior executive branch official told BuzzFeed, adding "This time just never seemed like the other crises."

Republicans frequently point out that they twice passed bills to deal with the sequester, but the administration officials noted those bills expired earlier this year when the 113th Congress convened. Congressional Democrats have introduced their own proposal, but it has been met with derision from Republicans.

And contrary to the fear both sides are trying to instill, few, if any, government programs are likely to be cut on March 2nd. Layoff and furlough notices will be sent on the worry that the sequester remains permanent — an almost inconceivable occurrence given the long-term effects.

The most likely scenario, according to officials on both sides of Pennsylvania Ave., is that Congress will kick the can on the sequester until the government's budget authority runs out on March 27. Congress will have to pass a continuing resolution by that date, or the government will be shut down.

Indeed the shutdown is a more acute, if routine, threat — with nearly all of the government ceasing to operate immediately instead of broad-based spending reductions.

"I think it may be the alternative that's available," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told BuzzFeed of combing the sequester and a temporary spending measure. "I think that's a mistake. I think the sequester is going to be harmful. It will not be a cliff. It will not be harmful on March 2, but it will be harmful over time."

“I mean, if their policy is to make a case-by-case decision, shouldn't we give them a hand?” Dr. Mark Bitgood said of why he wrote to the Associated Press. Under style guidance issued this past week, married same-sex couples aren't “generally” to be referred to as husbands or wives.

Image by Stephen Lam / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A California doctor offered a pragmatic and pointed solution to concerns about this past week's Associated Press style guidance that limited when reporters could refer to same-sex married couples as husbands or wives: He emailed the AP to register that he and his husband refer to each other as husbands.

Asked why he did it, Dr. Mark Bitgood told BuzzFeed, "I mean, if their policy is to make a case-by-case decision, shouldn't we give them a hand?"

Bitgood, a surgeon in the Central Valley of California, said he was "frustrated, incredulous, offended" by the style guidance, which said the terms only could be used "if those involved have regularly used those terms ... or in quotes attributed to them." Instead, the guidance continued, "Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages."

Although AP spokesman Paul Colford told BuzzFeed the guidance only "reaffirmed AP's existing practice," activists and LGBT organizations have criticized the move as treating same-sex couples' marriages differently than opposite-sex couples' marriages.

Of he and his husband, Michael Gallagher, Bitgood told BuzzFeed, "Michael and I have been together for 19 years next month, and we got married in Oakland during our window of opportunity in 2008." Following a California Supreme Court ruling in 2008 and before Proposition 8 ended it, same-sex couples in California — about 18,000 of them — entered into legal marriages.

After hearing about the AP guidance, though, Bitwood asked his friend, David Steinberg — the copy desk chief at the San Francisco Chronicle and former president of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association — a question on Facebook.

"You don't, by chance, know of a person at the AP whom I and perhaps others might contact with our preference as to the designation of our spouses — you know, for their records? Just in case?" he asked. "I'm sure that lots of people would love to update their status with the AP."

Steinberg responded simply, "I suppose you could write to: Tom Kent, the standards editor, tkent@ap.org, [and] David Minthorn, AP stylebook editor, dminthorn@ap.org."

Bitgood did just that, sending the following email, which he provided to BuzzFeed:

Dear Mr. Kent and Mr. Minthorn:

I understand that the AP will only refer to my lawfully wedded husband, Michael Gallagher, as my "husband" if you are aware that we have regularly used those terms.

As this determination is being made on a case-by-case basis, I wanted to let you know, for your records, that we use these terms.

Thank you for your attention.

Mark J Bitgood
Oakland, California

He has not yet received a response, but has urged his Facebook friends to do the same in the meantime.

“None of us would want to be told we can't marry the person we love,” the Respect for Marriage Coalition's new TV ad states. Featured: President Obama, former Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Laura Bush.

WASHINGTON — A multimedia ad campaign pushing a bipartisan message of support for marriage equality is set to launch Wednesday, a $1 million effort of the Respect for Marriage Coalition — a combined group of LGBT, other civil rights and labor organizations.

"None of us would want to be told we can't marry the person we love. That's why a growing majority of Americans believe it's time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples," the Respect for Marriage Coalition's new television ad begins.

It then goes on to show a bipartisan group of national political figures — former First Lady Laura Bush, former Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, former Vice President Dick Cheney and, finally, President Barack Obama — stating their support for the right of same-sex couples to marry.

A narrator concludes, "It's time for marriage."

In a news release announcing the ad, the coalition — which is led by the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry — states, "Against the backdrop of President Obama's historic comments about marriage rights in his inaugural address, freedom to marry legislation pending in a number of states, and two landmark marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Coalition is working to grow support for marriage rights for same-sex couples across the nation."

The national ad will begin airing Wednesday on cable, as well as airing during the Sunday news shows in the coming weeks, according to the coalition.

A print and online campaign will go along with the TV ad, according to the coalition, with a full-page ad to be published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post in the coming days.

The Coalition's Newspaper Ad:

View Entire List ›

Senator McCain faced a barrage of angry questions from constituents about immigration reform during two town hall meetings hosted in Arizona.

View Video ›

Pocket Tweets, brah.

View Video ›

Source: myfoxboston.com

Steny Hoyer predicts immigration will pass the House because lawmakers feel the pain on election day. “Democracy works.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, in an interview at BuzzFeed's New York office Tuesday afternoon, talks immigration, gun control, and the Republican Party.

Image by Andrew Kaczynski/Buzzfeed

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has a blunt bit of advice for gun control activists: get your people to the polls to make lawmakers pay, and one day you may be in the place where immigration reform advocates now find themselves.

"There is a great voting activism for immigration reform," Hoyer said in an interview Tuesday afternoon at BuzzFeed's New York office. "There's public awareness on gun violence, but whether there is an activism behind it like there is with immigration — there's not as broad and active support, which makes a difference."

What pushed immigration to the top of the legislative list for President Barack Obama and for Congress, said Hoyer, was the call for immediate action on the issue following last year's election, in which 71 percent of Latinos voted for the president over Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

"Democracy works. Nor should we be cynical about that," said Hoyer, a veteran member from Maryland. "When a large group of people want something and come to the polls and vote that way, politicians take notice. That's what democracy is all about."

Hoyer added that with the kind of sweeping gun control legislation called for by President Obama — an ambitious package that would include a reinstated assault weapons ban, universal background checks on gun sales, and a 10-round limit on gun magazines — Congress would face the added difficulty of opposition from Second Amendment advocates like the National Rifle Association.

"You have people who oppose immigration reform but they're nowhere near as focused and energized [and] politically [influential] as the NRA," he said.

Of the measures proposed by President Obama, the magazine limit and background checks, said Hoyer, will fare the best in Congress. Asked if the assault weapons ban would have little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Hoyer said, "I don't know that, but I assume it."

"The public will have an effect," Hoyer continued, adding that recent public opinion polling shows the vast majority of Americans — 91 percent according to a Quinnipiac poll this month — support universal background checks. "Assault weapons are less so in terms of public support," said Hoyer.

"I think [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid is not that all sure an assault weapons ban could pass the Senate," Hoyer said. "I think he does believe that magazines and background checks can."

But Hoyer doesn't see gun control having the same political ramifications for Democrats as it did in 1994, when Republicans used the razor-thin passage of President Bill Clinton's crime bill, which included gun control provisions, to take down moderate Democrats in Republican-leaning districts. "The environment has changed very, very substantially since 1994," he said.

Not only is public consensus shifting on issues like gun control and immigration, Hoyer argued, but internal divisions within the Republican Party — in which he said members are "locked into a very rigid ideology by the Tea Party" — may further aid Democrats in legislative battles and win them seats in the midterm elections next year.

"The Republican Party is a deeply divided party at this point in time, and our party is not a divided party" said Hoyer, citing Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's remark last month that the GOP was becoming "the stupid party."

Hoyer maintained that Democrats would win back the House in 2014 — they'd need to pick up at least 17 seats to gain a majority — in part by retaining the 49 seats the party won last fall. "The 49 people that won are an extraordinarily strong group of people, which means I think we're going to be able to hold almost all of them," he said.

Meanwhile, said Hoyer, Republicans will continue to play out what he calls a "wonderful proclivity for self-destruction."

"Politics is not only about you doing well, but your opponent not doing so well," Hoyer said. "Like any athletic contest, sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not — if you're hot and the other team's not, then we beat Duke. Go Maryland!"

It puts her in the stratosphere of the speaking circuit, along with her husband and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Image by Win McNamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Now that she's out as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't going to be hurting for money, thanks to speaking fees of more $200,000 per speaking appearance, according to a source familiar with the situation.

The fee puts Clinton in the upper echelons of the speaking industry. Those who make six figures per speech include Al Gore, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush; those who make more than $200,000 include Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton (see this chart for reference).

The fee will be more than Clinton's annual salary as Secretary of State, which was $186,000.

Politico's Playbook reported on Monday that Clinton would hit the speaking circuit this spring, and that "Secretary Clinton will likely do some speeches for no fee for causes she champions, and expects to occasionally donate her fees for charitable purposes."

Democrats claim governor is trying to intimidate critics.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich

Image by Donna Carson / Reuters

WASHINGTON — An Ohio school superintendent is under investigation by local prosecutors for potential misdoing in sending a letter to local residents blasting Gov. John Kasich for freezing his district's funding.

The letter, also posted on the Franklin City Schools' website, calls on recipients to actively work to make sure Kasich is not re-elected.

"As parents and friends of our district, I hope you will do two things: First, please join me in an active campaign to ensure that Gov. Kasich and any legislator who supports him are not re-elected," Superintendent Arnol Elam wrote.

Warren County prosecutor David Fornshell, a supporter and donor of Kasich's, is investigating Elam for using school resources for political purposes — which is prohibited under state law.

"The Warren County Prosecutor's Office has received reports that officials with the Franklin City Schools have allegedly used school resources to engage in impermissible political activities," Fornshell said in a statement. "Based upon the information provided, the Warren County Prosecutor's Office has opened an investigation into this matter."

Elam complained that his district — the poorest in the county — was receiving no additional funding this year, while nearby richer ones were seeing increases.

By every measure, we are the poorest district in Warren County. 44.66% of our students are in poverty. In contrast, Mason's figure is 6.25%. Our district's median household income is $29,900. The county's highest is Springboro at $61,271. Franklin has the highest percentage of students with a disability -- 16.1%. Despite this, Kasich's plan gives ADDITIONAL monies to Mason, Springboro and Kings.

Ohio Democrats are coming to Elam's defense, calling the investigation an attempt by Kasich to intimidate his political opponents.

"John Kasich and his cronies have sent a clear message to the people of Ohio, if you have the courage to stand up for schools, you might just find yourself on Kasich's 'Enemies List' facing revenge in the form of a criminal investigation," said Chris Redfern, the state party chairman. Democrats also called on Fornshell to turn over correspondence between his office and Kasich's to determine if the governor was behind the investigation.

The full letter is below:

A senior editor with the conservative website The Daily Caller compared the Texas senator's influence on the Hagel confirmation to that of MoveOn.org during General David Petraeus' 2007 report to Congress on the situation in Iraq.

"I wouldn't take what Ted Cruz says as painting what the entire Republican caucus was saying just as I wouldn't say what MoveOn.org did to General Petraeus in 2007—calling (him) "General (Betray Us)" in a big ad—as indicative of the entire Democratic party."

—Jamie Weinstien, Senior Editor, The Daily Caller

View Video ›

Source: hbo.com

Congressman Aaron Schock tells Buzzfeed that a younger, more representative Congress is the Nation's best hope.

Image by John Gara/Buzzfeed

WASHINGTON — At 31, Aaron Schock is the elder statesman of the youth movement in Congress and he's got a message for his older, entrenched colleagues: work with us or get out of the way.

"I think if you gathered the 40 members under 40 and locked us in a room, we could solve this Nation's problems in 24 hours," the Illinois Republican bluntly said in an interview with Buzzfeed this week.

"[The younger members] are much more focused on solving the problem than preserving the institution and we are less bogged down with process and more focused on the finished product," the 31 year old Republican said.

"Every new member of Congress that was just elected came here to solve problems and are genuinely interested in that and I think too often those that have been here for decades are less motivated to resolve the issues."

When Schock first came to Washington four years ago, he was the youngest member on the House, a mere babe of 27 years surrounded by aging men decades his senior.

"When I came to congress there were a handful of us under the age of 40 … I was the only member in my 20's. Four years later, we have 40 members under the age of 40, twenty republicans and twenty democrats. So despite me getting older, I would like to think that's progress," Schock said.

"There has been extraordinary turn over in a body that traditionally has had little turnover," Schock noted, adding that "I'm on the Ways and Means Committee. So typically you wait for 20 to 30 years to become chairman of the committee, in one term I am half way up the seniority."

This is a big deal for a member like Schock, with most of his political career ahead of him. But he sees huge deficits to be overcome in the public's abysmal opinion of Washington DC and party politics.

"DC is at an all time favorability rating of, what 9%? Something pathetic." Schock lamented, "So if you don't like DC and you have three old guys and a young guy running; whom are you going to nominate? Probably the young guy, probably someone who says 'you know what? Lets shake things up. We need some fresh blood."

Schock proudly notes that last election there were more votes cast from people under 30 than from senior citizens. "That's the first time that's happened in our country's history" Schock says, "I think it's high time for congress to get younger; to better represent the voting age population and the demographics of the country."

Via: facebook.com

Schock is also part of a select group of lawmakers, particularly on the Republican side, who have found success using social media, which he said has proven valuable both to himself and his constituents. "I post something on my Facebook page, I would say and my likes and comments will often times equal if not exceed the number of phone calls or letters I get. So I may get 200 comments on the State of the Union, I don't know if I get 200 phone calls."

"Some of that is a convenience factor right?" Schock argued. "It's a lot easier to say, 'This speech sucks' or 'I agree with this immigration position' than it is to dial the phone and talk to an intern."

However, he warns against crediting twitter and Facebook for the influx of new, young members.

"I don't think candidates are all tweeting their way to Congress." Schock said. "I think the electorate, the middle aged, senior citizens are saying 'We don't like DC, we don't like Congress and I am going to go with the young woman or young man who want's to change it."

View Entire List ›

Literally.

Missouri State Rep. Eric Burlison.

WASHINGTON — For one Missouri state representative, verbally opposing or voting against gun control laws isn't enough.

Republican State Rep. Eric Burlison posted a video Monday rejecting a bill that would ban some firearms in Missouri — and, for good measure, in the video takes the bill to an indoor shooting range to use it as target practice.

"It's a great bill," one patron of the shooting range says in the video as he holds a firearm.

"Really?" Burlison asks.

"It's great target practice," the man grins.

Burlison then shoots up the bill himself to test the theory.

It's not the first extreme opposition to gun control legislation to come out of the Missouri Statehouse this week: Another state representative introduced a bill that would make it a felony to propose any gun control legislation.

The Late Night talk show host will headline the dinner this year. He killed it in 1995.

Source: youtube.com

Add Marco Rubio to the list of powerful conservatives The Cycle's S.E. Cupp isn't afraid to publicly criticize .

View Video ›

Source: tv.msnbc.com  /  via: mediaite.com

Jacob Kornbluh forwards this photo of Rubio and Netanyahu making light of his water bottle sip becoming a viral sensation during a meeting Wednesday.

Here's Rubio meeting with Netanyahu today.

Source: youtube.com

“OMG!!!!! Im abt to loose my mind!!!!!”

In December, Facebook got a new member, Hillary Rodham-Clinton! Only, it's not really Clinton, unless the politically savvy former Secretary of State has suddenly decided to announce her 2016 candidacy by posting a link to a column on Atlantic Wire.

Via: facebook.com

But don't tell that to her fans, who are super pumped that she friended them.

Via: facebook.com

Via: facebook.com

View Entire List ›

Now with 100% more bangs.

Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

Via: whitehouse

“Banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT Americans, President Obama would extend the commitment to non-discrimination first made by President Roosevelt more than 70 years ago,” the ACLU's head says. More than 50 groups, from NAACP to the AFL-CIO, join the latest effort to push Obama on the issue.

Image by Charles Dharapak / AP

WASHINGTON — Liberal pressure is mounting on President Obama to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender employees — a move Obama has declined to take over the past year.

Led by the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Work and the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 50 organizations — from the AFL-CIO to the NAACP — sent a letter to Obama today asking him "to take an immediate step toward legal equality by signing [such] an executive order."

In the letter, the organizations write, "Over the past 70 years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have used executive orders to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted on workplace discrimination or harassment based on characteristics such as race, gender, and religion. These contractor policies exist to this day, and they cover almost one in four jobs throughout the United States. It is now time for an executive order ensuring the same workplace protections for LGBT Americans."

HRC president Chad Griffin told BuzzFeed, "A broad and diverse group of organizations banding together behind this push for an executive order serves as further evidence of the widespread support and urgent need for an end to workplace discrimination among federal contractors."

ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero pointed to the historical precedent.

"By banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT Americans, President Obama would extend the commitment to non-discrimination first made by President Roosevelt more than 70 years ago when he signed an executive order integrating the nation's shipyards and other worksites run by defense contractors. Taking this action would result in at least some workplaces in all 50 states having legally binding protections for LGBT Americans — a first in our nation's history," he said in a statement.

An existing executive order signed by President Lyndon Johnson protects employees of federal contractors from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Advocates have sought an expansion of that order or a similar order to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity — something Obama stated in a 2008 candidate questionnaire that he supported and would implement as president.

White House officials have repeatedly said, however, that their preference is to focus on passage of legislation to address all anti-LGBT workplace discrimination, specifically endorsing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Tico Almeida, the founder of Freedom to Work, has been pushing hard on White House action for more than a year. Explaining the reasoning behind the groups' action Wednesday, Almeida said, "White House staff have repeatedly stated their preference for a congressional solution, and we urge them put action behind those words by persuading Senate Majority Harry Reid to bring ENDA to the floor of the Senate this year for a long-overdue vote. But with many thousands of federal contractors facing layoffs from the upcoming sequestration, the President should take action right now to ensure that LGBT Americans have the same shot as everyone else to hold onto their jobs."

A group of 37 Democratic senators made a similar call for Obama to act this past week.

“When was the last time you heard about a rape on campus?” Fox's liberal host of The Five , Bob Beckel, said Tuesday — to the shock of his cohosts.

Source: youtube.com

Just kidding! Senate offices run the other way, but Friedman won't burn his source.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite, File / AP

WASHINGTON — Opponents of Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel are fuming in the aftermath of sloppy work by their allies that has backfired and risks turning their cause into a joke.

The bumble: A thinly sourced claim that Hagel had taken money from a heretofore unheard of group called "Friends of Hamas," floated by the conservative website Breitbart.com, and sourced to Capitol Hill.

"This sort of thing drives me crazy because it undermines legitimate concerns about Sen. Hagel, his views and financial associations," said a Senate Republican aide involved with the anti-Hagel efforts. "In this business we deal in facts or the pursuit of facts and making up groups like the Friends of Hamas distracts us from legitimate questions as to what private foreign foundations and wealthy foreign individuals are contributing to the Atlantic Council or investing in Sen. Hagel's firms."

"We don't need to make things up about Sen. Hagel to sink his nomination because there's
already enough in his own record that should disqualify him," the aide said.

Other conservatives declined to speak on the record but described the attack as "idiotic" and as undermining the cause.

The shadowy group "Friends of Hamas," which Hagel was accused of receiving donations from, appears to have originated as a joke from a reporter to his source that the source then spread to others as a fact, according to an account by the reporter, Dan Friedman of the New York Daily News, on Wednesday.

The source is identified as a Capitol Hill Republican in the story, but in an email, Friedman refused to elaborate.

"As you note, I am trying to protect a source who kind of burned me," Friedman said. "But that's what I'm doing. I would like to help you, but I don't want this person to be outed, and I don't want to go beyond what the story says."

Friedman's joke became went viral when it appeared in a Breitbart News article as information coming from Senate sources. Opponents of Hagel, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee, started picking up on it and publicly citing it to demand that Hagel release more financial records.

But Friends of Hamas appears not to exist, as Slate's Dave Weigel wrote last week.

And nobody on the Hill is looking to take credit for the allegation. Indeed, spokespeople for Ted Cruz's, John McCain's, and Jim Inhofe's Senate offices, three of Hagel's chief opponents, specifically denied to BuzzFeed the rumor was spread by any of their staff.

Breitbart's Ben Shapiro, who authored the first Friends of Hamas report, stuck with his source on Wednesday and accused Friedman of lying.

"Our Senate source denies that Friedman is the source of this information," Shapiro wrote in a post that also referred to Friedman as a "hack." "'I have received this information from three separate sources, none of whom was Friedman,' the source said."

"I don't want to get into a debate with Ben," Friedman wrote in an email to BuzzFeed. "What I wrote is correct."